First-look: how Richmond Hill could be transformed when new cycle lane and 20mph zone are introduced

HOW IT MIGHT LOOK: An artist’s impression of the plans for Richmond Hill

HOW IT IS TODAY: Looking down Richmond Hill from the Echo office

First published in News
Last updated
by

NEW speed limits, parking restrictions and a cycle lane are to be installed on Bournemouth’s Richmond Hill following discussions with local businesses.

Bournemouth council said it has had positive feedback from businesses concerning the proposals and will formally advertise the scheme in the next few weeks.

The changes include making the majority of Richmond Hill – from the top of the hill down to St Stephen’s Road – a 20mph zone and replacing the existing pedestrian refuge at the top of the hill.

There will be an uphill cycle lane on the stretch outside Portman House and cycle stands installed outside Granville Chambers and the Ink Bar.

Raised buff-coloured surfaces will be installed outside the entrance to Portman House and around the junction of St Stephen’s Road and Yelverton Road.

Trees will be planted at several points and new seating installed on the hill.

The changes are part of the Three Towns Travel scheme, which aims to improve key travel routes in Bournemouth, Poole and Christchurch.

The Richmond Hill scheme follows alterations to the layout of the Richmond Hill round-about, which aimed to make it safer and easier for cyclists to navigate.

Cllr Michael Filer, cabinet member for transport, said: “The proposed new layout has been designed to enhance the environment for all users, as well as giving people better options for how they travel such as walking or cycling.

“This will include the widening of pavements, providing additional pedestrian crossing facilities and a segregated cycle lane on one side of the road.

“In order to make the area more attractive, additional trees and street furniture will also be included. Over the last 10 years there have been around 24 accidents at the junction with St Stephen’s Road, so the proposed scheme has been designed to reduce these in the future.”

Comments (137)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:43am Fri 4 Jul 14

Moro99 says...

Good news , Richmond hill seems to attract show offs in their cars who speed. It always feels dangerous there to me. 24 accidents at one junction is a lot.
Good news , Richmond hill seems to attract show offs in their cars who speed. It always feels dangerous there to me. 24 accidents at one junction is a lot. Moro99
  • Score: 25

6:59am Fri 4 Jul 14

itsneverblackorwhite says...

More money for the town centre, while the residents roads are full of potholes. uneven pavements, and a lack of road safety controls, still I am sure someone at the council will say these improvements will bring in money to the local economy!
More money for the town centre, while the residents roads are full of potholes. uneven pavements, and a lack of road safety controls, still I am sure someone at the council will say these improvements will bring in money to the local economy! itsneverblackorwhite
  • Score: 32

7:33am Fri 4 Jul 14

BIGTONE says...

The changes are part of the Three Towns Travel scheme, which aims to improve key travel routes in Bournemouth, Poole and Christchurch.




How is Richmond Hill a key travel route?

The Wessex way is,as is main bus routes.
The changes are part of the Three Towns Travel scheme, which aims to improve key travel routes in Bournemouth, Poole and Christchurch. How is Richmond Hill a key travel route? The Wessex way is,as is main bus routes. BIGTONE
  • Score: 43

7:35am Fri 4 Jul 14

Lord Spring says...

20 mph speed limit what for cyclist descending .
20 mph speed limit what for cyclist descending . Lord Spring
  • Score: 34

7:42am Fri 4 Jul 14

Lord Spring says...

Moro99 wrote:
Good news , Richmond hill seems to attract show offs in their cars who speed. It always feels dangerous there to me. 24 accidents at one junction is a lot.
2.4 a year what does that make the Spur Road you get that a week.
[quote][p][bold]Moro99[/bold] wrote: Good news , Richmond hill seems to attract show offs in their cars who speed. It always feels dangerous there to me. 24 accidents at one junction is a lot.[/p][/quote]2.4 a year what does that make the Spur Road you get that a week. Lord Spring
  • Score: 16

7:54am Fri 4 Jul 14

Hessenford says...

24 accidents over 10 years, what type of accidents, my guess would be cars turning right into St Stephens Road, not exactly headline news or an excuse for spending thousands on this rubbish which will only put another nail in the town centers coffin.
24 accidents over 10 years, what type of accidents, my guess would be cars turning right into St Stephens Road, not exactly headline news or an excuse for spending thousands on this rubbish which will only put another nail in the town centers coffin. Hessenford
  • Score: 18

8:08am Fri 4 Jul 14

mac340v8 says...

Put everything back to how it was 30 years ago. Open up the square again to traffic, Put the Wessex way back how it was, and while we're at it , unD*** Poole town centre and the Upton bypass/Dorset way...
Put everything back to how it was 30 years ago. Open up the square again to traffic, Put the Wessex way back how it was, and while we're at it , unD*** Poole town centre and the Upton bypass/Dorset way... mac340v8
  • Score: 6

8:10am Fri 4 Jul 14

mac340v8 says...

*unF*** *
*unF*** * mac340v8
  • Score: -3

8:18am Fri 4 Jul 14

live-and-let-live says...

councils are running out of things to spend your money on.
councils are running out of things to spend your money on. live-and-let-live
  • Score: 27

8:20am Fri 4 Jul 14

Dragback says...

The accicents are probaly caused by people turning left out of St Stephens Road. As well as looking out for pedestrians crossing it's a bit blind trying to see cars coming up the hill whilst also trying looking out for cars turning right directly opposite from Yelverton road who are trying to cross traffic to go up the hill.
The accicents are probaly caused by people turning left out of St Stephens Road. As well as looking out for pedestrians crossing it's a bit blind trying to see cars coming up the hill whilst also trying looking out for cars turning right directly opposite from Yelverton road who are trying to cross traffic to go up the hill. Dragback
  • Score: 4

8:20am Fri 4 Jul 14

justme20092009 says...

stop spending money on cycle lanes untill they are made to have insurance and road tax
stop spending money on cycle lanes untill they are made to have insurance and road tax justme20092009
  • Score: -11

8:23am Fri 4 Jul 14

Hessenford says...

BIGTONE wrote:
The changes are part of the Three Towns Travel scheme, which aims to improve key travel routes in Bournemouth, Poole and Christchurch.




How is Richmond Hill a key travel route?

The Wessex way is,as is main bus routes.
Well said, A key route straight into a pedestrianised precinct, I don't think so, with regard to the 24 accidents, simple solution, either shut off St Stephens road or make it a no right turn off Richmond Hill.
[quote][p][bold]BIGTONE[/bold] wrote: The changes are part of the Three Towns Travel scheme, which aims to improve key travel routes in Bournemouth, Poole and Christchurch. How is Richmond Hill a key travel route? The Wessex way is,as is main bus routes.[/p][/quote]Well said, A key route straight into a pedestrianised precinct, I don't think so, with regard to the 24 accidents, simple solution, either shut off St Stephens road or make it a no right turn off Richmond Hill. Hessenford
  • Score: 11

8:27am Fri 4 Jul 14

Hessenford says...

justme20092009 wrote:
stop spending money on cycle lanes untill they are made to have insurance and road tax
Bring on the comments "there is no such thing as road tax", it'll probably be a cyclist.
[quote][p][bold]justme20092009[/bold] wrote: stop spending money on cycle lanes untill they are made to have insurance and road tax[/p][/quote]Bring on the comments "there is no such thing as road tax", it'll probably be a cyclist. Hessenford
  • Score: -31

8:33am Fri 4 Jul 14

Tango Charlie says...

During planning, please think how much room a 18 tonne delivery lorry needs to turn into the side roads. Make the cycle lanes a give way at the junctions.
During planning, please think how much room a 18 tonne delivery lorry needs to turn into the side roads. Make the cycle lanes a give way at the junctions. Tango Charlie
  • Score: 6

8:42am Fri 4 Jul 14

twynham says...

There is no such thing as road tax. ;-))
There is no such thing as road tax. ;-)) twynham
  • Score: 30

8:46am Fri 4 Jul 14

Wolfstan says...

When you come out of the junction aren't you generally doing under 20 miles anyway? If not, that's a hell of a standing start... 0 - 20+ in about 4 feet?
When you come out of the junction aren't you generally doing under 20 miles anyway? If not, that's a hell of a standing start... 0 - 20+ in about 4 feet? Wolfstan
  • Score: 11

8:48am Fri 4 Jul 14

s-pb2 says...

Hessenford wrote:
justme20092009 wrote:
stop spending money on cycle lanes untill they are made to have insurance and road tax
Bring on the comments "there is no such thing as road tax", it'll probably be a cyclist.
Well there isnt such a thing as road tax! Only very stupid people seem to think there is.

And I havent got on a cycle since the 90s!
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]justme20092009[/bold] wrote: stop spending money on cycle lanes untill they are made to have insurance and road tax[/p][/quote]Bring on the comments "there is no such thing as road tax", it'll probably be a cyclist.[/p][/quote]Well there isnt such a thing as road tax! Only very stupid people seem to think there is. And I havent got on a cycle since the 90s! s-pb2
  • Score: 23

8:55am Fri 4 Jul 14

Hessenford says...

twynham wrote:
There is no such thing as road tax. ;-))
Told you.
[quote][p][bold]twynham[/bold] wrote: There is no such thing as road tax. ;-))[/p][/quote]Told you. Hessenford
  • Score: -24

9:03am Fri 4 Jul 14

Hessenford says...

s-pb2 wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
justme20092009 wrote:
stop spending money on cycle lanes untill they are made to have insurance and road tax
Bring on the comments "there is no such thing as road tax", it'll probably be a cyclist.
Well there isnt such a thing as road tax! Only very stupid people seem to think there is.

And I havent got on a cycle since the 90s!
Is that 1990s or age range.
[quote][p][bold]s-pb2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]justme20092009[/bold] wrote: stop spending money on cycle lanes untill they are made to have insurance and road tax[/p][/quote]Bring on the comments "there is no such thing as road tax", it'll probably be a cyclist.[/p][/quote]Well there isnt such a thing as road tax! Only very stupid people seem to think there is. And I havent got on a cycle since the 90s![/p][/quote]Is that 1990s or age range. Hessenford
  • Score: -13

9:03am Fri 4 Jul 14

Victor_Meldrew_Lives! says...

"1. The Richmond Hill scheme follows alterations to the layout of the Richmond Hill round-about, which aimed to make it safer and easier for cyclists to navigate."

"2.Cllr Michael Filer, cabinet member for transport, said: “The proposed new layout has been designed to enhance the environment for all users, as well as giving people better options for how they travel such as walking or cycling."

1. Never seen a cyclist on that roundabout. The traffic lights are exactly the same as traffic lights on ANY roundabout. Completely pointless and negate the purpose of a roundabout - free flow of traffic.

2. Enhance the environment for all users?? Not for motorists it won't. Perhaps as has already been mentioned they could resurface some of the potholed roads in the area instead of tinkering at the edges. Widening junctions would help too.
"1. The Richmond Hill scheme follows alterations to the layout of the Richmond Hill round-about, which aimed to make it safer and easier for cyclists to navigate." "2.Cllr Michael Filer, cabinet member for transport, said: “The proposed new layout has been designed to enhance the environment for all users, as well as giving people better options for how they travel such as walking or cycling." 1. Never seen a cyclist on that roundabout. The traffic lights are exactly the same as traffic lights on ANY roundabout. Completely pointless and negate the purpose of a roundabout - free flow of traffic. 2. Enhance the environment for all users?? Not for motorists it won't. Perhaps as has already been mentioned they could resurface some of the potholed roads in the area instead of tinkering at the edges. Widening junctions would help too. Victor_Meldrew_Lives!
  • Score: 19

9:05am Fri 4 Jul 14

stopputting hyphonsintext says...

Will the new parking restrictions prevent all the people who already park waiting for their relative/partners on double yellow lines outside the Nationwide offices at home time? They are a danger and maybe the council could use their snooper van to catch all those people whilst the council can still legally use the van?
Will the new parking restrictions prevent all the people who already park waiting for their relative/partners on double yellow lines outside the Nationwide offices at home time? They are a danger and maybe the council could use their snooper van to catch all those people whilst the council can still legally use the van? stopputting hyphonsintext
  • Score: 13

9:12am Fri 4 Jul 14

Marty Caine UKIP says...

I wonder how many of those 24 accidents in 10 years involved delivery vehicles, has the Council actually considered the fact that Richmond Hill happens to be a major drop of point from many deliveries to Bournemouth's retail outlets, not the ideal route to be forcing cyclists down is it.
I wonder how many of those 24 accidents in 10 years involved delivery vehicles, has the Council actually considered the fact that Richmond Hill happens to be a major drop of point from many deliveries to Bournemouth's retail outlets, not the ideal route to be forcing cyclists down is it. Marty Caine UKIP
  • Score: -6

9:41am Fri 4 Jul 14

nickynoodah says...

The little old geezer is only 79 so he says
never mastered riding a bike
never had a drivers licence
in fact he never got past a tricycle
spent all his time fiddling
so he says
to here him talk
you know it is
The little old geezer is only 79 so he says never mastered riding a bike never had a drivers licence in fact he never got past a tricycle spent all his time fiddling so he says to here him talk you know it is nickynoodah
  • Score: -19

9:42am Fri 4 Jul 14

nickynoodah says...

'hear' him talk you know it is
'hear' him talk you know it is nickynoodah
  • Score: -11

9:53am Fri 4 Jul 14

The Archer says...

It’s official. In the week that a 20mph limit was imposed on the City of London, official figures prove that 20mph zones increase road casualties rather than reduce them.

Forget all the 20mph campaigning you have seen. The truth hurts.

The number of serious accidents on 20mph roads has increased by 26 per cent last year, according to analysis of government data by road safety charity, Institute of Advanced Motorists.

Slight accidents on 20mph roads increased by 17 per cent.

In the same year, there was a decrease in the number of serious and slight accidents on 30mph roads and 40 mph roads.

Serious accidents went down 9 per cent on 30mph roads and 7 per cent on 40 mph roads.

There was a five per cent reduction in slight accidents on 30 mph roads and a three per cent decrease on 40 mph roads.

Even though the decrease in 30 zone accidents is partially because some have been displaced by 20 zones, the imposition of 20 zones has still led to a significant increase in accidents.

Casualties in 20mph zones also saw a rise.

Serious casualties increased by 29 per cent while slight casualties went up by 19 per cent.

IAM chief executive Simon Best said: “The government and councils need to take stock on the effectiveness of 20mph signs. Recent advice, guidance and relaxation of regulations have all been about making it easier for councils to put 20mph limits in place. “More and more roads are being given a 20mph limit but they do not seem to be delivering fewer casualties. The IAM are concerned that this is because simply putting a sign on a road that still looks like a 30mph zone does not change driver behaviour."

“More evaluation and research is needed into the real world performance of 20mph limits to ensure limited funds are being well spent. In locations with a proven accident problem, authorities need to spend more on changing the character of our roads so that 20mph is obvious, self-enforcing and above all contributes to fewer injuries. In Europe, it is long term investment in high quality segregated or shared surfaces that have led to a much safer environment for cyclists and pedestrians.”

Note: an ‘accident’ can cause of several casualties. For example if a bus crashes and kills 30 passengers on board, it is one fatal accident but 30 fatal casualties.
It’s official. In the week that a 20mph limit was imposed on the City of London, official figures prove that 20mph zones increase road casualties rather than reduce them. Forget all the 20mph campaigning you have seen. The truth hurts. The number of serious accidents on 20mph roads has increased by 26 per cent last year, according to analysis of government data by road safety charity, Institute of Advanced Motorists. Slight accidents on 20mph roads increased by 17 per cent. In the same year, there was a decrease in the number of serious and slight accidents on 30mph roads and 40 mph roads. Serious accidents went down 9 per cent on 30mph roads and 7 per cent on 40 mph roads. There was a five per cent reduction in slight accidents on 30 mph roads and a three per cent decrease on 40 mph roads. Even though the decrease in 30 zone accidents is partially because some have been displaced by 20 zones, the imposition of 20 zones has still led to a significant increase in accidents. Casualties in 20mph zones also saw a rise. Serious casualties increased by 29 per cent while slight casualties went up by 19 per cent. IAM chief executive Simon Best said: “The government and councils need to take stock on the effectiveness of 20mph signs. Recent advice, guidance and relaxation of regulations have all been about making it easier for councils to put 20mph limits in place. “More and more roads are being given a 20mph limit but they do not seem to be delivering fewer casualties. The IAM are concerned that this is because simply putting a sign on a road that still looks like a 30mph zone does not change driver behaviour." “More evaluation and research is needed into the real world performance of 20mph limits to ensure limited funds are being well spent. In locations with a proven accident problem, authorities need to spend more on changing the character of our roads so that 20mph is obvious, self-enforcing and above all contributes to fewer injuries. In Europe, it is long term investment in high quality segregated or shared surfaces that have led to a much safer environment for cyclists and pedestrians.” Note: an ‘accident’ can cause of several casualties. For example if a bus crashes and kills 30 passengers on board, it is one fatal accident but 30 fatal casualties. The Archer
  • Score: 1

10:13am Fri 4 Jul 14

speedy231278 says...

Are there going to be any roads for cars left in Bournemouth by the time this lot have finished?
Are there going to be any roads for cars left in Bournemouth by the time this lot have finished? speedy231278
  • Score: 15

10:48am Fri 4 Jul 14

nickynoodah says...

I do hope that the old men that post on here never get behind a wheel you know
its getting more painful by the n-minute you know
it is
I do hope that the old men that post on here never get behind a wheel you know its getting more painful by the n-minute you know it is nickynoodah
  • Score: -6

10:50am Fri 4 Jul 14

nickynoodah says...

Bring on the 20 limit
give it 2 months and drop it to 15
the sooner the better you know.
Bring on the 20 limit give it 2 months and drop it to 15 the sooner the better you know. nickynoodah
  • Score: -13

11:00am Fri 4 Jul 14

BmthNewshound says...

Hessenford wrote:
BIGTONE wrote:
The changes are part of the Three Towns Travel scheme, which aims to improve key travel routes in Bournemouth, Poole and Christchurch.




How is Richmond Hill a key travel route?

The Wessex way is,as is main bus routes.
Well said, A key route straight into a pedestrianised precinct, I don't think so, with regard to the 24 accidents, simple solution, either shut off St Stephens road or make it a no right turn off Richmond Hill.
Similar to the work done at Horseshoe Common which was really to help sell the flats built on the site of Leyton Mount car park.
.
The government has funded the Three Towns Travel scheme and I think the way the 3 councils have misused this money highlights the flaw in both Tory and Labour policy to decentralise spending by handing £billions to local councils.
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BIGTONE[/bold] wrote: The changes are part of the Three Towns Travel scheme, which aims to improve key travel routes in Bournemouth, Poole and Christchurch. How is Richmond Hill a key travel route? The Wessex way is,as is main bus routes.[/p][/quote]Well said, A key route straight into a pedestrianised precinct, I don't think so, with regard to the 24 accidents, simple solution, either shut off St Stephens road or make it a no right turn off Richmond Hill.[/p][/quote]Similar to the work done at Horseshoe Common which was really to help sell the flats built on the site of Leyton Mount car park. . The government has funded the Three Towns Travel scheme and I think the way the 3 councils have misused this money highlights the flaw in both Tory and Labour policy to decentralise spending by handing £billions to local councils. BmthNewshound
  • Score: 8

11:03am Fri 4 Jul 14

Hessenford says...

nickynoodah wrote:
I do hope that the old men that post on here never get behind a wheel you know
its getting more painful by the n-minute you know
it is
The only painful thing on here is you.
[quote][p][bold]nickynoodah[/bold] wrote: I do hope that the old men that post on here never get behind a wheel you know its getting more painful by the n-minute you know it is[/p][/quote]The only painful thing on here is you. Hessenford
  • Score: 12

11:53am Fri 4 Jul 14

spooki says...

How about no parking where you turn right out of Yelverton Road? Or no vans parking on corners so you could actually see where you're going?
How about no parking where you turn right out of Yelverton Road? Or no vans parking on corners so you could actually see where you're going? spooki
  • Score: 11

12:06pm Fri 4 Jul 14

muscliffman says...

Funny that only yesterday we read on here about huge sums of private sector money being spent to refurbish and improve the busy Castlepoint free Car Park and ensure that this location is even more attractive to the countless motorists going there to do business.

Yet this oddly obsessed Council keeps on spending vast amounts of public money making life as difficult as possible for motorists to reach, move or expensively park in our Town Centre. They continue filling even the few remaining central roads open to traffic with unsightly and debatably dangerous tat whilst bringing in new regulations - all apparently for the politically 'trendy' benefit of a few cyclists and occasional buses.

I wonder which location will prosper and which will decay?

This has now all gone way beyond a bad joke!
Funny that only yesterday we read on here about huge sums of private sector money being spent to refurbish and improve the busy Castlepoint free Car Park and ensure that this location is even more attractive to the countless motorists going there to do business. Yet this oddly obsessed Council keeps on spending vast amounts of public money making life as difficult as possible for motorists to reach, move or expensively park in our Town Centre. They continue filling even the few remaining central roads open to traffic with unsightly and debatably dangerous tat whilst bringing in new regulations - all apparently for the politically 'trendy' benefit of a few cyclists and occasional buses. I wonder which location will prosper and which will decay? This has now all gone way beyond a bad joke! muscliffman
  • Score: 12

12:12pm Fri 4 Jul 14

speedy231278 says...

I wonder if we are shortly to hear that the Morgan Sindall/BBC gravy train that is the BDC have just earmarked a building or two right next to this as their latest cash cow project?
I wonder if we are shortly to hear that the Morgan Sindall/BBC gravy train that is the BDC have just earmarked a building or two right next to this as their latest cash cow project? speedy231278
  • Score: 6

12:17pm Fri 4 Jul 14

dorsettech says...

I thought it was going to be a slide?!!! :-(((
I thought it was going to be a slide?!!! :-((( dorsettech
  • Score: 24

12:44pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Adrian XX says...

Many car drivers now do not pay "road tax" because they have small cars with no emissions.
Many car drivers now do not pay "road tax" because they have small cars with no emissions. Adrian XX
  • Score: 7

1:01pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Mindvor says...

Hessenford wrote:
justme20092009 wrote:
stop spending money on cycle lanes untill they are made to have insurance and road tax
Bring on the comments "there is no such thing as road tax", it'll probably be a cyclist.
There is no such thing as road tax.
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]justme20092009[/bold] wrote: stop spending money on cycle lanes untill they are made to have insurance and road tax[/p][/quote]Bring on the comments "there is no such thing as road tax", it'll probably be a cyclist.[/p][/quote]There is no such thing as road tax. Mindvor
  • Score: 7

1:05pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Bournefre says...

dorsettech wrote:
I thought it was going to be a slide?!!! :-(((
As far as I know no other town has done that as a permanent fixture, which should be enough incentive for BBC to do it.
It was tried temporarily in Bristol and was a success, which proves it will work all year round.
[quote][p][bold]dorsettech[/bold] wrote: I thought it was going to be a slide?!!! :-((([/p][/quote]As far as I know no other town has done that as a permanent fixture, which should be enough incentive for BBC to do it. It was tried temporarily in Bristol and was a success, which proves it will work all year round. Bournefre
  • Score: 9

1:31pm Fri 4 Jul 14

muscliffman says...

Wolfstan wrote:
When you come out of the junction aren't you generally doing under 20 miles anyway? If not, that's a hell of a standing start... 0 - 20+ in about 4 feet?
Please don't confuse the Town Hall people behind this nonsense by introducing the concept of some basic 'common sense' into this matter.
[quote][p][bold]Wolfstan[/bold] wrote: When you come out of the junction aren't you generally doing under 20 miles anyway? If not, that's a hell of a standing start... 0 - 20+ in about 4 feet?[/p][/quote]Please don't confuse the Town Hall people behind this nonsense by introducing the concept of some basic 'common sense' into this matter. muscliffman
  • Score: 9

1:45pm Fri 4 Jul 14

wadjit says...

Hardly anyone rides down here on a bike. I don't understand the point of this. I am truly baffled. Surely more people ride down from Landsdowne roundabout direction.
Hardly anyone rides down here on a bike. I don't understand the point of this. I am truly baffled. Surely more people ride down from Landsdowne roundabout direction. wadjit
  • Score: 7

2:00pm Fri 4 Jul 14

speedy231278 says...

Maybe it's to help those who do cycle down the hill to gain even more speed and further increase the liklihood of colliding with a pedestrian in the square?
Maybe it's to help those who do cycle down the hill to gain even more speed and further increase the liklihood of colliding with a pedestrian in the square? speedy231278
  • Score: 8

2:15pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Alantrom says...

Have only scanned the comments here so I may have missed something but, if I have read the article right, a cycle lane to go UP the hill?
1) How many cyclist use Richmond Hill?
2) If they are good enough to be able to ride UP them I'm sure they would be proficient enough to make a cycle lane unnecessary, especially as most around here only consist of a line of paint. If they are not strong enough to ride UP then they will be walking anyway.
Perhaps it will be a properly segregated lane but maybe also I'll see pigs fly.

I suspect another waste of money with little benefit for the majority.
Have only scanned the comments here so I may have missed something but, if I have read the article right, a cycle lane to go UP the hill? 1) How many cyclist use Richmond Hill? 2) If they are good enough to be able to ride UP them I'm sure they would be proficient enough to make a cycle lane unnecessary, especially as most around here only consist of a line of paint. If they are not strong enough to ride UP then they will be walking anyway. Perhaps it will be a properly segregated lane but maybe also I'll see pigs fly. I suspect another waste of money with little benefit for the majority. Alantrom
  • Score: 6

3:56pm Fri 4 Jul 14

JackJohnson says...

Why don't they just install a camera in a gert great yellow box? They can then earn some income for the council from all the idjits who insist on going too fast - and will continue to go too fast when all this expensive work is done.
Why don't they just install a camera in a gert great yellow box? They can then earn some income for the council from all the idjits who insist on going too fast - and will continue to go too fast when all this expensive work is done. JackJohnson
  • Score: 2

4:29pm Fri 4 Jul 14

MrPitiful says...

I still reckon a giant water slide would have been a better idea. Imagine the potential income at a couple of quid a go!

One thing not beeen mentioned. With an enforced 20mph speed limit, how are the Echo journalists going to speed in & out now, with mobile phones in one hand and steering wheel in the other, flying like a demon to get all the gory details of a Wessex Way accident at 8am every morning?
I still reckon a giant water slide would have been a better idea. Imagine the potential income at a couple of quid a go! One thing not beeen mentioned. With an enforced 20mph speed limit, how are the Echo journalists going to speed in & out now, with mobile phones in one hand and steering wheel in the other, flying like a demon to get all the gory details of a Wessex Way accident at 8am every morning? MrPitiful
  • Score: 6

4:32pm Fri 4 Jul 14

rich53 says...

When i was down sandbanks in the week,i was f****d off with the amount of people still riding bikes along the front when the signs(which are plenty) say NO CYCLING from July from 6AM - 10PM so if it happens in sandbanks
watch out richmond hill for arrogant cyclist, because people
who ride bikes can't read so they won't abide by the laws. T****rs.
When i was down sandbanks in the week,i was f****d off with the amount of people still riding bikes along the front when the signs(which are plenty) say NO CYCLING from July from 6AM - 10PM so if it happens in sandbanks watch out richmond hill for arrogant cyclist, because people who ride bikes can't read so they won't abide by the laws. T****rs. rich53
  • Score: 3

4:36pm Fri 4 Jul 14

suzigirl says...

So cyclists wo't be able to cycle down the hill then? Bless their cotton socks they will be sweating in their little lycra shorts.......
So cyclists wo't be able to cycle down the hill then? Bless their cotton socks they will be sweating in their little lycra shorts....... suzigirl
  • Score: -2

4:43pm Fri 4 Jul 14

breamoreboy says...

justme20092009 wrote:
stop spending money on cycle lanes untill they are made to have insurance and road tax
Besides the minor little detail that there is no such thing as road tax, I'm not paying for insurance as I've not had an accident in 50 years cycling, other than the Pinball Wizard who knocked me off at the Purewell Cross Roundabout. Further as I have always paid tax according to UK law I demand cycle lanes. Proper ones that is, not a bit of paint on a road, such that other Pinball Wizards can't try knocking me off.
[quote][p][bold]justme20092009[/bold] wrote: stop spending money on cycle lanes untill they are made to have insurance and road tax[/p][/quote]Besides the minor little detail that there is no such thing as road tax, I'm not paying for insurance as I've not had an accident in 50 years cycling, other than the Pinball Wizard who knocked me off at the Purewell Cross Roundabout. Further as I have always paid tax according to UK law I demand cycle lanes. Proper ones that is, not a bit of paint on a road, such that other Pinball Wizards can't try knocking me off. breamoreboy
  • Score: 1

4:47pm Fri 4 Jul 14

breamoreboy says...

nickynoodah wrote:
The little old geezer is only 79 so he says
never mastered riding a bike
never had a drivers licence
in fact he never got past a tricycle
spent all his time fiddling
so he says
to here him talk
you know it is
I've heard that there's a clinical trial coming up for voluntary euthanasia. Are you up for it?
[quote][p][bold]nickynoodah[/bold] wrote: The little old geezer is only 79 so he says never mastered riding a bike never had a drivers licence in fact he never got past a tricycle spent all his time fiddling so he says to here him talk you know it is[/p][/quote]I've heard that there's a clinical trial coming up for voluntary euthanasia. Are you up for it? breamoreboy
  • Score: 0

4:51pm Fri 4 Jul 14

breamoreboy says...

nickynoodah wrote:
Bring on the 20 limit
give it 2 months and drop it to 15
the sooner the better you know.
May I ask what you drink, sherry, gin, vodka, meths, or are you not that fussy?
[quote][p][bold]nickynoodah[/bold] wrote: Bring on the 20 limit give it 2 months and drop it to 15 the sooner the better you know.[/p][/quote]May I ask what you drink, sherry, gin, vodka, meths, or are you not that fussy? breamoreboy
  • Score: 3

4:55pm Fri 4 Jul 14

breamoreboy says...

suzigirl wrote:
So cyclists wo't be able to cycle down the hill then? Bless their cotton socks they will be sweating in their little lycra shorts.......
My shorts aren't little and neither are they lycra :-)
[quote][p][bold]suzigirl[/bold] wrote: So cyclists wo't be able to cycle down the hill then? Bless their cotton socks they will be sweating in their little lycra shorts.......[/p][/quote]My shorts aren't little and neither are they lycra :-) breamoreboy
  • Score: -2

6:06pm Fri 4 Jul 14

budgetvelo says...

Hessenford wrote:
justme20092009 wrote:
stop spending money on cycle lanes untill they are made to have insurance and road tax
Bring on the comments "there is no such thing as road tax", it'll probably be a cyclist.
What does this comment contribute to the article? Pointless
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]justme20092009[/bold] wrote: stop spending money on cycle lanes untill they are made to have insurance and road tax[/p][/quote]Bring on the comments "there is no such thing as road tax", it'll probably be a cyclist.[/p][/quote]What does this comment contribute to the article? Pointless budgetvelo
  • Score: 2

6:11pm Fri 4 Jul 14

scrumpyjack says...

rich53 wrote:
When i was down sandbanks in the week,i was f****d off with the amount of people still riding bikes along the front when the signs(which are plenty) say NO CYCLING from July from 6AM - 10PM so if it happens in sandbanks
watch out richmond hill for arrogant cyclist, because people
who ride bikes can't read so they won't abide by the laws. T****rs.
And it affected you how?

Or is it 'rules is rules' f common sense?

'in the week' - packed was it?
[quote][p][bold]rich53[/bold] wrote: When i was down sandbanks in the week,i was f****d off with the amount of people still riding bikes along the front when the signs(which are plenty) say NO CYCLING from July from 6AM - 10PM so if it happens in sandbanks watch out richmond hill for arrogant cyclist, because people who ride bikes can't read so they won't abide by the laws. T****rs.[/p][/quote]And it affected you how? Or is it 'rules is rules' f common sense? 'in the week' - packed was it? scrumpyjack
  • Score: -5

6:13pm Fri 4 Jul 14

scrumpyjack says...

breamoreboy wrote:
suzigirl wrote:
So cyclists wo't be able to cycle down the hill then? Bless their cotton socks they will be sweating in their little lycra shorts.......
My shorts aren't little and neither are they lycra :-)
She thinks all shorts are little and tight (and that they were definitely wrong when they put an XXXL label on..........)
[quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]suzigirl[/bold] wrote: So cyclists wo't be able to cycle down the hill then? Bless their cotton socks they will be sweating in their little lycra shorts.......[/p][/quote]My shorts aren't little and neither are they lycra :-)[/p][/quote]She thinks all shorts are little and tight (and that they were definitely wrong when they put an XXXL label on..........) scrumpyjack
  • Score: -1

6:14pm Fri 4 Jul 14

tbpoole says...

The Archer wrote:
It’s official. In the week that a 20mph limit was imposed on the City of London, official figures prove that 20mph zones increase road casualties rather than reduce them.

Forget all the 20mph campaigning you have seen. The truth hurts.

The number of serious accidents on 20mph roads has increased by 26 per cent last year, according to analysis of government data by road safety charity, Institute of Advanced Motorists.

Slight accidents on 20mph roads increased by 17 per cent.

In the same year, there was a decrease in the number of serious and slight accidents on 30mph roads and 40 mph roads.

Serious accidents went down 9 per cent on 30mph roads and 7 per cent on 40 mph roads.

There was a five per cent reduction in slight accidents on 30 mph roads and a three per cent decrease on 40 mph roads.

Even though the decrease in 30 zone accidents is partially because some have been displaced by 20 zones, the imposition of 20 zones has still led to a significant increase in accidents.

Casualties in 20mph zones also saw a rise.

Serious casualties increased by 29 per cent while slight casualties went up by 19 per cent.

IAM chief executive Simon Best said: “The government and councils need to take stock on the effectiveness of 20mph signs. Recent advice, guidance and relaxation of regulations have all been about making it easier for councils to put 20mph limits in place. “More and more roads are being given a 20mph limit but they do not seem to be delivering fewer casualties. The IAM are concerned that this is because simply putting a sign on a road that still looks like a 30mph zone does not change driver behaviour."

“More evaluation and research is needed into the real world performance of 20mph limits to ensure limited funds are being well spent. In locations with a proven accident problem, authorities need to spend more on changing the character of our roads so that 20mph is obvious, self-enforcing and above all contributes to fewer injuries. In Europe, it is long term investment in high quality segregated or shared surfaces that have led to a much safer environment for cyclists and pedestrians.”

Note: an ‘accident’ can cause of several casualties. For example if a bus crashes and kills 30 passengers on board, it is one fatal accident but 30 fatal casualties.
"The number of serious accidents on 20mph roads has increased by 26 per cent last year, according to analysis of government data by road safety charity, Institute of Advanced Motorists."

Perhaps that's because there are about four times as many 20mph roads in the UK? The overall accident rate per road could well have decreased but with more 20mph roads the total will mask this decrease.
[quote][p][bold]The Archer[/bold] wrote: It’s official. In the week that a 20mph limit was imposed on the City of London, official figures prove that 20mph zones increase road casualties rather than reduce them. Forget all the 20mph campaigning you have seen. The truth hurts. The number of serious accidents on 20mph roads has increased by 26 per cent last year, according to analysis of government data by road safety charity, Institute of Advanced Motorists. Slight accidents on 20mph roads increased by 17 per cent. In the same year, there was a decrease in the number of serious and slight accidents on 30mph roads and 40 mph roads. Serious accidents went down 9 per cent on 30mph roads and 7 per cent on 40 mph roads. There was a five per cent reduction in slight accidents on 30 mph roads and a three per cent decrease on 40 mph roads. Even though the decrease in 30 zone accidents is partially because some have been displaced by 20 zones, the imposition of 20 zones has still led to a significant increase in accidents. Casualties in 20mph zones also saw a rise. Serious casualties increased by 29 per cent while slight casualties went up by 19 per cent. IAM chief executive Simon Best said: “The government and councils need to take stock on the effectiveness of 20mph signs. Recent advice, guidance and relaxation of regulations have all been about making it easier for councils to put 20mph limits in place. “More and more roads are being given a 20mph limit but they do not seem to be delivering fewer casualties. The IAM are concerned that this is because simply putting a sign on a road that still looks like a 30mph zone does not change driver behaviour." “More evaluation and research is needed into the real world performance of 20mph limits to ensure limited funds are being well spent. In locations with a proven accident problem, authorities need to spend more on changing the character of our roads so that 20mph is obvious, self-enforcing and above all contributes to fewer injuries. In Europe, it is long term investment in high quality segregated or shared surfaces that have led to a much safer environment for cyclists and pedestrians.” Note: an ‘accident’ can cause of several casualties. For example if a bus crashes and kills 30 passengers on board, it is one fatal accident but 30 fatal casualties.[/p][/quote]"The number of serious accidents on 20mph roads has increased by 26 per cent last year, according to analysis of government data by road safety charity, Institute of Advanced Motorists." Perhaps that's because there are about four times as many 20mph roads in the UK? The overall accident rate per road could well have decreased but with more 20mph roads the total will mask this decrease. tbpoole
  • Score: 1

6:33pm Fri 4 Jul 14

scrumpyjack says...

tbpoole wrote:
The Archer wrote:
It’s official. In the week that a 20mph limit was imposed on the City of London, official figures prove that 20mph zones increase road casualties rather than reduce them.

Forget all the 20mph campaigning you have seen. The truth hurts.

The number of serious accidents on 20mph roads has increased by 26 per cent last year, according to analysis of government data by road safety charity, Institute of Advanced Motorists.

Slight accidents on 20mph roads increased by 17 per cent.

In the same year, there was a decrease in the number of serious and slight accidents on 30mph roads and 40 mph roads.

Serious accidents went down 9 per cent on 30mph roads and 7 per cent on 40 mph roads.

There was a five per cent reduction in slight accidents on 30 mph roads and a three per cent decrease on 40 mph roads.

Even though the decrease in 30 zone accidents is partially because some have been displaced by 20 zones, the imposition of 20 zones has still led to a significant increase in accidents.

Casualties in 20mph zones also saw a rise.

Serious casualties increased by 29 per cent while slight casualties went up by 19 per cent.

IAM chief executive Simon Best said: “The government and councils need to take stock on the effectiveness of 20mph signs. Recent advice, guidance and relaxation of regulations have all been about making it easier for councils to put 20mph limits in place. “More and more roads are being given a 20mph limit but they do not seem to be delivering fewer casualties. The IAM are concerned that this is because simply putting a sign on a road that still looks like a 30mph zone does not change driver behaviour."

“More evaluation and research is needed into the real world performance of 20mph limits to ensure limited funds are being well spent. In locations with a proven accident problem, authorities need to spend more on changing the character of our roads so that 20mph is obvious, self-enforcing and above all contributes to fewer injuries. In Europe, it is long term investment in high quality segregated or shared surfaces that have led to a much safer environment for cyclists and pedestrians.”

Note: an ‘accident’ can cause of several casualties. For example if a bus crashes and kills 30 passengers on board, it is one fatal accident but 30 fatal casualties.
"The number of serious accidents on 20mph roads has increased by 26 per cent last year, according to analysis of government data by road safety charity, Institute of Advanced Motorists."

Perhaps that's because there are about four times as many 20mph roads in the UK? The overall accident rate per road could well have decreased but with more 20mph roads the total will mask this decrease.
Which to be fair the article does admit to, but the point being that overall the number of accidents had risen but had fallen in the 30 and 40 zones.
[quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Archer[/bold] wrote: It’s official. In the week that a 20mph limit was imposed on the City of London, official figures prove that 20mph zones increase road casualties rather than reduce them. Forget all the 20mph campaigning you have seen. The truth hurts. The number of serious accidents on 20mph roads has increased by 26 per cent last year, according to analysis of government data by road safety charity, Institute of Advanced Motorists. Slight accidents on 20mph roads increased by 17 per cent. In the same year, there was a decrease in the number of serious and slight accidents on 30mph roads and 40 mph roads. Serious accidents went down 9 per cent on 30mph roads and 7 per cent on 40 mph roads. There was a five per cent reduction in slight accidents on 30 mph roads and a three per cent decrease on 40 mph roads. Even though the decrease in 30 zone accidents is partially because some have been displaced by 20 zones, the imposition of 20 zones has still led to a significant increase in accidents. Casualties in 20mph zones also saw a rise. Serious casualties increased by 29 per cent while slight casualties went up by 19 per cent. IAM chief executive Simon Best said: “The government and councils need to take stock on the effectiveness of 20mph signs. Recent advice, guidance and relaxation of regulations have all been about making it easier for councils to put 20mph limits in place. “More and more roads are being given a 20mph limit but they do not seem to be delivering fewer casualties. The IAM are concerned that this is because simply putting a sign on a road that still looks like a 30mph zone does not change driver behaviour." “More evaluation and research is needed into the real world performance of 20mph limits to ensure limited funds are being well spent. In locations with a proven accident problem, authorities need to spend more on changing the character of our roads so that 20mph is obvious, self-enforcing and above all contributes to fewer injuries. In Europe, it is long term investment in high quality segregated or shared surfaces that have led to a much safer environment for cyclists and pedestrians.” Note: an ‘accident’ can cause of several casualties. For example if a bus crashes and kills 30 passengers on board, it is one fatal accident but 30 fatal casualties.[/p][/quote]"The number of serious accidents on 20mph roads has increased by 26 per cent last year, according to analysis of government data by road safety charity, Institute of Advanced Motorists." Perhaps that's because there are about four times as many 20mph roads in the UK? The overall accident rate per road could well have decreased but with more 20mph roads the total will mask this decrease.[/p][/quote]Which to be fair the article does admit to, but the point being that overall the number of accidents had risen but had fallen in the 30 and 40 zones. scrumpyjack
  • Score: -1

7:12pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Bournefre says...

scrumpyjack wrote:
rich53 wrote:
When i was down sandbanks in the week,i was f****d off with the amount of people still riding bikes along the front when the signs(which are plenty) say NO CYCLING from July from 6AM - 10PM so if it happens in sandbanks
watch out richmond hill for arrogant cyclist, because people
who ride bikes can't read so they won't abide by the laws. T****rs.
And it affected you how?

Or is it 'rules is rules' f common sense?

'in the week' - packed was it?
It probably would have been a different story if fines were issued and the perpetrators named & shamed in the Echo, then we could all sit here and say "well if you don't want a fine, don't break the rules" with a smug sense of self-satisfaction that it wasn't us who got the fine.
[quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rich53[/bold] wrote: When i was down sandbanks in the week,i was f****d off with the amount of people still riding bikes along the front when the signs(which are plenty) say NO CYCLING from July from 6AM - 10PM so if it happens in sandbanks watch out richmond hill for arrogant cyclist, because people who ride bikes can't read so they won't abide by the laws. T****rs.[/p][/quote]And it affected you how? Or is it 'rules is rules' f common sense? 'in the week' - packed was it?[/p][/quote]It probably would have been a different story if fines were issued and the perpetrators named & shamed in the Echo, then we could all sit here and say "well if you don't want a fine, don't break the rules" with a smug sense of self-satisfaction that it wasn't us who got the fine. Bournefre
  • Score: 4

7:13pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Hessenford says...

breamoreboy wrote:
justme20092009 wrote:
stop spending money on cycle lanes untill they are made to have insurance and road tax
Besides the minor little detail that there is no such thing as road tax, I'm not paying for insurance as I've not had an accident in 50 years cycling, other than the Pinball Wizard who knocked me off at the Purewell Cross Roundabout. Further as I have always paid tax according to UK law I demand cycle lanes. Proper ones that is, not a bit of paint on a road, such that other Pinball Wizards can't try knocking me off.
We all pay tax according to UK law, car drivers also have to pay VED, car insurance and have a valid MOT for the privilege of using the road network, cyclists however pay nothing towards using the road network yet idiots like you demand cycle lanes, if you want them then contribute something towards them, As I pay my tax according to UK law why should that money go towards your demands when I and many others pay hundreds of pounds extra for the privilege which you want for free.
[quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]justme20092009[/bold] wrote: stop spending money on cycle lanes untill they are made to have insurance and road tax[/p][/quote]Besides the minor little detail that there is no such thing as road tax, I'm not paying for insurance as I've not had an accident in 50 years cycling, other than the Pinball Wizard who knocked me off at the Purewell Cross Roundabout. Further as I have always paid tax according to UK law I demand cycle lanes. Proper ones that is, not a bit of paint on a road, such that other Pinball Wizards can't try knocking me off.[/p][/quote]We all pay tax according to UK law, car drivers also have to pay VED, car insurance and have a valid MOT for the privilege of using the road network, cyclists however pay nothing towards using the road network yet idiots like you demand cycle lanes, if you want them then contribute something towards them, As I pay my tax according to UK law why should that money go towards your demands when I and many others pay hundreds of pounds extra for the privilege which you want for free. Hessenford
  • Score: 6

7:14pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Hessenford says...

budgetvelo wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
justme20092009 wrote:
stop spending money on cycle lanes untill they are made to have insurance and road tax
Bring on the comments "there is no such thing as road tax", it'll probably be a cyclist.
What does this comment contribute to the article? Pointless
About the same as yours I would think.
[quote][p][bold]budgetvelo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]justme20092009[/bold] wrote: stop spending money on cycle lanes untill they are made to have insurance and road tax[/p][/quote]Bring on the comments "there is no such thing as road tax", it'll probably be a cyclist.[/p][/quote]What does this comment contribute to the article? Pointless[/p][/quote]About the same as yours I would think. Hessenford
  • Score: -3

7:18pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Hessenford says...

Adrian XX wrote:
Many car drivers now do not pay "road tax" because they have small cars with no emissions.
They still have to be insured and have an MOT for the privilege of using the road plus the VAT and tax on the fuel they use.
[quote][p][bold]Adrian XX[/bold] wrote: Many car drivers now do not pay "road tax" because they have small cars with no emissions.[/p][/quote]They still have to be insured and have an MOT for the privilege of using the road plus the VAT and tax on the fuel they use. Hessenford
  • Score: 3

7:35pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Bourne1979 says...

scrumpyjack wrote:
rich53 wrote:
When i was down sandbanks in the week,i was f****d off with the amount of people still riding bikes along the front when the signs(which are plenty) say NO CYCLING from July from 6AM - 10PM so if it happens in sandbanks
watch out richmond hill for arrogant cyclist, because people
who ride bikes can't read so they won't abide by the laws. T****rs.
And it affected you how?

Or is it 'rules is rules' f common sense?

'in the week' - packed was it?
6am to 10pm??? It's 10am to 6pm! Not the only ones who can't read???
[quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rich53[/bold] wrote: When i was down sandbanks in the week,i was f****d off with the amount of people still riding bikes along the front when the signs(which are plenty) say NO CYCLING from July from 6AM - 10PM so if it happens in sandbanks watch out richmond hill for arrogant cyclist, because people who ride bikes can't read so they won't abide by the laws. T****rs.[/p][/quote]And it affected you how? Or is it 'rules is rules' f common sense? 'in the week' - packed was it?[/p][/quote]6am to 10pm??? It's 10am to 6pm! Not the only ones who can't read??? Bourne1979
  • Score: 7

8:16pm Fri 4 Jul 14

scrumpyjack says...

Bourne1979 wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
rich53 wrote:
When i was down sandbanks in the week,i was f****d off with the amount of people still riding bikes along the front when the signs(which are plenty) say NO CYCLING from July from 6AM - 10PM so if it happens in sandbanks
watch out richmond hill for arrogant cyclist, because people
who ride bikes can't read so they won't abide by the laws. T****rs.
And it affected you how?

Or is it 'rules is rules' f common sense?

'in the week' - packed was it?
6am to 10pm??? It's 10am to 6pm! Not the only ones who can't read???
I think you meant to quote the person I challenged over this.
[quote][p][bold]Bourne1979[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rich53[/bold] wrote: When i was down sandbanks in the week,i was f****d off with the amount of people still riding bikes along the front when the signs(which are plenty) say NO CYCLING from July from 6AM - 10PM so if it happens in sandbanks watch out richmond hill for arrogant cyclist, because people who ride bikes can't read so they won't abide by the laws. T****rs.[/p][/quote]And it affected you how? Or is it 'rules is rules' f common sense? 'in the week' - packed was it?[/p][/quote]6am to 10pm??? It's 10am to 6pm! Not the only ones who can't read???[/p][/quote]I think you meant to quote the person I challenged over this. scrumpyjack
  • Score: 4

8:26pm Fri 4 Jul 14

scrumpyjack says...

Hessenford wrote:
Adrian XX wrote:
Many car drivers now do not pay "road tax" because they have small cars with no emissions.
They still have to be insured and have an MOT for the privilege of using the road plus the VAT and tax on the fuel they use.
Apart from the tax and VAT the money you are on about goes into the general 'taxation coffers'. (The Treasury).

The same coffers that a lot of high earning cyclists pay into. The same cyclists that also run 1 and even 2 cars.

As to local business benefiting from MOTs, do you think bikes don't get serviced? Don;t need parts?

What about all the gear and accessories they buy?

Just admit it you and people like Suzi and so many others hate cyclists and are prepared to endlessly spout ill informed rubbish week after week, month after month with no other reason than you hate cyclists.

Fact after fact has chipped away against your argument over the last 12 months but still you spit, and bray and condemn,

At least be honest -it's not like you can be done for it.

I'm a driver. Not a cyclist. Before you try any more 'bluddy cyclists' crud.
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Adrian XX[/bold] wrote: Many car drivers now do not pay "road tax" because they have small cars with no emissions.[/p][/quote]They still have to be insured and have an MOT for the privilege of using the road plus the VAT and tax on the fuel they use.[/p][/quote]Apart from the tax and VAT the money you are on about goes into the general 'taxation coffers'. (The Treasury). The same coffers that a lot of high earning cyclists pay into. The same cyclists that also run 1 and even 2 cars. As to local business benefiting from MOTs, do you think bikes don't get serviced? Don;t need parts? What about all the gear and accessories they buy? Just admit it you and people like Suzi and so many others hate cyclists and are prepared to endlessly spout ill informed rubbish week after week, month after month with no other reason than you hate cyclists. Fact after fact has chipped away against your argument over the last 12 months but still you spit, and bray and condemn, At least be honest -it's not like you can be done for it. I'm a driver. Not a cyclist. Before you try any more 'bluddy cyclists' crud. scrumpyjack
  • Score: 5

8:29pm Fri 4 Jul 14

tbpoole says...

scrumpyjack wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
The Archer wrote:
It’s official. In the week that a 20mph limit was imposed on the City of London, official figures prove that 20mph zones increase road casualties rather than reduce them.

Forget all the 20mph campaigning you have seen. The truth hurts.

The number of serious accidents on 20mph roads has increased by 26 per cent last year, according to analysis of government data by road safety charity, Institute of Advanced Motorists.

Slight accidents on 20mph roads increased by 17 per cent.

In the same year, there was a decrease in the number of serious and slight accidents on 30mph roads and 40 mph roads.

Serious accidents went down 9 per cent on 30mph roads and 7 per cent on 40 mph roads.

There was a five per cent reduction in slight accidents on 30 mph roads and a three per cent decrease on 40 mph roads.

Even though the decrease in 30 zone accidents is partially because some have been displaced by 20 zones, the imposition of 20 zones has still led to a significant increase in accidents.

Casualties in 20mph zones also saw a rise.

Serious casualties increased by 29 per cent while slight casualties went up by 19 per cent.

IAM chief executive Simon Best said: “The government and councils need to take stock on the effectiveness of 20mph signs. Recent advice, guidance and relaxation of regulations have all been about making it easier for councils to put 20mph limits in place. “More and more roads are being given a 20mph limit but they do not seem to be delivering fewer casualties. The IAM are concerned that this is because simply putting a sign on a road that still looks like a 30mph zone does not change driver behaviour."

“More evaluation and research is needed into the real world performance of 20mph limits to ensure limited funds are being well spent. In locations with a proven accident problem, authorities need to spend more on changing the character of our roads so that 20mph is obvious, self-enforcing and above all contributes to fewer injuries. In Europe, it is long term investment in high quality segregated or shared surfaces that have led to a much safer environment for cyclists and pedestrians.”

Note: an ‘accident’ can cause of several casualties. For example if a bus crashes and kills 30 passengers on board, it is one fatal accident but 30 fatal casualties.
"The number of serious accidents on 20mph roads has increased by 26 per cent last year, according to analysis of government data by road safety charity, Institute of Advanced Motorists."

Perhaps that's because there are about four times as many 20mph roads in the UK? The overall accident rate per road could well have decreased but with more 20mph roads the total will mask this decrease.
Which to be fair the article does admit to, but the point being that overall the number of accidents had risen but had fallen in the 30 and 40 zones.
Because there are fewer 30s.
[quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Archer[/bold] wrote: It’s official. In the week that a 20mph limit was imposed on the City of London, official figures prove that 20mph zones increase road casualties rather than reduce them. Forget all the 20mph campaigning you have seen. The truth hurts. The number of serious accidents on 20mph roads has increased by 26 per cent last year, according to analysis of government data by road safety charity, Institute of Advanced Motorists. Slight accidents on 20mph roads increased by 17 per cent. In the same year, there was a decrease in the number of serious and slight accidents on 30mph roads and 40 mph roads. Serious accidents went down 9 per cent on 30mph roads and 7 per cent on 40 mph roads. There was a five per cent reduction in slight accidents on 30 mph roads and a three per cent decrease on 40 mph roads. Even though the decrease in 30 zone accidents is partially because some have been displaced by 20 zones, the imposition of 20 zones has still led to a significant increase in accidents. Casualties in 20mph zones also saw a rise. Serious casualties increased by 29 per cent while slight casualties went up by 19 per cent. IAM chief executive Simon Best said: “The government and councils need to take stock on the effectiveness of 20mph signs. Recent advice, guidance and relaxation of regulations have all been about making it easier for councils to put 20mph limits in place. “More and more roads are being given a 20mph limit but they do not seem to be delivering fewer casualties. The IAM are concerned that this is because simply putting a sign on a road that still looks like a 30mph zone does not change driver behaviour." “More evaluation and research is needed into the real world performance of 20mph limits to ensure limited funds are being well spent. In locations with a proven accident problem, authorities need to spend more on changing the character of our roads so that 20mph is obvious, self-enforcing and above all contributes to fewer injuries. In Europe, it is long term investment in high quality segregated or shared surfaces that have led to a much safer environment for cyclists and pedestrians.” Note: an ‘accident’ can cause of several casualties. For example if a bus crashes and kills 30 passengers on board, it is one fatal accident but 30 fatal casualties.[/p][/quote]"The number of serious accidents on 20mph roads has increased by 26 per cent last year, according to analysis of government data by road safety charity, Institute of Advanced Motorists." Perhaps that's because there are about four times as many 20mph roads in the UK? The overall accident rate per road could well have decreased but with more 20mph roads the total will mask this decrease.[/p][/quote]Which to be fair the article does admit to, but the point being that overall the number of accidents had risen but had fallen in the 30 and 40 zones.[/p][/quote]Because there are fewer 30s. tbpoole
  • Score: 1

8:29pm Fri 4 Jul 14

nickynoodah says...

Bourne1979 wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
rich53 wrote:
When i was down sandbanks in the week,i was f****d off with the amount of people still riding bikes along the front when the signs(which are plenty) say NO CYCLING from July from 6AM - 10PM so if it happens in sandbanks
watch out richmond hill for arrogant cyclist, because people
who ride bikes can't read so they won't abide by the laws. T****rs.
And it affected you how?

Or is it 'rules is rules' f common sense?

'in the week' - packed was it?
6am to 10pm??? It's 10am to 6pm! Not the only ones who can't read???
Does it mean no cycling on a bike george
[quote][p][bold]Bourne1979[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rich53[/bold] wrote: When i was down sandbanks in the week,i was f****d off with the amount of people still riding bikes along the front when the signs(which are plenty) say NO CYCLING from July from 6AM - 10PM so if it happens in sandbanks watch out richmond hill for arrogant cyclist, because people who ride bikes can't read so they won't abide by the laws. T****rs.[/p][/quote]And it affected you how? Or is it 'rules is rules' f common sense? 'in the week' - packed was it?[/p][/quote]6am to 10pm??? It's 10am to 6pm! Not the only ones who can't read???[/p][/quote]Does it mean no cycling on a bike george nickynoodah
  • Score: -1

8:31pm Fri 4 Jul 14

scrumpyjack says...

*Apart from the tax and VAT the money you are on about goes into the general 'taxation coffers'. (The Treasury).

By that I meant that the only tax cyclists don't pay into the general pot as cyclists.
*Apart from the tax and VAT the money you are on about goes into the general 'taxation coffers'. (The Treasury). By that I meant that the only tax cyclists don't pay into the general pot as cyclists. scrumpyjack
  • Score: 0

8:32pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Hobad1 says...

Why are cyclists being given, what seems to be, preferential treatment when it comes to our roads nowadays? Why are such funds being spent on cyclists when they contribute nothing to the upkeep of the road infrastructure?
Why are cyclists being given, what seems to be, preferential treatment when it comes to our roads nowadays? Why are such funds being spent on cyclists when they contribute nothing to the upkeep of the road infrastructure? Hobad1
  • Score: 3

8:38pm Fri 4 Jul 14

scrumpyjack says...

tbpoole wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
The Archer wrote:
It’s official. In the week that a 20mph limit was imposed on the City of London, official figures prove that 20mph zones increase road casualties rather than reduce them.

Forget all the 20mph campaigning you have seen. The truth hurts.

The number of serious accidents on 20mph roads has increased by 26 per cent last year, according to analysis of government data by road safety charity, Institute of Advanced Motorists.

Slight accidents on 20mph roads increased by 17 per cent.

In the same year, there was a decrease in the number of serious and slight accidents on 30mph roads and 40 mph roads.

Serious accidents went down 9 per cent on 30mph roads and 7 per cent on 40 mph roads.

There was a five per cent reduction in slight accidents on 30 mph roads and a three per cent decrease on 40 mph roads.

Even though the decrease in 30 zone accidents is partially because some have been displaced by 20 zones, the imposition of 20 zones has still led to a significant increase in accidents.

Casualties in 20mph zones also saw a rise.

Serious casualties increased by 29 per cent while slight casualties went up by 19 per cent.

IAM chief executive Simon Best said: “The government and councils need to take stock on the effectiveness of 20mph signs. Recent advice, guidance and relaxation of regulations have all been about making it easier for councils to put 20mph limits in place. “More and more roads are being given a 20mph limit but they do not seem to be delivering fewer casualties. The IAM are concerned that this is because simply putting a sign on a road that still looks like a 30mph zone does not change driver behaviour."

“More evaluation and research is needed into the real world performance of 20mph limits to ensure limited funds are being well spent. In locations with a proven accident problem, authorities need to spend more on changing the character of our roads so that 20mph is obvious, self-enforcing and above all contributes to fewer injuries. In Europe, it is long term investment in high quality segregated or shared surfaces that have led to a much safer environment for cyclists and pedestrians.”

Note: an ‘accident’ can cause of several casualties. For example if a bus crashes and kills 30 passengers on board, it is one fatal accident but 30 fatal casualties.
"The number of serious accidents on 20mph roads has increased by 26 per cent last year, according to analysis of government data by road safety charity, Institute of Advanced Motorists."

Perhaps that's because there are about four times as many 20mph roads in the UK? The overall accident rate per road could well have decreased but with more 20mph roads the total will mask this decrease.
Which to be fair the article does admit to, but the point being that overall the number of accidents had risen but had fallen in the 30 and 40 zones.
Because there are fewer 30s.
No, "overall".


Take a 20 mile stretch - it is 30 mph and over 12 mths there are 5 accidents.

Now make that road a third of the road 30 mph and two thirds 20 mph limit and there are 2 accidents in the 30 and 4 accidents in the 20 mph.

There is 1 more accident overall.

The stats of the 30 have gone down (there is less road at this speed limit) the 20 has gone way up in line with the extra amount of road at this speed.

Main point? The accidents have gone up.
[quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Archer[/bold] wrote: It’s official. In the week that a 20mph limit was imposed on the City of London, official figures prove that 20mph zones increase road casualties rather than reduce them. Forget all the 20mph campaigning you have seen. The truth hurts. The number of serious accidents on 20mph roads has increased by 26 per cent last year, according to analysis of government data by road safety charity, Institute of Advanced Motorists. Slight accidents on 20mph roads increased by 17 per cent. In the same year, there was a decrease in the number of serious and slight accidents on 30mph roads and 40 mph roads. Serious accidents went down 9 per cent on 30mph roads and 7 per cent on 40 mph roads. There was a five per cent reduction in slight accidents on 30 mph roads and a three per cent decrease on 40 mph roads. Even though the decrease in 30 zone accidents is partially because some have been displaced by 20 zones, the imposition of 20 zones has still led to a significant increase in accidents. Casualties in 20mph zones also saw a rise. Serious casualties increased by 29 per cent while slight casualties went up by 19 per cent. IAM chief executive Simon Best said: “The government and councils need to take stock on the effectiveness of 20mph signs. Recent advice, guidance and relaxation of regulations have all been about making it easier for councils to put 20mph limits in place. “More and more roads are being given a 20mph limit but they do not seem to be delivering fewer casualties. The IAM are concerned that this is because simply putting a sign on a road that still looks like a 30mph zone does not change driver behaviour." “More evaluation and research is needed into the real world performance of 20mph limits to ensure limited funds are being well spent. In locations with a proven accident problem, authorities need to spend more on changing the character of our roads so that 20mph is obvious, self-enforcing and above all contributes to fewer injuries. In Europe, it is long term investment in high quality segregated or shared surfaces that have led to a much safer environment for cyclists and pedestrians.” Note: an ‘accident’ can cause of several casualties. For example if a bus crashes and kills 30 passengers on board, it is one fatal accident but 30 fatal casualties.[/p][/quote]"The number of serious accidents on 20mph roads has increased by 26 per cent last year, according to analysis of government data by road safety charity, Institute of Advanced Motorists." Perhaps that's because there are about four times as many 20mph roads in the UK? The overall accident rate per road could well have decreased but with more 20mph roads the total will mask this decrease.[/p][/quote]Which to be fair the article does admit to, but the point being that overall the number of accidents had risen but had fallen in the 30 and 40 zones.[/p][/quote]Because there are fewer 30s.[/p][/quote]No, "overall". Take a 20 mile stretch - it is 30 mph and over 12 mths there are 5 accidents. Now make that road a third of the road 30 mph and two thirds 20 mph limit and there are 2 accidents in the 30 and 4 accidents in the 20 mph. There is 1 more accident overall. The stats of the 30 have gone down (there is less road at this speed limit) the 20 has gone way up in line with the extra amount of road at this speed. Main point? The accidents have gone up. scrumpyjack
  • Score: -2

8:39pm Fri 4 Jul 14

scrumpyjack says...

Hobad1 wrote:
Why are cyclists being given, what seems to be, preferential treatment when it comes to our roads nowadays? Why are such funds being spent on cyclists when they contribute nothing to the upkeep of the road infrastructure?
Contribute nothing? Please develop this point further, I am keen to learn.
[quote][p][bold]Hobad1[/bold] wrote: Why are cyclists being given, what seems to be, preferential treatment when it comes to our roads nowadays? Why are such funds being spent on cyclists when they contribute nothing to the upkeep of the road infrastructure?[/p][/quote]Contribute nothing? Please develop this point further, I am keen to learn. scrumpyjack
  • Score: -1

8:46pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Hobad1 says...

scrumpyjack wrote:
Hobad1 wrote:
Why are cyclists being given, what seems to be, preferential treatment when it comes to our roads nowadays? Why are such funds being spent on cyclists when they contribute nothing to the upkeep of the road infrastructure?
Contribute nothing? Please develop this point further, I am keen to learn.
Ok scrumpy, you tell me how a cyclist contributes to the upkeep of our roads. If you like, imagine a world full of cyclists and no car drivers on the existing road infrastructure, advise me what would happen to our roads when they get to a state of needing repairs. I am also keen to learn.
[quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hobad1[/bold] wrote: Why are cyclists being given, what seems to be, preferential treatment when it comes to our roads nowadays? Why are such funds being spent on cyclists when they contribute nothing to the upkeep of the road infrastructure?[/p][/quote]Contribute nothing? Please develop this point further, I am keen to learn.[/p][/quote]Ok scrumpy, you tell me how a cyclist contributes to the upkeep of our roads. If you like, imagine a world full of cyclists and no car drivers on the existing road infrastructure, advise me what would happen to our roads when they get to a state of needing repairs. I am also keen to learn. Hobad1
  • Score: 1

8:46pm Fri 4 Jul 14

nickynoodah says...

My dog would chase anything on a bike

so I took his bike off of him.
My dog would chase anything on a bike so I took his bike off of him. nickynoodah
  • Score: 11

8:50pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Hessenford says...

scrumpyjack wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Adrian XX wrote:
Many car drivers now do not pay "road tax" because they have small cars with no emissions.
They still have to be insured and have an MOT for the privilege of using the road plus the VAT and tax on the fuel they use.
Apart from the tax and VAT the money you are on about goes into the general 'taxation coffers'. (The Treasury).

The same coffers that a lot of high earning cyclists pay into. The same cyclists that also run 1 and even 2 cars.

As to local business benefiting from MOTs, do you think bikes don't get serviced? Don;t need parts?

What about all the gear and accessories they buy?

Just admit it you and people like Suzi and so many others hate cyclists and are prepared to endlessly spout ill informed rubbish week after week, month after month with no other reason than you hate cyclists.

Fact after fact has chipped away against your argument over the last 12 months but still you spit, and bray and condemn,

At least be honest -it's not like you can be done for it.

I'm a driver. Not a cyclist. Before you try any more 'bluddy cyclists' crud.
Get real, cyclists want and demand a free ride when it comes to the road network, if cyclists at least had some sort of insurance and registration which is required by law for road use then the animosity may reduce, I know friends who ride bikes to work and quite frankly if some of them were required by law to have their bikes checked they would probably be off the road.
One ended up in hospital because he was hit by a car when his front tyre, which was as thin as paper, blew out and he went all over the road, of course the car drive was made to feel at fault by police until the bike was checked and he was cleared of blame.
Cyclists must and eventually will be required by law to have some form of accident insurance, registration and regular servicing.
I can see the day coming when car use will drop significantly because of fuel price or shortage, billions will be lost to the treasury in fuel duty and VED, then hopefully it will be the many cyclists using the roads that will be on the receiving end just as motorists are today, and i will be enjoying every minute.
As far as my "bluddy cyclists crud" as you put it, yes cyclists are a nightmare, some have no road sense what so ever and a large majority break all the laws that motorists abide by so what right do they have to demand anything, their all a bunch of hooligans.
[quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Adrian XX[/bold] wrote: Many car drivers now do not pay "road tax" because they have small cars with no emissions.[/p][/quote]They still have to be insured and have an MOT for the privilege of using the road plus the VAT and tax on the fuel they use.[/p][/quote]Apart from the tax and VAT the money you are on about goes into the general 'taxation coffers'. (The Treasury). The same coffers that a lot of high earning cyclists pay into. The same cyclists that also run 1 and even 2 cars. As to local business benefiting from MOTs, do you think bikes don't get serviced? Don;t need parts? What about all the gear and accessories they buy? Just admit it you and people like Suzi and so many others hate cyclists and are prepared to endlessly spout ill informed rubbish week after week, month after month with no other reason than you hate cyclists. Fact after fact has chipped away against your argument over the last 12 months but still you spit, and bray and condemn, At least be honest -it's not like you can be done for it. I'm a driver. Not a cyclist. Before you try any more 'bluddy cyclists' crud.[/p][/quote]Get real, cyclists want and demand a free ride when it comes to the road network, if cyclists at least had some sort of insurance and registration which is required by law for road use then the animosity may reduce, I know friends who ride bikes to work and quite frankly if some of them were required by law to have their bikes checked they would probably be off the road. One ended up in hospital because he was hit by a car when his front tyre, which was as thin as paper, blew out and he went all over the road, of course the car drive was made to feel at fault by police until the bike was checked and he was cleared of blame. Cyclists must and eventually will be required by law to have some form of accident insurance, registration and regular servicing. I can see the day coming when car use will drop significantly because of fuel price or shortage, billions will be lost to the treasury in fuel duty and VED, then hopefully it will be the many cyclists using the roads that will be on the receiving end just as motorists are today, and i will be enjoying every minute. As far as my "bluddy cyclists crud" as you put it, yes cyclists are a nightmare, some have no road sense what so ever and a large majority break all the laws that motorists abide by so what right do they have to demand anything, their all a bunch of hooligans. Hessenford
  • Score: 1

9:00pm Fri 4 Jul 14

boardsandphotos says...

breamoreboy wrote:
suzigirl wrote:
So cyclists wo't be able to cycle down the hill then? Bless their cotton socks they will be sweating in their little lycra shorts.......
My shorts aren't little and neither are they lycra :-)
Mine are and I always do some lunges before getting on my bike. :)
[quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]suzigirl[/bold] wrote: So cyclists wo't be able to cycle down the hill then? Bless their cotton socks they will be sweating in their little lycra shorts.......[/p][/quote]My shorts aren't little and neither are they lycra :-)[/p][/quote]Mine are and I always do some lunges before getting on my bike. :) boardsandphotos
  • Score: 3

9:06pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Hessenford says...

scrumpyjack wrote:
Hobad1 wrote:
Why are cyclists being given, what seems to be, preferential treatment when it comes to our roads nowadays? Why are such funds being spent on cyclists when they contribute nothing to the upkeep of the road infrastructure?
Contribute nothing? Please develop this point further, I am keen to learn.
No point, you seem incapable of learning anything.
[quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hobad1[/bold] wrote: Why are cyclists being given, what seems to be, preferential treatment when it comes to our roads nowadays? Why are such funds being spent on cyclists when they contribute nothing to the upkeep of the road infrastructure?[/p][/quote]Contribute nothing? Please develop this point further, I am keen to learn.[/p][/quote]No point, you seem incapable of learning anything. Hessenford
  • Score: 4

9:09pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Hobad1 says...

scrumpyjack wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Adrian XX wrote:
Many car drivers now do not pay "road tax" because they have small cars with no emissions.
They still have to be insured and have an MOT for the privilege of using the road plus the VAT and tax on the fuel they use.
Apart from the tax and VAT the money you are on about goes into the general 'taxation coffers'. (The Treasury).

The same coffers that a lot of high earning cyclists pay into. The same cyclists that also run 1 and even 2 cars.

As to local business benefiting from MOTs, do you think bikes don't get serviced? Don;t need parts?

What about all the gear and accessories they buy?

Just admit it you and people like Suzi and so many others hate cyclists and are prepared to endlessly spout ill informed rubbish week after week, month after month with no other reason than you hate cyclists.

Fact after fact has chipped away against your argument over the last 12 months but still you spit, and bray and condemn,

At least be honest -it's not like you can be done for it.

I'm a driver. Not a cyclist. Before you try any more 'bluddy cyclists' crud.
LOL. Scrumpy you are hilarious !! Your argument is based on high earning cyclists who drive 1 or 2 cars !! What about the low earning cyclists who dont drive cars ?? As for "do you think bikes don't get serviced? Don;t need parts?".....i've never seen anyone take their pushbike for a MOT !!!!! If you have, please let me know the garage name so I can avoid it ! Scrumpy...what a muppet you are....you are the funniest thing on this website. Please keep it up :)
[quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Adrian XX[/bold] wrote: Many car drivers now do not pay "road tax" because they have small cars with no emissions.[/p][/quote]They still have to be insured and have an MOT for the privilege of using the road plus the VAT and tax on the fuel they use.[/p][/quote]Apart from the tax and VAT the money you are on about goes into the general 'taxation coffers'. (The Treasury). The same coffers that a lot of high earning cyclists pay into. The same cyclists that also run 1 and even 2 cars. As to local business benefiting from MOTs, do you think bikes don't get serviced? Don;t need parts? What about all the gear and accessories they buy? Just admit it you and people like Suzi and so many others hate cyclists and are prepared to endlessly spout ill informed rubbish week after week, month after month with no other reason than you hate cyclists. Fact after fact has chipped away against your argument over the last 12 months but still you spit, and bray and condemn, At least be honest -it's not like you can be done for it. I'm a driver. Not a cyclist. Before you try any more 'bluddy cyclists' crud.[/p][/quote]LOL. Scrumpy you are hilarious !! Your argument is based on high earning cyclists who drive 1 or 2 cars !! What about the low earning cyclists who dont drive cars ?? As for "do you think bikes don't get serviced? Don;t need parts?".....i've never seen anyone take their pushbike for a MOT !!!!! If you have, please let me know the garage name so I can avoid it ! Scrumpy...what a muppet you are....you are the funniest thing on this website. Please keep it up :) Hobad1
  • Score: -3

9:14pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Repo says...

Hessenford wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Adrian XX wrote:
Many car drivers now do not pay "road tax" because they have small cars with no emissions.
They still have to be insured and have an MOT for the privilege of using the road plus the VAT and tax on the fuel they use.
Apart from the tax and VAT the money you are on about goes into the general 'taxation coffers'. (The Treasury).

The same coffers that a lot of high earning cyclists pay into. The same cyclists that also run 1 and even 2 cars.

As to local business benefiting from MOTs, do you think bikes don't get serviced? Don;t need parts?

What about all the gear and accessories they buy?

Just admit it you and people like Suzi and so many others hate cyclists and are prepared to endlessly spout ill informed rubbish week after week, month after month with no other reason than you hate cyclists.

Fact after fact has chipped away against your argument over the last 12 months but still you spit, and bray and condemn,

At least be honest -it's not like you can be done for it.

I'm a driver. Not a cyclist. Before you try any more 'bluddy cyclists' crud.
Get real, cyclists want and demand a free ride when it comes to the road network, if cyclists at least had some sort of insurance and registration which is required by law for road use then the animosity may reduce, I know friends who ride bikes to work and quite frankly if some of them were required by law to have their bikes checked they would probably be off the road.
One ended up in hospital because he was hit by a car when his front tyre, which was as thin as paper, blew out and he went all over the road, of course the car drive was made to feel at fault by police until the bike was checked and he was cleared of blame.
Cyclists must and eventually will be required by law to have some form of accident insurance, registration and regular servicing.
I can see the day coming when car use will drop significantly because of fuel price or shortage, billions will be lost to the treasury in fuel duty and VED, then hopefully it will be the many cyclists using the roads that will be on the receiving end just as motorists are today, and i will be enjoying every minute.
As far as my "bluddy cyclists crud" as you put it, yes cyclists are a nightmare, some have no road sense what so ever and a large majority break all the laws that motorists abide by so what right do they have to demand anything, their all a bunch of hooligans.
ignorance, lies, and most of all jealousy; the stupidity of your comments always makes me laugh at you. You muppet!
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Adrian XX[/bold] wrote: Many car drivers now do not pay "road tax" because they have small cars with no emissions.[/p][/quote]They still have to be insured and have an MOT for the privilege of using the road plus the VAT and tax on the fuel they use.[/p][/quote]Apart from the tax and VAT the money you are on about goes into the general 'taxation coffers'. (The Treasury). The same coffers that a lot of high earning cyclists pay into. The same cyclists that also run 1 and even 2 cars. As to local business benefiting from MOTs, do you think bikes don't get serviced? Don;t need parts? What about all the gear and accessories they buy? Just admit it you and people like Suzi and so many others hate cyclists and are prepared to endlessly spout ill informed rubbish week after week, month after month with no other reason than you hate cyclists. Fact after fact has chipped away against your argument over the last 12 months but still you spit, and bray and condemn, At least be honest -it's not like you can be done for it. I'm a driver. Not a cyclist. Before you try any more 'bluddy cyclists' crud.[/p][/quote]Get real, cyclists want and demand a free ride when it comes to the road network, if cyclists at least had some sort of insurance and registration which is required by law for road use then the animosity may reduce, I know friends who ride bikes to work and quite frankly if some of them were required by law to have their bikes checked they would probably be off the road. One ended up in hospital because he was hit by a car when his front tyre, which was as thin as paper, blew out and he went all over the road, of course the car drive was made to feel at fault by police until the bike was checked and he was cleared of blame. Cyclists must and eventually will be required by law to have some form of accident insurance, registration and regular servicing. I can see the day coming when car use will drop significantly because of fuel price or shortage, billions will be lost to the treasury in fuel duty and VED, then hopefully it will be the many cyclists using the roads that will be on the receiving end just as motorists are today, and i will be enjoying every minute. As far as my "bluddy cyclists crud" as you put it, yes cyclists are a nightmare, some have no road sense what so ever and a large majority break all the laws that motorists abide by so what right do they have to demand anything, their all a bunch of hooligans.[/p][/quote]ignorance, lies, and most of all jealousy; the stupidity of your comments always makes me laugh at you. You muppet! Repo
  • Score: 1

9:16pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Hobad1 says...

Hessenford wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
Hobad1 wrote:
Why are cyclists being given, what seems to be, preferential treatment when it comes to our roads nowadays? Why are such funds being spent on cyclists when they contribute nothing to the upkeep of the road infrastructure?
Contribute nothing? Please develop this point further, I am keen to learn.
No point, you seem incapable of learning anything.
Lol. Well said Hessenford.
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hobad1[/bold] wrote: Why are cyclists being given, what seems to be, preferential treatment when it comes to our roads nowadays? Why are such funds being spent on cyclists when they contribute nothing to the upkeep of the road infrastructure?[/p][/quote]Contribute nothing? Please develop this point further, I am keen to learn.[/p][/quote]No point, you seem incapable of learning anything.[/p][/quote]Lol. Well said Hessenford. Hobad1
  • Score: -3

9:19pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Repo says...

Hobad1 wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
Hobad1 wrote:
Why are cyclists being given, what seems to be, preferential treatment when it comes to our roads nowadays? Why are such funds being spent on cyclists when they contribute nothing to the upkeep of the road infrastructure?
Contribute nothing? Please develop this point further, I am keen to learn.
Ok scrumpy, you tell me how a cyclist contributes to the upkeep of our roads. If you like, imagine a world full of cyclists and no car drivers on the existing road infrastructure, advise me what would happen to our roads when they get to a state of needing repairs. I am also keen to learn.
Another ignorant jealous moron.
[quote][p][bold]Hobad1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hobad1[/bold] wrote: Why are cyclists being given, what seems to be, preferential treatment when it comes to our roads nowadays? Why are such funds being spent on cyclists when they contribute nothing to the upkeep of the road infrastructure?[/p][/quote]Contribute nothing? Please develop this point further, I am keen to learn.[/p][/quote]Ok scrumpy, you tell me how a cyclist contributes to the upkeep of our roads. If you like, imagine a world full of cyclists and no car drivers on the existing road infrastructure, advise me what would happen to our roads when they get to a state of needing repairs. I am also keen to learn.[/p][/quote]Another ignorant jealous moron. Repo
  • Score: 4

9:23pm Fri 4 Jul 14

scrumpyjack says...

Hobad1 wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Adrian XX wrote:
Many car drivers now do not pay "road tax" because they have small cars with no emissions.
They still have to be insured and have an MOT for the privilege of using the road plus the VAT and tax on the fuel they use.
Apart from the tax and VAT the money you are on about goes into the general 'taxation coffers'. (The Treasury).

The same coffers that a lot of high earning cyclists pay into. The same cyclists that also run 1 and even 2 cars.

As to local business benefiting from MOTs, do you think bikes don't get serviced? Don;t need parts?

What about all the gear and accessories they buy?

Just admit it you and people like Suzi and so many others hate cyclists and are prepared to endlessly spout ill informed rubbish week after week, month after month with no other reason than you hate cyclists.

Fact after fact has chipped away against your argument over the last 12 months but still you spit, and bray and condemn,

At least be honest -it's not like you can be done for it.

I'm a driver. Not a cyclist. Before you try any more 'bluddy cyclists' crud.
LOL. Scrumpy you are hilarious !! Your argument is based on high earning cyclists who drive 1 or 2 cars !! What about the low earning cyclists who dont drive cars ?? As for "do you think bikes don't get serviced? Don;t need parts?".....i've never seen anyone take their pushbike for a MOT !!!!! If you have, please let me know the garage name so I can avoid it ! Scrumpy...what a muppet you are....you are the funniest thing on this website. Please keep it up :)
It isn't that I'm not a people person, I'm just not a stupid people person.

You say: What about the low earning cyclists who dont drive cars ?

What about the people who don't pay for their cars, the people who drive cars worth a few hundred and are on benefits, what about cars that are not taxed, mot'd or insured?, what about cars who are less than 3 years old so don't need an MOT?, what about cars whose emissions are so low they do not pay VED?, what about the thousands of cloned and stolen cars? (I could go on but feel I made your sarcasm look stupid)

Kind of pees on your chips that reply.

As to bikes being serviced this was in repsonse to someone (like you) suggestined that having to have an MOT meant the driver paid more and therefore was another example of why they had more 'right'. The money from the MOT is paid the garage as is a bike being serviced (£40 to £100 plus btw) goes to the local buiness.

But I am glad you can LOL at facts and feel smug about being dumb. Well done! (said in 'that voice')
[quote][p][bold]Hobad1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Adrian XX[/bold] wrote: Many car drivers now do not pay "road tax" because they have small cars with no emissions.[/p][/quote]They still have to be insured and have an MOT for the privilege of using the road plus the VAT and tax on the fuel they use.[/p][/quote]Apart from the tax and VAT the money you are on about goes into the general 'taxation coffers'. (The Treasury). The same coffers that a lot of high earning cyclists pay into. The same cyclists that also run 1 and even 2 cars. As to local business benefiting from MOTs, do you think bikes don't get serviced? Don;t need parts? What about all the gear and accessories they buy? Just admit it you and people like Suzi and so many others hate cyclists and are prepared to endlessly spout ill informed rubbish week after week, month after month with no other reason than you hate cyclists. Fact after fact has chipped away against your argument over the last 12 months but still you spit, and bray and condemn, At least be honest -it's not like you can be done for it. I'm a driver. Not a cyclist. Before you try any more 'bluddy cyclists' crud.[/p][/quote]LOL. Scrumpy you are hilarious !! Your argument is based on high earning cyclists who drive 1 or 2 cars !! What about the low earning cyclists who dont drive cars ?? As for "do you think bikes don't get serviced? Don;t need parts?".....i've never seen anyone take their pushbike for a MOT !!!!! If you have, please let me know the garage name so I can avoid it ! Scrumpy...what a muppet you are....you are the funniest thing on this website. Please keep it up :)[/p][/quote]It isn't that I'm not a people person, I'm just not a stupid people person. You say: What about the low earning cyclists who dont drive cars ? What about the people who don't pay for their cars, the people who drive cars worth a few hundred and are on benefits, what about cars that are not taxed, mot'd or insured?, what about cars who are less than 3 years old so don't need an MOT?, what about cars whose emissions are so low they do not pay VED?, what about the thousands of cloned and stolen cars? (I could go on but feel I made your sarcasm look stupid) Kind of pees on your chips that reply. As to bikes being serviced this was in repsonse to someone (like you) suggestined that having to have an MOT meant the driver paid more and therefore was another example of why they had more 'right'. The money from the MOT is paid the garage as is a bike being serviced (£40 to £100 plus btw) goes to the local buiness. But I am glad you can LOL at facts and feel smug about being dumb. Well done! (said in 'that voice') scrumpyjack
  • Score: 4

9:24pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Hessenford says...

Hobad1 wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
Hobad1 wrote:
Why are cyclists being given, what seems to be, preferential treatment when it comes to our roads nowadays? Why are such funds being spent on cyclists when they contribute nothing to the upkeep of the road infrastructure?
Contribute nothing? Please develop this point further, I am keen to learn.
No point, you seem incapable of learning anything.
Lol. Well said Hessenford.
Scrumpyjack has at last had some of his ranting removed by the administrator, and about time too, no need for his type of language on here, heated arguments yes, foul cyclist language, no.
[quote][p][bold]Hobad1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hobad1[/bold] wrote: Why are cyclists being given, what seems to be, preferential treatment when it comes to our roads nowadays? Why are such funds being spent on cyclists when they contribute nothing to the upkeep of the road infrastructure?[/p][/quote]Contribute nothing? Please develop this point further, I am keen to learn.[/p][/quote]No point, you seem incapable of learning anything.[/p][/quote]Lol. Well said Hessenford.[/p][/quote]Scrumpyjack has at last had some of his ranting removed by the administrator, and about time too, no need for his type of language on here, heated arguments yes, foul cyclist language, no. Hessenford
  • Score: -3

9:27pm Fri 4 Jul 14

boardsandphotos says...

Hobad1 wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
Hobad1 wrote:
Why are cyclists being given, what seems to be, preferential treatment when it comes to our roads nowadays? Why are such funds being spent on cyclists when they contribute nothing to the upkeep of the road infrastructure?
Contribute nothing? Please develop this point further, I am keen to learn.
Ok scrumpy, you tell me how a cyclist contributes to the upkeep of our roads. If you like, imagine a world full of cyclists and no car drivers on the existing road infrastructure, advise me what would happen to our roads when they get to a state of needing repairs. I am also keen to learn.
Oh my good god! How many more times! It's been spelt out to you and all the other ignorant, cycle hating mob on here so many times. I can't believe you are once again asking how cyclists contribute to the upkeep of the roads!!! Cyclists contribute to the upkeep of the roads by paying into general taxation the same as car drivers do, by paying Council Tax and by paying VAT on all the consumer goods we buy including bikes, my current one was a £1000, my previous one was £750 and bike accessories including clothing is another couple of grand, then I get my bike serviced every 6 months that's another £100 a year. Oh and I pay my contribution to be insured on my Wife's car which I drive from time to time. You say you pay VAT on fuel? What do you think I run on? I cycle, I have a gym membership, I play Golf, (more money more VAT contributions) When I'm not doing any of that and when I'm not at work (% of wages going to the coffers) I eat, like a horse! Which is more VAT contributions. So yeah my VAT contributions more than cover the wear and tear my thin little racing tyres cause to the road.
[quote][p][bold]Hobad1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hobad1[/bold] wrote: Why are cyclists being given, what seems to be, preferential treatment when it comes to our roads nowadays? Why are such funds being spent on cyclists when they contribute nothing to the upkeep of the road infrastructure?[/p][/quote]Contribute nothing? Please develop this point further, I am keen to learn.[/p][/quote]Ok scrumpy, you tell me how a cyclist contributes to the upkeep of our roads. If you like, imagine a world full of cyclists and no car drivers on the existing road infrastructure, advise me what would happen to our roads when they get to a state of needing repairs. I am also keen to learn.[/p][/quote]Oh my good god! How many more times! It's been spelt out to you and all the other ignorant, cycle hating mob on here so many times. I can't believe you are once again asking how cyclists contribute to the upkeep of the roads!!! Cyclists contribute to the upkeep of the roads by paying into general taxation the same as car drivers do, by paying Council Tax and by paying VAT on all the consumer goods we buy including bikes, my current one was a £1000, my previous one was £750 and bike accessories including clothing is another couple of grand, then I get my bike serviced every 6 months that's another £100 a year. Oh and I pay my contribution to be insured on my Wife's car which I drive from time to time. You say you pay VAT on fuel? What do you think I run on? I cycle, I have a gym membership, I play Golf, (more money more VAT contributions) When I'm not doing any of that and when I'm not at work (% of wages going to the coffers) I eat, like a horse! Which is more VAT contributions. So yeah my VAT contributions more than cover the wear and tear my thin little racing tyres cause to the road. boardsandphotos
  • Score: 6

9:30pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Hessenford says...

Repo wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Adrian XX wrote:
Many car drivers now do not pay "road tax" because they have small cars with no emissions.
They still have to be insured and have an MOT for the privilege of using the road plus the VAT and tax on the fuel they use.
Apart from the tax and VAT the money you are on about goes into the general 'taxation coffers'. (The Treasury).

The same coffers that a lot of high earning cyclists pay into. The same cyclists that also run 1 and even 2 cars.

As to local business benefiting from MOTs, do you think bikes don't get serviced? Don;t need parts?

What about all the gear and accessories they buy?

Just admit it you and people like Suzi and so many others hate cyclists and are prepared to endlessly spout ill informed rubbish week after week, month after month with no other reason than you hate cyclists.

Fact after fact has chipped away against your argument over the last 12 months but still you spit, and bray and condemn,

At least be honest -it's not like you can be done for it.

I'm a driver. Not a cyclist. Before you try any more 'bluddy cyclists' crud.
Get real, cyclists want and demand a free ride when it comes to the road network, if cyclists at least had some sort of insurance and registration which is required by law for road use then the animosity may reduce, I know friends who ride bikes to work and quite frankly if some of them were required by law to have their bikes checked they would probably be off the road.
One ended up in hospital because he was hit by a car when his front tyre, which was as thin as paper, blew out and he went all over the road, of course the car drive was made to feel at fault by police until the bike was checked and he was cleared of blame.
Cyclists must and eventually will be required by law to have some form of accident insurance, registration and regular servicing.
I can see the day coming when car use will drop significantly because of fuel price or shortage, billions will be lost to the treasury in fuel duty and VED, then hopefully it will be the many cyclists using the roads that will be on the receiving end just as motorists are today, and i will be enjoying every minute.
As far as my "bluddy cyclists crud" as you put it, yes cyclists are a nightmare, some have no road sense what so ever and a large majority break all the laws that motorists abide by so what right do they have to demand anything, their all a bunch of hooligans.
ignorance, lies, and most of all jealousy; the stupidity of your comments always makes me laugh at you. You muppet!
Scrumpyjack and Repo, both cyclists and both ignorant, two main qualities of bike ownership.
[quote][p][bold]Repo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Adrian XX[/bold] wrote: Many car drivers now do not pay "road tax" because they have small cars with no emissions.[/p][/quote]They still have to be insured and have an MOT for the privilege of using the road plus the VAT and tax on the fuel they use.[/p][/quote]Apart from the tax and VAT the money you are on about goes into the general 'taxation coffers'. (The Treasury). The same coffers that a lot of high earning cyclists pay into. The same cyclists that also run 1 and even 2 cars. As to local business benefiting from MOTs, do you think bikes don't get serviced? Don;t need parts? What about all the gear and accessories they buy? Just admit it you and people like Suzi and so many others hate cyclists and are prepared to endlessly spout ill informed rubbish week after week, month after month with no other reason than you hate cyclists. Fact after fact has chipped away against your argument over the last 12 months but still you spit, and bray and condemn, At least be honest -it's not like you can be done for it. I'm a driver. Not a cyclist. Before you try any more 'bluddy cyclists' crud.[/p][/quote]Get real, cyclists want and demand a free ride when it comes to the road network, if cyclists at least had some sort of insurance and registration which is required by law for road use then the animosity may reduce, I know friends who ride bikes to work and quite frankly if some of them were required by law to have their bikes checked they would probably be off the road. One ended up in hospital because he was hit by a car when his front tyre, which was as thin as paper, blew out and he went all over the road, of course the car drive was made to feel at fault by police until the bike was checked and he was cleared of blame. Cyclists must and eventually will be required by law to have some form of accident insurance, registration and regular servicing. I can see the day coming when car use will drop significantly because of fuel price or shortage, billions will be lost to the treasury in fuel duty and VED, then hopefully it will be the many cyclists using the roads that will be on the receiving end just as motorists are today, and i will be enjoying every minute. As far as my "bluddy cyclists crud" as you put it, yes cyclists are a nightmare, some have no road sense what so ever and a large majority break all the laws that motorists abide by so what right do they have to demand anything, their all a bunch of hooligans.[/p][/quote]ignorance, lies, and most of all jealousy; the stupidity of your comments always makes me laugh at you. You muppet![/p][/quote]Scrumpyjack and Repo, both cyclists and both ignorant, two main qualities of bike ownership. Hessenford
  • Score: -2

9:31pm Fri 4 Jul 14

scrumpyjack says...

Hobad1 wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
Hobad1 wrote:
Why are cyclists being given, what seems to be, preferential treatment when it comes to our roads nowadays? Why are such funds being spent on cyclists when they contribute nothing to the upkeep of the road infrastructure?
Contribute nothing? Please develop this point further, I am keen to learn.
Ok scrumpy, you tell me how a cyclist contributes to the upkeep of our roads. If you like, imagine a world full of cyclists and no car drivers on the existing road infrastructure, advise me what would happen to our roads when they get to a state of needing repairs. I am also keen to learn.
My god really? (I missed this one).

I'm bowing out. If that is a genuine question I am in danger of being done for abusing.

Goodnight.
[quote][p][bold]Hobad1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hobad1[/bold] wrote: Why are cyclists being given, what seems to be, preferential treatment when it comes to our roads nowadays? Why are such funds being spent on cyclists when they contribute nothing to the upkeep of the road infrastructure?[/p][/quote]Contribute nothing? Please develop this point further, I am keen to learn.[/p][/quote]Ok scrumpy, you tell me how a cyclist contributes to the upkeep of our roads. If you like, imagine a world full of cyclists and no car drivers on the existing road infrastructure, advise me what would happen to our roads when they get to a state of needing repairs. I am also keen to learn.[/p][/quote]My god really? (I missed this one). I'm bowing out. If that is a genuine question I am in danger of being done for abusing. Goodnight. scrumpyjack
  • Score: -1

9:34pm Fri 4 Jul 14

scrumpyjack says...

Hessenford wrote:
Repo wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Adrian XX wrote:
Many car drivers now do not pay "road tax" because they have small cars with no emissions.
They still have to be insured and have an MOT for the privilege of using the road plus the VAT and tax on the fuel they use.
Apart from the tax and VAT the money you are on about goes into the general 'taxation coffers'. (The Treasury).

The same coffers that a lot of high earning cyclists pay into. The same cyclists that also run 1 and even 2 cars.

As to local business benefiting from MOTs, do you think bikes don't get serviced? Don;t need parts?

What about all the gear and accessories they buy?

Just admit it you and people like Suzi and so many others hate cyclists and are prepared to endlessly spout ill informed rubbish week after week, month after month with no other reason than you hate cyclists.

Fact after fact has chipped away against your argument over the last 12 months but still you spit, and bray and condemn,

At least be honest -it's not like you can be done for it.

I'm a driver. Not a cyclist. Before you try any more 'bluddy cyclists' crud.
Get real, cyclists want and demand a free ride when it comes to the road network, if cyclists at least had some sort of insurance and registration which is required by law for road use then the animosity may reduce, I know friends who ride bikes to work and quite frankly if some of them were required by law to have their bikes checked they would probably be off the road.
One ended up in hospital because he was hit by a car when his front tyre, which was as thin as paper, blew out and he went all over the road, of course the car drive was made to feel at fault by police until the bike was checked and he was cleared of blame.
Cyclists must and eventually will be required by law to have some form of accident insurance, registration and regular servicing.
I can see the day coming when car use will drop significantly because of fuel price or shortage, billions will be lost to the treasury in fuel duty and VED, then hopefully it will be the many cyclists using the roads that will be on the receiving end just as motorists are today, and i will be enjoying every minute.
As far as my "bluddy cyclists crud" as you put it, yes cyclists are a nightmare, some have no road sense what so ever and a large majority break all the laws that motorists abide by so what right do they have to demand anything, their all a bunch of hooligans.
ignorance, lies, and most of all jealousy; the stupidity of your comments always makes me laugh at you. You muppet!
Scrumpyjack and Repo, both cyclists and both ignorant, two main qualities of bike ownership.
I drive everywhere. (got 3 points this week for doing 40 on Fairlmile)

How many times ........?



No, no I am listening it just a while to process that amount of stupid at once.
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Repo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Adrian XX[/bold] wrote: Many car drivers now do not pay "road tax" because they have small cars with no emissions.[/p][/quote]They still have to be insured and have an MOT for the privilege of using the road plus the VAT and tax on the fuel they use.[/p][/quote]Apart from the tax and VAT the money you are on about goes into the general 'taxation coffers'. (The Treasury). The same coffers that a lot of high earning cyclists pay into. The same cyclists that also run 1 and even 2 cars. As to local business benefiting from MOTs, do you think bikes don't get serviced? Don;t need parts? What about all the gear and accessories they buy? Just admit it you and people like Suzi and so many others hate cyclists and are prepared to endlessly spout ill informed rubbish week after week, month after month with no other reason than you hate cyclists. Fact after fact has chipped away against your argument over the last 12 months but still you spit, and bray and condemn, At least be honest -it's not like you can be done for it. I'm a driver. Not a cyclist. Before you try any more 'bluddy cyclists' crud.[/p][/quote]Get real, cyclists want and demand a free ride when it comes to the road network, if cyclists at least had some sort of insurance and registration which is required by law for road use then the animosity may reduce, I know friends who ride bikes to work and quite frankly if some of them were required by law to have their bikes checked they would probably be off the road. One ended up in hospital because he was hit by a car when his front tyre, which was as thin as paper, blew out and he went all over the road, of course the car drive was made to feel at fault by police until the bike was checked and he was cleared of blame. Cyclists must and eventually will be required by law to have some form of accident insurance, registration and regular servicing. I can see the day coming when car use will drop significantly because of fuel price or shortage, billions will be lost to the treasury in fuel duty and VED, then hopefully it will be the many cyclists using the roads that will be on the receiving end just as motorists are today, and i will be enjoying every minute. As far as my "bluddy cyclists crud" as you put it, yes cyclists are a nightmare, some have no road sense what so ever and a large majority break all the laws that motorists abide by so what right do they have to demand anything, their all a bunch of hooligans.[/p][/quote]ignorance, lies, and most of all jealousy; the stupidity of your comments always makes me laugh at you. You muppet![/p][/quote]Scrumpyjack and Repo, both cyclists and both ignorant, two main qualities of bike ownership.[/p][/quote]I drive everywhere. (got 3 points this week for doing 40 on Fairlmile) How many times ........? No, no I am listening it just a while to process that amount of stupid at once. scrumpyjack
  • Score: 0

9:34pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Hessenford says...

scrumpyjack wrote:
Hobad1 wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Adrian XX wrote:
Many car drivers now do not pay "road tax" because they have small cars with no emissions.
They still have to be insured and have an MOT for the privilege of using the road plus the VAT and tax on the fuel they use.
Apart from the tax and VAT the money you are on about goes into the general 'taxation coffers'. (The Treasury).

The same coffers that a lot of high earning cyclists pay into. The same cyclists that also run 1 and even 2 cars.

As to local business benefiting from MOTs, do you think bikes don't get serviced? Don;t need parts?

What about all the gear and accessories they buy?

Just admit it you and people like Suzi and so many others hate cyclists and are prepared to endlessly spout ill informed rubbish week after week, month after month with no other reason than you hate cyclists.

Fact after fact has chipped away against your argument over the last 12 months but still you spit, and bray and condemn,

At least be honest -it's not like you can be done for it.

I'm a driver. Not a cyclist. Before you try any more 'bluddy cyclists' crud.
LOL. Scrumpy you are hilarious !! Your argument is based on high earning cyclists who drive 1 or 2 cars !! What about the low earning cyclists who dont drive cars ?? As for "do you think bikes don't get serviced? Don;t need parts?".....i've never seen anyone take their pushbike for a MOT !!!!! If you have, please let me know the garage name so I can avoid it ! Scrumpy...what a muppet you are....you are the funniest thing on this website. Please keep it up :)
It isn't that I'm not a people person, I'm just not a stupid people person.

You say: What about the low earning cyclists who dont drive cars ?

What about the people who don't pay for their cars, the people who drive cars worth a few hundred and are on benefits, what about cars that are not taxed, mot'd or insured?, what about cars who are less than 3 years old so don't need an MOT?, what about cars whose emissions are so low they do not pay VED?, what about the thousands of cloned and stolen cars? (I could go on but feel I made your sarcasm look stupid)

Kind of pees on your chips that reply.

As to bikes being serviced this was in repsonse to someone (like you) suggestined that having to have an MOT meant the driver paid more and therefore was another example of why they had more 'right'. The money from the MOT is paid the garage as is a bike being serviced (£40 to £100 plus btw) goes to the local buiness.

But I am glad you can LOL at facts and feel smug about being dumb. Well done! (said in 'that voice')
Bike servicing is not required by law for use on the road, MOT is required by law for use on the road, irrespective of where the money goes it is still an enforced expense for the privilege of road use, cyclists want the privilege then start paying/
[quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hobad1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Adrian XX[/bold] wrote: Many car drivers now do not pay "road tax" because they have small cars with no emissions.[/p][/quote]They still have to be insured and have an MOT for the privilege of using the road plus the VAT and tax on the fuel they use.[/p][/quote]Apart from the tax and VAT the money you are on about goes into the general 'taxation coffers'. (The Treasury). The same coffers that a lot of high earning cyclists pay into. The same cyclists that also run 1 and even 2 cars. As to local business benefiting from MOTs, do you think bikes don't get serviced? Don;t need parts? What about all the gear and accessories they buy? Just admit it you and people like Suzi and so many others hate cyclists and are prepared to endlessly spout ill informed rubbish week after week, month after month with no other reason than you hate cyclists. Fact after fact has chipped away against your argument over the last 12 months but still you spit, and bray and condemn, At least be honest -it's not like you can be done for it. I'm a driver. Not a cyclist. Before you try any more 'bluddy cyclists' crud.[/p][/quote]LOL. Scrumpy you are hilarious !! Your argument is based on high earning cyclists who drive 1 or 2 cars !! What about the low earning cyclists who dont drive cars ?? As for "do you think bikes don't get serviced? Don;t need parts?".....i've never seen anyone take their pushbike for a MOT !!!!! If you have, please let me know the garage name so I can avoid it ! Scrumpy...what a muppet you are....you are the funniest thing on this website. Please keep it up :)[/p][/quote]It isn't that I'm not a people person, I'm just not a stupid people person. You say: What about the low earning cyclists who dont drive cars ? What about the people who don't pay for their cars, the people who drive cars worth a few hundred and are on benefits, what about cars that are not taxed, mot'd or insured?, what about cars who are less than 3 years old so don't need an MOT?, what about cars whose emissions are so low they do not pay VED?, what about the thousands of cloned and stolen cars? (I could go on but feel I made your sarcasm look stupid) Kind of pees on your chips that reply. As to bikes being serviced this was in repsonse to someone (like you) suggestined that having to have an MOT meant the driver paid more and therefore was another example of why they had more 'right'. The money from the MOT is paid the garage as is a bike being serviced (£40 to £100 plus btw) goes to the local buiness. But I am glad you can LOL at facts and feel smug about being dumb. Well done! (said in 'that voice')[/p][/quote]Bike servicing is not required by law for use on the road, MOT is required by law for use on the road, irrespective of where the money goes it is still an enforced expense for the privilege of road use, cyclists want the privilege then start paying/ Hessenford
  • Score: 3

9:36pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Hessenford says...

scrumpyjack wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Repo wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Adrian XX wrote:
Many car drivers now do not pay "road tax" because they have small cars with no emissions.
They still have to be insured and have an MOT for the privilege of using the road plus the VAT and tax on the fuel they use.
Apart from the tax and VAT the money you are on about goes into the general 'taxation coffers'. (The Treasury).

The same coffers that a lot of high earning cyclists pay into. The same cyclists that also run 1 and even 2 cars.

As to local business benefiting from MOTs, do you think bikes don't get serviced? Don;t need parts?

What about all the gear and accessories they buy?

Just admit it you and people like Suzi and so many others hate cyclists and are prepared to endlessly spout ill informed rubbish week after week, month after month with no other reason than you hate cyclists.

Fact after fact has chipped away against your argument over the last 12 months but still you spit, and bray and condemn,

At least be honest -it's not like you can be done for it.

I'm a driver. Not a cyclist. Before you try any more 'bluddy cyclists' crud.
Get real, cyclists want and demand a free ride when it comes to the road network, if cyclists at least had some sort of insurance and registration which is required by law for road use then the animosity may reduce, I know friends who ride bikes to work and quite frankly if some of them were required by law to have their bikes checked they would probably be off the road.
One ended up in hospital because he was hit by a car when his front tyre, which was as thin as paper, blew out and he went all over the road, of course the car drive was made to feel at fault by police until the bike was checked and he was cleared of blame.
Cyclists must and eventually will be required by law to have some form of accident insurance, registration and regular servicing.
I can see the day coming when car use will drop significantly because of fuel price or shortage, billions will be lost to the treasury in fuel duty and VED, then hopefully it will be the many cyclists using the roads that will be on the receiving end just as motorists are today, and i will be enjoying every minute.
As far as my "bluddy cyclists crud" as you put it, yes cyclists are a nightmare, some have no road sense what so ever and a large majority break all the laws that motorists abide by so what right do they have to demand anything, their all a bunch of hooligans.
ignorance, lies, and most of all jealousy; the stupidity of your comments always makes me laugh at you. You muppet!
Scrumpyjack and Repo, both cyclists and both ignorant, two main qualities of bike ownership.
I drive everywhere. (got 3 points this week for doing 40 on Fairlmile)

How many times ........?



No, no I am listening it just a while to process that amount of stupid at once.
You haven't the brain capacity to process anything so give up trying.
[quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Repo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Adrian XX[/bold] wrote: Many car drivers now do not pay "road tax" because they have small cars with no emissions.[/p][/quote]They still have to be insured and have an MOT for the privilege of using the road plus the VAT and tax on the fuel they use.[/p][/quote]Apart from the tax and VAT the money you are on about goes into the general 'taxation coffers'. (The Treasury). The same coffers that a lot of high earning cyclists pay into. The same cyclists that also run 1 and even 2 cars. As to local business benefiting from MOTs, do you think bikes don't get serviced? Don;t need parts? What about all the gear and accessories they buy? Just admit it you and people like Suzi and so many others hate cyclists and are prepared to endlessly spout ill informed rubbish week after week, month after month with no other reason than you hate cyclists. Fact after fact has chipped away against your argument over the last 12 months but still you spit, and bray and condemn, At least be honest -it's not like you can be done for it. I'm a driver. Not a cyclist. Before you try any more 'bluddy cyclists' crud.[/p][/quote]Get real, cyclists want and demand a free ride when it comes to the road network, if cyclists at least had some sort of insurance and registration which is required by law for road use then the animosity may reduce, I know friends who ride bikes to work and quite frankly if some of them were required by law to have their bikes checked they would probably be off the road. One ended up in hospital because he was hit by a car when his front tyre, which was as thin as paper, blew out and he went all over the road, of course the car drive was made to feel at fault by police until the bike was checked and he was cleared of blame. Cyclists must and eventually will be required by law to have some form of accident insurance, registration and regular servicing. I can see the day coming when car use will drop significantly because of fuel price or shortage, billions will be lost to the treasury in fuel duty and VED, then hopefully it will be the many cyclists using the roads that will be on the receiving end just as motorists are today, and i will be enjoying every minute. As far as my "bluddy cyclists crud" as you put it, yes cyclists are a nightmare, some have no road sense what so ever and a large majority break all the laws that motorists abide by so what right do they have to demand anything, their all a bunch of hooligans.[/p][/quote]ignorance, lies, and most of all jealousy; the stupidity of your comments always makes me laugh at you. You muppet![/p][/quote]Scrumpyjack and Repo, both cyclists and both ignorant, two main qualities of bike ownership.[/p][/quote]I drive everywhere. (got 3 points this week for doing 40 on Fairlmile) How many times ........? No, no I am listening it just a while to process that amount of stupid at once.[/p][/quote]You haven't the brain capacity to process anything so give up trying. Hessenford
  • Score: -3

9:37pm Fri 4 Jul 14

boardsandphotos says...

Hessenford wrote:
Repo wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Adrian XX wrote:
Many car drivers now do not pay "road tax" because they have small cars with no emissions.
They still have to be insured and have an MOT for the privilege of using the road plus the VAT and tax on the fuel they use.
Apart from the tax and VAT the money you are on about goes into the general 'taxation coffers'. (The Treasury).

The same coffers that a lot of high earning cyclists pay into. The same cyclists that also run 1 and even 2 cars.

As to local business benefiting from MOTs, do you think bikes don't get serviced? Don;t need parts?

What about all the gear and accessories they buy?

Just admit it you and people like Suzi and so many others hate cyclists and are prepared to endlessly spout ill informed rubbish week after week, month after month with no other reason than you hate cyclists.

Fact after fact has chipped away against your argument over the last 12 months but still you spit, and bray and condemn,

At least be honest -it's not like you can be done for it.

I'm a driver. Not a cyclist. Before you try any more 'bluddy cyclists' crud.
Get real, cyclists want and demand a free ride when it comes to the road network, if cyclists at least had some sort of insurance and registration which is required by law for road use then the animosity may reduce, I know friends who ride bikes to work and quite frankly if some of them were required by law to have their bikes checked they would probably be off the road.
One ended up in hospital because he was hit by a car when his front tyre, which was as thin as paper, blew out and he went all over the road, of course the car drive was made to feel at fault by police until the bike was checked and he was cleared of blame.
Cyclists must and eventually will be required by law to have some form of accident insurance, registration and regular servicing.
I can see the day coming when car use will drop significantly because of fuel price or shortage, billions will be lost to the treasury in fuel duty and VED, then hopefully it will be the many cyclists using the roads that will be on the receiving end just as motorists are today, and i will be enjoying every minute.
As far as my "bluddy cyclists crud" as you put it, yes cyclists are a nightmare, some have no road sense what so ever and a large majority break all the laws that motorists abide by so what right do they have to demand anything, their all a bunch of hooligans.
ignorance, lies, and most of all jealousy; the stupidity of your comments always makes me laugh at you. You muppet!
Scrumpyjack and Repo, both cyclists and both ignorant, two main qualities of bike ownership.
.....and have both answered all your questions several times over, yet you seem intent on just closing your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears and going lalalalalalalalalala
lalalala
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Repo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Adrian XX[/bold] wrote: Many car drivers now do not pay "road tax" because they have small cars with no emissions.[/p][/quote]They still have to be insured and have an MOT for the privilege of using the road plus the VAT and tax on the fuel they use.[/p][/quote]Apart from the tax and VAT the money you are on about goes into the general 'taxation coffers'. (The Treasury). The same coffers that a lot of high earning cyclists pay into. The same cyclists that also run 1 and even 2 cars. As to local business benefiting from MOTs, do you think bikes don't get serviced? Don;t need parts? What about all the gear and accessories they buy? Just admit it you and people like Suzi and so many others hate cyclists and are prepared to endlessly spout ill informed rubbish week after week, month after month with no other reason than you hate cyclists. Fact after fact has chipped away against your argument over the last 12 months but still you spit, and bray and condemn, At least be honest -it's not like you can be done for it. I'm a driver. Not a cyclist. Before you try any more 'bluddy cyclists' crud.[/p][/quote]Get real, cyclists want and demand a free ride when it comes to the road network, if cyclists at least had some sort of insurance and registration which is required by law for road use then the animosity may reduce, I know friends who ride bikes to work and quite frankly if some of them were required by law to have their bikes checked they would probably be off the road. One ended up in hospital because he was hit by a car when his front tyre, which was as thin as paper, blew out and he went all over the road, of course the car drive was made to feel at fault by police until the bike was checked and he was cleared of blame. Cyclists must and eventually will be required by law to have some form of accident insurance, registration and regular servicing. I can see the day coming when car use will drop significantly because of fuel price or shortage, billions will be lost to the treasury in fuel duty and VED, then hopefully it will be the many cyclists using the roads that will be on the receiving end just as motorists are today, and i will be enjoying every minute. As far as my "bluddy cyclists crud" as you put it, yes cyclists are a nightmare, some have no road sense what so ever and a large majority break all the laws that motorists abide by so what right do they have to demand anything, their all a bunch of hooligans.[/p][/quote]ignorance, lies, and most of all jealousy; the stupidity of your comments always makes me laugh at you. You muppet![/p][/quote]Scrumpyjack and Repo, both cyclists and both ignorant, two main qualities of bike ownership.[/p][/quote].....and have both answered all your questions several times over, yet you seem intent on just closing your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears and going lalalalalalalalalala lalalala boardsandphotos
  • Score: 3

9:40pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Hessenford says...

scrumpyjack wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Repo wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Adrian XX wrote:
Many car drivers now do not pay "road tax" because they have small cars with no emissions.
They still have to be insured and have an MOT for the privilege of using the road plus the VAT and tax on the fuel they use.
Apart from the tax and VAT the money you are on about goes into the general 'taxation coffers'. (The Treasury).

The same coffers that a lot of high earning cyclists pay into. The same cyclists that also run 1 and even 2 cars.

As to local business benefiting from MOTs, do you think bikes don't get serviced? Don;t need parts?

What about all the gear and accessories they buy?

Just admit it you and people like Suzi and so many others hate cyclists and are prepared to endlessly spout ill informed rubbish week after week, month after month with no other reason than you hate cyclists.

Fact after fact has chipped away against your argument over the last 12 months but still you spit, and bray and condemn,

At least be honest -it's not like you can be done for it.

I'm a driver. Not a cyclist. Before you try any more 'bluddy cyclists' crud.
Get real, cyclists want and demand a free ride when it comes to the road network, if cyclists at least had some sort of insurance and registration which is required by law for road use then the animosity may reduce, I know friends who ride bikes to work and quite frankly if some of them were required by law to have their bikes checked they would probably be off the road.
One ended up in hospital because he was hit by a car when his front tyre, which was as thin as paper, blew out and he went all over the road, of course the car drive was made to feel at fault by police until the bike was checked and he was cleared of blame.
Cyclists must and eventually will be required by law to have some form of accident insurance, registration and regular servicing.
I can see the day coming when car use will drop significantly because of fuel price or shortage, billions will be lost to the treasury in fuel duty and VED, then hopefully it will be the many cyclists using the roads that will be on the receiving end just as motorists are today, and i will be enjoying every minute.
As far as my "bluddy cyclists crud" as you put it, yes cyclists are a nightmare, some have no road sense what so ever and a large majority break all the laws that motorists abide by so what right do they have to demand anything, their all a bunch of hooligans.
ignorance, lies, and most of all jealousy; the stupidity of your comments always makes me laugh at you. You muppet!
Scrumpyjack and Repo, both cyclists and both ignorant, two main qualities of bike ownership.
I drive everywhere. (got 3 points this week for doing 40 on Fairlmile)

How many times ........?



No, no I am listening it just a while to process that amount of stupid at once.
Ignorant cyclist and speeding driver, both of those qualities says it all about you.
[quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Repo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Adrian XX[/bold] wrote: Many car drivers now do not pay "road tax" because they have small cars with no emissions.[/p][/quote]They still have to be insured and have an MOT for the privilege of using the road plus the VAT and tax on the fuel they use.[/p][/quote]Apart from the tax and VAT the money you are on about goes into the general 'taxation coffers'. (The Treasury). The same coffers that a lot of high earning cyclists pay into. The same cyclists that also run 1 and even 2 cars. As to local business benefiting from MOTs, do you think bikes don't get serviced? Don;t need parts? What about all the gear and accessories they buy? Just admit it you and people like Suzi and so many others hate cyclists and are prepared to endlessly spout ill informed rubbish week after week, month after month with no other reason than you hate cyclists. Fact after fact has chipped away against your argument over the last 12 months but still you spit, and bray and condemn, At least be honest -it's not like you can be done for it. I'm a driver. Not a cyclist. Before you try any more 'bluddy cyclists' crud.[/p][/quote]Get real, cyclists want and demand a free ride when it comes to the road network, if cyclists at least had some sort of insurance and registration which is required by law for road use then the animosity may reduce, I know friends who ride bikes to work and quite frankly if some of them were required by law to have their bikes checked they would probably be off the road. One ended up in hospital because he was hit by a car when his front tyre, which was as thin as paper, blew out and he went all over the road, of course the car drive was made to feel at fault by police until the bike was checked and he was cleared of blame. Cyclists must and eventually will be required by law to have some form of accident insurance, registration and regular servicing. I can see the day coming when car use will drop significantly because of fuel price or shortage, billions will be lost to the treasury in fuel duty and VED, then hopefully it will be the many cyclists using the roads that will be on the receiving end just as motorists are today, and i will be enjoying every minute. As far as my "bluddy cyclists crud" as you put it, yes cyclists are a nightmare, some have no road sense what so ever and a large majority break all the laws that motorists abide by so what right do they have to demand anything, their all a bunch of hooligans.[/p][/quote]ignorance, lies, and most of all jealousy; the stupidity of your comments always makes me laugh at you. You muppet![/p][/quote]Scrumpyjack and Repo, both cyclists and both ignorant, two main qualities of bike ownership.[/p][/quote]I drive everywhere. (got 3 points this week for doing 40 on Fairlmile) How many times ........? No, no I am listening it just a while to process that amount of stupid at once.[/p][/quote]Ignorant cyclist and speeding driver, both of those qualities says it all about you. Hessenford
  • Score: -4

9:43pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Hessenford says...

boardsandphotos wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Repo wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Adrian XX wrote:
Many car drivers now do not pay "road tax" because they have small cars with no emissions.
They still have to be insured and have an MOT for the privilege of using the road plus the VAT and tax on the fuel they use.
Apart from the tax and VAT the money you are on about goes into the general 'taxation coffers'. (The Treasury).

The same coffers that a lot of high earning cyclists pay into. The same cyclists that also run 1 and even 2 cars.

As to local business benefiting from MOTs, do you think bikes don't get serviced? Don;t need parts?

What about all the gear and accessories they buy?

Just admit it you and people like Suzi and so many others hate cyclists and are prepared to endlessly spout ill informed rubbish week after week, month after month with no other reason than you hate cyclists.

Fact after fact has chipped away against your argument over the last 12 months but still you spit, and bray and condemn,

At least be honest -it's not like you can be done for it.

I'm a driver. Not a cyclist. Before you try any more 'bluddy cyclists' crud.
Get real, cyclists want and demand a free ride when it comes to the road network, if cyclists at least had some sort of insurance and registration which is required by law for road use then the animosity may reduce, I know friends who ride bikes to work and quite frankly if some of them were required by law to have their bikes checked they would probably be off the road.
One ended up in hospital because he was hit by a car when his front tyre, which was as thin as paper, blew out and he went all over the road, of course the car drive was made to feel at fault by police until the bike was checked and he was cleared of blame.
Cyclists must and eventually will be required by law to have some form of accident insurance, registration and regular servicing.
I can see the day coming when car use will drop significantly because of fuel price or shortage, billions will be lost to the treasury in fuel duty and VED, then hopefully it will be the many cyclists using the roads that will be on the receiving end just as motorists are today, and i will be enjoying every minute.
As far as my "bluddy cyclists crud" as you put it, yes cyclists are a nightmare, some have no road sense what so ever and a large majority break all the laws that motorists abide by so what right do they have to demand anything, their all a bunch of hooligans.
ignorance, lies, and most of all jealousy; the stupidity of your comments always makes me laugh at you. You muppet!
Scrumpyjack and Repo, both cyclists and both ignorant, two main qualities of bike ownership.
.....and have both answered all your questions several times over, yet you seem intent on just closing your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears and going lalalalalalalalalala

lalalala
And you answer by foul language and have your comment removed, no brain, no sense, typical cyclist.
[quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Repo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Adrian XX[/bold] wrote: Many car drivers now do not pay "road tax" because they have small cars with no emissions.[/p][/quote]They still have to be insured and have an MOT for the privilege of using the road plus the VAT and tax on the fuel they use.[/p][/quote]Apart from the tax and VAT the money you are on about goes into the general 'taxation coffers'. (The Treasury). The same coffers that a lot of high earning cyclists pay into. The same cyclists that also run 1 and even 2 cars. As to local business benefiting from MOTs, do you think bikes don't get serviced? Don;t need parts? What about all the gear and accessories they buy? Just admit it you and people like Suzi and so many others hate cyclists and are prepared to endlessly spout ill informed rubbish week after week, month after month with no other reason than you hate cyclists. Fact after fact has chipped away against your argument over the last 12 months but still you spit, and bray and condemn, At least be honest -it's not like you can be done for it. I'm a driver. Not a cyclist. Before you try any more 'bluddy cyclists' crud.[/p][/quote]Get real, cyclists want and demand a free ride when it comes to the road network, if cyclists at least had some sort of insurance and registration which is required by law for road use then the animosity may reduce, I know friends who ride bikes to work and quite frankly if some of them were required by law to have their bikes checked they would probably be off the road. One ended up in hospital because he was hit by a car when his front tyre, which was as thin as paper, blew out and he went all over the road, of course the car drive was made to feel at fault by police until the bike was checked and he was cleared of blame. Cyclists must and eventually will be required by law to have some form of accident insurance, registration and regular servicing. I can see the day coming when car use will drop significantly because of fuel price or shortage, billions will be lost to the treasury in fuel duty and VED, then hopefully it will be the many cyclists using the roads that will be on the receiving end just as motorists are today, and i will be enjoying every minute. As far as my "bluddy cyclists crud" as you put it, yes cyclists are a nightmare, some have no road sense what so ever and a large majority break all the laws that motorists abide by so what right do they have to demand anything, their all a bunch of hooligans.[/p][/quote]ignorance, lies, and most of all jealousy; the stupidity of your comments always makes me laugh at you. You muppet![/p][/quote]Scrumpyjack and Repo, both cyclists and both ignorant, two main qualities of bike ownership.[/p][/quote].....and have both answered all your questions several times over, yet you seem intent on just closing your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears and going lalalalalalalalalala lalalala[/p][/quote]And you answer by foul language and have your comment removed, no brain, no sense, typical cyclist. Hessenford
  • Score: -2

9:47pm Fri 4 Jul 14

boardsandphotos says...

Hessenford wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
Hobad1 wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Adrian XX wrote:
Many car drivers now do not pay "road tax" because they have small cars with no emissions.
They still have to be insured and have an MOT for the privilege of using the road plus the VAT and tax on the fuel they use.
Apart from the tax and VAT the money you are on about goes into the general 'taxation coffers'. (The Treasury).

The same coffers that a lot of high earning cyclists pay into. The same cyclists that also run 1 and even 2 cars.

As to local business benefiting from MOTs, do you think bikes don't get serviced? Don;t need parts?

What about all the gear and accessories they buy?

Just admit it you and people like Suzi and so many others hate cyclists and are prepared to endlessly spout ill informed rubbish week after week, month after month with no other reason than you hate cyclists.

Fact after fact has chipped away against your argument over the last 12 months but still you spit, and bray and condemn,

At least be honest -it's not like you can be done for it.

I'm a driver. Not a cyclist. Before you try any more 'bluddy cyclists' crud.
LOL. Scrumpy you are hilarious !! Your argument is based on high earning cyclists who drive 1 or 2 cars !! What about the low earning cyclists who dont drive cars ?? As for "do you think bikes don't get serviced? Don;t need parts?".....i've never seen anyone take their pushbike for a MOT !!!!! If you have, please let me know the garage name so I can avoid it ! Scrumpy...what a muppet you are....you are the funniest thing on this website. Please keep it up :)
It isn't that I'm not a people person, I'm just not a stupid people person.

You say: What about the low earning cyclists who dont drive cars ?

What about the people who don't pay for their cars, the people who drive cars worth a few hundred and are on benefits, what about cars that are not taxed, mot'd or insured?, what about cars who are less than 3 years old so don't need an MOT?, what about cars whose emissions are so low they do not pay VED?, what about the thousands of cloned and stolen cars? (I could go on but feel I made your sarcasm look stupid)

Kind of pees on your chips that reply.

As to bikes being serviced this was in repsonse to someone (like you) suggestined that having to have an MOT meant the driver paid more and therefore was another example of why they had more 'right'. The money from the MOT is paid the garage as is a bike being serviced (£40 to £100 plus btw) goes to the local buiness.

But I am glad you can LOL at facts and feel smug about being dumb. Well done! (said in 'that voice')
Bike servicing is not required by law for use on the road, MOT is required by law for use on the road, irrespective of where the money goes it is still an enforced expense for the privilege of road use, cyclists want the privilege then start paying/
Yes, it's not compulsory yet I still do it, why? because I want my bike to run smoothly, I don't want bits falling off it when I'm on a busy road. You should have the same attitude towards your car, you seem to be projecting an anger at cyclists that centres from not the fact that cyclists 'pay nothing' but actually the fact that car owners....do pay. Are you driving the most economical car you can afford? Do you have one that is low emissions; could you use your car less? Do you check tyre pressures regularly? You could save yourself some money then maybe you'd stop being so bitter. I check my tyre pressures, it makes for a more efficient and stress free bike ride, you shoukd give it a go sometime.
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hobad1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Adrian XX[/bold] wrote: Many car drivers now do not pay "road tax" because they have small cars with no emissions.[/p][/quote]They still have to be insured and have an MOT for the privilege of using the road plus the VAT and tax on the fuel they use.[/p][/quote]Apart from the tax and VAT the money you are on about goes into the general 'taxation coffers'. (The Treasury). The same coffers that a lot of high earning cyclists pay into. The same cyclists that also run 1 and even 2 cars. As to local business benefiting from MOTs, do you think bikes don't get serviced? Don;t need parts? What about all the gear and accessories they buy? Just admit it you and people like Suzi and so many others hate cyclists and are prepared to endlessly spout ill informed rubbish week after week, month after month with no other reason than you hate cyclists. Fact after fact has chipped away against your argument over the last 12 months but still you spit, and bray and condemn, At least be honest -it's not like you can be done for it. I'm a driver. Not a cyclist. Before you try any more 'bluddy cyclists' crud.[/p][/quote]LOL. Scrumpy you are hilarious !! Your argument is based on high earning cyclists who drive 1 or 2 cars !! What about the low earning cyclists who dont drive cars ?? As for "do you think bikes don't get serviced? Don;t need parts?".....i've never seen anyone take their pushbike for a MOT !!!!! If you have, please let me know the garage name so I can avoid it ! Scrumpy...what a muppet you are....you are the funniest thing on this website. Please keep it up :)[/p][/quote]It isn't that I'm not a people person, I'm just not a stupid people person. You say: What about the low earning cyclists who dont drive cars ? What about the people who don't pay for their cars, the people who drive cars worth a few hundred and are on benefits, what about cars that are not taxed, mot'd or insured?, what about cars who are less than 3 years old so don't need an MOT?, what about cars whose emissions are so low they do not pay VED?, what about the thousands of cloned and stolen cars? (I could go on but feel I made your sarcasm look stupid) Kind of pees on your chips that reply. As to bikes being serviced this was in repsonse to someone (like you) suggestined that having to have an MOT meant the driver paid more and therefore was another example of why they had more 'right'. The money from the MOT is paid the garage as is a bike being serviced (£40 to £100 plus btw) goes to the local buiness. But I am glad you can LOL at facts and feel smug about being dumb. Well done! (said in 'that voice')[/p][/quote]Bike servicing is not required by law for use on the road, MOT is required by law for use on the road, irrespective of where the money goes it is still an enforced expense for the privilege of road use, cyclists want the privilege then start paying/[/p][/quote]Yes, it's not compulsory yet I still do it, why? because I want my bike to run smoothly, I don't want bits falling off it when I'm on a busy road. You should have the same attitude towards your car, you seem to be projecting an anger at cyclists that centres from not the fact that cyclists 'pay nothing' but actually the fact that car owners....do pay. Are you driving the most economical car you can afford? Do you have one that is low emissions; could you use your car less? Do you check tyre pressures regularly? You could save yourself some money then maybe you'd stop being so bitter. I check my tyre pressures, it makes for a more efficient and stress free bike ride, you shoukd give it a go sometime. boardsandphotos
  • Score: 2

9:49pm Fri 4 Jul 14

scrumpyjack says...

boardsandphotos wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Repo wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Adrian XX wrote:
Many car drivers now do not pay "road tax" because they have small cars with no emissions.
They still have to be insured and have an MOT for the privilege of using the road plus the VAT and tax on the fuel they use.
Apart from the tax and VAT the money you are on about goes into the general 'taxation coffers'. (The Treasury).

The same coffers that a lot of high earning cyclists pay into. The same cyclists that also run 1 and even 2 cars.

As to local business benefiting from MOTs, do you think bikes don't get serviced? Don;t need parts?

What about all the gear and accessories they buy?

Just admit it you and people like Suzi and so many others hate cyclists and are prepared to endlessly spout ill informed rubbish week after week, month after month with no other reason than you hate cyclists.

Fact after fact has chipped away against your argument over the last 12 months but still you spit, and bray and condemn,

At least be honest -it's not like you can be done for it.

I'm a driver. Not a cyclist. Before you try any more 'bluddy cyclists' crud.
Get real, cyclists want and demand a free ride when it comes to the road network, if cyclists at least had some sort of insurance and registration which is required by law for road use then the animosity may reduce, I know friends who ride bikes to work and quite frankly if some of them were required by law to have their bikes checked they would probably be off the road.
One ended up in hospital because he was hit by a car when his front tyre, which was as thin as paper, blew out and he went all over the road, of course the car drive was made to feel at fault by police until the bike was checked and he was cleared of blame.
Cyclists must and eventually will be required by law to have some form of accident insurance, registration and regular servicing.
I can see the day coming when car use will drop significantly because of fuel price or shortage, billions will be lost to the treasury in fuel duty and VED, then hopefully it will be the many cyclists using the roads that will be on the receiving end just as motorists are today, and i will be enjoying every minute.
As far as my "bluddy cyclists crud" as you put it, yes cyclists are a nightmare, some have no road sense what so ever and a large majority break all the laws that motorists abide by so what right do they have to demand anything, their all a bunch of hooligans.
ignorance, lies, and most of all jealousy; the stupidity of your comments always makes me laugh at you. You muppet!
Scrumpyjack and Repo, both cyclists and both ignorant, two main qualities of bike ownership.
.....and have both answered all your questions several times over, yet you seem intent on just closing your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears and going lalalalalalalalalala

lalalala
I should not bite when I have had end of the week beers and wine.

I blame beer for ruining my 'there are some people so bluddy minded who will argue with you they are not hot even when doused in petrol and set on fire stupid' radar alert.
[quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Repo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Adrian XX[/bold] wrote: Many car drivers now do not pay "road tax" because they have small cars with no emissions.[/p][/quote]They still have to be insured and have an MOT for the privilege of using the road plus the VAT and tax on the fuel they use.[/p][/quote]Apart from the tax and VAT the money you are on about goes into the general 'taxation coffers'. (The Treasury). The same coffers that a lot of high earning cyclists pay into. The same cyclists that also run 1 and even 2 cars. As to local business benefiting from MOTs, do you think bikes don't get serviced? Don;t need parts? What about all the gear and accessories they buy? Just admit it you and people like Suzi and so many others hate cyclists and are prepared to endlessly spout ill informed rubbish week after week, month after month with no other reason than you hate cyclists. Fact after fact has chipped away against your argument over the last 12 months but still you spit, and bray and condemn, At least be honest -it's not like you can be done for it. I'm a driver. Not a cyclist. Before you try any more 'bluddy cyclists' crud.[/p][/quote]Get real, cyclists want and demand a free ride when it comes to the road network, if cyclists at least had some sort of insurance and registration which is required by law for road use then the animosity may reduce, I know friends who ride bikes to work and quite frankly if some of them were required by law to have their bikes checked they would probably be off the road. One ended up in hospital because he was hit by a car when his front tyre, which was as thin as paper, blew out and he went all over the road, of course the car drive was made to feel at fault by police until the bike was checked and he was cleared of blame. Cyclists must and eventually will be required by law to have some form of accident insurance, registration and regular servicing. I can see the day coming when car use will drop significantly because of fuel price or shortage, billions will be lost to the treasury in fuel duty and VED, then hopefully it will be the many cyclists using the roads that will be on the receiving end just as motorists are today, and i will be enjoying every minute. As far as my "bluddy cyclists crud" as you put it, yes cyclists are a nightmare, some have no road sense what so ever and a large majority break all the laws that motorists abide by so what right do they have to demand anything, their all a bunch of hooligans.[/p][/quote]ignorance, lies, and most of all jealousy; the stupidity of your comments always makes me laugh at you. You muppet![/p][/quote]Scrumpyjack and Repo, both cyclists and both ignorant, two main qualities of bike ownership.[/p][/quote].....and have both answered all your questions several times over, yet you seem intent on just closing your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears and going lalalalalalalalalala lalalala[/p][/quote]I should not bite when I have had end of the week beers and wine. I blame beer for ruining my 'there are some people so bluddy minded who will argue with you they are not hot even when doused in petrol and set on fire stupid' radar alert. scrumpyjack
  • Score: -2

9:53pm Fri 4 Jul 14

boardsandphotos says...

Hessenford wrote:
boardsandphotos wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Repo wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Adrian XX wrote:
Many car drivers now do not pay "road tax" because they have small cars with no emissions.
They still have to be insured and have an MOT for the privilege of using the road plus the VAT and tax on the fuel they use.
Apart from the tax and VAT the money you are on about goes into the general 'taxation coffers'. (The Treasury).

The same coffers that a lot of high earning cyclists pay into. The same cyclists that also run 1 and even 2 cars.

As to local business benefiting from MOTs, do you think bikes don't get serviced? Don;t need parts?

What about all the gear and accessories they buy?

Just admit it you and people like Suzi and so many others hate cyclists and are prepared to endlessly spout ill informed rubbish week after week, month after month with no other reason than you hate cyclists.

Fact after fact has chipped away against your argument over the last 12 months but still you spit, and bray and condemn,

At least be honest -it's not like you can be done for it.

I'm a driver. Not a cyclist. Before you try any more 'bluddy cyclists' crud.
Get real, cyclists want and demand a free ride when it comes to the road network, if cyclists at least had some sort of insurance and registration which is required by law for road use then the animosity may reduce, I know friends who ride bikes to work and quite frankly if some of them were required by law to have their bikes checked they would probably be off the road.
One ended up in hospital because he was hit by a car when his front tyre, which was as thin as paper, blew out and he went all over the road, of course the car drive was made to feel at fault by police until the bike was checked and he was cleared of blame.
Cyclists must and eventually will be required by law to have some form of accident insurance, registration and regular servicing.
I can see the day coming when car use will drop significantly because of fuel price or shortage, billions will be lost to the treasury in fuel duty and VED, then hopefully it will be the many cyclists using the roads that will be on the receiving end just as motorists are today, and i will be enjoying every minute.
As far as my "bluddy cyclists crud" as you put it, yes cyclists are a nightmare, some have no road sense what so ever and a large majority break all the laws that motorists abide by so what right do they have to demand anything, their all a bunch of hooligans.
ignorance, lies, and most of all jealousy; the stupidity of your comments always makes me laugh at you. You muppet!
Scrumpyjack and Repo, both cyclists and both ignorant, two main qualities of bike ownership.
.....and have both answered all your questions several times over, yet you seem intent on just closing your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears and going lalalalalalalalalala


lalalala
And you answer by foul language and have your comment removed, no brain, no sense, typical cyclist.
Feel free to quote me on that foul language. You'll struggle to find any.
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Repo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Adrian XX[/bold] wrote: Many car drivers now do not pay "road tax" because they have small cars with no emissions.[/p][/quote]They still have to be insured and have an MOT for the privilege of using the road plus the VAT and tax on the fuel they use.[/p][/quote]Apart from the tax and VAT the money you are on about goes into the general 'taxation coffers'. (The Treasury). The same coffers that a lot of high earning cyclists pay into. The same cyclists that also run 1 and even 2 cars. As to local business benefiting from MOTs, do you think bikes don't get serviced? Don;t need parts? What about all the gear and accessories they buy? Just admit it you and people like Suzi and so many others hate cyclists and are prepared to endlessly spout ill informed rubbish week after week, month after month with no other reason than you hate cyclists. Fact after fact has chipped away against your argument over the last 12 months but still you spit, and bray and condemn, At least be honest -it's not like you can be done for it. I'm a driver. Not a cyclist. Before you try any more 'bluddy cyclists' crud.[/p][/quote]Get real, cyclists want and demand a free ride when it comes to the road network, if cyclists at least had some sort of insurance and registration which is required by law for road use then the animosity may reduce, I know friends who ride bikes to work and quite frankly if some of them were required by law to have their bikes checked they would probably be off the road. One ended up in hospital because he was hit by a car when his front tyre, which was as thin as paper, blew out and he went all over the road, of course the car drive was made to feel at fault by police until the bike was checked and he was cleared of blame. Cyclists must and eventually will be required by law to have some form of accident insurance, registration and regular servicing. I can see the day coming when car use will drop significantly because of fuel price or shortage, billions will be lost to the treasury in fuel duty and VED, then hopefully it will be the many cyclists using the roads that will be on the receiving end just as motorists are today, and i will be enjoying every minute. As far as my "bluddy cyclists crud" as you put it, yes cyclists are a nightmare, some have no road sense what so ever and a large majority break all the laws that motorists abide by so what right do they have to demand anything, their all a bunch of hooligans.[/p][/quote]ignorance, lies, and most of all jealousy; the stupidity of your comments always makes me laugh at you. You muppet![/p][/quote]Scrumpyjack and Repo, both cyclists and both ignorant, two main qualities of bike ownership.[/p][/quote].....and have both answered all your questions several times over, yet you seem intent on just closing your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears and going lalalalalalalalalala lalalala[/p][/quote]And you answer by foul language and have your comment removed, no brain, no sense, typical cyclist.[/p][/quote]Feel free to quote me on that foul language. You'll struggle to find any. boardsandphotos
  • Score: 2

9:54pm Fri 4 Jul 14

scrumpyjack says...

My point being they make claims, which we then (at first) articulately respond to over and over again; coming up with facts and sources and well thought out arguments, while they just chuck stupid, stupid statements and press 'repeat' with no facts, no back up, no examples, no sources, nothing.

Sigh.

Now I feel the stupid one for biting, I feel like a dog caught growling at my tail.

Anyway, it;s 1-0 to Brazil and the game is picking up.....
My point being they make claims, which we then (at first) articulately respond to over and over again; coming up with facts and sources and well thought out arguments, while they just chuck stupid, stupid statements and press 'repeat' with no facts, no back up, no examples, no sources, nothing. Sigh. Now I feel the stupid one for biting, I feel like a dog caught growling at my tail. Anyway, it;s 1-0 to Brazil and the game is picking up..... scrumpyjack
  • Score: 1

9:57pm Fri 4 Jul 14

boardsandphotos says...

scrumpyjack wrote:
boardsandphotos wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Repo wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Adrian XX wrote:
Many car drivers now do not pay "road tax" because they have small cars with no emissions.
They still have to be insured and have an MOT for the privilege of using the road plus the VAT and tax on the fuel they use.
Apart from the tax and VAT the money you are on about goes into the general 'taxation coffers'. (The Treasury).

The same coffers that a lot of high earning cyclists pay into. The same cyclists that also run 1 and even 2 cars.

As to local business benefiting from MOTs, do you think bikes don't get serviced? Don;t need parts?

What about all the gear and accessories they buy?

Just admit it you and people like Suzi and so many others hate cyclists and are prepared to endlessly spout ill informed rubbish week after week, month after month with no other reason than you hate cyclists.

Fact after fact has chipped away against your argument over the last 12 months but still you spit, and bray and condemn,

At least be honest -it's not like you can be done for it.

I'm a driver. Not a cyclist. Before you try any more 'bluddy cyclists' crud.
Get real, cyclists want and demand a free ride when it comes to the road network, if cyclists at least had some sort of insurance and registration which is required by law for road use then the animosity may reduce, I know friends who ride bikes to work and quite frankly if some of them were required by law to have their bikes checked they would probably be off the road.
One ended up in hospital because he was hit by a car when his front tyre, which was as thin as paper, blew out and he went all over the road, of course the car drive was made to feel at fault by police until the bike was checked and he was cleared of blame.
Cyclists must and eventually will be required by law to have some form of accident insurance, registration and regular servicing.
I can see the day coming when car use will drop significantly because of fuel price or shortage, billions will be lost to the treasury in fuel duty and VED, then hopefully it will be the many cyclists using the roads that will be on the receiving end just as motorists are today, and i will be enjoying every minute.
As far as my "bluddy cyclists crud" as you put it, yes cyclists are a nightmare, some have no road sense what so ever and a large majority break all the laws that motorists abide by so what right do they have to demand anything, their all a bunch of hooligans.
ignorance, lies, and most of all jealousy; the stupidity of your comments always makes me laugh at you. You muppet!
Scrumpyjack and Repo, both cyclists and both ignorant, two main qualities of bike ownership.
.....and have both answered all your questions several times over, yet you seem intent on just closing your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears and going lalalalalalalalalala


lalalala
I should not bite when I have had end of the week beers and wine.

I blame beer for ruining my 'there are some people so bluddy minded who will argue with you they are not hot even when doused in petrol and set on fire stupid' radar alert.
I'm drinking Cider tonight although not scrumpy, hmm Alcohol, there's a duty on that right? Goes into the central coffers I believe, that's more road repair contributions just by sitting still. :)
[quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Repo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Adrian XX[/bold] wrote: Many car drivers now do not pay "road tax" because they have small cars with no emissions.[/p][/quote]They still have to be insured and have an MOT for the privilege of using the road plus the VAT and tax on the fuel they use.[/p][/quote]Apart from the tax and VAT the money you are on about goes into the general 'taxation coffers'. (The Treasury). The same coffers that a lot of high earning cyclists pay into. The same cyclists that also run 1 and even 2 cars. As to local business benefiting from MOTs, do you think bikes don't get serviced? Don;t need parts? What about all the gear and accessories they buy? Just admit it you and people like Suzi and so many others hate cyclists and are prepared to endlessly spout ill informed rubbish week after week, month after month with no other reason than you hate cyclists. Fact after fact has chipped away against your argument over the last 12 months but still you spit, and bray and condemn, At least be honest -it's not like you can be done for it. I'm a driver. Not a cyclist. Before you try any more 'bluddy cyclists' crud.[/p][/quote]Get real, cyclists want and demand a free ride when it comes to the road network, if cyclists at least had some sort of insurance and registration which is required by law for road use then the animosity may reduce, I know friends who ride bikes to work and quite frankly if some of them were required by law to have their bikes checked they would probably be off the road. One ended up in hospital because he was hit by a car when his front tyre, which was as thin as paper, blew out and he went all over the road, of course the car drive was made to feel at fault by police until the bike was checked and he was cleared of blame. Cyclists must and eventually will be required by law to have some form of accident insurance, registration and regular servicing. I can see the day coming when car use will drop significantly because of fuel price or shortage, billions will be lost to the treasury in fuel duty and VED, then hopefully it will be the many cyclists using the roads that will be on the receiving end just as motorists are today, and i will be enjoying every minute. As far as my "bluddy cyclists crud" as you put it, yes cyclists are a nightmare, some have no road sense what so ever and a large majority break all the laws that motorists abide by so what right do they have to demand anything, their all a bunch of hooligans.[/p][/quote]ignorance, lies, and most of all jealousy; the stupidity of your comments always makes me laugh at you. You muppet![/p][/quote]Scrumpyjack and Repo, both cyclists and both ignorant, two main qualities of bike ownership.[/p][/quote].....and have both answered all your questions several times over, yet you seem intent on just closing your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears and going lalalalalalalalalala lalalala[/p][/quote]I should not bite when I have had end of the week beers and wine. I blame beer for ruining my 'there are some people so bluddy minded who will argue with you they are not hot even when doused in petrol and set on fire stupid' radar alert.[/p][/quote]I'm drinking Cider tonight although not scrumpy, hmm Alcohol, there's a duty on that right? Goes into the central coffers I believe, that's more road repair contributions just by sitting still. :) boardsandphotos
  • Score: 1

10:01pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Hessenford says...

boardsandphotos wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
Hobad1 wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Adrian XX wrote:
Many car drivers now do not pay "road tax" because they have small cars with no emissions.
They still have to be insured and have an MOT for the privilege of using the road plus the VAT and tax on the fuel they use.
Apart from the tax and VAT the money you are on about goes into the general 'taxation coffers'. (The Treasury).

The same coffers that a lot of high earning cyclists pay into. The same cyclists that also run 1 and even 2 cars.

As to local business benefiting from MOTs, do you think bikes don't get serviced? Don;t need parts?

What about all the gear and accessories they buy?

Just admit it you and people like Suzi and so many others hate cyclists and are prepared to endlessly spout ill informed rubbish week after week, month after month with no other reason than you hate cyclists.

Fact after fact has chipped away against your argument over the last 12 months but still you spit, and bray and condemn,

At least be honest -it's not like you can be done for it.

I'm a driver. Not a cyclist. Before you try any more 'bluddy cyclists' crud.
LOL. Scrumpy you are hilarious !! Your argument is based on high earning cyclists who drive 1 or 2 cars !! What about the low earning cyclists who dont drive cars ?? As for "do you think bikes don't get serviced? Don;t need parts?".....i've never seen anyone take their pushbike for a MOT !!!!! If you have, please let me know the garage name so I can avoid it ! Scrumpy...what a muppet you are....you are the funniest thing on this website. Please keep it up :)
It isn't that I'm not a people person, I'm just not a stupid people person.

You say: What about the low earning cyclists who dont drive cars ?

What about the people who don't pay for their cars, the people who drive cars worth a few hundred and are on benefits, what about cars that are not taxed, mot'd or insured?, what about cars who are less than 3 years old so don't need an MOT?, what about cars whose emissions are so low they do not pay VED?, what about the thousands of cloned and stolen cars? (I could go on but feel I made your sarcasm look stupid)

Kind of pees on your chips that reply.

As to bikes being serviced this was in repsonse to someone (like you) suggestined that having to have an MOT meant the driver paid more and therefore was another example of why they had more 'right'. The money from the MOT is paid the garage as is a bike being serviced (£40 to £100 plus btw) goes to the local buiness.

But I am glad you can LOL at facts and feel smug about being dumb. Well done! (said in 'that voice')
Bike servicing is not required by law for use on the road, MOT is required by law for use on the road, irrespective of where the money goes it is still an enforced expense for the privilege of road use, cyclists want the privilege then start paying/
Yes, it's not compulsory yet I still do it, why? because I want my bike to run smoothly, I don't want bits falling off it when I'm on a busy road. You should have the same attitude towards your car, you seem to be projecting an anger at cyclists that centres from not the fact that cyclists 'pay nothing' but actually the fact that car owners....do pay. Are you driving the most economical car you can afford? Do you have one that is low emissions; could you use your car less? Do you check tyre pressures regularly? You could save yourself some money then maybe you'd stop being so bitter. I check my tyre pressures, it makes for a more efficient and stress free bike ride, you shoukd give it a go sometime.
Another rant by someone who know not what he's talking about, I have never driven without insurance, MOT or VED,, car serviced once a year, I have a low emission and economical car, yes tyres are checked regularly, having been in the motor trade for over 30 years I know how to look after a car, perhaps bike owners should look after their bike as well, oh and I walk to work every day even when it rains as I am only around a mile from my employment, I think that's all your questions answered, now go away.
[quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hobad1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Adrian XX[/bold] wrote: Many car drivers now do not pay "road tax" because they have small cars with no emissions.[/p][/quote]They still have to be insured and have an MOT for the privilege of using the road plus the VAT and tax on the fuel they use.[/p][/quote]Apart from the tax and VAT the money you are on about goes into the general 'taxation coffers'. (The Treasury). The same coffers that a lot of high earning cyclists pay into. The same cyclists that also run 1 and even 2 cars. As to local business benefiting from MOTs, do you think bikes don't get serviced? Don;t need parts? What about all the gear and accessories they buy? Just admit it you and people like Suzi and so many others hate cyclists and are prepared to endlessly spout ill informed rubbish week after week, month after month with no other reason than you hate cyclists. Fact after fact has chipped away against your argument over the last 12 months but still you spit, and bray and condemn, At least be honest -it's not like you can be done for it. I'm a driver. Not a cyclist. Before you try any more 'bluddy cyclists' crud.[/p][/quote]LOL. Scrumpy you are hilarious !! Your argument is based on high earning cyclists who drive 1 or 2 cars !! What about the low earning cyclists who dont drive cars ?? As for "do you think bikes don't get serviced? Don;t need parts?".....i've never seen anyone take their pushbike for a MOT !!!!! If you have, please let me know the garage name so I can avoid it ! Scrumpy...what a muppet you are....you are the funniest thing on this website. Please keep it up :)[/p][/quote]It isn't that I'm not a people person, I'm just not a stupid people person. You say: What about the low earning cyclists who dont drive cars ? What about the people who don't pay for their cars, the people who drive cars worth a few hundred and are on benefits, what about cars that are not taxed, mot'd or insured?, what about cars who are less than 3 years old so don't need an MOT?, what about cars whose emissions are so low they do not pay VED?, what about the thousands of cloned and stolen cars? (I could go on but feel I made your sarcasm look stupid) Kind of pees on your chips that reply. As to bikes being serviced this was in repsonse to someone (like you) suggestined that having to have an MOT meant the driver paid more and therefore was another example of why they had more 'right'. The money from the MOT is paid the garage as is a bike being serviced (£40 to £100 plus btw) goes to the local buiness. But I am glad you can LOL at facts and feel smug about being dumb. Well done! (said in 'that voice')[/p][/quote]Bike servicing is not required by law for use on the road, MOT is required by law for use on the road, irrespective of where the money goes it is still an enforced expense for the privilege of road use, cyclists want the privilege then start paying/[/p][/quote]Yes, it's not compulsory yet I still do it, why? because I want my bike to run smoothly, I don't want bits falling off it when I'm on a busy road. You should have the same attitude towards your car, you seem to be projecting an anger at cyclists that centres from not the fact that cyclists 'pay nothing' but actually the fact that car owners....do pay. Are you driving the most economical car you can afford? Do you have one that is low emissions; could you use your car less? Do you check tyre pressures regularly? You could save yourself some money then maybe you'd stop being so bitter. I check my tyre pressures, it makes for a more efficient and stress free bike ride, you shoukd give it a go sometime.[/p][/quote]Another rant by someone who know not what he's talking about, I have never driven without insurance, MOT or VED,, car serviced once a year, I have a low emission and economical car, yes tyres are checked regularly, having been in the motor trade for over 30 years I know how to look after a car, perhaps bike owners should look after their bike as well, oh and I walk to work every day even when it rains as I am only around a mile from my employment, I think that's all your questions answered, now go away. Hessenford
  • Score: 1

10:03pm Fri 4 Jul 14

boardsandphotos says...

scrumpyjack wrote:
My point being they make claims, which we then (at first) articulately respond to over and over again; coming up with facts and sources and well thought out arguments, while they just chuck stupid, stupid statements and press 'repeat' with no facts, no back up, no examples, no sources, nothing.

Sigh.

Now I feel the stupid one for biting, I feel like a dog caught growling at my tail.

Anyway, it;s 1-0 to Brazil and the game is picking up.....
Yep watching the game, bored of chasing that metaphorical tail now, everything that can be said has been said. The Echo really should add an FAQ to reports about cyclists / road repairs / road projects. 'Everything you need to know about taxation and the Highway Code'
[quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: My point being they make claims, which we then (at first) articulately respond to over and over again; coming up with facts and sources and well thought out arguments, while they just chuck stupid, stupid statements and press 'repeat' with no facts, no back up, no examples, no sources, nothing. Sigh. Now I feel the stupid one for biting, I feel like a dog caught growling at my tail. Anyway, it;s 1-0 to Brazil and the game is picking up.....[/p][/quote]Yep watching the game, bored of chasing that metaphorical tail now, everything that can be said has been said. The Echo really should add an FAQ to reports about cyclists / road repairs / road projects. 'Everything you need to know about taxation and the Highway Code' boardsandphotos
  • Score: 2

10:05pm Fri 4 Jul 14

scrumpyjack says...

Hessenford wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Repo wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Adrian XX wrote:
Many car drivers now do not pay "road tax" because they have small cars with no emissions.
They still have to be insured and have an MOT for the privilege of using the road plus the VAT and tax on the fuel they use.
Apart from the tax and VAT the money you are on about goes into the general 'taxation coffers'. (The Treasury).

The same coffers that a lot of high earning cyclists pay into. The same cyclists that also run 1 and even 2 cars.

As to local business benefiting from MOTs, do you think bikes don't get serviced? Don;t need parts?

What about all the gear and accessories they buy?

Just admit it you and people like Suzi and so many others hate cyclists and are prepared to endlessly spout ill informed rubbish week after week, month after month with no other reason than you hate cyclists.

Fact after fact has chipped away against your argument over the last 12 months but still you spit, and bray and condemn,

At least be honest -it's not like you can be done for it.

I'm a driver. Not a cyclist. Before you try any more 'bluddy cyclists' crud.
Get real, cyclists want and demand a free ride when it comes to the road network, if cyclists at least had some sort of insurance and registration which is required by law for road use then the animosity may reduce, I know friends who ride bikes to work and quite frankly if some of them were required by law to have their bikes checked they would probably be off the road.
One ended up in hospital because he was hit by a car when his front tyre, which was as thin as paper, blew out and he went all over the road, of course the car drive was made to feel at fault by police until the bike was checked and he was cleared of blame.
Cyclists must and eventually will be required by law to have some form of accident insurance, registration and regular servicing.
I can see the day coming when car use will drop significantly because of fuel price or shortage, billions will be lost to the treasury in fuel duty and VED, then hopefully it will be the many cyclists using the roads that will be on the receiving end just as motorists are today, and i will be enjoying every minute.
As far as my "bluddy cyclists crud" as you put it, yes cyclists are a nightmare, some have no road sense what so ever and a large majority break all the laws that motorists abide by so what right do they have to demand anything, their all a bunch of hooligans.
ignorance, lies, and most of all jealousy; the stupidity of your comments always makes me laugh at you. You muppet!
Scrumpyjack and Repo, both cyclists and both ignorant, two main qualities of bike ownership.
I drive everywhere. (got 3 points this week for doing 40 on Fairlmile)

How many times ........?



No, no I am listening it just a while to process that amount of stupid at once.
Ignorant cyclist and speeding driver, both of those qualities says it all about you.
Please feel free to abuse me, I have not held back.

But please do not include Boardsandphotos with me.

He is leveled and patient and rides a bike.

As a car driver, I hate this prejudice against people who use a bike (motor or pedal) and used insults and bad words.

Please try and see the difference, even though I know it is hard for you, please try.
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Repo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Adrian XX[/bold] wrote: Many car drivers now do not pay "road tax" because they have small cars with no emissions.[/p][/quote]They still have to be insured and have an MOT for the privilege of using the road plus the VAT and tax on the fuel they use.[/p][/quote]Apart from the tax and VAT the money you are on about goes into the general 'taxation coffers'. (The Treasury). The same coffers that a lot of high earning cyclists pay into. The same cyclists that also run 1 and even 2 cars. As to local business benefiting from MOTs, do you think bikes don't get serviced? Don;t need parts? What about all the gear and accessories they buy? Just admit it you and people like Suzi and so many others hate cyclists and are prepared to endlessly spout ill informed rubbish week after week, month after month with no other reason than you hate cyclists. Fact after fact has chipped away against your argument over the last 12 months but still you spit, and bray and condemn, At least be honest -it's not like you can be done for it. I'm a driver. Not a cyclist. Before you try any more 'bluddy cyclists' crud.[/p][/quote]Get real, cyclists want and demand a free ride when it comes to the road network, if cyclists at least had some sort of insurance and registration which is required by law for road use then the animosity may reduce, I know friends who ride bikes to work and quite frankly if some of them were required by law to have their bikes checked they would probably be off the road. One ended up in hospital because he was hit by a car when his front tyre, which was as thin as paper, blew out and he went all over the road, of course the car drive was made to feel at fault by police until the bike was checked and he was cleared of blame. Cyclists must and eventually will be required by law to have some form of accident insurance, registration and regular servicing. I can see the day coming when car use will drop significantly because of fuel price or shortage, billions will be lost to the treasury in fuel duty and VED, then hopefully it will be the many cyclists using the roads that will be on the receiving end just as motorists are today, and i will be enjoying every minute. As far as my "bluddy cyclists crud" as you put it, yes cyclists are a nightmare, some have no road sense what so ever and a large majority break all the laws that motorists abide by so what right do they have to demand anything, their all a bunch of hooligans.[/p][/quote]ignorance, lies, and most of all jealousy; the stupidity of your comments always makes me laugh at you. You muppet![/p][/quote]Scrumpyjack and Repo, both cyclists and both ignorant, two main qualities of bike ownership.[/p][/quote]I drive everywhere. (got 3 points this week for doing 40 on Fairlmile) How many times ........? No, no I am listening it just a while to process that amount of stupid at once.[/p][/quote]Ignorant cyclist and speeding driver, both of those qualities says it all about you.[/p][/quote]Please feel free to abuse me, I have not held back. But please do not include Boardsandphotos with me. He is leveled and patient and rides a bike. As a car driver, I hate this prejudice against people who use a bike (motor or pedal) and used insults and bad words. Please try and see the difference, even though I know it is hard for you, please try. scrumpyjack
  • Score: -2

10:10pm Fri 4 Jul 14

scrumpyjack says...

Hessenford wrote:
boardsandphotos wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
Hobad1 wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Adrian XX wrote:
Many car drivers now do not pay "road tax" because they have small cars with no emissions.
They still have to be insured and have an MOT for the privilege of using the road plus the VAT and tax on the fuel they use.
Apart from the tax and VAT the money you are on about goes into the general 'taxation coffers'. (The Treasury).

The same coffers that a lot of high earning cyclists pay into. The same cyclists that also run 1 and even 2 cars.

As to local business benefiting from MOTs, do you think bikes don't get serviced? Don;t need parts?

What about all the gear and accessories they buy?

Just admit it you and people like Suzi and so many others hate cyclists and are prepared to endlessly spout ill informed rubbish week after week, month after month with no other reason than you hate cyclists.

Fact after fact has chipped away against your argument over the last 12 months but still you spit, and bray and condemn,

At least be honest -it's not like you can be done for it.

I'm a driver. Not a cyclist. Before you try any more 'bluddy cyclists' crud.
LOL. Scrumpy you are hilarious !! Your argument is based on high earning cyclists who drive 1 or 2 cars !! What about the low earning cyclists who dont drive cars ?? As for "do you think bikes don't get serviced? Don;t need parts?".....i've never seen anyone take their pushbike for a MOT !!!!! If you have, please let me know the garage name so I can avoid it ! Scrumpy...what a muppet you are....you are the funniest thing on this website. Please keep it up :)
It isn't that I'm not a people person, I'm just not a stupid people person.

You say: What about the low earning cyclists who dont drive cars ?

What about the people who don't pay for their cars, the people who drive cars worth a few hundred and are on benefits, what about cars that are not taxed, mot'd or insured?, what about cars who are less than 3 years old so don't need an MOT?, what about cars whose emissions are so low they do not pay VED?, what about the thousands of cloned and stolen cars? (I could go on but feel I made your sarcasm look stupid)

Kind of pees on your chips that reply.

As to bikes being serviced this was in repsonse to someone (like you) suggestined that having to have an MOT meant the driver paid more and therefore was another example of why they had more 'right'. The money from the MOT is paid the garage as is a bike being serviced (£40 to £100 plus btw) goes to the local buiness.

But I am glad you can LOL at facts and feel smug about being dumb. Well done! (said in 'that voice')
Bike servicing is not required by law for use on the road, MOT is required by law for use on the road, irrespective of where the money goes it is still an enforced expense for the privilege of road use, cyclists want the privilege then start paying/
Yes, it's not compulsory yet I still do it, why? because I want my bike to run smoothly, I don't want bits falling off it when I'm on a busy road. You should have the same attitude towards your car, you seem to be projecting an anger at cyclists that centres from not the fact that cyclists 'pay nothing' but actually the fact that car owners....do pay. Are you driving the most economical car you can afford? Do you have one that is low emissions; could you use your car less? Do you check tyre pressures regularly? You could save yourself some money then maybe you'd stop being so bitter. I check my tyre pressures, it makes for a more efficient and stress free bike ride, you shoukd give it a go sometime.
Another rant by someone who know not what he's talking about, I have never driven without insurance, MOT or VED,, car serviced once a year, I have a low emission and economical car, yes tyres are checked regularly, having been in the motor trade for over 30 years I know how to look after a car, perhaps bike owners should look after their bike as well, oh and I walk to work every day even when it rains as I am only around a mile from my employment, I think that's all your questions answered, now go away.
And from that you came up with 'rant'?


*smiles and takes another sip before shutting lid of laptop
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hobad1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Adrian XX[/bold] wrote: Many car drivers now do not pay "road tax" because they have small cars with no emissions.[/p][/quote]They still have to be insured and have an MOT for the privilege of using the road plus the VAT and tax on the fuel they use.[/p][/quote]Apart from the tax and VAT the money you are on about goes into the general 'taxation coffers'. (The Treasury). The same coffers that a lot of high earning cyclists pay into. The same cyclists that also run 1 and even 2 cars. As to local business benefiting from MOTs, do you think bikes don't get serviced? Don;t need parts? What about all the gear and accessories they buy? Just admit it you and people like Suzi and so many others hate cyclists and are prepared to endlessly spout ill informed rubbish week after week, month after month with no other reason than you hate cyclists. Fact after fact has chipped away against your argument over the last 12 months but still you spit, and bray and condemn, At least be honest -it's not like you can be done for it. I'm a driver. Not a cyclist. Before you try any more 'bluddy cyclists' crud.[/p][/quote]LOL. Scrumpy you are hilarious !! Your argument is based on high earning cyclists who drive 1 or 2 cars !! What about the low earning cyclists who dont drive cars ?? As for "do you think bikes don't get serviced? Don;t need parts?".....i've never seen anyone take their pushbike for a MOT !!!!! If you have, please let me know the garage name so I can avoid it ! Scrumpy...what a muppet you are....you are the funniest thing on this website. Please keep it up :)[/p][/quote]It isn't that I'm not a people person, I'm just not a stupid people person. You say: What about the low earning cyclists who dont drive cars ? What about the people who don't pay for their cars, the people who drive cars worth a few hundred and are on benefits, what about cars that are not taxed, mot'd or insured?, what about cars who are less than 3 years old so don't need an MOT?, what about cars whose emissions are so low they do not pay VED?, what about the thousands of cloned and stolen cars? (I could go on but feel I made your sarcasm look stupid) Kind of pees on your chips that reply. As to bikes being serviced this was in repsonse to someone (like you) suggestined that having to have an MOT meant the driver paid more and therefore was another example of why they had more 'right'. The money from the MOT is paid the garage as is a bike being serviced (£40 to £100 plus btw) goes to the local buiness. But I am glad you can LOL at facts and feel smug about being dumb. Well done! (said in 'that voice')[/p][/quote]Bike servicing is not required by law for use on the road, MOT is required by law for use on the road, irrespective of where the money goes it is still an enforced expense for the privilege of road use, cyclists want the privilege then start paying/[/p][/quote]Yes, it's not compulsory yet I still do it, why? because I want my bike to run smoothly, I don't want bits falling off it when I'm on a busy road. You should have the same attitude towards your car, you seem to be projecting an anger at cyclists that centres from not the fact that cyclists 'pay nothing' but actually the fact that car owners....do pay. Are you driving the most economical car you can afford? Do you have one that is low emissions; could you use your car less? Do you check tyre pressures regularly? You could save yourself some money then maybe you'd stop being so bitter. I check my tyre pressures, it makes for a more efficient and stress free bike ride, you shoukd give it a go sometime.[/p][/quote]Another rant by someone who know not what he's talking about, I have never driven without insurance, MOT or VED,, car serviced once a year, I have a low emission and economical car, yes tyres are checked regularly, having been in the motor trade for over 30 years I know how to look after a car, perhaps bike owners should look after their bike as well, oh and I walk to work every day even when it rains as I am only around a mile from my employment, I think that's all your questions answered, now go away.[/p][/quote]And from that you came up with 'rant'? *smiles and takes another sip before shutting lid of laptop scrumpyjack
  • Score: 1

10:11pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Hessenford says...

boardsandphotos wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
boardsandphotos wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Repo wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Adrian XX wrote:
Many car drivers now do not pay "road tax" because they have small cars with no emissions.
They still have to be insured and have an MOT for the privilege of using the road plus the VAT and tax on the fuel they use.
Apart from the tax and VAT the money you are on about goes into the general 'taxation coffers'. (The Treasury).

The same coffers that a lot of high earning cyclists pay into. The same cyclists that also run 1 and even 2 cars.

As to local business benefiting from MOTs, do you think bikes don't get serviced? Don;t need parts?

What about all the gear and accessories they buy?

Just admit it you and people like Suzi and so many others hate cyclists and are prepared to endlessly spout ill informed rubbish week after week, month after month with no other reason than you hate cyclists.

Fact after fact has chipped away against your argument over the last 12 months but still you spit, and bray and condemn,

At least be honest -it's not like you can be done for it.

I'm a driver. Not a cyclist. Before you try any more 'bluddy cyclists' crud.
Get real, cyclists want and demand a free ride when it comes to the road network, if cyclists at least had some sort of insurance and registration which is required by law for road use then the animosity may reduce, I know friends who ride bikes to work and quite frankly if some of them were required by law to have their bikes checked they would probably be off the road.
One ended up in hospital because he was hit by a car when his front tyre, which was as thin as paper, blew out and he went all over the road, of course the car drive was made to feel at fault by police until the bike was checked and he was cleared of blame.
Cyclists must and eventually will be required by law to have some form of accident insurance, registration and regular servicing.
I can see the day coming when car use will drop significantly because of fuel price or shortage, billions will be lost to the treasury in fuel duty and VED, then hopefully it will be the many cyclists using the roads that will be on the receiving end just as motorists are today, and i will be enjoying every minute.
As far as my "bluddy cyclists crud" as you put it, yes cyclists are a nightmare, some have no road sense what so ever and a large majority break all the laws that motorists abide by so what right do they have to demand anything, their all a bunch of hooligans.
ignorance, lies, and most of all jealousy; the stupidity of your comments always makes me laugh at you. You muppet!
Scrumpyjack and Repo, both cyclists and both ignorant, two main qualities of bike ownership.
.....and have both answered all your questions several times over, yet you seem intent on just closing your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears and going lalalalalalalalalala



lalalala
And you answer by foul language and have your comment removed, no brain, no sense, typical cyclist.
Feel free to quote me on that foul language. You'll struggle to find any.
Course not because its been removed at my request, foul language shows a lack of intelligence, I learn't that at school, seems like they were right.
[quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Repo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Adrian XX[/bold] wrote: Many car drivers now do not pay "road tax" because they have small cars with no emissions.[/p][/quote]They still have to be insured and have an MOT for the privilege of using the road plus the VAT and tax on the fuel they use.[/p][/quote]Apart from the tax and VAT the money you are on about goes into the general 'taxation coffers'. (The Treasury). The same coffers that a lot of high earning cyclists pay into. The same cyclists that also run 1 and even 2 cars. As to local business benefiting from MOTs, do you think bikes don't get serviced? Don;t need parts? What about all the gear and accessories they buy? Just admit it you and people like Suzi and so many others hate cyclists and are prepared to endlessly spout ill informed rubbish week after week, month after month with no other reason than you hate cyclists. Fact after fact has chipped away against your argument over the last 12 months but still you spit, and bray and condemn, At least be honest -it's not like you can be done for it. I'm a driver. Not a cyclist. Before you try any more 'bluddy cyclists' crud.[/p][/quote]Get real, cyclists want and demand a free ride when it comes to the road network, if cyclists at least had some sort of insurance and registration which is required by law for road use then the animosity may reduce, I know friends who ride bikes to work and quite frankly if some of them were required by law to have their bikes checked they would probably be off the road. One ended up in hospital because he was hit by a car when his front tyre, which was as thin as paper, blew out and he went all over the road, of course the car drive was made to feel at fault by police until the bike was checked and he was cleared of blame. Cyclists must and eventually will be required by law to have some form of accident insurance, registration and regular servicing. I can see the day coming when car use will drop significantly because of fuel price or shortage, billions will be lost to the treasury in fuel duty and VED, then hopefully it will be the many cyclists using the roads that will be on the receiving end just as motorists are today, and i will be enjoying every minute. As far as my "bluddy cyclists crud" as you put it, yes cyclists are a nightmare, some have no road sense what so ever and a large majority break all the laws that motorists abide by so what right do they have to demand anything, their all a bunch of hooligans.[/p][/quote]ignorance, lies, and most of all jealousy; the stupidity of your comments always makes me laugh at you. You muppet![/p][/quote]Scrumpyjack and Repo, both cyclists and both ignorant, two main qualities of bike ownership.[/p][/quote].....and have both answered all your questions several times over, yet you seem intent on just closing your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears and going lalalalalalalalalala lalalala[/p][/quote]And you answer by foul language and have your comment removed, no brain, no sense, typical cyclist.[/p][/quote]Feel free to quote me on that foul language. You'll struggle to find any.[/p][/quote]Course not because its been removed at my request, foul language shows a lack of intelligence, I learn't that at school, seems like they were right. Hessenford
  • Score: 0

10:14pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Ashley Miller says...

Another total waste of tax payers money. Put a couple of speed humps along the road to slow vehicles down but why a cycle lane when the only cycles l see are being pushed up the hill by their owners! How long before Michael Filer & co ban ALL cars from the town centre?
Another total waste of tax payers money. Put a couple of speed humps along the road to slow vehicles down but why a cycle lane when the only cycles l see are being pushed up the hill by their owners! How long before Michael Filer & co ban ALL cars from the town centre? Ashley Miller
  • Score: 5

10:15pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Hessenford says...

Hessenford wrote:
boardsandphotos wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
boardsandphotos wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Repo wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Adrian XX wrote:
Many car drivers now do not pay "road tax" because they have small cars with no emissions.
They still have to be insured and have an MOT for the privilege of using the road plus the VAT and tax on the fuel they use.
Apart from the tax and VAT the money you are on about goes into the general 'taxation coffers'. (The Treasury).

The same coffers that a lot of high earning cyclists pay into. The same cyclists that also run 1 and even 2 cars.

As to local business benefiting from MOTs, do you think bikes don't get serviced? Don;t need parts?

What about all the gear and accessories they buy?

Just admit it you and people like Suzi and so many others hate cyclists and are prepared to endlessly spout ill informed rubbish week after week, month after month with no other reason than you hate cyclists.

Fact after fact has chipped away against your argument over the last 12 months but still you spit, and bray and condemn,

At least be honest -it's not like you can be done for it.

I'm a driver. Not a cyclist. Before you try any more 'bluddy cyclists' crud.
Get real, cyclists want and demand a free ride when it comes to the road network, if cyclists at least had some sort of insurance and registration which is required by law for road use then the animosity may reduce, I know friends who ride bikes to work and quite frankly if some of them were required by law to have their bikes checked they would probably be off the road.
One ended up in hospital because he was hit by a car when his front tyre, which was as thin as paper, blew out and he went all over the road, of course the car drive was made to feel at fault by police until the bike was checked and he was cleared of blame.
Cyclists must and eventually will be required by law to have some form of accident insurance, registration and regular servicing.
I can see the day coming when car use will drop significantly because of fuel price or shortage, billions will be lost to the treasury in fuel duty and VED, then hopefully it will be the many cyclists using the roads that will be on the receiving end just as motorists are today, and i will be enjoying every minute.
As far as my "bluddy cyclists crud" as you put it, yes cyclists are a nightmare, some have no road sense what so ever and a large majority break all the laws that motorists abide by so what right do they have to demand anything, their all a bunch of hooligans.
ignorance, lies, and most of all jealousy; the stupidity of your comments always makes me laugh at you. You muppet!
Scrumpyjack and Repo, both cyclists and both ignorant, two main qualities of bike ownership.
.....and have both answered all your questions several times over, yet you seem intent on just closing your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears and going lalalalalalalalalala




lalalala
And you answer by foul language and have your comment removed, no brain, no sense, typical cyclist.
Feel free to quote me on that foul language. You'll struggle to find any.
Course not because its been removed at my request, foul language shows a lack of intelligence, I learn't that at school, seems like they were right.
Apologies, it was scrumpyjack that used foul language not boardsandphotos.
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Repo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Adrian XX[/bold] wrote: Many car drivers now do not pay "road tax" because they have small cars with no emissions.[/p][/quote]They still have to be insured and have an MOT for the privilege of using the road plus the VAT and tax on the fuel they use.[/p][/quote]Apart from the tax and VAT the money you are on about goes into the general 'taxation coffers'. (The Treasury). The same coffers that a lot of high earning cyclists pay into. The same cyclists that also run 1 and even 2 cars. As to local business benefiting from MOTs, do you think bikes don't get serviced? Don;t need parts? What about all the gear and accessories they buy? Just admit it you and people like Suzi and so many others hate cyclists and are prepared to endlessly spout ill informed rubbish week after week, month after month with no other reason than you hate cyclists. Fact after fact has chipped away against your argument over the last 12 months but still you spit, and bray and condemn, At least be honest -it's not like you can be done for it. I'm a driver. Not a cyclist. Before you try any more 'bluddy cyclists' crud.[/p][/quote]Get real, cyclists want and demand a free ride when it comes to the road network, if cyclists at least had some sort of insurance and registration which is required by law for road use then the animosity may reduce, I know friends who ride bikes to work and quite frankly if some of them were required by law to have their bikes checked they would probably be off the road. One ended up in hospital because he was hit by a car when his front tyre, which was as thin as paper, blew out and he went all over the road, of course the car drive was made to feel at fault by police until the bike was checked and he was cleared of blame. Cyclists must and eventually will be required by law to have some form of accident insurance, registration and regular servicing. I can see the day coming when car use will drop significantly because of fuel price or shortage, billions will be lost to the treasury in fuel duty and VED, then hopefully it will be the many cyclists using the roads that will be on the receiving end just as motorists are today, and i will be enjoying every minute. As far as my "bluddy cyclists crud" as you put it, yes cyclists are a nightmare, some have no road sense what so ever and a large majority break all the laws that motorists abide by so what right do they have to demand anything, their all a bunch of hooligans.[/p][/quote]ignorance, lies, and most of all jealousy; the stupidity of your comments always makes me laugh at you. You muppet![/p][/quote]Scrumpyjack and Repo, both cyclists and both ignorant, two main qualities of bike ownership.[/p][/quote].....and have both answered all your questions several times over, yet you seem intent on just closing your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears and going lalalalalalalalalala lalalala[/p][/quote]And you answer by foul language and have your comment removed, no brain, no sense, typical cyclist.[/p][/quote]Feel free to quote me on that foul language. You'll struggle to find any.[/p][/quote]Course not because its been removed at my request, foul language shows a lack of intelligence, I learn't that at school, seems like they were right.[/p][/quote]Apologies, it was scrumpyjack that used foul language not boardsandphotos. Hessenford
  • Score: 1

10:16pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Hessenford says...

scrumpyjack wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
boardsandphotos wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
Hobad1 wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Adrian XX wrote:
Many car drivers now do not pay "road tax" because they have small cars with no emissions.
They still have to be insured and have an MOT for the privilege of using the road plus the VAT and tax on the fuel they use.
Apart from the tax and VAT the money you are on about goes into the general 'taxation coffers'. (The Treasury).

The same coffers that a lot of high earning cyclists pay into. The same cyclists that also run 1 and even 2 cars.

As to local business benefiting from MOTs, do you think bikes don't get serviced? Don;t need parts?

What about all the gear and accessories they buy?

Just admit it you and people like Suzi and so many others hate cyclists and are prepared to endlessly spout ill informed rubbish week after week, month after month with no other reason than you hate cyclists.

Fact after fact has chipped away against your argument over the last 12 months but still you spit, and bray and condemn,

At least be honest -it's not like you can be done for it.

I'm a driver. Not a cyclist. Before you try any more 'bluddy cyclists' crud.
LOL. Scrumpy you are hilarious !! Your argument is based on high earning cyclists who drive 1 or 2 cars !! What about the low earning cyclists who dont drive cars ?? As for "do you think bikes don't get serviced? Don;t need parts?".....i've never seen anyone take their pushbike for a MOT !!!!! If you have, please let me know the garage name so I can avoid it ! Scrumpy...what a muppet you are....you are the funniest thing on this website. Please keep it up :)
It isn't that I'm not a people person, I'm just not a stupid people person.

You say: What about the low earning cyclists who dont drive cars ?

What about the people who don't pay for their cars, the people who drive cars worth a few hundred and are on benefits, what about cars that are not taxed, mot'd or insured?, what about cars who are less than 3 years old so don't need an MOT?, what about cars whose emissions are so low they do not pay VED?, what about the thousands of cloned and stolen cars? (I could go on but feel I made your sarcasm look stupid)

Kind of pees on your chips that reply.

As to bikes being serviced this was in repsonse to someone (like you) suggestined that having to have an MOT meant the driver paid more and therefore was another example of why they had more 'right'. The money from the MOT is paid the garage as is a bike being serviced (£40 to £100 plus btw) goes to the local buiness.

But I am glad you can LOL at facts and feel smug about being dumb. Well done! (said in 'that voice')
Bike servicing is not required by law for use on the road, MOT is required by law for use on the road, irrespective of where the money goes it is still an enforced expense for the privilege of road use, cyclists want the privilege then start paying/
Yes, it's not compulsory yet I still do it, why? because I want my bike to run smoothly, I don't want bits falling off it when I'm on a busy road. You should have the same attitude towards your car, you seem to be projecting an anger at cyclists that centres from not the fact that cyclists 'pay nothing' but actually the fact that car owners....do pay. Are you driving the most economical car you can afford? Do you have one that is low emissions; could you use your car less? Do you check tyre pressures regularly? You could save yourself some money then maybe you'd stop being so bitter. I check my tyre pressures, it makes for a more efficient and stress free bike ride, you shoukd give it a go sometime.
Another rant by someone who know not what he's talking about, I have never driven without insurance, MOT or VED,, car serviced once a year, I have a low emission and economical car, yes tyres are checked regularly, having been in the motor trade for over 30 years I know how to look after a car, perhaps bike owners should look after their bike as well, oh and I walk to work every day even when it rains as I am only around a mile from my employment, I think that's all your questions answered, now go away.
And from that you came up with 'rant'?


*smiles and takes another sip before shutting lid of laptop
Weld it shut and do us all a favor.
[quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hobad1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Adrian XX[/bold] wrote: Many car drivers now do not pay "road tax" because they have small cars with no emissions.[/p][/quote]They still have to be insured and have an MOT for the privilege of using the road plus the VAT and tax on the fuel they use.[/p][/quote]Apart from the tax and VAT the money you are on about goes into the general 'taxation coffers'. (The Treasury). The same coffers that a lot of high earning cyclists pay into. The same cyclists that also run 1 and even 2 cars. As to local business benefiting from MOTs, do you think bikes don't get serviced? Don;t need parts? What about all the gear and accessories they buy? Just admit it you and people like Suzi and so many others hate cyclists and are prepared to endlessly spout ill informed rubbish week after week, month after month with no other reason than you hate cyclists. Fact after fact has chipped away against your argument over the last 12 months but still you spit, and bray and condemn, At least be honest -it's not like you can be done for it. I'm a driver. Not a cyclist. Before you try any more 'bluddy cyclists' crud.[/p][/quote]LOL. Scrumpy you are hilarious !! Your argument is based on high earning cyclists who drive 1 or 2 cars !! What about the low earning cyclists who dont drive cars ?? As for "do you think bikes don't get serviced? Don;t need parts?".....i've never seen anyone take their pushbike for a MOT !!!!! If you have, please let me know the garage name so I can avoid it ! Scrumpy...what a muppet you are....you are the funniest thing on this website. Please keep it up :)[/p][/quote]It isn't that I'm not a people person, I'm just not a stupid people person. You say: What about the low earning cyclists who dont drive cars ? What about the people who don't pay for their cars, the people who drive cars worth a few hundred and are on benefits, what about cars that are not taxed, mot'd or insured?, what about cars who are less than 3 years old so don't need an MOT?, what about cars whose emissions are so low they do not pay VED?, what about the thousands of cloned and stolen cars? (I could go on but feel I made your sarcasm look stupid) Kind of pees on your chips that reply. As to bikes being serviced this was in repsonse to someone (like you) suggestined that having to have an MOT meant the driver paid more and therefore was another example of why they had more 'right'. The money from the MOT is paid the garage as is a bike being serviced (£40 to £100 plus btw) goes to the local buiness. But I am glad you can LOL at facts and feel smug about being dumb. Well done! (said in 'that voice')[/p][/quote]Bike servicing is not required by law for use on the road, MOT is required by law for use on the road, irrespective of where the money goes it is still an enforced expense for the privilege of road use, cyclists want the privilege then start paying/[/p][/quote]Yes, it's not compulsory yet I still do it, why? because I want my bike to run smoothly, I don't want bits falling off it when I'm on a busy road. You should have the same attitude towards your car, you seem to be projecting an anger at cyclists that centres from not the fact that cyclists 'pay nothing' but actually the fact that car owners....do pay. Are you driving the most economical car you can afford? Do you have one that is low emissions; could you use your car less? Do you check tyre pressures regularly? You could save yourself some money then maybe you'd stop being so bitter. I check my tyre pressures, it makes for a more efficient and stress free bike ride, you shoukd give it a go sometime.[/p][/quote]Another rant by someone who know not what he's talking about, I have never driven without insurance, MOT or VED,, car serviced once a year, I have a low emission and economical car, yes tyres are checked regularly, having been in the motor trade for over 30 years I know how to look after a car, perhaps bike owners should look after their bike as well, oh and I walk to work every day even when it rains as I am only around a mile from my employment, I think that's all your questions answered, now go away.[/p][/quote]And from that you came up with 'rant'? *smiles and takes another sip before shutting lid of laptop[/p][/quote]Weld it shut and do us all a favor. Hessenford
  • Score: -1

10:17pm Fri 4 Jul 14

boardsandphotos says...

Hessenford wrote:
boardsandphotos wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
boardsandphotos wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Repo wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Adrian XX wrote:
Many car drivers now do not pay "road tax" because they have small cars with no emissions.
They still have to be insured and have an MOT for the privilege of using the road plus the VAT and tax on the fuel they use.
Apart from the tax and VAT the money you are on about goes into the general 'taxation coffers'. (The Treasury).

The same coffers that a lot of high earning cyclists pay into. The same cyclists that also run 1 and even 2 cars.

As to local business benefiting from MOTs, do you think bikes don't get serviced? Don;t need parts?

What about all the gear and accessories they buy?

Just admit it you and people like Suzi and so many others hate cyclists and are prepared to endlessly spout ill informed rubbish week after week, month after month with no other reason than you hate cyclists.

Fact after fact has chipped away against your argument over the last 12 months but still you spit, and bray and condemn,

At least be honest -it's not like you can be done for it.

I'm a driver. Not a cyclist. Before you try any more 'bluddy cyclists' crud.
Get real, cyclists want and demand a free ride when it comes to the road network, if cyclists at least had some sort of insurance and registration which is required by law for road use then the animosity may reduce, I know friends who ride bikes to work and quite frankly if some of them were required by law to have their bikes checked they would probably be off the road.
One ended up in hospital because he was hit by a car when his front tyre, which was as thin as paper, blew out and he went all over the road, of course the car drive was made to feel at fault by police until the bike was checked and he was cleared of blame.
Cyclists must and eventually will be required by law to have some form of accident insurance, registration and regular servicing.
I can see the day coming when car use will drop significantly because of fuel price or shortage, billions will be lost to the treasury in fuel duty and VED, then hopefully it will be the many cyclists using the roads that will be on the receiving end just as motorists are today, and i will be enjoying every minute.
As far as my "bluddy cyclists crud" as you put it, yes cyclists are a nightmare, some have no road sense what so ever and a large majority break all the laws that motorists abide by so what right do they have to demand anything, their all a bunch of hooligans.
ignorance, lies, and most of all jealousy; the stupidity of your comments always makes me laugh at you. You muppet!
Scrumpyjack and Repo, both cyclists and both ignorant, two main qualities of bike ownership.
.....and have both answered all your questions several times over, yet you seem intent on just closing your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears and going lalalalalalalalalala




lalalala
And you answer by foul language and have your comment removed, no brain, no sense, typical cyclist.
Feel free to quote me on that foul language. You'll struggle to find any.
Course not because its been removed at my request, foul language shows a lack of intelligence, I learn't that at school, seems like they were right.
No it really hasn't been removed because there was nothing to remove. You are mistaking me for someone else. The most abusive phrase i've used all night (and you'll struggle to find me using anything more abusive than this on any thread) is "..ignorant, cycle hating mob.." which I believe to be fair comment.

I'm more than capable of posting a comment without resorting to using swear words, threats or abuse, which is why I know you won't find any.
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Repo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Adrian XX[/bold] wrote: Many car drivers now do not pay "road tax" because they have small cars with no emissions.[/p][/quote]They still have to be insured and have an MOT for the privilege of using the road plus the VAT and tax on the fuel they use.[/p][/quote]Apart from the tax and VAT the money you are on about goes into the general 'taxation coffers'. (The Treasury). The same coffers that a lot of high earning cyclists pay into. The same cyclists that also run 1 and even 2 cars. As to local business benefiting from MOTs, do you think bikes don't get serviced? Don;t need parts? What about all the gear and accessories they buy? Just admit it you and people like Suzi and so many others hate cyclists and are prepared to endlessly spout ill informed rubbish week after week, month after month with no other reason than you hate cyclists. Fact after fact has chipped away against your argument over the last 12 months but still you spit, and bray and condemn, At least be honest -it's not like you can be done for it. I'm a driver. Not a cyclist. Before you try any more 'bluddy cyclists' crud.[/p][/quote]Get real, cyclists want and demand a free ride when it comes to the road network, if cyclists at least had some sort of insurance and registration which is required by law for road use then the animosity may reduce, I know friends who ride bikes to work and quite frankly if some of them were required by law to have their bikes checked they would probably be off the road. One ended up in hospital because he was hit by a car when his front tyre, which was as thin as paper, blew out and he went all over the road, of course the car drive was made to feel at fault by police until the bike was checked and he was cleared of blame. Cyclists must and eventually will be required by law to have some form of accident insurance, registration and regular servicing. I can see the day coming when car use will drop significantly because of fuel price or shortage, billions will be lost to the treasury in fuel duty and VED, then hopefully it will be the many cyclists using the roads that will be on the receiving end just as motorists are today, and i will be enjoying every minute. As far as my "bluddy cyclists crud" as you put it, yes cyclists are a nightmare, some have no road sense what so ever and a large majority break all the laws that motorists abide by so what right do they have to demand anything, their all a bunch of hooligans.[/p][/quote]ignorance, lies, and most of all jealousy; the stupidity of your comments always makes me laugh at you. You muppet![/p][/quote]Scrumpyjack and Repo, both cyclists and both ignorant, two main qualities of bike ownership.[/p][/quote].....and have both answered all your questions several times over, yet you seem intent on just closing your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears and going lalalalalalalalalala lalalala[/p][/quote]And you answer by foul language and have your comment removed, no brain, no sense, typical cyclist.[/p][/quote]Feel free to quote me on that foul language. You'll struggle to find any.[/p][/quote]Course not because its been removed at my request, foul language shows a lack of intelligence, I learn't that at school, seems like they were right.[/p][/quote]No it really hasn't been removed because there was nothing to remove. You are mistaking me for someone else. The most abusive phrase i've used all night (and you'll struggle to find me using anything more abusive than this on any thread) is "..ignorant, cycle hating mob.." which I believe to be fair comment. I'm more than capable of posting a comment without resorting to using swear words, threats or abuse, which is why I know you won't find any. boardsandphotos
  • Score: 5

10:21pm Fri 4 Jul 14

boardsandphotos says...

boardsandphotos wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
boardsandphotos wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
boardsandphotos wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Repo wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Adrian XX wrote:
Many car drivers now do not pay "road tax" because they have small cars with no emissions.
They still have to be insured and have an MOT for the privilege of using the road plus the VAT and tax on the fuel they use.
Apart from the tax and VAT the money you are on about goes into the general 'taxation coffers'. (The Treasury).

The same coffers that a lot of high earning cyclists pay into. The same cyclists that also run 1 and even 2 cars.

As to local business benefiting from MOTs, do you think bikes don't get serviced? Don;t need parts?

What about all the gear and accessories they buy?

Just admit it you and people like Suzi and so many others hate cyclists and are prepared to endlessly spout ill informed rubbish week after week, month after month with no other reason than you hate cyclists.

Fact after fact has chipped away against your argument over the last 12 months but still you spit, and bray and condemn,

At least be honest -it's not like you can be done for it.

I'm a driver. Not a cyclist. Before you try any more 'bluddy cyclists' crud.
Get real, cyclists want and demand a free ride when it comes to the road network, if cyclists at least had some sort of insurance and registration which is required by law for road use then the animosity may reduce, I know friends who ride bikes to work and quite frankly if some of them were required by law to have their bikes checked they would probably be off the road.
One ended up in hospital because he was hit by a car when his front tyre, which was as thin as paper, blew out and he went all over the road, of course the car drive was made to feel at fault by police until the bike was checked and he was cleared of blame.
Cyclists must and eventually will be required by law to have some form of accident insurance, registration and regular servicing.
I can see the day coming when car use will drop significantly because of fuel price or shortage, billions will be lost to the treasury in fuel duty and VED, then hopefully it will be the many cyclists using the roads that will be on the receiving end just as motorists are today, and i will be enjoying every minute.
As far as my "bluddy cyclists crud" as you put it, yes cyclists are a nightmare, some have no road sense what so ever and a large majority break all the laws that motorists abide by so what right do they have to demand anything, their all a bunch of hooligans.
ignorance, lies, and most of all jealousy; the stupidity of your comments always makes me laugh at you. You muppet!
Scrumpyjack and Repo, both cyclists and both ignorant, two main qualities of bike ownership.
.....and have both answered all your questions several times over, yet you seem intent on just closing your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears and going lalalalalalalalalala





lalalala
And you answer by foul language and have your comment removed, no brain, no sense, typical cyclist.
Feel free to quote me on that foul language. You'll struggle to find any.
Course not because its been removed at my request, foul language shows a lack of intelligence, I learn't that at school, seems like they were right.
No it really hasn't been removed because there was nothing to remove. You are mistaking me for someone else. The most abusive phrase i've used all night (and you'll struggle to find me using anything more abusive than this on any thread) is "..ignorant, cycle hating mob.." which I believe to be fair comment.

I'm more than capable of posting a comment without resorting to using swear words, threats or abuse, which is why I know you won't find any.
I've just seen your following comment, as I said, no foul language used and apology accepted.
[quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Repo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Adrian XX[/bold] wrote: Many car drivers now do not pay "road tax" because they have small cars with no emissions.[/p][/quote]They still have to be insured and have an MOT for the privilege of using the road plus the VAT and tax on the fuel they use.[/p][/quote]Apart from the tax and VAT the money you are on about goes into the general 'taxation coffers'. (The Treasury). The same coffers that a lot of high earning cyclists pay into. The same cyclists that also run 1 and even 2 cars. As to local business benefiting from MOTs, do you think bikes don't get serviced? Don;t need parts? What about all the gear and accessories they buy? Just admit it you and people like Suzi and so many others hate cyclists and are prepared to endlessly spout ill informed rubbish week after week, month after month with no other reason than you hate cyclists. Fact after fact has chipped away against your argument over the last 12 months but still you spit, and bray and condemn, At least be honest -it's not like you can be done for it. I'm a driver. Not a cyclist. Before you try any more 'bluddy cyclists' crud.[/p][/quote]Get real, cyclists want and demand a free ride when it comes to the road network, if cyclists at least had some sort of insurance and registration which is required by law for road use then the animosity may reduce, I know friends who ride bikes to work and quite frankly if some of them were required by law to have their bikes checked they would probably be off the road. One ended up in hospital because he was hit by a car when his front tyre, which was as thin as paper, blew out and he went all over the road, of course the car drive was made to feel at fault by police until the bike was checked and he was cleared of blame. Cyclists must and eventually will be required by law to have some form of accident insurance, registration and regular servicing. I can see the day coming when car use will drop significantly because of fuel price or shortage, billions will be lost to the treasury in fuel duty and VED, then hopefully it will be the many cyclists using the roads that will be on the receiving end just as motorists are today, and i will be enjoying every minute. As far as my "bluddy cyclists crud" as you put it, yes cyclists are a nightmare, some have no road sense what so ever and a large majority break all the laws that motorists abide by so what right do they have to demand anything, their all a bunch of hooligans.[/p][/quote]ignorance, lies, and most of all jealousy; the stupidity of your comments always makes me laugh at you. You muppet![/p][/quote]Scrumpyjack and Repo, both cyclists and both ignorant, two main qualities of bike ownership.[/p][/quote].....and have both answered all your questions several times over, yet you seem intent on just closing your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears and going lalalalalalalalalala lalalala[/p][/quote]And you answer by foul language and have your comment removed, no brain, no sense, typical cyclist.[/p][/quote]Feel free to quote me on that foul language. You'll struggle to find any.[/p][/quote]Course not because its been removed at my request, foul language shows a lack of intelligence, I learn't that at school, seems like they were right.[/p][/quote]No it really hasn't been removed because there was nothing to remove. You are mistaking me for someone else. The most abusive phrase i've used all night (and you'll struggle to find me using anything more abusive than this on any thread) is "..ignorant, cycle hating mob.." which I believe to be fair comment. I'm more than capable of posting a comment without resorting to using swear words, threats or abuse, which is why I know you won't find any.[/p][/quote]I've just seen your following comment, as I said, no foul language used and apology accepted. boardsandphotos
  • Score: 3

10:37pm Fri 4 Jul 14

pedantica says...

as a daily commuting cyclist, car owner and driver when required, ex-teacher and admitted pedant, could all posters please refrain from posting until they have:-
a) fully researched the facts of the subject
b) travelled a whole working week, or preferably month, by bicycle, car and public transport using each form of transport for all journeys in that week/month.
c) learned to use correct grammar and a spell-checker
as a daily commuting cyclist, car owner and driver when required, ex-teacher and admitted pedant, could all posters please refrain from posting until they have:- a) fully researched the facts of the subject b) travelled a whole working week, or preferably month, by bicycle, car and public transport using each form of transport for all journeys in that week/month. c) learned to use correct grammar and a spell-checker pedantica
  • Score: 6

10:57pm Fri 4 Jul 14

boardsandphotos says...

pedantica wrote:
as a daily commuting cyclist, car owner and driver when required, ex-teacher and admitted pedant, could all posters please refrain from posting until they have:-
a) fully researched the facts of the subject
b) travelled a whole working week, or preferably month, by bicycle, car and public transport using each form of transport for all journeys in that week/month.
c) learned to use correct grammar and a spell-checker
Just a couple of things, there is no need to use a hyphen after a colon when using bullet points or indents.

Your opening sentence should have started with a capital letter.

You have been inconsistent with your use of full stops at the end of each bullet point.

Learned is Amercan English, I think you mean learnt.

Feel free to pick holes in my spelling and grammar, but if you do make sure you are practicing what you preach.
[quote][p][bold]pedantica[/bold] wrote: as a daily commuting cyclist, car owner and driver when required, ex-teacher and admitted pedant, could all posters please refrain from posting until they have:- a) fully researched the facts of the subject b) travelled a whole working week, or preferably month, by bicycle, car and public transport using each form of transport for all journeys in that week/month. c) learned to use correct grammar and a spell-checker[/p][/quote]Just a couple of things, there is no need to use a hyphen after a colon when using bullet points or indents. Your opening sentence should have started with a capital letter. You have been inconsistent with your use of full stops at the end of each bullet point. Learned is Amercan English, I think you mean learnt. Feel free to pick holes in my spelling and grammar, but if you do make sure you are practicing what you preach. boardsandphotos
  • Score: 7

11:02pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Repo says...

boardsandphotos wrote:
pedantica wrote:
as a daily commuting cyclist, car owner and driver when required, ex-teacher and admitted pedant, could all posters please refrain from posting until they have:-
a) fully researched the facts of the subject
b) travelled a whole working week, or preferably month, by bicycle, car and public transport using each form of transport for all journeys in that week/month.
c) learned to use correct grammar and a spell-checker
Just a couple of things, there is no need to use a hyphen after a colon when using bullet points or indents.

Your opening sentence should have started with a capital letter.

You have been inconsistent with your use of full stops at the end of each bullet point.

Learned is Amercan English, I think you mean learnt.

Feel free to pick holes in my spelling and grammar, but if you do make sure you are practicing what you preach.
LOL
[quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedantica[/bold] wrote: as a daily commuting cyclist, car owner and driver when required, ex-teacher and admitted pedant, could all posters please refrain from posting until they have:- a) fully researched the facts of the subject b) travelled a whole working week, or preferably month, by bicycle, car and public transport using each form of transport for all journeys in that week/month. c) learned to use correct grammar and a spell-checker[/p][/quote]Just a couple of things, there is no need to use a hyphen after a colon when using bullet points or indents. Your opening sentence should have started with a capital letter. You have been inconsistent with your use of full stops at the end of each bullet point. Learned is Amercan English, I think you mean learnt. Feel free to pick holes in my spelling and grammar, but if you do make sure you are practicing what you preach.[/p][/quote]LOL Repo
  • Score: 5

11:11pm Fri 4 Jul 14

madras says...

s-pb2 wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
justme20092009 wrote:
stop spending money on cycle lanes untill they are made to have insurance and road tax
Bring on the comments "there is no such thing as road tax", it'll probably be a cyclist.
Well there isnt such a thing as road tax! Only very stupid people seem to think there is.

And I havent got on a cycle since the 90s!
Although, paradoxically, road fund licence or whatever it is called requires you to have a tax disc...
[quote][p][bold]s-pb2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]justme20092009[/bold] wrote: stop spending money on cycle lanes untill they are made to have insurance and road tax[/p][/quote]Bring on the comments "there is no such thing as road tax", it'll probably be a cyclist.[/p][/quote]Well there isnt such a thing as road tax! Only very stupid people seem to think there is. And I havent got on a cycle since the 90s![/p][/quote]Although, paradoxically, road fund licence or whatever it is called requires you to have a tax disc... madras
  • Score: -4

11:19pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Hessenford says...

madras wrote:
s-pb2 wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
justme20092009 wrote:
stop spending money on cycle lanes untill they are made to have insurance and road tax
Bring on the comments "there is no such thing as road tax", it'll probably be a cyclist.
Well there isnt such a thing as road tax! Only very stupid people seem to think there is.

And I havent got on a cycle since the 90s!
Although, paradoxically, road fund licence or whatever it is called requires you to have a tax disc...
Only until October.
[quote][p][bold]madras[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]s-pb2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]justme20092009[/bold] wrote: stop spending money on cycle lanes untill they are made to have insurance and road tax[/p][/quote]Bring on the comments "there is no such thing as road tax", it'll probably be a cyclist.[/p][/quote]Well there isnt such a thing as road tax! Only very stupid people seem to think there is. And I havent got on a cycle since the 90s![/p][/quote]Although, paradoxically, road fund licence or whatever it is called requires you to have a tax disc...[/p][/quote]Only until October. Hessenford
  • Score: 2

11:37pm Fri 4 Jul 14

scrumpyjack says...

Hessenford wrote:
boardsandphotos wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
boardsandphotos wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Repo wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Adrian XX wrote:
Many car drivers now do not pay "road tax" because they have small cars with no emissions.
They still have to be insured and have an MOT for the privilege of using the road plus the VAT and tax on the fuel they use.
Apart from the tax and VAT the money you are on about goes into the general 'taxation coffers'. (The Treasury).

The same coffers that a lot of high earning cyclists pay into. The same cyclists that also run 1 and even 2 cars.

As to local business benefiting from MOTs, do you think bikes don't get serviced? Don;t need parts?

What about all the gear and accessories they buy?

Just admit it you and people like Suzi and so many others hate cyclists and are prepared to endlessly spout ill informed rubbish week after week, month after month with no other reason than you hate cyclists.

Fact after fact has chipped away against your argument over the last 12 months but still you spit, and bray and condemn,

At least be honest -it's not like you can be done for it.

I'm a driver. Not a cyclist. Before you try any more 'bluddy cyclists' crud.
Get real, cyclists want and demand a free ride when it comes to the road network, if cyclists at least had some sort of insurance and registration which is required by law for road use then the animosity may reduce, I know friends who ride bikes to work and quite frankly if some of them were required by law to have their bikes checked they would probably be off the road.
One ended up in hospital because he was hit by a car when his front tyre, which was as thin as paper, blew out and he went all over the road, of course the car drive was made to feel at fault by police until the bike was checked and he was cleared of blame.
Cyclists must and eventually will be required by law to have some form of accident insurance, registration and regular servicing.
I can see the day coming when car use will drop significantly because of fuel price or shortage, billions will be lost to the treasury in fuel duty and VED, then hopefully it will be the many cyclists using the roads that will be on the receiving end just as motorists are today, and i will be enjoying every minute.
As far as my "bluddy cyclists crud" as you put it, yes cyclists are a nightmare, some have no road sense what so ever and a large majority break all the laws that motorists abide by so what right do they have to demand anything, their all a bunch of hooligans.
ignorance, lies, and most of all jealousy; the stupidity of your comments always makes me laugh at you. You muppet!
Scrumpyjack and Repo, both cyclists and both ignorant, two main qualities of bike ownership.
.....and have both answered all your questions several times over, yet you seem intent on just closing your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears and going lalalalalalalalalala




lalalala
And you answer by foul language and have your comment removed, no brain, no sense, typical cyclist.
Feel free to quote me on that foul language. You'll struggle to find any.
Course not because its been removed at my request, foul language shows a lack of intelligence, I learn't that at school, seems like they were right.
Lack of intelligence?

OK, one chance to impress and answer the following to back up that statement (otherwise......):

Why do - and I'm using your quotes here so as an intelligent person who can report others you consider unintelligent you will walk this one - the following make sense and/or answer any question raised:

1. The only painful thing on here is you. (re nickynoodah)

Hmm but you follow this up in the same article thread with..

Scrumpyjack and Repo, both cyclists and both ignorant, two main qualities of bike ownership.

Hmm sounds like a pain to you.

However on learning I am not a cyclist you change tack with...

Ignorant cyclist and speeding driver, both of those qualities says it all about you.

Ouch that must be double pain? Or is nicky the only pain on here?

2. 'Get real, cyclists want and demand a free ride when it comes to the road network'

Explain, if necessary workings will be acceptable

3. What about the low earning cyclists who dont drive cars ??

The retort you failed to answer was:

What about the people who don't pay for their cars, the people who drive cars worth a few hundred and are on benefits, what about cars that are not taxed, mot'd or insured?, what about cars who are less than 3 years old so don't need an MOT?, what about cars whose emissions are so low they do not pay VED?, what about the thousands of cloned and stolen cars?

STILL NO ANSWER FROM THE CLEVER CORNER?

4, We all pay tax according to UK law, car drivers also have to pay VED, car insurance and have a valid MOT for the privilege of using the road network,

An answer you have yet failed to counter with your much voiced superior knowledge was:

Cyclists contribute to the upkeep of the roads by paying into general taxation the same as car drivers do, by paying Council Tax and by paying VAT on all the consumer goods we buy including bikes, my current one was a £1000, my previous one was £750 and bike accessories including clothing is another couple of grand, then I get my bike serviced every 6 months that's another £100 a year. Oh and I pay my contribution to be insured on my Wife's car which I drive from time to time. You say you pay VAT on fuel? What do you think I run on? I cycle, I have a gym membership, I play Golf, (more money more VAT contributions) When I'm not doing any of that and when I'm not at work (% of wages going to the coffers) I eat, like a horse! Which is more VAT contributions


STILL NO INTELLIGENT COUNTER TO THIS? NO WITTY COME BACK? NOTHING.

5. As I pay my tax according to UK law why should that money go towards your demands when I and many others pay hundreds of pounds extra for the privilege which you want for free...


Reply: Um I am and have been for years a Higher Rate Taxpayer so pay more tax than you and have done so for years.

If I left my car on the drive and bought a bike but paid for both how would I suddenly be getting everything for free?

(HINT: THIS ONE MUST BE EASY AS YOU AND HOBAD HAVE BEEN BACK PATTING (ahem) AND HIGH FIVING OVER HOW YOU TWO KNOW THIS TO BE THE TRUTH. (I can;t wait for this one)

Again I could go on but being 'ignorant' can only handle 5 simple answers to 5 simple questions.

Now, are you going to go running to mum (the echo moderator), man up and stand by what you said and give simple straightforward back up of the above, make sad insults or ignore and run away?

Can;t wait to see.
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Repo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Adrian XX[/bold] wrote: Many car drivers now do not pay "road tax" because they have small cars with no emissions.[/p][/quote]They still have to be insured and have an MOT for the privilege of using the road plus the VAT and tax on the fuel they use.[/p][/quote]Apart from the tax and VAT the money you are on about goes into the general 'taxation coffers'. (The Treasury). The same coffers that a lot of high earning cyclists pay into. The same cyclists that also run 1 and even 2 cars. As to local business benefiting from MOTs, do you think bikes don't get serviced? Don;t need parts? What about all the gear and accessories they buy? Just admit it you and people like Suzi and so many others hate cyclists and are prepared to endlessly spout ill informed rubbish week after week, month after month with no other reason than you hate cyclists. Fact after fact has chipped away against your argument over the last 12 months but still you spit, and bray and condemn, At least be honest -it's not like you can be done for it. I'm a driver. Not a cyclist. Before you try any more 'bluddy cyclists' crud.[/p][/quote]Get real, cyclists want and demand a free ride when it comes to the road network, if cyclists at least had some sort of insurance and registration which is required by law for road use then the animosity may reduce, I know friends who ride bikes to work and quite frankly if some of them were required by law to have their bikes checked they would probably be off the road. One ended up in hospital because he was hit by a car when his front tyre, which was as thin as paper, blew out and he went all over the road, of course the car drive was made to feel at fault by police until the bike was checked and he was cleared of blame. Cyclists must and eventually will be required by law to have some form of accident insurance, registration and regular servicing. I can see the day coming when car use will drop significantly because of fuel price or shortage, billions will be lost to the treasury in fuel duty and VED, then hopefully it will be the many cyclists using the roads that will be on the receiving end just as motorists are today, and i will be enjoying every minute. As far as my "bluddy cyclists crud" as you put it, yes cyclists are a nightmare, some have no road sense what so ever and a large majority break all the laws that motorists abide by so what right do they have to demand anything, their all a bunch of hooligans.[/p][/quote]ignorance, lies, and most of all jealousy; the stupidity of your comments always makes me laugh at you. You muppet![/p][/quote]Scrumpyjack and Repo, both cyclists and both ignorant, two main qualities of bike ownership.[/p][/quote].....and have both answered all your questions several times over, yet you seem intent on just closing your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears and going lalalalalalalalalala lalalala[/p][/quote]And you answer by foul language and have your comment removed, no brain, no sense, typical cyclist.[/p][/quote]Feel free to quote me on that foul language. You'll struggle to find any.[/p][/quote]Course not because its been removed at my request, foul language shows a lack of intelligence, I learn't that at school, seems like they were right.[/p][/quote]Lack of intelligence? OK, one chance to impress and answer the following to back up that statement (otherwise......): Why do - and I'm using your quotes here so as an intelligent person who can report others you consider unintelligent you will walk this one - the following make sense and/or answer any question raised: 1. The only painful thing on here is you. (re nickynoodah) Hmm but you follow this up in the same article thread with.. Scrumpyjack and Repo, both cyclists and both ignorant, two main qualities of bike ownership. Hmm sounds like a pain to you. However on learning I am not a cyclist you change tack with... Ignorant cyclist and speeding driver, both of those qualities says it all about you. Ouch that must be double pain? Or is nicky the only pain on here? 2. 'Get real, cyclists want and demand a free ride when it comes to the road network' Explain, if necessary workings will be acceptable 3. What about the low earning cyclists who dont drive cars ?? The retort you failed to answer was: What about the people who don't pay for their cars, the people who drive cars worth a few hundred and are on benefits, what about cars that are not taxed, mot'd or insured?, what about cars who are less than 3 years old so don't need an MOT?, what about cars whose emissions are so low they do not pay VED?, what about the thousands of cloned and stolen cars? STILL NO ANSWER FROM THE CLEVER CORNER? 4, We all pay tax according to UK law, car drivers also have to pay VED, car insurance and have a valid MOT for the privilege of using the road network, An answer you have yet failed to counter with your much voiced superior knowledge was: Cyclists contribute to the upkeep of the roads by paying into general taxation the same as car drivers do, by paying Council Tax and by paying VAT on all the consumer goods we buy including bikes, my current one was a £1000, my previous one was £750 and bike accessories including clothing is another couple of grand, then I get my bike serviced every 6 months that's another £100 a year. Oh and I pay my contribution to be insured on my Wife's car which I drive from time to time. You say you pay VAT on fuel? What do you think I run on? I cycle, I have a gym membership, I play Golf, (more money more VAT contributions) When I'm not doing any of that and when I'm not at work (% of wages going to the coffers) I eat, like a horse! Which is more VAT contributions STILL NO INTELLIGENT COUNTER TO THIS? NO WITTY COME BACK? NOTHING. 5. As I pay my tax according to UK law why should that money go towards your demands when I and many others pay hundreds of pounds extra for the privilege which you want for free... Reply: Um I am and have been for years a Higher Rate Taxpayer so pay more tax than you and have done so for years. If I left my car on the drive and bought a bike but paid for both how would I suddenly be getting everything for free? (HINT: THIS ONE MUST BE EASY AS YOU AND HOBAD HAVE BEEN BACK PATTING (ahem) AND HIGH FIVING OVER HOW YOU TWO KNOW THIS TO BE THE TRUTH. (I can;t wait for this one) Again I could go on but being 'ignorant' can only handle 5 simple answers to 5 simple questions. Now, are you going to go running to mum (the echo moderator), man up and stand by what you said and give simple straightforward back up of the above, make sad insults or ignore and run away? Can;t wait to see. scrumpyjack
  • Score: 0

11:37pm Fri 4 Jul 14

wadjit says...

What is all this either or nonsense? - ride or drive? I ride when its sunny and drive when its raining. Ride for fun or drive for fun. Drive when its essential or ride when its beautiful weather. How can anyone really live, or exist, just doing one or the other? If you do you are missing out. If you haven't got one - get a bike or get a car and enjoy life. Some people on here were not in the queue when the brains were handed out, I have said it before - I worry, i really do.
What is all this either or nonsense? - ride or drive? I ride when its sunny and drive when its raining. Ride for fun or drive for fun. Drive when its essential or ride when its beautiful weather. How can anyone really live, or exist, just doing one or the other? If you do you are missing out. If you haven't got one - get a bike or get a car and enjoy life. Some people on here were not in the queue when the brains were handed out, I have said it before - I worry, i really do. wadjit
  • Score: 4

11:43pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Hessenford says...

scrumpyjack wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
boardsandphotos wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
boardsandphotos wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Repo wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Adrian XX wrote:
Many car drivers now do not pay "road tax" because they have small cars with no emissions.
They still have to be insured and have an MOT for the privilege of using the road plus the VAT and tax on the fuel they use.
Apart from the tax and VAT the money you are on about goes into the general 'taxation coffers'. (The Treasury).

The same coffers that a lot of high earning cyclists pay into. The same cyclists that also run 1 and even 2 cars.

As to local business benefiting from MOTs, do you think bikes don't get serviced? Don;t need parts?

What about all the gear and accessories they buy?

Just admit it you and people like Suzi and so many others hate cyclists and are prepared to endlessly spout ill informed rubbish week after week, month after month with no other reason than you hate cyclists.

Fact after fact has chipped away against your argument over the last 12 months but still you spit, and bray and condemn,

At least be honest -it's not like you can be done for it.

I'm a driver. Not a cyclist. Before you try any more 'bluddy cyclists' crud.
Get real, cyclists want and demand a free ride when it comes to the road network, if cyclists at least had some sort of insurance and registration which is required by law for road use then the animosity may reduce, I know friends who ride bikes to work and quite frankly if some of them were required by law to have their bikes checked they would probably be off the road.
One ended up in hospital because he was hit by a car when his front tyre, which was as thin as paper, blew out and he went all over the road, of course the car drive was made to feel at fault by police until the bike was checked and he was cleared of blame.
Cyclists must and eventually will be required by law to have some form of accident insurance, registration and regular servicing.
I can see the day coming when car use will drop significantly because of fuel price or shortage, billions will be lost to the treasury in fuel duty and VED, then hopefully it will be the many cyclists using the roads that will be on the receiving end just as motorists are today, and i will be enjoying every minute.
As far as my "bluddy cyclists crud" as you put it, yes cyclists are a nightmare, some have no road sense what so ever and a large majority break all the laws that motorists abide by so what right do they have to demand anything, their all a bunch of hooligans.
ignorance, lies, and most of all jealousy; the stupidity of your comments always makes me laugh at you. You muppet!
Scrumpyjack and Repo, both cyclists and both ignorant, two main qualities of bike ownership.
.....and have both answered all your questions several times over, yet you seem intent on just closing your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears and going lalalalalalalalalala





lalalala
And you answer by foul language and have your comment removed, no brain, no sense, typical cyclist.
Feel free to quote me on that foul language. You'll struggle to find any.
Course not because its been removed at my request, foul language shows a lack of intelligence, I learn't that at school, seems like they were right.
Lack of intelligence?

OK, one chance to impress and answer the following to back up that statement (otherwise......):

Why do - and I'm using your quotes here so as an intelligent person who can report others you consider unintelligent you will walk this one - the following make sense and/or answer any question raised:

1. The only painful thing on here is you. (re nickynoodah)

Hmm but you follow this up in the same article thread with..

Scrumpyjack and Repo, both cyclists and both ignorant, two main qualities of bike ownership.

Hmm sounds like a pain to you.

However on learning I am not a cyclist you change tack with...

Ignorant cyclist and speeding driver, both of those qualities says it all about you.

Ouch that must be double pain? Or is nicky the only pain on here?

2. 'Get real, cyclists want and demand a free ride when it comes to the road network'

Explain, if necessary workings will be acceptable

3. What about the low earning cyclists who dont drive cars ??

The retort you failed to answer was:

What about the people who don't pay for their cars, the people who drive cars worth a few hundred and are on benefits, what about cars that are not taxed, mot'd or insured?, what about cars who are less than 3 years old so don't need an MOT?, what about cars whose emissions are so low they do not pay VED?, what about the thousands of cloned and stolen cars?

STILL NO ANSWER FROM THE CLEVER CORNER?

4, We all pay tax according to UK law, car drivers also have to pay VED, car insurance and have a valid MOT for the privilege of using the road network,

An answer you have yet failed to counter with your much voiced superior knowledge was:

Cyclists contribute to the upkeep of the roads by paying into general taxation the same as car drivers do, by paying Council Tax and by paying VAT on all the consumer goods we buy including bikes, my current one was a £1000, my previous one was £750 and bike accessories including clothing is another couple of grand, then I get my bike serviced every 6 months that's another £100 a year. Oh and I pay my contribution to be insured on my Wife's car which I drive from time to time. You say you pay VAT on fuel? What do you think I run on? I cycle, I have a gym membership, I play Golf, (more money more VAT contributions) When I'm not doing any of that and when I'm not at work (% of wages going to the coffers) I eat, like a horse! Which is more VAT contributions


STILL NO INTELLIGENT COUNTER TO THIS? NO WITTY COME BACK? NOTHING.

5. As I pay my tax according to UK law why should that money go towards your demands when I and many others pay hundreds of pounds extra for the privilege which you want for free...


Reply: Um I am and have been for years a Higher Rate Taxpayer so pay more tax than you and have done so for years.

If I left my car on the drive and bought a bike but paid for both how would I suddenly be getting everything for free?

(HINT: THIS ONE MUST BE EASY AS YOU AND HOBAD HAVE BEEN BACK PATTING (ahem) AND HIGH FIVING OVER HOW YOU TWO KNOW THIS TO BE THE TRUTH. (I can;t wait for this one)

Again I could go on but being 'ignorant' can only handle 5 simple answers to 5 simple questions.

Now, are you going to go running to mum (the echo moderator), man up and stand by what you said and give simple straightforward back up of the above, make sad insults or ignore and run away?

Can;t wait to see.
You have to much time on your hands, go on as much as you like I'm off to bed. you bore me.
[quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Repo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Adrian XX[/bold] wrote: Many car drivers now do not pay "road tax" because they have small cars with no emissions.[/p][/quote]They still have to be insured and have an MOT for the privilege of using the road plus the VAT and tax on the fuel they use.[/p][/quote]Apart from the tax and VAT the money you are on about goes into the general 'taxation coffers'. (The Treasury). The same coffers that a lot of high earning cyclists pay into. The same cyclists that also run 1 and even 2 cars. As to local business benefiting from MOTs, do you think bikes don't get serviced? Don;t need parts? What about all the gear and accessories they buy? Just admit it you and people like Suzi and so many others hate cyclists and are prepared to endlessly spout ill informed rubbish week after week, month after month with no other reason than you hate cyclists. Fact after fact has chipped away against your argument over the last 12 months but still you spit, and bray and condemn, At least be honest -it's not like you can be done for it. I'm a driver. Not a cyclist. Before you try any more 'bluddy cyclists' crud.[/p][/quote]Get real, cyclists want and demand a free ride when it comes to the road network, if cyclists at least had some sort of insurance and registration which is required by law for road use then the animosity may reduce, I know friends who ride bikes to work and quite frankly if some of them were required by law to have their bikes checked they would probably be off the road. One ended up in hospital because he was hit by a car when his front tyre, which was as thin as paper, blew out and he went all over the road, of course the car drive was made to feel at fault by police until the bike was checked and he was cleared of blame. Cyclists must and eventually will be required by law to have some form of accident insurance, registration and regular servicing. I can see the day coming when car use will drop significantly because of fuel price or shortage, billions will be lost to the treasury in fuel duty and VED, then hopefully it will be the many cyclists using the roads that will be on the receiving end just as motorists are today, and i will be enjoying every minute. As far as my "bluddy cyclists crud" as you put it, yes cyclists are a nightmare, some have no road sense what so ever and a large majority break all the laws that motorists abide by so what right do they have to demand anything, their all a bunch of hooligans.[/p][/quote]ignorance, lies, and most of all jealousy; the stupidity of your comments always makes me laugh at you. You muppet![/p][/quote]Scrumpyjack and Repo, both cyclists and both ignorant, two main qualities of bike ownership.[/p][/quote].....and have both answered all your questions several times over, yet you seem intent on just closing your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears and going lalalalalalalalalala lalalala[/p][/quote]And you answer by foul language and have your comment removed, no brain, no sense, typical cyclist.[/p][/quote]Feel free to quote me on that foul language. You'll struggle to find any.[/p][/quote]Course not because its been removed at my request, foul language shows a lack of intelligence, I learn't that at school, seems like they were right.[/p][/quote]Lack of intelligence? OK, one chance to impress and answer the following to back up that statement (otherwise......): Why do - and I'm using your quotes here so as an intelligent person who can report others you consider unintelligent you will walk this one - the following make sense and/or answer any question raised: 1. The only painful thing on here is you. (re nickynoodah) Hmm but you follow this up in the same article thread with.. Scrumpyjack and Repo, both cyclists and both ignorant, two main qualities of bike ownership. Hmm sounds like a pain to you. However on learning I am not a cyclist you change tack with... Ignorant cyclist and speeding driver, both of those qualities says it all about you. Ouch that must be double pain? Or is nicky the only pain on here? 2. 'Get real, cyclists want and demand a free ride when it comes to the road network' Explain, if necessary workings will be acceptable 3. What about the low earning cyclists who dont drive cars ?? The retort you failed to answer was: What about the people who don't pay for their cars, the people who drive cars worth a few hundred and are on benefits, what about cars that are not taxed, mot'd or insured?, what about cars who are less than 3 years old so don't need an MOT?, what about cars whose emissions are so low they do not pay VED?, what about the thousands of cloned and stolen cars? STILL NO ANSWER FROM THE CLEVER CORNER? 4, We all pay tax according to UK law, car drivers also have to pay VED, car insurance and have a valid MOT for the privilege of using the road network, An answer you have yet failed to counter with your much voiced superior knowledge was: Cyclists contribute to the upkeep of the roads by paying into general taxation the same as car drivers do, by paying Council Tax and by paying VAT on all the consumer goods we buy including bikes, my current one was a £1000, my previous one was £750 and bike accessories including clothing is another couple of grand, then I get my bike serviced every 6 months that's another £100 a year. Oh and I pay my contribution to be insured on my Wife's car which I drive from time to time. You say you pay VAT on fuel? What do you think I run on? I cycle, I have a gym membership, I play Golf, (more money more VAT contributions) When I'm not doing any of that and when I'm not at work (% of wages going to the coffers) I eat, like a horse! Which is more VAT contributions STILL NO INTELLIGENT COUNTER TO THIS? NO WITTY COME BACK? NOTHING. 5. As I pay my tax according to UK law why should that money go towards your demands when I and many others pay hundreds of pounds extra for the privilege which you want for free... Reply: Um I am and have been for years a Higher Rate Taxpayer so pay more tax than you and have done so for years. If I left my car on the drive and bought a bike but paid for both how would I suddenly be getting everything for free? (HINT: THIS ONE MUST BE EASY AS YOU AND HOBAD HAVE BEEN BACK PATTING (ahem) AND HIGH FIVING OVER HOW YOU TWO KNOW THIS TO BE THE TRUTH. (I can;t wait for this one) Again I could go on but being 'ignorant' can only handle 5 simple answers to 5 simple questions. Now, are you going to go running to mum (the echo moderator), man up and stand by what you said and give simple straightforward back up of the above, make sad insults or ignore and run away? Can;t wait to see.[/p][/quote]You have to much time on your hands, go on as much as you like I'm off to bed. you bore me. Hessenford
  • Score: -2

12:15am Sat 5 Jul 14

scrumpyjack says...

Hessenford wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
boardsandphotos wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
boardsandphotos wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Repo wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Adrian XX wrote:
Many car drivers now do not pay "road tax" because they have small cars with no emissions.
They still have to be insured and have an MOT for the privilege of using the road plus the VAT and tax on the fuel they use.
Apart from the tax and VAT the money you are on about goes into the general 'taxation coffers'. (The Treasury).

The same coffers that a lot of high earning cyclists pay into. The same cyclists that also run 1 and even 2 cars.

As to local business benefiting from MOTs, do you think bikes don't get serviced? Don;t need parts?

What about all the gear and accessories they buy?

Just admit it you and people like Suzi and so many others hate cyclists and are prepared to endlessly spout ill informed rubbish week after week, month after month with no other reason than you hate cyclists.

Fact after fact has chipped away against your argument over the last 12 months but still you spit, and bray and condemn,

At least be honest -it's not like you can be done for it.

I'm a driver. Not a cyclist. Before you try any more 'bluddy cyclists' crud.
Get real, cyclists want and demand a free ride when it comes to the road network, if cyclists at least had some sort of insurance and registration which is required by law for road use then the animosity may reduce, I know friends who ride bikes to work and quite frankly if some of them were required by law to have their bikes checked they would probably be off the road.
One ended up in hospital because he was hit by a car when his front tyre, which was as thin as paper, blew out and he went all over the road, of course the car drive was made to feel at fault by police until the bike was checked and he was cleared of blame.
Cyclists must and eventually will be required by law to have some form of accident insurance, registration and regular servicing.
I can see the day coming when car use will drop significantly because of fuel price or shortage, billions will be lost to the treasury in fuel duty and VED, then hopefully it will be the many cyclists using the roads that will be on the receiving end just as motorists are today, and i will be enjoying every minute.
As far as my "bluddy cyclists crud" as you put it, yes cyclists are a nightmare, some have no road sense what so ever and a large majority break all the laws that motorists abide by so what right do they have to demand anything, their all a bunch of hooligans.
ignorance, lies, and most of all jealousy; the stupidity of your comments always makes me laugh at you. You muppet!
Scrumpyjack and Repo, both cyclists and both ignorant, two main qualities of bike ownership.
.....and have both answered all your questions several times over, yet you seem intent on just closing your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears and going lalalalalalalalalala






lalalala
And you answer by foul language and have your comment removed, no brain, no sense, typical cyclist.
Feel free to quote me on that foul language. You'll struggle to find any.
Course not because its been removed at my request, foul language shows a lack of intelligence, I learn't that at school, seems like they were right.
Lack of intelligence?

OK, one chance to impress and answer the following to back up that statement (otherwise......):

Why do - and I'm using your quotes here so as an intelligent person who can report others you consider unintelligent you will walk this one - the following make sense and/or answer any question raised:

1. The only painful thing on here is you. (re nickynoodah)

Hmm but you follow this up in the same article thread with..

Scrumpyjack and Repo, both cyclists and both ignorant, two main qualities of bike ownership.

Hmm sounds like a pain to you.

However on learning I am not a cyclist you change tack with...

Ignorant cyclist and speeding driver, both of those qualities says it all about you.

Ouch that must be double pain? Or is nicky the only pain on here?

2. 'Get real, cyclists want and demand a free ride when it comes to the road network'

Explain, if necessary workings will be acceptable

3. What about the low earning cyclists who dont drive cars ??

The retort you failed to answer was:

What about the people who don't pay for their cars, the people who drive cars worth a few hundred and are on benefits, what about cars that are not taxed, mot'd or insured?, what about cars who are less than 3 years old so don't need an MOT?, what about cars whose emissions are so low they do not pay VED?, what about the thousands of cloned and stolen cars?

STILL NO ANSWER FROM THE CLEVER CORNER?

4, We all pay tax according to UK law, car drivers also have to pay VED, car insurance and have a valid MOT for the privilege of using the road network,

An answer you have yet failed to counter with your much voiced superior knowledge was:

Cyclists contribute to the upkeep of the roads by paying into general taxation the same as car drivers do, by paying Council Tax and by paying VAT on all the consumer goods we buy including bikes, my current one was a £1000, my previous one was £750 and bike accessories including clothing is another couple of grand, then I get my bike serviced every 6 months that's another £100 a year. Oh and I pay my contribution to be insured on my Wife's car which I drive from time to time. You say you pay VAT on fuel? What do you think I run on? I cycle, I have a gym membership, I play Golf, (more money more VAT contributions) When I'm not doing any of that and when I'm not at work (% of wages going to the coffers) I eat, like a horse! Which is more VAT contributions


STILL NO INTELLIGENT COUNTER TO THIS? NO WITTY COME BACK? NOTHING.

5. As I pay my tax according to UK law why should that money go towards your demands when I and many others pay hundreds of pounds extra for the privilege which you want for free...


Reply: Um I am and have been for years a Higher Rate Taxpayer so pay more tax than you and have done so for years.

If I left my car on the drive and bought a bike but paid for both how would I suddenly be getting everything for free?

(HINT: THIS ONE MUST BE EASY AS YOU AND HOBAD HAVE BEEN BACK PATTING (ahem) AND HIGH FIVING OVER HOW YOU TWO KNOW THIS TO BE THE TRUTH. (I can;t wait for this one)

Again I could go on but being 'ignorant' can only handle 5 simple answers to 5 simple questions.

Now, are you going to go running to mum (the echo moderator), man up and stand by what you said and give simple straightforward back up of the above, make sad insults or ignore and run away?

Can;t wait to see.
You have to much time on your hands, go on as much as you like I'm off to bed. you bore me.
Simply sat here watching TV after dinner and now that the football has finished.

You have found the time to write a sneery message all night (and for a lot longer) until you have been challenged on specific points.

Do you stand up for yourself and defend your comments?

As thought, no.

So are you running away when challenged (YES HE IS) (said in Monty Python way in background) or 'tired'?

You are the worst of the pathetic worst.

Bang on and on for months (despite people being nice and taking time to explain the reality) and abuse in a nasty way over and over against what you perceive to be a cyclist but when cornered with a simple 'explain what you meant when you said...; have no answer but to run away.

Well I will still be here tomorrow and so will my questions.

Either answer or, as I asked previously, please refrain but abusing 'cyclists' until you can answer when challenged.

Toodle pip.
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Repo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Adrian XX[/bold] wrote: Many car drivers now do not pay "road tax" because they have small cars with no emissions.[/p][/quote]They still have to be insured and have an MOT for the privilege of using the road plus the VAT and tax on the fuel they use.[/p][/quote]Apart from the tax and VAT the money you are on about goes into the general 'taxation coffers'. (The Treasury). The same coffers that a lot of high earning cyclists pay into. The same cyclists that also run 1 and even 2 cars. As to local business benefiting from MOTs, do you think bikes don't get serviced? Don;t need parts? What about all the gear and accessories they buy? Just admit it you and people like Suzi and so many others hate cyclists and are prepared to endlessly spout ill informed rubbish week after week, month after month with no other reason than you hate cyclists. Fact after fact has chipped away against your argument over the last 12 months but still you spit, and bray and condemn, At least be honest -it's not like you can be done for it. I'm a driver. Not a cyclist. Before you try any more 'bluddy cyclists' crud.[/p][/quote]Get real, cyclists want and demand a free ride when it comes to the road network, if cyclists at least had some sort of insurance and registration which is required by law for road use then the animosity may reduce, I know friends who ride bikes to work and quite frankly if some of them were required by law to have their bikes checked they would probably be off the road. One ended up in hospital because he was hit by a car when his front tyre, which was as thin as paper, blew out and he went all over the road, of course the car drive was made to feel at fault by police until the bike was checked and he was cleared of blame. Cyclists must and eventually will be required by law to have some form of accident insurance, registration and regular servicing. I can see the day coming when car use will drop significantly because of fuel price or shortage, billions will be lost to the treasury in fuel duty and VED, then hopefully it will be the many cyclists using the roads that will be on the receiving end just as motorists are today, and i will be enjoying every minute. As far as my "bluddy cyclists crud" as you put it, yes cyclists are a nightmare, some have no road sense what so ever and a large majority break all the laws that motorists abide by so what right do they have to demand anything, their all a bunch of hooligans.[/p][/quote]ignorance, lies, and most of all jealousy; the stupidity of your comments always makes me laugh at you. You muppet![/p][/quote]Scrumpyjack and Repo, both cyclists and both ignorant, two main qualities of bike ownership.[/p][/quote].....and have both answered all your questions several times over, yet you seem intent on just closing your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears and going lalalalalalalalalala lalalala[/p][/quote]And you answer by foul language and have your comment removed, no brain, no sense, typical cyclist.[/p][/quote]Feel free to quote me on that foul language. You'll struggle to find any.[/p][/quote]Course not because its been removed at my request, foul language shows a lack of intelligence, I learn't that at school, seems like they were right.[/p][/quote]Lack of intelligence? OK, one chance to impress and answer the following to back up that statement (otherwise......): Why do - and I'm using your quotes here so as an intelligent person who can report others you consider unintelligent you will walk this one - the following make sense and/or answer any question raised: 1. The only painful thing on here is you. (re nickynoodah) Hmm but you follow this up in the same article thread with.. Scrumpyjack and Repo, both cyclists and both ignorant, two main qualities of bike ownership. Hmm sounds like a pain to you. However on learning I am not a cyclist you change tack with... Ignorant cyclist and speeding driver, both of those qualities says it all about you. Ouch that must be double pain? Or is nicky the only pain on here? 2. 'Get real, cyclists want and demand a free ride when it comes to the road network' Explain, if necessary workings will be acceptable 3. What about the low earning cyclists who dont drive cars ?? The retort you failed to answer was: What about the people who don't pay for their cars, the people who drive cars worth a few hundred and are on benefits, what about cars that are not taxed, mot'd or insured?, what about cars who are less than 3 years old so don't need an MOT?, what about cars whose emissions are so low they do not pay VED?, what about the thousands of cloned and stolen cars? STILL NO ANSWER FROM THE CLEVER CORNER? 4, We all pay tax according to UK law, car drivers also have to pay VED, car insurance and have a valid MOT for the privilege of using the road network, An answer you have yet failed to counter with your much voiced superior knowledge was: Cyclists contribute to the upkeep of the roads by paying into general taxation the same as car drivers do, by paying Council Tax and by paying VAT on all the consumer goods we buy including bikes, my current one was a £1000, my previous one was £750 and bike accessories including clothing is another couple of grand, then I get my bike serviced every 6 months that's another £100 a year. Oh and I pay my contribution to be insured on my Wife's car which I drive from time to time. You say you pay VAT on fuel? What do you think I run on? I cycle, I have a gym membership, I play Golf, (more money more VAT contributions) When I'm not doing any of that and when I'm not at work (% of wages going to the coffers) I eat, like a horse! Which is more VAT contributions STILL NO INTELLIGENT COUNTER TO THIS? NO WITTY COME BACK? NOTHING. 5. As I pay my tax according to UK law why should that money go towards your demands when I and many others pay hundreds of pounds extra for the privilege which you want for free... Reply: Um I am and have been for years a Higher Rate Taxpayer so pay more tax than you and have done so for years. If I left my car on the drive and bought a bike but paid for both how would I suddenly be getting everything for free? (HINT: THIS ONE MUST BE EASY AS YOU AND HOBAD HAVE BEEN BACK PATTING (ahem) AND HIGH FIVING OVER HOW YOU TWO KNOW THIS TO BE THE TRUTH. (I can;t wait for this one) Again I could go on but being 'ignorant' can only handle 5 simple answers to 5 simple questions. Now, are you going to go running to mum (the echo moderator), man up and stand by what you said and give simple straightforward back up of the above, make sad insults or ignore and run away? Can;t wait to see.[/p][/quote]You have to much time on your hands, go on as much as you like I'm off to bed. you bore me.[/p][/quote]Simply sat here watching TV after dinner and now that the football has finished. You have found the time to write a sneery message all night (and for a lot longer) until you have been challenged on specific points. Do you stand up for yourself and defend your comments? As thought, no. So are you running away when challenged (YES HE IS) (said in Monty Python way in background) or 'tired'? You are the worst of the pathetic worst. Bang on and on for months (despite people being nice and taking time to explain the reality) and abuse in a nasty way over and over against what you perceive to be a cyclist but when cornered with a simple 'explain what you meant when you said...; have no answer but to run away. Well I will still be here tomorrow and so will my questions. Either answer or, as I asked previously, please refrain but abusing 'cyclists' until you can answer when challenged. Toodle pip. scrumpyjack
  • Score: 0

7:52am Sat 5 Jul 14

Lord Spring says...

Did you chaps all have a restful night.
Did you chaps all have a restful night. Lord Spring
  • Score: 1

8:14am Sat 5 Jul 14

tbpoole says...

scrumpyjack wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
The Archer wrote:
It’s official. In the week that a 20mph limit was imposed on the City of London, official figures prove that 20mph zones increase road casualties rather than reduce them.

Forget all the 20mph campaigning you have seen. The truth hurts.

The number of serious accidents on 20mph roads has increased by 26 per cent last year, according to analysis of government data by road safety charity, Institute of Advanced Motorists.

Slight accidents on 20mph roads increased by 17 per cent.

In the same year, there was a decrease in the number of serious and slight accidents on 30mph roads and 40 mph roads.

Serious accidents went down 9 per cent on 30mph roads and 7 per cent on 40 mph roads.

There was a five per cent reduction in slight accidents on 30 mph roads and a three per cent decrease on 40 mph roads.

Even though the decrease in 30 zone accidents is partially because some have been displaced by 20 zones, the imposition of 20 zones has still led to a significant increase in accidents.

Casualties in 20mph zones also saw a rise.

Serious casualties increased by 29 per cent while slight casualties went up by 19 per cent.

IAM chief executive Simon Best said: “The government and councils need to take stock on the effectiveness of 20mph signs. Recent advice, guidance and relaxation of regulations have all been about making it easier for councils to put 20mph limits in place. “More and more roads are being given a 20mph limit but they do not seem to be delivering fewer casualties. The IAM are concerned that this is because simply putting a sign on a road that still looks like a 30mph zone does not change driver behaviour."

“More evaluation and research is needed into the real world performance of 20mph limits to ensure limited funds are being well spent. In locations with a proven accident problem, authorities need to spend more on changing the character of our roads so that 20mph is obvious, self-enforcing and above all contributes to fewer injuries. In Europe, it is long term investment in high quality segregated or shared surfaces that have led to a much safer environment for cyclists and pedestrians.”

Note: an ‘accident’ can cause of several casualties. For example if a bus crashes and kills 30 passengers on board, it is one fatal accident but 30 fatal casualties.
"The number of serious accidents on 20mph roads has increased by 26 per cent last year, according to analysis of government data by road safety charity, Institute of Advanced Motorists."

Perhaps that's because there are about four times as many 20mph roads in the UK? The overall accident rate per road could well have decreased but with more 20mph roads the total will mask this decrease.
Which to be fair the article does admit to, but the point being that overall the number of accidents had risen but had fallen in the 30 and 40 zones.
Because there are fewer 30s.
No, "overall".


Take a 20 mile stretch - it is 30 mph and over 12 mths there are 5 accidents.

Now make that road a third of the road 30 mph and two thirds 20 mph limit and there are 2 accidents in the 30 and 4 accidents in the 20 mph.

There is 1 more accident overall.

The stats of the 30 have gone down (there is less road at this speed limit) the 20 has gone way up in line with the extra amount of road at this speed.

Main point? The accidents have gone up.
Isn't that what I said? Why are you disagreeing with my comment?
[quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Archer[/bold] wrote: It’s official. In the week that a 20mph limit was imposed on the City of London, official figures prove that 20mph zones increase road casualties rather than reduce them. Forget all the 20mph campaigning you have seen. The truth hurts. The number of serious accidents on 20mph roads has increased by 26 per cent last year, according to analysis of government data by road safety charity, Institute of Advanced Motorists. Slight accidents on 20mph roads increased by 17 per cent. In the same year, there was a decrease in the number of serious and slight accidents on 30mph roads and 40 mph roads. Serious accidents went down 9 per cent on 30mph roads and 7 per cent on 40 mph roads. There was a five per cent reduction in slight accidents on 30 mph roads and a three per cent decrease on 40 mph roads. Even though the decrease in 30 zone accidents is partially because some have been displaced by 20 zones, the imposition of 20 zones has still led to a significant increase in accidents. Casualties in 20mph zones also saw a rise. Serious casualties increased by 29 per cent while slight casualties went up by 19 per cent. IAM chief executive Simon Best said: “The government and councils need to take stock on the effectiveness of 20mph signs. Recent advice, guidance and relaxation of regulations have all been about making it easier for councils to put 20mph limits in place. “More and more roads are being given a 20mph limit but they do not seem to be delivering fewer casualties. The IAM are concerned that this is because simply putting a sign on a road that still looks like a 30mph zone does not change driver behaviour." “More evaluation and research is needed into the real world performance of 20mph limits to ensure limited funds are being well spent. In locations with a proven accident problem, authorities need to spend more on changing the character of our roads so that 20mph is obvious, self-enforcing and above all contributes to fewer injuries. In Europe, it is long term investment in high quality segregated or shared surfaces that have led to a much safer environment for cyclists and pedestrians.” Note: an ‘accident’ can cause of several casualties. For example if a bus crashes and kills 30 passengers on board, it is one fatal accident but 30 fatal casualties.[/p][/quote]"The number of serious accidents on 20mph roads has increased by 26 per cent last year, according to analysis of government data by road safety charity, Institute of Advanced Motorists." Perhaps that's because there are about four times as many 20mph roads in the UK? The overall accident rate per road could well have decreased but with more 20mph roads the total will mask this decrease.[/p][/quote]Which to be fair the article does admit to, but the point being that overall the number of accidents had risen but had fallen in the 30 and 40 zones.[/p][/quote]Because there are fewer 30s.[/p][/quote]No, "overall". Take a 20 mile stretch - it is 30 mph and over 12 mths there are 5 accidents. Now make that road a third of the road 30 mph and two thirds 20 mph limit and there are 2 accidents in the 30 and 4 accidents in the 20 mph. There is 1 more accident overall. The stats of the 30 have gone down (there is less road at this speed limit) the 20 has gone way up in line with the extra amount of road at this speed. Main point? The accidents have gone up.[/p][/quote]Isn't that what I said? Why are you disagreeing with my comment? tbpoole
  • Score: 0

8:56am Sat 5 Jul 14

nickynoodah says...

tbpoole wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
The Archer wrote:
It’s official. In the week that a 20mph limit was imposed on the City of London, official figures prove that 20mph zones increase road casualties rather than reduce them.

Forget all the 20mph campaigning you have seen. The truth hurts.

The number of serious accidents on 20mph roads has increased by 26 per cent last year, according to analysis of government data by road safety charity, Institute of Advanced Motorists.

Slight accidents on 20mph roads increased by 17 per cent.

In the same year, there was a decrease in the number of serious and slight accidents on 30mph roads and 40 mph roads.

Serious accidents went down 9 per cent on 30mph roads and 7 per cent on 40 mph roads.

There was a five per cent reduction in slight accidents on 30 mph roads and a three per cent decrease on 40 mph roads.

Even though the decrease in 30 zone accidents is partially because some have been displaced by 20 zones, the imposition of 20 zones has still led to a significant increase in accidents.

Casualties in 20mph zones also saw a rise.

Serious casualties increased by 29 per cent while slight casualties went up by 19 per cent.

IAM chief executive Simon Best said: “The government and councils need to take stock on the effectiveness of 20mph signs. Recent advice, guidance and relaxation of regulations have all been about making it easier for councils to put 20mph limits in place. “More and more roads are being given a 20mph limit but they do not seem to be delivering fewer casualties. The IAM are concerned that this is because simply putting a sign on a road that still looks like a 30mph zone does not change driver behaviour."

“More evaluation and research is needed into the real world performance of 20mph limits to ensure limited funds are being well spent. In locations with a proven accident problem, authorities need to spend more on changing the character of our roads so that 20mph is obvious, self-enforcing and above all contributes to fewer injuries. In Europe, it is long term investment in high quality segregated or shared surfaces that have led to a much safer environment for cyclists and pedestrians.”

Note: an ‘accident’ can cause of several casualties. For example if a bus crashes and kills 30 passengers on board, it is one fatal accident but 30 fatal casualties.
"The number of serious accidents on 20mph roads has increased by 26 per cent last year, according to analysis of government data by road safety charity, Institute of Advanced Motorists."

Perhaps that's because there are about four times as many 20mph roads in the UK? The overall accident rate per road could well have decreased but with more 20mph roads the total will mask this decrease.
Which to be fair the article does admit to, but the point being that overall the number of accidents had risen but had fallen in the 30 and 40 zones.
Because there are fewer 30s.
No, "overall".


Take a 20 mile stretch - it is 30 mph and over 12 mths there are 5 accidents.

Now make that road a third of the road 30 mph and two thirds 20 mph limit and there are 2 accidents in the 30 and 4 accidents in the 20 mph.

There is 1 more accident overall.

The stats of the 30 have gone down (there is less road at this speed limit) the 20 has gone way up in line with the extra amount of road at this speed.

Main point? The accidents have gone up.
Isn't that what I said? Why are you disagreeing with my comment?
Just got back from my Polish lessons
to see this rubbish on here djin
dobri gorge.
[quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Archer[/bold] wrote: It’s official. In the week that a 20mph limit was imposed on the City of London, official figures prove that 20mph zones increase road casualties rather than reduce them. Forget all the 20mph campaigning you have seen. The truth hurts. The number of serious accidents on 20mph roads has increased by 26 per cent last year, according to analysis of government data by road safety charity, Institute of Advanced Motorists. Slight accidents on 20mph roads increased by 17 per cent. In the same year, there was a decrease in the number of serious and slight accidents on 30mph roads and 40 mph roads. Serious accidents went down 9 per cent on 30mph roads and 7 per cent on 40 mph roads. There was a five per cent reduction in slight accidents on 30 mph roads and a three per cent decrease on 40 mph roads. Even though the decrease in 30 zone accidents is partially because some have been displaced by 20 zones, the imposition of 20 zones has still led to a significant increase in accidents. Casualties in 20mph zones also saw a rise. Serious casualties increased by 29 per cent while slight casualties went up by 19 per cent. IAM chief executive Simon Best said: “The government and councils need to take stock on the effectiveness of 20mph signs. Recent advice, guidance and relaxation of regulations have all been about making it easier for councils to put 20mph limits in place. “More and more roads are being given a 20mph limit but they do not seem to be delivering fewer casualties. The IAM are concerned that this is because simply putting a sign on a road that still looks like a 30mph zone does not change driver behaviour." “More evaluation and research is needed into the real world performance of 20mph limits to ensure limited funds are being well spent. In locations with a proven accident problem, authorities need to spend more on changing the character of our roads so that 20mph is obvious, self-enforcing and above all contributes to fewer injuries. In Europe, it is long term investment in high quality segregated or shared surfaces that have led to a much safer environment for cyclists and pedestrians.” Note: an ‘accident’ can cause of several casualties. For example if a bus crashes and kills 30 passengers on board, it is one fatal accident but 30 fatal casualties.[/p][/quote]"The number of serious accidents on 20mph roads has increased by 26 per cent last year, according to analysis of government data by road safety charity, Institute of Advanced Motorists." Perhaps that's because there are about four times as many 20mph roads in the UK? The overall accident rate per road could well have decreased but with more 20mph roads the total will mask this decrease.[/p][/quote]Which to be fair the article does admit to, but the point being that overall the number of accidents had risen but had fallen in the 30 and 40 zones.[/p][/quote]Because there are fewer 30s.[/p][/quote]No, "overall". Take a 20 mile stretch - it is 30 mph and over 12 mths there are 5 accidents. Now make that road a third of the road 30 mph and two thirds 20 mph limit and there are 2 accidents in the 30 and 4 accidents in the 20 mph. There is 1 more accident overall. The stats of the 30 have gone down (there is less road at this speed limit) the 20 has gone way up in line with the extra amount of road at this speed. Main point? The accidents have gone up.[/p][/quote]Isn't that what I said? Why are you disagreeing with my comment?[/p][/quote]Just got back from my Polish lessons to see this rubbish on here djin dobri gorge. nickynoodah
  • Score: -2

11:13am Sat 5 Jul 14

kalebmoledirt says...

This is a very interest debate Scrumpy bloke Is holding his own as usual with little gems of wisdom.
Just found a treacle Spangler down the back of my grannies sofa any body interested in what's written on wrapper?
This is a very interest debate Scrumpy bloke Is holding his own as usual with little gems of wisdom. Just found a treacle Spangler down the back of my grannies sofa any body interested in what's written on wrapper? kalebmoledirt
  • Score: 3

11:53am Sat 5 Jul 14

nickynoodah says...

kalebmoledirt wrote:
This is a very interest debate Scrumpy bloke Is holding his own as usual with little gems of wisdom.
Just found a treacle Spangler down the back of my grannies sofa any body interested in what's written on wrapper?
does it say..'.take a bath its your birthday' George it is you know
[quote][p][bold]kalebmoledirt[/bold] wrote: This is a very interest debate Scrumpy bloke Is holding his own as usual with little gems of wisdom. Just found a treacle Spangler down the back of my grannies sofa any body interested in what's written on wrapper?[/p][/quote]does it say..'.take a bath its your birthday' George it is you know nickynoodah
  • Score: -3

12:26pm Sat 5 Jul 14

skydriver says...

Let's hope a few more cyclist will be fined when they break the law, to help pay for yet another daft idea. Just to appease the cycle community .
When oh when they realise they are not above the law. I have just read about the idiots who have been fined for drink driving, and rightly so , when will we see some pictures of those cyclist in the papers for jumping lights , riding without lights, not giving way, etc etc , , alas I I doubt that will happen, em the police to busy,, maybe the police commissioner could comment on this one. There is no point writing to him he never replies.
Let's hope a few more cyclist will be fined when they break the law, to help pay for yet another daft idea. Just to appease the cycle community . When oh when they realise they are not above the law. I have just read about the idiots who have been fined for drink driving, and rightly so , when will we see some pictures of those cyclist in the papers for jumping lights , riding without lights, not giving way, etc etc , , alas I I doubt that will happen, em the police to busy,, maybe the police commissioner could comment on this one. There is no point writing to him he never replies. skydriver
  • Score: 4

12:29pm Sat 5 Jul 14

kalebmoledirt says...

nickynoodah wrote:
kalebmoledirt wrote:
This is a very interest debate Scrumpy bloke Is holding his own as usual with little gems of wisdom.
Just found a treacle Spangler down the back of my grannies sofa any body interested in what's written on wrapper?
does it say..'.take a bath its your birthday' George it is you know
How would spangles know when my birthday was .you are a silly woman THRUSH
[quote][p][bold]nickynoodah[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kalebmoledirt[/bold] wrote: This is a very interest debate Scrumpy bloke Is holding his own as usual with little gems of wisdom. Just found a treacle Spangler down the back of my grannies sofa any body interested in what's written on wrapper?[/p][/quote]does it say..'.take a bath its your birthday' George it is you know[/p][/quote]How would spangles know when my birthday was .you are a silly woman THRUSH kalebmoledirt
  • Score: 3

12:37pm Sat 5 Jul 14

boardsandphotos says...

skydriver wrote:
Let's hope a few more cyclist will be fined when they break the law, to help pay for yet another daft idea. Just to appease the cycle community .
When oh when they realise they are not above the law. I have just read about the idiots who have been fined for drink driving, and rightly so , when will we see some pictures of those cyclist in the papers for jumping lights , riding without lights, not giving way, etc etc , , alas I I doubt that will happen, em the police to busy,, maybe the police commissioner could comment on this one. There is no point writing to him he never replies.
I don't think you'll find any objection from the 'cycle community' as a law abiding cyclist I'm sick of seeing first hand and also reading about cyclists who do all the things you've commented about. I'm more than happy for the Police to run an initiative where cyclists are pulled over and the error of their ways pointed out. We don't all think we are above the law, we're not all bad, just the same as most drivers, it's the minority giving the majority a bad name through impatience, intolerance and generally bad understanding of the highway code. (on both sides)
[quote][p][bold]skydriver[/bold] wrote: Let's hope a few more cyclist will be fined when they break the law, to help pay for yet another daft idea. Just to appease the cycle community . When oh when they realise they are not above the law. I have just read about the idiots who have been fined for drink driving, and rightly so , when will we see some pictures of those cyclist in the papers for jumping lights , riding without lights, not giving way, etc etc , , alas I I doubt that will happen, em the police to busy,, maybe the police commissioner could comment on this one. There is no point writing to him he never replies.[/p][/quote]I don't think you'll find any objection from the 'cycle community' as a law abiding cyclist I'm sick of seeing first hand and also reading about cyclists who do all the things you've commented about. I'm more than happy for the Police to run an initiative where cyclists are pulled over and the error of their ways pointed out. We don't all think we are above the law, we're not all bad, just the same as most drivers, it's the minority giving the majority a bad name through impatience, intolerance and generally bad understanding of the highway code. (on both sides) boardsandphotos
  • Score: 4

2:45pm Sat 5 Jul 14

FNS-man says...

The Archer wrote:
It’s official. In the week that a 20mph limit was imposed on the City of London, official figures prove that 20mph zones increase road casualties rather than reduce them.

Forget all the 20mph campaigning you have seen. The truth hurts.

The number of serious accidents on 20mph roads has increased by 26 per cent last year, according to analysis of government data by road safety charity, Institute of Advanced Motorists.

Slight accidents on 20mph roads increased by 17 per cent.

In the same year, there was a decrease in the number of serious and slight accidents on 30mph roads and 40 mph roads.

Serious accidents went down 9 per cent on 30mph roads and 7 per cent on 40 mph roads.

There was a five per cent reduction in slight accidents on 30 mph roads and a three per cent decrease on 40 mph roads.

Even though the decrease in 30 zone accidents is partially because some have been displaced by 20 zones, the imposition of 20 zones has still led to a significant increase in accidents.

Casualties in 20mph zones also saw a rise.

Serious casualties increased by 29 per cent while slight casualties went up by 19 per cent.

IAM chief executive Simon Best said: “The government and councils need to take stock on the effectiveness of 20mph signs. Recent advice, guidance and relaxation of regulations have all been about making it easier for councils to put 20mph limits in place. “More and more roads are being given a 20mph limit but they do not seem to be delivering fewer casualties. The IAM are concerned that this is because simply putting a sign on a road that still looks like a 30mph zone does not change driver behaviour."

“More evaluation and research is needed into the real world performance of 20mph limits to ensure limited funds are being well spent. In locations with a proven accident problem, authorities need to spend more on changing the character of our roads so that 20mph is obvious, self-enforcing and above all contributes to fewer injuries. In Europe, it is long term investment in high quality segregated or shared surfaces that have led to a much safer environment for cyclists and pedestrians.”

Note: an ‘accident’ can cause of several casualties. For example if a bus crashes and kills 30 passengers on board, it is one fatal accident but 30 fatal casualties.
The increase is due to there being more 20 limits. Overall accidents are down as 30 limits are changed to 20 limits.

20 limits will also mean more accidents in the long run as there will be more pedestrians and cyclists. However, they will be less serious. Overall they will be nicer places.
[quote][p][bold]The Archer[/bold] wrote: It’s official. In the week that a 20mph limit was imposed on the City of London, official figures prove that 20mph zones increase road casualties rather than reduce them. Forget all the 20mph campaigning you have seen. The truth hurts. The number of serious accidents on 20mph roads has increased by 26 per cent last year, according to analysis of government data by road safety charity, Institute of Advanced Motorists. Slight accidents on 20mph roads increased by 17 per cent. In the same year, there was a decrease in the number of serious and slight accidents on 30mph roads and 40 mph roads. Serious accidents went down 9 per cent on 30mph roads and 7 per cent on 40 mph roads. There was a five per cent reduction in slight accidents on 30 mph roads and a three per cent decrease on 40 mph roads. Even though the decrease in 30 zone accidents is partially because some have been displaced by 20 zones, the imposition of 20 zones has still led to a significant increase in accidents. Casualties in 20mph zones also saw a rise. Serious casualties increased by 29 per cent while slight casualties went up by 19 per cent. IAM chief executive Simon Best said: “The government and councils need to take stock on the effectiveness of 20mph signs. Recent advice, guidance and relaxation of regulations have all been about making it easier for councils to put 20mph limits in place. “More and more roads are being given a 20mph limit but they do not seem to be delivering fewer casualties. The IAM are concerned that this is because simply putting a sign on a road that still looks like a 30mph zone does not change driver behaviour." “More evaluation and research is needed into the real world performance of 20mph limits to ensure limited funds are being well spent. In locations with a proven accident problem, authorities need to spend more on changing the character of our roads so that 20mph is obvious, self-enforcing and above all contributes to fewer injuries. In Europe, it is long term investment in high quality segregated or shared surfaces that have led to a much safer environment for cyclists and pedestrians.” Note: an ‘accident’ can cause of several casualties. For example if a bus crashes and kills 30 passengers on board, it is one fatal accident but 30 fatal casualties.[/p][/quote]The increase is due to there being more 20 limits. Overall accidents are down as 30 limits are changed to 20 limits. 20 limits will also mean more accidents in the long run as there will be more pedestrians and cyclists. However, they will be less serious. Overall they will be nicer places. FNS-man
  • Score: -1

3:30pm Sat 5 Jul 14

MrPitiful says...

Have I missed anything good?

I don't think nickynoodah os a pain. Quite funny actually. A refreshing aside from all the argumentative know-it-alls who attach themselves to this page.

Richmond Hill? - too steep for me to care about and not a decent pub anywhere up or down it.

Cyclists? - Weirdos but let 'em get on with it. A bit like the nutjobs who spend £100's on big camera lenses to look at the same old planes year after year.

Motorists? - Satan's children. Polluting the planet, causing accidents and they even let women drive. Not botherd though, as long as they don't get in the way of my 3 ton, 2.5 litre mercedes diesel van.

Right, I'm off down to Rock on the pier for a climp up the wall.
Have I missed anything good? I don't think nickynoodah os a pain. Quite funny actually. A refreshing aside from all the argumentative know-it-alls who attach themselves to this page. Richmond Hill? - too steep for me to care about and not a decent pub anywhere up or down it. Cyclists? - Weirdos but let 'em get on with it. A bit like the nutjobs who spend £100's on big camera lenses to look at the same old planes year after year. Motorists? - Satan's children. Polluting the planet, causing accidents and they even let women drive. Not botherd though, as long as they don't get in the way of my 3 ton, 2.5 litre mercedes diesel van. Right, I'm off down to Rock on the pier for a climp up the wall. MrPitiful
  • Score: 0

3:51pm Sat 5 Jul 14

boardsandphotos says...

MrPitiful wrote:
Have I missed anything good?

I don't think nickynoodah os a pain. Quite funny actually. A refreshing aside from all the argumentative know-it-alls who attach themselves to this page.

Richmond Hill? - too steep for me to care about and not a decent pub anywhere up or down it.

Cyclists? - Weirdos but let 'em get on with it. A bit like the nutjobs who spend £100's on big camera lenses to look at the same old planes year after year.

Motorists? - Satan's children. Polluting the planet, causing accidents and they even let women drive. Not botherd though, as long as they don't get in the way of my 3 ton, 2.5 litre mercedes diesel van.

Right, I'm off down to Rock on the pier for a climp up the wall.
I am a cyclist, a car driver, a pub goer, into photography and also into Rock Climbing, only I go to The Project in Poole rather than The Rock. Quite how you think Rock Climbing is a less weird pass time than cycling or photography is beyond me. Unless I've developed a sarcasm deficiency of course in which case, very funny. :)
[quote][p][bold]MrPitiful[/bold] wrote: Have I missed anything good? I don't think nickynoodah os a pain. Quite funny actually. A refreshing aside from all the argumentative know-it-alls who attach themselves to this page. Richmond Hill? - too steep for me to care about and not a decent pub anywhere up or down it. Cyclists? - Weirdos but let 'em get on with it. A bit like the nutjobs who spend £100's on big camera lenses to look at the same old planes year after year. Motorists? - Satan's children. Polluting the planet, causing accidents and they even let women drive. Not botherd though, as long as they don't get in the way of my 3 ton, 2.5 litre mercedes diesel van. Right, I'm off down to Rock on the pier for a climp up the wall.[/p][/quote]I am a cyclist, a car driver, a pub goer, into photography and also into Rock Climbing, only I go to The Project in Poole rather than The Rock. Quite how you think Rock Climbing is a less weird pass time than cycling or photography is beyond me. Unless I've developed a sarcasm deficiency of course in which case, very funny. :) boardsandphotos
  • Score: 1

6:48pm Sat 5 Jul 14

breamoreboy says...

Hessenford wrote:
breamoreboy wrote:
justme20092009 wrote:
stop spending money on cycle lanes untill they are made to have insurance and road tax
Besides the minor little detail that there is no such thing as road tax, I'm not paying for insurance as I've not had an accident in 50 years cycling, other than the Pinball Wizard who knocked me off at the Purewell Cross Roundabout. Further as I have always paid tax according to UK law I demand cycle lanes. Proper ones that is, not a bit of paint on a road, such that other Pinball Wizards can't try knocking me off.
We all pay tax according to UK law, car drivers also have to pay VED, car insurance and have a valid MOT for the privilege of using the road network, cyclists however pay nothing towards using the road network yet idiots like you demand cycle lanes, if you want them then contribute something towards them, As I pay my tax according to UK law why should that money go towards your demands when I and many others pay hundreds of pounds extra for the privilege which you want for free.
No. I've already paid my share. My bike doesn't wear roads out at the same rate as a car. I'm also saving the NHS money by not turning obese. Accidents caused by cyclists don't cost the NHS anything like the amount of money that accidents caused by drivers do. You have the cheaper option of a bike. If you can't or won't use it then that's your problem not mine.

I must also state that nothing is free.
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]justme20092009[/bold] wrote: stop spending money on cycle lanes untill they are made to have insurance and road tax[/p][/quote]Besides the minor little detail that there is no such thing as road tax, I'm not paying for insurance as I've not had an accident in 50 years cycling, other than the Pinball Wizard who knocked me off at the Purewell Cross Roundabout. Further as I have always paid tax according to UK law I demand cycle lanes. Proper ones that is, not a bit of paint on a road, such that other Pinball Wizards can't try knocking me off.[/p][/quote]We all pay tax according to UK law, car drivers also have to pay VED, car insurance and have a valid MOT for the privilege of using the road network, cyclists however pay nothing towards using the road network yet idiots like you demand cycle lanes, if you want them then contribute something towards them, As I pay my tax according to UK law why should that money go towards your demands when I and many others pay hundreds of pounds extra for the privilege which you want for free.[/p][/quote]No. I've already paid my share. My bike doesn't wear roads out at the same rate as a car. I'm also saving the NHS money by not turning obese. Accidents caused by cyclists don't cost the NHS anything like the amount of money that accidents caused by drivers do. You have the cheaper option of a bike. If you can't or won't use it then that's your problem not mine. I must also state that nothing is free. breamoreboy
  • Score: -1

6:51pm Sat 5 Jul 14

breamoreboy says...

Hobad1 wrote:
Why are cyclists being given, what seems to be, preferential treatment when it comes to our roads nowadays? Why are such funds being spent on cyclists when they contribute nothing to the upkeep of the road infrastructure?
Congratulations, you've just won my brain dead comment of the week award.
[quote][p][bold]Hobad1[/bold] wrote: Why are cyclists being given, what seems to be, preferential treatment when it comes to our roads nowadays? Why are such funds being spent on cyclists when they contribute nothing to the upkeep of the road infrastructure?[/p][/quote]Congratulations, you've just won my brain dead comment of the week award. breamoreboy
  • Score: 0

6:55pm Sat 5 Jul 14

breamoreboy says...

Hobad1 wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
Hobad1 wrote:
Why are cyclists being given, what seems to be, preferential treatment when it comes to our roads nowadays? Why are such funds being spent on cyclists when they contribute nothing to the upkeep of the road infrastructure?
Contribute nothing? Please develop this point further, I am keen to learn.
Ok scrumpy, you tell me how a cyclist contributes to the upkeep of our roads. If you like, imagine a world full of cyclists and no car drivers on the existing road infrastructure, advise me what would happen to our roads when they get to a state of needing repairs. I am also keen to learn.
Since when have cyclists been exempt from UK taxation? Do you actually believe that all the cash HMG collects from motorists goes towards the roads? Jeesh, there is one born every day.
[quote][p][bold]Hobad1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hobad1[/bold] wrote: Why are cyclists being given, what seems to be, preferential treatment when it comes to our roads nowadays? Why are such funds being spent on cyclists when they contribute nothing to the upkeep of the road infrastructure?[/p][/quote]Contribute nothing? Please develop this point further, I am keen to learn.[/p][/quote]Ok scrumpy, you tell me how a cyclist contributes to the upkeep of our roads. If you like, imagine a world full of cyclists and no car drivers on the existing road infrastructure, advise me what would happen to our roads when they get to a state of needing repairs. I am also keen to learn.[/p][/quote]Since when have cyclists been exempt from UK taxation? Do you actually believe that all the cash HMG collects from motorists goes towards the roads? Jeesh, there is one born every day. breamoreboy
  • Score: 0

6:57pm Sat 5 Jul 14

breamoreboy says...

Hessenford wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Adrian XX wrote:
Many car drivers now do not pay "road tax" because they have small cars with no emissions.
They still have to be insured and have an MOT for the privilege of using the road plus the VAT and tax on the fuel they use.
Apart from the tax and VAT the money you are on about goes into the general 'taxation coffers'. (The Treasury).

The same coffers that a lot of high earning cyclists pay into. The same cyclists that also run 1 and even 2 cars.

As to local business benefiting from MOTs, do you think bikes don't get serviced? Don;t need parts?

What about all the gear and accessories they buy?

Just admit it you and people like Suzi and so many others hate cyclists and are prepared to endlessly spout ill informed rubbish week after week, month after month with no other reason than you hate cyclists.

Fact after fact has chipped away against your argument over the last 12 months but still you spit, and bray and condemn,

At least be honest -it's not like you can be done for it.

I'm a driver. Not a cyclist. Before you try any more 'bluddy cyclists' crud.
Get real, cyclists want and demand a free ride when it comes to the road network, if cyclists at least had some sort of insurance and registration which is required by law for road use then the animosity may reduce, I know friends who ride bikes to work and quite frankly if some of them were required by law to have their bikes checked they would probably be off the road.
One ended up in hospital because he was hit by a car when his front tyre, which was as thin as paper, blew out and he went all over the road, of course the car drive was made to feel at fault by police until the bike was checked and he was cleared of blame.
Cyclists must and eventually will be required by law to have some form of accident insurance, registration and regular servicing.
I can see the day coming when car use will drop significantly because of fuel price or shortage, billions will be lost to the treasury in fuel duty and VED, then hopefully it will be the many cyclists using the roads that will be on the receiving end just as motorists are today, and i will be enjoying every minute.
As far as my "bluddy cyclists crud" as you put it, yes cyclists are a nightmare, some have no road sense what so ever and a large majority break all the laws that motorists abide by so what right do they have to demand anything, their all a bunch of hooligans.
Sheer unmitigated crap. Please do the world a favour and top yourself.
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Adrian XX[/bold] wrote: Many car drivers now do not pay "road tax" because they have small cars with no emissions.[/p][/quote]They still have to be insured and have an MOT for the privilege of using the road plus the VAT and tax on the fuel they use.[/p][/quote]Apart from the tax and VAT the money you are on about goes into the general 'taxation coffers'. (The Treasury). The same coffers that a lot of high earning cyclists pay into. The same cyclists that also run 1 and even 2 cars. As to local business benefiting from MOTs, do you think bikes don't get serviced? Don;t need parts? What about all the gear and accessories they buy? Just admit it you and people like Suzi and so many others hate cyclists and are prepared to endlessly spout ill informed rubbish week after week, month after month with no other reason than you hate cyclists. Fact after fact has chipped away against your argument over the last 12 months but still you spit, and bray and condemn, At least be honest -it's not like you can be done for it. I'm a driver. Not a cyclist. Before you try any more 'bluddy cyclists' crud.[/p][/quote]Get real, cyclists want and demand a free ride when it comes to the road network, if cyclists at least had some sort of insurance and registration which is required by law for road use then the animosity may reduce, I know friends who ride bikes to work and quite frankly if some of them were required by law to have their bikes checked they would probably be off the road. One ended up in hospital because he was hit by a car when his front tyre, which was as thin as paper, blew out and he went all over the road, of course the car drive was made to feel at fault by police until the bike was checked and he was cleared of blame. Cyclists must and eventually will be required by law to have some form of accident insurance, registration and regular servicing. I can see the day coming when car use will drop significantly because of fuel price or shortage, billions will be lost to the treasury in fuel duty and VED, then hopefully it will be the many cyclists using the roads that will be on the receiving end just as motorists are today, and i will be enjoying every minute. As far as my "bluddy cyclists crud" as you put it, yes cyclists are a nightmare, some have no road sense what so ever and a large majority break all the laws that motorists abide by so what right do they have to demand anything, their all a bunch of hooligans.[/p][/quote]Sheer unmitigated crap. Please do the world a favour and top yourself. breamoreboy
  • Score: -2

7:05pm Sat 5 Jul 14

breamoreboy says...

Hessenford wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
Hobad1 wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Adrian XX wrote:
Many car drivers now do not pay "road tax" because they have small cars with no emissions.
They still have to be insured and have an MOT for the privilege of using the road plus the VAT and tax on the fuel they use.
Apart from the tax and VAT the money you are on about goes into the general 'taxation coffers'. (The Treasury).

The same coffers that a lot of high earning cyclists pay into. The same cyclists that also run 1 and even 2 cars.

As to local business benefiting from MOTs, do you think bikes don't get serviced? Don;t need parts?

What about all the gear and accessories they buy?

Just admit it you and people like Suzi and so many others hate cyclists and are prepared to endlessly spout ill informed rubbish week after week, month after month with no other reason than you hate cyclists.

Fact after fact has chipped away against your argument over the last 12 months but still you spit, and bray and condemn,

At least be honest -it's not like you can be done for it.

I'm a driver. Not a cyclist. Before you try any more 'bluddy cyclists' crud.
LOL. Scrumpy you are hilarious !! Your argument is based on high earning cyclists who drive 1 or 2 cars !! What about the low earning cyclists who dont drive cars ?? As for "do you think bikes don't get serviced? Don;t need parts?".....i've never seen anyone take their pushbike for a MOT !!!!! If you have, please let me know the garage name so I can avoid it ! Scrumpy...what a muppet you are....you are the funniest thing on this website. Please keep it up :)
It isn't that I'm not a people person, I'm just not a stupid people person.

You say: What about the low earning cyclists who dont drive cars ?

What about the people who don't pay for their cars, the people who drive cars worth a few hundred and are on benefits, what about cars that are not taxed, mot'd or insured?, what about cars who are less than 3 years old so don't need an MOT?, what about cars whose emissions are so low they do not pay VED?, what about the thousands of cloned and stolen cars? (I could go on but feel I made your sarcasm look stupid)

Kind of pees on your chips that reply.

As to bikes being serviced this was in repsonse to someone (like you) suggestined that having to have an MOT meant the driver paid more and therefore was another example of why they had more 'right'. The money from the MOT is paid the garage as is a bike being serviced (£40 to £100 plus btw) goes to the local buiness.

But I am glad you can LOL at facts and feel smug about being dumb. Well done! (said in 'that voice')
Bike servicing is not required by law for use on the road, MOT is required by law for use on the road, irrespective of where the money goes it is still an enforced expense for the privilege of road use, cyclists want the privilege then start paying/
We do pay you complete moron. I can't help it if you're so stupid that you don't understand the concept of general taxation. Now please get into your noisy, smelly, inefficient, very expensive machine and go away please. I'll stick with my bike chain which has an efficiency in the 90s percentage wise.
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hobad1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Adrian XX[/bold] wrote: Many car drivers now do not pay "road tax" because they have small cars with no emissions.[/p][/quote]They still have to be insured and have an MOT for the privilege of using the road plus the VAT and tax on the fuel they use.[/p][/quote]Apart from the tax and VAT the money you are on about goes into the general 'taxation coffers'. (The Treasury). The same coffers that a lot of high earning cyclists pay into. The same cyclists that also run 1 and even 2 cars. As to local business benefiting from MOTs, do you think bikes don't get serviced? Don;t need parts? What about all the gear and accessories they buy? Just admit it you and people like Suzi and so many others hate cyclists and are prepared to endlessly spout ill informed rubbish week after week, month after month with no other reason than you hate cyclists. Fact after fact has chipped away against your argument over the last 12 months but still you spit, and bray and condemn, At least be honest -it's not like you can be done for it. I'm a driver. Not a cyclist. Before you try any more 'bluddy cyclists' crud.[/p][/quote]LOL. Scrumpy you are hilarious !! Your argument is based on high earning cyclists who drive 1 or 2 cars !! What about the low earning cyclists who dont drive cars ?? As for "do you think bikes don't get serviced? Don;t need parts?".....i've never seen anyone take their pushbike for a MOT !!!!! If you have, please let me know the garage name so I can avoid it ! Scrumpy...what a muppet you are....you are the funniest thing on this website. Please keep it up :)[/p][/quote]It isn't that I'm not a people person, I'm just not a stupid people person. You say: What about the low earning cyclists who dont drive cars ? What about the people who don't pay for their cars, the people who drive cars worth a few hundred and are on benefits, what about cars that are not taxed, mot'd or insured?, what about cars who are less than 3 years old so don't need an MOT?, what about cars whose emissions are so low they do not pay VED?, what about the thousands of cloned and stolen cars? (I could go on but feel I made your sarcasm look stupid) Kind of pees on your chips that reply. As to bikes being serviced this was in repsonse to someone (like you) suggestined that having to have an MOT meant the driver paid more and therefore was another example of why they had more 'right'. The money from the MOT is paid the garage as is a bike being serviced (£40 to £100 plus btw) goes to the local buiness. But I am glad you can LOL at facts and feel smug about being dumb. Well done! (said in 'that voice')[/p][/quote]Bike servicing is not required by law for use on the road, MOT is required by law for use on the road, irrespective of where the money goes it is still an enforced expense for the privilege of road use, cyclists want the privilege then start paying/[/p][/quote]We do pay you complete moron. I can't help it if you're so stupid that you don't understand the concept of general taxation. Now please get into your noisy, smelly, inefficient, very expensive machine and go away please. I'll stick with my bike chain which has an efficiency in the 90s percentage wise. breamoreboy
  • Score: -1

7:09pm Sat 5 Jul 14

breamoreboy says...

Ashley Miller wrote:
Another total waste of tax payers money. Put a couple of speed humps along the road to slow vehicles down but why a cycle lane when the only cycles l see are being pushed up the hill by their owners! How long before Michael Filer & co ban ALL cars from the town centre?
Frankly I couldn't care less as there's nothing to attract me to the town centre.
[quote][p][bold]Ashley Miller[/bold] wrote: Another total waste of tax payers money. Put a couple of speed humps along the road to slow vehicles down but why a cycle lane when the only cycles l see are being pushed up the hill by their owners! How long before Michael Filer & co ban ALL cars from the town centre?[/p][/quote]Frankly I couldn't care less as there's nothing to attract me to the town centre. breamoreboy
  • Score: 0

7:12pm Sat 5 Jul 14

breamoreboy says...

Hessenford wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
boardsandphotos wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
boardsandphotos wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Repo wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Adrian XX wrote:
Many car drivers now do not pay "road tax" because they have small cars with no emissions.
They still have to be insured and have an MOT for the privilege of using the road plus the VAT and tax on the fuel they use.
Apart from the tax and VAT the money you are on about goes into the general 'taxation coffers'. (The Treasury).

The same coffers that a lot of high earning cyclists pay into. The same cyclists that also run 1 and even 2 cars.

As to local business benefiting from MOTs, do you think bikes don't get serviced? Don;t need parts?

What about all the gear and accessories they buy?

Just admit it you and people like Suzi and so many others hate cyclists and are prepared to endlessly spout ill informed rubbish week after week, month after month with no other reason than you hate cyclists.

Fact after fact has chipped away against your argument over the last 12 months but still you spit, and bray and condemn,

At least be honest -it's not like you can be done for it.

I'm a driver. Not a cyclist. Before you try any more 'bluddy cyclists' crud.
Get real, cyclists want and demand a free ride when it comes to the road network, if cyclists at least had some sort of insurance and registration which is required by law for road use then the animosity may reduce, I know friends who ride bikes to work and quite frankly if some of them were required by law to have their bikes checked they would probably be off the road.
One ended up in hospital because he was hit by a car when his front tyre, which was as thin as paper, blew out and he went all over the road, of course the car drive was made to feel at fault by police until the bike was checked and he was cleared of blame.
Cyclists must and eventually will be required by law to have some form of accident insurance, registration and regular servicing.
I can see the day coming when car use will drop significantly because of fuel price or shortage, billions will be lost to the treasury in fuel duty and VED, then hopefully it will be the many cyclists using the roads that will be on the receiving end just as motorists are today, and i will be enjoying every minute.
As far as my "bluddy cyclists crud" as you put it, yes cyclists are a nightmare, some have no road sense what so ever and a large majority break all the laws that motorists abide by so what right do they have to demand anything, their all a bunch of hooligans.
ignorance, lies, and most of all jealousy; the stupidity of your comments always makes me laugh at you. You muppet!
Scrumpyjack and Repo, both cyclists and both ignorant, two main qualities of bike ownership.
.....and have both answered all your questions several times over, yet you seem intent on just closing your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears and going lalalalalalalalalala






lalalala
And you answer by foul language and have your comment removed, no brain, no sense, typical cyclist.
Feel free to quote me on that foul language. You'll struggle to find any.
Course not because its been removed at my request, foul language shows a lack of intelligence, I learn't that at school, seems like they were right.
Lack of intelligence?

OK, one chance to impress and answer the following to back up that statement (otherwise......):

Why do - and I'm using your quotes here so as an intelligent person who can report others you consider unintelligent you will walk this one - the following make sense and/or answer any question raised:

1. The only painful thing on here is you. (re nickynoodah)

Hmm but you follow this up in the same article thread with..

Scrumpyjack and Repo, both cyclists and both ignorant, two main qualities of bike ownership.

Hmm sounds like a pain to you.

However on learning I am not a cyclist you change tack with...

Ignorant cyclist and speeding driver, both of those qualities says it all about you.

Ouch that must be double pain? Or is nicky the only pain on here?

2. 'Get real, cyclists want and demand a free ride when it comes to the road network'

Explain, if necessary workings will be acceptable

3. What about the low earning cyclists who dont drive cars ??

The retort you failed to answer was:

What about the people who don't pay for their cars, the people who drive cars worth a few hundred and are on benefits, what about cars that are not taxed, mot'd or insured?, what about cars who are less than 3 years old so don't need an MOT?, what about cars whose emissions are so low they do not pay VED?, what about the thousands of cloned and stolen cars?

STILL NO ANSWER FROM THE CLEVER CORNER?

4, We all pay tax according to UK law, car drivers also have to pay VED, car insurance and have a valid MOT for the privilege of using the road network,

An answer you have yet failed to counter with your much voiced superior knowledge was:

Cyclists contribute to the upkeep of the roads by paying into general taxation the same as car drivers do, by paying Council Tax and by paying VAT on all the consumer goods we buy including bikes, my current one was a £1000, my previous one was £750 and bike accessories including clothing is another couple of grand, then I get my bike serviced every 6 months that's another £100 a year. Oh and I pay my contribution to be insured on my Wife's car which I drive from time to time. You say you pay VAT on fuel? What do you think I run on? I cycle, I have a gym membership, I play Golf, (more money more VAT contributions) When I'm not doing any of that and when I'm not at work (% of wages going to the coffers) I eat, like a horse! Which is more VAT contributions


STILL NO INTELLIGENT COUNTER TO THIS? NO WITTY COME BACK? NOTHING.

5. As I pay my tax according to UK law why should that money go towards your demands when I and many others pay hundreds of pounds extra for the privilege which you want for free...


Reply: Um I am and have been for years a Higher Rate Taxpayer so pay more tax than you and have done so for years.

If I left my car on the drive and bought a bike but paid for both how would I suddenly be getting everything for free?

(HINT: THIS ONE MUST BE EASY AS YOU AND HOBAD HAVE BEEN BACK PATTING (ahem) AND HIGH FIVING OVER HOW YOU TWO KNOW THIS TO BE THE TRUTH. (I can;t wait for this one)

Again I could go on but being 'ignorant' can only handle 5 simple answers to 5 simple questions.

Now, are you going to go running to mum (the echo moderator), man up and stand by what you said and give simple straightforward back up of the above, make sad insults or ignore and run away?

Can;t wait to see.
You have to much time on your hands, go on as much as you like I'm off to bed. you bore me.
Game, set and match to scrumpyjack 6-0 6-0 6-0
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Repo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Adrian XX[/bold] wrote: Many car drivers now do not pay "road tax" because they have small cars with no emissions.[/p][/quote]They still have to be insured and have an MOT for the privilege of using the road plus the VAT and tax on the fuel they use.[/p][/quote]Apart from the tax and VAT the money you are on about goes into the general 'taxation coffers'. (The Treasury). The same coffers that a lot of high earning cyclists pay into. The same cyclists that also run 1 and even 2 cars. As to local business benefiting from MOTs, do you think bikes don't get serviced? Don;t need parts? What about all the gear and accessories they buy? Just admit it you and people like Suzi and so many others hate cyclists and are prepared to endlessly spout ill informed rubbish week after week, month after month with no other reason than you hate cyclists. Fact after fact has chipped away against your argument over the last 12 months but still you spit, and bray and condemn, At least be honest -it's not like you can be done for it. I'm a driver. Not a cyclist. Before you try any more 'bluddy cyclists' crud.[/p][/quote]Get real, cyclists want and demand a free ride when it comes to the road network, if cyclists at least had some sort of insurance and registration which is required by law for road use then the animosity may reduce, I know friends who ride bikes to work and quite frankly if some of them were required by law to have their bikes checked they would probably be off the road. One ended up in hospital because he was hit by a car when his front tyre, which was as thin as paper, blew out and he went all over the road, of course the car drive was made to feel at fault by police until the bike was checked and he was cleared of blame. Cyclists must and eventually will be required by law to have some form of accident insurance, registration and regular servicing. I can see the day coming when car use will drop significantly because of fuel price or shortage, billions will be lost to the treasury in fuel duty and VED, then hopefully it will be the many cyclists using the roads that will be on the receiving end just as motorists are today, and i will be enjoying every minute. As far as my "bluddy cyclists crud" as you put it, yes cyclists are a nightmare, some have no road sense what so ever and a large majority break all the laws that motorists abide by so what right do they have to demand anything, their all a bunch of hooligans.[/p][/quote]ignorance, lies, and most of all jealousy; the stupidity of your comments always makes me laugh at you. You muppet![/p][/quote]Scrumpyjack and Repo, both cyclists and both ignorant, two main qualities of bike ownership.[/p][/quote].....and have both answered all your questions several times over, yet you seem intent on just closing your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears and going lalalalalalalalalala lalalala[/p][/quote]And you answer by foul language and have your comment removed, no brain, no sense, typical cyclist.[/p][/quote]Feel free to quote me on that foul language. You'll struggle to find any.[/p][/quote]Course not because its been removed at my request, foul language shows a lack of intelligence, I learn't that at school, seems like they were right.[/p][/quote]Lack of intelligence? OK, one chance to impress and answer the following to back up that statement (otherwise......): Why do - and I'm using your quotes here so as an intelligent person who can report others you consider unintelligent you will walk this one - the following make sense and/or answer any question raised: 1. The only painful thing on here is you. (re nickynoodah) Hmm but you follow this up in the same article thread with.. Scrumpyjack and Repo, both cyclists and both ignorant, two main qualities of bike ownership. Hmm sounds like a pain to you. However on learning I am not a cyclist you change tack with... Ignorant cyclist and speeding driver, both of those qualities says it all about you. Ouch that must be double pain? Or is nicky the only pain on here? 2. 'Get real, cyclists want and demand a free ride when it comes to the road network' Explain, if necessary workings will be acceptable 3. What about the low earning cyclists who dont drive cars ?? The retort you failed to answer was: What about the people who don't pay for their cars, the people who drive cars worth a few hundred and are on benefits, what about cars that are not taxed, mot'd or insured?, what about cars who are less than 3 years old so don't need an MOT?, what about cars whose emissions are so low they do not pay VED?, what about the thousands of cloned and stolen cars? STILL NO ANSWER FROM THE CLEVER CORNER? 4, We all pay tax according to UK law, car drivers also have to pay VED, car insurance and have a valid MOT for the privilege of using the road network, An answer you have yet failed to counter with your much voiced superior knowledge was: Cyclists contribute to the upkeep of the roads by paying into general taxation the same as car drivers do, by paying Council Tax and by paying VAT on all the consumer goods we buy including bikes, my current one was a £1000, my previous one was £750 and bike accessories including clothing is another couple of grand, then I get my bike serviced every 6 months that's another £100 a year. Oh and I pay my contribution to be insured on my Wife's car which I drive from time to time. You say you pay VAT on fuel? What do you think I run on? I cycle, I have a gym membership, I play Golf, (more money more VAT contributions) When I'm not doing any of that and when I'm not at work (% of wages going to the coffers) I eat, like a horse! Which is more VAT contributions STILL NO INTELLIGENT COUNTER TO THIS? NO WITTY COME BACK? NOTHING. 5. As I pay my tax according to UK law why should that money go towards your demands when I and many others pay hundreds of pounds extra for the privilege which you want for free... Reply: Um I am and have been for years a Higher Rate Taxpayer so pay more tax than you and have done so for years. If I left my car on the drive and bought a bike but paid for both how would I suddenly be getting everything for free? (HINT: THIS ONE MUST BE EASY AS YOU AND HOBAD HAVE BEEN BACK PATTING (ahem) AND HIGH FIVING OVER HOW YOU TWO KNOW THIS TO BE THE TRUTH. (I can;t wait for this one) Again I could go on but being 'ignorant' can only handle 5 simple answers to 5 simple questions. Now, are you going to go running to mum (the echo moderator), man up and stand by what you said and give simple straightforward back up of the above, make sad insults or ignore and run away? Can;t wait to see.[/p][/quote]You have to much time on your hands, go on as much as you like I'm off to bed. you bore me.[/p][/quote]Game, set and match to scrumpyjack 6-0 6-0 6-0 breamoreboy
  • Score: 3

7:17pm Sat 5 Jul 14

breamoreboy says...

skydriver wrote:
Let's hope a few more cyclist will be fined when they break the law, to help pay for yet another daft idea. Just to appease the cycle community .
When oh when they realise they are not above the law. I have just read about the idiots who have been fined for drink driving, and rightly so , when will we see some pictures of those cyclist in the papers for jumping lights , riding without lights, not giving way, etc etc , , alas I I doubt that will happen, em the police to busy,, maybe the police commissioner could comment on this one. There is no point writing to him he never replies.
That's right, along with the motorists parking on pavements, the motorists overtaking on double white lines, the motorists parking on double yellow lines, the motorists...
[quote][p][bold]skydriver[/bold] wrote: Let's hope a few more cyclist will be fined when they break the law, to help pay for yet another daft idea. Just to appease the cycle community . When oh when they realise they are not above the law. I have just read about the idiots who have been fined for drink driving, and rightly so , when will we see some pictures of those cyclist in the papers for jumping lights , riding without lights, not giving way, etc etc , , alas I I doubt that will happen, em the police to busy,, maybe the police commissioner could comment on this one. There is no point writing to him he never replies.[/p][/quote]That's right, along with the motorists parking on pavements, the motorists overtaking on double white lines, the motorists parking on double yellow lines, the motorists... breamoreboy
  • Score: 0

9:58pm Sat 5 Jul 14

scrumpyjack says...

MrPitiful wrote:
Have I missed anything good?

I don't think nickynoodah os a pain. Quite funny actually. A refreshing aside from all the argumentative know-it-alls who attach themselves to this page.

Richmond Hill? - too steep for me to care about and not a decent pub anywhere up or down it.

Cyclists? - Weirdos but let 'em get on with it. A bit like the nutjobs who spend £100's on big camera lenses to look at the same old planes year after year.

Motorists? - Satan's children. Polluting the planet, causing accidents and they even let women drive. Not botherd though, as long as they don't get in the way of my 3 ton, 2.5 litre mercedes diesel van.

Right, I'm off down to Rock on the pier for a climp up the wall.
If we could do those emotion type things i would add a smiley thumbs up one.
[quote][p][bold]MrPitiful[/bold] wrote: Have I missed anything good? I don't think nickynoodah os a pain. Quite funny actually. A refreshing aside from all the argumentative know-it-alls who attach themselves to this page. Richmond Hill? - too steep for me to care about and not a decent pub anywhere up or down it. Cyclists? - Weirdos but let 'em get on with it. A bit like the nutjobs who spend £100's on big camera lenses to look at the same old planes year after year. Motorists? - Satan's children. Polluting the planet, causing accidents and they even let women drive. Not botherd though, as long as they don't get in the way of my 3 ton, 2.5 litre mercedes diesel van. Right, I'm off down to Rock on the pier for a climp up the wall.[/p][/quote]If we could do those emotion type things i would add a smiley thumbs up one. scrumpyjack
  • Score: 0

10:24am Sun 6 Jul 14

try69re says...

Hessenford wrote:
breamoreboy wrote:
justme20092009 wrote:
stop spending money on cycle lanes untill they are made to have insurance and road tax
Besides the minor little detail that there is no such thing as road tax, I'm not paying for insurance as I've not had an accident in 50 years cycling, other than the Pinball Wizard who knocked me off at the Purewell Cross Roundabout. Further as I have always paid tax according to UK law I demand cycle lanes. Proper ones that is, not a bit of paint on a road, such that other Pinball Wizards can't try knocking me off.
We all pay tax according to UK law, car drivers also have to pay VED, car insurance and have a valid MOT for the privilege of using the road network, cyclists however pay nothing towards using the road network yet idiots like you demand cycle lanes, if you want them then contribute something towards them, As I pay my tax according to UK law why should that money go towards your demands when I and many others pay hundreds of pounds extra for the privilege which you want for free.
Do peds pay tax to use the pavements? 'If you want to use them then contribute something towards then?'
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]justme20092009[/bold] wrote: stop spending money on cycle lanes untill they are made to have insurance and road tax[/p][/quote]Besides the minor little detail that there is no such thing as road tax, I'm not paying for insurance as I've not had an accident in 50 years cycling, other than the Pinball Wizard who knocked me off at the Purewell Cross Roundabout. Further as I have always paid tax according to UK law I demand cycle lanes. Proper ones that is, not a bit of paint on a road, such that other Pinball Wizards can't try knocking me off.[/p][/quote]We all pay tax according to UK law, car drivers also have to pay VED, car insurance and have a valid MOT for the privilege of using the road network, cyclists however pay nothing towards using the road network yet idiots like you demand cycle lanes, if you want them then contribute something towards them, As I pay my tax according to UK law why should that money go towards your demands when I and many others pay hundreds of pounds extra for the privilege which you want for free.[/p][/quote]Do peds pay tax to use the pavements? 'If you want to use them then contribute something towards then?' try69re
  • Score: 3

10:33am Sun 6 Jul 14

Azphreal says...

breamoreboy wrote:
justme20092009 wrote:
stop spending money on cycle lanes untill they are made to have insurance and road tax
Besides the minor little detail that there is no such thing as road tax, I'm not paying for insurance as I've not had an accident in 50 years cycling, other than the Pinball Wizard who knocked me off at the Purewell Cross Roundabout. Further as I have always paid tax according to UK law I demand cycle lanes. Proper ones that is, not a bit of paint on a road, such that other Pinball Wizards can't try knocking me off.
Oh the thumbs down i will get for this lol:
'Further as I have always paid tax according to UK law I demand' that any cyclist breaking the law by riding on the pavement is charged!
[quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]justme20092009[/bold] wrote: stop spending money on cycle lanes untill they are made to have insurance and road tax[/p][/quote]Besides the minor little detail that there is no such thing as road tax, I'm not paying for insurance as I've not had an accident in 50 years cycling, other than the Pinball Wizard who knocked me off at the Purewell Cross Roundabout. Further as I have always paid tax according to UK law I demand cycle lanes. Proper ones that is, not a bit of paint on a road, such that other Pinball Wizards can't try knocking me off.[/p][/quote]Oh the thumbs down i will get for this lol: 'Further as I have always paid tax according to UK law I demand' that any cyclist breaking the law by riding on the pavement is charged! Azphreal
  • Score: 0

10:49am Sun 6 Jul 14

try69re says...

Azphreal wrote:
breamoreboy wrote:
justme20092009 wrote:
stop spending money on cycle lanes untill they are made to have insurance and road tax
Besides the minor little detail that there is no such thing as road tax, I'm not paying for insurance as I've not had an accident in 50 years cycling, other than the Pinball Wizard who knocked me off at the Purewell Cross Roundabout. Further as I have always paid tax according to UK law I demand cycle lanes. Proper ones that is, not a bit of paint on a road, such that other Pinball Wizards can't try knocking me off.
Oh the thumbs down i will get for this lol:
'Further as I have always paid tax according to UK law I demand' that any cyclist breaking the law by riding on the pavement is charged!
Most pavements are deserted most of the time and should be shared routes.
[quote][p][bold]Azphreal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]justme20092009[/bold] wrote: stop spending money on cycle lanes untill they are made to have insurance and road tax[/p][/quote]Besides the minor little detail that there is no such thing as road tax, I'm not paying for insurance as I've not had an accident in 50 years cycling, other than the Pinball Wizard who knocked me off at the Purewell Cross Roundabout. Further as I have always paid tax according to UK law I demand cycle lanes. Proper ones that is, not a bit of paint on a road, such that other Pinball Wizards can't try knocking me off.[/p][/quote]Oh the thumbs down i will get for this lol: 'Further as I have always paid tax according to UK law I demand' that any cyclist breaking the law by riding on the pavement is charged![/p][/quote]Most pavements are deserted most of the time and should be shared routes. try69re
  • Score: 3

11:37am Sun 6 Jul 14

boardsandphotos says...

try69re wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
breamoreboy wrote:
justme20092009 wrote:
stop spending money on cycle lanes untill they are made to have insurance and road tax
Besides the minor little detail that there is no such thing as road tax, I'm not paying for insurance as I've not had an accident in 50 years cycling, other than the Pinball Wizard who knocked me off at the Purewell Cross Roundabout. Further as I have always paid tax according to UK law I demand cycle lanes. Proper ones that is, not a bit of paint on a road, such that other Pinball Wizards can't try knocking me off.
We all pay tax according to UK law, car drivers also have to pay VED, car insurance and have a valid MOT for the privilege of using the road network, cyclists however pay nothing towards using the road network yet idiots like you demand cycle lanes, if you want them then contribute something towards them, As I pay my tax according to UK law why should that money go towards your demands when I and many others pay hundreds of pounds extra for the privilege which you want for free.
Do peds pay tax to use the pavements? 'If you want to use them then contribute something towards then?'
Yes? Technically Pedestrians do pay tax for the upkeep and maintenance of the pavements, in just the sameway cyclists and car drivers do.
[quote][p][bold]try69re[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]justme20092009[/bold] wrote: stop spending money on cycle lanes untill they are made to have insurance and road tax[/p][/quote]Besides the minor little detail that there is no such thing as road tax, I'm not paying for insurance as I've not had an accident in 50 years cycling, other than the Pinball Wizard who knocked me off at the Purewell Cross Roundabout. Further as I have always paid tax according to UK law I demand cycle lanes. Proper ones that is, not a bit of paint on a road, such that other Pinball Wizards can't try knocking me off.[/p][/quote]We all pay tax according to UK law, car drivers also have to pay VED, car insurance and have a valid MOT for the privilege of using the road network, cyclists however pay nothing towards using the road network yet idiots like you demand cycle lanes, if you want them then contribute something towards them, As I pay my tax according to UK law why should that money go towards your demands when I and many others pay hundreds of pounds extra for the privilege which you want for free.[/p][/quote]Do peds pay tax to use the pavements? 'If you want to use them then contribute something towards then?'[/p][/quote]Yes? Technically Pedestrians do pay tax for the upkeep and maintenance of the pavements, in just the sameway cyclists and car drivers do. boardsandphotos
  • Score: 0

11:39am Sun 6 Jul 14

boardsandphotos says...

boardsandphotos wrote:
try69re wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
breamoreboy wrote:
justme20092009 wrote:
stop spending money on cycle lanes untill they are made to have insurance and road tax
Besides the minor little detail that there is no such thing as road tax, I'm not paying for insurance as I've not had an accident in 50 years cycling, other than the Pinball Wizard who knocked me off at the Purewell Cross Roundabout. Further as I have always paid tax according to UK law I demand cycle lanes. Proper ones that is, not a bit of paint on a road, such that other Pinball Wizards can't try knocking me off.
We all pay tax according to UK law, car drivers also have to pay VED, car insurance and have a valid MOT for the privilege of using the road network, cyclists however pay nothing towards using the road network yet idiots like you demand cycle lanes, if you want them then contribute something towards them, As I pay my tax according to UK law why should that money go towards your demands when I and many others pay hundreds of pounds extra for the privilege which you want for free.
Do peds pay tax to use the pavements? 'If you want to use them then contribute something towards then?'
Yes? Technically Pedestrians do pay tax for the upkeep and maintenance of the pavements, in just the sameway cyclists and car drivers do.
Oh I see the question was rhetorical. Nevermind.
[quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]try69re[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]justme20092009[/bold] wrote: stop spending money on cycle lanes untill they are made to have insurance and road tax[/p][/quote]Besides the minor little detail that there is no such thing as road tax, I'm not paying for insurance as I've not had an accident in 50 years cycling, other than the Pinball Wizard who knocked me off at the Purewell Cross Roundabout. Further as I have always paid tax according to UK law I demand cycle lanes. Proper ones that is, not a bit of paint on a road, such that other Pinball Wizards can't try knocking me off.[/p][/quote]We all pay tax according to UK law, car drivers also have to pay VED, car insurance and have a valid MOT for the privilege of using the road network, cyclists however pay nothing towards using the road network yet idiots like you demand cycle lanes, if you want them then contribute something towards them, As I pay my tax according to UK law why should that money go towards your demands when I and many others pay hundreds of pounds extra for the privilege which you want for free.[/p][/quote]Do peds pay tax to use the pavements? 'If you want to use them then contribute something towards then?'[/p][/quote]Yes? Technically Pedestrians do pay tax for the upkeep and maintenance of the pavements, in just the sameway cyclists and car drivers do.[/p][/quote]Oh I see the question was rhetorical. Nevermind. boardsandphotos
  • Score: 0

12:49pm Sun 6 Jul 14

breamoreboy says...

try69re wrote:
Azphreal wrote:
breamoreboy wrote:
justme20092009 wrote:
stop spending money on cycle lanes untill they are made to have insurance and road tax
Besides the minor little detail that there is no such thing as road tax, I'm not paying for insurance as I've not had an accident in 50 years cycling, other than the Pinball Wizard who knocked me off at the Purewell Cross Roundabout. Further as I have always paid tax according to UK law I demand cycle lanes. Proper ones that is, not a bit of paint on a road, such that other Pinball Wizards can't try knocking me off.
Oh the thumbs down i will get for this lol:
'Further as I have always paid tax according to UK law I demand' that any cyclist breaking the law by riding on the pavement is charged!
Most pavements are deserted most of the time and should be shared routes.
Good God I can't believe I'm reading this!!! What strikes me as common sense, never. And I'm still on the Echo site, good heavens, wonders will never cease.
[quote][p][bold]try69re[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Azphreal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]justme20092009[/bold] wrote: stop spending money on cycle lanes untill they are made to have insurance and road tax[/p][/quote]Besides the minor little detail that there is no such thing as road tax, I'm not paying for insurance as I've not had an accident in 50 years cycling, other than the Pinball Wizard who knocked me off at the Purewell Cross Roundabout. Further as I have always paid tax according to UK law I demand cycle lanes. Proper ones that is, not a bit of paint on a road, such that other Pinball Wizards can't try knocking me off.[/p][/quote]Oh the thumbs down i will get for this lol: 'Further as I have always paid tax according to UK law I demand' that any cyclist breaking the law by riding on the pavement is charged![/p][/quote]Most pavements are deserted most of the time and should be shared routes.[/p][/quote]Good God I can't believe I'm reading this!!! What strikes me as common sense, never. And I'm still on the Echo site, good heavens, wonders will never cease. breamoreboy
  • Score: -2

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree