Discussion:
Most Canadian children killed by injuries: report
(too old to reply)
DiscoDuck
2006-06-02 05:00:29 UTC
Permalink
from:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060601/injury_kids0600601/20060601?hub=TopStories

Notice bicycle head injuries are not among them:

Like so many other countries, the leading death among Canadian children
is preventable. But it's not a preventable disease, like most nations.
Instead, Canadian children are perishing due to injuries.

The tragedy of losing a child to a preventable injury strikes nearly
400 Canadian families each year.

Another 25,500 children were hospitalized because of injuries each year
during the mid-1990s to 2003, a report released Thursday revealed.

According to Safe Kids Canada, the top three risks to children are
drowning, vehicle accidents, and suffocation and choking -- on items
ranging from food to the cords on blinds.

Donna Fournier counts herself lucky that her daughter Courtney isn't
one of the annual accident statistics.

At only eight-months-old, Courtney and her baby walker fell down a
flight of stairs.

The memory of the incident still makes her cry.

"It does, because I'm lucky, and she's lucky she's here," Fournier told
CTV Ottawa as her eyes filled with tears.

With summer activities just around the corner, Safe Kids Canada wants
to remind parents to be vigilant while watching their children at play.

In Ottawa, one school has created a wall with 390 pairs of tiny shoes
for those Canadians children who died far too early.

Health Minister Tony Clement spoke to the kids about how safety has
changed over the years.

"When I was growing up, bike helmets were pretty well unheard of, and
fences around swimming pools -- why would you need that?" said Clement
before adding: "I was very young a long time ago."

Although injury deaths in children 14 years and younger fell 37 per
cent nationwide in the last decade, the number of preventable deaths
are still to high, Safe Kids Canada said.

In particular, the organization would like to address the issue of
preventable car injuries by harmonizing car seat laws federally.

"There is a great deal of regional differences and you'll actually see
in the report that some provinces are doing a way better job than
others in terms of reduction of injury rates," Allyson Hewitt from Safe
Kids Canada told CTV Ottawa.

The largest drop in injury rates occurred in the three northern
territories, where rates were reduced by 44 per cent.

Manitoba and Ontario were also above the national average with a 42 per
cent decline.

The smallest reduction in injuries occurred in Quebec, with only a 15
per cent decrease.

Safe Kids Canada was founded in 1992 by a Hospital for Sick Kids
surgeon, who realized that many of his medical cases were caused by
incidents that were predictable and preventable.

With a report by CTV Ottawa's Kimothy Walker
smn
2006-06-02 14:09:49 UTC
Permalink
You can die by getting hit by a car with or without a helmut.
Children are not on that list for head injuries because they are not riding
enough to be a statistic. Car accidents etc are there because they do it
more therefore the greater chance of something bad happening. Also, they
cannot choose who is behind the wheel.
Say, do you think Princess Diane would not have lived anyway if she wore a
seatbelt? That is what liberation did for her.

Like I tried to point out before but you got defensive about it and told me
I should wear a helmut in a car in Surrey. The argument is not held up by
the facts. Helmuts in cars for children I would consider.
Post by DiscoDuck
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060601/injury_kids0600601/20060601?hub=TopStories
Like so many other countries, the leading death among Canadian children
is preventable. But it's not a preventable disease, like most nations.
Instead, Canadian children are perishing due to injuries.
The tragedy of losing a child to a preventable injury strikes nearly
400 Canadian families each year.
Another 25,500 children were hospitalized because of injuries each year
during the mid-1990s to 2003, a report released Thursday revealed.
According to Safe Kids Canada, the top three risks to children are
drowning, vehicle accidents, and suffocation and choking -- on items
ranging from food to the cords on blinds.
Donna Fournier counts herself lucky that her daughter Courtney isn't
one of the annual accident statistics.
At only eight-months-old, Courtney and her baby walker fell down a
flight of stairs.
The memory of the incident still makes her cry.
"It does, because I'm lucky, and she's lucky she's here," Fournier told
CTV Ottawa as her eyes filled with tears.
With summer activities just around the corner, Safe Kids Canada wants
to remind parents to be vigilant while watching their children at play.
In Ottawa, one school has created a wall with 390 pairs of tiny shoes
for those Canadians children who died far too early.
Health Minister Tony Clement spoke to the kids about how safety has
changed over the years.
"When I was growing up, bike helmets were pretty well unheard of, and
fences around swimming pools -- why would you need that?" said Clement
before adding: "I was very young a long time ago."
Although injury deaths in children 14 years and younger fell 37 per
cent nationwide in the last decade, the number of preventable deaths
are still to high, Safe Kids Canada said.
In particular, the organization would like to address the issue of
preventable car injuries by harmonizing car seat laws federally.
"There is a great deal of regional differences and you'll actually see
in the report that some provinces are doing a way better job than
others in terms of reduction of injury rates," Allyson Hewitt from Safe
Kids Canada told CTV Ottawa.
The largest drop in injury rates occurred in the three northern
territories, where rates were reduced by 44 per cent.
Manitoba and Ontario were also above the national average with a 42 per
cent decline.
The smallest reduction in injuries occurred in Quebec, with only a 15
per cent decrease.
Safe Kids Canada was founded in 1992 by a Hospital for Sick Kids
surgeon, who realized that many of his medical cases were caused by
incidents that were predictable and preventable.
With a report by CTV Ottawa's Kimothy Walker
DiscoDuck
2006-06-02 17:51:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by smn
Like I tried to point out before but you got defensive about it and told me
I should wear a helmut in a car in Surrey. The argument is not held up by
the facts. Helmuts in cars for children I would consider.
Defensive? Not at all. Just wanted to clarify what you meant since
you were unclear as you simply stated
"Too many stupid drivers on the road for me to feel safe enough without
a helmut. I have class 4, 5, and 6 licences by the way and have been
riding since I was 8. "
No, No., helmets for all. IT would save lives and money. Just using
the same argument used for bicycle helmets. Why would you only mandate
helmets for kids in cars?
So why take a chance in a car, if you don't on a bike? Don't get me
wrong, I think you should have the choice as you do with cars now. No
law prohibits you from wearing in in a car.
smn
2006-06-02 18:25:32 UTC
Permalink
Well, I do not drive a car so your answer is mute.
I have licenses for jobs I quit years ago.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by smn
Like I tried to point out before but you got defensive about it and told me
I should wear a helmut in a car in Surrey. The argument is not held up by
the facts. Helmuts in cars for children I would consider.
Defensive? Not at all. Just wanted to clarify what you meant since
you were unclear as you simply stated
"Too many stupid drivers on the road for me to feel safe enough without
a helmut. I have class 4, 5, and 6 licences by the way and have been
riding since I was 8. "
No, No., helmets for all. IT would save lives and money. Just using
the same argument used for bicycle helmets. Why would you only mandate
helmets for kids in cars?
So why take a chance in a car, if you don't on a bike? Don't get me
wrong, I think you should have the choice as you do with cars now. No
law prohibits you from wearing in in a car.
smn
2006-06-02 18:34:10 UTC
Permalink
The point was to point out I am no slouch when it comes to knowing the rules
and I follow them pretty closely. I hate lazy, stupid drivers who think
they own you when it is actually the reverse when you look at who pays for
what.
Glad we could clear that up at the 5th try. : )
Post by smn
Well, I do not drive a car so your answer is mute.
I have licenses for jobs I quit years ago.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by smn
Like I tried to point out before but you got defensive about it and told me
I should wear a helmut in a car in Surrey. The argument is not held up by
the facts. Helmuts in cars for children I would consider.
Defensive? Not at all. Just wanted to clarify what you meant since
you were unclear as you simply stated
"Too many stupid drivers on the road for me to feel safe enough without
a helmut. I have class 4, 5, and 6 licences by the way and have been
riding since I was 8. "
No, No., helmets for all. IT would save lives and money. Just using
the same argument used for bicycle helmets. Why would you only mandate
helmets for kids in cars?
So why take a chance in a car, if you don't on a bike? Don't get me
wrong, I think you should have the choice as you do with cars now. No
law prohibits you from wearing in in a car.
DiscoDuck
2006-06-02 18:54:18 UTC
Permalink
Why is it reverse? They pay far more in tax's than cyclists (though
gas). Besides, maybe some of them aren't lazy so much as they do not
want to wear a helmet which is mandated by the law of British, and
enforced by use of force by BC's finest. I know as that is the reason
I don't ride anymore. And I know I'm not lazy as I am more active than
most (more than most cyclist too I bet).

As for the rules of the road for cyclist, that is great but some of
these rules are plain stupid, stupid, stupid. For instance,
prohibiting cyclist from riding across cross walks? That one makes me
role my eyes every time.
Post by smn
The point was to point out I am no slouch when it comes to knowing the rules
and I follow them pretty closely. I hate lazy, stupid drivers who think
they own you when it is actually the reverse when you look at who pays for
what.
Glad we could clear that up at the 5th try. : )
smn
2006-06-02 20:16:33 UTC
Permalink
"They pay far more in tax's than cyclists (through gas" No, a dime
per litre federally, sorry.
http://www.fin.gc.ca/toce/2005/gas_tax-e.html Drivers pay 1/3 in tax of
the total gas price. That includes gst. and prov. surtaxes.
Boils down to 10 cents per litre to the feds. That no where near pays for
police, road construction and repair, ICBC losses, environmental problems,
respiratory disease (185 deaths/yr BC) Court cases, jail terms The common
people including your grand parents pay more than the driver. The driver is
a parasite in this society, especially in N. America.
They pay for the price of a barrel of oil going up but not much in taxes
compared to the rest of the world which is probably the cause of this crisis
in the first place. If they paid $1/litre since 1970 this would not be such
a big deal now.
Post by DiscoDuck
Why is it reverse? They pay far more in tax's than cyclists (though
gas). Besides, maybe some of them aren't lazy so much as they do not
want to wear a helmet which is mandated by the law of British, and
enforced by use of force by BC's finest. I know as that is the reason
I don't ride anymore. And I know I'm not lazy as I am more active than
most (more than most cyclist too I bet).
As for the rules of the road for cyclist, that is great but some of
these rules are plain stupid, stupid, stupid. For instance,
prohibiting cyclist from riding across cross walks? That one makes me
role my eyes every time.
Post by smn
The point was to point out I am no slouch when it comes to knowing the rules
and I follow them pretty closely. I hate lazy, stupid drivers who think
they own you when it is actually the reverse when you look at who pays for
what.
Glad we could clear that up at the 5th try. : )
DiscoDuck
2006-06-02 20:56:33 UTC
Permalink
Yet somehow you think cyclists pay more? They don't pay a dime.
IN addition you're forgetting income tax. Generally speaking those
with cars make more than those who cycle (There are exceptions but the
exception proves the rule). The motive for most cyclists isn't the
environment etc-for most it's the fact they can't afford a car. Those
with cars pay far more in taxes. Don't forget to include the 14% in
purchasing a brand new vehicle. Assuming a "cheap" $20,000 car, that
is $2,400 in tax alone. Then all the little piddly taxes they tack on.
So yes, drivers pay far far far far more in taxes than the cyclist.
To suggest drivers cause the the 185 deaths you quote per year is
ridiculous.
The "common people" as you put it ARE drivers.

Jail terms? What are you going on about?
Post by smn
"They pay far more in tax's than cyclists (through gas" No, a dime
per litre federally, sorry.
http://www.fin.gc.ca/toce/2005/gas_tax-e.html Drivers pay 1/3 in tax of
the total gas price. That includes gst. and prov. surtaxes.
Boils down to 10 cents per litre to the feds. That no where near pays for
police, road construction and repair, ICBC losses, environmental problems,
respiratory disease (185 deaths/yr BC) Court cases, jail terms The common
people including your grand parents pay more than the driver. The driver is
a parasite in this society, especially in N. America.
They pay for the price of a barrel of oil going up but not much in taxes
compared to the rest of the world which is probably the cause of this crisis
in the first place. If they paid $1/litre since 1970 this would not be such
a big deal now.
Post by DiscoDuck
Why is it reverse? They pay far more in tax's than cyclists (though
gas). Besides, maybe some of them aren't lazy so much as they do not
want to wear a helmet which is mandated by the law of British, and
enforced by use of force by BC's finest. I know as that is the reason
I don't ride anymore. And I know I'm not lazy as I am more active than
most (more than most cyclist too I bet).
As for the rules of the road for cyclist, that is great but some of
these rules are plain stupid, stupid, stupid. For instance,
prohibiting cyclist from riding across cross walks? That one makes me
role my eyes every time.
Post by smn
The point was to point out I am no slouch when it comes to knowing the rules
and I follow them pretty closely. I hate lazy, stupid drivers who think
they own you when it is actually the reverse when you look at who pays for
what.
Glad we could clear that up at the 5th try. : )
smn
2006-06-02 22:17:15 UTC
Permalink
So you assume that because I ride a bike I do it because I cannot afford a
car ie most cyclists pay lower taxes. That is just outright prejudice and
very ignorant.
Cycling is becoming more popular again with the older crowd. Look at all
the road bikes this summer. I have a higher middle class income.
We all pay for gst and pst so buying a car has nothing to do with it that is
your disposable income and we all pay the same.
We all pay to repair roads and everything else that goes with it when we do
not even use it. Cyclists do not require damage repair from what we do.
So, drivers depend on our handouts. We do not kill people by running into
them either. It is a might is right situation with some ignorant people
unfortuneately which is where you are coming from. Drivers are babies.
Like deers and hunters, do the deers get guns too.
Do you pay for other people's costs in any other situation with such
approval. Talk about freedom of choice. Zilch there.
I ride for fitness and the environment. If you cannot see how fucked up
this economy is because of abuse from car driver's lifestyle you are sadly
misinformed.
I said I have been riding since 8 years old. It has served me well. No
excuse for everyone else in my opinion. If you want to be abusive to the
nation and resources world wide you should pay for it. We have a huge debt
because everything is unassociated with the real cost of living. I do not
appreciate paying for everyone else's abuses. No forethought. Damn nature,
damn the people, it's all me, me, me for you and them.
I do not have to lie about anything the 185 deaths is proven- ask your
health official. You cannot take the truth you wimp.
If the common people are drivers then the majority is wrong because they
all turn their heads from the problem they caused.
There would not be a North American weight problem either if more people
walked instead of taking the car everywhere they go.
Everyone pays your hospital bills for that disease related condition. In
a hurry to die which is passed on generation to generation by conditioning
which costs us more and more and more. no future for next generations of
healthy people.
Jail terms? That would be for causing death by negligence. If someone
stole my bike I am quite sure they are not going to be killing people with
it in the getaway process. Give people stuff for free all their life like
roads and they abuse it.

You think because someone pays $20,000 for a car they have more rights than
me. Twisted You do not have a clue about anything obviously.
So let me just quote you "stupid, stupid, stupid"
I am going for a long ride now because the air is too thick on this
newsgroup.
Post by DiscoDuck
Yet somehow you think cyclists pay more? They don't pay a dime.
IN addition you're forgetting income tax. Generally speaking those
with cars make more than those who cycle (There are exceptions but the
exception proves the rule). The motive for most cyclists isn't the
environment etc-for most it's the fact they can't afford a car. Those
with cars pay far more in taxes. Don't forget to include the 14% in
purchasing a brand new vehicle. Assuming a "cheap" $20,000 car, that
is $2,400 in tax alone. Then all the little piddly taxes they tack on.
So yes, drivers pay far far far far more in taxes than the cyclist.
To suggest drivers cause the the 185 deaths you quote per year is
ridiculous.
The "common people" as you put it ARE drivers.
Jail terms? What are you going on about?
Post by smn
"They pay far more in tax's than cyclists (through gas" No, a dime
per litre federally, sorry.
http://www.fin.gc.ca/toce/2005/gas_tax-e.html Drivers pay 1/3 in tax of
the total gas price. That includes gst. and prov. surtaxes.
Boils down to 10 cents per litre to the feds. That no where near pays for
police, road construction and repair, ICBC losses, environmental problems,
respiratory disease (185 deaths/yr BC) Court cases, jail terms The common
people including your grand parents pay more than the driver. The driver is
a parasite in this society, especially in N. America.
They pay for the price of a barrel of oil going up but not much in taxes
compared to the rest of the world which is probably the cause of this crisis
in the first place. If they paid $1/litre since 1970 this would not be such
a big deal now.
Post by DiscoDuck
Why is it reverse? They pay far more in tax's than cyclists (though
gas). Besides, maybe some of them aren't lazy so much as they do not
want to wear a helmet which is mandated by the law of British, and
enforced by use of force by BC's finest. I know as that is the reason
I don't ride anymore. And I know I'm not lazy as I am more active than
most (more than most cyclist too I bet).
As for the rules of the road for cyclist, that is great but some of
these rules are plain stupid, stupid, stupid. For instance,
prohibiting cyclist from riding across cross walks? That one makes me
role my eyes every time.
Post by smn
The point was to point out I am no slouch when it comes to knowing the rules
and I follow them pretty closely. I hate lazy, stupid drivers who think
they own you when it is actually the reverse when you look at who pays for
what.
Glad we could clear that up at the 5th try. : )
DiscoDuck
2006-06-02 22:50:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by smn
So you assume that because I ride a bike I do it because I cannot afford a
car ie most cyclists pay lower taxes. That is just outright prejudice and
very ignorant.
Call it what you want, but generally it is true.
Post by smn
Cycling is becoming more popular again with the older crowd. Look at all
the road bikes this summer. I have a higher middle class income.
We all pay for gst and pst so buying a car has nothing to do with it that is
your disposable income and we all pay the same.
The questions was who pays more in Taxes. You said bicyclists do which
is patently ridiculous. And of course the sales tax counts.
Post by smn
We all pay to repair roads and everything else that goes with it when we do
not even use it. Cyclists do not require damage repair from what we do.
So, drivers depend on our handouts. We do not kill people by running into
them either. It is a might is right situation with some ignorant people
unfortuneately which is where you are coming from. Drivers are babies.
No where do I say might is right. You made a ridiculous statement
about how cyclist pay more. Plain nuts which is where YOU are coming
from.

By the way, do you know HOW many cyclists get killed by cars each year?
I thought not.
Post by smn
Like deers and hunters, do the deers get guns too.
Do you pay for other people's costs in any other situation with such
approval. Talk about freedom of choice. Zilch there.
Yes, constantly. That is what a socialized medical system is all
about.
Post by smn
I ride for fitness and the environment. If you cannot see how fucked up
this economy is because of abuse from car driver's lifestyle you are sadly
misinformed.
No where did I argue this with you. Where the fuck are you coming
from? You ARE nuts.

I think they SHOULD encourage more cycling as the benefits outweigh any
risks. Unfortunealy the consensus is riding is extremely dangerous
UNLESS you wear a helmet. Both of which are false.
If you were serious about encouraging people to cycle, you would want
people to have the choice as to whether to wear a helmet, or not.
But likely you are control freak that probably WANTS to make people
ride a bike and MAKE them wear a helmet. Yet do you support helmet use
in cars for all people.
Post by smn
I said I have been riding since 8 years old. It has served me well. No
excuse for everyone else in my opinion. If you want to be abusive to the
nation and resources world wide you should pay for it.
As should you for discouraging people from cycling which is very
healthy for you.

We have a huge debt
Post by smn
because everything is unassociated with the real cost of living. I do not
appreciate paying for everyone Else's abuses. No forethought. Damn nature,
damn the people, it's all me, me, me for you and them.
I do not have to lie about anything the 185 deaths is proven- ask your
health official. You cannot take the truth you wimp.
Oh I KNOW the truth. It is you who cannot handle it and when cornered
cannot admit he is wrong-again.
Post by smn
If the common people are drivers then the majority is wrong because they
all turn their heads from the problem they caused.
There would not be a North American weight problem either if more people
walked instead of taking the car everywhere they go.
Good, then encourage people to cycle to help with the eight
problem-make helmets choice NOW! OR are you too controlling for that?
Post by smn
Everyone pays your hospital bills for that disease related condition. In
a hurry to die which is passed on generation to generation by conditioning
which costs us more and more and more. no future for next generations of
healthy people.
Jail terms? That would be for causing death by negligence. If someone
stole my bike I am quite sure they are not going to be killing people with
it in the getaway process. Give people stuff for free all their life like
roads and they abuse it.
Oh my, you are delusional. How many people are killed by stolen cars a
year?
Post by smn
You think because someone pays $20,000 for a car they have more rights than
me. Twisted You do not have a clue about anything obviously.
I use to think like you until I was enlightened. Until people who
wanted a helmet law said "Why should my tax dollars pay for your head
injury". That is when I realized money was more important to those
people, than freedom of choice. So to be consistent with their
argument about their tax dollar being the almighty, I agree with them
that the more you pay-the more rights you have. I don't like it, but
that is what in fact supporters of the law are saying.
Post by smn
So let me just quote you "stupid, stupid, stupid"
I am going for a long ride now because the air is too thick on this
newsgroup.
Yes you are thick. And controlling. The day you can admit that is the
first day of your recovery.
Jack
2006-06-04 21:32:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by smn
So you assume that because I ride a bike I do it because I cannot afford a
car ie most cyclists pay lower taxes. That is just outright prejudice and
very ignorant.
Call it what you want, but generally it is true.
No You are being prejudicial. Lots of rich people drive bikes.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by smn
Cycling is becoming more popular again with the older crowd. Look at all
the road bikes this summer. I have a higher middle class income.
We all pay for gst and pst so buying a car has nothing to do with it that is
your disposable income and we all pay the same.
The questions was who pays more in Taxes. You said bicyclists do which
is patently ridiculous. And of course the sales tax counts.
Who pays more cost as a ratio of amount paid versus damage done to
roads.

THE CYCLIST!!!

Also since federal gas taxes do not fund provincial or municipal roads
the cyclists who pays the same taxes to build roads yet does not do the
same damage to roads, or life pays proportionally more tax (sales tax,
and property taxes).
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by smn
We all pay to repair roads and everything else that goes with it when we do
not even use it. Cyclists do not require damage repair from what we do.
So, drivers depend on our handouts. We do not kill people by running into
them either. It is a might is right situation with some ignorant people
unfortuneately which is where you are coming from. Drivers are babies.
No where do I say might is right. You made a ridiculous statement
about how cyclist pay more. Plain nuts which is where YOU are coming
from.
By the way, do you know HOW many cyclists get killed by cars each year?
I thought not.
Actually proportionally there are less cyclist deaths and injuries per
year
than from motor vehicles. In other words it is safer to drive a bicycle,
although knowledgeable safe cyclist fair better than uneducated
cyclists.
Note: I am talking about education and awareness, not helmets.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by smn
Jail terms? That would be for causing death by negligence. If someone
stole my bike I am quite sure they are not going to be killing people with
it in the getaway process. Give people stuff for free all their life like
roads and they abuse it.
How many people are killed by stolen cars a year?
Actually motor vehicle injuries and deaths people operating stolen
motor vehicles are significant. How many die by getting hit by a
stolen bicycle?
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by smn
You think because someone pays $20,000 for a car they have more rights than
me. Twisted You do not have a clue about anything obviously.
I use to think like you until I was enlightened. Until people who
wanted a helmet law said "Why should my tax dollars pay for your head
injury". That is when I realized money was more important to those
people, than freedom of choice. So to be consistent with their
argument about their tax dollar being the almighty, I agree with them
that the more you pay-the more rights you have. I don't like it, but
that is what in fact supporters of the law are saying.
Nothing to be enlightened about. The law is the same for motorist and
cyclist.
The both have the same rights and the same privileges.
DiscoDuck
2006-06-04 22:29:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by smn
So you assume that because I ride a bike I do it because I cannot afford a
car ie most cyclists pay lower taxes. That is just outright prejudice and
very ignorant.
Call it what you want, but generally it is true.
No You are being prejudicial. Lots of rich people drive bikes.
I didn't say rich people didn't rride bikes. I said "GENERALLY"
speaking. Re-read, jack.
Post by Jack
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by smn
Cycling is becoming more popular again with the older crowd. Look at all
the road bikes this summer. I have a higher middle class income.
We all pay for gst and pst so buying a car has nothing to do with it that is
your disposable income and we all pay the same.
The questions was who pays more in Taxes. You said bicyclists do which
is patently ridiculous. And of course the sales tax counts.
Who pays more cost as a ratio of amount paid versus damage done to
roads.
THE CYCLIST!!!
Also since federal gas taxes do not fund provincial or municipal roads
the cyclists who pays the same taxes to build roads yet does not do the
same damage to roads, or life pays proportionally more tax (sales tax,
and property taxes).
The cyclist pays the same, but the driver pays ADDITIONAL taxes, in
gas, purchaes price, etc.. How you can possible dispute that is just
ridiculous. Cyclist pay NO road tax whatsoever.
IN addition, there are more rich drivers than cyclists and they pay
more in income tax, etc.
Post by Jack
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by smn
We all pay to repair roads and everything else that goes with it when we do
not even use it. Cyclists do not require damage repair from what we do.
So, drivers depend on our handouts. We do not kill people by running into
them either. It is a might is right situation with some ignorant people
unfortuneately which is where you are coming from. Drivers are babies.
No where do I say might is right. You made a ridiculous statement
about how cyclist pay more. Plain nuts which is where YOU are coming
from.
By the way, do you know HOW many cyclists get killed by cars each year?
I thought not.
Actually proportionally there are less cyclist deaths and injuries per
year
than from motor vehicles. In other words it is safer to drive a bicycle,
although knowledgeable safe cyclist fair better than uneducated
cyclists.
Note: I am talking about education and awareness, not helmets.
HERE I agree with you. I feel you are safer on a bike. You are can
maneuver far more than in a car.
Post by Jack
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by smn
Jail terms? That would be for causing death by negligence. If someone
stole my bike I am quite sure they are not going to be killing people with
it in the getaway process. Give people stuff for free all their life like
roads and they abuse it.
How many people are killed by stolen cars a year?
Actually motor vehicle injuries and deaths people operating stolen
motor vehicles are significant. How many die by getting hit by a
stolen bicycle?
And again, that # is?
I'm sure more people are killed from stolen bicycles than stolen
skateboards. Your point?
Post by Jack
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by smn
You think because someone pays $20,000 for a car they have more rights than
me. Twisted You do not have a clue about anything obviously.
I use to think like you until I was enlightened. Until people who
wanted a helmet law said "Why should my tax dollars pay for your head
injury". That is when I realized money was more important to those
people, than freedom of choice. So to be consistent with their
argument about their tax dollar being the almighty, I agree with them
that the more you pay-the more rights you have. I don't like it, but
that is what in fact supporters of the law are saying.
Nothing to be enlightened about. The law is the same for motorist and
cyclist.
The both have the same rights and the same privileges.
Actually that is incorrect. You do not require (nor should) a license
for cycling. A drivers license is a privilege-riding a bike is right.
In addition bikes can legally be in lots and lots and lots of places
that cars cannot. You often see signs prohibiting cars from going and
the sign will specifically exclude bikes from that law.
Bicycles can ride along paths off road etc. Cars cannot.
Although the phrase "The both have the same rights and the same
privileges." sounds "good" it is utter nonsense. The two have far more
difference than similarities. The only similarity they have, is that
they are both modes of transportation-but vastly different.
smn
2006-06-05 00:41:25 UTC
Permalink
What he means is when you are sharing the road you have the same rights and
obligations. Stop being such a blockhead.
I know I will have to call the police several times this summer to
report harrassment and life threatening behavior by drivers. Because they
think it is their right and they probably think all drivers think like them
otherwise they would feel humiliated. Not likely, they want to show off and
show how powerful they all are. If I only had a gun with blanks.
The point I was trying to make is drivers by definition do not have to
pay more taxes just to drive a car except for the piddly gas tax.
Everyones taxes goes to road repair and development, police, hospitals,
courts all which are involved in the maintenance of good traffic performance
and safety. I do not need any of it and am harrassed by the very people I
am carrying on my back. They think that is funny to buzz you and make you
look like an idiot. Not what I call appreciation at all. They slow me down
not visa versa on top of it. What do you think the Burrard St. bike runs
are for. They are needed in my estimation. Cars/drivers get everything
spent on them.
If everyone walked or cycled instead of drove the motorists would be
happier too but they are too dim for that. It takes a gas hike for them to
get to it. It takes alot of dead cyclists too. Do not know how many yet.
Why don't you tell me. You do not believe anything I tell you. In all
walks of life there are trade offs for protection vs freedom. IE condoms,
terrorists, military. border crossings, foreign mail, immigration, You do
not want protection in other words. Traffic law is for everyones
protection. Have to use it for it to work also.

If you got a ticket for crossing a crosswalk on a bike that cop was having a
bad day or they are after you for something.

you say "Call it what you want, but generally it is true" about cyclists
not paying much tax. That would mean until they get a job then. What
about the ones that continue riding after they get a job and throughout
their life. There are more people over 20 than there are below 20 so
chances are...BTW,Bikers who do not wear helmuts are usually on the sidewalk
and smoking a cigarette at the same time. Kids do not generally ride on the
road either so you can subtract those two groups all together. I am saying
my rights on the road are not recognized by anyone in a car generally
speaking. Otherwise they would not be showing off how stupid they are.
One you may not know is you are suppose to ride 1.5 metres away from parked
cars in case they open a door. Well, do you really think drivers care if
you get hit. They would never give you enough room. That is why I have to
ride slower and I should not have to. So if I piss them off because I am
doing what is right by my safety and which the law considers my right why
does it matter who pays more taxes anyway. We all pay the same and have the
same rights. Might is right because you pay more taxes is what you tried to
make us believe

smn
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Jack
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by smn
So you assume that because I ride a bike I do it because I cannot afford a
car ie most cyclists pay lower taxes. That is just outright prejudice and
very ignorant.
Call it what you want, but generally it is true.
No You are being prejudicial. Lots of rich people drive bikes.
I didn't say rich people didn't rride bikes. I said "GENERALLY"
speaking. Re-read, jack.
Post by Jack
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by smn
Cycling is becoming more popular again with the older crowd. Look at all
the road bikes this summer. I have a higher middle class income.
We all pay for gst and pst so buying a car has nothing to do with it that is
your disposable income and we all pay the same.
The questions was who pays more in Taxes. You said bicyclists do which
is patently ridiculous. And of course the sales tax counts.
Who pays more cost as a ratio of amount paid versus damage done to
roads.
THE CYCLIST!!!
Also since federal gas taxes do not fund provincial or municipal roads
the cyclists who pays the same taxes to build roads yet does not do the
same damage to roads, or life pays proportionally more tax (sales tax,
and property taxes).
The cyclist pays the same, but the driver pays ADDITIONAL taxes, in
gas, purchaes price, etc.. How you can possible dispute that is just
ridiculous. Cyclist pay NO road tax whatsoever.
IN addition, there are more rich drivers than cyclists and they pay
more in income tax, etc.
Post by Jack
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by smn
We all pay to repair roads and everything else that goes with it when we do
not even use it. Cyclists do not require damage repair from what we do.
So, drivers depend on our handouts. We do not kill people by running into
them either. It is a might is right situation with some ignorant people
unfortuneately which is where you are coming from. Drivers are babies.
No where do I say might is right. You made a ridiculous statement
about how cyclist pay more. Plain nuts which is where YOU are coming
from.
By the way, do you know HOW many cyclists get killed by cars each year?
I thought not.
Actually proportionally there are less cyclist deaths and injuries per
year
than from motor vehicles. In other words it is safer to drive a bicycle,
although knowledgeable safe cyclist fair better than uneducated
cyclists.
Note: I am talking about education and awareness, not helmets.
HERE I agree with you. I feel you are safer on a bike. You are can
maneuver far more than in a car.
Post by Jack
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by smn
Jail terms? That would be for causing death by negligence. If someone
stole my bike I am quite sure they are not going to be killing people with
it in the getaway process. Give people stuff for free all their life like
roads and they abuse it.
How many people are killed by stolen cars a year?
Actually motor vehicle injuries and deaths people operating stolen
motor vehicles are significant. How many die by getting hit by a
stolen bicycle?
And again, that # is?
I'm sure more people are killed from stolen bicycles than stolen
skateboards. Your point?
Post by Jack
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by smn
You think because someone pays $20,000 for a car they have more rights than
me. Twisted You do not have a clue about anything obviously.
I use to think like you until I was enlightened. Until people who
wanted a helmet law said "Why should my tax dollars pay for your head
injury". That is when I realized money was more important to those
people, than freedom of choice. So to be consistent with their
argument about their tax dollar being the almighty, I agree with them
that the more you pay-the more rights you have. I don't like it, but
that is what in fact supporters of the law are saying.
Nothing to be enlightened about. The law is the same for motorist and
cyclist.
The both have the same rights and the same privileges.
Actually that is incorrect. You do not require (nor should) a license
for cycling. A drivers license is a privilege-riding a bike is right.
In addition bikes can legally be in lots and lots and lots of places
that cars cannot. You often see signs prohibiting cars from going and
the sign will specifically exclude bikes from that law.
Bicycles can ride along paths off road etc. Cars cannot.
Although the phrase "The both have the same rights and the same
privileges." sounds "good" it is utter nonsense. The two have far more
difference than similarities. The only similarity they have, is that
they are both modes of transportation-but vastly different.
DiscoDuck
2006-06-05 05:53:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by smn
What he means is when you are sharing the road you have the same rights and
obligations. Stop being such a blockhead.
I know what he meant, and it is still wrong. What your wrote above is
wrong. You every right to cycle on the road. You do NOT have every
right to drive on the road. Stop being such an stupid idiot and
acknowledge you are wrong. Riders and drivers have DIFFEREENT rights
and obligations. It's that simple.
Post by smn
I know I will have to call the police several times this summer to
report harrassment and life threatening behavior by drivers.
FUnny, when ride in Vancouver, why do I not encounter any such drivers?
Probably because you are exaggerating the extent of "bad drivers" or
you lack courtesy for others on the road.

Because they
Post by smn
think it is their right and they probably think all drivers think like them
otherwise they would feel humiliated. Not likely, they want to show off and
show how powerful they all are. If I only had a gun with blanks.
The point I was trying to make is drivers by definition do not have to
pay more taxes just to drive a car except for the piddly gas tax.
Everyones taxes goes to road repair and development, police, hospitals,
courts all which are involved in the maintenance of good traffic performance
and safety. I do not need any of it and am harrassed by the very people I
am carrying on my back. They think that is funny to buzz you and make you
look like an idiot. Not what I call appreciation at all. They slow me down
not visa versa on top of it. What do you think the Burrard St. bike runs
are for. They are needed in my estimation. Cars/drivers get everything
spent on them.
You're going on weird tangents here dude. But I'll address what you're
talking about anyway. Odd, I drove yesterday AND today and a cyclist
was inhibiting traffic when there was ample room not to. I don't think
they did this out of spite, but rather out of incompetency. They
lcaked consideration.
Post by smn
If everyone walked or cycled instead of drove the motorists would be
happier too but they are too dim for that. It takes a gas hike for them to
get to it. It takes alot of dead cyclists too. Do not know how many yet.
Why don't you tell me. You do not believe anything I tell you.
True, I do think you're lying to try and prove your point like many
people who oppose freedom of choice.

In all
Post by smn
walks of life there are trade offs for protection vs freedom. IE condoms,
terrorists, military. border crossings, foreign mail, immigration, You do
not want protection in other words. Traffic law is for everyones
protection. Have to use it for it to work also.
Look weirdo, you cannot compare the above to simply giving people the
choice of helmets. The rest of the planet gets by just fine with such
a choice. So could (and should BC).
Lets face it, this law is nothing but an organized pet peeve of the
paranoid and intolerant.
Post by smn
If you got a ticket for crossing a crosswalk on a bike that cop was having a
bad day or they are after you for something.
Perhaps, but that simply shouldn't even be an option for bad cops. I
have got multiple tickets in Victoria for riding helmetless. One of my
closest friend is a cop and he tells me such cops are the the laughing
stock of the department. Again is shows such laws only applies to
some, and is very random depending on the cop, his/her mood, etc.
Post by smn
you say "Call it what you want, but generally it is true" about cyclists
not paying much tax. That would mean until they get a job then. What
about the ones that continue riding after they get a job and throughout
their life. There are more people over 20 than there are below 20 so
chances are...BTW,Bikers who do not wear helmuts are usually on the sidewalk
and smoking a cigarette at the same time. Kids do not generally ride on the
road either so you can subtract those two groups all together. I am saying
my rights on the road are not recognized by anyone in a car generally
speaking.
Funny, generally speaking mine are. MOST drivers are quite
considerate. some aren't but they are the minority. You must exude
your attitude while on the bike like you do here. Perhaps you block
traffic for no good reason? Maybe at red lights you prevent the car
behind you from turning right.

Otherwise they would not be showing off how stupid they are.
Post by smn
One you may not know is you are suppose to ride 1.5 metres away from parked
cars in case they open a door. Well, do you really think drivers care if
you get hit. They would never give you enough room. That is why I have to
ride slower and I should not have to. So if I piss them off because I am
doing what is right by my safety and which the law considers my right why
does it matter who pays more taxes anyway.
It called show consideration. From your tone it sounds like you don't
bother.


We all pay the same and have the
Post by smn
same rights. Might is right because you pay more taxes is what you tried to
make us believe
Not at all. I believe people should be protected from government and
"do - gooders" and moronic laws regardless of income or muscle mass.
It;s that simple. You clearly disagree with that.
Post by smn
smn
Király
2006-06-05 07:31:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by smn
I know I will have to call the police several times this summer to
report harrassment and life threatening behavior by drivers [in Surrey].
FUnny, when ride in Vancouver, why do I not encounter any such drivers?
Probably because you are exaggerating the extent of "bad drivers" or
you lack courtesy for others on the road.
I believe smn. I have cycled extensively throughout Greater Vancouver,
with 98% of it right in the city, and it's been my experience that the
further away from Georgia & Granville I get, the more hostile drivers
tend to be against cyclists on the road.

North Van - Yelled at with profanity for simply being on the road
Surrey - Car accelerated towards me and swerved away at last minute
Maple Ridge - Cup of ice water thown at me from moving car (they missed)
Chilliwack - Handful of pennies thrown at me (they didn't miss!)
Terrace - Yelled at for blocking traffic (WTF??? Terrace doesn't even
HAVE traffic!)

In Vancouver the aggression doesn't get much worse than the occasional
horn honk.
--
K.
smn
2006-06-05 16:26:43 UTC
Permalink
Glad you put that into perspective for me K
I have cycled in Vancouver most of my life and Surrey truly is hell for me.
Glass on all roads and bike ways. No street cleaning like in beautiful Van.
Like I said before DD you take too much for granted when you get it for
free. Not all drivers are bad but I get one per day or more and that puts a
damper on me enjoying my much needed exercise.
Terrace comment kills me. Surrey same thing happened to me. Problem is
there is a huge no. of 20 something drivers here all hotrods from hell.
I by the way have never been discourteous to drivers though I have a million
reasons to. I can see them treating some cyclists that way because the
cyclists here are no better but they assume I am the same as them which is a
joke if you have read where I have been.
And DD you always seem to take things the wrong way. Never said a bad word
against you only ever tried to improve your analysis of your articles or
enlighten and you always flame me for that. Excuse me for livin' :-))
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by smn
I know I will have to call the police several times this summer to
report harrassment and life threatening behavior by drivers [in Surrey].
FUnny, when ride in Vancouver, why do I not encounter any such drivers?
Probably because you are exaggerating the extent of "bad drivers" or
you lack courtesy for others on the road.
I believe smn. I have cycled extensively throughout Greater Vancouver,
with 98% of it right in the city, and it's been my experience that the
further away from Georgia & Granville I get, the more hostile drivers
tend to be against cyclists on the road.
North Van - Yelled at with profanity for simply being on the road
Surrey - Car accelerated towards me and swerved away at last minute
Maple Ridge - Cup of ice water thown at me from moving car (they missed)
Chilliwack - Handful of pennies thrown at me (they didn't miss!)
Terrace - Yelled at for blocking traffic (WTF??? Terrace doesn't even
HAVE traffic!)
In Vancouver the aggression doesn't get much worse than the occasional
horn honk.
--
K.
DiscoDuck
2006-06-05 18:29:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by smn
Glad you put that into perspective for me K
I have cycled in Vancouver most of my life and Surrey truly is hell for me.
Glass on all roads and bike ways. No street cleaning like in beautiful Van.
Like I said before DD you take too much for granted when you get it for
free. Not all drivers are bad but I get one per day or more and that puts a
damper on me enjoying my much needed exercise.
Terrace comment kills me. Surrey same thing happened to me. Problem is
there is a huge no. of 20 something drivers here all hotrods from hell.
I by the way have never been discourteous to drivers though I have a million
reasons to. I can see them treating some cyclists that way because the
cyclists here are no better but they assume I am the same as them which is a
joke if you have read where I have been.
And DD you always seem to take things the wrong way. Never said a bad word
against you only ever tried to improve your analysis of your articles or
enlighten and you always flame me for that. Excuse me for livin' :-))
Actually perhaps you WRITE things the wrong way. Also, as for not ever
saying a bad word against me that is false. I quote the following:
-"Like I tried to point out before but you got defensive about it "
-"That is just outright prejudice and very ignorant. "
"You cannot take the truth you wimp."
" You do not have a clue about anything obviously. So let me just quote
you "stupid, stupid, stupid" "
-"Stop being such a blockhead. "

Now, that is only a few of them. So to say you never said a bad word
is either a lie or you have a very short memory span.
Post by smn
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by smn
I know I will have to call the police several times this summer to
report harrassment and life threatening behavior by drivers [in Surrey].
FUnny, when ride in Vancouver, why do I not encounter any such drivers?
Probably because you are exaggerating the extent of "bad drivers" or
you lack courtesy for others on the road.
I believe smn. I have cycled extensively throughout Greater Vancouver,
with 98% of it right in the city, and it's been my experience that the
further away from Georgia & Granville I get, the more hostile drivers
tend to be against cyclists on the road.
North Van - Yelled at with profanity for simply being on the road
Surrey - Car accelerated towards me and swerved away at last minute
Maple Ridge - Cup of ice water thown at me from moving car (they missed)
Chilliwack - Handful of pennies thrown at me (they didn't miss!)
Terrace - Yelled at for blocking traffic (WTF??? Terrace doesn't even
HAVE traffic!)
In Vancouver the aggression doesn't get much worse than the occasional
horn honk.
--
K.
Jack
2006-06-06 13:08:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Jack
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by smn
So you assume that because I ride a bike I do it because I cannot afford a
car ie most cyclists pay lower taxes. That is just outright prejudice and
very ignorant.
Call it what you want, but generally it is true.
No You are being prejudicial. Lots of rich people drive bikes.
I didn't say rich people didn't rride bikes. I said "GENERALLY"
speaking. Re-read, jack.
I did not misread, but generally, STILL strikes you as prejudicial.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Jack
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by smn
Cycling is becoming more popular again with the older crowd. Look at all
the road bikes this summer. I have a higher middle class income.
We all pay for gst and pst so buying a car has nothing to do with it that is
your disposable income and we all pay the same.
The questions was who pays more in Taxes. You said bicyclists do which
is patently ridiculous. And of course the sales tax counts.
Who pays more cost as a ratio of amount paid versus damage done to
roads.
THE CYCLIST!!!
Also since federal gas taxes do not fund provincial or municipal roads
the cyclists who pays the same taxes to build roads yet does not do the
same damage to roads, or life pays proportionally more tax (sales tax,
and property taxes).
The cyclist pays the same, but the driver pays ADDITIONAL taxes, in
gas, purchaes price, etc.. How you can possible dispute that is just
ridiculous. Cyclist pay NO road tax whatsoever.
IN addition, there are more rich drivers than cyclists and they pay
more in income tax, etc.
And drivers contribute ADDITIONAL costs to the environment, the health
care system, the police, the fire, the paramedics, the insurance system,
and others.

And again, gas taxes do not pay for roads. Provincial roads are built
with
income taxes and sales taxes. Rich people pay for these roads whether
they
drive or not. Municipal taxes are paid by property taxes. Once again
rich
people pay for these roads too drivers or not. Even the little old lady
who lives in a retirement home pays taxes to build our roads.

However cyclists pay sales tax, income tax, and property taxes. The
portion
of those taxes used to build and maintain roads (including the
environment,
the health care system, the police, the fire, the paramedics, the
insurance
system, and others) and yet do minimal damage and use only a minimal
percentage of the geography that the roads take up.

So in summary cyclists pay more costs to the system then they cost.
The opposite is true for motorists who's gas taxes do not begin to pay
for the environment, the health care system, the police, the fire, the
paramedics, the insurance system, and others.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Jack
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by smn
We all pay to repair roads and everything else that goes with it when we do
not even use it. Cyclists do not require damage repair from what we do.
So, drivers depend on our handouts. We do not kill people by running into
them either. It is a might is right situation with some ignorant people
unfortuneately which is where you are coming from. Drivers are babies.
No where do I say might is right. You made a ridiculous statement
about how cyclist pay more. Plain nuts which is where YOU are coming
from.
By the way, do you know HOW many cyclists get killed by cars each year?
I thought not.
Actually proportionally there are less cyclist deaths and injuries per
year
than from motor vehicles. In other words it is safer to drive a bicycle,
although knowledgeable safe cyclist fair better than uneducated
cyclists.
Note: I am talking about education and awareness, not helmets.
HERE I agree with you. I feel you are safer on a bike. You are can
maneuver far more than in a car.
Post by Jack
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by smn
Jail terms? That would be for causing death by negligence. If someone
stole my bike I am quite sure they are not going to be killing people with
it in the getaway process. Give people stuff for free all their life like
roads and they abuse it.
How many people are killed by stolen cars a year?
Actually motor vehicle injuries and deaths people operating stolen
motor vehicles are significant. How many die by getting hit by a
stolen bicycle?
And again, that # is?
I'm sure more people are killed from stolen bicycles than stolen
skateboards. Your point?
Stolen cars cost lives!!!
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Jack
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by smn
You think because someone pays $20,000 for a car they have more rights than
me. Twisted You do not have a clue about anything obviously.
I use to think like you until I was enlightened. Until people who
wanted a helmet law said "Why should my tax dollars pay for your head
injury". That is when I realized money was more important to those
people, than freedom of choice. So to be consistent with their
argument about their tax dollar being the almighty, I agree with them
that the more you pay-the more rights you have. I don't like it, but
that is what in fact supporters of the law are saying.
Nothing to be enlightened about. The law is the same for motorist and
cyclist.
The both have the same rights and the same privileges.
Actually that is incorrect. You do not require (nor should) a license
for cycling. A drivers license is a privilege-riding a bike is right.
In addition bikes can legally be in lots and lots and lots of places
that cars cannot. You often see signs prohibiting cars from going and
the sign will specifically exclude bikes from that law.
Bicycles can ride along paths off road etc. Cars cannot.
Although the phrase "The both have the same rights and the same
privileges." sounds "good" it is utter nonsense. The two have far more
difference than similarities. The only similarity they have, is that
they are both modes of transportation-but vastly different.
An I actually agree with you on the above.

Just once you get on the road the rights and privileges are the same.

If you want to get real picky there are lots of places bicycles are not
allowed. Major highways for one. Many drive through food service joints
do
not allow cyclists to drive through for safety concerns.

===========
smn
2006-06-06 15:17:02 UTC
Permalink
Thanks for backing me up Jack. Well done!
Post by Jack
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Jack
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by smn
So you assume that because I ride a bike I do it because I cannot afford a
car ie most cyclists pay lower taxes. That is just outright prejudice and
very ignorant.
Call it what you want, but generally it is true.
No You are being prejudicial. Lots of rich people drive bikes.
I didn't say rich people didn't rride bikes. I said "GENERALLY"
speaking. Re-read, jack.
I did not misread, but generally, STILL strikes you as prejudicial.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Jack
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by smn
Cycling is becoming more popular again with the older crowd. Look at all
the road bikes this summer. I have a higher middle class income.
We all pay for gst and pst so buying a car has nothing to do with it that is
your disposable income and we all pay the same.
The questions was who pays more in Taxes. You said bicyclists do which
is patently ridiculous. And of course the sales tax counts.
Who pays more cost as a ratio of amount paid versus damage done to
roads.
THE CYCLIST!!!
Also since federal gas taxes do not fund provincial or municipal roads
the cyclists who pays the same taxes to build roads yet does not do the
same damage to roads, or life pays proportionally more tax (sales tax,
and property taxes).
The cyclist pays the same, but the driver pays ADDITIONAL taxes, in
gas, purchaes price, etc.. How you can possible dispute that is just
ridiculous. Cyclist pay NO road tax whatsoever.
IN addition, there are more rich drivers than cyclists and they pay
more in income tax, etc.
And drivers contribute ADDITIONAL costs to the environment, the health
care system, the police, the fire, the paramedics, the insurance system,
and others.
And again, gas taxes do not pay for roads. Provincial roads are built
with
income taxes and sales taxes. Rich people pay for these roads whether
they
drive or not. Municipal taxes are paid by property taxes. Once again
rich
people pay for these roads too drivers or not. Even the little old lady
who lives in a retirement home pays taxes to build our roads.
However cyclists pay sales tax, income tax, and property taxes. The
portion
of those taxes used to build and maintain roads (including the
environment,
the health care system, the police, the fire, the paramedics, the
insurance
system, and others) and yet do minimal damage and use only a minimal
percentage of the geography that the roads take up.
So in summary cyclists pay more costs to the system then they cost.
The opposite is true for motorists who's gas taxes do not begin to pay
for the environment, the health care system, the police, the fire, the
paramedics, the insurance system, and others.
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Jack
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by smn
We all pay to repair roads and everything else that goes with it when we do
not even use it. Cyclists do not require damage repair from what we do.
So, drivers depend on our handouts. We do not kill people by running into
them either. It is a might is right situation with some ignorant people
unfortuneately which is where you are coming from. Drivers are babies.
No where do I say might is right. You made a ridiculous statement
about how cyclist pay more. Plain nuts which is where YOU are coming
from.
By the way, do you know HOW many cyclists get killed by cars each year?
I thought not.
Actually proportionally there are less cyclist deaths and injuries per
year
than from motor vehicles. In other words it is safer to drive a bicycle,
although knowledgeable safe cyclist fair better than uneducated
cyclists.
Note: I am talking about education and awareness, not helmets.
HERE I agree with you. I feel you are safer on a bike. You are can
maneuver far more than in a car.
Post by Jack
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by smn
Jail terms? That would be for causing death by negligence. If someone
stole my bike I am quite sure they are not going to be killing people with
it in the getaway process. Give people stuff for free all their life like
roads and they abuse it.
How many people are killed by stolen cars a year?
Actually motor vehicle injuries and deaths people operating stolen
motor vehicles are significant. How many die by getting hit by a
stolen bicycle?
And again, that # is?
I'm sure more people are killed from stolen bicycles than stolen
skateboards. Your point?
Stolen cars cost lives!!!
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Jack
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by smn
You think because someone pays $20,000 for a car they have more rights than
me. Twisted You do not have a clue about anything obviously.
I use to think like you until I was enlightened. Until people who
wanted a helmet law said "Why should my tax dollars pay for your head
injury". That is when I realized money was more important to those
people, than freedom of choice. So to be consistent with their
argument about their tax dollar being the almighty, I agree with them
that the more you pay-the more rights you have. I don't like it, but
that is what in fact supporters of the law are saying.
Nothing to be enlightened about. The law is the same for motorist and
cyclist.
The both have the same rights and the same privileges.
Actually that is incorrect. You do not require (nor should) a license
for cycling. A drivers license is a privilege-riding a bike is right.
In addition bikes can legally be in lots and lots and lots of places
that cars cannot. You often see signs prohibiting cars from going and
the sign will specifically exclude bikes from that law.
Bicycles can ride along paths off road etc. Cars cannot.
Although the phrase "The both have the same rights and the same
privileges." sounds "good" it is utter nonsense. The two have far more
difference than similarities. The only similarity they have, is that
they are both modes of transportation-but vastly different.
An I actually agree with you on the above.
Just once you get on the road the rights and privileges are the same.
If you want to get real picky there are lots of places bicycles are not
allowed. Major highways for one. Many drive through food service joints
do
not allow cyclists to drive through for safety concerns.
===========
n***@yahoo.com
2006-06-06 20:41:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Jack
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by smn
So you assume that because I ride a bike I do it because I cannot afford a
car ie most cyclists pay lower taxes. That is just outright prejudice and
very ignorant.
Call it what you want, but generally it is true.
No You are being prejudicial. Lots of rich people drive bikes.
I didn't say rich people didn't rride bikes. I said "GENERALLY"
speaking. Re-read, jack.
I did not misread, but generally, STILL strikes you as prejudicial.
No it doesn't. That is aomong the stupidest things I have read.
Generally means, generally.
Post by Jack
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Jack
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by smn
Cycling is becoming more popular again with the older crowd. Look at all
the road bikes this summer. I have a higher middle class income.
We all pay for gst and pst so buying a car has nothing to do with it that is
your disposable income and we all pay the same.
The questions was who pays more in Taxes. You said bicyclists do which
is patently ridiculous. And of course the sales tax counts.
Who pays more cost as a ratio of amount paid versus damage done to
roads.
THE CYCLIST!!!
Also since federal gas taxes do not fund provincial or municipal roads
the cyclists who pays the same taxes to build roads yet does not do the
same damage to roads, or life pays proportionally more tax (sales tax,
and property taxes).
The cyclist pays the same, but the driver pays ADDITIONAL taxes, in
gas, purchaes price, etc.. How you can possible dispute that is just
ridiculous. Cyclist pay NO road tax whatsoever.
IN addition, there are more rich drivers than cyclists and they pay
more in income tax, etc.
And drivers contribute ADDITIONAL costs to the environment, the health
care system, the police, the fire, the paramedics, the insurance system,
and others.
And again, gas taxes do not pay for roads. Provincial roads are built
with
income taxes and sales taxes. Rich people pay for these roads whether
they
drive or not. Municipal taxes are paid by property taxes. Once again
rich
people pay for these roads too drivers or not. Even the little old lady
who lives in a retirement home pays taxes to build our roads.
IT is very strange that you think rich people do not drive. They do.
More of the drive than cycle. It's common sense.
Post by Jack
However cyclists pay sales tax, income tax, and property taxes. The
portion
of those taxes used to build and maintain roads (including the
environment,
the health care system, the police, the fire, the paramedics, the
insurance
system, and others) and yet do minimal damage and use only a minimal
percentage of the geography that the roads take up.
And drivers pay all that, and more as I pointed out earlier.
Post by Jack
So in summary cyclists pay more costs to the system then they cost.
The opposite is true for motorists who's gas taxes do not begin to pay
for the environment, the health care system, the police, the fire, the
paramedics, the insurance system, and others.
nonsense. There are more drivers paying more taxes. I'm sure you'll
somehow dispute that, but just take a look outside and you'll see
scores of cars for every single cyclist.
Post by Jack
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Jack
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by smn
We all pay to repair roads and everything else that goes with it when we do
not even use it. Cyclists do not require damage repair from what we do.
So, drivers depend on our handouts. We do not kill people by running into
them either. It is a might is right situation with some ignorant people
unfortuneately which is where you are coming from. Drivers are babies.
No where do I say might is right. You made a ridiculous statement
about how cyclist pay more. Plain nuts which is where YOU are coming
from.
By the way, do you know HOW many cyclists get killed by cars each year?
I thought not.
Actually proportionally there are less cyclist deaths and injuries per
year
than from motor vehicles. In other words it is safer to drive a bicycle,
although knowledgeable safe cyclist fair better than uneducated
cyclists.
Note: I am talking about education and awareness, not helmets.
HERE I agree with you. I feel you are safer on a bike. You are can
maneuver far more than in a car.
Post by Jack
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by smn
Jail terms? That would be for causing death by negligence. If someone
stole my bike I am quite sure they are not going to be killing people with
it in the getaway process. Give people stuff for free all their life like
roads and they abuse it.
How many people are killed by stolen cars a year?
Actually motor vehicle injuries and deaths people operating stolen
motor vehicles are significant. How many die by getting hit by a
stolen bicycle?
And again, that # is?
I'm sure more people are killed from stolen bicycles than stolen
skateboards. Your point?
Stolen cars cost lives!!!
So do non-stolen (more so). There are more fatalities with owned cars,
than stolen ones. Your point?
Post by Jack
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Jack
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by smn
You think because someone pays $20,000 for a car they have more rights than
me. Twisted You do not have a clue about anything obviously.
I use to think like you until I was enlightened. Until people who
wanted a helmet law said "Why should my tax dollars pay for your head
injury". That is when I realized money was more important to those
people, than freedom of choice. So to be consistent with their
argument about their tax dollar being the almighty, I agree with them
that the more you pay-the more rights you have. I don't like it, but
that is what in fact supporters of the law are saying.
Nothing to be enlightened about. The law is the same for motorist and
cyclist.
The both have the same rights and the same privileges.
Actually that is incorrect. You do not require (nor should) a license
for cycling. A drivers license is a privilege-riding a bike is right.
In addition bikes can legally be in lots and lots and lots of places
that cars cannot. You often see signs prohibiting cars from going and
the sign will specifically exclude bikes from that law.
Bicycles can ride along paths off road etc. Cars cannot.
Although the phrase "The both have the same rights and the same
privileges." sounds "good" it is utter nonsense. The two have far more
difference than similarities. The only similarity they have, is that
they are both modes of transportation-but vastly different.
An I actually agree with you on the above.
Just once you get on the road the rights and privileges are the same.
No, again they are not. Lots of places cyclists can go that cars
cannot. PLease don't make me go take pcitures of the signs to prove
this to you.
Post by Jack
If you want to get real picky there are lots of places bicycles are not
allowed. Major highways for one. Many drive through food service joints
do
not allow cyclists to drive through for safety concerns.
I'm not being picky-I'm just falling into the crap about cyclists and
drivers being the same. They simply are not.
smn
2006-06-07 13:19:18 UTC
Permalink
"And drivers pay all that, and more as I pointed out earlier." No they do
not. You could triple the taxes and it would not cover it. They should pay
100%

If they paid their share there would be no need for everybody in Canada to
pay for the entire gambit of services required by drivers and nobody else.
I showed you the link that proves N. Amercian drivers pay a small amount
compared to everyone else in the world for gas tax.
Why should anyone even one cyclist pay for what they use and abuse. And
add to that having no rights on the road because might is right for all of
them. Remember guns, deers. That is what it is like. If it can happen it
will. It is not fair. and it only happens in N. America.
Post by n***@yahoo.com
Post by Jack
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Jack
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by smn
So you assume that because I ride a bike I do it because I cannot
afford a
car ie most cyclists pay lower taxes. That is just outright
prejudice and
very ignorant.
Call it what you want, but generally it is true.
No You are being prejudicial. Lots of rich people drive bikes.
I didn't say rich people didn't rride bikes. I said "GENERALLY"
speaking. Re-read, jack.
I did not misread, but generally, STILL strikes you as prejudicial.
No it doesn't. That is aomong the stupidest things I have read.
Generally means, generally.
Post by Jack
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Jack
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by smn
Cycling is becoming more popular again with the older crowd.
Look at all
the road bikes this summer. I have a higher middle class income.
We all pay for gst and pst so buying a car has nothing to do with
it that is
your disposable income and we all pay the same.
The questions was who pays more in Taxes. You said bicyclists do which
is patently ridiculous. And of course the sales tax counts.
Who pays more cost as a ratio of amount paid versus damage done to
roads.
THE CYCLIST!!!
Also since federal gas taxes do not fund provincial or municipal roads
the cyclists who pays the same taxes to build roads yet does not do the
same damage to roads, or life pays proportionally more tax (sales tax,
and property taxes).
The cyclist pays the same, but the driver pays ADDITIONAL taxes, in
gas, purchaes price, etc.. How you can possible dispute that is just
ridiculous. Cyclist pay NO road tax whatsoever.
IN addition, there are more rich drivers than cyclists and they pay
more in income tax, etc.
And drivers contribute ADDITIONAL costs to the environment, the health
care system, the police, the fire, the paramedics, the insurance system,
and others.
And again, gas taxes do not pay for roads. Provincial roads are built
with
income taxes and sales taxes. Rich people pay for these roads whether
they
drive or not. Municipal taxes are paid by property taxes. Once again
rich
people pay for these roads too drivers or not. Even the little old lady
who lives in a retirement home pays taxes to build our roads.
IT is very strange that you think rich people do not drive. They do.
More of the drive than cycle. It's common sense.
Post by Jack
However cyclists pay sales tax, income tax, and property taxes. The
portion
of those taxes used to build and maintain roads (including the
environment,
the health care system, the police, the fire, the paramedics, the
insurance
system, and others) and yet do minimal damage and use only a minimal
percentage of the geography that the roads take up.
And drivers pay all that, and more as I pointed out earlier.
Post by Jack
So in summary cyclists pay more costs to the system then they cost.
The opposite is true for motorists who's gas taxes do not begin to pay
for the environment, the health care system, the police, the fire, the
paramedics, the insurance system, and others.
nonsense. There are more drivers paying more taxes. I'm sure you'll
somehow dispute that, but just take a look outside and you'll see
scores of cars for every single cyclist.
Post by Jack
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Jack
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by smn
We all pay to repair roads and everything else that goes with it
when we do
not even use it. Cyclists do not require damage repair from what we do.
So, drivers depend on our handouts. We do not kill people by
running into
them either. It is a might is right situation with some ignorant people
unfortuneately which is where you are coming from. Drivers are babies.
No where do I say might is right. You made a ridiculous statement
about how cyclist pay more. Plain nuts which is where YOU are coming
from.
By the way, do you know HOW many cyclists get killed by cars each year?
I thought not.
Actually proportionally there are less cyclist deaths and injuries per
year
than from motor vehicles. In other words it is safer to drive a bicycle,
although knowledgeable safe cyclist fair better than uneducated
cyclists.
Note: I am talking about education and awareness, not helmets.
HERE I agree with you. I feel you are safer on a bike. You are can
maneuver far more than in a car.
Post by Jack
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by smn
Jail terms? That would be for causing death by negligence.
If someone
stole my bike I am quite sure they are not going to be killing
people with
it in the getaway process. Give people stuff for free all their
life like
roads and they abuse it.
How many people are killed by stolen cars a year?
Actually motor vehicle injuries and deaths people operating stolen
motor vehicles are significant. How many die by getting hit by a
stolen bicycle?
And again, that # is?
I'm sure more people are killed from stolen bicycles than stolen
skateboards. Your point?
Stolen cars cost lives!!!
So do non-stolen (more so). There are more fatalities with owned cars,
than stolen ones. Your point?
Post by Jack
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Jack
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by smn
You think because someone pays $20,000 for a car they have more
rights than
me. Twisted You do not have a clue about anything obviously.
I use to think like you until I was enlightened. Until people who
wanted a helmet law said "Why should my tax dollars pay for your head
injury". That is when I realized money was more important to those
people, than freedom of choice. So to be consistent with their
argument about their tax dollar being the almighty, I agree with them
that the more you pay-the more rights you have. I don't like it, but
that is what in fact supporters of the law are saying.
Nothing to be enlightened about. The law is the same for motorist and
cyclist.
The both have the same rights and the same privileges.
Actually that is incorrect. You do not require (nor should) a license
for cycling. A drivers license is a privilege-riding a bike is right.
In addition bikes can legally be in lots and lots and lots of places
that cars cannot. You often see signs prohibiting cars from going and
the sign will specifically exclude bikes from that law.
Bicycles can ride along paths off road etc. Cars cannot.
Although the phrase "The both have the same rights and the same
privileges." sounds "good" it is utter nonsense. The two have far more
difference than similarities. The only similarity they have, is that
they are both modes of transportation-but vastly different.
An I actually agree with you on the above.
Just once you get on the road the rights and privileges are the same.
No, again they are not. Lots of places cyclists can go that cars
cannot. PLease don't make me go take pcitures of the signs to prove
this to you.
Post by Jack
If you want to get real picky there are lots of places bicycles are not
allowed. Major highways for one. Many drive through food service joints
do
not allow cyclists to drive through for safety concerns.
I'm not being picky-I'm just falling into the crap about cyclists and
drivers being the same. They simply are not.
DiscoDuck
2006-06-07 17:49:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by smn
"And drivers pay all that, and more as I pointed out earlier." No they do
not. You could triple the taxes and it would not cover it. They should pay
100%
If they paid their share there would be no need for everybody in Canada to
pay for the entire gambit of services required by drivers and nobody else.
I showed you the link that proves N. Amercian drivers pay a small amount
compared to everyone else in the world for gas tax.
Why should anyone even one cyclist pay for what they use and abuse. And
add to that having no rights on the road because might is right for all of
them. Remember guns, deers. That is what it is like. If it can happen it
will. It is not fair. and it only happens in N. America.
That link is just propaganda put out by somone trying be like you. It
does nothing to convince me.
Post by smn
Post by n***@yahoo.com
Post by Jack
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Jack
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by smn
So you assume that because I ride a bike I do it because I cannot
afford a
car ie most cyclists pay lower taxes. That is just outright
prejudice and
very ignorant.
Call it what you want, but generally it is true.
No You are being prejudicial. Lots of rich people drive bikes.
I didn't say rich people didn't rride bikes. I said "GENERALLY"
speaking. Re-read, jack.
I did not misread, but generally, STILL strikes you as prejudicial.
No it doesn't. That is aomong the stupidest things I have read.
Generally means, generally.
Post by Jack
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Jack
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by smn
Cycling is becoming more popular again with the older crowd.
Look at all
the road bikes this summer. I have a higher middle class income.
We all pay for gst and pst so buying a car has nothing to do with
it that is
your disposable income and we all pay the same.
The questions was who pays more in Taxes. You said bicyclists do which
is patently ridiculous. And of course the sales tax counts.
Who pays more cost as a ratio of amount paid versus damage done to
roads.
THE CYCLIST!!!
Also since federal gas taxes do not fund provincial or municipal roads
the cyclists who pays the same taxes to build roads yet does not do the
same damage to roads, or life pays proportionally more tax (sales tax,
and property taxes).
The cyclist pays the same, but the driver pays ADDITIONAL taxes, in
gas, purchaes price, etc.. How you can possible dispute that is just
ridiculous. Cyclist pay NO road tax whatsoever.
IN addition, there are more rich drivers than cyclists and they pay
more in income tax, etc.
And drivers contribute ADDITIONAL costs to the environment, the health
care system, the police, the fire, the paramedics, the insurance system,
and others.
And again, gas taxes do not pay for roads. Provincial roads are built
with
income taxes and sales taxes. Rich people pay for these roads whether
they
drive or not. Municipal taxes are paid by property taxes. Once again
rich
people pay for these roads too drivers or not. Even the little old lady
who lives in a retirement home pays taxes to build our roads.
IT is very strange that you think rich people do not drive. They do.
More of the drive than cycle. It's common sense.
Post by Jack
However cyclists pay sales tax, income tax, and property taxes. The
portion
of those taxes used to build and maintain roads (including the
environment,
the health care system, the police, the fire, the paramedics, the
insurance
system, and others) and yet do minimal damage and use only a minimal
percentage of the geography that the roads take up.
And drivers pay all that, and more as I pointed out earlier.
Post by Jack
So in summary cyclists pay more costs to the system then they cost.
The opposite is true for motorists who's gas taxes do not begin to pay
for the environment, the health care system, the police, the fire, the
paramedics, the insurance system, and others.
nonsense. There are more drivers paying more taxes. I'm sure you'll
somehow dispute that, but just take a look outside and you'll see
scores of cars for every single cyclist.
Post by Jack
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Jack
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by smn
We all pay to repair roads and everything else that goes with it
when we do
not even use it. Cyclists do not require damage repair from what
we do.
So, drivers depend on our handouts. We do not kill people by
running into
them either. It is a might is right situation with some ignorant
people
unfortuneately which is where you are coming from. Drivers are
babies.
No where do I say might is right. You made a ridiculous statement
about how cyclist pay more. Plain nuts which is where YOU are coming
from.
By the way, do you know HOW many cyclists get killed by cars each year?
I thought not.
Actually proportionally there are less cyclist deaths and injuries per
year
than from motor vehicles. In other words it is safer to drive a bicycle,
although knowledgeable safe cyclist fair better than uneducated
cyclists.
Note: I am talking about education and awareness, not helmets.
HERE I agree with you. I feel you are safer on a bike. You are can
maneuver far more than in a car.
Post by Jack
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by smn
Jail terms? That would be for causing death by negligence.
If someone
stole my bike I am quite sure they are not going to be killing
people with
it in the getaway process. Give people stuff for free all their
life like
roads and they abuse it.
How many people are killed by stolen cars a year?
Actually motor vehicle injuries and deaths people operating stolen
motor vehicles are significant. How many die by getting hit by a
stolen bicycle?
And again, that # is?
I'm sure more people are killed from stolen bicycles than stolen
skateboards. Your point?
Stolen cars cost lives!!!
So do non-stolen (more so). There are more fatalities with owned cars,
than stolen ones. Your point?
Post by Jack
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Jack
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by smn
You think because someone pays $20,000 for a car they have more
rights than
me. Twisted You do not have a clue about anything obviously.
I use to think like you until I was enlightened. Until people who
wanted a helmet law said "Why should my tax dollars pay for your head
injury". That is when I realized money was more important to those
people, than freedom of choice. So to be consistent with their
argument about their tax dollar being the almighty, I agree with them
that the more you pay-the more rights you have. I don't like it, but
that is what in fact supporters of the law are saying.
Nothing to be enlightened about. The law is the same for motorist and
cyclist.
The both have the same rights and the same privileges.
Actually that is incorrect. You do not require (nor should) a license
for cycling. A drivers license is a privilege-riding a bike is right.
In addition bikes can legally be in lots and lots and lots of places
that cars cannot. You often see signs prohibiting cars from going and
the sign will specifically exclude bikes from that law.
Bicycles can ride along paths off road etc. Cars cannot.
Although the phrase "The both have the same rights and the same
privileges." sounds "good" it is utter nonsense. The two have far more
difference than similarities. The only similarity they have, is that
they are both modes of transportation-but vastly different.
An I actually agree with you on the above.
Just once you get on the road the rights and privileges are the same.
No, again they are not. Lots of places cyclists can go that cars
cannot. PLease don't make me go take pcitures of the signs to prove
this to you.
Post by Jack
If you want to get real picky there are lots of places bicycles are not
allowed. Major highways for one. Many drive through food service joints
do
not allow cyclists to drive through for safety concerns.
I'm not being picky-I'm just falling into the crap about cyclists and
drivers being the same. They simply are not.
smn
2006-06-07 13:25:51 UTC
Permalink
"I'm not being picky-I'm just falling into the crap about cyclists and
drivers being the same. They simply are not."

The only place in Surrey would be bike trails. There are no bike routes
like Vancouver which are exclusive and usually only covers a short portion
of a route. Sure there are 100's of signs for bike routes but as a category
that is one sign. Your debating skills are really lacking again.
Post by n***@yahoo.com
Post by Jack
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Jack
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by smn
So you assume that because I ride a bike I do it because I cannot
afford a
car ie most cyclists pay lower taxes. That is just outright
prejudice and
very ignorant.
Call it what you want, but generally it is true.
No You are being prejudicial. Lots of rich people drive bikes.
I didn't say rich people didn't rride bikes. I said "GENERALLY"
speaking. Re-read, jack.
I did not misread, but generally, STILL strikes you as prejudicial.
No it doesn't. That is aomong the stupidest things I have read.
Generally means, generally.
Post by Jack
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Jack
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by smn
Cycling is becoming more popular again with the older crowd.
Look at all
the road bikes this summer. I have a higher middle class income.
We all pay for gst and pst so buying a car has nothing to do with
it that is
your disposable income and we all pay the same.
The questions was who pays more in Taxes. You said bicyclists do which
is patently ridiculous. And of course the sales tax counts.
Who pays more cost as a ratio of amount paid versus damage done to
roads.
THE CYCLIST!!!
Also since federal gas taxes do not fund provincial or municipal roads
the cyclists who pays the same taxes to build roads yet does not do the
same damage to roads, or life pays proportionally more tax (sales tax,
and property taxes).
The cyclist pays the same, but the driver pays ADDITIONAL taxes, in
gas, purchaes price, etc.. How you can possible dispute that is just
ridiculous. Cyclist pay NO road tax whatsoever.
IN addition, there are more rich drivers than cyclists and they pay
more in income tax, etc.
And drivers contribute ADDITIONAL costs to the environment, the health
care system, the police, the fire, the paramedics, the insurance system,
and others.
And again, gas taxes do not pay for roads. Provincial roads are built
with
income taxes and sales taxes. Rich people pay for these roads whether
they
drive or not. Municipal taxes are paid by property taxes. Once again
rich
people pay for these roads too drivers or not. Even the little old lady
who lives in a retirement home pays taxes to build our roads.
IT is very strange that you think rich people do not drive. They do.
More of the drive than cycle. It's common sense.
Post by Jack
However cyclists pay sales tax, income tax, and property taxes. The
portion
of those taxes used to build and maintain roads (including the
environment,
the health care system, the police, the fire, the paramedics, the
insurance
system, and others) and yet do minimal damage and use only a minimal
percentage of the geography that the roads take up.
And drivers pay all that, and more as I pointed out earlier.
Post by Jack
So in summary cyclists pay more costs to the system then they cost.
The opposite is true for motorists who's gas taxes do not begin to pay
for the environment, the health care system, the police, the fire, the
paramedics, the insurance system, and others.
nonsense. There are more drivers paying more taxes. I'm sure you'll
somehow dispute that, but just take a look outside and you'll see
scores of cars for every single cyclist.
Post by Jack
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Jack
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by smn
We all pay to repair roads and everything else that goes with it
when we do
not even use it. Cyclists do not require damage repair from what we do.
So, drivers depend on our handouts. We do not kill people by
running into
them either. It is a might is right situation with some ignorant people
unfortuneately which is where you are coming from. Drivers are babies.
No where do I say might is right. You made a ridiculous statement
about how cyclist pay more. Plain nuts which is where YOU are coming
from.
By the way, do you know HOW many cyclists get killed by cars each year?
I thought not.
Actually proportionally there are less cyclist deaths and injuries per
year
than from motor vehicles. In other words it is safer to drive a bicycle,
although knowledgeable safe cyclist fair better than uneducated
cyclists.
Note: I am talking about education and awareness, not helmets.
HERE I agree with you. I feel you are safer on a bike. You are can
maneuver far more than in a car.
Post by Jack
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by smn
Jail terms? That would be for causing death by negligence.
If someone
stole my bike I am quite sure they are not going to be killing
people with
it in the getaway process. Give people stuff for free all their
life like
roads and they abuse it.
How many people are killed by stolen cars a year?
Actually motor vehicle injuries and deaths people operating stolen
motor vehicles are significant. How many die by getting hit by a
stolen bicycle?
And again, that # is?
I'm sure more people are killed from stolen bicycles than stolen
skateboards. Your point?
Stolen cars cost lives!!!
So do non-stolen (more so). There are more fatalities with owned cars,
than stolen ones. Your point?
Post by Jack
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Jack
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by smn
You think because someone pays $20,000 for a car they have more
rights than
me. Twisted You do not have a clue about anything obviously.
I use to think like you until I was enlightened. Until people who
wanted a helmet law said "Why should my tax dollars pay for your head
injury". That is when I realized money was more important to those
people, than freedom of choice. So to be consistent with their
argument about their tax dollar being the almighty, I agree with them
that the more you pay-the more rights you have. I don't like it, but
that is what in fact supporters of the law are saying.
Nothing to be enlightened about. The law is the same for motorist and
cyclist.
The both have the same rights and the same privileges.
Actually that is incorrect. You do not require (nor should) a license
for cycling. A drivers license is a privilege-riding a bike is right.
In addition bikes can legally be in lots and lots and lots of places
that cars cannot. You often see signs prohibiting cars from going and
the sign will specifically exclude bikes from that law.
Bicycles can ride along paths off road etc. Cars cannot.
Although the phrase "The both have the same rights and the same
privileges." sounds "good" it is utter nonsense. The two have far more
difference than similarities. The only similarity they have, is that
they are both modes of transportation-but vastly different.
An I actually agree with you on the above.
Just once you get on the road the rights and privileges are the same.
No, again they are not. Lots of places cyclists can go that cars
cannot. PLease don't make me go take pcitures of the signs to prove
this to you.
Post by Jack
If you want to get real picky there are lots of places bicycles are not
allowed. Major highways for one. Many drive through food service joints
do
not allow cyclists to drive through for safety concerns.
I'm not being picky-I'm just falling into the crap about cyclists and
drivers being the same. They simply are not.
DiscoDuck
2006-06-07 17:47:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by smn
"I'm not being picky-I'm just falling into the crap about cyclists and
drivers being the same. They simply are not."
The only place in Surrey would be bike trails. There are no bike routes
like Vancouver which are exclusive and usually only covers a short portion
of a route. Sure there are 100's of signs for bike routes but as a category
that is one sign. Your debating skills are really lacking again.
No they are not. Interesting how you resort to insults when proven
wrong. And you're wrong, yet again.

You said they (cycling and driving) were the same. They are not by any
stretch of the imagination. They do not NOT have the same rights and
responsibilities.

Admit when you are wrong.
Király
2006-06-07 18:37:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by DiscoDuck
You said they (cycling and driving) were the same. They are not by any
stretch of the imagination. They do not NOT have the same rights and
responsibilities.
As much as you don't want to admit it DD, yes in BC legally they do.

I quote MVA section 183:
"...a person operating a cycle on a highway has the same rights and
duties as a driver of a vehicle."

Read the whole thing here if you are unsure of anything:
http://www.qp.gov.bc.ca/statreg/stat/M/96318_03.htm#section183
Post by DiscoDuck
Admit when you are wrong.
Ditto.
--
K.

Te tetted e tettetett tettet? Te tettetett tettek tettese, te!
n***@yahoo.com
2006-06-07 23:20:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
You said they (cycling and driving) were the same. They are not by any
stretch of the imagination. They do not NOT have the same rights and
responsibilities.
As much as you don't want to admit it DD, yes in BC legally they do.
"...a person operating a cycle on a highway has the same rights and
duties as a driver of a vehicle."
http://www.qp.gov.bc.ca/statreg/stat/M/96318_03.htm#section183
Post by DiscoDuck
Admit when you are wrong.
Let me pipe in, here.
The MVA section 183 is talking about a specefic place . a highway.
Not everywhere else. I can go places on a bike that cars are not
allowed. You do not need a licence to operate a bike - a car you do.
Car use gasoline and are much more expensive to operate than a bike
Plain & simple. DD is right-the two do NOT have "the same rights and
duties as a driver of a vehicle."

What part of that do you disagree with?
Post by Király
Ditto.
Now is your chance to admit it.
Post by Király
--
K.
Te tetted e tettetett tettet? Te tettetett tettek tettese, te!
n***@yahoo.com
2006-06-08 00:25:41 UTC
Permalink
Thanks Nick.
I find it unbelievable that some people are bent on saying the two are
same.
The two are no more the same as skateboarders and rollerbladers.
DD
Post by n***@yahoo.com
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
You said they (cycling and driving) were the same. They are not by any
stretch of the imagination. They do not NOT have the same rights and
responsibilities.
As much as you don't want to admit it DD, yes in BC legally they do.
"...a person operating a cycle on a highway has the same rights and
duties as a driver of a vehicle."
http://www.qp.gov.bc.ca/statreg/stat/M/96318_03.htm#section183
Post by DiscoDuck
Admit when you are wrong.
Let me pipe in, here.
The MVA section 183 is talking about a specefic place . a highway.
Not everywhere else. I can go places on a bike that cars are not
allowed. You do not need a licence to operate a bike - a car you do.
Car use gasoline and are much more expensive to operate than a bike
Plain & simple. DD is right-the two do NOT have "the same rights and
duties as a driver of a vehicle."
What part of that do you disagree with?
Post by Király
Ditto.
Now is your chance to admit it.
Post by Király
--
K.
Te tetted e tettetett tettet? Te tettetett tettek tettese, te!
Király
2006-06-08 03:59:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by n***@yahoo.com
Thanks Nick.
I find it unbelievable that some people are bent on saying the two are
same.
The two are no more the same as skateboarders and rollerbladers.
DD
Disco, Disco, Disco. Writing under two different names pretending to be
two different people, and then responding to your own post as if you were
replying to someone else makes you look really, really bad. Politicians
have gone down in flames for doing this kind of thing.

K.
DiscoDuck
2006-06-08 05:28:41 UTC
Permalink
LOL. Interesting that when someone thinks I'm right-correction-KNOWS I
am correct, You assume it's me.
You make me laugh. I guess you want to try and erode my credibilty by
suggesting this. Good luck with that.

Just come out and admit (at the very least) you were mistaken. That
indeed the two have different rights and obligations AND there are
other differences. That the law you quoted pertained to highways only.
You were wrong.

Or do I have to come up with examples too? I got one immediately off
the top of my head.
OK, here it goes (since I know you'll not admit you were wrong).

Cars by law are required to have insurance. Cyclists are not.

Want more?
Post by Király
Post by n***@yahoo.com
Thanks Nick.
I find it unbelievable that some people are bent on saying the two are
same.
The two are no more the same as skateboarders and rollerbladers.
DD
Disco, Disco, Disco. Writing under two different names pretending to be
two different people, and then responding to your own post as if you were
replying to someone else makes you look really, really bad. Politicians
have gone down in flames for doing this kind of thing.
K.
Király
2006-06-08 06:14:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by DiscoDuck
LOL. Interesting that when someone thinks I'm right-correction-KNOWS I
am correct, You assume it's me.
You make me laugh. I guess you want to try and erode my credibilty by
suggesting this. Good luck with that.
IP address of posts in this thread made by DiscoDuck: 24.84.215.140
IP address of posts in this thread made by nickarama: 24.84.215.140

This isn't the first time this little "coincidence" has happened.

Two posts were made in this group on March 4th 2006. One by DiscoDuck,
one by nickarama. The IP addresses again are the same; 24.84.192.47.

There is more evidence; But the real, obvious kicker is that you posted
from your nickarama account, and signed it DD. Just look at the
headers and the body.

Here it is again, in case you missed it:

---begin quoted post with message headers---

|From: ***@yahoo.com
|Newsgroups: bc.cycling
|Subject: Re: Who pays more?
|Date: 7 Jun 2006 17:25:41 -0700
|Organization: http://groups.google.com
|Lines: 43
|Message-ID: <***@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
|
|[snip]
|
|NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.84.215.140
|
|[snip]
|
|Thanks Nick.
|I find it unbelievable that some people are bent on saying the two are
|same.
|The two are no more the same as skateboarders and rollerbladers.
|DD

---end quoted post---

If that's not proof that nickarama and DiscoDuck are the same person,
then I don't know what is.
Post by DiscoDuck
Just come out and admit (at the very least) you were mistaken. That
indeed the two have different rights and obligations AND there are
other differences.
The MVA says they are the same. DiscoDuck says they aren't. The MVA
prevails. It's right there in black and white. You can argue and
disagree all you want but it doesn't change the law.
Post by DiscoDuck
That the law you quoted pertained to highways only. You were wrong.
Highways is what we were talking about. We weren't talking about riding
in your backyard or on mountain trails. We were talking obligations
and rights about riding bikes vs. those of driving cars. Pretty much the
only place where you'll find both riding together are on highways.
Post by DiscoDuck
Or do I have to come up with examples too? I got one immediately off
the top of my head.
OK, here it goes (since I know you'll not admit you were wrong).
Cars by law are required to have insurance. Cyclists are not.
Want more?
Insurance is a legal requirement of operating a motor vehicle in a public
highway, yes. So it a helmet for a cyclist. Heavy trucks are also
subject to additional exterior lighting requirements that are required of
neither cars nor bikes.

But neither the car insurance, nor the helmet, nor the truck lighting make
any difference on how the vehicle is to be driven/operated on highways,
which is what we were talking about, and to what the "same rights and
obligatins" refers.

K.
DiscoDuck
2006-06-08 06:35:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Király
If that's not proof that nickarama and DiscoDuck are the same person,
then I don't know what is.
Yes I am aware of IP address's, etc. But I am not he. Not sure how it
works.
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
Just come out and admit (at the very least) you were mistaken. That
indeed the two have different rights and obligations AND there are
other differences.
The MVA says they are the same. DiscoDuck says they aren't. The MVA
prevails. It's right there in black and white. You can argue and
disagree all you want but it doesn't change the law.
No it doesn't Must I quote you again?
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
That the law you quoted pertained to highways only. You were wrong.
Highways is what we were talking about. We weren't talking about riding
in your backyard or on mountain trails. We were talking obligations
and rights about riding bikes vs. those of driving cars. Pretty much the
only place where you'll find both riding together are on highways.
No, we were talking about whether the the same or not. AND they are
not.
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
Or do I have to come up with examples too? I got one immediately off
the top of my head.
OK, here it goes (since I know you'll not admit you were wrong).
Cars by law are required to have insurance. Cyclists are not.
Want more?
Insurance is a legal requirement of operating a motor vehicle in a public
highway, yes. So it a helmet for a cyclist. Heavy trucks are also
subject to additional exterior lighting requirements that are required of
neither cars nor bikes.
Actually insurance is required for cars no matter where you are. Yet
helmets are not required for motor vehecles but are voluntary
(interesting no one wears them).
Post by Király
But neither the car insurance, nor the helmet, nor the truck lighting make
any difference on how the vehicle is to be driven/operated on highways,
which is what we were talking about, and to what the "same rights and
obligatins" refers.
No, this conversation was not about just on highways. You're wrong,
again. Shall I go back to initial post?
See, here is the initial post, by Jack on Sun, Jun 4 2006 2:32 pm
http://groups.google.com/group/bc.cycling/msg/f5ef995e4558b6f1?dmode=source
"Nothing to be enlightened about. The law is the same for motorist and
cyclist.
The both have the same rights and the same privileges. "

Which as I proven is not true.
DiscoDuck
2006-06-08 06:41:25 UTC
Permalink
Well isn't this odd. I just checked my IP addresss and isn't what you
posted below.
I checked the headers too and it differs from what i have.
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
LOL. Interesting that when someone thinks I'm right-correction-KNOWS I
am correct, You assume it's me.
You make me laugh. I guess you want to try and erode my credibilty by
suggesting this. Good luck with that.
IP address of posts in this thread made by DiscoDuck: 24.84.215.140
IP address of posts in this thread made by nickarama: 24.84.215.140
This isn't the first time this little "coincidence" has happened.
Two posts were made in this group on March 4th 2006. One by DiscoDuck,
one by nickarama. The IP addresses again are the same; 24.84.192.47.
There is more evidence; But the real, obvious kicker is that you posted
from your nickarama account, and signed it DD. Just look at the
headers and the body.
---begin quoted post with message headers---
|Newsgroups: bc.cycling
|Subject: Re: Who pays more?
|Date: 7 Jun 2006 17:25:41 -0700
|Organization: http://groups.google.com
|Lines: 43
|
|[snip]
|
|NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.84.215.140
|
|[snip]
|
|Thanks Nick.
|I find it unbelievable that some people are bent on saying the two are
|same.
|The two are no more the same as skateboarders and rollerbladers.
|DD
---end quoted post---
If that's not proof that nickarama and DiscoDuck are the same person,
then I don't know what is.
Post by DiscoDuck
Just come out and admit (at the very least) you were mistaken. That
indeed the two have different rights and obligations AND there are
other differences.
The MVA says they are the same. DiscoDuck says they aren't. The MVA
prevails. It's right there in black and white. You can argue and
disagree all you want but it doesn't change the law.
Post by DiscoDuck
That the law you quoted pertained to highways only. You were wrong.
Highways is what we were talking about. We weren't talking about riding
in your backyard or on mountain trails. We were talking obligations
and rights about riding bikes vs. those of driving cars. Pretty much the
only place where you'll find both riding together are on highways.
Post by DiscoDuck
Or do I have to come up with examples too? I got one immediately off
the top of my head.
OK, here it goes (since I know you'll not admit you were wrong).
Cars by law are required to have insurance. Cyclists are not.
Want more?
Insurance is a legal requirement of operating a motor vehicle in a public
highway, yes. So it a helmet for a cyclist. Heavy trucks are also
subject to additional exterior lighting requirements that are required of
neither cars nor bikes.
But neither the car insurance, nor the helmet, nor the truck lighting make
any difference on how the vehicle is to be driven/operated on highways,
which is what we were talking about, and to what the "same rights and
obligatins" refers.
K.
DiscoDuck
2006-06-08 07:03:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Király
If that's not proof that nickarama and DiscoDuck are the same person,
then I don't know what is.
Yes I am aware of IP address's, etc. But I am not he. Not sure how it

works.
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
Just come out and admit (at the very least) you were mistaken. That
indeed the two have different rights and obligations AND there are
other differences.
The MVA says they are the same. DiscoDuck says they aren't. The MVA
prevails. It's right there in black and white. You can argue and
disagree all you want but it doesn't change the law.
No it doesn't Must I quote you again? Even the law shows differences.
I've provided other examples.
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
That the law you quoted pertained to highways only. You were wrong.
Highways is what we were talking about. We weren't talking about riding
in your backyard or on mountain trails. We were talking obligations
and rights about riding bikes vs. those of driving cars. Pretty much the
only place where you'll find both riding together are on highways.
No, we were talking about whether the the same or not. AND they are
not.
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
Or do I have to come up with examples too? I got one immediately off
the top of my head.
OK, here it goes (since I know you'll not admit you were wrong).
Cars by law are required to have insurance. Cyclists are not.
Want more?
Insurance is a legal requirement of operating a motor vehicle in a public
highway, yes. So it a helmet for a cyclist. Heavy trucks are also
subject to additional exterior lighting requirements that are required of
neither cars nor bikes.
Thank you for pointing further differences.

Actually insurance is required for cars no matter where you are. Yet
helmets are not required for motor vehecles but are voluntary
(interesting no one wears them).
Post by Király
But neither the car insurance, nor the helmet, nor the truck lighting make
any difference on how the vehicle is to be driven/operated on highways,
which is what we were talking about, and to what the "same rights and
obligatins" refers.
No, this conversation was not about just on highways. You're wrong,
again. Shall I go back to initial post?
See, here is the initial post, by Jack on Sun, Jun 4 2006 2:32 pm
http://groups.google.com/group/bc.cycling/msg/f5ef995e4558b6f1?dmode=...

"Nothing to be enlightened about. The law is the same for motorist and
cyclist.
The both have the same rights and the same privileges. "

Which as I proven is not true.
smn
2006-06-08 14:05:15 UTC
Permalink
"Highways is what we were talking about. We weren't talking about riding
in your backyard or on mountain trails. We were talking obligations
and rights about riding bikes vs. those of driving cars. Pretty much the
only place where you'll find both riding together are on highways."

And in concert with that, as the subject suggests is we are talking about
who pays more and why, relatively, so that is not about where cars do not
share the same rights it is where the biker and car are equal only. You are
on the wrong track like I tried to say earlier.
Helmutless are on sidewalks so why bother about them.
Being on the road where you are suppose to be should mean we have equal
rights and I pay just as much but much more relatively because I pay for the
infrastructure only drivers use yet my life is at risk because they are dumb
slobs on top of that and do not realize it is not environmentally sound or
healthy on their part.
If you read some of ken kifer's web page he even said bike trails built by
the city are to keep cyclists off the road and are very expensive plus they
make you stop at cross streets, are inconvenient, and they rarely go where
you need to be. Point being we have to share the road and be respectful of
that.[Ken Kifer's Bike Pages]

thanks for listening
in solidarity
smn
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
LOL. Interesting that when someone thinks I'm right-correction-KNOWS I
am correct, You assume it's me.
You make me laugh. I guess you want to try and erode my credibilty by
suggesting this. Good luck with that.
IP address of posts in this thread made by DiscoDuck: 24.84.215.140
IP address of posts in this thread made by nickarama: 24.84.215.140
This isn't the first time this little "coincidence" has happened.
Two posts were made in this group on March 4th 2006. One by DiscoDuck,
one by nickarama. The IP addresses again are the same; 24.84.192.47.
There is more evidence; But the real, obvious kicker is that you posted
from your nickarama account, and signed it DD. Just look at the
headers and the body.
---begin quoted post with message headers---
|Newsgroups: bc.cycling
|Subject: Re: Who pays more?
|Date: 7 Jun 2006 17:25:41 -0700
|Organization: http://groups.google.com
|Lines: 43
|
|[snip]
|
|NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.84.215.140
|
|[snip]
|
|Thanks Nick.
|I find it unbelievable that some people are bent on saying the two are
|same.
|The two are no more the same as skateboarders and rollerbladers.
|DD
---end quoted post---
If that's not proof that nickarama and DiscoDuck are the same person,
then I don't know what is.
Post by DiscoDuck
Just come out and admit (at the very least) you were mistaken. That
indeed the two have different rights and obligations AND there are
other differences.
The MVA says they are the same. DiscoDuck says they aren't. The MVA
prevails. It's right there in black and white. You can argue and
disagree all you want but it doesn't change the law.
Post by DiscoDuck
That the law you quoted pertained to highways only. You were wrong.
Highways is what we were talking about. We weren't talking about riding
in your backyard or on mountain trails. We were talking obligations
and rights about riding bikes vs. those of driving cars. Pretty much the
only place where you'll find both riding together are on highways.
Post by DiscoDuck
Or do I have to come up with examples too? I got one immediately off
the top of my head.
OK, here it goes (since I know you'll not admit you were wrong).
Cars by law are required to have insurance. Cyclists are not.
Want more?
Insurance is a legal requirement of operating a motor vehicle in a public
highway, yes. So it a helmet for a cyclist. Heavy trucks are also
subject to additional exterior lighting requirements that are required of
neither cars nor bikes.
But neither the car insurance, nor the helmet, nor the truck lighting make
any difference on how the vehicle is to be driven/operated on highways,
which is what we were talking about, and to what the "same rights and
obligatins" refers.
K.
DiscoDuck
2006-06-08 22:07:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by smn
"Highways is what we were talking about. We weren't talking about riding
in your backyard or on mountain trails. We were talking obligations
and rights about riding bikes vs. those of driving cars. Pretty much the
only place where you'll find both riding together are on highways."
Actually were talking about how similar they are and I disagreed and
pointed out multiple difference. I also pointed out how legally they
are different too.
Post by smn
And in concert with that, as the subject suggests is we are talking about
who pays more and why, relatively, so that is not about where cars do not
share the same rights it is where the biker and car are equal only. You are
on the wrong track like I tried to say earlier.
Helmutless are on sidewalks so why bother about them.
I don't know that means.
Post by smn
Being on the road where you are suppose to be should mean we have equal
rights and I pay just as much but much more relatively because I pay for the
infrastructure only drivers use yet my life is at risk because they are dumb
slobs on top of that and do not realize it is not environmentally sound or
healthy on their part.
How can be pay for the same "infrastructure" and have your life at
risk?" Because you ARE USING it. You pay through your income tax
(presumably) but so do they, in addition to gas taxes, purchase tax,
etc.

If you were to remove all cyclist period (and of course I do not
advocate this), the roads would still exist and be maintained. Drivers
pay more.
Post by smn
If you read some of ken kifer's web page he even said bike trails built by
the city are to keep cyclists off the road and are very expensive plus they
make you stop at cross streets, are inconvenient, and they rarely go where
you need to be. Point being we have to share the road and be respectful of
that.[Ken Kifer's Bike Pages]
That's because there are simply many many more cars than bikes. So of
course there are more roads.

Still DD (the one and only).
Post by smn
thanks for listening
in solidarity
smn
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
LOL. Interesting that when someone thinks I'm right-correction-KNOWS I
am correct, You assume it's me.
You make me laugh. I guess you want to try and erode my credibilty by
suggesting this. Good luck with that.
IP address of posts in this thread made by DiscoDuck: 24.84.215.140
IP address of posts in this thread made by nickarama: 24.84.215.140
This isn't the first time this little "coincidence" has happened.
Two posts were made in this group on March 4th 2006. One by DiscoDuck,
one by nickarama. The IP addresses again are the same; 24.84.192.47.
There is more evidence; But the real, obvious kicker is that you posted
from your nickarama account, and signed it DD. Just look at the
headers and the body.
---begin quoted post with message headers---
|Newsgroups: bc.cycling
|Subject: Re: Who pays more?
|Date: 7 Jun 2006 17:25:41 -0700
|Organization: http://groups.google.com
|Lines: 43
|
|[snip]
|
|NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.84.215.140
|
|[snip]
|
|Thanks Nick.
|I find it unbelievable that some people are bent on saying the two are
|same.
|The two are no more the same as skateboarders and rollerbladers.
|DD
---end quoted post---
If that's not proof that nickarama and DiscoDuck are the same person,
then I don't know what is.
Post by DiscoDuck
Just come out and admit (at the very least) you were mistaken. That
indeed the two have different rights and obligations AND there are
other differences.
The MVA says they are the same. DiscoDuck says they aren't. The MVA
prevails. It's right there in black and white. You can argue and
disagree all you want but it doesn't change the law.
Post by DiscoDuck
That the law you quoted pertained to highways only. You were wrong.
Highways is what we were talking about. We weren't talking about riding
in your backyard or on mountain trails. We were talking obligations
and rights about riding bikes vs. those of driving cars. Pretty much the
only place where you'll find both riding together are on highways.
Post by DiscoDuck
Or do I have to come up with examples too? I got one immediately off
the top of my head.
OK, here it goes (since I know you'll not admit you were wrong).
Cars by law are required to have insurance. Cyclists are not.
Want more?
Insurance is a legal requirement of operating a motor vehicle in a public
highway, yes. So it a helmet for a cyclist. Heavy trucks are also
subject to additional exterior lighting requirements that are required of
neither cars nor bikes.
But neither the car insurance, nor the helmet, nor the truck lighting make
any difference on how the vehicle is to be driven/operated on highways,
which is what we were talking about, and to what the "same rights and
obligatins" refers.
K.
n***@yahoo.com
2006-06-08 17:10:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
LOL. Interesting that when someone thinks I'm right-correction-KNOWS I
am correct, You assume it's me.
You make me laugh. I guess you want to try and erode my credibilty by
suggesting this. Good luck with that.
IP address of posts in this thread made by DiscoDuck: 24.84.215.140
IP address of posts in this thread made by nickarama: 24.84.215.140
This isn't the first time this little "coincidence" has happened.
Two posts were made in this group on March 4th 2006. One by DiscoDuck,
one by nickarama. The IP addresses again are the same; 24.84.192.47.
There is more evidence; But the real, obvious kicker is that you posted
from your nickarama account, and signed it DD. Just look at the
headers and the body.
---begin quoted post with message headers---
|Newsgroups: bc.cycling
|Subject: Re: Who pays more?
|Date: 7 Jun 2006 17:25:41 -0700
|Organization: http://groups.google.com
|Lines: 43
|
|[snip]
|
|NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.84.215.140
|
|[snip]
|
|Thanks Nick.
|I find it unbelievable that some people are bent on saying the two are
|same.
|The two are no more the same as skateboarders and rollerbladers.
|DD
---end quoted post---
If that's not proof that nickarama and DiscoDuck are the same person,
then I don't know what is.
Post by DiscoDuck
Just come out and admit (at the very least) you were mistaken. That
indeed the two have different rights and obligations AND there are
other differences.
The MVA says they are the same. DiscoDuck says they aren't. The MVA
prevails. It's right there in black and white. You can argue and
disagree all you want but it doesn't change the law.
Post by DiscoDuck
That the law you quoted pertained to highways only. You were wrong.
Highways is what we were talking about. We weren't talking about riding
in your backyard or on mountain trails. We were talking obligations
and rights about riding bikes vs. those of driving cars. Pretty much the
only place where you'll find both riding together are on highways.
Post by DiscoDuck
Or do I have to come up with examples too? I got one immediately off
the top of my head.
OK, here it goes (since I know you'll not admit you were wrong).
Cars by law are required to have insurance. Cyclists are not.
Want more?
Insurance is a legal requirement of operating a motor vehicle in a public
highway, yes. So it a helmet for a cyclist. Heavy trucks are also
subject to additional exterior lighting requirements that are required of
neither cars nor bikes.
But neither the car insurance, nor the helmet, nor the truck lighting make
any difference on how the vehicle is to be driven/operated on highways,
which is what we were talking about, and to what the "same rights and
obligatins" refers.
K.
Yes, I am DD. (Manacal laugh ). You are all doomed. I am he. HA HA
HA HA HA!!!!
DiscoDuck
2006-06-08 18:57:16 UTC
Permalink
X-No-Archive
OK, I think I know what's going on here, JACKASS ;)
Don't make me lock my connection. ;)
DD (the real one).
Post by n***@yahoo.com
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
LOL. Interesting that when someone thinks I'm right-correction-KNOWS I
am correct, You assume it's me.
You make me laugh. I guess you want to try and erode my credibilty by
suggesting this. Good luck with that.
IP address of posts in this thread made by DiscoDuck: 24.84.215.140
IP address of posts in this thread made by nickarama: 24.84.215.140
This isn't the first time this little "coincidence" has happened.
Two posts were made in this group on March 4th 2006. One by DiscoDuck,
one by nickarama. The IP addresses again are the same; 24.84.192.47.
There is more evidence; But the real, obvious kicker is that you posted
from your nickarama account, and signed it DD. Just look at the
headers and the body.
---begin quoted post with message headers---
|Newsgroups: bc.cycling
|Subject: Re: Who pays more?
|Date: 7 Jun 2006 17:25:41 -0700
|Organization: http://groups.google.com
|Lines: 43
|
|[snip]
|
|NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.84.215.140
|
|[snip]
|
|Thanks Nick.
|I find it unbelievable that some people are bent on saying the two are
|same.
|The two are no more the same as skateboarders and rollerbladers.
|DD
---end quoted post---
If that's not proof that nickarama and DiscoDuck are the same person,
then I don't know what is.
Post by DiscoDuck
Just come out and admit (at the very least) you were mistaken. That
indeed the two have different rights and obligations AND there are
other differences.
The MVA says they are the same. DiscoDuck says they aren't. The MVA
prevails. It's right there in black and white. You can argue and
disagree all you want but it doesn't change the law.
Post by DiscoDuck
That the law you quoted pertained to highways only. You were wrong.
Highways is what we were talking about. We weren't talking about riding
in your backyard or on mountain trails. We were talking obligations
and rights about riding bikes vs. those of driving cars. Pretty much the
only place where you'll find both riding together are on highways.
Post by DiscoDuck
Or do I have to come up with examples too? I got one immediately off
the top of my head.
OK, here it goes (since I know you'll not admit you were wrong).
Cars by law are required to have insurance. Cyclists are not.
Want more?
Insurance is a legal requirement of operating a motor vehicle in a public
highway, yes. So it a helmet for a cyclist. Heavy trucks are also
subject to additional exterior lighting requirements that are required of
neither cars nor bikes.
But neither the car insurance, nor the helmet, nor the truck lighting make
any difference on how the vehicle is to be driven/operated on highways,
which is what we were talking about, and to what the "same rights and
obligatins" refers.
K.
Yes, I am DD. (Manacal laugh ). You are all doomed. I am he. HA HA
HA HA HA!!!!
smn
2006-06-08 13:53:46 UTC
Permalink
I caught that too.
Post by Király
Post by n***@yahoo.com
Thanks Nick.
I find it unbelievable that some people are bent on saying the two are
same.
The two are no more the same as skateboarders and rollerbladers.
DD
Disco, Disco, Disco. Writing under two different names pretending to be
two different people, and then responding to your own post as if you were
replying to someone else makes you look really, really bad. Politicians
have gone down in flames for doing this kind of thing.
K.
n***@yahoo.com
2006-06-08 00:28:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
You said they (cycling and driving) were the same. They are not by any
stretch of the imagination. They do not NOT have the same rights and
responsibilities.
As much as you don't want to admit it DD, yes in BC legally they do.
"...a person operating a cycle on a highway has the same rights and
duties as a driver of a vehicle."
http://www.qp.gov.bc.ca/statreg/stat/M/96318_03.htm#section183
Post by DiscoDuck
Admit when you are wrong.
Let me pipe in, here.
The MVA section 183 is talking about a specefic place . a highway.
Not everywhere else. I can go places on a bike that cars are not
allowed. You do not need a licence to operate a bike - a car you do.
Car use gasoline and are much more expensive to operate than a bike
Plain & simple. DD is right-the two do NOT have "the same rights and
duties as a driver of a vehicle."

What part of that do you disagree with?
Post by Király
Ditto.
Now is your chance to admit it.
Post by Király
--
K.
Te tetted e tettetett tettet? Te tettetett tettek tettese, te!
DiscoDuck
2006-06-08 05:23:39 UTC
Permalink
Thanks Nick for your input. Stunning as it is (and as PC as it is)
people like to spew this crap.
DD
Post by n***@yahoo.com
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
You said they (cycling and driving) were the same. They are not by any
stretch of the imagination. They do not NOT have the same rights and
responsibilities.
As much as you don't want to admit it DD, yes in BC legally they do.
"...a person operating a cycle on a highway has the same rights and
duties as a driver of a vehicle."
http://www.qp.gov.bc.ca/statreg/stat/M/96318_03.htm#section183
Post by DiscoDuck
Admit when you are wrong.
Let me pipe in, here.
The MVA section 183 is talking about a specefic place . a highway.
Not everywhere else. I can go places on a bike that cars are not
allowed. You do not need a licence to operate a bike - a car you do.
Car use gasoline and are much more expensive to operate than a bike
Plain & simple. DD is right-the two do NOT have "the same rights and
duties as a driver of a vehicle."
What part of that do you disagree with?
Post by Király
Ditto.
Now is your chance to admit it.
Post by Király
--
K.
Te tetted e tettetett tettet? Te tettetett tettek tettese, te!
n***@yahoo.com
2006-06-08 00:45:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Király
Post by DiscoDuck
You said they (cycling and driving) were the same. They are not by any
stretch of the imagination. They do not NOT have the same rights and
responsibilities.
As much as you don't want to admit it DD, yes in BC legally they do.
"...a person operating a cycle on a highway has the same rights and
duties as a driver of a vehicle."
http://www.qp.gov.bc.ca/statreg/stat/M/96318_03.htm#section183
Post by DiscoDuck
Admit when you are wrong.
Let me pipe in, here.
The MVA section 183 is talking about a specefic place . a highway.
Not everywhere else. I can go places on a bike that cars are not
allowed. You do not need a licence to operate a bike - a car you do.
Car use gasoline and are much more expensive to operate than a bike
Plain & simple. DD is right-the two do NOT have "the same rights and
duties as a driver of a vehicle."

What part of that do you disagree with?
Post by Király
Ditto.
Now is your chance to admit it.
Post by Király
--
K.
Te tetted e tettetett tettet? Te tettetett tettek tettese, te!
Király
2006-06-08 01:32:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by n***@yahoo.com
Let me pipe in, here.
The MVA section 183 is talking about a specefic place . a highway.
Not everywhere else.
It seems that you haven't checked out what "highway" means under the
MVA. It does not refer to something very specific, it is about as wide
an encompassing definition as one can get. Pay particular attention to b):

(a) every highway within the meaning of the Transportation Act,

(b) every road, street, lane or right of way designed or intended for
or used by the general public for the passage of vehicles, and

(c) every private place or passageway to which the public, for the
purpose of the parking or servicing of vehicles, has access or is
invited, but does not include an industrial road.

So if it is a road, and it is not a private industrial road,
then it is a highway upon which cyclists and drivers have the same
rights and obligations.
Post by n***@yahoo.com
I can go places on a bike that cars are not allowed.
Both drivers and cyclists have the same obligation, the obligation to
observe the bylaw that restricts a roadway to a certain type of vehicle.
Post by n***@yahoo.com
You do not need a licence to operate a bike - a car you do.
Car use gasoline and are much more expensive to operate than a bike
Plain & simple.
What do these have to do with having the same rights and obligations on
how those vehicles are to be operated on public highways?
--
K.

Te tetted e tettetett tettet? Te tettetett tettek tettese, te!
DiscoDuck
2006-06-08 07:00:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Király
Post by n***@yahoo.com
Let me pipe in, here.
The MVA section 183 is talking about a specefic place . a highway.
Not everywhere else.
It seems that you haven't checked out what "highway" means under the
MVA. It does not refer to something very specific, it is about as wide
(a) every highway within the meaning of the Transportation Act,
(b) every road, street, lane or right of way designed or intended for
or used by the general public for the passage of vehicles, and
(c) every private place or passageway to which the public, for the
purpose of the parking or servicing of vehicles, has access or is
invited, but does not include an industrial road.
So if it is a road, and it is not a private industrial road,
then it is a highway upon which cyclists and drivers have the same
rights and obligations.
Post by n***@yahoo.com
I can go places on a bike that cars are not allowed.
Both drivers and cyclists have the same obligation, the obligation to
observe the bylaw that restricts a roadway to a certain type of vehicle.
Post by n***@yahoo.com
You do not need a licence to operate a bike - a car you do.
Car use gasoline and are much more expensive to operate than a bike
Plain & simple.
What do these have to do with having the same rights and obligations on
how those vehicles are to be operated on public highways?
Bikes can also use pathways, and side roads that cars cannot.
The point is they are different - anyway you slice.
I have a right to cycle as do you. I do not have a right to drive, nor
do you.
IN addition to other difference. Therefore they do not have the same
rights and obligations.
Post by Király
--
K.
Te tetted e tettetett tettet? Te tettetett tettek tettese, te!
DiscoDuck
2006-06-06 20:42:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Jack
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by smn
So you assume that because I ride a bike I do it because I cannot afford a
car ie most cyclists pay lower taxes. That is just outright prejudice and
very ignorant.
Call it what you want, but generally it is true.
No You are being prejudicial. Lots of rich people drive bikes.
I didn't say rich people didn't rride bikes. I said "GENERALLY"
speaking. Re-read, jack.
I did not misread, but generally, STILL strikes you as prejudicial.
No it doesn't. That is aomong the stupidest things I have read.
Generally means, generally.
Post by Jack
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Jack
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by smn
Cycling is becoming more popular again with the older crowd. Look at all
the road bikes this summer. I have a higher middle class income.
We all pay for gst and pst so buying a car has nothing to do with it that is
your disposable income and we all pay the same.
The questions was who pays more in Taxes. You said bicyclists do which
is patently ridiculous. And of course the sales tax counts.
Who pays more cost as a ratio of amount paid versus damage done to
roads.
THE CYCLIST!!!
Also since federal gas taxes do not fund provincial or municipal roads
the cyclists who pays the same taxes to build roads yet does not do the
same damage to roads, or life pays proportionally more tax (sales tax,
and property taxes).
The cyclist pays the same, but the driver pays ADDITIONAL taxes, in
gas, purchaes price, etc.. How you can possible dispute that is just
ridiculous. Cyclist pay NO road tax whatsoever.
IN addition, there are more rich drivers than cyclists and they pay
more in income tax, etc.
And drivers contribute ADDITIONAL costs to the environment, the health
care system, the police, the fire, the paramedics, the insurance system,
and others.
And again, gas taxes do not pay for roads. Provincial roads are built
with
income taxes and sales taxes. Rich people pay for these roads whether
they
drive or not. Municipal taxes are paid by property taxes. Once again
rich
people pay for these roads too drivers or not. Even the little old lady
who lives in a retirement home pays taxes to build our roads.
IT is very strange that you think rich people do not drive. They do.
More of the drive than cycle. It's common sense.
Post by Jack
However cyclists pay sales tax, income tax, and property taxes. The
portion
of those taxes used to build and maintain roads (including the
environment,
the health care system, the police, the fire, the paramedics, the
insurance
system, and others) and yet do minimal damage and use only a minimal
percentage of the geography that the roads take up.
And drivers pay all that, and more as I pointed out earlier.
Post by Jack
So in summary cyclists pay more costs to the system then they cost.
The opposite is true for motorists who's gas taxes do not begin to pay
for the environment, the health care system, the police, the fire, the
paramedics, the insurance system, and others.
nonsense. There are more drivers paying more taxes. I'm sure you'll
somehow dispute that, but just take a look outside and you'll see
scores of cars for every single cyclist.
Post by Jack
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Jack
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by smn
We all pay to repair roads and everything else that goes with it when we do
not even use it. Cyclists do not require damage repair from what we do.
So, drivers depend on our handouts. We do not kill people by running into
them either. It is a might is right situation with some ignorant people
unfortuneately which is where you are coming from. Drivers are babies.
No where do I say might is right. You made a ridiculous statement
about how cyclist pay more. Plain nuts which is where YOU are coming
from.
By the way, do you know HOW many cyclists get killed by cars each year?
I thought not.
Actually proportionally there are less cyclist deaths and injuries per
year
than from motor vehicles. In other words it is safer to drive a bicycle,
although knowledgeable safe cyclist fair better than uneducated
cyclists.
Note: I am talking about education and awareness, not helmets.
HERE I agree with you. I feel you are safer on a bike. You are can
maneuver far more than in a car.
Post by Jack
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by smn
Jail terms? That would be for causing death by negligence. If someone
stole my bike I am quite sure they are not going to be killing people with
it in the getaway process. Give people stuff for free all their life like
roads and they abuse it.
How many people are killed by stolen cars a year?
Actually motor vehicle injuries and deaths people operating stolen
motor vehicles are significant. How many die by getting hit by a
stolen bicycle?
And again, that # is?
I'm sure more people are killed from stolen bicycles than stolen
skateboards. Your point?
Stolen cars cost lives!!!
So do non-stolen (more so). There are more fatalities with owned cars,
than stolen ones. Your point?
Post by Jack
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by Jack
Post by DiscoDuck
Post by smn
You think because someone pays $20,000 for a car they have more rights than
me. Twisted You do not have a clue about anything obviously.
I use to think like you until I was enlightened. Until people who
wanted a helmet law said "Why should my tax dollars pay for your head
injury". That is when I realized money was more important to those
people, than freedom of choice. So to be consistent with their
argument about their tax dollar being the almighty, I agree with them
that the more you pay-the more rights you have. I don't like it, but
that is what in fact supporters of the law are saying.
Nothing to be enlightened about. The law is the same for motorist and
cyclist.
The both have the same rights and the same privileges.
Actually that is incorrect. You do not require (nor should) a license
for cycling. A drivers license is a privilege-riding a bike is right.
In addition bikes can legally be in lots and lots and lots of places
that cars cannot. You often see signs prohibiting cars from going and
the sign will specifically exclude bikes from that law.
Bicycles can ride along paths off road etc. Cars cannot.
Although the phrase "The both have the same rights and the same
privileges." sounds "good" it is utter nonsense. The two have far more
difference than similarities. The only similarity they have, is that
they are both modes of transportation-but vastly different.
An I actually agree with you on the above.
Just once you get on the road the rights and privileges are the same.
No, again they are not. Lots of places cyclists can go that cars
cannot. PLease don't make me go take pcitures of the signs to prove
this to you.
Post by Jack
If you want to get real picky there are lots of places bicycles are not
allowed. Major highways for one. Many drive through food service joints
do
not allow cyclists to drive through for safety concerns.
I'm not being picky-I'm just falling into the crap about cyclists and
drivers being the same. They simply are not.
DiscoDuck
2006-06-02 22:54:28 UTC
Permalink
In summary-I support people cycling. I feel it is a safe an beneficial
activity-you do not as you support forcing people to wear one if they
do not wish to.
I support a socialized medical system. I feel people should be looked
after medically despite risk factor or income level-You do not as you
were bitching and complaining about your tax dollars going to waste to
some programs.

I support Freedom of choice so long as you are not hurting anyone-you
do not.
smn
2006-06-04 16:06:48 UTC
Permalink
I have never in this newsgroup supported or unsupported wearing a helmut.
You are a broken record. Try researching about it first.
You seem to bark up the wrong tree alot.
Post by DiscoDuck
In summary-I support people cycling. I feel it is a safe an beneficial
activity-you do not as you support forcing people to wear one if they
do not wish to.
I support a socialized medical system. I feel people should be looked
after medically despite risk factor or income level-You do not as you
were bitching and complaining about your tax dollars going to waste to
some programs.
I support Freedom of choice so long as you are not hurting anyone-you
do not.
DiscoDuck
2006-06-04 19:10:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by smn
I have never in this newsgroup supported or unsupported wearing a helmut.
You are a broken record. Try researching about it first.
You seem to bark up the wrong tree alot.
Research what? The right for freedom of choice when you're not hurting
anyone?
Post by smn
I have never in this newsgroup supported or unsupported wearing a helmut.
Your silence is consent in support of the law. If you're not part of
the solution, you're part of the problem.

I am barking up the right tree-perfectly.
But your (multiple) strong reactions is a clear indication of your
anger and intolerance of others. The day you recognize that and admit
it (even here) will be the first step to your recovery.

By the way, helmet us spelled helmEt (not helmUt as you have written
each time).
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...