Unlit cyclist attacks motorist with bicycle

"Peter Keller" wrote in message ...

On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 14:09:31 +0100, Tarcap wrote:

"Peter Keller" wrote in message ...

On Sun, 19 Apr 2015 13:17:45 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote:

no normal person is jealous of cyclists.

Thank the Lord that I am not a normal person.

There is no way anyone could describe you as normal.

Thanks very much for that great compliment ejaculated by you.
Now please vomit to me the further honour of being Satan's spawn.
That would be lovely cumming from you.

I rest my case. Thank you.

JNugent put finger to keyboard:

On 20/04/2015 03:26, Phil W Lee wrote:

Only non-motorised vehicles, equestrians, and pedestrians enjoy a
right-of-way on public highways, and as a right, it cannot be charged
for or made conditional...

That was absolute 100% proof tripe.

Parliament can do what they like. There was a time when there was no
such thing as a driving licence, road tax or registration for motor
vehicles, and what was done in respect of those things for them could be
done in respect of bicycles just as easily.

Unless, of course, you know of some over-arching piece of legislation
(preferably one over which some super-national jurisdiction applies)
which means that Parliament would be prevented from legislating, M'Lud.

Over to you.

FX: eery silence.

I've pointed out to Mr. Lee in the past that people *have* been banned
from cycling on public highways.

Googling _asbo bicycle_ or similar will throw up instances of people being
banned from cycling on certain roads, banned from cycling altogether, even
banned from touching bikes.

I've no idea why he continues to insist that it can't happen.

On Monday, April 20, 2015 at 11:21:56 PM UTC+1, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 20/04/2015 21:44, Simon Jester wrote:

'There are mathematicians, peasants and animals. Democracy assumes mathematicians and peasants are equal', Robert Heinlein.




There are spongers, freeloaders and cyclists. Common sense assumes
sponging freeloaders and cyclists are equal', Dave the Handyman


How do you manage to dig ditches with so many holes in your feet?

On 21/04/2015 10:54, Scion wrote:
JNugent put finger to keyboard:

On 20/04/2015 03:26, Phil W Lee wrote:

Only non-motorised vehicles, equestrians, and pedestrians enjoy a
right-of-way on public highways, and as a right, it cannot be charged
for or made conditional...

That was absolute 100% proof tripe.

Parliament can do what they like. There was a time when there was no
such thing as a driving licence, road tax or registration for motor
vehicles, and what was done in respect of those things for them could be
done in respect of bicycles just as easily.

Unless, of course, you know of some over-arching piece of legislation
(preferably one over which some super-national jurisdiction applies)
which means that Parliament would be prevented from legislating, M'Lud.

Over to you.

FX: eery silence.

I've pointed out to Mr. Lee in the past that people *have* been banned
from cycling on public highways.

Googling _asbo bicycle_ or similar will throw up instances of people being
banned from cycling on certain roads, banned from cycling altogether, even
banned from touching bikes.

I've no idea why he continues to insist that it can't happen.

Because he's a deluded idiot?

--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On 21/04/2015 19:02, Simon Jester wrote:
On Monday, April 20, 2015 at 11:21:56 PM UTC+1, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 20/04/2015 21:44, Simon Jester wrote:

'There are mathematicians, peasants and animals. Democracy assumes mathematicians and peasants are equal', Robert Heinlein.




There are spongers, freeloaders and cyclists. Common sense assumes
sponging freeloaders and cyclists are equal', Dave the Handyman


How do you manage to dig ditches with so many holes in your feet?

Couldn't you manage anything better?



--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

"The Medway Handyman" wrote

As a motorist, I don't mind paying for facilities I use.

That's a bit rich when you have insisted several times that you don't have a
car and use your wife's. A word comes to mind...

....ah yes, sponging.

Cyclists should do the same.

A person on a bicycle is not a car in front. That is an efficient use of the
taxes I pay for my car.

On 21/04/2015 23:49, TMS320 wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote

As a motorist, I don't mind paying for facilities I use.

That's a bit rich when you have insisted several times that you don't have a
car and use your wife's. A word comes to mind...

...ah yes, sponging.

Cyclists should do the same.

A person on a bicycle is not a car in front. That is an efficient use of the
taxes I pay for my car.

In what way do your taxes flow to the cyclist?

On 21/04/2015 23:33, Phil W Lee wrote:
Scion considered Tue, 21 Apr 2015 09:54:43 +0000
(UTC) the perfect time to write:

JNugent put finger to keyboard:

On 20/04/2015 03:26, Phil W Lee wrote:

Only non-motorised vehicles, equestrians, and pedestrians enjoy a
right-of-way on public highways, and as a right, it cannot be charged
for or made conditional...

That was absolute 100% proof tripe.

Parliament can do what they like. There was a time when there was no
such thing as a driving licence, road tax or registration for motor
vehicles, and what was done in respect of those things for them could be
done in respect of bicycles just as easily.

Unless, of course, you know of some over-arching piece of legislation
(preferably one over which some super-national jurisdiction applies)
which means that Parliament would be prevented from legislating, M'Lud.

Over to you.

FX: eery silence.

I've pointed out to Mr. Lee in the past that people *have* been banned
from cycling on public highways.

Googling _asbo bicycle_ or similar will throw up instances of people being
banned from cycling on certain roads, banned from cycling altogether, even
banned from touching bikes.

I've no idea why he continues to insist that it can't happen.

Find me an example of someone being prosecuted for doing so, not some
example of what a magistrate thought he could impose.

Wriggle, wriggle, wriggle....

--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On 21/04/2015 23:36, Phil W Lee wrote:
Simon Jester considered Sun, 19 Apr 2015 14:27:39
-0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:

On Sunday, April 19, 2015 at 12:31:50 PM UTC+1, The Medway Handyman wrote:
a sponger?

If I used one of the minority of Road Tax exempt vehicles I would still
pay all the other taxes including fuel duty.


http://www.teslamotors.com/en_GB/supercharger

You don't even have to pay that, if you use your own biofuel and limit
it to 2,500 litres per year.

Whilst wearing a knotted hankie on your head, hopping about on one leg
chanting "Alan, Alan, Alan...".


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On 21/04/2015 23:49, TMS320 wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote

As a motorist, I don't mind paying for facilities I use.

That's a bit rich when you have insisted several times that you don't have a
car and use your wife's. A word comes to mind...

...ah yes, sponging.

You really are dim, aren't you?

The Road Tax on my wife's car is paid from our joint income, so the Road
Tax is paid, as is the fuel tax. It matters not a jot who pays it.

I lease a van & pay the Road Tax and the fuel tax.

Ask an adult to help.

Cyclists should do the same.

A person on a bicycle is not a car in front. That is an efficient use of the
taxes I pay for my car.

Ze Plane! Ze Plane! We are back on Fantasy Island again.

A person on a bicycle in front has got there by queue jumping and is no
doubt holding up tax paying drivers.



--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk