Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Entirely unashamed anti car propaganda, and the more the better.

teuchter said:
www.nationwidevehiclecontracts.co.uk

Minor Damage Insurance | Nationwide Vehicle Contracts

Help protect your lease vehicle from minor damage, such as small scratches, scuffs and dents with SMART Insurance and Tyre and Alloy Insurance. Get a quote now.
www.nationwidevehiclecontracts.co.uk www.nationwidevehiclecontracts.co.uk

Pay for some insurance. The vehicle is about a million times more likely to be damaged by another motor vehicle or a pigeon or something than a reckless cyclist.

If you don't like the real cost of running a private vehicle, lobby your MP and others for a less car dependent society. Post on threads like this one.
Click to expand...
The cyclist could, and indeed should, get some insurance as well, which would be the fairest thing all around.

The cost of running a vehicle has fuck all to do with being forced to pay for something that was somebody else's fault due to negiglence. If a pair of adults are playing drunken street baseball right outside your house (houses of course costing much more to buy or rent, as well as to mantain than cars), and one of them puts one of your windows through with the ball, would you take the same attitude as that you suggest car drivers should adopt? The cunting fuck you would.

And I wonder if you and a few others here would be so flippant about 'minor costs' and trival damage if someone went and scratched a big cock, or wrote 'all cyclists are cunts' on the frame of your new 1.5k bike. Just as a scratch, right?

Do as I say, not as I do. Every. Single. Fucking. Time.
 
Last edited:
Interesting that you think that smashing a house window through is minor cosmetic damage on a par with a scuff on some car paintwork.

Also interesting that you think that drunken baseball players would stick around and offer to pay for damage!

Sometimes I wonder whether some people on this thread live in the real world or not.
 
T & P said:
The cyclist could, and indeed should, get some insurance as well, which would be the fairest thing all around.

The cost of running a vehicle has fuck all to do with being forced to pay for something that was somebody else's fault due to negiglence. If a pair of adults are playing drunken street baseball right outside your house (houses of course costing much more to buy or rent, as well as to mantain than cars), and one of them puts one of your windows through with the ball, would you take the same attitude as that you suggest car drivers should adopt? The cunting fuck you would.

And I wonder if you and a few others here would be so flippant about 'minor costs' and trival damage if someone went and scratched a big cock, or wrote 'all cyclists are cunts' on the frame of your new 1.5k bike. Just as a scratch, right?

Do as I say, not as I do. Every. Single. Fucking. Time.
Click to expand...
cYcLiStS sHoUlD hAvE tO hAvE iNsUrAnCe, LiCeNsE pLaTeS aNd PaY rOaD tAx!!111!!!!!11 🤪
 
I don’t know about Irish roads but if that is a cycle lane it doesn’t look like one (note how the previous one was wider, red and had bike symbols). Seems like a case of shit cycle facilities being worse than none. The cyclist could have realised this and not attempted to move up the inside of the van there - he’s a lycra warrior so must have known it was ill-advised but relied on his entitlement to protect him.
 
Last edited:
platinumsage said:
I don’t know about Irish roads but if that is a cycle lane it doesn’t look like one (note how the previous one was wider, red and had bike symbols). Seems like a case of shite cycle facilities being worse than none. The cyclist could have realised this and not attempted to move up the inside of the van there - he’s a lycra warrior so must have known it was ill-advised but relied on his entitlement to protect him.
Click to expand...
Seriously - hand in your license, you an obvious danger.

You’d think van drivers would be a bit more careful in case they cause three figure sums of damage!
 
edcraw said:
You’d think van drivers would be a bit more careful in case they cause three figure sums of damage!
Click to expand...

People make mistakes. This is why we have road markings and stuff, but they can only do so much, especially if they’re badly designed. It’s also why we have cycling proficiency courses, perhaps the guy in the video should sign up for one.
 
platinumsage said:
People make mistakes. This is why we have road markings and stuff, but they can only do so much, especially if they’re badly designed. It’s also why we have cycling proficiency courses, perhaps the guy in the video should sign up for one.
Click to expand...
Yep - too many shit drivers. Guess we either have segregated cycle routes or we ban cars. Decisions decisions…
 
edcraw said:
Yep - too many shit drivers. Guess we either have segregated cycle routes or we ban cars. Decisions decisions…
Click to expand...

As you know, we’re both in favour of segregated cycle routes, and both against banning cars, so i’m not sure this is quite the argumentative point you think it is.
 
edcraw said:
cYcLiStS sHoUlD hAvE tO hAvE iNsUrAnCe, LiCeNsE pLaTeS aNd PaY rOaD tAx!!111!!!!!11 🤪
Click to expand...
You do realise that childish upper case/ lower case childish thing you keep doing makes look as bright as Donald Trump with a hangover, right?

Apart from that, you conveniently fail to address the issue at hand. Can you kindly state now what would you feel should happen if a couple of drunken adults happened to be hitting a ball with a bat right outside your gaff and eventually one of them broke your window? Would you want them to pay for it on principle, or shrug your shoulders and think ‘I pay thousands a year on rent/ mortgage payments, so I shouldn’t moan about having to pay a few hundred quid for damage that wasn’t my fault and was caused by completely avoidable reckless behaviour by others’?

Please state your position on that before you engage me on anything else.
 
teuchter said:
Interesting that you think that smashing a house window through is minor cosmetic damage on a par with a scuff on some car paintwork.

Also interesting that you think that drunken baseball players would stick around and offer to pay for damage!

Sometimes I wonder whether some people on this thread live in the real world or not.
Click to expand...
Interesting that you’re so willing to play dumb when it suits you.

But since you are, let’s bite and put it in very simple terms.

Person A is leasing a car that they’ve kept in perfect condition, and one day a reckless cyclist acting in an undeniably unacceptable manner crashes into the car, and causes damage to the bodywork that will costly several hundred quid to set right.

Person B is renting a home that they’ve kept in perfect condition, and one day a reckless fool kicking a ball around where they shouldn’t breaks a window, which will costly several hundred quid to set right.

Would you please clarify now why person A should be viewed any differently to person B?
 
T & P said:
Interesting that you’re so willing to play dumb when it suits you.

But since you are, let’s bite and put it in very simple terms.

Person A is leasing a car that they’ve kept in perfect condition, and one day a reckless cyclist acting in an undeniably unacceptable manner crashes into the car, and causes damage to the bodywork that will costly several hundred quid to set right.

Person B is renting a home that they’ve kept in perfect condition, and one day a reckless fool kicking a ball around where they shouldn’t breaks a window, which will costly several hundred quid to set right.

Would you please clarify now why person A should be viewed any differently to person B?
Click to expand...
Don't see any particular reason why they should be viewed differently. Why do you ask?
 
T & P said:
Interesting that you’re so willing to play dumb when it suits you.

But since you are, let’s bite and put it in very simple terms.

Person A is leasing a car that they’ve kept in perfect condition, and one day a reckless cyclist acting in an undeniably unacceptable manner crashes into the car, and causes damage to the bodywork that will costly several hundred quid to set right.

Person B is renting a home that they’ve kept in perfect condition, and one day a reckless fool kicking a ball around where they shouldn’t breaks a window, which will costly several hundred quid to set right.

Would you please clarify now why person A should be viewed any differently to person B?
Click to expand...
Cars != Houses
 
CyclingMikey is great. Note how he only tackles people who actually break the law, and doesn’t rant screechily at drivers who safely execute legal manoeuvres.
 
Stupid cyclist screeching as this driver safely executed a legal manoeuvre. Hope the lorry didn’t get scratched.

 
edcraw said:
T&P really giving Platinumsage a run for their money for weirdest poster of the thread.

Compulsory insurance for ALL street baseball players!!??!!
Click to expand...
You're not fooling anyone with your attempts at doging the questions put to you.

The hypocrisy and bitterness consistently displayed by you and the other anti-car Talibans in here is fantastically amusing. And the more you continue to dodge questions, the more cringeworthily embarrassing it gets. So please, continue doing so :D
 
Three types of posters in this thread - those that see the danger caused by cars and want to do something about it, those that see the danger caused by cars and are fine with it and Spymaster who just posts photos of his mum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Yossarian
Entirely unashamed ant car propaganda
Replies
7
Views
438
dessiato
dessiato
ska invita
Car diagnostic computer scanners
Replies
8
Views
351
mauvais
mauvais
A
First car / how do people afford cars when in low paid work?
2
Replies
59
Views
1K
Chz
Chz
kebabking
Car buying websites?
2
Replies
38
Views
1K
colacubes
colacubes
danny la rouge
Car insurance rocketing
2 3 4
Replies
115
Views
4K
Puddy_Tat
Puddy_Tat
Back
Top Bottom