The 'cyclists should pay road tax' folks
Discussion
Heaveho said:
kiseca said:
To me arrogance is sitting in a car or a truck, in a mile long queue of cars and trucks, unable to overtake a single bicycle because of a constant stream of cars and trucks coming the other way, and thinking that the single bike is the cause of all your delay, not the thousands of cars surrounding you.
No, that's just your own inability to make the distinction between vehicles that are necessary, as opposed to those that are a hindrance to them. Where's the sense in having one idiot feeling it's ok to do something unnecessary in the rush hour, to the detriment of those who have no choice but to travel by van in order to be able to do their job? The speed limit on the road in question is 30mph, not 10.BGarside said:
Finlandia said:
... just pointing out that cyclists have it easy really, and that it will change over time.
.....
Yeah, we're having a ball out here - heavily trafficked roads, ignorant, aggressive drivers, cyclist accident rate increasing, potholed roads, stty weather. .....
What could be more fun than fighting hordes of speeding vehicles for a tiny piece of tarmac every day?
Mave said:
Finlandia said:
Then we are back to 'don't take the piss and you won't get in trouble'.
It may not be against the law
There's no "may" about it, it's not breaking the law.It may not be against the law
So when did it start becoming ok to charge someone with breaking a law that doesn't exist?
Finlandia said:
Mave said:
Finlandia said:
Then we are back to 'don't take the piss and you won't get in trouble'.
It may not be against the law
There's no "may" about it, it's not breaking the law.It may not be against the law
So when did it start becoming ok to charge someone with breaking a law that doesn't exist?
Do you also want to ban mountaineering?
Don't get your response there Winston, Mave's response to the Swedish cycle baiter is clearer.
No-one with any decency rides overly fast around kids on shared paths, no-one with any decency uses parent and child spaces needlessly, no-one with any decency does gratuitously wear red trousers in public - but until those things are made illegal, no-one should be being penalised/prosecuted for doing those things. A word, appealing to their better nature definitely. Makey-uppy policing, no.
No-one with any decency rides overly fast around kids on shared paths, no-one with any decency uses parent and child spaces needlessly, no-one with any decency does gratuitously wear red trousers in public - but until those things are made illegal, no-one should be being penalised/prosecuted for doing those things. A word, appealing to their better nature definitely. Makey-uppy policing, no.
Finlandia said:
WinstonWolf said:
Finlandia said:
Kill yourself if you like, but don't put others at danger while doing it.
And not wearing a cycle helmet puts others in danger how???Ahimoth said:
No-one with any decency rides overly fast around kids on shared paths
Finlandia said:
Mave said:
Finlandia said:
It's not the same though, there would be no outcry if drivers got fined for doing double or more the speed limit, well some would, but you get the picture
If you are unable to judge your speed roughly to keep it at the posted 10mph limit, then maybe you should get a GPS speedo or an app for your mobile that shows your speed, or cycle elsewhere.
I think you've missed my point. I suspect there would be an outcry if motorists were given speeding tickets when they weren't speeding. So why be surprised if cyclists get annoyed about being given a speeding ticket when they weren't speeding?If you are unable to judge your speed roughly to keep it at the posted 10mph limit, then maybe you should get a GPS speedo or an app for your mobile that shows your speed, or cycle elsewhere.
It may not be against the law, but it's not big and clever either, and it looks like someone has had enough of it or there wouldn't have been any speed checks.
WinstonWolf said:
Finlandia said:
Mave said:
Finlandia said:
Then we are back to 'don't take the piss and you won't get in trouble'.
It may not be against the law
There's no "may" about it, it's not breaking the law.It may not be against the law
So when did it start becoming ok to charge someone with breaking a law that doesn't exist?
Do you also want to ban mountaineering?
WinstonWolf said:
Finlandia said:
WinstonWolf said:
Finlandia said:
Kill yourself if you like, but don't put others at danger while doing it.
And not wearing a cycle helmet puts others in danger how???Ahimoth said:
No-one with any decency rides overly fast around kids on shared paths
walm said:
WinstonWolf said:
Err, that is an answer to a completely different question, unless you're completely mental?
I can quite confidently say he's mental.Either that or his multi-thread trolling got confused and he started arguing with himself like that muppet with a Jag.
Finlandia said:
walm said:
WinstonWolf said:
Err, that is an answer to a completely different question, unless you're completely mental?
I can quite confidently say he's mental.Either that or his multi-thread trolling got confused and he started arguing with himself like that muppet with a Jag.
I bet you didn't realise quite how many petrol heads also cycle...
Finlandia said:
walm said:
WinstonWolf said:
Err, that is an answer to a completely different question, unless you're completely mental?
I can quite confidently say he's mental.Either that or his multi-thread trolling got confused and he started arguing with himself like that muppet with a Jag.
You started off perfectly reasonable but now you are just throwing up strawmen left and right and arguing with yourself.
No one suggested cycling fast through a bunch of toddlers.
They objected to fines for not breaking the law - a completely valid point which you failed to address.
You posted a picture of an advisory limit - irrelevant.
Now you have claimed that cycle helmets magically protect heads from all head injuries - completely false.
You completely failed to address the issue that compulsory helmet laws discourage cycling and cost the NHS far more in fatty treatment than they ever lose through putting heads back together.
And lastly you appear to think that no wearing a cycle helmet endangers other people.
Utter madness.
Is English your first language?
WinstonWolf said:
Finlandia said:
walm said:
WinstonWolf said:
Err, that is an answer to a completely different question, unless you're completely mental?
I can quite confidently say he's mental.Either that or his multi-thread trolling got confused and he started arguing with himself like that muppet with a Jag.
I bet you didn't realise quite how many petrol heads also cycle...
Do you agree with: No-one with any decency rides overly fast around kids on shared paths
Still, no reason for insulting people, is there?
walm said:
Finlandia said:
walm said:
WinstonWolf said:
Err, that is an answer to a completely different question, unless you're completely mental?
I can quite confidently say he's mental.Either that or his multi-thread trolling got confused and he started arguing with himself like that muppet with a Jag.
You started off perfectly reasonable but now you are just throwing up strawmen left and right and arguing with yourself.
No one suggested cycling fast through a bunch of toddlers.
They objected to fines for not breaking the law - a completely valid point which you failed to address.
You posted a picture of an advisory limit - irrelevant.
Now you have claimed that cycle helmets magically protect heads from all head injuries - completely false.
You completely failed to address the issue that compulsory helmet laws discourage cycling and cost the NHS far more in fatty treatment than they ever lose through putting heads back together.
And lastly you appear to think that no wearing a cycle helmet endangers other people.
Utter madness.
Is English your first language?
There have been police at the beach walk to zap speeding cyclists, why are they there when it's not breaking any laws? Obviously there is a problem with fast moving cyclists, and some sort of deterrent has been agreed on.
A helmet protects your head from injury, it will not save your life, but it protects your skull better than your hair does.
Read the quotes, a cyclist going too fast on a busy and narrow beach promenade endangers others.
Finlandia said:
WinstonWolf said:
Finlandia said:
walm said:
WinstonWolf said:
Err, that is an answer to a completely different question, unless you're completely mental?
I can quite confidently say he's mental.Either that or his multi-thread trolling got confused and he started arguing with himself like that muppet with a Jag.
I bet you didn't realise quite how many petrol heads also cycle...
Do you agree with: No-one with any decency rides overly fast around kids on shared paths
Still, no reason for insulting people, is there?
WinstonWolf said:
Finlandia said:
WinstonWolf said:
Finlandia said:
walm said:
WinstonWolf said:
Err, that is an answer to a completely different question, unless you're completely mental?
I can quite confidently say he's mental.Either that or his multi-thread trolling got confused and he started arguing with himself like that muppet with a Jag.
I bet you didn't realise quite how many petrol heads also cycle...
Do you agree with: No-one with any decency rides overly fast around kids on shared paths
Still, no reason for insulting people, is there?
Finlandia said:
You don't think there will ever be any sort of licencing/fee/tax for bicycles, I think the opposite, without insulting you.
Not in the UK no, nor anywhere in Europe, I don't think. There does seem to be an issue in English-speaking countries with cycling for some reason, where it is discouraged or remains as unsupported as possible, whilst obesity and poor health goes through the roof.
But leaving that aside, I'd have a wager with you if we can think of how to make it work: I bet you that there will be a repeal of helmet laws before there'll be tax on bicycles.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff