J
Just zis Guy, you know?
Guest
On Sun, 29 May 2005 13:00:42 +0100, "JNugent"
<[email protected]> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:
>> Nugent is a militant cager: he refuses to admit that any utility
>> journey could possibly be practical by bike, let alone being more
>> practical than by car.
>That, of course, is more of Chapman's usual made-up-on-the-spot absolute
>tripe.
So you say. But do carry on as normal, it is very funny seeing your
"you can't do that on a bike" claims shot down by people doing just
what you claim is impossible.
>I have no objection whatsoever to cyclists (as long as they obey the law, of
>course, and as long as they do not unlawfully endanger my family and me when
>we are in our majority-time mode of pedestrian).
You're at much greater risk in the latter mode form fellow cagers,
don't worry.
>That is not to say that
>a bike approaches providing the utility that a car does. The very idea is
>absurd and can only appear in any sense realistic to a fantasist.
So you say.
I have a Brompton. I can ride to the station in about five minutes
less than it is possible to drive it, fold the bike (car park fee is
many pounds per day, people pay it day after day), get a train to
Didcot at a peak speed of 125mph, ride form the station to the office
in less time than it takes the shuttle bus service to get there and
without having to wait for the bus, and end to end the journey is
quicker and cheaper than driving.
But of course there is no way a bike could approach the utility of a
car.
In my previous job I was 7.5 miles from the office, cycling was
reliably ten minutes quicker than driving due to traffic. But of
course there is no way a bike could approach the utility of a car.
For short journeys I think the car is hard-pressed ever to match the
utility of the bike, in fact.
>> There are militants on both sides. Militant cagers are the ones
>> complaining about fuel duty.
>Anyone sane (and with a sense of fair play) should complain about it. It is
>simply unfair.
So you say. About the same level in France, I noticed earlier this
year, and they don't seem to mind. Unfair in what way I wonder? Oh
yes: unfair in the way that it requires those who cause most of the
congestion and most of the deaths on the roads to cover enough of the
costs that we might one day end the subsidy which private motoring
received from general taxation for a century. That kind of unfair.
>> Remember the fuel blockades? If that's not militant I
>> don't know what is.
>Well-justified.
LOL! Start them again, then. I loved them!
>> When was the last time a group of cyclists tried
>> to bring the country to its knees?
>That's more difficult to exemplify, but maybe the last "Critical Mass"
>meeting perhaps?
Not even close. Cagers have their own Critical Mass on the streets of
my town every single working day!
Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
<[email protected]> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:
>> Nugent is a militant cager: he refuses to admit that any utility
>> journey could possibly be practical by bike, let alone being more
>> practical than by car.
>That, of course, is more of Chapman's usual made-up-on-the-spot absolute
>tripe.
So you say. But do carry on as normal, it is very funny seeing your
"you can't do that on a bike" claims shot down by people doing just
what you claim is impossible.
>I have no objection whatsoever to cyclists (as long as they obey the law, of
>course, and as long as they do not unlawfully endanger my family and me when
>we are in our majority-time mode of pedestrian).
You're at much greater risk in the latter mode form fellow cagers,
don't worry.
>That is not to say that
>a bike approaches providing the utility that a car does. The very idea is
>absurd and can only appear in any sense realistic to a fantasist.
So you say.
I have a Brompton. I can ride to the station in about five minutes
less than it is possible to drive it, fold the bike (car park fee is
many pounds per day, people pay it day after day), get a train to
Didcot at a peak speed of 125mph, ride form the station to the office
in less time than it takes the shuttle bus service to get there and
without having to wait for the bus, and end to end the journey is
quicker and cheaper than driving.
But of course there is no way a bike could approach the utility of a
car.
In my previous job I was 7.5 miles from the office, cycling was
reliably ten minutes quicker than driving due to traffic. But of
course there is no way a bike could approach the utility of a car.
For short journeys I think the car is hard-pressed ever to match the
utility of the bike, in fact.
>> There are militants on both sides. Militant cagers are the ones
>> complaining about fuel duty.
>Anyone sane (and with a sense of fair play) should complain about it. It is
>simply unfair.
So you say. About the same level in France, I noticed earlier this
year, and they don't seem to mind. Unfair in what way I wonder? Oh
yes: unfair in the way that it requires those who cause most of the
congestion and most of the deaths on the roads to cover enough of the
costs that we might one day end the subsidy which private motoring
received from general taxation for a century. That kind of unfair.
>> Remember the fuel blockades? If that's not militant I
>> don't know what is.
>Well-justified.
LOL! Start them again, then. I loved them!
>> When was the last time a group of cyclists tried
>> to bring the country to its knees?
>That's more difficult to exemplify, but maybe the last "Critical Mass"
>meeting perhaps?
Not even close. Cagers have their own Critical Mass on the streets of
my town every single working day!
Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
