Stop Cycling up Ditchling Beacon!!!!

[teaboy]

Often the case, I'm afraid.

We don't allow children to cycle to the school I work at without a pass in their cycling proficiency and a helmet. It would be great if more children cycled to school, though (or at least walked).

Does your school provide the bikeability training that you require them to have?

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Does your school provide the bikeability training that you require them to have?

Yes. And just to be clear, they can cycle to school with their parents if they have yet to pass, but they cannot cycle on their own until they have passed their bike ability.

 

[MarioOrlandi]

Never have a problem with cyclists when driving up Ditchling Beacon. I sneak up behind them in my trusty Ford transit then rev the bollocks off it. They are so startled that most of them fall into the road side and wave at me as I drive past. The sad thing about cyclists is that they seem to have lost some fingers and a thumb the poor loves.

 

[The Large One]

It's easy being pedantic and then perhaps feeling smug, but think his point was that he has paid for the right to use his car on the road, rather than paying for the road itself.

There's no pedantry involved here.

It's well-worn road (excuse the pun) which he and others are mistakenly on.

If you think it's smug, and he feels patronised by being informed (not for the first time by many others) what his expenditure is going on, more pity the pair of you.

Personally, I'd be delighted if someone told me exactly what it is my taxes, duties and levies were going on.

 

[Cloughie]

There's no pedantry involved here.

It's well-worn road (excuse the pun) which he and others are mistakenly on.

If you think it's smug, and he feels patronised by being informed (not for the first time by many others) what his expenditure is going on, more pity the pair of you.

Personally, I'd be delighted if someone told me exactly what it is my taxes, duties and levies were going on.

But that wasn't his point was it? His argument was that he had to pay for the right to use his car on the road. It was you being unnecessarily pedantic by pointing out his syntactical error that made me take umbrage.

 

[Wrong-Direction]

Ban cyclists on country roads! Make them pay their own tax!

 

[teaboy]

But that wasn't his point was it? His argument was that he had to pay for the right to use his car on the road. It was you being unnecessarily pedantic by pointing out his syntactical error that made me take umbrage.

So why is he annoyed with anyone other than the people who make the decisions? It isn't cyclists, or pedestrians, or horse riders or any other person that makes drivers pay VED. Should I be annoyed at kids because I have to pay VAT on clothes? Does this lack of taxation give me more right to clothing than they have?

There are loads of ways he could use roads, but he chooses to use a motor vehicle. This use of a motor vehicle incurs a tax levy imposed by the government, not the woman on a bike, or the bloke on a horse, or the kids walking. It doesn't 'buy' you anything and you're more than welcome to stop paying VED altogether if you like. It won't get you banned from driving or using the roads, but it will get you fined for non-payment of tax.

 

[Notters]

So why is he annoyed with anyone other than the people who make the decisions? It isn't cyclists, or pedestrians, or horse riders or any other person that makes drivers pay VED. Should I be annoyed at kids because I have to pay VAT on clothes? Does this lack of taxation give me more right to clothing than they have?

There are loads of ways he could use roads, but he chooses to use a motor vehicle. This use of a motor vehicle incurs a tax levy imposed by the government, not the woman on a bike, or the bloke on a horse, or the kids walking. It doesn't 'buy' you anything and you're more than welcome to stop paying VED altogether if you like. It won't get you banned from driving or using the roads, but it will get you fined for non-payment of tax.

But as explained above, it's not even for the use of a motor vehicle, it's for the use of a polluting motor vehicle.

 

[Horton's halftime iceberg]

Make the road single lane or one way, it wasn't designed for todays bigger vehicles, possibly have traffic lights top and bottom and signs saying for local traffic and access only, then put in cycle paths, horse bridelways and walking paths and open it up more as the regional and national park it is, perhaps get the 79 bus to go on to Ditchling and Wivelsfield train station as well.

 

[Cloughie]

So why is he annoyed with anyone other than the people who make the decisions? It isn't cyclists, or pedestrians, or horse riders or any other person that makes drivers pay VED. Should I be annoyed at kids because I have to pay VAT on clothes? Does this lack of taxation give me more right to clothing than they have?

There are loads of ways he could use roads, but he chooses to use a motor vehicle. This use of a motor vehicle incurs a tax levy imposed by the government, not the woman on a bike, or the bloke on a horse, or the kids walking. It doesn't 'buy' you anything and you're more than welcome to stop paying VED altogether if you like. It won't get you banned from driving or using the roads, but it will get you fined for non-payment of tax.

I wouldn't even hazard a guess at what the OP was thinking. I'm just fed up of the constant sniping at menial details to belittle someones point. He just stated that he had paid for the right to use the road - and then then pendants jumped on his poor use of semantics.

As a cyclist and a car driver I personally find this discussion utterly pointless. I get irritated when people are castigated for attempting to make a point. Not everyone is naturally eloquent, but that doesn't necessarily make their points any less pertinent.

 

[teaboy]

I wouldn't even hazard a guess at what the OP was thinking. I'm just fed up of the constant sniping at menial details to belittle someones point. He just stated that he had paid for the right to use the road - and then then pendants jumped on his poor use of semantics.

As a cyclist and a car driver I personally find this discussion utterly pointless. I get irritated when people are castigated for attempting to make a point. Not everyone is naturally eloquent, but that doesn't necessarily make their points any less pertinent.

That's the thing though - it isn't being pedantic, or attacking semantics to say that something is factually incorrect. The "menial details" as you call them are the entire subject of the thread.

To state "I pay for the right to use the roads" doesn't make it true.

 

[Cloughie]

That's the thing though - it isn't being pedantic, or attacking semantics to say that something is factually incorrect. The "menial details" as you call them are the entire subject of the thread.

To state "I pay for the right to use the roads" doesn't make it true.

Of course it is - read the OP and you'll see its pretty obvious what was meant. It was just another chance for someone to make a sniping comment and attempt to point out someones presumed ignorance on the matter in question.

'entire subject of the thread' - No it isn't. The majority of people on this forum are well aware that the tax they pay to use their cars on the road isn't spent on the roads themselves. It's been used as an argument so often on here that it's become tiresome. The original subject of the thread was primarily about safety - Was it safe for cars and cycles to travel up the beacon together? It wasn't until the pro and anti cyclist brigades started hammering out their vitriol that the pendants got involved, citing well-known information and jumping on others' errors.

I'm not here to quarrel with anyone, and am not involved in the discussion either way, but I'm fed up of reading umpteen patronising comments on every thread which is over 'x' amount of pages long.

 

[SIMMO SAYS]

Thank you Cloughie for sticking up for this poor old plumber. Ninety nine per cent of my posts have a little bit of devil about them. To make out that I do not know the difference between my Road Tax and VED is funny. C'an't be arsed to look up what semantics mean tho

 

[BN9 BHA]

That's the thing though - it isn't being pedantic, or attacking semantics to say that something is factually incorrect. The "menial details" as you call them are the entire subject of the thread.

To state "I pay for the right to use the roads" doesn't make it true.

Do you actually support The Albion?
The reason I ask is that I have only ever seen posts from you about cycling or arguing with people about cycling.

 

[teaboy]

Do you actually support The Albion?
The reason I ask is that I have only ever seen posts from you about cycling or arguing with people about cycling.

I have done in the past. Not been for a while due to work commitments. There are people who post on NSC who don't support the Albion and never have.

 

[BN9 BHA]

I have done in the past. Not been for a while due to work commitments. There are people who post on NSC who don't support the Albion and never have.

So do you or don't you support BHA, or did in the past

I do realise we do have plenty of fans from other teams posting on NSC.

 

[teaboy]

So do you or don't you support BHA, or did in the past

I do realise we do have plenty of fans from other teams posting on NSC.

I'd probably say 'did'. I was there at the Goldstone, Gillingham and Withdean (season ticket holder for 2 years as a student living in London). Regular visits became unaffordable. When we moved to Falmer I felt that the club was there indefinitely, which allowed me to distance myself emotionally as well as physically. I like to see us do well, but don't need the day-to-day goings on anymore. If the question of 'what football team do you support?' ever comes up, I do (and always will) answer 'Brighton'.

Is that a suitable explanation? Do I have your permission to use the internet still?

 

[BN9 BHA]

I'd probably say 'did'. I was there at the Goldstone, Gillingham and Withdean (season ticket holder for 2 years as a student living in London). Regular visits became unaffordable. When we moved to Falmer I felt that the club was there indefinitely, which allowed me to distance myself emotionally as well as physically. I like to see us do well, but don't need the day-to-day goings on anymore. If the question of 'what football team do you support?' ever comes up, I do (and always will) answer 'Brighton'.

Is that a suitable explanation? Do I have your permission to use the internet still?

No need for the last comment, I thought I was just asking a polite question.

Thankyou for the answer on supporting The Albion.

 

[Garage_Doors]

Never have a problem with cyclists when driving up Ditchling Beacon. I sneak up behind them in my trusty Ford transit then rev the bollocks off it. They are so startled that most of them fall into the road side and wave at me as I drive past. The sad thing about cyclists is that they seem to have lost some fingers and a thumb the poor loves.

I overtake them then travel at the same speed dropping into neutral every so often to free rev it up to the limit.
Does cost me a bit in oil as the old girl has done over 300k miles but its great fun.

 

[Garage_Doors]

View attachment 56163

View attachment 56164

Is that for real someone actually rides as had a top made like that, he really needs to get a girlfriend.