Chess and Road Cycling

Discuss anything you like about chess related matters in this forum.
Louise Sinclair
Posts: 258
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 10:29 am
Location: London

Re: Chess and Road Cycling

Post by Louise Sinclair » Mon Jul 07, 2014 9:39 am

Dave Ewart wrote:
Louise Sinclair wrote:Cyclists claim environmental credentials. They discount the cost to the environment of manufacturing bicycles. Especially the rubber components and glue.

[...]

Tax levied on motorists for the maintenance of the roads is not applied to cyclists but they don't seem to object to partaking of the largesse paid for by drivers and damning the car owner in the next breath.
Louise
You really are on shaky ground if you're trying to claim that the cost of manufacturing bicycles is a major consideration.

And there is no tax "levied on motorists for the maintenance of the roads": it doesn't exist. Since pre-WWII, there has been no such tax. That so-called "road tax" is actually Vehicle Excise Duty. It's paid on a sliding scale based on emissions, broadly-speaking. That's why those with small, low-emission cars (and those with bikes!) pay nothing. By your argument, those driving those small, low-emission cars have just as little "right to use the road" as cyclists. Road maintenance is paid for out of general taxation.
Vehicle Excise Duty is a tax. Excise levied on diesel and petrol is tax. This is paid for by road users who buy fuel. Excise Duty is raised to pay for roads - cyclists do not pay any Vehicle Excise Duty.
Bicycles cost the environment by the very nature of manufacturing
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... -bike-blog
Ignore my arguments if you wish but spouting hostile nonsense in response does nothing for your intelligence credibility.
As for Justin - it is surely a case of the pot calling the kettle black when he mentions hate speech.
You might very well think that ; I couldn't possibly comment.
' you turn if you want. The lady's not for turning'

User avatar
Dave Ewart
Posts: 76
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 4:53 pm
Location: Oxford, UK

Re: Chess and Road Cycling

Post by Dave Ewart » Mon Jul 07, 2014 9:59 am

Louise Sinclair wrote: Vehicle Excise Duty is a tax. Excise levied on diesel and petrol is tax. This is paid for by road users who buy fuel. Excise Duty is raised to pay for roads - cyclists do not pay any Vehicle Excise Duty.
Are you claiming that because you have to spend more to drive a car than to ride a bike, that this gives you more rights on the road? Just because those using bikes don't have to buy petrol or diesel, that gives them fewer rights? What a ridiculous argument.

And, as I said cyclists are one of the groups who do not pay Vehicle Excise Duty: many small cars are also exempt. Do they have fewer rights than drivers of bigger, more expensive cars on the road?
Louise Sinclair wrote: Bicycles cost the environment by the very nature of manufacturing
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... -bike-blog
Ignore my arguments if you wish but spouting hostile nonsense in response does nothing for your intelligence credibility.
That's an interesting article which I remember reading at the time and I'll read it again now. However, whatever way you spin it, you can't claim that the manufacturing costs of bikes comes any where near that of cars.
Louise Sinclair wrote: As for Justin - it is surely a case of the pot calling the kettle black when he mentions hate speech.
This particular discussion started because you stated
Louise Sinclair wrote: Cyclists always look geeky - those terrible outfits. The perspiring red faces - but then the temptation to nudge them with the bonnet of the jaguar is almost irresistable :evil:
That is a direct quote. Perhaps if you apologised for that remark, in which you are advocating violence against strangers, this matter can rest.

User avatar
JustinHorton
Posts: 7385
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Somewhere you're not

Re: Chess and Road Cycling

Post by JustinHorton » Mon Jul 07, 2014 10:03 am

It is possible to debate with a coherent position but not with an incoherent one. This is one of the Lessons of the Internet.
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."

lostontime.blogspot.com

Louise Sinclair
Posts: 258
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 10:29 am
Location: London

Re: Chess and Road Cycling

Post by Louise Sinclair » Mon Jul 07, 2014 11:41 am

Dave Ewart wrote:
Louise Sinclair wrote: Vehicle Excise Duty is a tax. Excise levied on diesel and petrol is tax. This is paid for by road users who buy fuel. Excise Duty is raised to pay for roads - cyclists do not pay any Vehicle Excise Duty.
Are you claiming that because you have to spend more to drive a car than to ride a bike, that this gives you more rights on the road? Just because those using bikes don't have to buy petrol or diesel, that gives them fewer rights? What a ridiculous argument.

And, as I said cyclists are one of the groups who do not pay Vehicle Excise Duty: many small cars are also exempt. Do they have fewer rights than drivers of bigger, more expensive cars on the road?
Louise Sinclair wrote: Bicycles cost the environment by the very nature of manufacturing
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... -bike-blog
Ignore my arguments if you wish but spouting hostile nonsense in response does nothing for your intelligence credibility.
That's an interesting article which I remember reading at the time and I'll read it again now. However, whatever way you spin it, you can't claim that the manufacturing costs of bikes comes any where near that of cars.
Louise Sinclair wrote: As for Justin - it is surely a case of the pot calling the kettle black when he mentions hate speech.
This particular discussion started because you stated
Louise Sinclair wrote: Cyclists always look geeky - those terrible outfits. The perspiring red faces - but then the temptation to nudge them with the bonnet of the jaguar is almost irresistable :evil:
That is a direct quote. Perhaps if you apologised for that remark, in which you are advocating violence against strangers, this matter can rest.
Dave
I am not stating that owners of large comfortable cars have a great right to the road. I am merely pointing out that as we fund those highways we have equal rights with cyclists and pedestrians. We have the right not to be attacked when proceeding about our journeys.
Yes cars are expensive compared to bicycles. I was not attempting to claim environmental credentials for driving a gas guzzler - just pointing out a few points which had not been mentioned regarding manufacturing of bicycles. If my husband wanted to purchase a bicycle he would buy a Brompton.
My observations about the appearance of cyclists could apply to any activity where the participants are using high levels of physical energy including sex.
I might feel more inclined to apologise for my remark about almost nudging cyclists if I actually received any reasonable comments about my dealings with rude arrogant cyclists.
I have Ehlers Danlos Syndrome. I am not terribly mobile. I have scolliosis and quite an impaired gait. In one incident a cyclist almost hit my ankles. If a ligament gets damaged it takes longer for my body to repair it and would have me completely housebound for months. I do not notice cars driving on the pavements threatening to knock me over - although sometimes I get jostled badly by pedestrians.
Louise
You might very well think that ; I couldn't possibly comment.
' you turn if you want. The lady's not for turning'

User avatar
Michael Farthing
Posts: 1891
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:28 pm
Location: Morecambe, Europe

Re: Chess and Road Cycling

Post by Michael Farthing » Mon Jul 07, 2014 1:15 pm

Dave Ewart wrote:
Louise Sinclair wrote: Cyclists always look geeky - those terrible outfits. The perspiring red faces - but then the temptation to nudge them with the bonnet of the jaguar is almost irresistable :evil:
That is a direct quote. Perhaps if you apologised for that remark, in which you are advocating violence against strangers, this matter can rest.
Dave, have you lost both a sense of humour and a knowledge of English?

The remark was clearly tongue in cheek.
I'm not sure that bumping with a bonnet quite comes up to violence against strangers, but I might concede that.
What can't be conceded is that Louise was advocating it. She said the temptation was nearly irresistable.
You have complained earlier that others were trolling. What an Earth was this response?
Lighten up!
Rejoiner

User avatar
Dave Ewart
Posts: 76
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 4:53 pm
Location: Oxford, UK

Re: Chess and Road Cycling

Post by Dave Ewart » Mon Jul 07, 2014 1:56 pm

Michael Farthing wrote:
Dave Ewart wrote:
Louise Sinclair wrote: Cyclists always look geeky - those terrible outfits. The perspiring red faces - but then the temptation to nudge them with the bonnet of the jaguar is almost irresistable :evil:
That is a direct quote. Perhaps if you apologised for that remark, in which you are advocating violence against strangers, this matter can rest.
Dave, have you lost both a sense of humour and a knowledge of English?

The remark was clearly tongue in cheek.
I'm not sure that bumping with a bonnet quite comes up to violence against strangers, but I might concede that.
What can't be conceded is that Louise was advocating it. She said the temptation was nearly irresistable.
You have complained earlier that others were trolling. What an Earth was this response?
Lighten up!
Intentionally colliding with anyone on the road is an offence. If the remark was indeed "tongue in cheek", then it was an ill-judged remark which warrants an apology, in my opinion. I concede that my use of the word "advocating" was too strong, however: sorry about that.

User avatar
Dave Ewart
Posts: 76
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 4:53 pm
Location: Oxford, UK

Re: Chess and Road Cycling

Post by Dave Ewart » Mon Jul 07, 2014 2:05 pm

Louise Sinclair wrote: Dave
I am not stating that owners of large comfortable cars have a great right to the road. I am merely pointing out that as we fund those highways we have equal rights with cyclists and pedestrians.
I'm glad to hear that you believe that all road users have equal rights in this regard: if so, however, why complain specifically that cyclists don't contribute to road funding? What about pedestrians, for example? Or users of low-emission cars? If all road users are equal, why bring this up at all?
Louise Sinclair wrote: We have the right not to be attacked when proceeding about our journeys.
Of course: and anyone who attacks another is guilty of a crime and should be prosecuted accordingly.
Louise Sinclair wrote: I might feel more inclined to apologise for my remark about almost nudging cyclists if I actually received any reasonable comments about my dealings with rude arrogant cyclists.
I have Ehlers Danlos Syndrome. I am not terribly mobile. I have scolliosis and quite an impaired gait. In one incident a cyclist almost hit my ankles. If a ligament gets damaged it takes longer for my body to repair it and would have me completely housebound for months. I do not notice cars driving on the pavements threatening to knock me over - although sometimes I get jostled badly by pedestrians.
Louise
I understand why you would feel threatened in such situations, but remarks suggesting that you hold all cyclists collectively responsible for the dangerous actions of a few is not justified.

If I get run over by a dangerous driver, I would not hold all drivers collectively responsible, I would hold that individual dangerous driver responsible.
If I get run over by a dangerous cyclist, I would not hold all cyclists collectively responsible, I would hold that individual dangerous cyclist responsible.
If an accident is caused by a dangerous pedestrian, I would not hold all pedestrians collectively responsible, I would hold that individual pedestrian responsible.

Gary Cook
Posts: 114
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 7:09 pm
Contact:

Re: Chess and Road Cycling

Post by Gary Cook » Mon Jul 07, 2014 8:59 pm

Dave Ewart wrote: If the remark was indeed "tongue in cheek", then it was an ill-judged remark which warrants an apology, in my opinion.
First you fail to spot an obvious joke and then you expect an apology for it. Sorry but I have decided that not only will my wife not be apologising but I have told her not to show any more humour here as it is obviously not appreciated.

Gary

User avatar
Michael Farthing
Posts: 1891
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:28 pm
Location: Morecambe, Europe

Re: Chess and Road Cycling

Post by Michael Farthing » Mon Jul 07, 2014 9:08 pm

Gary Cook wrote: First you fail to spot an obvious joke and then you expect an apology for it. Sorry but I have decided that not only will my wife not be apologising but I have told her not to show any more humour here as it is obviously not appreciated.

Gary
Oi mate, I appreciated it! I demand an apology!
Rejoiner

Bill Porter
Posts: 145
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 12:20 pm

Re: Chess and Road Cycling

Post by Bill Porter » Mon Jul 07, 2014 9:13 pm

Change' Cyclists' to any religious or ethnic minority and it's easy to see what Gary and Louise are doing here.

Gary Cook
Posts: 114
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 7:09 pm
Contact:

Re: Chess and Road Cycling

Post by Gary Cook » Mon Jul 07, 2014 9:15 pm

Bill Porter wrote:Change' Cyclists' to any religious or ethnic minority and it's easy to see what Gary and Louise are doing here.
Bill

What have religious or ethnic minorities got to do with the price of fish?

Gary

Gary Cook
Posts: 114
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 7:09 pm
Contact:

Re: Chess and Road Cycling

Post by Gary Cook » Mon Jul 07, 2014 9:16 pm

Michael

To you I humbly apologise

Gary

Paul McKeown
Posts: 3409
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:01 pm
Location: Hayes (Middx)
Contact:

Re: Chess and Road Cycling

Post by Paul McKeown » Mon Jul 07, 2014 11:51 pm

Oh, for pity's sake. It's the return of Shrek and Princess Fiona, only HRH is the lead.

Gary Cook
Posts: 114
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 7:09 pm
Contact:

Re: Chess and Road Cycling

Post by Gary Cook » Tue Jul 08, 2014 6:41 am

lol - Paul you have an eloquent turn of phrase, though must admit not having seen your favourite show I'm not 100% sure what you mean

Louise Sinclair
Posts: 258
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 10:29 am
Location: London

Re: Chess and Road Cycling

Post by Louise Sinclair » Tue Jul 08, 2014 6:52 am

Michael
I am glad you enjoy some humour. I feel full of remorse for my unseemly laughter :D
Louise
You might very well think that ; I couldn't possibly comment.
' you turn if you want. The lady's not for turning'

Post Reply