Cyclists above the law
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Cunting lorry drivers.
Next: Britain's scariest roads
From: MasonS on 13 Dec 2009 13:01 On 13 Dec, 17:49, "Mr. Benn" <%...@invalid.invalid> wrote: > "Mas...(a)BP.com" <Mas...(a)BP.com> wrote innews: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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - No need thanks - they don't work in the dark and our site stores has 100's of them in stock. I rely on my lights which are much more useful. -- Simon Mason
From: Peter Grange on 13 Dec 2009 13:14 On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 08:56:46 -0800 (PST), NM <nik.morgan(a)mac.com> wrote: >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? I was responding to "Cyclists don't pay VED". I am a cyclist, I pay VED. The End. -- Pete - The Tax Paying Driving Licence Owning Cyclist
From: Mr. Benn on 13 Dec 2009 13:33 "MasonS(a)BP.com" <MasonS(a)BP.com> wrote in news:23017181-2785-41ab-89e6-875c1a475935(a)g26g2000yqe.googlegroups.com: > On 13 Dec, 17:49, "Mr. Benn" <%...@invalid.invalid> wrote: >> 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.- Hide >> quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > No need thanks - they don't work in the dark and our site stores has > 100's of them in stock. > I rely on my lights which are much more useful. They do work in the dark which is why the vests are made from a fluorescent and reflective fabric. They reflect light from oncoming vehicles. Why is that difficult for you to understand? They are a very useful compliment to cycle lighting and even the CTC recognise this. The only reason I don't wear one is that I never cycle at night. It's all down to whether you want to reduce the chance of getting involved in an accident at the end of the day. If your own arrogance leads you to believe that a reasonable and proven safety measure doesn't work, then you have yourself partially to blame if another road user doesn't see you in time to avoid a collision. A driver seeing you a second sooner could make all the difference between life and death if that matters to you. BTW, have you received your insurance payout yet for your most recent accident?
From: MasonS on 13 Dec 2009 14:22 On 13 Dec, 18:33, "Mr. Benn" <%...@invalid.invalid> wrote: > "Mas...(a)BP.com" <Mas...(a)BP.com> wrote innews:23017181-2785-41ab-89e6-875c1a475935(a)g26g2000yqe.googlegroups.com: > > > On 13 Dec, 17:49, "Mr. Benn" <%...@invalid.invalid> wrote: > >> 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.- Hide > >> quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > No need thanks - they don't work in the dark and our site stores has > > 100's of them in stock. > > I rely on my lights which are much more useful. > > They do work in the dark which is why the vests are made from a fluorescent > and reflective fabric. They reflect light from oncoming vehicles. Why is > that difficult for you to understand? They are a very useful compliment to > cycle lighting and even the CTC recognise this. The only reason I don't > wear one is that I never cycle at night. > > It's all down to whether you want to reduce the chance of getting involved > in an accident at the end of the day. If your own arrogance leads you to > believe that a reasonable and proven safety measure doesn't work, then you > have yourself partially to blame if another road user doesn't see you in > time to avoid a collision. A driver seeing you a second sooner could make > all the difference between life and death if that matters to you. > > BTW, have you received your insurance payout yet for your most recent > accident? Most recent? You mean the only one I have had in my life? Next month, after a physio examines me for long term damage. I do have reflective stripes on my shoe covers, tights, shorts and jacket for cars coming from the front and rear. For side traffic this is no use, so I have a 1000 lumen flashing front light and if they miss that there is no hope. Our work's HSE dept has admitted that their policy of no bike lights - rely on hi-vis has failed. -- Simon Mason
From: JNugent on 13 Dec 2009 15:57
MasonS(a)BP.com wrote: > On 13 Dec, 12:55, JNugent <J...(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote: >> Mas...(a)BP.com wrote: >>> On 13 Dec, 12:39, Adrian <toomany2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> "Mas...(a)BP.com" <Mas...(a)BP.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they >>>> were saying: >>>>> The Medway Highwayman may be interested to know that *even more* cars >>>>> won't be paying for the roads next year. >>>>> More freeloading drivers> >>>> Hardly "freeloading". >>>> Those rates are for the first year of a brand new car. >>>> Even if you buy the very cheapest new car on the market, under the >>>> scrappage scheme, you've just contributed 700 in VAT to the exchequer - >>>> plus 55 in a "first registration fee". >>>> And, yes, the ludicrous scrappage scheme does mean that the government's >>>> made a slight loss on that trasnaction, since there's 1000 come from the >>>> exchequer. But there's literally only two models of car on the market >>>> that applies to - the very base spec versions of the 800cc Chevrolet >>>> Matiz & 1.0 Kia Picanto. >>> The Medway Highwayman doesn't count VAT and taxes that everyone pays >>> as "paying for the roads". It's all down to the VED paid and the >>> little paper disc to him, so in his mind, there are even more drivers >>> not paying VED, which puts them in the same freeloading bracket as >>> cyclists who also pay no VED. >> I rather suspect that he also counts the 1000+ (that's a low estimate) per >> annum of duty (etc) on fuel he uses in his van as something to do with paying >> for the use of roads. > Like I said before, which he conveniently ignored. A multi millionaire > cyclist could pay more in VAT on his new yacht than the Medway > Highwayman will ever pay in taxes in his whole life. That's a low > estimate. That last factette is possibly, perhaps even probably, true. What's its relevance? |