Mayor Flattens Illegal Parking With A Tank
- Thread starter vansau
- Start date
I've never driven any sort of military vehicle, and that annoys me as well.Calbeck said:That is not a goddamned tank.
That is a goddamned APC.
-
(yeah, I useta drive a tank for a living...calling anything with armor on it a "tank" is just a peeve of mine)
Of course, if they used an actual tank, the car would have been much more damaged...if there was any fuel in the tank, it'd be all over the road, which strikes me as a pretty bad thing.
Singularly Datarific said:
Polyintrinsic said:
No offence, but guys, I'm a little offended.KAPTAINmORGANnWo4life said:
I am lithuanian, I'm not from the ussr, they invaded my country, took our freedom, and in the end, we had to fight for it.
The Nazis had set up dozens of concentration camps in my country, which had made a very big scar in our history.
Please don't call it part of the ussr or a nazi base.
OT: Arturas zuokas yra gana tupas, jis yra kaip lietuviskas boris johnson.
What annoys me is that he done this during a recession.
He's like mayor west!
I might be behind him, but I consider bikes a greater hazard than anything else on the road. The fact that they seem to be being pushed as a viable alternate methord of transport makes me shake my head in wonderment.
So many good reasons!
For 1: Cyclists don't pay road tax. Maybe this is unique to Britain, but cyclists don't pay road tax like all other road-using vehicles, yet they are still allowed to use the roads. So in other words, using the road without road tax is considered illegal, except for this one tiny class of people who are allowed to for some reason. Simple, but there it is, cyclists should pay road tax in Britain before they are allowed to go out.
For 2: Cyclists don't have to take a test to go out on the roads. Cyclists don't have to prove they've learned the rules of the road. Cyclists don't have to show someone that they are competent on their bikes, they just have to own a bike. That is the requirement for going out on the roads. I repeat the above, all other forms of transportation need to prove they have a degree of competence with their vehicle, cyclists do not, which means that you have bad drivers on the road, plain and simple. Cyclists should be required to have a licence.
For 3: Even if they fulfilled all the above requirements, I'd still come rocketing back to my main point, Cyclists are a hazard to other drivers, and also to pedestrians. They often don't have cycle lanes to go in, but they simply cycle on the side of the road, meaning that people have to go around them, however, I have yet to see a cyclist whow as genuinely as far over as he should have been, occupying a more 'middilng' road position, but still going barely ten miles an hour if they're going fast. If I drove my car or motorbike at ten miles per hour down any road, I would be stopped and rightfully so for being a hazard. It forces drivers to go around them, and unless you're on a dual carriageway then that means that in order to pass a cyclist you have to pull out into the oncoming lane, which is really fucking dangerous.
There are of course more downsides to having a form of human powered two wheeled transportation allowed to occupy the same road as one ton four wheeled engine powered machines capable of going faster than ten miles per hour, but I think you get the point. Cyclists are dangerous, and I support any and all opportunities to rid them from all streets everywhere. The bicycle is a pointless form of transport in this modern age, suitable only for people who are massive cunts or who practice it for some form of sporting competitions.
So many good reasons!
For 1: Cyclists don't pay road tax. Maybe this is unique to Britain, but cyclists don't pay road tax like all other road-using vehicles, yet they are still allowed to use the roads. So in other words, using the road without road tax is considered illegal, except for this one tiny class of people who are allowed to for some reason. Simple, but there it is, cyclists should pay road tax in Britain before they are allowed to go out.
For 2: Cyclists don't have to take a test to go out on the roads. Cyclists don't have to prove they've learned the rules of the road. Cyclists don't have to show someone that they are competent on their bikes, they just have to own a bike. That is the requirement for going out on the roads. I repeat the above, all other forms of transportation need to prove they have a degree of competence with their vehicle, cyclists do not, which means that you have bad drivers on the road, plain and simple. Cyclists should be required to have a licence.
For 3: Even if they fulfilled all the above requirements, I'd still come rocketing back to my main point, Cyclists are a hazard to other drivers, and also to pedestrians. They often don't have cycle lanes to go in, but they simply cycle on the side of the road, meaning that people have to go around them, however, I have yet to see a cyclist whow as genuinely as far over as he should have been, occupying a more 'middilng' road position, but still going barely ten miles an hour if they're going fast. If I drove my car or motorbike at ten miles per hour down any road, I would be stopped and rightfully so for being a hazard. It forces drivers to go around them, and unless you're on a dual carriageway then that means that in order to pass a cyclist you have to pull out into the oncoming lane, which is really fucking dangerous.
There are of course more downsides to having a form of human powered two wheeled transportation allowed to occupy the same road as one ton four wheeled engine powered machines capable of going faster than ten miles per hour, but I think you get the point. Cyclists are dangerous, and I support any and all opportunities to rid them from all streets everywhere. The bicycle is a pointless form of transport in this modern age, suitable only for people who are massive cunts or who practice it for some form of sporting competitions.
I'm first and foremost a cyclist, and a motorist after that.MelasZepheos said:
1. You have a point with regards to not having to pay a road tax, however the health and environmental benefits of a cyclist as compared to a motorist more than makes up for this, especially considering that a bike will not cause as much wear and tear on a road surface, and therefore not as much maintenance is required due to them.
2. Yes you are correct, cyclists do not need to pass a test, however this does not mean that cyclists on the roads are incompetent. You haven't said whether you have been a cyclist, however from the content of your post I can assume you are most certainly not. As such, you cannot grasp the difficulty of riding with traffic. Very nearly all of the cyclists on the roads are highly competent, because if they weren't, they would be dead. Plain and simple. Also, license tests mean there are no bad drivers on the roads? You cannot be serious. Many drivers will duck and weave through traffic to get 5 meters ahead of their previous position, even in heavy traffic, will constantly travel above the legal speed limit, and generally do whatever they want.
3. The statement that cyclists are dangerous and that cars are safe is laughable. If we hit a car, you get a dent. If we hit a pedestrian, they are injured, unless you get very unfortunate circumstances and they die. I have heard of one death due to a cyclist hitting a pedestrian. In my life. If your one ton machine hits us at a normal speed, we will most probably die. If you hit a pedestrian, they will most probably die. I'll leave you to figure out which sounds more dangerous...
All it would take for you to see things more clearly is for you to spend some time on a bike in traffic. Then you would appreciate what it's like, and behave more accordingly.
This man has discovered the secret of good politics:
If you have a problem: Run it over in a tank.
If you have a problem: Run it over in a tank.
Well they did take the crushed car away, and the mayor himself seemed to be sweeping up the glass afterwards!CAMDAWG said:
1. Cyclists cause very little damage to the road or polution to the enviroment. They also arn't the only vehcles that are exempt from road tax. Agricultural vehcles (tractors, etc) are exempt. Also disabled drivers, electric cars, and mobility scooters can all use the road while having a majorly discounted road tax.MelasZepheos said:
2. Cyclists test for going on the road is "don't die", I'd argue there are many, MANY more bad drivers then cyclists on the roads. The worst often seem to be taxi drivers and van drivers... people that drive for a living, and really should be forced to take the advanced driving test.
3. Legally, bikes are meant to be on the road, not the pavement. Speed wise, you'll find an average bike rider will maintain a steady 20 miles an hour unless up an steep hill. Mostly in my experience cyclists are sat close enough to the pavement that I can pass them without going too far into the other side of the road, if at all, certainly not a hazard, or do you live somewhere that has especially small roads?
In this modern age, we need more people riding bikes rather then driving to work that is only 5 miles down the road. Burning precious fossil fuels and adding to the horrific morning traffic.
Kinda surprised how many people don't recognize a BTR-60 right off the bat... Still...
Apparently the whole thing was staged, meaning all that's really happened, is the mayors spent taxpayer's money on buying a pretty decent car to destroy. Oh, and I'm pretty sure near invisible broken glass on the cycle route is much safer than some big ol' easily avoidable car.
Apparently the whole thing was staged, meaning all that's really happened, is the mayors spent taxpayer's money on buying a pretty decent car to destroy. Oh, and I'm pretty sure near invisible broken glass on the cycle route is much safer than some big ol' easily avoidable car.
That is fairly cool.
Of course I hope that he's chopping bikes in half when the cyclists ride on the pavement (sidewalk for the US folk) or running red lights.
Wouldn't want any double standards now.
Of course I hope that he's chopping bikes in half when the cyclists ride on the pavement (sidewalk for the US folk) or running red lights.
Wouldn't want any double standards now.
