Why do cyclists still get to use the roads for free?

[John Benn]

A great way to boost revenue for the economy would be to charge all cyclists
using public roads an annual fee, just like all other vehicle users have to.
Why should cyclists be able to take up room on the roads but pay absolutely
nothing for it?

I suggest an annual fee of �25 per bicycle owner.

I'll vote for the first political party proposing this.

[Mr Pounder]

"John Benn" <MrBenn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kng9va$pf1$1...@dont-email.me...

+1
>
>
>

[Dave-Cyclists VORT]

On 21/05/2013 18:23, Mr Pounder wrote:
> "John Benn" <MrBenn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:kng9va$pf1$1...@dont-email.me...
>> A great way to boost revenue for the economy would be to charge all
>> cyclists using public roads an annual fee, just like all other vehicle
>> users have to. Why should cyclists be able to take up room on the roads but
>> pay absolutely nothing for it?
>>

>> I suggest an annual fee of �25 per bicycle owner.

>>
>> I'll vote for the first political party proposing this.
>
> +1
>>
>>
>>
>
>

+2


--
Dave-Cyclists VORT
Motorists pay �46 billion a year in extra taxes, specifically so they
can use the roads.
Less than �10 billion of this is spent on roads.
Q: Do you and your party support a new London-style bike plan for
Cambridgeshire?
A: No. This proposal amounts to theft from the people who pay to use
roads and the benefit given to those who don�t.

[JNugent]

On 21/05/2013 18:39, Dave-Cyclists VORT wrote:

> On 21/05/2013 18:23, Mr Pounder wrote:

>> "John Benn" <MrBenn...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>> A great way to boost revenue for the economy would be to charge all
>>> cyclists using public roads an annual fee, just like all other vehicle
>>> users have to. Why should cyclists be able to take up room on the
>>> roads but pay absolutely nothing for it?
>>> I suggest an annual fee of �25 per bicycle owner.
>>> I'll vote for the first political party proposing this.
>
>> +1

> +2

In principle I would vote for that (though I honestly believe that �25
is too low by some way and that insurance should also be compulsory and
specific to the rider and possibly to the machine).

However, I would remind the OP that it isn't true that every road user
has to pay an annual tax. The current system of graduated road tax is an
illogical farce, and the flat rate needs to be reintroduced (for
road-going motor vehicles of any and every age), at say �150 for a year
for a car or van.

[soup]

John Benn wrote:

> I suggest an annual fee of �25 per bicycle owner.
>
> I'll vote for the first political party proposing this.

Yeah, bugger their economic policy,their stance on drugs, etc as long as
they charge cyclists �25 a year. Get a grip!

[Alcoholist]

"John Benn" <MrBenn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kng9va$pf1$1...@dont-email.me...

> A great way to boost revenue for the economy would be to charge all

> cyclists using public roads an annual fee..

This sounds like the TV licensing scam all-over

[Cassandra]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 18:17:16 +0100, "John Benn"
<MrBenn...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>A great way to boost revenue for the economy would be to charge all cyclists
>using public roads an annual fee, just like all other vehicle users have to.

All other vehicle users don't have to

[Partac]

"soup" wrote in message news:kngf97$phi$1...@dont-email.me...

Sounds like good policies to me - as the use of drugs in the cycling world
is at epidemic levels (ie Lance Armstrong etc), penalising a group of drug
users who also pay no road tax could be a vote catching idea - win, win all
round!

[John Benn]

"JNugent" <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:b01s4j...@mid.individual.net...

> On 21/05/2013 18:39, Dave-Cyclists VORT wrote:
>
>> On 21/05/2013 18:23, Mr Pounder wrote:
>>> "John Benn" <MrBenn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>> A great way to boost revenue for the economy would be to charge all
>>>> cyclists using public roads an annual fee, just like all other vehicle
>>>> users have to. Why should cyclists be able to take up room on the
>>>> roads but pay absolutely nothing for it?

>>>> I suggest an annual fee of �25 per bicycle owner.

>>>> I'll vote for the first political party proposing this.
>>
>>> +1
>
>> +2
>

> In principle I would vote for that (though I honestly believe that �25 is

> too low by some way and that insurance should also be compulsory and
> specific to the rider and possibly to the machine).
>
> However, I would remind the OP that it isn't true that every road user has
> to pay an annual tax. The current system of graduated road tax is an
> illogical farce, and the flat rate needs to be reintroduced (for

> road-going motor vehicles of any and every age), at say �150 for a year

> for a car or van.

Yes, you are right. Every type of vehicle occupying road space should be
charged a fee. I had forgotten that low-emission vehicles are currently
exempt.

Insurance should also be compulsory for all vehicle users.

[Ian Smith]

On Tue, John Benn <MrBenn...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> A great way to boost revenue for the economy would be to charge all
> cyclists using public roads an annual fee, just like all other
> vehicle users have to.

I'd be quite happy to pay VED on my bikes on the same basis as car
owners pay on their cars.

Let's see, the CO2 emissions of my bicycle are 0 g/km. That's less
than 101, so if I pay just like car owners, that will be zero pounds
per 12 months.

I'm not sure how this benefits the economy.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

[Paul Cummins]

In article <slrnkpp50...@acheron.astounding.org.uk>,

i...@astounding.org.uk (Ian Smith) wrote:

> I'd be quite happy to pay VED on my bikes on the same basis as car
> owners pay on their cars.

And indeed, pretty much all cyclists already do pay VED on their bikes on
that basis.

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981

---- If it's below this line, I didn't write it ----

[Partac]

"Paul Cummins" wrote in message
news:memo.2013052...@postmaster.cix.co.uk...

In article <slrnkpp50...@acheron.astounding.org.uk>,
i...@astounding.org.uk (Ian Smith) wrote:

> I'd be quite happy to pay VED on my bikes on the same basis as car
> owners pay on their cars.

And indeed, pretty much all cyclists already do pay VED on their bikes on
that basis.

If it was on that basis you would have your bicycle's MOT, registration and
insurance checked every year.

[Paul Cummins]

In article <b03kst...@mid.individual.net>, any...@tiscali.co.uk

(Partac) wrote:

> If it was on that basis you would have your bicycle's MOT,
> registration and insurance checked every year.

And indeed I do, and comply with both the letter and the spirit of the
law in every respect, in regard to the statutory duties you have raised.

[Mrcheerful]

every vehicle in use is charged fees: fuel duty plus insurance tax,all going
to support the great unwashed

[toomtab...@gmail.com]

You'll find that £25 would leave little income after the costs of registering
and annual admin are taken into account, and is less than peanuts in terms
of actual government expenditure.

I'd suggest governments get their little micromanagement and taxation
ploys out of many aspect of our lives. Then we could be left with enough
money to look after ourselves without needing benefits. Roads could be a basic
essential affordable from remaining revenue, we wouldn't be charged 20% VAT
essential simple roof maintenance, and prudent house insurance wouldn't
need a tax (elsewhere known as a protection racket) on the premiums,
etc.,etc.

Toom

[Partac]

wrote in message
news:52f5adde-f15f-49ee...@googlegroups.com...

On Tuesday, 21 May 2013 18:17:16 UTC+1, John Benn wrote:
> A great way to boost revenue for the economy would be to charge all
> cyclists
> using public roads an annual fee, just like all other vehicle users have
> to.
> Why should cyclists be able to take up room on the roads but pay
> absolutely
> nothing for it?
>
> I suggest an annual fee of �25 per bicycle owner.
>
> I'll vote for the first political party proposing this.

You'll find that £25 would leave little income after the costs of
registering
and annual admin are taken into account, and is less than peanuts in terms
of actual government expenditure.

OK, point taken - let's make it £125, then.

[davethedave]

Chill out! For gods sake! If the weed heads can get away with all kinds
of smoking while the cyclists are paying 25 notes a head they are on a
winner. Who has more votes? Weed heads or cyclists?

Politics. It's a tricky business. Don't prod our man from 52 Festive road
too much, eh.

--
davethedave

[Mrcheerful]

Justin wrote:
> On 22 mei, 14:42, "Mrcheerful" <g.odonnel...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> John Benn wrote:
>>> "JNugent" <jennings...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message

>>> news:b01s4j...@mid.individual.net...
>>>> On 21/05/2013 18:39, Dave-Cyclists VORT wrote:
>>
>>>>> On 21/05/2013 18:23, Mr Pounder wrote:

>>>>>> "John Benn" <MrBenn_use...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> A great way to boost revenue for the economy would be to charge
>>>>>>> all cyclists using public roads an annual fee, just like all
>>>>>>> other vehicle users have to. Why should cyclists be able to take
>>>>>>> up room on the roads but pay absolutely nothing for it?
>>>>>>> I suggest an annual fee of 25 per bicycle owner.
>>>>>>> I'll vote for the first political party proposing this.
>>
>>>>>> +1
>>
>>>>> +2
>>
>>>> In principle I would vote for that (though I honestly believe that
>>>> 25 is too low by some way and that insurance should also be
>>>> compulsory and specific to the rider and possibly to the machine).
>>
>>>> However, I would remind the OP that it isn't true that every road
>>>> user has to pay an annual tax. The current system of graduated road
>>>> tax is an illogical farce, and the flat rate needs to be
>>>> reintroduced (for road-going motor vehicles of any and every age),
>>>> at say 150 for a year for a car or van.
>>
>>> Yes, you are right. Every type of vehicle occupying road space
>>> should be charged a fee. I had forgotten that low-emission vehicles
>>> are currently exempt.
>>
>>> Insurance should also be compulsory for all vehicle users.
>>
>> every vehicle in use is charged fees: fuel duty plus insurance
>> tax,all going to support the great unwashed
>

> Like the army, police, ambulance workers, national health employees,
> teachers, universities, the navy, doctors,

in the UK the surplus from vehicle income is almost exactly the same amount
that goes on 'benefit' payments.

[Roger Merriman]

seriously?

not all cars pay tax.

no horses, walkers, wheelchairs and so on.

Roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

[JNugent]

On 22/05/2013 14:55, toomtab...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, 21 May 2013 18:17:16 UTC+1, John Benn wrote:
>> A great way to boost revenue for the economy would be to charge all cyclists
>> using public roads an annual fee, just like all other vehicle users have to.
>> Why should cyclists be able to take up room on the roads but pay absolutely
>> nothing for it?
>>
>> I suggest an annual fee of �25 per bicycle owner.
>>
>> I'll vote for the first political party proposing this.
>
> You'll find that £25 would leave little income after the costs of registering
> and annual admin are taken into account, and is less than peanuts in terms
> of actual government expenditure.

That's exactly why it wouldn't be enough.

[Gefreiter Krueger]

Insurance is for vehicles that can cause damage.

--
If there's a fire why not just open the fire exit to let it out?

[Gefreiter Krueger]

Agreed.

--
Did you hear about the guy who finally figured out women?
He died laughing before he could tell anybody.

[Gefreiter Krueger]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 18:17:16 +0100, John Benn <MrBenn...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> A great way to boost revenue for the economy would be to charge all cyclists
> using public roads an annual fee, just like all other vehicle users have to.
> Why should cyclists be able to take up room on the roads but pay absolutely
> nothing for it?

Because they don't wear out the roads. We have to resurface roads because cars damage them.

[Mrcheerful]

Such as killing people? Breaking things, damaging things? causing crashes?
Bicycles can do all these and more.

[Gefreiter Krueger]

Negligible compared to a faster heavier car.

--
A fat girl served me in McDonald's at lunchtime. She said "sorry about the wait". I said, "Don't worry, you'll find a way to lose it eventually"

[Gefreiter Krueger]

On Wed, 22 May 2013 10:42:53 +0100, Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk> wrote:

> On Tue, John Benn <MrBenn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> A great way to boost revenue for the economy would be to charge all
>> cyclists using public roads an annual fee, just like all other
>> vehicle users have to.
>
> I'd be quite happy to pay VED on my bikes on the same basis as car
> owners pay on their cars.
>
> Let's see, the CO2 emissions of my bicycle are 0 g/km. That's less
> than 101, so if I pay just like car owners, that will be zero pounds
> per 12 months.

The power from a bicycle comes from you. You emit CO2.

--
Suicidal twin kills sister by mistake!

[Dave-Cyclists VORT]

On 22/05/2013 13:57, Justin wrote:
> On 22 mei, 14:42, "Mrcheerful" <g.odonnel...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> John Benn wrote:

>>> "JNugent" <jennings...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message

>>> news:b01s4j...@mid.individual.net...
>>>> On 21/05/2013 18:39, Dave-Cyclists VORT wrote:
>>
>>>>> On 21/05/2013 18:23, Mr Pounder wrote:

>>>>>> "John Benn" <MrBenn_use...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> A great way to boost revenue for the economy would be to charge
>>>>>>> all cyclists using public roads an annual fee, just like all
>>>>>>> other vehicle users have to. Why should cyclists be able to take
>>>>>>> up room on the roads but pay absolutely nothing for it?
>>>>>>> I suggest an annual fee of 25 per bicycle owner.
>>>>>>> I'll vote for the first political party proposing this.
>>
>>>>>> +1
>>
>>>>> +2
>>
>>>> In principle I would vote for that (though I honestly believe that
>>>> 25 is too low by some way and that insurance should also be
>>>> compulsory and specific to the rider and possibly to the machine).
>>
>>>> However, I would remind the OP that it isn't true that every road
>>>> user has to pay an annual tax. The current system of graduated road
>>>> tax is an illogical farce, and the flat rate needs to be
>>>> reintroduced (for road-going motor vehicles of any and every age),
>>>> at say 150 for a year for a car or van.
>>
>>> Yes, you are right. Every type of vehicle occupying road space
>>> should be charged a fee. I had forgotten that low-emission vehicles
>>> are currently exempt.
>>
>>> Insurance should also be compulsory for all vehicle users.
>>
>> every vehicle in use is charged fees: fuel duty plus insurance tax,all going
>> to support the great unwashed
>

> Like the army, police, ambulance workers, national health employees,
> teachers, universities, the navy, doctors,
>

Wrong again. They all wash, so they don't smell like cyclists & tramps.

[Mrcheerful]

remember, they are your words: Insurance is for vehicles that can cause
damage.

You call death, maiming and property damage negligible?

[Paul Cummins]

In article <op.wxh09...@red.lan>, n...@spam.com (Gefreiter Krueger)
wrote:

> The power from a bicycle comes from you. You emit CO2.

But so does the driver in a car, so that evens out.

[Mrcheerful]

Paul Cummins wrote:
> In article <op.wxh09...@red.lan>, n...@spam.com (Gefreiter
> Krueger) wrote:
>
>> The power from a bicycle comes from you. You emit CO2.
>
> But so does the driver in a car, so that evens out.

the car driver is not puffing and panting. a cyclist will breathe out many
times more CO2 than the relaxed car driver.

[Dave- Cyclists VORC]

On 22/05/2013 20:01, Paul Cummins wrote:
> In article <op.wxh09...@red.lan>, n...@spam.com (Gefreiter Krueger)
> wrote:
>
>> The power from a bicycle comes from you. You emit CO2.
>
> But so does the driver in a car, so that evens out.
>

Cyclists fart more.

--
Dave - Cyclists VORC
Bicycles are for Children. Like masturbation, something you should grow
out of.
There is something seriously sick and stunted about grown men who want
to ride a bike."

[Dave-Cyclists VORT]

On 22/05/2013 19:23, Gefreiter Krueger wrote:
> On Tue, 21 May 2013 18:17:16 +0100, John Benn <MrBenn...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> A great way to boost revenue for the economy would be to charge all
>> cyclists
>> using public roads an annual fee, just like all other vehicle users
>> have to.
>> Why should cyclists be able to take up room on the roads but pay
>> absolutely
>> nothing for it?
>
> Because they don't wear out the roads. We have to resurface roads
> because cars damage them.
>

What happens to the other £36 billion?

--
Dave-Cyclists VORT
Motorists pay £46 billion a year in extra taxes, specifically so they
can use the roads.
Less than £10 billion of this is spent on roads.

Q: Do you and your party support a new London-style bike plan for
Cambridgeshire?
A: No. This proposal amounts to theft from the people who pay to use

roads and the benefit given to those who don’t.

[Gefreiter Krueger]

On Wed, 22 May 2013 19:55:10 +0100, Mrcheerful <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> Gefreiter Krueger wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 19:28:45 +0100, Mrcheerful
>> <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Gefreiter Krueger wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 09:32:13 +0100, John Benn
>>>> <MrBenn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> "JNugent" <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
>>>>> news:b01s4j...@mid.individual.net...

>>

>>

>>>>>

>>>>> Yes, you are right. Every type of vehicle occupying road space
>>>>> should be charged a fee. I had forgotten that low-emission
>>>>> vehicles are currently exempt.
>>>>>
>>>>> Insurance should also be compulsory for all vehicle users.
>>>>
>>>> Insurance is for vehicles that can cause damage.
>>>
>>> Such as killing people? Breaking things, damaging things? causing
>>> crashes? Bicycles can do all these and more.
>>
>> Negligible compared to a faster heavier car.
>
> remember, they are your words: Insurance is for vehicles that can cause
> damage.
>
> You call death, maiming and property damage negligible?

Pedestrians can do that. They aren't insured.

It's matter of scale and likelihood. You've just demonstrated you have OCD, so your opinion is null and void.

--
If vegetarians eat vegetables, what do humanitarians eat?

[Gefreiter Krueger]

On Wed, 22 May 2013 20:01:00 +0100, Paul Cummins <harveste...@gstgroup.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <op.wxh09...@red.lan>, n...@spam.com (Gefreiter Krueger)
> wrote:
>
>> The power from a bicycle comes from you. You emit CO2.
>
> But so does the driver in a car, so that evens out.

Look up exertion in a dictionary you ignoramus.

--
Mrs. Morse: "Sam, stop tapping your fingers on the table, it's driving me crazy!"

[Gefreiter Krueger]

On Wed, 22 May 2013 20:36:39 +0100, Dave-Cyclists VORT <davi...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> On 22/05/2013 19:23, Gefreiter Krueger wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 May 2013 18:17:16 +0100, John Benn <MrBenn...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> A great way to boost revenue for the economy would be to charge all
>>> cyclists
>>> using public roads an annual fee, just like all other vehicle users
>>> have to.
>>> Why should cyclists be able to take up room on the roads but pay
>>> absolutely
>>> nothing for it?
>>
>> Because they don't wear out the roads. We have to resurface roads
>> because cars damage them.
>>
> What happens to the other £36 billion?

What?

--
"Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons." -- Popular Mechanics, 1949

[Mrcheerful]

Remember your own words: Insurance is for VEHICLES that can cause damage.

A pedestrian is not a vehicle.

Bicycles are vehicles and they can and do cause damage, therefore they
should have compulsory minimum insurance for road risks.

[Gefreiter Krueger]

On Wed, 22 May 2013 20:55:46 +0100, Mrcheerful <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> Gefreiter Krueger wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 19:55:10 +0100, Mrcheerful
>> <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Gefreiter Krueger wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 19:28:45 +0100, Mrcheerful
>>>> <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> Gefreiter Krueger wrote:

>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>

>>>>>
>>>>> Such as killing people? Breaking things, damaging things? causing
>>>>> crashes? Bicycles can do all these and more.
>>>>
>>>> Negligible compared to a faster heavier car.
>>>
>>> remember, they are your words: Insurance is for vehicles that can
>>> cause damage.
>>>
>>> You call death, maiming and property damage negligible?
>>
>> Pedestrians can do that. They aren't insured.
>>
>> It's matter of scale and likelihood. You've just demonstrated you
>> have OCD, so your opinion is null and void.
>
> Remember your own words: Insurance is for VEHICLES that can cause damage.
>
> A pedestrian is not a vehicle.

The word vehicle was unimportant.

> Bicycles are vehicles and they can and do cause damage, therefore they
> should have compulsory minimum insurance for road risks.

We do not need to insure against things which are very unlikely.

Are you going to make it mandatory to have nuclear fallout insurance too? I'm more likely to suffer a nuclear war than be hit by a cyclist.

--
I was on a Southwest flight once that was delayed at the gate after everyone boarded. The flight attendant said over the intercom, "We're sorry for the delay. The machine that normally rips the handles off your luggage is broken, so we're having to do it by hand. We should be finished and on our way shortly."

[Mrcheerful]

So now it is based on likelihood, earlier you said it was 'vehicles that can
cause damage. Make your mind up.

Should I cancel my car insurance because it is unlikely that I will run
anyone over or crash into them?

[Gefreiter Krueger]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 03:15:21 +0100, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:

> "Gefreiter Krueger" <n...@spam.com> considered Wed, 22 May 2013 20:50:03

> +0100 the perfect time to write:
>
>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 20:36:39 +0100, Dave-Cyclists VORT <davi...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 22/05/2013 19:23, Gefreiter Krueger wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 21 May 2013 18:17:16 +0100, John Benn <MrBenn...@yahoo.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> A great way to boost revenue for the economy would be to charge all
>>>>> cyclists
>>>>> using public roads an annual fee, just like all other vehicle users
>>>>> have to.
>>>>> Why should cyclists be able to take up room on the roads but pay
>>>>> absolutely
>>>>> nothing for it?
>>>>
>>>> Because they don't wear out the roads. We have to resurface roads
>>>> because cars damage them.
>>>>
>>> What happens to the other £36 billion?
>>
>> What?
>

> We have to fund it out of general taxation.

And so it should be. Roads should be nationalised, like the NHS. You don't pay a fee when you go to hospital. You pay the same even if you are healthy your whole life.

--
CONGRESS.SYS corrupted... Re-boot Washington D.C. (Y/N)?

[Gefreiter Krueger]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 08:14:14 +0100, Mrcheerful <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> Gefreiter Krueger wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 20:55:46 +0100, Mrcheerful
>> <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Gefreiter Krueger wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 19:55:10 +0100, Mrcheerful
>>>> <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> Gefreiter Krueger wrote:

>>
>>>>

>>>>

>>>>
>>

>>>>>

>>>>> remember, they are your words: Insurance is for vehicles that can
>>>>> cause damage.
>>>>>
>>>>> You call death, maiming and property damage negligible?
>>>>
>>>> Pedestrians can do that. They aren't insured.
>>>>
>>>> It's matter of scale and likelihood. You've just demonstrated you
>>>> have OCD, so your opinion is null and void.
>>>
>>> Remember your own words: Insurance is for VEHICLES that can cause
>>> damage. A pedestrian is not a vehicle.
>>
>> The word vehicle was unimportant.
>>
>>> Bicycles are vehicles and they can and do cause damage, therefore
>>> they should have compulsory minimum insurance for road risks.
>>
>> We do not need to insure against things which are very unlikely.
>>
>> Are you going to make it mandatory to have nuclear fallout insurance
>> too? I'm more likely to suffer a nuclear war than be hit by a
>> cyclist.
>
> So now it is based on likelihood, earlier you said it was 'vehicles that can
> cause damage. Make your mind up.

Same thing. A bicycle is less likely to cause harm, and that harm will be far less.

> Should I cancel my car insurance because it is unlikely that I will run
> anyone over or crash into them?

Yes, you should be allowed to pay for any damages yourself if you think they're so unlikely. OR perhaps have insurance against causing £2 million damage (assuming you can't afford that).

--
"Get as far away from the nuclear explosion as possible" - Rodney McKay, Stargate Atlantis.

[Ian Smith]

Do you really think the VED bands are based upon the CO2 emissions of
the people in the cars?

Notwithstanding that: a typical human respiration equates to about
600g of CO2 per day, or 25g per hour. Exercise has a surprisingly low
impact - the basal metabolic rate accounts for the vast majority of
energy in the human body (a side-effect of us being homeothermic).
However, I will conservatively assume a cyclist cycling is respiring
at a 25% higher than average rate - 31 g/hr.

In an hour, even a slow, unfit, plodding cyclist can cover ten miles,
or 16 km.

So even if we ignore the fact that they'd be emitting the majority of
the CO2 whether they were cycling or not, and ignore the fact that car
drivers emit CO2, and ignore, in fact, the observation that you are
an idiot just trying to be smart, the CO2 emissions for a cyclist
plus bicycle are (to a first approximation) 2 g/km.

That's less than 101, so the VED will be zero pounds per 12 months.

Now, do you want to try again and see if you can say something
sensible?

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

[Mrcheerful]

so why wouldn't a cyclist need the same?

[Mrcheerful]

You do, if you are a motorist in a crash.

[Mrcheerful]

the ETA worked it out at 21g/km inc. production, maintenance and fuel.
https://www.eta.co.uk/2011/12/13/co2-emissions-from-cycling-revealed/

[soup]

Ian Smith wrote:

> In an hour, even a slow, unfit, plodding cyclist can cover ten miles,
> or 16 km.

You haven't seen me then. ;o)

Ok I can go much faster than that with a slight downhill or flat but
going up some of the hills around here reduce me to between nine and six
MPH.

[Gefreiter Krueger]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 14:23:21 +0100, Mrcheerful <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> Gefreiter Krueger wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 May 2013 08:14:14 +0100, Mrcheerful
>> <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Gefreiter Krueger wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 20:55:46 +0100, Mrcheerful
>>>> <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> Gefreiter Krueger wrote:

>>
>>>>

>>

>>

>>>>
>>

>>>>>

>>>>> Remember your own words: Insurance is for VEHICLES that can cause
>>>>> damage. A pedestrian is not a vehicle.
>>>>
>>>> The word vehicle was unimportant.
>>>>
>>>>> Bicycles are vehicles and they can and do cause damage, therefore
>>>>> they should have compulsory minimum insurance for road risks.
>>>>
>>>> We do not need to insure against things which are very unlikely.
>>>>
>>>> Are you going to make it mandatory to have nuclear fallout insurance
>>>> too? I'm more likely to suffer a nuclear war than be hit by a
>>>> cyclist.
>>>
>>> So now it is based on likelihood, earlier you said it was 'vehicles
>>> that can cause damage. Make your mind up.
>>
>> Same thing. A bicycle is less likely to cause harm, and that harm
>> will be far less.
>>> Should I cancel my car insurance because it is unlikely that I will
>>> run anyone over or crash into them?
>>
>> Yes, you should be allowed to pay for any damages yourself if you
>> think they're so unlikely. OR perhaps have insurance against causing
>> £2 million damage (assuming you can't afford that).
>
> so why wouldn't a cyclist need the same?

Because you can't cause £2 million damage with a bicycle.

--
The only two animals that can see behind themselves without turning their heads are the rabbit and the parrot.

[Gefreiter Krueger]

WTF are you talking about?

[Gefreiter Krueger]

If you are sat watching telly, you burn calories at 150W. A Tour de France cyclist can achieve 6kW. Your 25% higher is pants.

--
A man walks into a bar with a slab of asphalt under his arm and says, "A beer please, and one for the road."

[Gefreiter Krueger]

We shouldn't be measuring CO2. The greenhouse effect is a load of shite. All it's doing is causing people to spend money to stop producing a naturally occurring gas. And in some instances (like the Toyota Prius), over their lifetime they have MORE impact on the environment than a normal car.

--
G.A.Y. - Got Aids Yet?

[Mrcheerful]

How about when you cripple someone for life? Last estimate I saw for a
lifetime of 24 hr care was a lot more than 2million, IIRC it was estimated
at 6 million, to be reviewed as time went on. It is quite feasible for a
cyclist to cause such catastrophic injuries or death, either of which may
cost a massive amount.

[Ian Smith]

A car driver is not "sat watching telly". I am not a Tour de France
cyclist. A Tour de France cyclist does not achieve 6kW on average.

In fact, I dispute that any cyclist achieves 6kW over any significant
time - see for example
http://wattbike.com/uk/guide/using_the_wattbike/power_to_weight_ratio

"As an example, world class male sprint cyclists ... are capable of
peak power scores in the range 1750-2250 W and max minute power of
360-400W. Conversely world class male endurance cyclists ... lower
peak power scores of 1000-1250W have a much higher max minute power
score of 420-500W"

Even if the cyclist is a world class cyclist and is producing CO2 at
three times the average rate, that's 6 g/km, which (surprise!) is less

than 101, so the VED will be zero pounds per 12 months.

Do you want to try again and see if you can say something sensible?

[Ian Smith]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 15:37:46 +0100, Mrcheerful <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Ian Smith wrote:
> >
> > So even if we ignore the fact that they'd be emitting the majority
> > of the CO2 whether they were cycling or not, and ignore the fact
> > that car drivers emit CO2, and ignore, in fact, the observation
> > that you are an idiot just trying to be smart, the CO2 emissions
> > for a cyclist plus bicycle are (to a first approximation) 2 g/km.
> >
> > That's less than 101, so the VED will be zero pounds per 12
> > months.
>

> the ETA worked it out at 21g/km inc. production, maintenance and fuel.
> https://www.eta.co.uk/2011/12/13/co2-emissions-from-cycling-revealed/

"I'd be quite happy to pay VED on my bikes on the same basis as car
owners pay on their cars."

Do you really think the VED bands are based on emissions including
production and maintenance of the vehicle?

And, in case you hadn't noticed, 21 is less than 101, so even if
cyclists were taxed on this more onerous basis - that will be zero
pounds per 12 months.

[Mrcheerful]

Gefreiter Krueger wrote:
> On Thu, 23 May 2013 14:25:19 +0100, Mrcheerful
> <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> Gefreiter Krueger wrote:
>>> On Thu, 23 May 2013 03:15:21 +0100, Phil W Lee
>>> <ph...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:
>>>> "Gefreiter Krueger" <n...@spam.com> considered Wed, 22 May 2013
>>>> 20:50:03 +0100 the perfect time to write:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 20:36:39 +0100, Dave-Cyclists VORT
>>>>> <davi...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> On 22/05/2013 19:23, Gefreiter Krueger wrote:
>
>>>>>> What happens to the other �36 billion?
>>>>>
>>>>> What?
>>>>
>>>> We have to fund it out of general taxation.
>>>
>>> And so it should be. Roads should be nationalised, like the NHS.
>>> You don't pay a fee when you go to hospital.
>>
>> You do, if you are a motorist in a crash.
>
> WTF are you talking about?

Motorists are charged when an ambulance is called. (happened to me a long
while ago)
From 1998:
"An Emergency Treatment Fee of �21-�30 is supposed to be collected at
hospital, directly from any motorist involved in an accident."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/223016.stm

If you try that site called Google you may find many, more recent,
confirmations.

[Gefreiter Krueger]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 17:44:53 +0100, Mrcheerful <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> Gefreiter Krueger wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 May 2013 14:23:21 +0100, Mrcheerful
>> <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Gefreiter Krueger wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 23 May 2013 08:14:14 +0100, Mrcheerful
>>>> <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> Gefreiter Krueger wrote:

>>
>>>>

>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>

>>>>
>>

>>>>>

>>>>> So now it is based on likelihood, earlier you said it was 'vehicles
>>>>> that can cause damage. Make your mind up.
>>>>
>>>> Same thing. A bicycle is less likely to cause harm, and that harm
>>>> will be far less.
>>>>> Should I cancel my car insurance because it is unlikely that I will
>>>>> run anyone over or crash into them?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, you should be allowed to pay for any damages yourself if you
>>>> think they're so unlikely. OR perhaps have insurance against
>>>> causing £2 million damage (assuming you can't afford that).
>>>
>>> so why wouldn't a cyclist need the same?
>>
>> Because you can't cause £2 million damage with a bicycle.
>
> How about when you cripple someone for life? Last estimate I saw for a
> lifetime of 24 hr care was a lot more than 2million, IIRC it was estimated
> at 6 million, to be reviewed as time went on. It is quite feasible for a
> cyclist to cause such catastrophic injuries or death, either of which may
> cost a massive amount.

That's what the NHS is for. And it's very unlikely a cyclist will cause that much damage, when you compare it to what damage cars cause.

--
Hiroshima '45 Chernobyl '86 Windows '95

[Gefreiter Krueger]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(power)

100 W – biomed: approximate basal metabolic rate of an adult human body

909 W – biomed: peak output power of a healthy human (nonathlete) during a 30-second cycle sprint at 30.1 degree Celsius.

You could work it out another way. Cycle uphill, weigh yourself and the bike, then calculate the kinetic energy required to lift you and the bike up that height. Then allow for your muscles being nowhere near 100% efficient.

--
Hit the button marked 'STOP' with remaining hand.

[Gefreiter Krueger]

I guess they don't normally bother. £21-£30 is a negligible amount compared to the cost of treatment.

According to this, they have to get it from the insurance company, not directly from the motorist:
http://www.parliament.uk/Templates/BriefingPapers/Pages/BPPdfDownload.aspx?bp-id=RP98-108

--
Why is it that people say they "slept like a baby" when babies wake up every two hours?

[davethedave]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 17:09:22 +0000, Ian Smith wrote:

> "I'd be quite happy to pay VED on my bikes on the same basis as car
> owners pay on their cars."
>
> Do you really think the VED bands are based on emissions including
> production and maintenance of the vehicle?
>
> And, in case you hadn't noticed, 21 is less than 101, so even if
> cyclists were taxed on this more onerous basis - that will be zero
> pounds per 12 months.

Plus of course every bike in the UK would have to be registered to do
this charging of £0 for a paper sticker certifying that their £0 had been
paid and they were in full accordance with the law. Manufacturers will
have to start numbering frames to account for this registration
requirement, thus increasing production costs and increasing the taxable
value of the vehicle at the point of sale. Older model unnumbered bikes
will still be floating around the system for at least 20 - 30 years as
well, adding an extra layer of complexity to what would otherwise still
be a task equivalent to climbing Everest by committee.

There would, of course, also be administrative costs of £eek. These costs
would need to be taken from some convenient income stream to the
government. Thus inadvertently causing a massive increase in VED for the
paying vehicle owners.

Despite it being a really great plan, I think we should think about it
carefully. We already have 20 year old girlies empowered by their
"talisman of power" disc and a steel suit of wheeled armour getting all
"Mad Max" on our butts. If VED goes up as a direct result of cycle
registration the cycle haters will start in with the AKs and RPGs. It's
bad enough having to deal with incompetents let alone aggression with
guns, rockets and the odd machete beheading.
--
davethedave

[TMS320]

"Gefreiter Krueger" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message

>
> If you are sat watching telly, you burn calories at 150W.

The power station is burning at least as much as that to make the telly
work.

> A Tour de France cyclist can achieve 6kW.

Even if a peak (unlikely), it is only short duration and nothing like an
average. And the TdF is not representative of most cycling. If you're really
worried about CO2 from humans doing physical activity (*) consider how much
"cycling" or "jogging" takes place inside air conditioned gyms.

(*) Other than being the most efficient way of turning energy to distance
travelled, it doesn't cause the human body to produce more
power compared to any other activity; the heart can only pump so much
blood around. It's likely that most people cycle with much the
same heart rate as when walking.

[Mrcheerful]

cycles are quite capable of killing and maiming as a quick google will show
you. Why should the tax payer be saddled with massive bills for the road
use of selfish cyclists?

[Mrcheerful]

strange how many cyclists suffer heart attacks while riding.

[Dave-Cyclists VORT]

On 23/05/2013 14:26, Ian Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 19:50:17 +0100, Gefreiter Krueger <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 10:42:53 +0100, Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, John Benn <MrBenn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> A great way to boost revenue for the economy would be to charge all
>>>> cyclists using public roads an annual fee, just like all other
>>>> vehicle users have to.
>>>
>>> I'd be quite happy to pay VED on my bikes on the same basis as car
>>> owners pay on their cars.
>>>
>>> Let's see, the CO2 emissions of my bicycle are 0 g/km. That's less
>>> than 101, so if I pay just like car owners, that will be zero pounds
>>> per 12 months.
>>
>> The power from a bicycle comes from you. You emit CO2.
>
> "I'd be quite happy to pay VED on my bikes on the same basis as car
> owners pay on their cars."
>
> Do you really think the VED bands are based upon the CO2 emissions of
> the people in the cars?

Do you really think Road Tax is based upon the CO2 emissions?

If so, you are a fool.

>
> Notwithstanding that: a typical human respiration equates to about
> 600g of CO2 per day, or 25g per hour. Exercise has a surprisingly low
> impact - the basal metabolic rate accounts for the vast majority of
> energy in the human body (a side-effect of us being homeothermic).
> However, I will conservatively assume a cyclist cycling is respiring
> at a 25% higher than average rate - 31 g/hr.
>
> In an hour, even a slow, unfit, plodding cyclist can cover ten miles,
> or 16 km.
>
> So even if we ignore the fact that they'd be emitting the majority of
> the CO2 whether they were cycling or not, and ignore the fact that car
> drivers emit CO2, and ignore, in fact, the observation that you are
> an idiot just trying to be smart, the CO2 emissions for a cyclist
> plus bicycle are (to a first approximation) 2 g/km.
>
> That's less than 101, so the VED will be zero pounds per 12 months.

The point is, cyclists 'use' the roads. They should pay to do so.
Sponging freeloaders.

>
> Now, do you want to try again and see if you can say something
> sensible?

Not something you have ever done.

--
Dave-Cyclists VORT
Motorists pay �46 billion a year in extra taxes, specifically so they
can use the roads.
Less than �10 billion of this is spent on roads.
Q: Do you and your party support a new London-style bike plan for
Cambridgeshire?
A: No. This proposal amounts to theft from the people who pay to use
roads and the benefit given to those who don�t.

[Dave-Cyclists VORT]

Which makes cyclists sponging freeloaders.

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

Holding up paying motorists no doubt.

--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton, of Lancaster
University, wrote in an interim assessment of the Understanding Walking
and Cycling study. "For them, cycling is a bit embarrassing, they fail
to see its purpose, and have no interest in integrating it into their
lives, certainly on a regular basis."

[Dave-Cyclists VORT]

When are you going to say something sensible?

[TMS320]

"Mrcheerful" <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote

How many would that be? How many weren't inevitable that just
happened to coincide with being on a bike?

[Judith]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 19:17:18 +0100, "Gefreiter Krueger" <n...@spam.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 23 May 2013 18:10:15 +0100, Mrcheerful <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Gefreiter Krueger wrote:
>>> On Thu, 23 May 2013 14:25:19 +0100, Mrcheerful
>>> <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> Gefreiter Krueger wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 23 May 2013 03:15:21 +0100, Phil W Lee
>>>>> <ph...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> "Gefreiter Krueger" <n...@spam.com> considered Wed, 22 May 2013
>>>>>> 20:50:03 +0100 the perfect time to write:
>>>>>>
>
>>>
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We have to fund it out of general taxation.
>>>>>
>>>>> And so it should be. Roads should be nationalised, like the NHS.
>>>>> You don't pay a fee when you go to hospital.
>>>>
>>>> You do, if you are a motorist in a crash.
>>>
>>> WTF are you talking about?
>>
>> Motorists are charged when an ambulance is called. (happened to me a long
>> while ago)
>> From 1998:
>> "An Emergency Treatment Fee of �21-�30 is supposed to be collected at
>> hospital, directly from any motorist involved in an accident."
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/223016.stm
>>
>> If you try that site called Google you may find many, more recent,
>> confirmations.
>
>I guess they don't normally bother. �21-�30 is a negligible amount compared to the cost of treatment.

Well you guess wrong as usual.


Flat rate fee for treatment without admission �452

Daily rate fee for treatment with admission �556

Cap in any one case �33,000


http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/www.dh.gov.uk/en/Consultations/Responsestoconsultations/DH_4017056

--
Wearing a cycle helmet will not kill you.

[Gefreiter Krueger]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 20:23:27 +0100, Mrcheerful <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> Gefreiter Krueger wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 May 2013 17:44:53 +0100, Mrcheerful
>> <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Gefreiter Krueger wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 23 May 2013 14:23:21 +0100, Mrcheerful
>>>> <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> Gefreiter Krueger wrote:

>>
>>>>

>>>>

>>>>
>>

>>>>
>>

>>>>>

>>>>> so why wouldn't a cyclist need the same?
>>>>
>>>> Because you can't cause £2 million damage with a bicycle.
>>>
>>> How about when you cripple someone for life? Last estimate I saw
>>> for a lifetime of 24 hr care was a lot more than 2million, IIRC it
>>> was estimated at 6 million, to be reviewed as time went on. It is
>>> quite feasible for a cyclist to cause such catastrophic injuries or
>>> death, either of which may cost a massive amount.
>>
>> That's what the NHS is for. And it's very unlikely a cyclist will
>> cause that much damage, when you compare it to what damage cars
>> cause.
>
> cycles are quite capable of killing and maiming as a quick google will show
> you. Why should the tax payer be saddled with massive bills for the road
> use of selfish cyclists?

Because compared to car injuries/deaths, they are negligible.

--
"Th on my k yboard has stopp d working"

[sfol...@googlemail.com]

I cycle. I also pay road tax on two cars(which is a tax on the vehicle of which only a portion goes on roads).
I don't see why I should have to pay a tax on my bike as well.

[Gefreiter Krueger]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 20:46:58 +0100, Dave-Cyclists VORT <davi...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> On 23/05/2013 14:26, Ian Smith wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 19:50:17 +0100, Gefreiter Krueger <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 10:42:53 +0100, Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, John Benn <MrBenn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> A great way to boost revenue for the economy would be to charge all
>>>>> cyclists using public roads an annual fee, just like all other
>>>>> vehicle users have to.
>>>>
>>>> I'd be quite happy to pay VED on my bikes on the same basis as car
>>>> owners pay on their cars.
>>>>
>>>> Let's see, the CO2 emissions of my bicycle are 0 g/km. That's less
>>>> than 101, so if I pay just like car owners, that will be zero pounds
>>>> per 12 months.
>>>
>>> The power from a bicycle comes from you. You emit CO2.
>>
>> "I'd be quite happy to pay VED on my bikes on the same basis as car
>> owners pay on their cars."
>>
>> Do you really think the VED bands are based upon the CO2 emissions of
>> the people in the cars?
>
> Do you really think Road Tax is based upon the CO2 emissions?
>
> If so, you are a fool.

They are, but they shouldn't be.

>> Notwithstanding that: a typical human respiration equates to about
>> 600g of CO2 per day, or 25g per hour. Exercise has a surprisingly low
>> impact - the basal metabolic rate accounts for the vast majority of
>> energy in the human body (a side-effect of us being homeothermic).
>> However, I will conservatively assume a cyclist cycling is respiring
>> at a 25% higher than average rate - 31 g/hr.
>>
>> In an hour, even a slow, unfit, plodding cyclist can cover ten miles,
>> or 16 km.
>>
>> So even if we ignore the fact that they'd be emitting the majority of
>> the CO2 whether they were cycling or not, and ignore the fact that car
>> drivers emit CO2, and ignore, in fact, the observation that you are
>> an idiot just trying to be smart, the CO2 emissions for a cyclist
>> plus bicycle are (to a first approximation) 2 g/km.
>>
>> That's less than 101, so the VED will be zero pounds per 12 months.
>
> The point is, cyclists 'use' the roads. They should pay to do so.
> Sponging freeloaders.

They don't. The road will be the same if they were there or not. If the cars weren't there, the roads wouldn't need repairing.

--
Smith & Wesson -- the original point and click interface.

[Gefreiter Krueger]

Namecalling means he ran out of reasoning.

--
People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs

[JNugent]

On 23/05/2013 22:51, sfol...@googlemail.com wrote:

> I cycle. I also pay road tax on two cars(which is a tax on the vehicle of which only a portion goes on roads).
> I don't see why I should have to pay a tax on my bike as well.

I (mainly) drive. I also pay road tax on two other cars (which is a tax

on the vehicle of which only a portion goes on roads). I don't see why I

should have to pay a tax on my day-to-day car as well.

[Gefreiter Krueger]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 20:05:04 +0100, TMS320 <dr6...@gmail.com> wrote:

> "Gefreiter Krueger" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
>>
>> If you are sat watching telly, you burn calories at 150W.
>
> The power station is burning at least as much as that to make the telly
> work.
>
>> A Tour de France cyclist can achieve 6kW.
>
> Even if a peak (unlikely), it is only short duration and nothing like an
> average. And the TdF is not representative of most cycling. If you're really
> worried about CO2 from humans doing physical activity (*) consider how much
> "cycling" or "jogging" takes place inside air conditioned gyms.

I'm not worried. I don't worry about CO2 at all, the greenhouse effect is a joke.

I was just pointing out that cyclists are not ZERO CO2 as mentioned above.

> (*) Other than being the most efficient way of turning energy to distance
> travelled, it doesn't cause the human body to produce more
> power compared to any other activity; the heart can only pump so much
> blood around. It's likely that most people cycle with much the
> same heart rate as when walking.

Absolute nonsense. If I walk, my heart rate is not much faster than when I'm sitting still. If I run or cycle (which means I put out as much power as my leg muscles will allow), my heart rate is much higher. The only thing higher is swimming, which uses more limbs.

And you can easily observe the drastic increase in power usage by noticing how much heat you generate when exerting yourself.

--
Men wake up as good-looking as they went to bed.
Women somehow deteriorate during the night.

[Gefreiter Krueger]

Scared by motorists?

--
Yesterday scientists in the USA revealed that beer contains small traces of female hormones.
To prove their theory they fed 100 men 12 pints of beer and observed that 100% of them started talking nonsense and couldn't drive.

[Gefreiter Krueger]

If someone is going to have a heart attack, it will probably happen when the heart is in heavy use. I know of someone who died during an assault course. Much fuss was made about it being the fault of the assault course owner [rolls eyes].

--
A Jewish woman is sitting at a bar. A man approaches her.
"Hi, honey," he says. "Want a little company?"
"Why?" asks the woman. "Do you have one to sell?"

[Gefreiter Krueger]

Funny I'd never heard of that happening, presumably it almost never does. Hospitals don't care how you got injured.

> Wearing a cycle helmet will not kill you.

But it will make you look like a pansy.

And your sig separator is broken.

--
"One dies in Istanbul suicide attack"

[Gefreiter Krueger]

So if I'm run down by an uninsured driver, the NHS don't fix me, what shite you talk.

[Partac]

"Gefreiter Krueger" wrote in message news:op.wxh08...@red.lan...

On Wed, 22 May 2013 19:28:45 +0100, Mrcheerful <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

> Gefreiter Krueger wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 09:32:13 +0100, John Benn
>> <MrBenn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> "JNugent" <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
>>> news:b01s4j...@mid.individual.net...
>>>> On 21/05/2013 18:39, Dave-Cyclists VORT wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 21/05/2013 18:23, Mr Pounder wrote:

>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>
>>>>> +2
>>>>
>>>> In principle I would vote for that (though I honestly believe that
>>>> ￜ25 is too low by some way and that insurance should also be
>>>> compulsory and specific to the rider and possibly to the machine).
>>>>
>>>> However, I would remind the OP that it isn't true that every road
>>>> user has to pay an annual tax. The current system of graduated road
>>>> tax is an illogical farce, and the flat rate needs to be
>>>> reintroduced (for road-going motor vehicles of any and every age),
>>>> at say ￜ150 for a year for a car or van.
>>>
>>> Yes, you are right. Every type of vehicle occupying road space
>>> should be charged a fee. I had forgotten that low-emission vehicles
>>> are currently exempt.
>>>
>>> Insurance should also be compulsory for all vehicle users.
>>
>> Insurance is for vehicles that can cause damage.
>
> Such as killing people? Breaking things, damaging things? causing
> crashes?
> Bicycles can do all these and more.

Negligible compared to a faster heavier car.

So if a cyclist killed a member of your family, you would say "It's OK -
it's only negligible?

[Partac]

"Gefreiter Krueger" wrote in message news:op.wxh30...@red.lan...

On Wed, 22 May 2013 19:55:10 +0100, Mrcheerful <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk>

wrote:

> Gefreiter Krueger wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 19:28:45 +0100, Mrcheerful
>> <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Gefreiter Krueger wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 09:32:13 +0100, John Benn
>>>> <MrBenn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> "JNugent" <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
>>>>> news:b01s4j...@mid.individual.net...

>>

>>

>>>>>

>>>>> Yes, you are right. Every type of vehicle occupying road space
>>>>> should be charged a fee. I had forgotten that low-emission
>>>>> vehicles are currently exempt.
>>>>>
>>>>> Insurance should also be compulsory for all vehicle users.
>>>>
>>>> Insurance is for vehicles that can cause damage.
>>>
>>> Such as killing people? Breaking things, damaging things? causing
>>> crashes? Bicycles can do all these and more.
>>
>> Negligible compared to a faster heavier car.
>

> remember, they are your words: Insurance is for vehicles that can cause
> damage.
>
> You call death, maiming and property damage negligible?

Pedestrians can do that. They aren't insured.

It's matter of scale and likelihood. You've just demonstrated you have OCD,
so your opinion is null and void.

And you have just demonstrated that you are a psycholist - guess what's
coming next?

[Partac]

"Gefreiter Krueger" wrote in message news:op.wxh4q...@red.lan...

On Wed, 22 May 2013 20:55:46 +0100, Mrcheerful <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk>

wrote:

> Gefreiter Krueger wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 19:55:10 +0100, Mrcheerful
>> <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Gefreiter Krueger wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 19:28:45 +0100, Mrcheerful
>>>> <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> Gefreiter Krueger wrote:

>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>

>>>>>
>>>>> Such as killing people? Breaking things, damaging things? causing
>>>>> crashes? Bicycles can do all these and more.
>>>>
>>>> Negligible compared to a faster heavier car.
>>>
>>> remember, they are your words: Insurance is for vehicles that can
>>> cause damage.
>>>
>>> You call death, maiming and property damage negligible?
>>
>> Pedestrians can do that. They aren't insured.
>>
>> It's matter of scale and likelihood. You've just demonstrated you
>> have OCD, so your opinion is null and void.
>

> Remember your own words: Insurance is for VEHICLES that can cause damage.
>
> A pedestrian is not a vehicle.

The word vehicle was unimportant.

> Bicycles are vehicles and they can and do cause damage, therefore they
> should have compulsory minimum insurance for road risks.

We do not need to insure against things which are very unlikely.

Are you going to make it mandatory to have nuclear fallout insurance too?
I'm more likely to suffer a nuclear war than be hit by a cyclist.

Do you have any evidence to back up this amazing claim? No, I thought not.

[Partac]

"Gefreiter Krueger" wrote in message news:op.wxj3e...@red.lan...

On Thu, 23 May 2013 20:23:27 +0100, Mrcheerful <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

> Gefreiter Krueger wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 May 2013 17:44:53 +0100, Mrcheerful
>> <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Gefreiter Krueger wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 23 May 2013 14:23:21 +0100, Mrcheerful
>>>> <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> Gefreiter Krueger wrote:

>>
>>>>

>>>>

>>>>
>>

>>>>
>>

>>>>>
>>>>> so why wouldn't a cyclist need the same?
>>>>

>>>> Because you can't cause ￜ2 million damage with a bicycle.

>>>
>>> How about when you cripple someone for life? Last estimate I saw
>>> for a lifetime of 24 hr care was a lot more than 2million, IIRC it
>>> was estimated at 6 million, to be reviewed as time went on. It is
>>> quite feasible for a cyclist to cause such catastrophic injuries or
>>> death, either of which may cost a massive amount.
>>
>> That's what the NHS is for. And it's very unlikely a cyclist will
>> cause that much damage, when you compare it to what damage cars
>> cause.
>
> cycles are quite capable of killing and maiming as a quick google will
> show
> you. Why should the tax payer be saddled with massive bills for the road
> use of selfish cyclists?

Because compared to car injuries/deaths, they are negligible.

I repeat my question: If a member of your family were killed, would you
still say it was negligible?

[Ian Smith]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 19:14:50 +0100, Gefreiter Krueger <n...@spam.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 23 May 2013 18:06:37 +0100, Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk> wrote:

>
> > On Thu, 23 May 2013 17:24:00 +0100, Gefreiter Krueger <n...@spam.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> If you are sat watching telly, you burn calories at 150W. A Tour
> >> de France cyclist can achieve 6kW. Your 25% higher is pants.
> >

> > "As an example, world class male sprint cyclists ... are capable
> > of peak power scores in the range 1750-2250 W and max minute power
> > of 360-400W. Conversely world class male endurance cyclists ...
> > lower peak power scores of 1000-1250W have a much higher max
> > minute power score of 420-500W"
> >
> > Even if the cyclist is a world class cyclist and is producing CO2
> > at three times the average rate, that's 6 g/km, which (surprise!)
> > is less than 101, so the VED will be zero pounds per 12 months.
> >
> > Do you want to try again and see if you can say something sensible?
>

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(power)
>
> 100 W – biomed: approximate basal metabolic rate of an adult human body
>
> 909 W – biomed: peak output power of a healthy human (nonathlete)
> during a 30-second cycle sprint at 30.1 degree Celsius.

Gosh look, those numbers are in line with the figures I quoted so the
approximations you objected to were right all along.

So the VED will be zero pounds per 12 months.


--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

[Dave-Cyclists VORT]

On 23/05/2013 22:51, sfol...@googlemail.com wrote:

> I cycle. I also pay road tax on two cars(which is a tax on the vehicle of which only a portion goes on roads).
> I don't see why I should have to pay a tax on my bike as well.
>

The Road Tax on one car doesn't cover the other one.

So when you cycle & use the roads, you are a sponging freeloader.

[JNugent]

That's exactly what we need to insure against.

For things which are very likely, it's impossible to *get* insurance at
an affordable price.

[Gefreiter Krueger]

On Fri, 24 May 2013 08:31:37 +0100, JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote:

> On 24/05/2013 02:02, Partac wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Gefreiter Krueger" wrote in message news:op.wxh4q...@red.lan...
>>
>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 20:55:46 +0100, Mrcheerful
>> <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Gefreiter Krueger wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 19:55:10 +0100, Mrcheerful
>>>> <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> Gefreiter Krueger wrote:

>>
>>>>

>>>>

>>>>
>>

>>>>>

>>>>> remember, they are your words: Insurance is for vehicles that can
>>>>> cause damage.
>>>>>
>>>>> You call death, maiming and property damage negligible?
>>>>
>>>> Pedestrians can do that. They aren't insured.
>>>>
>>>> It's matter of scale and likelihood. You've just demonstrated you
>>>> have OCD, so your opinion is null and void.
>>>
>>> Remember your own words: Insurance is for VEHICLES that can cause damage.
>>>
>>> A pedestrian is not a vehicle.
>>
>> The word vehicle was unimportant.
>>
>>> Bicycles are vehicles and they can and do cause damage, therefore they
>>> should have compulsory minimum insurance for road risks.
>>
>> We do not need to insure against things which are very unlikely.
>
> That's exactly what we need to insure against.
>
> For things which are very likely, it's impossible to *get* insurance at
> an affordable price.

You might insure against the unlikely - something which happens once every 10 or 20 years. But the very unlikely, something that will probably never happen in your whole life, why bother? Remember, insurance companies make a profit.

--
Pilot to tower, pilot to tower, I am 300 miles from land, 600 feet over water, and running out of fuel, please instruct!
Tower to pilot, tower to pilot, repeat after me: "Our Father, which art in heaven....."

[Gefreiter Krueger]

On Fri, 24 May 2013 02:02:10 +0100, Partac <any...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:

>
>
> "Gefreiter Krueger" wrote in message news:op.wxh4q...@red.lan...
>
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 20:55:46 +0100, Mrcheerful <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> Gefreiter Krueger wrote:
>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 19:55:10 +0100, Mrcheerful
>>> <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> Gefreiter Krueger wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 19:28:45 +0100, Mrcheerful
>>>>> <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>

>>>>>

>>>>> Negligible compared to a faster heavier car.
>>>>
>>>> remember, they are your words: Insurance is for vehicles that can
>>>> cause damage.
>>>>
>>>> You call death, maiming and property damage negligible?
>>>
>>> Pedestrians can do that. They aren't insured.
>>>
>>> It's matter of scale and likelihood. You've just demonstrated you
>>> have OCD, so your opinion is null and void.
>>
>> Remember your own words: Insurance is for VEHICLES that can cause damage.
>>
>> A pedestrian is not a vehicle.
>
> The word vehicle was unimportant.
>
>> Bicycles are vehicles and they can and do cause damage, therefore they
>> should have compulsory minimum insurance for road risks.
>
> We do not need to insure against things which are very unlikely.
>
> Are you going to make it mandatory to have nuclear fallout insurance too?
> I'm more likely to suffer a nuclear war than be hit by a cyclist.
>
> Do you have any evidence to back up this amazing claim? No, I thought not.

Observation.

--
More and more cities are instituting a 10:30 PM curfew for everyone younger than 18.
Experts say keeping teens indoors at night is the only way to make the streets safe for adults.

[Gefreiter Krueger]

On Fri, 24 May 2013 01:58:33 +0100, Partac <any...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:

>
>
> "Gefreiter Krueger" wrote in message news:op.wxh08...@red.lan...
>
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 19:28:45 +0100, Mrcheerful <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> Gefreiter Krueger wrote:
>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 09:32:13 +0100, John Benn
>>> <MrBenn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> "JNugent" <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
>>>> news:b01s4j...@mid.individual.net...
>>>>> On 21/05/2013 18:39, Dave-Cyclists VORT wrote:
>>>>>

>
>>>>>
>

>
>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> In principle I would vote for that (though I honestly believe that

>>>>> £25 is too low by some way and that insurance should also be

>>>>> compulsory and specific to the rider and possibly to the machine).
>>>>>
>>>>> However, I would remind the OP that it isn't true that every road
>>>>> user has to pay an annual tax. The current system of graduated road
>>>>> tax is an illogical farce, and the flat rate needs to be
>>>>> reintroduced (for road-going motor vehicles of any and every age),

>>>>> at say £150 for a year for a car or van.

>>>>
>>>> Yes, you are right. Every type of vehicle occupying road space
>>>> should be charged a fee. I had forgotten that low-emission vehicles
>>>> are currently exempt.
>>>>
>>>> Insurance should also be compulsory for all vehicle users.
>>>
>>> Insurance is for vehicles that can cause damage.
>>
>> Such as killing people? Breaking things, damaging things? causing
>> crashes?
>> Bicycles can do all these and more.
>
> Negligible compared to a faster heavier car.
>
> So if a cyclist killed a member of your family, you would say "It's OK -
> it's only negligible?

It'll never happen.

--
Connecticut police are investigating a string of shootings where clues are reportedly contained in a rap CD.
They are also questioning Bob Marley about the shooting of a sheriff.

[Gefreiter Krueger]

On Fri, 24 May 2013 01:58:33 +0100, Partac <any...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:

>
>

> "Gefreiter Krueger" wrote in message news:op.wxh08...@red.lan...
>
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 19:28:45 +0100, Mrcheerful <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> Gefreiter Krueger wrote:
>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 09:32:13 +0100, John Benn
>>> <MrBenn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> "JNugent" <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
>>>> news:b01s4j...@mid.individual.net...
>>>>> On 21/05/2013 18:39, Dave-Cyclists VORT wrote:
>>>>>

>
>>>>>
>

>
>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> In principle I would vote for that (though I honestly believe that

>>>>> £25 is too low by some way and that insurance should also be

>>>>> compulsory and specific to the rider and possibly to the machine).
>>>>>
>>>>> However, I would remind the OP that it isn't true that every road
>>>>> user has to pay an annual tax. The current system of graduated road
>>>>> tax is an illogical farce, and the flat rate needs to be
>>>>> reintroduced (for road-going motor vehicles of any and every age),

>>>>> at say £150 for a year for a car or van.

>>>>
>>>> Yes, you are right. Every type of vehicle occupying road space
>>>> should be charged a fee. I had forgotten that low-emission vehicles
>>>> are currently exempt.
>>>>
>>>> Insurance should also be compulsory for all vehicle users.
>>>
>>> Insurance is for vehicles that can cause damage.
>>
>> Such as killing people? Breaking things, damaging things? causing
>> crashes?
>> Bicycles can do all these and more.
>
> Negligible compared to a faster heavier car.
>
> So if a cyclist killed a member of your family, you would say "It's OK -
> it's only negligible?

Insurance doesn't bring people back to life. Insurance pays for damage to property.

[Simon Weissel]

On 24/05/2013 13:27, Gefreiter Krueger wrote:
>
> You might insure against the unlikely - something which happens once
> every 10 or 20 years. But the very unlikely, something that will
> probably never happen in your whole life, why bother? Remember,
> insurance companies make a profit.
>

As a regular cyclist I am actually in favour of a road licensing fee,
compulsory insurance and compulsory training. These relate to *the
cyclist* and not to the bike. This (I believe) would make cycling safer
as well as providing an easier course of compensation should the cyclist
cause damage to others.

I would however object to any kind of registration to the bike itself,
although I do think that some sort of annual/bi-annual check to make
sure that the basic components (such as the brakes) work properly.

The cost of insurance would be negligible. This is because the risks and
sizes of claims are likely to be small. If I can get 3rd party motor
insurance for a car for little more than £100 pa, then I am certain that
the 3rd party risks associated with cycling would be only a small
fraction of that.

The cost of a road permit/licence would also be negligible. If we allow
low emission vehicles to be exempt from “Road Tax” (!) Then surely a
permit could be granted for a similar fee. Or perhaps granted for a
small admin fee on production of insurance/training certificates.

Or, the road permit/licence could be incorporated into the driving
licence. IIRC it used to be that you could ride a moped on a standard
driving licence (with an L plate). Perhaps drivers without proper
two-wheeled training could be allowed to ride so long as they display an
L plate on their back and front :-)

For children, cycling and road skills could be incorporated into the
national curriculum, thus providing younger members of society with
their basic training for a standard cycling permit/licence.

All good stuff so far. Although the cost of providing all this would
land in the lap of the tax payer so I suspect that the very same people
who want “cyclists to pay to use the roads” would be up in arms over
“wasting money enforcing training and licensing of cyclists”.

As the old saying goes, be careful what you wish for …

[JNugent]

On 24/05/2013 14:39, Simon Weissel wrote:

> On 24/05/2013 13:27, Gefreiter Krueger wrote:
>
>> You might insure against the unlikely - something which happens once
>> every 10 or 20 years. But the very unlikely, something that will
>> probably never happen in your whole life, why bother? Remember,
>> insurance companies make a profit.
>
> As a regular cyclist I am actually in favour of a road licensing fee,
> compulsory insurance and compulsory training. These relate to *the
> cyclist* and not to the bike. This (I believe) would make cycling safer
> as well as providing an easier course of compensation should the cyclist
> cause damage to others.
>
> I would however object to any kind of registration to the bike itself,
> although I do think that some sort of annual/bi-annual check to make
> sure that the basic components (such as the brakes) work properly.

How would you propose to trace absconding cyclists who have committed an
offence?

Or would you not bother?

> The cost of insurance would be negligible. This is because the risks and
> sizes of claims are likely to be small. If I can get 3rd party motor
> insurance for a car for little more than £100 pa, then I am certain that
> the 3rd party risks associated with cycling would be only a small
> fraction of that.

A certain amount of the £100 (surely the absolutely lowest premium
available in the UK today) is represented by admin costs. That would
equally apply to the bicycle, with the cost of the risk on top of that.

> The cost of a road permit/licence would also be negligible. If we allow
> low emission vehicles to be exempt from “Road Tax” (!) Then surely a
> permit could be granted for a similar fee. Or perhaps granted for a
> small admin fee on production of insurance/training certificates.

Given what you have already said above, you seem confused as to what a
driving licence and road tax disc are, and to what they relate.

But a cycling licence could, I'm sure, be issued for a relatively small
fee. After all, the fee for a driving licence is itself modest.

> Or, the road permit/licence could be incorporated into the driving
> licence.

Good idea. Just like a moped licence currently is for all qualified drivers.

But what of those who have not got a driving licence? And what about
those who are banned from driving? They can't ride mopeds either (though
perhaps they ought to be).

As long as the cycling licence was itself a permit subject to withdrawal
as a punishment (and for which breaches are themselves counted as
offence), that would suffice: it wouldn't actually matter whether the CL
was incorporated into the DL or was a separate document.

> IIRC it used to be that you could ride a moped on a standard
> driving licence (with an L plate).

Still is, I'm sure. I have never had any notification to any other effect.

> Perhaps drivers without proper
> two-wheeled training could be allowed to ride so long as they display an
> L plate on their back and front :-)

Either it is incorporated or it isn't. Which is it?

> For children, cycling and road skills could be incorporated into the
> national curriculum, thus providing younger members of society with
> their basic training for a standard cycling permit/licence.
> All good stuff so far. Although the cost of providing all this would
> land in the lap of the tax payer so I suspect that the very same people
> who want “cyclists to pay to use the roads” would be up in arms over
> “wasting money enforcing training and licensing of cyclists”.

No need. Cyclists would be charged for the scheme, just as drivers and
the owners of motor vehicles are. Is there even the beginning of a case
for doing anything else?

> As the old saying goes, be careful what you wish for …

Indeed.

I do like that idea of incorporating a cycling licence into a driving
licence. It would mean you could be banned from cycling for a motor
vehicle driving offence. And what's wrong with that?

[Gefreiter Krueger]

Actually I rarely cycle, I normally drive as I'm lazy. So you're wrong again.

--
Reason to smile: Every 7 minutes of every day, someone in an aerobics class pulls a hamstring.

[Gefreiter Krueger]

On Fri, 24 May 2013 02:04:39 +0100, Partac <any...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:

>
>
> "Gefreiter Krueger" wrote in message news:op.wxj3e...@red.lan...
>
> On Thu, 23 May 2013 20:23:27 +0100, Mrcheerful <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> Gefreiter Krueger wrote:
>>> On Thu, 23 May 2013 17:44:53 +0100, Mrcheerful
>>> <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> Gefreiter Krueger wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 23 May 2013 14:23:21 +0100, Mrcheerful
>>>>> <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>
>>>
>>>>>
>
>>>>>
>
>>>>>
>>>
>
>>>>>
>>>
>

>>>>>

>>>>> Because you can't cause £2 million damage with a bicycle.

>>>>
>>>> How about when you cripple someone for life? Last estimate I saw
>>>> for a lifetime of 24 hr care was a lot more than 2million, IIRC it
>>>> was estimated at 6 million, to be reviewed as time went on. It is
>>>> quite feasible for a cyclist to cause such catastrophic injuries or
>>>> death, either of which may cost a massive amount.
>>>
>>> That's what the NHS is for. And it's very unlikely a cyclist will
>>> cause that much damage, when you compare it to what damage cars
>>> cause.
>>
>> cycles are quite capable of killing and maiming as a quick google will
>> show
>> you. Why should the tax payer be saddled with massive bills for the road
>> use of selfish cyclists?
>
> Because compared to car injuries/deaths, they are negligible.
>
> I repeat my question: If a member of your family were killed, would you
> still say it was negligible?

If something happens to you and nobody else in the UK, it's still negligible.

--
What do you call 4 sheep tied to a post in Wales?
A leisure centre!

[Gefreiter Krueger]

On Fri, 24 May 2013 03:24:14 +0100, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:

> "Gefreiter Krueger" <n...@spam.com> considered Thu, 23 May 2013 19:14:50

> +0100 the perfect time to write:
>
>> On Thu, 23 May 2013 18:06:37 +0100, Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk> wrote:
>>

>>> On Thu, 23 May 2013 17:24:00 +0100, Gefreiter Krueger <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 23 May 2013 14:26:18 +0100, Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > So even if we ignore the fact that they'd be emitting the majority of
>>>> > the CO2 whether they were cycling or not, and ignore the fact that car
>>>> > drivers emit CO2, and ignore, in fact, the observation that you are
>>>> > an idiot just trying to be smart, the CO2 emissions for a cyclist
>>>> > plus bicycle are (to a first approximation) 2 g/km.
>>>> >

>>>> > That's less than 101, so the VED will be zero pounds per 12 months.
>>>> >
>>>> > Now, do you want to try again and see if you can say something
>>>> > sensible?
>>>>

>>>> If you are sat watching telly, you burn calories at 150W. A Tour
>>>> de France cyclist can achieve 6kW. Your 25% higher is pants.
>>>

>>> A car driver is not "sat watching telly". I am not a Tour de France
>>> cyclist. A Tour de France cyclist does not achieve 6kW on average.
>>>
>>> In fact, I dispute that any cyclist achieves 6kW over any significant
>>> time - see for example
>>> http://wattbike.com/uk/guide/using_the_wattbike/power_to_weight_ratio
>>>

>>> "As an example, world class male sprint cyclists ... are capable of
>>> peak power scores in the range 1750-2250 W and max minute power of
>>> 360-400W. Conversely world class male endurance cyclists ... lower
>>> peak power scores of 1000-1250W have a much higher max minute power
>>> score of 420-500W"
>>>
>>> Even if the cyclist is a world class cyclist and is producing CO2 at
>>> three times the average rate, that's 6 g/km, which (surprise!) is less
>>> than 101, so the VED will be zero pounds per 12 months.
>>>
>>> Do you want to try again and see if you can say something sensible?
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(power)
>>
>> 100 W – biomed: approximate basal metabolic rate of an adult human body
>>
>> 909 W – biomed: peak output power of a healthy human (nonathlete) during a 30-second cycle sprint at 30.1 degree Celsius.
>>

>> You could work it out another way. Cycle uphill, weigh yourself and the bike, then calculate the kinetic energy required to lift you and the bike up that height. Then allow for your muscles being nowhere near 100% efficient.
>
> It appears that you are failing to grasp the meaning of the word
> "peak".
>
> For a meaningful per km CO2 output, try looking at the hour rate.
> An elite category cyclist will be working very hard indeed to produce
> over 350w for an hour.
> Masters will be up to around 300w.
> 450w will net you the blue riband of world cycling records (if you can
> also keep good aerodynamic form).
>
> Typical commuters will be in the 100-150 range (once they are fit).
>
> So, relative to car CO2 production, we can safely say that cyclists
> produce the square root of bugger all CO2, whether measured per hour,
> per kilometre, per person or per furlong/fortnight.

I agree it's a lot less. But my initial point was that it isn't zero. It must be at least the energy required to lift the bicycle and yourself up the hills, and the waste to friction in the bike and the air, and the waste due to inefficiencies in your muscles.

--
What does a Polish woman do after she sucks a cock?
Spits out the feathers.

[Gefreiter Krueger]

All the wattages above will be power OUTPUT.

--
When you want a man to play with you, wear a full-length black nightgown with buttons all over it.
Sure it's uncomfortable, but it makes you look just like his remote control.

[Gefreiter Krueger]

Do you insure yourself against attacks of killer bees too? Why are you such a pessimist?

--
Hello: A shout to attract attention, first recorded 1588. Popularity as a greeting coincides with use of the telephone, where it won out over Alexander Graham Bell's suggestion, ahoy.

[TMS320]

"Gefreiter Krueger" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
> On Thu, 23 May 2013 20:05:04 +0100, TMS320 <dr6...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "Gefreiter Krueger" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> If you are sat watching telly, you burn calories at 150W.
>>
>> The power station is burning at least as much as that to make the telly
>> work.
>>
>>> A Tour de France cyclist can achieve 6kW.
>>
>> Even if a peak (unlikely), it is only short duration and nothing like an
>> average. And the TdF is not representative of most cycling. If you're
>> really
>> worried about CO2 from humans doing physical activity (*) consider how
>> much
>> "cycling" or "jogging" takes place inside air conditioned gyms.
>
> I'm not worried. I don't worry about CO2 at all, the greenhouse effect is
> a joke.
>
> I was just pointing out that cyclists are not ZERO CO2 as mentioned above.

And I was pointing out people using bicycles on a road doesn't necessarily
produce any more (on a time based measure) than, and can be less than, when
performing many other common activities.

>> (*) Other than being the most efficient way of turning energy to distance
>> travelled, it doesn't cause the human body to produce more
>> power compared to any other activity; the heart can only pump so much
>> blood around. It's likely that most people cycle with much the
>> same heart rate as when walking.
>
> Absolute nonsense. If I walk, my heart rate is not much faster than when
> I'm sitting still.

Taking your specific case does not make the general case that I suggest to
be nonsense. Taking my specific circumstances, my resting heart rate is
about 45-50 and I cannot do anything without speeding it up. On a decent
walk on the flat it will run in the 90-110 region.

I can do a lot cycling in that range - with a group of slow riders or doing
short trips in ordinary clothes. I can take my heart up higher when cycling,
of course, and do so regularly but it isn't an essential requirement of the
activity.

> If I run or cycle (which means I put out as much power as my leg muscles
> will allow), my heart rate is much higher.

It doesn't take long to develop leg muscles to accept anything the heart can
send them.

> The only thing higher is
> swimming, which uses more limbs.

The heart's effort has to be shared out no matter how many limbs are
involved.

[Partac]

"Gefreiter Krueger" wrote in message news:op.wxld0...@red.lan...

No, not wrong - it just means that you're a lazy psycholist.