Bicycle, crash hat and accident

[Capitol]

The judge defined nearly a century ago, that a pedal powered organ donor is entitled to his wobble

[The Medway Handyman]

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.

Softy.

[The Medway Handyman]

Cyclists guilt.

Can't happen too soon.

[The Medway Handyman]

An excellent example of cyclists causing pollution. One cyclists struggling up a slight incline at 5mph can hold up 20 cars.

[Adrian]

In message , Tim Lamb writes

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

[The Other Mike]

Except I'm a petrolhead that owns several cars *and* several cycles, the cars outnumber the cycles.

[The Other Mike]

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.

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 :)

[The Other Mike]

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.

[Huge]

Garbage. Cyclists pay VAT on their stupid toys and ludicrous clothing, Insurance Premium Tax if they bother to buy any and ... well, that's it. All the rest of what you mention is utterly irrelevant.

[Huge]

Irrelevant. They should be paying for the provision of the infrastructure in the first place.

[The Medway Handyman]

4 times at least.

can hold up hundreds

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.

[The Medway Handyman]

And you pay road tax on each individual car.

[The Medway Handyman]

Cyclists cause congestion, cycle lanes delay traffic and terrorise pedestrians.

Fine. As long as you don't want a plumber, an ambulance, or any goods in the shops.

[The Other Mike]

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 fuckwits that seek to impose their blinkered shortsighted regime on everyone.

[Judith]

It must have been a very long hill down which you were travelling.

[Judith]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1.

Denis Moore, 50 admitted causing death by dangerous driving when he collided with cyclist James Jorgensen, 55, in September 2008 on a roundabout in Seaham, County Durham. Jorgensen died eight days later of severe head injuries. Although the court was told that Moore was only driving at around 20mph, Moore?s solicitor acknowledged that his client had suffered a ?momentary lapse of concentration?.

At Durham Crown Court last Friday, Judge Richard Lowden gave Moore a 24-week suspended prison sentence. He said the fact that Jorgensen had not been wearing a helmet was a ?mitigating factor? and Moore?s sentence was reduced accordingly

====================================================================

Case 2.

However, when ruling on the case Justice Williams expressed the view that not wearing a helmet could put a cyclist at fault and make them partly responsible for their own brain damage. ?There can be no doubt that the failure to wear a helmet may expose the cyclist to risk of greater injury,? he stated. Subject to limitations, ?any injury sustained may be the cyclist?s own fault.?

[fred]

Ay but they don't use the bloody cycle lanes. Local town had new by pass built some years back. It includes a dedicated cycle lane, behind a kerb separating it from the bus lane.

Use it ?

Nah, only for wimps

We'll use the bus lane, preferably two abreast, and force the buses out into the inside traffic lane.

Effing selfish pillocks

[The Other Mike]

Maybe no one needs to be eliminated to start with as it helps to solve the obesity crisis, saving the NHS billions.

But when the culling starts it's the greens and those in receipt of FIT payments that are at the front of the queue regardless of their BMI.

[The Other Mike]

Getting buses off the roads would leave far more space those who can afford to drive in their own vehicles (and for cyclists and pedestrians)

Every time I visit a big town or city I'm always stuck behind a queue of buses, each with a maximum of two people onboard, one being the driver and the other a passenger who has probably been dead for 20 years.

[The Other Mike]

Exactly. A return to local tradespeople that had no option but to do a good job at a fair price or they'd get beaten to a pulp in the local pub.

The days of the white van man flitting from job to job and polluting the atmosphere would be consigned to the past in a fast reacting truly local economy.