"Touch my car again & I'll run you over": Taxi driver blocking cycle lane tells cyclist; Tory MP argues cycling spending shouldn't be government priority; Our fan mail; Kaitlin Armstrong trial date set; UK's busiest cycle crossing? + more on the live blog

Basic logic. They're incapable of it.

Where did you get your statistics from?

Rakia wrote:

Well let's see about that. The vast majority of cyclists are middle class white men. 

Yes, the majority of cyclists prepared to cycle on the roads as they currenty exist are middle aged white men.

Where extensive cycle networks exist this shifts to a much wider section of society.

So who does active travel spending benefit? the people who are currently cycling despite lack of provision, or the ones who have been intimidated off the roads by the (percieved?) hostile environment?

.

He doesn't do manners.

.

He is ALWAYS right, so it's OK for him to abuse others.

.

Do you like defending racists. You always seems to do it when he appears back on here. So as you do defend them I'm going to believe you are a racist.

Why is it you only worry about one poster who you claim abuses others? Do you not notice the other posters?
I thought you believed in free speech?

Hi again Nige!

Given that cycling has a ROI* OF 38:1 in just health related benefits, your usual level of bollox is even further off the mark

Investing 1bn in cycling would generate 38bn health saving.  Investing 1bn in health wouldn't have quite the same effect now would it.  Even your limited displayed intelligence can work that out  

*https://cyclingfallacies.com/en/23/it%E2%80%99s-too-expensive-to-provide...

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Hi again Nige!

Given that cycling has a ROI* OF 38:1 in just health related benefits, your usual level of bollox is even further off the mark

Investing 1bn in cycling would generate 38bn health saving.  Investing 1bn in health wouldn't have quite the same effect now would it.  Even your limited displayed intelligence can work that out  

 

*https://cyclingfallacies.com/en/23/it%E2%80%99s-too-expensive-to-provide...

Haha, thanks for the chuckle. With figures like that, you must believe HS2 will generate trillions for UK PLC.

With your fake ROI of 38-to-1 it begs the question: why bother doing anything else? Just spend £1tn a year on cycle paths and in year 2 you'll have £38tn to spend on cycle paths. In year 3, over a quadrillion. Crikey, by year 10 you'd have generated £centillions (that's a big number) in wealth.

Best write to the world's leading economists and let them know. Humanity is saved.

I am surprised you haven't resorted to questioning the level of their education yet.

Rakia wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Hi again Nige!

Given that cycling has a ROI* OF 38:1 in just health related benefits, your usual level of bollox is even further off the mark

Investing 1bn in cycling would generate 38bn health saving.  Investing 1bn in health wouldn't have quite the same effect now would it.  Even your limited displayed intelligence can work that out  

 

*https://cyclingfallacies.com/en/23/it%E2%80%99s-too-expensive-to-provide...

Haha, thanks for the chuckle. With figures like that, you must believe HS2 will generate trillions for UK PLC.

With your fake ROI of 38-to-1 it begs the question: why bother doing anything else? Just spend £1tn a year on cycle paths and in year 2 you'll have £38tn to spend on cycle paths. In year 3, over a quadrillion. Crikey, by year 10 you'd have generated £centillions (that's a big number) in wealth.

Best write to the world's leading economists and let them know. Humanity is saved.

love the citation free "dissection" you did there Nige! Unluckily for you and your proven inability to parse very simple sentences,  money saved  isn't the same as money created. 
Whoops. Carry on troll. Or fuck off.  Yeah. Fuck off. 

nosferatu1001 wrote:

love the citation free "dissection" you did there Nige! Unluckily for you and your proven inability to parse very simple sentences,  money saved  isn't the same as money created. 
Whoops. Carry on troll. Or fuck off.  Yeah. Fuck off. 

Are you telling me you can't reinvest a saved or extended life in building cycling infrastructure?!

Good point and a new argument - we can't build cycling infra because if all these lives are being saved we'll have a population catastrophe within a week.

Or is that balanced by the thousands of pedestrians they'll run over every year?

Ah, I see the problem here. You've moved outside your normal field of study (trying to work out if people with penises are blokes or women) into the grown up world of accountancy definitions.

ROI stands "Return on investment", and is a measure of surplus value created by investing money. It has nothing to do with saving money. You stated, without limit, that cycling has a net ROI of 3800%. Your words, not mine.

If you're prepared to take that back, I will forgive your petulent language.

Rakia wrote:

Ah, I see the problem here. You've moved outside your normal field of study (trying to work out if people with penises are blokes or women) into the grown up world of accountancy definitions.

ROI stands "Return on investment", and is a measure of surplus value created by investing money. It has nothing to do with saving money. You stated, without limit, that cycling has a net ROI of 3800%. Your words, not mine.

If you're prepared to take that back, I will forgive your petulent language.

oh hi again definitely a banned poster, given you're referencing a very old thread 😊 seems to rile you that trans women are women, but luckily, no one cares what you think. 
 

Now, I didn't state that. At all. You could have quoted but then your fuckery would have been rather more obvious.  What I said, and is backed up by an actual citation unlike your factually incorrect mere opinion, is that it has a ROI of 38:1 in HEALTHCARE SAVINGS.  Now, I know your fortė is clearly not reading all of a sentence, but I figured even you would have managed to get the whole way through that, so it's either incompetence or malice.  Given your posting history of being a racist, transphobic idiot, hanlons razor suggests it's the latter.  
 

so not taking anything back.  Restating for the hard of thinking such as yourself. 
bye bye baby troll 

Rakia wrote:

With your fake ROI of 38-to-1 it begs the question: why bother doing anything else? Just spend £1tn a year on cycle paths and in year 2 you'll have £38tn to spend on cycle paths. In year 3, over a quadrillion. Crikey, by year 10 you'd have generated £centillions (that's a big number) in wealth.

Best write to the world's leading economists and let them know. Humanity is saved.

Sadly this won't be possible as they've all quit for a different line of work. http://www.murderousmaths.co.uk/elvis.htm

Was you born an F-wit or did you have to put in years of practice ?

Well he seems to put hours of practice in on here every day, so I'd assume the f-wittery is the result of long hard graft.

If we are just going to say stupid ideas, how about:

Doubling "road tax"?

Use half the extra money raised to pay for really good cycling and walking infrastructure and the other half to pay walkists and cyclers to use said infrastructure.

Any upset car owners need only replace a proportion of their car use with active transport to get some of their money back.

Annual pothole filling budget is £1bn so £9.9bn over multiple years doesn't seem like a lot to spend, particularly when it has been shown time and again that getting people moved onto active travel options takes load off other services (eg NHS), normally delivering a net saving to the country.

But hey, let's label active travel as a jolly and 'virtue signalling', and use it to promote fracking. Brilliant.

Rakia wrote:

This would keep everyone happy, and would result in economic growth and prosperity for all.

Got anything to support this highly spurious claim?

I for one can think of a few people who wouldn't appreciate this outcome: the people who experience tremors and fear their houses falling down and the people in the generations down the line who will have to live with the climate change resulting from using fracked fuels. And that's not to mention the damage caused to the environment when harmful chemicals end up in the watercourse.

Not just that mate, we are a small island and we often get our drinking water from underground aquifers, contaminating one of those with a mistake could leave us quite thirsty.

Anyone who is banned from a forum but returns with a different username is not only a troll but a mentally unstable fuckwit.

Rakia wrote:

Re: profligate cycling spending. The question is this: "Do you want real spending or woke spending"?

Splurging the thick end of £10bn on cycling and walking jollies is all very well in times of prosperity, but we have hundreds of billions to pay back courtesy of handouts to the furlough crowd.

Because of this, we need to tighten our belts (difficult for some people here admittedly), and priorise spending on health, education and pensions, not virtue signalling projects with zero net benefit.

I would suggest a good way to fund cycling would be to get fracking restarted . You could then have a special fund set up from levies generated to pay for new paths and the like. This would keep everyone happy, and would result in economic growth and prosperity for all.

Complete Trolling nonsense.  Please go away.  Thank you.

Might have guessed it was you again talking complete and utter b*llocks. Go away.

O'rly

I think we should look first at the new roads budget, given the climate emergency and the governments commitments to reduce carbon emissions, providing additional road capacity (which will soon be filled up) will only lead to increased emissions.

The 5 year old already pays for the roads through general taxation.

Every time he buys a comic, a happy meal, sweets etc...

Exactly. Some might say it's not much, but it's the proportion that is considered 'fair' as reflected in UK law.