|
Bicycle, crash hat and accident
On Sunday, August 10, 2014 4:26:26 PM UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 10/08/14 13:21, Tim Streater wrote: In article , news wrote: On 09/08/2014 21:28, Harry Bloomfield wrote: I always, unless there is a good reason not to, reverse into supermarket and multi-story type parking spaces. Safer and much easier. This is cock but I can't remember why. It "might" be safer (Personally I doubt it and suggest that it will result in much more "car park rash"). Multi storey car parks are often poorly lit and reversing in to a confined and poorly lit space is far more likely to result in contact with cars parked on either side than reversing out into a much bigger (but still poorly lit) area. You are just as likely to run over pedestrians (in this poorly lit area) when reversing in as out. Unless you are lucky enough to be entitled to disabled or parent/child spaces it is almost always not easier, since now when you get back to your car with all of the shopping in the trolley you cannot get to your own boot. Ah, thanks, *this* is why it's cock. Just look in any supermarket and multi-story type parking to see that most people drive in forwards. Exactly. Cant even open the tailgate unless there is 4ft of rear clearance. -- Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. - Erwin Knoll What about car parks with chevron parking as per our local M & S. Reversing into one of those is going to provide lots of amusement to onlookers and driving out forward is going to entail a bit of to-ing and fro-ing if one is to obey the one way system |
Bicycle, crash hat and accident
On Friday, 8 August 2014 19:21:23 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Most cyclists are brain dead before the accident anyway. It wouldn't make any difference... So you're kids don't ride bikes? |
Bicycle, crash hat and accident
On Friday, 8 August 2014 19:21:23 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 08/08/14 17:29, Brian Gaff wrote: Most cyclists are brain dead before the accident anyway. It wouldn't make any difference... So your children don't play on bikes? |
Bicycle, crash hat and accident
Tim Watts wrote:
On 10/08/14 16:09, Tim Streater wrote: For the parking areas listed above, it does, for the reason given by a previous poster. You get back to your car with a full trolley. Now kindly explain how I can get the trolley round to the boot area of the car if I've backed into the parking spot and there are geezers parked on both sides of my car. Eh? Eh? http://youparklikea****.co.uk/image/94330762179 Problem solved. With apologies for the domainname... I knew someone who did that deliberately, all the time (but diagonally rather than straight). He did it to avoid damage from other cars' doors. To be fair he did also park at the remotest corner of the parking lot (not "car park": this was in Colorado). -- Mike Barnes Cheshire, England |
Bicycle, crash hat and accident
On 11/08/14 11:38, Dean Punchard wrote:
On Friday, 8 August 2014 19:21:23 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote: Most cyclists are brain dead before the accident anyway. It wouldn't make any difference... So you're kids don't ride bikes? no, i am not kids.. -- Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll |
Bicycle, crash hat and accident
On 11/08/14 11:41, Dean Punchard wrote:
On Friday, 8 August 2014 19:21:23 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote: On 08/08/14 17:29, Brian Gaff wrote: Most cyclists are brain dead before the accident anyway. It wouldn't make any difference... So your children don't play on bikes? What children? All children are brain dead anyway. The point of family life is to attempt to give them some brains before they are adults. -- Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll |
Bicycle, crash hat and accident
On 11/08/2014 13:47, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher wrote: On 11/08/14 11:41, Dean Punchard wrote: On Friday, 8 August 2014 19:21:23 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote: On 08/08/14 17:29, Brian Gaff wrote: Most cyclists are brain dead before the accident anyway. It wouldn't make any difference... So your children don't play on bikes? What children? All children are brain dead anyway. The point of family life is to attempt to give them some brains before they are adults. Mmmm, I prefer Kingsley Amis: he said (in one of his novels, I forget which) that all children are permanently drunk and that all women are semi-drunk. I liken young children's minds to heavily fragmented hard drives. |
Bicycle, crash hat and accident
On 11/08/2014 11:41, Dean Punchard wrote:
On Friday, 8 August 2014 19:21:23 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote: On 08/08/14 17:29, Brian Gaff wrote: Most cyclists are brain dead before the accident anyway. It wouldn't make any difference... So your children don't play on bikes? Indeed, children play on bikes. They soon realise they are not transport, but toys. -- Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk |
Bicycle, crash hat and accident
On 11/08/2014 11:38, Dean Punchard wrote:
On Friday, 8 August 2014 19:21:23 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote: Most cyclists are brain dead before the accident anyway. It wouldn't make any difference... So you're kids don't ride bikes? I guess "you're" a cyclist? -- Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk |
Bicycle, crash hat and accident
On 11/08/2014 09:25, charles wrote:
In article , The Medway Handyman wrote: On 09/08/2014 07:49, harryagain wrote: "Tim+" wrote in message ... Harry Bloomfield wrote: harryagain pretended : Well, she shouldn't be reversing out. She should either turn around or reverse in. So she is at fault regardless. Agreed! There were no head injuries and as already said he was riding on the grass verge between road a pavement. A likely scenario is that she had reversed out of that drive lots of times, over that rarely used pavement and never seen anyone on foot or a bike, so why bother slowing down or looking? We all see what we expect to see. Behave unexpectedly and you risk not being seen. Tim No we don't. Never heard of defensive driving? It's a very bad practice to reverse out on to any road. Something basic you are taught while learning to drive. I expect there's plenty of thickos here don't know it. http://www.trafficsignsandmeanings.c...se-safely.html There are some drives where it is impossible to reverse in. My daughters house for example, on a busy main road, 20 yards from a junction with traffic lights. When you approach from the simplest route, you have to turn right to enter the drive. Reversing across a lane of traffic isn't a good idea. If you approach from the other direction & stop to reverse in, someone will pull up behind you as its a busy road. The only safe option is to drive in. and how safe is it driving out? Very safe, traffic slows for the lights. -- Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk |
Bicycle, crash hat and accident
On Sat, 09 Aug 2014 11:09:16 +0100, The Medway Handyman
wrote: Fanatic cyclists are a very vocal pressure group. They want roads redesigned just for them, HGVs to be fitted with cameras, cycle routes installed etc. They don't want to pay for them of course. .....because in 'Dave World' cyclists are well known as contributing nothing in taxes to HM Treasury, exempt as they are to income tax, National Insurance, VAT, stamp duty, capital gains tax and of course as cyclists they don't ever own a car they contribute nothing in fuel duty nor do they require car tax. As they are all uninsured for everything including their home and contents they don't pay any insurance premium tax either, nor do they pay council tax or make any meaningful contribution to society. They also evade death duties by moving all their assets offshore into an untouchable trust. Most of the rest of planet earth realise that cyclists contribute billions in tax just like almost everyone else and are fully entitled to be able to travel in a safe manner by the provision of suitable facilities and legislation. P.S. I'd execute red light runners and those that ride through pedestrian crossings on the spot :) |
Bicycle, crash hat and accident
On Tuesday, August 12, 2014 10:28:02 AM UTC+1, The Other Mike wrote:
On Sat, 09 Aug 2014 11:09:16 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote: Fanatic cyclists are a very vocal pressure group. They want roads redesigned just for them, HGVs to be fitted with cameras, cycle routes installed etc. They don't want to pay for them of course. ....because in 'Dave World' cyclists are well known as contributing nothing in taxes to HM Treasury, exempt as they are to income tax, National Insurance, VAT, stamp duty, capital gains tax and of course as cyclists they don't ever own a car they contribute nothing in fuel duty nor do they require car tax. As they are all uninsured for everything including their home and contents they don't pay any insurance premium tax either, nor do they pay council tax or make any meaningful contribution to society. They also evade death duties by moving all their assets offshore into an untouchable trust. Most of the rest of planet earth realise that cyclists contribute billions in tax just like almost everyone else and are fully entitled to be able to travel in a safe manner by the provision of suitable facilities and legislation. P.S. I'd execute red light runners and those that ride through pedestrian crossings on the spot :) The point is of course that as cyclists they pay no cycling related tax, not as ordinary citizens where of course they pay taxes like anyone else. Whereas motorists pay taxes through the nose for all motoring AND they still pay tax as an ordinary tax payer. How did you miss this simple point ? The day the government can identify individual cyclists via a licensing scheme is the day they'l start larding taxes on them |
Bicycle, crash hat and accident
On 12/08/2014 10:37, fred wrote:
On Tuesday, August 12, 2014 10:28:02 AM UTC+1, The Other Mike wrote: rant snipped The point is of course that as cyclists they pay no cycling related tax, not as ordinary citizens where of course they pay taxes like anyone else. Whereas motorists pay taxes through the nose for all motoring AND they still pay tax as an ordinary tax payer. How did you miss this simple point ? He's a cyclist? Who doesn't own a car? -- Tciao for Now! John. |
Bicycle, crash hat and accident
In message , John Williamson
writes On 12/08/2014 10:37, fred wrote: On Tuesday, August 12, 2014 10:28:02 AM UTC+1, The Other Mike wrote: rant snipped The point is of course that as cyclists they pay no cycling related tax, not as ordinary citizens where of course they pay taxes like anyone else. Whereas motorists pay taxes through the nose for all motoring AND they still pay tax as an ordinary tax payer. How did you miss this simple point ? He's a cyclist? Who doesn't own a car? Slightly different direction.... motorists who seem unable to overtake cyclists on *A* standard roads if there is an approaching vehicle in sight! -- Tim Lamb |
Bicycle, crash hat and accident
In article ,
Tim Lamb wrote: In message , John Williamson writes On 12/08/2014 10:37, fred wrote: On Tuesday, August 12, 2014 10:28:02 AM UTC+1, The Other Mike wrote: rant snipped The point is of course that as cyclists they pay no cycling related tax, not as ordinary citizens where of course they pay taxes like anyone else. Whereas motorists pay taxes through the nose for all motoring AND they still pay tax as an ordinary tax payer. How did you miss this simple point ? He's a cyclist? Who doesn't own a car? Slightly different direction.... motorists who seem unable to overtake cyclists on *A* standard roads if there is an approaching vehicle in sight! A motorist attempted to overtake me on a B road when someone was coming the other way, I was the one who ended up in hospital with a smashed right arm. Some A roads are quite narrow, too, and there is not room to overtake a cyclist safely when there is a car coming the other way. I was taught to leave cyclist "falling space" when overtaking. -- From KT24 Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18 |
Bicycle, crash hat and accident
In message , charles
writes In article , Tim Lamb wrote: In message , John Williamson writes On 12/08/2014 10:37, fred wrote: On Tuesday, August 12, 2014 10:28:02 AM UTC+1, The Other Mike wrote: rant snipped The point is of course that as cyclists they pay no cycling related tax, not as ordinary citizens where of course they pay taxes like anyone else. Whereas motorists pay taxes through the nose for all motoring AND they still pay tax as an ordinary tax payer. How did you miss this simple point ? He's a cyclist? Who doesn't own a car? Slightly different direction.... motorists who seem unable to overtake cyclists on *A* standard roads if there is an approaching vehicle in sight! A motorist attempted to overtake me on a B road when someone was coming the other way, I was the one who ended up in hospital with a smashed right arm. Sorry to hear that. Some A roads are quite narrow, too, and there is not room to overtake a cyclist safely when there is a car coming the other way. I was taught to leave cyclist "falling space" when overtaking. Of course. The one I have in mind was re-constructed and opened in 1977. There seem to be two issues... an inability to judge time available/oncoming vehicle speed such that they slow to cycle speed and an unwillingness to trespass on the other lane. I agree whooshing by under the handlebar at 60mph is inconsiderate but would only allow *falling space* for someone cycling very slowly or wobbling about. -- Tim Lamb |
Bicycle, crash hat and accident
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 11/08/14 11:41, Dean Punchard wrote: On Friday, 8 August 2014 19:21:23 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote: On 08/08/14 17:29, Brian Gaff wrote: Most cyclists are brain dead before the accident anyway. It wouldn't make any difference... So your children don't play on bikes? What children? Does this mean that you've awarded yourself an honorary Darwin Award? ;-) Tim |
Bicycle, crash hat and accident
On Tuesday, August 12, 2014 12:22:48 PM UTC+1, charles wrote:
In article , Tim Lamb wrote: In message , John Williamson writes On 12/08/2014 10:37, fred wrote: On Tuesday, August 12, 2014 10:28:02 AM UTC+1, The Other Mike wrote: rant snipped The point is of course that as cyclists they pay no cycling related tax, not as ordinary citizens where of course they pay taxes like anyone else. Whereas motorists pay taxes through the nose for all motoring AND they still pay tax as an ordinary tax payer. How did you miss this simple point ? He's a cyclist? Who doesn't own a car? Slightly different direction.... motorists who seem unable to overtake cyclists on *A* standard roads if there is an approaching vehicle in sight! A motorist attempted to overtake me on a B road when someone was coming the other way, I was the one who ended up in hospital with a smashed right arm. Some A roads are quite narrow, too, and there is not room to overtake a cyclist safely when there is a car coming the other way. I was taught to leave cyclist "falling space" when overtaking. -- From KT24 Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18 I cycle predominantly on minor roads but I have a mirror fitted to the end of the handle bars, a better safety feature than a helmet imho. When I see a car approaching towards me and another coming from behind I stay well out into the road to make it clear to the overtaking car that he hasn't got the room. NO sensible motorist will rear end a cyclist but a careless one will easily knock you off your bike in an overtaking manoeuvre. |
Bicycle, crash hat and accident
charles wrote:
In , Tim wrote: In , John Williamson writes On 12/08/2014 10:37, fred wrote: On Tuesday, August 12, 2014 10:28:02 AM UTC+1, The Other Mike wrote: rant snipped The point is of course that as cyclists they pay no cycling related tax, not as ordinary citizens where of course they pay taxes like anyone else. Whereas motorists pay taxes through the nose for all motoring AND they still pay tax as an ordinary tax payer. How did you miss this simple point ? He's a cyclist? Who doesn't own a car? Slightly different direction.... motorists who seem unable to overtake cyclists on *A* standard roads if there is an approaching vehicle in sight! A motorist attempted to overtake me on a B road when someone was coming the other way, I was the one who ended up in hospital with a smashed right arm. Some A roads are quite narrow, too, and there is not room to overtake a cyclist safely when there is a car coming the other way. I was taught to leave cyclist "falling space" when overtaking. The judge defined nearly a century ago, that a pedal powered organ donor is entitled to his wobble |
Bicycle, crash hat and accident
On 12/08/2014 10:28, The Other Mike wrote:
On Sat, 09 Aug 2014 11:09:16 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote: Fanatic cyclists are a very vocal pressure group. They want roads redesigned just for them, HGVs to be fitted with cameras, cycle routes installed etc. They don't want to pay for them of course. ....because in 'Dave World' cyclists are well known as contributing nothing in taxes to HM Treasury, exempt as they are to income tax, National Insurance, VAT, stamp duty, capital gains tax and of course as cyclists they don't ever own a car they contribute nothing in fuel duty nor do they require car tax. As they are all uninsured for everything including their home and contents they don't pay any insurance premium tax either, nor do they pay council tax or make any meaningful contribution to society. They also evade death duties by moving all their assets offshore into an untouchable trust. Most of the rest of planet earth realise that cyclists contribute billions in tax just like almost everyone else and are fully entitled to be able to travel in a safe manner by the provision of suitable facilities and legislation. That's very nearly a good argument. Cyclists SOP. However, motorists pay exactly the same taxes as cyclists - and them pay an 'extra' £46 billion 'specifically' so they can use 'each of' their vehicles on the road (should they have more than one vehicle). Cyclists on the other hand, pay no 'extra' 'specific' taxes to use their vehicles on the road. Sponging freeloaders to a man. P.S. I'd execute red light runners and those that ride through pedestrian crossings on the spot :) Softy. -- Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk |
Bicycle, crash hat and accident
On 12/08/2014 10:37, fred wrote:
On Tuesday, August 12, 2014 10:28:02 AM UTC+1, The Other Mike wrote: On Sat, 09 Aug 2014 11:09:16 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote: Fanatic cyclists are a very vocal pressure group. They want roads redesigned just for them, HGVs to be fitted with cameras, cycle routes installed etc. They don't want to pay for them of course. ....because in 'Dave World' cyclists are well known as contributing nothing in taxes to HM Treasury, exempt as they are to income tax, National Insurance, VAT, stamp duty, capital gains tax and of course as cyclists they don't ever own a car they contribute nothing in fuel duty nor do they require car tax. As they are all uninsured for everything including their home and contents they don't pay any insurance premium tax either, nor do they pay council tax or make any meaningful contribution to society. They also evade death duties by moving all their assets offshore into an untouchable trust. Most of the rest of planet earth realise that cyclists contribute billions in tax just like almost everyone else and are fully entitled to be able to travel in a safe manner by the provision of suitable facilities and legislation. P.S. I'd execute red light runners and those that ride through pedestrian crossings on the spot :) The point is of course that as cyclists they pay no cycling related tax, not as ordinary citizens where of course they pay taxes like anyone else. Whereas motorists pay taxes through the nose for all motoring AND they still pay tax as an ordinary tax payer. How did you miss this simple point ? Cyclists guilt. The day the government can identify individual cyclists via a licensing scheme is the day they'l start larding taxes on them Can't happen too soon. -- Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk |
Bicycle, crash hat and accident
On 12/08/2014 11:45, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , John Williamson writes On 12/08/2014 10:37, fred wrote: On Tuesday, August 12, 2014 10:28:02 AM UTC+1, The Other Mike wrote: rant snipped The point is of course that as cyclists they pay no cycling related tax, not as ordinary citizens where of course they pay taxes like anyone else. Whereas motorists pay taxes through the nose for all motoring AND they still pay tax as an ordinary tax payer. How did you miss this simple point ? He's a cyclist? Who doesn't own a car? Slightly different direction.... motorists who seem unable to overtake cyclists on *A* standard roads if there is an approaching vehicle in sight! An excellent example of cyclists causing pollution. One cyclists struggling up a slight incline at 5mph can hold up 20 cars. -- Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk |
Bicycle, crash hat and accident
In message , Tim Lamb
writes In message , John Williamson writes On 12/08/2014 10:37, fred wrote: On Tuesday, August 12, 2014 10:28:02 AM UTC+1, The Other Mike wrote: rant snipped The point is of course that as cyclists they pay no cycling related tax, not as ordinary citizens where of course they pay taxes like anyone else. Whereas motorists pay taxes through the nose for all motoring AND they still pay tax as an ordinary tax payer. How did you miss this simple point ? He's a cyclist? Who doesn't own a car? Slightly different direction.... motorists who seem unable to overtake cyclists on *A* standard roads if there is an approaching vehicle in sight! Hmm, I followed a cyclist on an A road last year for several miles before I felt it safe to overtake him, and that was without traffic coming the other way. As he was doing 35-40 most of the time, I didn't worry too much, I did get a friendly wave when I did get past him. Adrian -- To Reply : replace "diy" with "news" and reverse the domain If you are reading this from a web interface eg DIY Banter, DIY Forum or Google Groups, please be aware this is NOT a forum, and you are merely using a web portal to a USENET group. Many people block posters coming from web portals due to perceieved SPAM or inaneness. For a better method of access, please see: http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Usenet |
Bicycle, crash hat and accident
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 11:11:45 +0100, John Williamson
wrote: On 12/08/2014 10:37, fred wrote: On Tuesday, August 12, 2014 10:28:02 AM UTC+1, The Other Mike wrote: rant snipped The point is of course that as cyclists they pay no cycling related tax, not as ordinary citizens where of course they pay taxes like anyone else. Whereas motorists pay taxes through the nose for all motoring AND they still pay tax as an ordinary tax payer. How did you miss this simple point ? He's a cyclist? Who doesn't own a car? Except I'm a petrolhead that owns several cars *and* several cycles, the cars outnumber the cycles. -- |
Bicycle, crash hat and accident
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 02:37:31 -0700 (PDT), fred wrote:
The point is of course that as cyclists they pay no cycling related tax, Nor should they. Cyclists cause zero wear on the road surface, and if planned properly add a miniscule additional cost to new and improved road and footpath infrastructure. not as ordinary citizens where of course they pay taxes like anyone else. Whereas motorists pay taxes through the nose for all motoring AND they still pay tax as an ordinary tax payer. Motorists could be taxed more to keep the riff raff and heavy goods vehicles off the road, to reduce road wear, pollution and congestion, leaving more space for cyclists :) -- |
Bicycle, crash hat and accident
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 18:41:22 +0100, The Medway Handyman
wrote: An excellent example of cyclists causing pollution. One cyclists struggling up a slight incline at 5mph can hold up 20 cars. 20 cars round town, driven by motorists that think they own the road (after apparently paying for the roads three times over in taxes) can hold up hundreds of cyclists and cause pollution, leading to early deaths to motoristsm cyclists and pedestrians. -- |
Bicycle, crash hat and accident
|
Bicycle, crash hat and accident
|
Bicycle, crash hat and accident
On 12/08/2014 22:48, The Other Mike wrote:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 18:41:22 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote: An excellent example of cyclists causing pollution. One cyclists struggling up a slight incline at 5mph can hold up 20 cars. 20 cars round town, driven by motorists that think they own the road (after apparently paying for the roads three times over in taxes) 4 times at least. can hold up hundreds of cyclists and cause pollution, leading to early deaths to motoristsm cyclists and pedestrians. Motorists cant hold up cyclists, they would simply weave dangerously through traffic, or ride on pavements, or ignore one way systems. Or use the cycle lanes paid for by motorists. -- Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk |
Bicycle, crash hat and accident
On 12/08/2014 22:44, The Other Mike wrote:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 11:11:45 +0100, John Williamson wrote: On 12/08/2014 10:37, fred wrote: On Tuesday, August 12, 2014 10:28:02 AM UTC+1, The Other Mike wrote: rant snipped The point is of course that as cyclists they pay no cycling related tax, not as ordinary citizens where of course they pay taxes like anyone else. Whereas motorists pay taxes through the nose for all motoring AND they still pay tax as an ordinary tax payer. How did you miss this simple point ? He's a cyclist? Who doesn't own a car? Except I'm a petrolhead that owns several cars *and* several cycles, the cars outnumber the cycles. And you pay road tax on each individual car. -- Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk |
Bicycle, crash hat and accident
On 12/08/2014 22:45, The Other Mike wrote:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 02:37:31 -0700 (PDT), fred wrote: The point is of course that as cyclists they pay no cycling related tax, Nor should they. Cyclists cause zero wear on the road surface, and if planned properly add a miniscule additional cost to new and improved road and footpath infrastructure. Cyclists cause congestion, cycle lanes delay traffic and terrorise pedestrians. not as ordinary citizens where of course they pay taxes like anyone else. Whereas motorists pay taxes through the nose for all motoring AND they still pay tax as an ordinary tax payer. Motorists could be taxed more to keep the riff raff and heavy goods vehicles off the road, to reduce road wear, pollution and congestion, leaving more space for cyclists :) Fine. As long as you don't want a plumber, an ambulance, or any goods in the shops. -- Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk |
Bicycle, crash hat and accident
On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 10:44:11 +0100, "Richard"
wrote: "The Other Mike" wrote in message .. . ****s that reverse into places in car parks should be parachuted into a minefield along with all their offspring, their shopping and their vehicles. Just being curious... why the parachutes? Cost! You need a reasonably gentle impact otherwise you get multiple detonations and can't use that area of the minefield again. But undersized parachutes will do, break a few legs and let the *******s try to crawl out, no doubt the awkward *******s will try to go backwards... BOOM -- |
Bicycle, crash hat and accident
On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 15:00:40 +0100, The Medway Handyman
wrote: On 12/08/2014 22:44, The Other Mike wrote: On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 11:11:45 +0100, John Williamson wrote: On 12/08/2014 10:37, fred wrote: On Tuesday, August 12, 2014 10:28:02 AM UTC+1, The Other Mike wrote: rant snipped The point is of course that as cyclists they pay no cycling related tax, not as ordinary citizens where of course they pay taxes like anyone else. Whereas motorists pay taxes through the nose for all motoring AND they still pay tax as an ordinary tax payer. How did you miss this simple point ? He's a cyclist? Who doesn't own a car? Except I'm a petrolhead that owns several cars *and* several cycles, the cars outnumber the cycles. And you pay road tax on each individual car. Not all of them. Plus I can use infrastructure not paid for by me costing billions of pounds in todays money. I don't object at all to paying through taxation for just about any UK infrastructure project. The more we spend the better. If 75% of the tax I pay is spent on schools, a railway line I will never use, flood / coastal defences or a few thousand miles of cycle related infrastructure rather than yet another road then so what? Those that do object to the funding of infrastructure projects are just one very very tiny step above the environmentalist ****wits that seek to impose their blinkered shortsighted regime on everyone. -- |
Bicycle, crash hat and accident
On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 15:03:09 +0100, The Medway Handyman
wrote: On 12/08/2014 22:45, The Other Mike wrote: Motorists could be taxed more to keep the riff raff and heavy goods vehicles off the road, to reduce road wear, pollution and congestion, leaving more space for cyclists :) Fine. As long as you don't want a plumber, an ambulance, or any goods in the shops. Which bit of could and :) did you not understand? But I really couldn't give a toss about a plumber, let the lazy overcharging incompetent ****ers walk or ride a bike, taxing riff raff off the road would vastly improve ambulance response times and removing HGV's would revive the concept of local shops sourcing locally and it would hammer the parasitic supermarkets that all have a mission statement to screw farmers and suppliers in the pursuit of low prices regardless. Bring it on! -- |
Bicycle, crash hat and accident
On 14/08/2014 15:41, The Other Mike wrote:
On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 15:03:09 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote: On 12/08/2014 22:45, The Other Mike wrote: Motorists could be taxed more to keep the riff raff and heavy goods vehicles off the road, to reduce road wear, pollution and congestion, leaving more space for cyclists :) Fine. As long as you don't want a plumber, an ambulance, or any goods in the shops. Which bit of could and :) did you not understand? But I really couldn't give a toss about a plumber, let the lazy overcharging incompetent ****ers walk or ride a bike, taxing riff raff off the road would vastly improve ambulance response times and removing HGV's would revive the concept of local shops sourcing locally and it would hammer the parasitic supermarkets that all have a mission statement to screw farmers and suppliers in the pursuit of low prices regardless. Bring it on! Errrr.... No. Plumbers and other tradespeople can't carry their toolkits and materials on a bike, even with a trailer, getting rid of HGVs would just mean more traffic from smaller vehicles unless we all stop buying stuff, and it *certainly* wouldn't revive the local shops, as their transport costs would rise as well due to the use of smaller vehicles which use more road space, labour and fuel per tonne delivered than larger ones. The pressure for low prices at the till, by the way, *doesn't* come primarily from supermarkets, it comes from the customers. If customers as a whole wanted quality and local shops, customers generally would be willing to pay the extra. Some of us already do and are, of course, but we're a minority. While we're at it, can we tax cyclists off the road so that buses can deliver their cargo of people as quickly and efficiently as possible? I get held up unnecessarily more in the rush hour by cyclists than any other group of road users, due in general to their inconsiderate use of road space. One of these days, I'm going to remember to put a dashboard camera in place to show just how this happens and how badly many cyclists behave on the road. -- Tciao for Now! John. |
Bicycle, crash hat and accident
John Williamson wrote:
On 14/08/2014 15:41, The Other Mike wrote: On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 15:03:09 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote: On 12/08/2014 22:45, The Other Mike wrote: Motorists could be taxed more to keep the riff raff and heavy goods vehicles off the road, to reduce road wear, pollution and congestion, leaving more space for cyclists :) Fine. As long as you don't want a plumber, an ambulance, or any goods in the shops. Which bit of could and :) did you not understand? But I really couldn't give a toss about a plumber, let the lazy overcharging incompetent ****ers walk or ride a bike, taxing riff raff off the road would vastly improve ambulance response times and removing HGV's would revive the concept of local shops sourcing locally and it would hammer the parasitic supermarkets that all have a mission statement to screw farmers and suppliers in the pursuit of low prices regardless. Bring it on! Errrr.... No. Plumbers and other tradespeople can't carry their toolkits and materials on a bike, even with a trailer, getting rid of HGVs would just mean more traffic from smaller vehicles unless we all stop buying stuff, and it *certainly* wouldn't revive the local shops, as their transport costs would rise as well due to the use of smaller vehicles which use more road space, labour and fuel per tonne delivered than larger ones. The pressure for low prices at the till, by the way, *doesn't* come primarily from supermarkets, it comes from the customers. If customers as a whole wanted quality and local shops, customers generally would be willing to pay the extra. Some of us already do and are, of course, but we're a minority. While we're at it, can we tax cyclists off the road so that buses can deliver their cargo of people as quickly and efficiently as possible? I get held up unnecessarily more in the rush hour by cyclists than any other group of road users, due in general to their inconsiderate use of road space. One of these days, I'm going to remember to put a dashboard camera in place to show just how this happens and how badly many cyclists behave on the road. When I were a lad, the local plumber used a bicycle with a front load carrier. |
Bicycle, crash hat and accident
On 12/08/2014 22:49, The Other Mike wrote:
snip ****s that reverse into places in car parks should be parachuted into a minefield along with all their offspring, their shopping and their vehicles. I have no choice. The car I have is sufficiently long and with a poor turning circle I have to reverse in, and even then with possibly one shunt to and forth. Going in forwards just doesn't work in many car parks with limited space between cars and between rows. Just calling anyone who doesn't park in the manner you dictate a **** doesn't say much for you. |
Bicycle, crash hat and accident
On 14/08/2014 15:54, John Williamson wrote:
While we're at it, can we tax cyclists off the road so that buses can deliver their cargo of people as quickly and efficiently as possible? I get held up unnecessarily more in the rush hour by cyclists than any other group of road users, due in general to their inconsiderate use of road space. One of these days, I'm going to remember to put a dashboard camera in place to show just how this happens and how badly many cyclists behave on the road. Now there is an idea! Tax cyclists off the road! Bring it on! Wouldn't stop them cycling on the pavement though..... -- Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk |
Bicycle, crash hat and accident
On 14/08/2014 17:22, Capitol wrote:
When I were a lad, the local plumber used a bicycle with a front load carrier. Was he repairing aqueducts :-) -- Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk |
Bicycle, crash hat and accident
On 14/08/2014 15:41, The Other Mike wrote:
On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 15:03:09 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote: On 12/08/2014 22:45, The Other Mike wrote: Motorists could be taxed more to keep the riff raff and heavy goods vehicles off the road, to reduce road wear, pollution and congestion, leaving more space for cyclists :) Fine. As long as you don't want a plumber, an ambulance, or any goods in the shops. Which bit of could and :) did you not understand? But I really couldn't give a toss about a plumber, let the lazy overcharging incompetent ****ers walk or ride a bike, taxing riff raff off the road would vastly improve ambulance response times and removing HGV's would revive the concept of local shops sourcing locally and it would hammer the parasitic supermarkets that all have a mission statement to screw farmers and suppliers in the pursuit of low prices regardless. Bring it on! Well we only produce 60% of the food we need so which members of your family are you going to eliminate so we don't need to move the imported food? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:19 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter