Jump to content

shims

Members
  • Content Count

    1,919
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Neutral

About shims

  • Rank
    Registered User

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I haven't worn one in about a decade. I used to really like them - got a Seiko digital chronograph in 1977 and an analogue Seiko Sports 100 in 1983. Then I was given a nice Tag Heuer in the late 90's. Not long after I bought a plastic digital Timex with a nylon for a holiday and ended up wearing it more that the Tag. Then I got a cheap Citizen duo-display and finally gave up. I don't think I really like wearing watches, bracelets and rings. Always trying not to scratch things with them or gouge the watch on something...
  2. meat fake fingernails television patio heaters alcohol twitter the Bible & Koran The Guardian selfie sticks fancy coffees tomato ketchup energy drinks 'classic rock' grime Amazon
  3. Yes, they do but I don't. In fact I don't even like people who do like winter. It's cold, wet, dank, things rust, rot, turn green and seize up. It will snow, it will be stormy; cars slide off the road, trees fall on poor sods driving home and they're killed. Also Christmas. A chronic dose of human aggression, impatience, selfishness, gluttony, debt, waste and stupidity. People who enjoy this nonsense should have it 24/7 while the rest of us enjoy eternal summer.
  4. I much prefer to buy offline but price and availability often dictate what I do. I wouldn't buy groceries online but things that are important to me like records generally have to come through the post. I'd much prefer to be able to visit the shops. Clothes are a gamble buying online as I'm a XXL in a shirt and 11 1/2 in shoes.
  5. It would have to be music people. e.g. Little Richard, Smokey Robinson, Nile Rodgers, Tom Moulton, Bob Andy, Brenda Holloway, Gladys Knight, P.P. Arnold, Fats Domino, Quincy Jones, Chaka Khan - if any turned up it would be wonderful.
  6. If you're not allowed to carry certain things in public, getting them from the shop to the car could be problematic. For instance If I were to buy a samurai sword (and I wouldn't because I'm not a samurai and never do any samurai-ing at all) I'd have to park the car outside the Samurai Outfitters with a window down and ask the proprietor to hurl the weapon into the car from the shop doorway so as to avoid the prohibited carry. That could cut the upholstery or maybe sever a passing pedestrian's head on its trajectory so I think it's only sensible that carrying samurai swords in public should be mandatory.
  7. Not doing it is a good way of filtering out the people who only want a shag. If someone is genuinely interested they'll stick around.
  8. Safer if you get the passenger to lend a hand.
  9. No one said it did. I don't know where you get this stuff from... Just the right to use it. I'd disagree with that. You were the one who created some cretinous scenario where car users pull over for other car users. I wasn't interested in it. You've already acknowleged that cyclists can sometimes delay motorists. Yes, I have. I said so already. I've been delayed by cyclists. Plural. You were getting pedantic about question marks earlier. I think you may be missing one. I'm not making up a scenario. I drive regularly. You don't know my journeys, so are in no position to pontificate on them. Are you some sort of self-appointed expert on the nature of all road journeys now?! No. It is actually about twenty miles in total. It was a regular commute for several months. I didn't know that journeys came in 'likely lengths' now. Indeed. I called them a bunch. Like bananas. Maybe I should have called them something else as they had little regard for causing a tailback which could have been easily avoided with a hint of courtesy but they were those wannabe professional types that think they are superior to everyone else. That can happen too. That might be a little foolhardy. Rather like cyclists who want to push motorists around, I suppose. Use of the highway. Hopefully that'll do. Shouldn't think so, though...
  10. Owning a majority of motor vehicles will incur VED. Almost all will require paying for a MOT or PSV and the preparation required to pass this along with registration and insurance. (There is a disproportionate amount of duty on road fuel too compared to your breakfast or lunch). Cyclists are required to comply with none of this, despite sharing the same roads and being just as capable of commuting carelessly or causing accidents. That isn't my idea of proportionate.
  11. Much of the cost is not occupational. It is forced onto motor-vehicle owners. Cars go up the road, bikes go up the road. One set of commuters has to have pay a series of fees and meet various regulations, the other does not. You're a motorist who owns a bike. You use it for convenience and possibly cost. If you were massively concerned about congestion and reducing pollution you might elect to not own a car at all. This 'pull over' stuff you keep going on about is nonsense, by the way. No they are not wrong about being delayed. As we both can see, it can depend on the circumstances. Hence your caveat. They pay premiums that are not applicable to cyclists. I didn't say they have priority. I said they may feel they do. It was clear what you were stating - an absolute, where none exists. It's not always the case. We've agreed on this. If a stretch of your commute is on a 60mph road for three miles and you drive at 60mph it will take you three minutes. If you drive on the same road at sixty for two miles and at 10mph for one a mile in the middle (because you are stuck behind a bunch of cyclists who won't drop to single file despite causing a tailback and regardless of what they are required to do according to the Highway Code) the same stretch of road will have taken eight minutes. If you tend to drive at the speed limit (conditions permitting) as many drivers seem to, you will reach you destination later. UNLESS you make up the time by speeding. I was referring to drivers who will endanger you due to their incompetence. Or in some cases their disregard for other road users. I'm not blaming anyone for what they choose to travel in or on. Obviously a large sturdy vehicle is safer than a light, fragile one in the case of an impact. Not everyone drives or rides safely. They never will. It's a risk you have to bear in mind when making choices. Motor vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists would traverse different zones in a more ideal world. Not irrelevant: down to probability due to the disparity of numbers involved. Cyclists can and do damage cars. You seem to see situations as black and white with no grey area e.g. as always vs. never / legal vs. illegal. That may keep debates going around and around but is not necessarily accurate or likely. This does seem to be getting increasing pedantic / purposeless.
  12. I know there are zero-rated cars. We all know that there are other compulsary costs and regulations levied on running a motor vehicle, compared to using a bicycle. I would like ALL vehicle users to pay at least some VED if any have to, regardless of emissions. I would like the roads to be maintained to a satisfactory standard as a result which would mean making it a road tax again. Yes. Exactly. What I actually stated was this: "Car owners often want to reach their destination by travelling at the permissible speed limit, without unnecessary hold-ups such as when groups of cyclists refuse to drop back to single file, regardless of how much of a tailback they may be causing. Motorists pay a considerable premium to be on the highway and many probably see their commuting as having priority." I agree. I note you've added a caveat now, though. I remember a few instances well. All have taken place on busy rural roads where national speed limit applies. I'm not sure that it is. I see, incompetent driving every time I'm out but it's far easier to detect speeding without active monitoring i.e. easy money for the treasury. A majority of the speeding I witness when driving is far from dangerous. 100% of the dangerous driving I witness is. Yes, they should but they'll never be gone hence why I said that cyclists are the most vulnerable re: crash protection. We don't live in a utopia. Only motorbikes are more hazardous to the owner. Far more cars on the road, cyclists not using car parking spaces in car parks etc. It's not a legal requirement to remain behind them. It's not illegal to return to the left hand lane after occupying the right-hand lane. I's correct when no longer overtaking, nor turning right ahead. Also, it's not illegal to pass slower moving traffic to your right.
  13. I've rarely seen a debate on a web forum resolve anything of any importance. At best they provide people with facts (that they may have been able to find using a search engine or a library. Often they are a boring battle of one-upmanship between people who believe themselves to be knowledgeable or between persons pushing an agenda vs those trying to be open-minded and objective. Oh, indeed. When you are not really in charge of anything, or perhaps not taken too seriously in real life, it's good to feel that you rule over a virtual community.
  14. And? All other vehicles AREN'T zero rated. Even if a car is zero rated for VED there are other costs involved in running one, as we are aware. On the second point - that's something YOU have made up, not me. That's an interesting piece of clairvoyance since you don't know any of the cars I use or how much I drive them. That's just some nonsense that you claim. Of course cyclists can cause a delay to other motorists. It entirely depends on the circumstances of the journey. You are more likely to be taken off the road due to penalty points for speeding than for dangerous driving. It's hardly irrelevant to point out that cycling is a choice and by making that choice you will be putting yourself in a vulnerable position due to having minimal crash protection in an arena full of the general public, many of whom will have little interest in paying proper attention of doing things properly. Another motorist will have registration plates for identification and is less likely to make off up the pavement afterwards. Predictable that someone would be along to make this proclamation. Ironic, that you don't realise that it is possible to pass on the left legally. No you haven't. You've added a caveat.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.