Simon Finnigan wrote on 24/04/2007 17:53 +0100:
> "Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Simon Finnigan wrote on 24/04/2007 16:03 +0100:
>>>
>>> And since you claim it is a
>>> verbatim quote of a post of mine, perhaps you`d like to post the message
>>> ID too?
>>>
>> <[email protected]>
>> "Until and unless cyclists start riding safely, I will keep on refusing to
>> move out of their way. I`m in a car, I have crumple zones to protect me -
>> all a cyclist has is a helmet and their skin. I know who`ll get hurt
>> more!"
>>
>> <[email protected]>
>> "I`m required by law to insure my car to protect other road users - why
>> should cyclists be any different? They are perfectly capable of hitting an
>> old woman, knocking her down and breaking her hip, they are capable of
>> denting a car if they ride into one, they should be forced by law to have
>> insurance and road tax."
>
> Wow, that`s a scary interest you`ve taken in me to have gone so far back to
> check posts made at liv, I can`t even remember when their news server got so
> bad as to make it not worth bothering with.
No more than a minute with Google Groups to fulfil your request.
>
> Would you mind explaining why you feel that bikes, which are capable of
> causing injury and damage, should not be forced to have insurance and tax,
> to pay for the cycle lanes and other traffic measures required by them?
>
<SFX> Yawn. </SFX>
--
Tony
"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 18:22:44 +0100, Tony Raven wrote:
> Simon Finnigan wrote on 24/04/2007 17:53 +0100:
>> "Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Simon Finnigan wrote on 24/04/2007 16:03 +0100:
>>>>
>>>> And since you claim it is a
>>>> verbatim quote of a post of mine, perhaps you`d like to post the message
>>>> ID too?
>>>>
>>> <[email protected]>
>>> "Until and unless cyclists start riding safely, I will keep on refusing to
>>> move out of their way. I`m in a car, I have crumple zones to protect me -
>>> all a cyclist has is a helmet and their skin. I know who`ll get hurt
>>> more!"
>>>
>>> <[email protected]>
>>> "I`m required by law to insure my car to protect other road users - why
>>> should cyclists be any different? They are perfectly capable of hitting an
>>> old woman, knocking her down and breaking her hip, they are capable of
>>> denting a car if they ride into one, they should be forced by law to have
>>> insurance and road tax."
>>
>> Wow, that`s a scary interest you`ve taken in me to have gone so far back to
>> check posts made at liv, I can`t even remember when their news server got so
>> bad as to make it not worth bothering with.
>
> No more than a minute with Google Groups to fulfil your request.
>
>>
>> Would you mind explaining why you feel that bikes, which are capable of
>> causing injury and damage, should not be forced to have insurance and tax,
>> to pay for the cycle lanes and other traffic measures required by them?
>>
>
> <SFX> Yawn. </SFX>
Have you noted that this Simon has been careful to avoid denying that the
"other" Simon is not "other" at all?
In news:[email protected],
Simon Finnigan <[email protected]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to
tell us:
> Would you mind explaining why you feel that bikes, which are capable
> of causing injury and damage, should not be forced to have insurance
> and tax, to pay for the cycle lanes and other traffic measures
> required by them?
I may be missing something here, but as far as I know cyclists don't
"require" cycles lanes or any other traffic measures over and above what's
already there.
As to tax and insurance, perhaps Sir would care to do some simple arithmetic
to determine a reasonable sum? Clue: dog licence.
--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
I am now returned from both the seventeenth century and the Post
Office.
Dave Larrington wrote:
> In news:[email protected],
> Simon Finnigan <[email protected]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to
> tell us:
>
>> Would you mind explaining why you feel that bikes, which are capable
>> of causing injury and damage, should not be forced to have insurance
>> and tax, to pay for the cycle lanes and other traffic measures
>> required by them?
>
> I may be missing something here
The identity of the OP, I think. Even as one who is still sometimes
willing to give Matt B the benefit of the doubt, I would be entirely
unsurprised to learn that Mr Finnigan's last recorded address was
beneath a bridge
On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 09:16:09 +0100 someone who may be "Dave
Larrington" <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>In news:[email protected],
>Simon Finnigan <[email protected]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to
>tell us:
>
>> Would you mind explaining why you feel that bikes, which are capable
>> of causing injury and damage, should not be forced to have insurance
>> and tax, to pay for the cycle lanes and other traffic measures
>> required by them?
>
>I may be missing something here, but as far as I know cyclists don't
>"require" cycles lanes or any other traffic measures over and above what's
>already there.
Often quite the reverse. Cycle "facilities" are usually provided as
part of the "let's get these dammed cyclists out of the way" mindset
of many council officials.
>As to tax and insurance, perhaps Sir would care to do some simple arithmetic
>to determine a reasonable sum? Clue: dog licence.
Prams and briefcases are also capable of causing injury and damage
on the roads. I look forward to the calls for insurance and tax.
in message <[email protected]>, Dave Larrington
('[email protected]') wrote:
> In news:[email protected],
> Simon Finnigan <[email protected]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to
> tell us:
>
>> Would you mind explaining why you feel that bikes, which are capable
>> of causing injury and damage, should not be forced to have insurance
>> and tax, to pay for the cycle lanes and other traffic measures
>> required by them?
>
> I may be missing something here, but as far as I know cyclists don't
> "require" cycles lanes or any other traffic measures over and above
> what's already there.
>
> As to tax and insurance, perhaps Sir would care to do some simple
> arithmetic
> to determine a reasonable sum? Clue: dog licence.
