On 26/08/2014 20:38, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 26/08/2014 18:39, Bod wrote:
On 26/08/2014 18:32, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 26/08/2014 16:59, Bod wrote:
On 26/08/2014 16:50, Capitol wrote:
Bod wrote:
Stupid mistakes like turning left on the inside of large lorries who
were also turning left. An experienced cyclist would hang back from
any
lorries......Darwin strikes again :-)

There you are, an organ donor!

Yes, but the same could be said of young inexperienced car drivers.
Their accident rate is disproportionally high, hence the silly money
they have to fork out for car insurance.

As opposed to the zero money forked out by cyclists.

True, but cyclists don't belch out poisonous exhaust gases,

They fart a lot....


How do you know this strange trait? Are you a saddle sniffer?

"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 26/08/2014 19:56, Mr Pounder wrote:
"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 26/08/2014 19:14, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Bod
wrote:

On 26/08/2014 18:32, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 26/08/2014 16:59, Bod wrote:
On 26/08/2014 16:50, Capitol wrote:
Bod wrote:
Stupid mistakes like turning left on the inside of large lorries
who
were also turning left. An experienced cyclist would hang back
from any
lorries......Darwin strikes again :-)

There you are, an organ donor!

Yes, but the same could be said of young inexperienced car drivers.
Their accident rate is disproportionally high, hence the silly money
they have to fork out for car insurance.

As opposed to the zero money forked out by cyclists.

True, but cyclists don't belch out poisonous exhaust gases,
effectively carbon free by comparison to motorised vehicles.

What's that got to do with insurance? Cyclists should have this for
when they knock over or into pedestrians and other things.

I wouldn't argue with that. It should be compulsory.

Agreed!
Of course you carry such insurance.


No, like any vehicle, insurance is not required on private land.
I only cycle on private land now.
Besides, Cycle insurance is not compulsory on cycles at the moment.

Pedestrians also use private land and accidents do happen. A silly
pedestrian just might just enter your path from a blind corner and not be
quick enough to get out of your privileged way.
Does it really have to be compulsory to make sense?

"Dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 26/08/2014 19:39, JNugent wrote:
On 26/08/2014 18:39, Bod wrote:
On 26/08/2014 18:32, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 26/08/2014 16:59, Bod wrote:
On 26/08/2014 16:50, Capitol wrote:
Bod wrote:
Stupid mistakes like turning left on the inside of large lorries who
were also turning left. An experienced cyclist would hang back from
any
lorries......Darwin strikes again :-)

There you are, an organ donor!

Yes, but the same could be said of young inexperienced car drivers.
Their accident rate is disproportionally high, hence the silly money
they have to fork out for car insurance.

As opposed to the zero money forked out by cyclists.

True, but cyclists don't belch out poisonous exhaust gases, effectively
carbon free by comparison to motorised vehicles.

Are you under the mistaken impression that insurance premiums are
related to the nominal emissions for the model of car?


Road tax is which sort of makes a lot of motorists claim that they pay tax
but cyclists don't as stupid as they are.
Any car with low emissions is road tax free too.

That was diabolical!
****ed again?

On 26/08/2014 20:53, Mr Pounder wrote:
"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 26/08/2014 19:56, Mr Pounder wrote:
"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 26/08/2014 19:14, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Bod
wrote:

On 26/08/2014 18:32, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 26/08/2014 16:59, Bod wrote:
On 26/08/2014 16:50, Capitol wrote:
Bod wrote:
Stupid mistakes like turning left on the inside of large lorries
who
were also turning left. An experienced cyclist would hang back
from any
lorries......Darwin strikes again :-)

There you are, an organ donor!

Yes, but the same could be said of young inexperienced car drivers.
Their accident rate is disproportionally high, hence the silly money
they have to fork out for car insurance.

As opposed to the zero money forked out by cyclists.

True, but cyclists don't belch out poisonous exhaust gases,
effectively carbon free by comparison to motorised vehicles.

What's that got to do with insurance? Cyclists should have this for
when they knock over or into pedestrians and other things.

I wouldn't argue with that. It should be compulsory.

Agreed!
Of course you carry such insurance.


No, like any vehicle, insurance is not required on private land.
I only cycle on private land now.
Besides, Cycle insurance is not compulsory on cycles at the moment.

Pedestrians also use private land and accidents do happen. A silly
pedestrian just might just enter your path from a blind corner and not be
quick enough to get out of your privileged way.
Does it really have to be compulsory to make sense?


I ride sensibly and with respect to others.

On 26/08/2014 21:42, Bod wrote:
On 26/08/2014 20:53, Mr Pounder wrote:
"Bod" wrote in message
...
No, like any vehicle, insurance is not required on private land.
I only cycle on private land now.
Besides, Cycle insurance is not compulsory on cycles at the moment.

Pedestrians also use private land and accidents do happen. A silly
pedestrian just might just enter your path from a blind corner and not be
quick enough to get out of your privileged way.
Does it really have to be compulsory to make sense?


I ride sensibly and with respect to others.

If the court case goes against you, however unlikely that may be, can
you afford to support the pedestrian and provide any care necessary for
the rest of their life?

Don't forget that with our adversarial legal system, it's often the one
with the better law team that wins this sort of case, not the one in the
right.

If you can afford this, lucky you. If not, you *need* insurance.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 26/08/2014 20:12, Dennis@home wrote:
On 26/08/2014 19:39, JNugent wrote:
On 26/08/2014 18:39, Bod wrote:
On 26/08/2014 18:32, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 26/08/2014 16:59, Bod wrote:
On 26/08/2014 16:50, Capitol wrote:
Bod wrote:
Stupid mistakes like turning left on the inside of large lorries who
were also turning left. An experienced cyclist would hang back from
any
lorries......Darwin strikes again :-)

There you are, an organ donor!

Yes, but the same could be said of young inexperienced car drivers.
Their accident rate is disproportionally high, hence the silly money
they have to fork out for car insurance.

As opposed to the zero money forked out by cyclists.

True, but cyclists don't belch out poisonous exhaust gases, effectively
carbon free by comparison to motorised vehicles.

Are you under the mistaken impression that insurance premiums are
related to the nominal emissions for the model of car?


Road tax is which sort of makes a lot of motorists claim that they pay
tax but cyclists don't as stupid as they are.
Any car with low emissions is road tax free too.

You ought to try your luck on "Mastermind".

Specialist Subject: Making remarks which have absolutely nothing to do
with what is being discussed.

On 26/08/2014 20:22, John Williamson wrote:
On 26/08/2014 20:18, Mrcheerful wrote:
On 26/08/2014 20:12, Dennis@home wrote:

Road tax is which sort of makes a lot of motorists claim that they pay
tax but cyclists don't as stupid as they are.
Any car with low emissions is road tax free too.

Cyclist mode on What is this 'Road Tax' ?

He means Vehicle Excise Duty. Originally introduced to help pay off anewal for
war debt, under the guise of paying for road improvements and maintenance.

What is this "Vehicle Excise Duty"?

One will search in vain for the words "excise" or "duty" on a Road Tax
renewal form.

But you'll find "road" and "tax" easily enough.

On 26/08/2014 20:27, Bod wrote:
On 26/08/2014 19:39, JNugent wrote:
On 26/08/2014 18:39, Bod wrote:
On 26/08/2014 18:32, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 26/08/2014 16:59, Bod wrote:
On 26/08/2014 16:50, Capitol wrote:
Bod wrote:
Stupid mistakes like turning left on the inside of large lorries who
were also turning left. An experienced cyclist would hang back from
any
lorries......Darwin strikes again :-)

There you are, an organ donor!

Yes, but the same could be said of young inexperienced car drivers.
Their accident rate is disproportionally high, hence the silly money
they have to fork out for car insurance.

As opposed to the zero money forked out by cyclists.

True, but cyclists don't belch out poisonous exhaust gases, effectively
carbon free by comparison to motorised vehicles.

Are you under the mistaken impression that insurance premiums are
related to the nominal emissions for the model of car?

No.

Then why...

Oh, never mind.

On 26/08/2014 21:52, John Williamson wrote:
On 26/08/2014 21:42, Bod wrote:
On 26/08/2014 20:53, Mr Pounder wrote:
"Bod" wrote in message
...
No, like any vehicle, insurance is not required on private land.
I only cycle on private land now.
Besides, Cycle insurance is not compulsory on cycles at the moment.

Pedestrians also use private land and accidents do happen. A silly
pedestrian just might just enter your path from a blind corner and
not be
quick enough to get out of your privileged way.
Does it really have to be compulsory to make sense?


I ride sensibly and with respect to others.

If the court case goes against you, however unlikely that may be, can
you afford to support the pedestrian and provide any care necessary for
the rest of their life?

Don't forget that with our adversarial legal system, it's often the one
with the better law team that wins this sort of case, not the one in the
right.

If you can afford this, lucky you. If not, you *need* insurance.

Just to cycle on tracks etc!? In about 60 years of cycling I haven't
bumped into anyone yet. In the places I cycle I hardly see anyone.
I am not blind.

On 26/08/2014 22:36, JNugent wrote:
On 26/08/2014 20:27, Bod wrote:
On 26/08/2014 19:39, JNugent wrote:
On 26/08/2014 18:39, Bod wrote:
On 26/08/2014 18:32, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 26/08/2014 16:59, Bod wrote:
On 26/08/2014 16:50, Capitol wrote:
Bod wrote:
Stupid mistakes like turning left on the inside of large lorries who
were also turning left. An experienced cyclist would hang back from
any
lorries......Darwin strikes again :-)

There you are, an organ donor!

Yes, but the same could be said of young inexperienced car drivers.
Their accident rate is disproportionally high, hence the silly money
they have to fork out for car insurance.

As opposed to the zero money forked out by cyclists.

True, but cyclists don't belch out poisonous exhaust gases, effectively
carbon free by comparison to motorised vehicles.

Are you under the mistaken impression that insurance premiums are
related to the nominal emissions for the model of car?

No.

Then why...

Oh, never mind.

I just stated an obvious fact.

On Tue, 26 Aug 2014 18:28:46 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote:

On 26/08/2014 09:26, Peter Keller wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 17:55:47 +0100, Mr Pounder wrote:

"Capitol" wrote in message
...
Mr Pounder wrote:
wrote in message
...
Mr Pounder wrote:

So it is not really a viable and practical means of transport.

Careful, being truthful will get you all sorts of abuse!

This is a very polite group which is only spoilt by organ donors
posting to it.



There, corrected that for you!

I stand corrected.

No need.
"Bicyclists" and "organ donors" have no connection with each other.

They do according to London Ambulance paramedics.

Plenty of bicyclists are not organ donors.
Plenty of motorists are organ donors.
Both those statements are true if reversed.

On Tue, 26 Aug 2014 19:33:45 +0100, JNugent wrote:

On 26/08/2014 09:24, Peter Keller wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 17:26:38 +0100, Mr Pounder wrote:

wrote in message
...
Mr Pounder wrote:

So it is not really a viable and practical means of transport.

Careful, being truthful will get you all sorts of abuse!

This is a very polite group which is only spoilt by cyclists posting
to it.

Is that why it is called uk.rec.cycling?

And not "uk.rec.cyclists", you will note.

What sort of poster do you reckon a newsgroup called
"uk.politics.fracking" would largely call into being?

Mainly oil exploration engineers? Or a different group of people with a
different view of things?

Perhaps "fracking" has been mis-spelled.

On 27/08/2014 09:56, Peter Keller wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2014 19:33:45 +0100, JNugent wrote:

On 26/08/2014 09:24, Peter Keller wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 17:26:38 +0100, Mr Pounder wrote:

wrote in message
...
Mr Pounder wrote:

So it is not really a viable and practical means of transport.

Careful, being truthful will get you all sorts of abuse!

This is a very polite group which is only spoilt by cyclists posting
to it.

Is that why it is called uk.rec.cycling?

And not "uk.rec.cyclists", you will note.

What sort of poster do you reckon a newsgroup called
"uk.politics.fracking" would largely call into being?

Mainly oil exploration engineers? Or a different group of people with a
different view of things?

Perhaps "fracking" has been mis-spelled.

Not at all.

"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 26/08/2014 20:53, Mr Pounder wrote:
"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 26/08/2014 19:56, Mr Pounder wrote:
"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 26/08/2014 19:14, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Bod
wrote:

On 26/08/2014 18:32, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 26/08/2014 16:59, Bod wrote:
On 26/08/2014 16:50, Capitol wrote:
Bod wrote:
Stupid mistakes like turning left on the inside of large
lorries
who
were also turning left. An experienced cyclist would hang back
from any
lorries......Darwin strikes again :-)

There you are, an organ donor!

Yes, but the same could be said of young inexperienced car
drivers.
Their accident rate is disproportionally high, hence the silly
money
they have to fork out for car insurance.

As opposed to the zero money forked out by cyclists.

True, but cyclists don't belch out poisonous exhaust gases,
effectively carbon free by comparison to motorised vehicles.

What's that got to do with insurance? Cyclists should have this for
when they knock over or into pedestrians and other things.

I wouldn't argue with that. It should be compulsory.

Agreed!
Of course you carry such insurance.


No, like any vehicle, insurance is not required on private land.
I only cycle on private land now.
Besides, Cycle insurance is not compulsory on cycles at the moment.

Pedestrians also use private land and accidents do happen. A silly
pedestrian just might just enter your path from a blind corner and not be
quick enough to get out of your privileged way.
Does it really have to be compulsory to make sense?



I ride sensibly and with respect to others.

This makes you immune from accidents does it?

On 25/08/2014 14:24, Capitol wrote:
I've done both, you still get wet.

How recently?

Wet weather gear has improved enormously since I was a kid. I never used
to bother to put it on in drizzle - condensation made me as wet as the rain.

Andy

On 27/08/2014 18:23, Mr Pounder wrote:
"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 26/08/2014 20:53, Mr Pounder wrote:
"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 26/08/2014 19:56, Mr Pounder wrote:
"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 26/08/2014 19:14, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Bod
wrote:

On 26/08/2014 18:32, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 26/08/2014 16:59, Bod wrote:
On 26/08/2014 16:50, Capitol wrote:
Bod wrote:
Stupid mistakes like turning left on the inside of large
lorries
who
were also turning left. An experienced cyclist would hang back
from any
lorries......Darwin strikes again :-)

There you are, an organ donor!

Yes, but the same could be said of young inexperienced car
drivers.
Their accident rate is disproportionally high, hence the silly
money
they have to fork out for car insurance.

As opposed to the zero money forked out by cyclists.

True, but cyclists don't belch out poisonous exhaust gases,
effectively carbon free by comparison to motorised vehicles.

What's that got to do with insurance? Cyclists should have this for
when they knock over or into pedestrians and other things.

I wouldn't argue with that. It should be compulsory.

Agreed!
Of course you carry such insurance.


No, like any vehicle, insurance is not required on private land.
I only cycle on private land now.
Besides, Cycle insurance is not compulsory on cycles at the moment.

Pedestrians also use private land and accidents do happen. A silly
pedestrian just might just enter your path from a blind corner and not be
quick enough to get out of your privileged way.
Does it really have to be compulsory to make sense?



I ride sensibly and with respect to others.

This makes you immune from accidents does it?


60 years of cycling without hurting anyone (or animal) says, yes.

Bod wrote:

60 years of cycling without hurting anyone (or animal) says, yes.




Hmm. Not much use as an organ donor then!

On 28/08/2014 10:03, Capitol wrote:
Bod wrote:

60 years of cycling without hurting anyone (or animal) says, yes.




Hmm. Not much use as an organ donor then!


How selfish of me ;-)

"Bod" wrote in message ...

On 26/08/2014 20:38, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 26/08/2014 18:39, Bod wrote:
On 26/08/2014 18:32, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 26/08/2014 16:59, Bod wrote:
On 26/08/2014 16:50, Capitol wrote:
Bod wrote:
Stupid mistakes like turning left on the inside of large lorries who
were also turning left. An experienced cyclist would hang back from
any
lorries......Darwin strikes again :-)

There you are, an organ donor!

Yes, but the same could be said of young inexperienced car drivers.
Their accident rate is disproportionally high, hence the silly money
they have to fork out for car insurance.

As opposed to the zero money forked out by cyclists.

True, but cyclists don't belch out poisonous exhaust gases,

They fart a lot....


How do you know this strange trait? Are you a saddle sniffer?

You wouldn't have to be. You can smell the stench of a cyclist from thirty
paces.

On 28/08/2014 10:41, Tarcap wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message ...

On 26/08/2014 20:38, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 26/08/2014 18:39, Bod wrote:
On 26/08/2014 18:32, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 26/08/2014 16:59, Bod wrote:
On 26/08/2014 16:50, Capitol wrote:
Bod wrote:
Stupid mistakes like turning left on the inside of large lorries
who
were also turning left. An experienced cyclist would hang back from
any
lorries......Darwin strikes again :-)

There you are, an organ donor!

Yes, but the same could be said of young inexperienced car drivers.
Their accident rate is disproportionally high, hence the silly money
they have to fork out for car insurance.

As opposed to the zero money forked out by cyclists.

True, but cyclists don't belch out poisonous exhaust gases,

They fart a lot....


How do you know this strange trait? Are you a saddle sniffer?

You wouldn't have to be. You can smell the stench of a cyclist from
thirty paces.

You should stop hanging around pikey bike sheds.

"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 27/08/2014 18:23, Mr Pounder wrote:
"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 26/08/2014 20:53, Mr Pounder wrote:
"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 26/08/2014 19:56, Mr Pounder wrote:
"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 26/08/2014 19:14, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Bod
wrote:

On 26/08/2014 18:32, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 26/08/2014 16:59, Bod wrote:
On 26/08/2014 16:50, Capitol wrote:
Bod wrote:
Stupid mistakes like turning left on the inside of large
lorries
who
were also turning left. An experienced cyclist would hang back
from any
lorries......Darwin strikes again :-)

There you are, an organ donor!

Yes, but the same could be said of young inexperienced car
drivers.
Their accident rate is disproportionally high, hence the silly
money
they have to fork out for car insurance.

As opposed to the zero money forked out by cyclists.

True, but cyclists don't belch out poisonous exhaust gases,
effectively carbon free by comparison to motorised vehicles.

What's that got to do with insurance? Cyclists should have this for
when they knock over or into pedestrians and other things.

I wouldn't argue with that. It should be compulsory.

Agreed!
Of course you carry such insurance.


No, like any vehicle, insurance is not required on private land.
I only cycle on private land now.
Besides, Cycle insurance is not compulsory on cycles at the moment.

Pedestrians also use private land and accidents do happen. A silly
pedestrian just might just enter your path from a blind corner and not
be
quick enough to get out of your privileged way.
Does it really have to be compulsory to make sense?



I ride sensibly and with respect to others.

This makes you immune from accidents does it?


60 years of cycling without hurting anyone (or animal) says, yes.

That means nothing of the sort. It means it has not happened.

On 28/08/2014 12:57, Mr Pounder wrote:
"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 27/08/2014 18:23, Mr Pounder wrote:
"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 26/08/2014 20:53, Mr Pounder wrote:
"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 26/08/2014 19:56, Mr Pounder wrote:
"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 26/08/2014 19:14, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Bod
wrote:

On 26/08/2014 18:32, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 26/08/2014 16:59, Bod wrote:
On 26/08/2014 16:50, Capitol wrote:
Bod wrote:
Stupid mistakes like turning left on the inside of large
lorries
who
were also turning left. An experienced cyclist would hang back
from any
lorries......Darwin strikes again :-)

There you are, an organ donor!

Yes, but the same could be said of young inexperienced car
drivers.
Their accident rate is disproportionally high, hence the silly
money
they have to fork out for car insurance.

As opposed to the zero money forked out by cyclists.

True, but cyclists don't belch out poisonous exhaust gases,
effectively carbon free by comparison to motorised vehicles.

What's that got to do with insurance? Cyclists should have this for
when they knock over or into pedestrians and other things.

I wouldn't argue with that. It should be compulsory.

Agreed!
Of course you carry such insurance.


No, like any vehicle, insurance is not required on private land.
I only cycle on private land now.
Besides, Cycle insurance is not compulsory on cycles at the moment.

Pedestrians also use private land and accidents do happen. A silly
pedestrian just might just enter your path from a blind corner and not
be
quick enough to get out of your privileged way.
Does it really have to be compulsory to make sense?



I ride sensibly and with respect to others.

This makes you immune from accidents does it?


60 years of cycling without hurting anyone (or animal) says, yes.

That means nothing of the sort. It means it has not happened.



And *won't* happen.
Have you got pedestrian insurance in case you trip over and fall
onto an old lady which breaks her hip?
Have you got dog insurance in case your dog kills a cat or bites someone?
"Does it have to be compulsory to make sense"? ;-)

"Bod" wrote in message ...

Big snip 8

"Does it have to be compulsory to make sense"? ;-)

Round here?

On 28/08/2014 12:06, Bod wrote:
On 28/08/2014 10:41, Tarcap wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message ...

On 26/08/2014 20:38, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 26/08/2014 18:39, Bod wrote:
On 26/08/2014 18:32, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 26/08/2014 16:59, Bod wrote:
On 26/08/2014 16:50, Capitol wrote:
Bod wrote:
Stupid mistakes like turning left on the inside of large lorries
who
were also turning left. An experienced cyclist would hang back from
any
lorries......Darwin strikes again :-)

There you are, an organ donor!

Yes, but the same could be said of young inexperienced car drivers.
Their accident rate is disproportionally high, hence the silly money
they have to fork out for car insurance.

As opposed to the zero money forked out by cyclists.

True, but cyclists don't belch out poisonous exhaust gases,

They fart a lot....


How do you know this strange trait? Are you a saddle sniffer?

You wouldn't have to be. You can smell the stench of a cyclist from
thirty paces.

You should stop hanging around pikey bike sheds.

Pikeys are too proud to associate with cyclists.

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

On 23/08/2014 22:24, Capitol wrote:
Dennis@home wrote:
On 23/08/2014 20:45, Uncle Peter wrote:

Then why do so many people run for exercise?


Everyone has to die some way.

True, Everyone I know who has indulged in exercise has either died
early or been injured. Mind you, pedal powered organ donors are a great
spare parts resource.

Did I ever tell you about the cyclist my daughter attended who had 'de
gloved' his penis?


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

"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 28/08/2014 12:57, Mr Pounder wrote:
"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 27/08/2014 18:23, Mr Pounder wrote:
"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 26/08/2014 20:53, Mr Pounder wrote:
"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 26/08/2014 19:56, Mr Pounder wrote:
"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 26/08/2014 19:14, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Bod
wrote:

On 26/08/2014 18:32, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 26/08/2014 16:59, Bod wrote:
On 26/08/2014 16:50, Capitol wrote:
Bod wrote:
Stupid mistakes like turning left on the inside of
large
lorries
who
were also turning left. An experienced cyclist would hang
back
from any
lorries......Darwin strikes again :-)

There you are, an organ donor!

Yes, but the same could be said of young inexperienced car
drivers.
Their accident rate is disproportionally high, hence the silly
money
they have to fork out for car insurance.

As opposed to the zero money forked out by cyclists.

True, but cyclists don't belch out poisonous exhaust gases,
effectively carbon free by comparison to motorised vehicles.

What's that got to do with insurance? Cyclists should have this
for
when they knock over or into pedestrians and other things.

I wouldn't argue with that. It should be compulsory.

Agreed!
Of course you carry such insurance.


No, like any vehicle, insurance is not required on private land.
I only cycle on private land now.
Besides, Cycle insurance is not compulsory on cycles at the moment.

Pedestrians also use private land and accidents do happen. A silly
pedestrian just might just enter your path from a blind corner and
not
be
quick enough to get out of your privileged way.
Does it really have to be compulsory to make sense?



I ride sensibly and with respect to others.

This makes you immune from accidents does it?


60 years of cycling without hurting anyone (or animal) says, yes.

That means nothing of the sort. It means it has not happened.



And *won't* happen.
Have you got pedestrian insurance in case you trip over and fall
onto an old lady which breaks her hip?
Have you got dog insurance in case your dog kills a cat or bites someone?
"Does it have to be compulsory to make sense"? ;-)

Can you see the future by saying it won't happen then?
Your pedestrian insurance question was just silly. Yes, we do have the dog
insured in case she bites somebody, this is included in her health
insurance. This makes sense but is not compulsory.

On 28/08/2014 18:26, Mr Pounder wrote:

Can you see the future by saying it won't happen then?
Your pedestrian insurance question was just silly.

What's silly about it?
Don't you have insurance in case you injure someone while out walking?

On 28/08/2014 18:00, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 28/08/2014 12:06, Bod wrote:
On 28/08/2014 10:41, Tarcap wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message ...

On 26/08/2014 20:38, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 26/08/2014 18:39, Bod wrote:
On 26/08/2014 18:32, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 26/08/2014 16:59, Bod wrote:
On 26/08/2014 16:50, Capitol wrote:
Bod wrote:
Stupid mistakes like turning left on the inside of large lorries
who
were also turning left. An experienced cyclist would hang back
from
any
lorries......Darwin strikes again :-)

There you are, an organ donor!

Yes, but the same could be said of young inexperienced car drivers.
Their accident rate is disproportionally high, hence the silly money
they have to fork out for car insurance.

As opposed to the zero money forked out by cyclists.

True, but cyclists don't belch out poisonous exhaust gases,

They fart a lot....


How do you know this strange trait? Are you a saddle sniffer?

You wouldn't have to be. You can smell the stench of a cyclist from
thirty paces.

You should stop hanging around pikey bike sheds.

Pikeys are too proud to associate with cyclists.

Being ignored by pikeys is a not a good thing!?

On 28/08/2014 18:26, Mr Pounder wrote:
"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 28/08/2014 12:57, Mr Pounder wrote:
"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 27/08/2014 18:23, Mr Pounder wrote:
"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 26/08/2014 20:53, Mr Pounder wrote:
"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 26/08/2014 19:56, Mr Pounder wrote:
"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 26/08/2014 19:14, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Bod
wrote:

On 26/08/2014 18:32, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 26/08/2014 16:59, Bod wrote:
On 26/08/2014 16:50, Capitol wrote:
Bod wrote:
Stupid mistakes like turning left on the inside of
large
lorries
who
were also turning left. An experienced cyclist would hang
back
from any
lorries......Darwin strikes again :-)

There you are, an organ donor!

Yes, but the same could be said of young inexperienced car
drivers.
Their accident rate is disproportionally high, hence the silly
money
they have to fork out for car insurance.

As opposed to the zero money forked out by cyclists.

True, but cyclists don't belch out poisonous exhaust gases,
effectively carbon free by comparison to motorised vehicles.

What's that got to do with insurance? Cyclists should have this
for
when they knock over or into pedestrians and other things.

I wouldn't argue with that. It should be compulsory.

Agreed!
Of course you carry such insurance.


No, like any vehicle, insurance is not required on private land.
I only cycle on private land now.
Besides, Cycle insurance is not compulsory on cycles at the moment.

Pedestrians also use private land and accidents do happen. A silly
pedestrian just might just enter your path from a blind corner and
not
be
quick enough to get out of your privileged way.
Does it really have to be compulsory to make sense?



I ride sensibly and with respect to others.

This makes you immune from accidents does it?


60 years of cycling without hurting anyone (or animal) says, yes.

That means nothing of the sort. It means it has not happened.



And *won't* happen.
Have you got pedestrian insurance in case you trip over and fall
onto an old lady which breaks her hip?
Have you got dog insurance in case your dog kills a cat or bites someone?
"Does it have to be compulsory to make sense"? ;-)

Can you see the future by saying it won't happen then?
Your pedestrian insurance question was just silly. Yes, we do have the dog
insured in case she bites somebody, this is included in her health
insurance. This makes sense but is not compulsory.



Where I cycle now, there is zero chance of injuring anybody the way I ride.
BTW, there are no "blind corners" on the wide gravel tracks that I
frequent. I rarely see anyone walking anyway, most days there are none.

"Dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 28/08/2014 18:26, Mr Pounder wrote:

Can you see the future by saying it won't happen then?
Your pedestrian insurance question was just silly.

What's silly about it?
Don't you have insurance in case you injure someone while out walking?

I may have. Give me a while to check my policies.

"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 28/08/2014 18:26, Mr Pounder wrote:
"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 28/08/2014 12:57, Mr Pounder wrote:
"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 27/08/2014 18:23, Mr Pounder wrote:
"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 26/08/2014 20:53, Mr Pounder wrote:
"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 26/08/2014 19:56, Mr Pounder wrote:
"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 26/08/2014 19:14, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Bod
wrote:

On 26/08/2014 18:32, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 26/08/2014 16:59, Bod wrote:
On 26/08/2014 16:50, Capitol wrote:
Bod wrote:
Stupid mistakes like turning left on the inside of
large
lorries
who
were also turning left. An experienced cyclist would hang
back
from any
lorries......Darwin strikes again :-)

There you are, an organ donor!

Yes, but the same could be said of young inexperienced car
drivers.
Their accident rate is disproportionally high, hence the
silly
money
they have to fork out for car insurance.

As opposed to the zero money forked out by cyclists.

True, but cyclists don't belch out poisonous exhaust gases,
effectively carbon free by comparison to motorised vehicles.

What's that got to do with insurance? Cyclists should have this
for
when they knock over or into pedestrians and other things.

I wouldn't argue with that. It should be compulsory.

Agreed!
Of course you carry such insurance.


No, like any vehicle, insurance is not required on private land.
I only cycle on private land now.
Besides, Cycle insurance is not compulsory on cycles at the
moment.

Pedestrians also use private land and accidents do happen. A silly
pedestrian just might just enter your path from a blind corner and
not
be
quick enough to get out of your privileged way.
Does it really have to be compulsory to make sense?



I ride sensibly and with respect to others.

This makes you immune from accidents does it?


60 years of cycling without hurting anyone (or animal) says, yes.

That means nothing of the sort. It means it has not happened.



And *won't* happen.
Have you got pedestrian insurance in case you trip over and fall
onto an old lady which breaks her hip?
Have you got dog insurance in case your dog kills a cat or bites
someone?
"Does it have to be compulsory to make sense"? ;-)

Can you see the future by saying it won't happen then?
Your pedestrian insurance question was just silly. Yes, we do have the
dog
insured in case she bites somebody, this is included in her health
insurance. This makes sense but is not compulsory.



Where I cycle now, there is zero chance of injuring anybody the way I
ride.
BTW, there are no "blind corners" on the wide gravel tracks that I
frequent. I rarely see anyone walking anyway, most days there are none.

You did not answer my question.
Can you foresee the future or not?

On 28/08/2014 19:18, Mr Pounder wrote:
"Dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 28/08/2014 18:26, Mr Pounder wrote:

Can you see the future by saying it won't happen then?
Your pedestrian insurance question was just silly.

What's silly about it?
Don't you have insurance in case you injure someone while out walking?

I may have. Give me a while to check my policies.



Mr Pounder has insurances for everything, including shoelace accident
insurance, in case he accidently strangles himself. ;-)

On 28/08/2014 19:19, Mr Pounder wrote:
"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 28/08/2014 18:26, Mr Pounder wrote:
"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 28/08/2014 12:57, Mr Pounder wrote:
"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 27/08/2014 18:23, Mr Pounder wrote:
"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 26/08/2014 20:53, Mr Pounder wrote:
"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 26/08/2014 19:56, Mr Pounder wrote:
"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 26/08/2014 19:14, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Bod
wrote:

On 26/08/2014 18:32, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 26/08/2014 16:59, Bod wrote:
On 26/08/2014 16:50, Capitol wrote:
Bod wrote:
Stupid mistakes like turning left on the inside of
large
lorries
who
were also turning left. An experienced cyclist would hang
back
from any
lorries......Darwin strikes again :-)

There you are, an organ donor!

Yes, but the same could be said of young inexperienced car
drivers.
Their accident rate is disproportionally high, hence the
silly
money
they have to fork out for car insurance.

As opposed to the zero money forked out by cyclists.

True, but cyclists don't belch out poisonous exhaust gases,
effectively carbon free by comparison to motorised vehicles.

What's that got to do with insurance? Cyclists should have this
for
when they knock over or into pedestrians and other things.

I wouldn't argue with that. It should be compulsory.

Agreed!
Of course you carry such insurance.


No, like any vehicle, insurance is not required on private land.
I only cycle on private land now.
Besides, Cycle insurance is not compulsory on cycles at the
moment.

Pedestrians also use private land and accidents do happen. A silly
pedestrian just might just enter your path from a blind corner and
not
be
quick enough to get out of your privileged way.
Does it really have to be compulsory to make sense?



I ride sensibly and with respect to others.

This makes you immune from accidents does it?


60 years of cycling without hurting anyone (or animal) says, yes.

That means nothing of the sort. It means it has not happened.



And *won't* happen.
Have you got pedestrian insurance in case you trip over and fall
onto an old lady which breaks her hip?
Have you got dog insurance in case your dog kills a cat or bites
someone?
"Does it have to be compulsory to make sense"? ;-)

Can you see the future by saying it won't happen then?
Your pedestrian insurance question was just silly. Yes, we do have the
dog
insured in case she bites somebody, this is included in her health
insurance. This makes sense but is not compulsory.



Where I cycle now, there is zero chance of injuring anybody the way I
ride.
BTW, there are no "blind corners" on the wide gravel tracks that I
frequent. I rarely see anyone walking anyway, most days there are none.

You did not answer my question.
Can you foresee the future or not?


For cycling where I cycle and not hurting anyone? Yes.
If I see someone walking in my sight, I slow right down to crawl untill
I've gone past them. They would have more chance of being struck by
lightning than by me hurting them.
I must remember to renew my trouser insurance, just in case they explode
and kill someone.

On 28/08/14 18:41, Dennis@home wrote:
Don't you have insurance in case you injure someone while out walking?
Many household policies carry implicit third party claims insurance for
all sorts of things - its worth while checking this out.


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 28/08/14 18:41, Dennis@home wrote:
Don't you have insurance in case you injure someone while out walking?
Many household policies carry implicit third party claims insurance for
all sorts of things - its worth while checking this out.


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

"Dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 28/08/2014 18:26, Mr Pounder wrote:

Can you see the future by saying it won't happen then?
Your pedestrian insurance question was just silly.

What's silly about it?

You are very unlikely to injure anyone as a pedestrian.

Don't you have insurance in case you injure someone while out walking?

Nope, because I know that I wont injure anyone while out walking unless say
I have a fit or something, in which case their injury is their problem, not
mine.

"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 28/08/2014 19:18, Mr Pounder wrote:
"Dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 28/08/2014 18:26, Mr Pounder wrote:

Can you see the future by saying it won't happen then?
Your pedestrian insurance question was just silly.

What's silly about it?
Don't you have insurance in case you injure someone while out walking?

I may have. Give me a while to check my policies.



Mr Pounder has insurances for everything, including shoelace accident
insurance, in case he accidently strangles himself. ;-)

I only wear slippers these days.

On 28/08/2014 20:26, Rod Speed wrote:


"Dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 28/08/2014 18:26, Mr Pounder wrote:

Can you see the future by saying it won't happen then?
Your pedestrian insurance question was just silly.

What's silly about it?

You are very unlikely to injure anyone as a pedestrian.

Don't you have insurance in case you injure someone while out walking?

Nope, because I know that I wont injure anyone while out walking unless say
I have a fit or something, in which case their injury is their problem,
not mine.

Pedestrians can harm other people, cyclists have been killed and many
injured by errant pedestrians. It is quite feasible to sue anyone that
causes loss or damage to another. Life time care for one person may run
into millions. 3rd party insurance is definitely a good idea.
There was one a couple of weeks ago:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-28787709

On 28/08/2014 20:42, Mrcheerful wrote:

Pedestrians can harm other people, cyclists have been killed and many
injured by errant pedestrians. It is quite feasible to sue anyone that
causes loss or damage to another. Life time care for one person may run
into millions. 3rd party insurance is definitely a good idea.
There was one a couple of weeks ago:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-28787709

Now, did the pedestrian run into the bike, or vice versa? Was the
cyclist on the pavement, or the pedestrian on the road? The article
doesn't tell us, nor do any of the others I found.

Still, it's not a bad thing to be cycling at 77.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 28/08/2014 20:57, John Williamson wrote:
On 28/08/2014 20:42, Mrcheerful wrote:

Pedestrians can harm other people, cyclists have been killed and many
injured by errant pedestrians. It is quite feasible to sue anyone that
causes loss or damage to another. Life time care for one person may run
into millions. 3rd party insurance is definitely a good idea.
There was one a couple of weeks ago:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-28787709

Now, did the pedestrian run into the bike, or vice versa? Was the
cyclist on the pavement, or the pedestrian on the road? The article
doesn't tell us, nor do any of the others I found.

Still, it's not a bad thing to be cycling at 77.

Checks Streeview Okay, there's no pavement. Which puts responsibility
on both the pedestrian and the cyclist to take extra care.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.