Times Letters

Tony Raven said:

The Times letters page today contains a whole section of letters from
cyclists, responding to a letter from yesterday, including one from our
very own Helen. Good letters all of them and points well made.

Available on-line here
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-1960763,00.html

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

Tony Raven said:

Tony Raven said:

The Times letters page today contains a whole section of letters from
cyclists, responding to a letter from yesterday, including one from
our very own Helen. Good letters all of them and points well made.

Available on-line here
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-1960763,00.html

And the letter they were responding to (on the second page)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-1958796,00.html

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

Tony Raven said:

Available on-line here
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-1960763,00.html

He then pedalled to work dressed as a policeman, and no one committed
any violations against him at all.

Here he'd get nicked for 'personation' (sp?) or killed by a nut with a
grudge.

Tony Raven said:

Tony Raven said:

The Times letters page today contains a whole section of letters from
cyclists, responding to a letter from yesterday, including one from
our very own Helen. Good letters all of them and points well made.

Available on-line here
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-1960763,00.html

All pathetic predictable provocative responses ignoring the criticisms
and attempting to divert attention, as usual, to the well known problems
created by motor traffic.

It is time, as I've said in a couple of recent threads, to
accept responsibility for cycling problems, and to tackle them.

Motor traffic kills and injures people - yes, but that is not relevant
to the cycling debate. This is a cycling group so take it on the chin
and be constructive, condemn the illegal and dangerous cyclists, and
come up with some ideas for improving the image of cycling.

Cyclists, purely because they are cyclists, do not pay more tax than
non-cyclists, yet are provided with facilities and privileges on the
public road, whether they want them or not, which are /only/ for the use
of cyclists - it is like abolishing all motoring taxes and providing
motorways out of general taxation. OTOH motorists, who pay all the same
taxes as cyclists do, also pay, purely because there /are/ motorists,
taxes on top of all the others, equivalent to about 10% of the national
tax revenue.

The old chestnut of 'rights' appears too. Cyclists have no more right
than properly licensed motorists to use the public road, yet persist in
rubbing salt into the wounds of the heavily over taxed motorists by
repeating the grossly inflammatory claim that they do.

Unreasonable and spiteful letters like those in The Times today's are,
as I have said in previous threads, damaging, not bolstering, the
cyclists' cause. They are helping to fuel the calls for stricter laws
and stronger enforcement of those we already have.

--
Matt B

"Matt B" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]

Quoted message said:

Motor traffic kills and injures people - yes, but that is not relevant
to the cycling debate.

*cough*

Tim

--
Sent from Birmingham, UK timdunne at blueyonder.co.uk
'God's electrician sparked up the heavens once again, heading northbound
on the 7:10. And the lord said let there be commuters...' - Thea Gilmore
Look, mum, an anorak on a bike! Check out www.nervouscyclist.org

Matt B said:

This is a cycling group so take it on the chin and be
constructive, condemn the illegal and dangerous cyclists, and come up with
some ideas for improving the image of cycling.

Nah, got more important things to do. Like arranging the cycling books on
the shelves by size -- or should it be number of pages? Size I think,
looks more organised that way.

Hey ho, can't stop. Got some granny-knocking-down to do later. Byeeeeee.

Mike

What's wrong with riding on the pavement? The road is much too dangerous.

"Ric" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

What's wrong with riding on the pavement? The road is much too dangerous.

Then walk, troll.

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

And the letter they were responding to (on the second page)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-1958796,00.html

But I liked this one the most:

"Helmets do save lives. How many may be difficult to judge, and proof
difficult to ascertain, but they do."

So there you have it!
--
Pete
http:[email hidden]/Stuff

"Ric" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

What's wrong with riding on the pavement? The road is much too dangerous.

Try it. Darwinism will winnow you out

Peter B said:

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

And the letter they were responding to (on the second page)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-1958796,00.html

But I liked this one the most:

"Helmets do save lives. How many may be difficult to judge, and proof
difficult to ascertain, but they do."

So there you have it!

Not breathing saves people from lung cancer. Its hard to prove but it does.

Same difference as far as I can see

On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 15:18:46 +0000 (UTC), "Peter B"
<[email hidden]> said in
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

"Helmets do save lives. How many may be difficult to judge, and proof
difficult to ascertain, but they do."

And paedophiles have more DNA in common with crabs than with humans.
It's a scientific fact. There's no evidence for it, but it's a
scientific fact.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

"Matt B" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Cyclists, purely because they are cyclists, do not pay more tax than
non-cyclists, yet are provided with facilities and privileges on the
public road, whether they want them or not, which are /only/ for the use
of cyclists - it is like abolishing all motoring taxes and providing
motorways out of general taxation. OTOH motorists, who pay all the same
taxes as cyclists do, also pay, purely because there /are/ motorists,
taxes on top of all the others, equivalent to about 10% of the national
tax revenue.

Where do you get the idea that motorists & cyclists are a different
species?

Just zis Guy said:

And paedophiles have more DNA in common with crabs than with humans.
It's a scientific fact. There's no evidence for it, but it's a
scientific fact.

Goody. Does that mean we can put them in pots of cold water, cannibal
stylee, and then heat them up to boiling?

Mr Glitter, your pot awaits you.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

Matt B said:

Motor traffic kills and injures people - yes, but that is not relevant
to the cycling debate.

<plonk> For sheer, mind-numbing idiocy.

--
Carol
"Reality is almost always wrong" - Dr Greg House, House M.D.

"DavidR" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Matt B" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Cyclists, purely because they are cyclists, do not pay more tax than
non-cyclists, yet are provided with facilities and privileges on the
public road, whether they want them or not, which are /only/ for the use
of cyclists - it is like abolishing all motoring taxes and providing
motorways out of general taxation. OTOH motorists, who pay all the same
taxes as cyclists do, also pay, purely because there /are/ motorists,
taxes on top of all the others, equivalent to about 10% of the national
tax revenue.

Where do you get the idea that motorists & cyclists are a different
species?

By reading this group, no doubt!

graham said:

"DavidR" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Where do you get the idea that motorists & cyclists are a different
species?

By reading this group, no doubt!

Clearly not as many of have stated here many times that we are both
cyclists and motorists.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

DavidR said:

"Matt B" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Cyclists, purely because they are cyclists, do not pay more tax than
non-cyclists, yet are provided with facilities and privileges on the
public road, whether they want them or not, which are /only/ for the use
of cyclists - it is like abolishing all motoring taxes and providing
motorways out of general taxation. OTOH motorists, who pay all the same
taxes as cyclists do, also pay, purely because there /are/ motorists,
taxes on top of all the others, equivalent to about 10% of the national
tax revenue.

Where do you get the idea that motorists & cyclists are a different
species?

exactly, it is a false dichotomy. People pay into the general taxation
pot. Facilites of various kinds are payed for out of this pot. People
are entitled to use these facilities subject to fulfilling any
qualifying requirements. If a person who uses a car and chooses not to
use a bike (or even one who cannot) objects to the funding of cycling
facilities they are free to lobby against their funding by the public
purse. As free as they are to change their mind and use them
(notwithstanding those who cannot cycle).

I pay more tax than most motorists and whilst I would welcome the
authority to require some motorists to "get off my roads" I recognise
this would not be equitable purely on the basis of how much tax I pay

best wishes
james

DavidR said:

Where do you get the idea that motorists & cyclists are a different
species?

Where do /you/ get the idea that I've got that idea?

--
Matt B