From: Steve Firth on
MasonS(a) <MasonS(a)> wrote:

> > So how much is a tax disc for a push bike?
> >

> Same as for an electric car?
> Currently �0 I think.

You think so? It's possible to get a tax disk for an EV [subject to it
being insured and having a current MoT], where does one get one for a
push bike subject to the same conditions?

And umm the "electric car" referred to previously by another lycra loon
wasn't a car. Not even the makers claim that it is a car, other than in
their promotional lies. The makers choose to describe it for taxation
purposes and for Vehicle Approval purposes to be "a quadricycle" i.e.
some sort of bike with four wheels.
From: Steve Firth on
mileburner <mileburner(a)> wrote:

> S'funny isn't it? How when you look a bit deeper, things are not always as
> they first seem. The key is to look a bit deeper.

As with your pronouncements about emissions while cycling you mean?
From: MasonS on
On 5 Dec, 18:43, %ste...(a) (Steve Firth) wrote:
> Mas...(a) <Mas...(a)> wrote:
> > Look at the advert at the bottom right of this page.
> > How much would the driver of this car pay?
> > Should he be allowed on the roads having paid no VED?
> >
> That's the car that emits less CO2 than the equivalent number of
> cyclists you mean? The car that needs a VED document which requires
> proof that the vehicle was registered, insured and has passed an annual
> safety inspection if > three years old?
> Just checking.

The CO2 which that car emits comes from *oil* which is non renewable.

The CO2 that cyclists breathe out comes from *food*, a renewable

Oh and car drivers breathe as well inside their vehicles.

Not all CO2 is the same.

Next you will be asking for tax discs for horses based on the fact
that they breathe more heavily than a cyclist.
Simon Mason

From: dan on (Steve Firth) writes:

> <shrug> So you came to an erroneous conclusion. The Cycling and Health
> booklet produced by Cycling England gives a figure of 1200kcal/h for
> cycling.

Are you sure about that? I'd have expected it to be about half that or
a little more, which is what most other sources list.

> You might think that's insignficant, however if you are cycling at 12
> miles per hour then your emissions are 26g CO2 per km. Again you might
> argue that is insignificant. However a car such as VW Polo Blue Motion
> can take five occupants and emits 100g CO2 per km. The same five people
> travelling by bicycle would emit 130g CO2 per km.

Er, some mistake there surely? I don't know about the VW Polo Blue
Motion (maybe it's biodiesel?), but most cars are running on fossil
fuels: the carbon they're releasing has been stuck at the bottom of the
ground for the past n million years. The carbon released by my cycling
came from metabolising sugars: renewable plant resources that next
season's growth will suck back out of the atmosphere. I find it very
odd if that doesn't make a difference

From: NM on
On 5 Dec, 19:03, "Mas...(a)" <Mas...(a)> wrote:

> Not all CO2 is the same.

You are one of the Doug Bollens AICM5P. or should that be 10?