Call for bicycles to be licensed
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Wiltshire gang jailed for 'half UK's caravan thefts'
Next: Compare the Market dot com are pants.
From: ®i©ardo on 12 Mar 2010 16:13 On 12/03/2010 17:12, Biggles wrote: > On 12/03/2010 15:48, JMS wrote: >> On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 00:01:08 +0000, Biggles >> <news(a)packaging.the-shillings.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: >> >>> Marie wrote: >>>> Looks like the IOM might have the right idea. >>>> >>>> ALL bicycles ridden by those over 16 should be licenced, Castletown >>>> Commissioners believe. >>>> >>>> See >>>> >>>> http://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/Call-for-bicycles-to-be.6132083.jp >>>> >>>> Marie >>> >>> Can't see any logical reason why it shouldn't apply to all bicycles, not >>> just those ridden by over 16s. Ah, but that might inconvenience the >>> narrow-minded individuals proposing the legislation? >>> >>> Still, forcing all tax payers to subsidise each bicycle licence to the >>> tune of �20 sounds like fun. >>> >> >> >> It does not actually say that. >> >> I think that is should be totally self financing. >> >> If it costs 30 quid per cycle - then that should be the cost of the >> licence. >> > The text of the web page which the posted link referred to DOES actually > say that: > > 'They should have to have a licence. If I have a road licence to drive > my car, why shouldn't they? It should be �10 a go.' > > Commissioner Richard Ronan said: 'It will cost �30 to administer, but it > is still worthwhile.' > > Owners of cars in the lowest emissions group pay nothing for their > vehicle licence - i.e. they don't have to cover the admin costs - so I > don't see how it can be argued that owners of cycles should have to > cover the full cost of administration. > > Biggles Yes, but they are more than heavily subsidised by the "spite" tax on 4x4 vehicles. -- Moving things in still pictures
From: ®i©ardo on 12 Mar 2010 16:15 On 10/03/2010 16:03, Peter Grange wrote: > On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 13:41:22 GMT, "Mrcheerful"<nbkm57(a)hotmail.co.uk> > wrote: > >> Nick Finnigan wrote: >>> Mrcheerful wrote: >>>> Big Les Wade wrote: >>>>> Mrcheerful<nbkm57(a)hotmail.co.uk> posted >>>>>> licencing enables the vehicle and thence (in theory) the driver to >>>>>> be identified, the natural fear of apprehension will improve the >>>>>> quality of driving/riding. >>>>> Isn't it the number plate that does that? >>>> >>>> yes, I believe they are also known as licence plates >>> >>> No, they are registration plates, paid for once per vehicle. >>> Vehicle licences are an annual tax. >> >> dvla also call them licence plates, as do thousands of suppliers that >> advertise them for sale. it is identifying the vehicle that is important, >> not collecting tax on it. > > I'm sure Mr Darling doesn't see it that way. That's why he employs > people to maintain a database, indexed by registration mark, of > vehicles which have a current tax disc, then employs chaps to sit by > the side of the road to check the database is accurate. LOL! -- Moving things in still pictures
From: ®i©ardo on 12 Mar 2010 16:21 On 12/03/2010 19:52, Brimstone wrote: > > > "Ian Smith" <ian(a)astounding.org.uk> wrote in message > news:slrnhpkv21.42h.ian(a)acheron.astounding.org.uk... >> On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 16:07:56 -0000, Brimstone <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> "Ian Smith" <ian(a)astounding.org.uk> wrote in message >>> news:slrnhpkguo.3df.ian(a)acheron.astounding.org.uk... >>> > On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 11:39:26 GMT, Mrcheerful <nbkm57(a)hotmail.co.uk> >>> > wrote: >>> >> Brimstone wrote: >>> >> > "The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)no-spam-blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in >>> >> > message news:z1bmn.49446$Ym4.36200(a)text.news.virginmedia.com... >>> >> >> Shaun wrote: >>> >> > >>> >> >>> You are aware that everybody who pays taxes funds the roads >>> and >> >>> the >>> >> >>> only people who have any right to use the highway are >>> pedestrians, >>> >> >>> horse rider and cyclists ? >>> >> >> >>> >> >> More old bollox. Cyclists do not pay a 'specific' tax to use the >>> >> >> roads fuckwit - motorists do. >>> >> >> >>> >> > Let me rephrase that for you. Most road users do not pay a >> > >>> 'specific' >>> >> > tax to use the roads fuckwit - motorists are the only ones that do. >>> >> > >>> >> > So to clarify, pedestrians, horse riders/drivers, herders and >> >>> > drovers >>> >> > of animals, cycle riders, operators/drivers of historic vehicles >>> >> > constructed before 1 January 1973, electric vehicles, mowing >>> >> > machines, steam-powered vehicles, agricultural, horticultural and >>> >> > forestry vehicles and vehicles used by disabled drivers do not >>> pay a >>> >> > specific tax to use the roads. Which just leaves the exception >>> to >> > the >>> >> > rule, normal everyday motorists. The rule being that no one pays a >>> >> > specific tax to use the public highway. >>> >> >>> >> you forgot one: cars that emit less than 100g of co2 per km. (or >>> >> something >>> >> like that) >>> > >>> > Don't fire engines based at an airport also get away without paying >>> > VED? >>> > >>> VED is only payable by vehicles using the public highway and >>> airfields are >>> private property. How are such fire appliances "getting away with it"? >> >> They don't pay VED even if they do travel on public highways. Or, >> conversely, they can travel on the public highway even if they have >> not paid VED. >> > As can farm vehicles, but only over short distances between one site and > another. (The definition of "short" varies between the individual farmer > and the authorities.) > > ....or where his fields are. -- Moving things in still pictures
From: Jim A on 12 Mar 2010 16:40 �i�ardo wrote: > On 12/03/2010 17:12, Biggles wrote: >> On 12/03/2010 15:48, JMS wrote: >>> On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 00:01:08 +0000, Biggles >>> <news(a)packaging.the-shillings.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>>> Marie wrote: >>>>> Looks like the IOM might have the right idea. >>>>> >>>>> ALL bicycles ridden by those over 16 should be licenced, Castletown >>>>> Commissioners believe. >>>>> >>>>> See >>>>> >>>>> http://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/Call-for-bicycles-to-be.6132083.jp >>>>> >>>>> Marie >>>> >>>> Can't see any logical reason why it shouldn't apply to all bicycles, >>>> not >>>> just those ridden by over 16s. Ah, but that might inconvenience the >>>> narrow-minded individuals proposing the legislation? >>>> >>>> Still, forcing all tax payers to subsidise each bicycle licence to the >>>> tune of �20 sounds like fun. >>>> >>> >>> >>> It does not actually say that. >>> >>> I think that is should be totally self financing. >>> >>> If it costs 30 quid per cycle - then that should be the cost of the >>> licence. >>> >> The text of the web page which the posted link referred to DOES actually >> say that: >> >> 'They should have to have a licence. If I have a road licence to drive >> my car, why shouldn't they? It should be �10 a go.' >> >> Commissioner Richard Ronan said: 'It will cost �30 to administer, but it >> is still worthwhile.' >> >> Owners of cars in the lowest emissions group pay nothing for their >> vehicle licence - i.e. they don't have to cover the admin costs - so I >> don't see how it can be argued that owners of cycles should have to >> cover the full cost of administration. >> >> Biggles > > Yes, but they are more than heavily subsidised by the "spite" tax on 4x4 > vehicles. I can't see much point in the higher VED for gas guzzlers, unless it's simply as you say a spite thing. The cost of just buying and fuelling one would put me off (if I were ever inclined which of course I'm not). -- www.slowbicyclemovement.org - enjoy the ride
From: Biggles on 12 Mar 2010 17:21
�i�ardo wrote: > On 12/03/2010 17:12, Biggles wrote: >> On 12/03/2010 15:48, JMS wrote: >>> On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 00:01:08 +0000, Biggles >>> <news(a)packaging.the-shillings.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>>> Marie wrote: >>>>> Looks like the IOM might have the right idea. >>>>> >>>>> ALL bicycles ridden by those over 16 should be licenced, Castletown >>>>> Commissioners believe. >>>>> >>>>> See >>>>> >>>>> http://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/Call-for-bicycles-to-be.6132083.jp >>>>> >>>>> Marie >>>> >>>> Can't see any logical reason why it shouldn't apply to all bicycles, >>>> not >>>> just those ridden by over 16s. Ah, but that might inconvenience the >>>> narrow-minded individuals proposing the legislation? >>>> >>>> Still, forcing all tax payers to subsidise each bicycle licence to the >>>> tune of �20 sounds like fun. >>>> >>> >>> >>> It does not actually say that. >>> >>> I think that is should be totally self financing. >>> >>> If it costs 30 quid per cycle - then that should be the cost of the >>> licence. >>> >> The text of the web page which the posted link referred to DOES actually >> say that: >> >> 'They should have to have a licence. If I have a road licence to drive >> my car, why shouldn't they? It should be �10 a go.' >> >> Commissioner Richard Ronan said: 'It will cost �30 to administer, but it >> is still worthwhile.' >> >> Owners of cars in the lowest emissions group pay nothing for their >> vehicle licence - i.e. they don't have to cover the admin costs - so I >> don't see how it can be argued that owners of cycles should have to >> cover the full cost of administration. >> >> Biggles > > Yes, but they are more than heavily subsidised by the "spite" tax on 4x4 > vehicles. > True (although the tax is not limited to 4x4s), but that factor doesn't make it reasonable to charge the full admin fee for vehicles with the lowest emissions. Biggles |