We have been told many times cyclists MUST use cycle paths, even to the extent of motorists using their subsidised vehicles as weapons against cyclists who chose to ride on roads they have a RIGHT to use.
Surely this means motorvehicleists MUST you motorways where provided and must justify not using the motorway even if the alternative route is more convenient.

Mersey tunnels are a good example, there is no reason for private cars to use the Birkenhead tunnel when the Wallasey tunnel is available.

Mike Collins <cmike8828@gmail.com> wrote:

> We have been told many times cyclists MUST use cycle paths, even to the
> extent of motorists using their subsidised vehicles as weapons against
> cyclists who chose to ride on roads they have a RIGHT to use.

> Surely this means motorvehicleists MUST you motorways where provided and
> must justify not using the motorway even if the alternative route is more convenient.

> Mersey tunnels are a good example, there is no reason for private cars to
> use the Birkenhead tunnel when the Wallasey tunnel is available.
Take more water with it.

--
Spike

On 07/02/2023 05:02 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
>
> We have been told many times cyclists MUST use cycle paths, even to the extent of motorists using their subsidised vehicles as weapons against cyclists who chose to ride on roads they have a RIGHT to use.
> Surely this means motorvehicleists MUST you motorways where provided and must justify not using the motorway even if the alternative route is more convenient.
>
> Mersey tunnels are a good example, there is no reason for private cars to use the Birkenhead tunnel when the Wallasey tunnel is available.

You really aren't quite right in the head, are you?

On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 17:11:17 UTC, JNugent wrote:
> On 07/02/2023 05:02 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
> >
> > We have been told many times cyclists MUST use cycle paths, even to the extent of motorists using their subsidised vehicles as weapons against cyclists who chose to ride on roads they have a RIGHT to use.
> > Surely this means motorvehicleists MUST you motorways where provided and must justify not using the motorway even if the alternative route is more convenient.
> >
> > Mersey tunnels are a good example, there is no reason for private cars to use the Birkenhead tunnel when the Wallasey tunnel is available.
> You really aren't quite right in the head, are you?

So you are unable to provide any reason to challenge the statement.

On 07/02/2023 07:00 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
> On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 17:11:17 UTC, JNugent wrote:
>> On 07/02/2023 05:02 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
>>>
>>> We have been told many times cyclists MUST use cycle paths, even to the extent of motorists using their subsidised vehicles as weapons against cyclists who chose to ride on roads they have a RIGHT to use.
>>> Surely this means motorvehicleists MUST you motorways where provided and must justify not using the motorway even if the alternative route is more convenient.
>>>
>>> Mersey tunnels are a good example, there is no reason for private cars to use the Birkenhead tunnel when the Wallasey tunnel is available.
>> You really aren't quite right in the head, are you?
>
> So you are unable to provide any reason to challenge the statement.

It was a question.

And why would I wish to challenge my own question?

On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 5:02:27 PM UTC, Mike Collins wrote:
QUOTE:
> Surely this means motorvehicleists MUST you motorways where provided and must justify not using the motorway even if the alternative route is more convenient. ENDS

What about learner drivers?

On Wednesday, 8 February 2023 at 06:15:21 UTC, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 5:02:27 PM UTC, Mike Collins wrote:
> QUOTE:
> > Surely this means motorvehicleists MUST you motorways where provided and must justify not using the motorway even if the alternative route is more convenient. ENDS
>
> What about learner drivers?

In NugentSpikeworld learner drivers are cyclists and therefore cannot use motorways. I never said motor vehicles can only use motorways.

On 08/02/2023 06:15 am, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 5:02:27 PM UTC, Mike Collins wrote:

> QUOTE:
>> Surely this means motorvehicleists MUST you motorways where provided and must justify not using the motorway even if the alternative route is more convenient. ENDS

> What about learner drivers?

And moped-riders?

What about E-fairy-bikes?

You (Collins) have already stated that they are motor vehicles.

On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 3:30:46 PM UTC, Mike Collins wrote:

> In NugentSpikeworld learner drivers are cyclists and therefore cannot use motorways. I never said motor vehicles can only use motorways.

They're both in killfiles so I have no idea what garbage they post.
So learner car drivers are actually cycling instead?
Most bizarre - thank goodness I never see it.

On 08/02/2023 04:40 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 3:30:46 PM UTC, Mike Collins wrote:

>> In NugentSpikeworld learner drivers are cyclists and therefore cannot use motorways. I never said motor vehicles can only use motorways.

> They're both in killfiles so I have no idea what garbage they post.

Hahahaha!

Ah yes... the (no doubt patented) Mason Google Groups Killfile...

So effective... I mean, you NEVER post in response to posters you claim
to have killfiled, do you?

Well, except for when you do exactly that, of course.

> So learner car drivers are actually cycling instead?
> Most bizarre - thank goodness I never see it.

You did see it. Collins made it up, as he does with so much of the...
stuff... he posts.

On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 7:00:24 PM UTC, Mike Collins wrote:

> So you are unable to provide any reason to challenge the statement.

Invisible post = troll garbage.
No need to let me know what the OP said.

Just think of all of that time I've saved in not reading trash over 13 years.