On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 13:43:41 +0000 (UTC)
Adrian wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 12:40:08 +0000, spud-u-dont-like wrote:
I shall explain. You think cyclists should not be able to use certain
roads since they do not pay to use the roads. Right?

Yup.

Therefore paying conveys enhanced priority. Right?

Nope. It simply conveys them the right to use said roads. They'd have no
more priority than they have now.

Do people in cars who have not paid VED (ie older cars, low emission
cars, disabled drivers) sit on the same perceived "normal" level of
priority as other drivers, or the perceived lower level as cyclists, in
your view?

When people in old or low emission cars start endlessly whinging about other
drivers being nasty to them and how the roads should be redone in special
way just for them, then I'll have a think about that. In the meantime I don't
give a ****.

--
Spud

On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 17:21:55 +0000 (UTC)
Adrian wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 18:06:58 +0100, Arthur Figgis wrote:

And what about disabled cyclists?

Duhg's dead.

Is he really dead or are you being sarcastic? If the former, when did he die?

NJR

On Thu, 01 Aug 2013 10:19:35 +0000, neil wrote:

And what about disabled cyclists?

Duhg's dead.

Is he really dead or are you being sarcastic?

I have no idea. But, with his age and medical status, it's definitely
more than evens.

On Thu, 01 Aug 2013 10:18:23 +0000, spud-u-dont-like wrote:

Therefore paying conveys enhanced priority. Right?

Nope. It simply conveys them the right to use said roads. They'd have no
more priority than they have now.

I think that's a "Yes", given the caveat as to the use of the word
"priority" which you snipped.

(If it helps clear up what I suspect is the cause of confusion, then I
don't mean "priority" in a Give Way sense, but in the more general
sense. Importance. Relevance. Whatever word you may prefer.)

In the Give Way sense of "priority", then bicycles have exactly the same
as any other type of vehicle - which is how it should be.

Do people in cars who have not paid VED (ie older cars, low emission
cars, disabled drivers) sit on the same perceived "normal" level of
priority as other drivers, or the perceived lower level as cyclists, in
your view?

When people in old or low emission cars start endlessly whinging about
other drivers being nasty to them and how the roads should be redone in
special way just for them, then I'll have a think about that. In the
meantime I don't give a ****.

Thank you for confirming that the VED thing is nothing more than a red
herring, and you are just inherently biased against the bicycle.

On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 10:12:11AM +0000, d wrote:

You must have cloth ears then. Every other week there's some shrieking crustie
on the TV or local radio saying "something must be done!" about cycling
deaths in London. I know - how about cyclists learn to use their ****ing
eyes and common sense and don't go up the inside of a truck or bus turning
left! You never know, it might just work.

Or up the right of a vehicle signalling to turn right. That's what
happened the only time I ran a cyclist over. Thankfully, he did it right
in front of a nice gentleman from the Met who was waiting to cross the
road on foot. If he hadn't then it would, of course, have been found to
be my fault.

--
David Cantrell | Pope | First Church of the Symmetrical Internet

I remember when computers were frustrating because they did
exactly what you told them to. That seems kinda quaint now.
-- JD Baldwin, in the Monastery

On Thu, 1 Aug 2013 11:09:59 +0000 (UTC)
Adrian wrote:
On Thu, 01 Aug 2013 10:18:23 +0000, spud-u-dont-like wrote:
When people in old or low emission cars start endlessly whinging about
other drivers being nasty to them and how the roads should be redone in
special way just for them, then I'll have a think about that. In the
meantime I don't give a ****.

Thank you for confirming that the VED thing is nothing more than a red
herring, and you are just inherently biased against the bicycle.

Since when? Bikes should pay some sort of tax to use the roads. End of.
Do I think old or low emission cars should be exempt? No.

Now if those 2 statements are too complex for you then too bad. Discussion
over.

--
Spud

On Thu, 01 Aug 2013 12:44:15 +0100
David Cantrell wrote:
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 10:12:11AM +0000, d wrote:

You must have cloth ears then. Every other week there's some shrieking
crustie
on the TV or local radio saying "something must be done!" about cycling
deaths in London. I know - how about cyclists learn to use their ****ing
eyes and common sense and don't go up the inside of a truck or bus turning
left! You never know, it might just work.

Or up the right of a vehicle signalling to turn right. That's what
happened the only time I ran a cyclist over. Thankfully, he did it right
in front of a nice gentleman from the Met who was waiting to cross the
road on foot. If he hadn't then it would, of course, have been found to
be my fault.

I've got a good one - some dumb **** on a bike riding ON hanger lane
gyratory. For those who don't know its 4 - 7 lane wide roundabout in west
london. It also has subways running all the way underneath it that include
clearer marked and segregated cycle paths. The guy either was a complete fool
or was just being bloody minded for the sake of it, take your pick.

NJR

On Thu, 01 Aug 2013 12:54:01 +0000, spud-u-dont-like wrote:

When people in old or low emission cars start endlessly whinging about
other drivers being nasty to them and how the roads should be redone
in special way just for them, then I'll have a think about that. In
the meantime I don't give a ****.

Thank you for confirming that the VED thing is nothing more than a red
herring, and you are just inherently biased against the bicycle.

Since when?

OK, my apologies. So let's go back a step.

Bikes should pay some sort of tax to use the roads. End of.

Yes, I think we understand your view on the subject

Do I think old or low emission cars should be exempt? No.

Don't forget disabled drivers. Should they be exempt, iyho?

Such is your prerogative.

But the fact remains that - like cyclists - they do not currently pay VED.
Since that IS the case (and unlikely to change soon, especially since the
old vehicle exemption is currently being extended), do your clearly and
frequently expressed beliefs about restricting road use for zero-VED-
paying cyclists apply to zero-VED-paying drivers, too?

It's a simple question, and surely a yes or no answer will cover it.

Now if those 2 statements are too complex for you then too bad.

I understand them perfectly well, thank you. I am asking you follow-on
questions based on them. You appear to be trying very hard not to answer
those questions.

Discussion over.

You can choose to ignore the questions if you feel they're too difficult
for you to answer without showing a true agenda which you are embarrassed
about admitting, but other people may decide that revealing in itself.

On Thu, 1 Aug 2013 13:16:23 +0000 (UTC)
Adrian wrote:
On Thu, 01 Aug 2013 12:54:01 +0000, spud-u-dont-like wrote:
Do I think old or low emission cars should be exempt? No.

Don't forget disabled drivers. Should they be exempt, iyho?

Try reading what I wrote a few posts back. It might help.

--
Spud

On Thu, 01 Aug 2013 13:19:20 +0000, spud-u-dont-like wrote:

a bit more vacuous bluster to try to derail inspection

I notice you snipped the awkward question again.

... do your clearly and frequently expressed beliefs about restricting
road use for zero-VED-paying cyclists apply to zero-VED-paying
drivers, too?

It's a simple question, and surely a yes or no answer will cover it.

I think it's fairly clear now that you're trying to avoid answering the
question, which can really only lead to one conclusion. That VED is a red
herring, and it's the bicycle itself which your objections pertain to.
The rest is just bluster to try to hide your true motives.

Yes or No?