Cyclists above the law
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Cunting lorry drivers.
Next: Britain's scariest roads
From: MasonS on 13 Dec 2009 11:29 On 13 Dec, 16:18, Adrian <toomany2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> gurgled happily, > sounding much like they were saying: > > > A multi millionaire cyclist still wouldn't have to pay a 'specific' fee > > before being able to use his cycle on a public road though would he? > > If it makes you any happier, perhaps you ought to buy this van - you > could then use the roads yourself, for work, without paying any VED or > fuel duty. Perfectly legally. > > http://www.leboncoin.fr/vi/80500342.htm I'd buy the bloody thing for him out of my own pocket, just to hear of him driving around Kent having paid no "road tax". Priceless. -- Simon Mason
From: Adrian on 13 Dec 2009 11:31 "MasonS(a)BP.com" <MasonS(a)BP.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >> If it makes you any happier, perhaps you ought to buy this van - you >> could then use the roads yourself, for work, without paying any VED or >> fuel duty. Perfectly legally. >> >> http://www.leboncoin.fr/vi/80500342.htm > I'd buy the bloody thing for him out of my own pocket, just to hear of > him driving around Kent having paid no "road tax". 'course, it would still need a valid tax disc on display. > Priceless.
From: NM on 13 Dec 2009 11:54 On 3 Dec, 10:17, d...(a)telent.net wrote: > Adrian <toomany2...(a)gmail.com> writes: > > d...(a)telent.net gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: > > >> keepers of vehicles cannot be a subset of motorists. > > > Of course they can. Or have you never heard of somebody driving a car of > > which they are not the registered keeper? Hire car, company car, works > > van? > > If "keepers of vehicles" are a subset of motorists, all keepers of > vehicles must be motorists Not necessarily, there is no requirement for the registered keeper of any vehicle to be a driving licence holder. > > If I am a keeper of a vehicle even when I am not a motorist (e.g. while > being a cyclist) then the set of all keepers of vehicles includes at > least one person (me) who is not at the time a motorist. > > Doesn't add up. > > -dan
From: NM on 13 Dec 2009 11:56 On 3 Dec, 10:37, Peter Grange <pe...(a)plgrange.demon.co.uk> wrote: > On 3 Dec 2009 07:43:02 GMT, Adrian <toomany2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > >Peter Grange <pe...(a)plgrange.demon.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much > >like they were saying: > > >>>> I was replying to what the prat said. He said cyclists don't pay VED. > >>>> I'm a cyclist, I pay VED. > > >>><slowly> > >>>Not. As. A. Cyclist. You. Don't. > > >>>> Therefore he is wrong, as he is almost every time, as are most of the > >>>> "cyclists are a different tribe from motorists" brigade. > > >>>And yet you are actively trying to perpetuate precisely that > >>>misconception by refusing to recognise that the minute you get off your > >>>bike you are no longer a cyclist, but a pedestrian. Do you pay VED as a > >>>pedestrian? No. You pay it as a vehicle keeper, and a vehicle keeper > >>>alone. > > >> People like the prat like to try to separate cyclists from motorists in > >> order to perpetuate their "us against them" war. > > >> I am a motorist and a cyclist. > > >Yes, you are. At different times. As am I. I am also a pedestrian. But > >not at the same time as being either a cyclist or a motorist. > > >My preferences regarding those modes of transport has no impact whatsover > >on my payment of income tax (business mileage or CtW excepted) or council > >tax or VAT on items not directly related to those. > > >> I am a cyclist, I am a motorist, I pay VED. > > >But you do not pay VED as a cyclist, and you do not pay VED as a > >pedestrian. You pay VED as the keeper of a vehicle - a subset of > >"motorist". > > >> Therefore the statement the prat made that "Cyclists do not pay VED" is > >> incorrect. > > >No, it is not. > Oh yes it is. > > >> You are qualifying the argument after the event, which is a well-known > >> usenet ploy. > > >It's difficult to correct you before you're wrong. > > You changed the argument afterwards, not me. There is no qualification > about "as a cyclist" in the original statement. > Am I or am I not a cyclist? Yes I am. > Do I pay VED? Yes I do. How does you paying VED for your car have any bearing whatsoever on the fact you also use a bike?
From: Mr. Benn on 13 Dec 2009 12:49
"MasonS(a)BP.com" <MasonS(a)BP.com> wrote in news:0394ee9e-6dec-42c1-8404-8f8ff412f659(a)g7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com: > On 13 Dec, 16:18, Adrian <toomany2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> gurgled >> happily, sounding much like they were saying: >> >> > A multi millionaire cyclist still wouldn't have to pay a 'specific' >> > fee before being able to use his cycle on a public road though >> > would he? >> >> If it makes you any happier, perhaps you ought to buy this van - you >> could then use the roads yourself, for work, without paying any VED >> or fuel duty. Perfectly legally. >> >> http://www.leboncoin.fr/vi/80500342.htm > > I'd buy the bloody thing for him out of my own pocket, just to hear of > him driving around Kent having paid no "road tax". > > Priceless. If you give me your address Simon, I'll order you one of those GBP1.35 high visibility vests that you seem so reluctant to wear if it reduces the chace of you not getting hurt in an accident. |