Prev: Cunting lorry drivers.
Next: Britain's scariest roads
From: The Medway Handyman on 14 Dec 2009 03:47 Phil W Lee wrote: > "The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> considered > Sun, 13 Dec 2009 23:04:36 GMT the perfect time to write: > >> MasonS(a)BP.com wrote: >>> 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". >> >> I wouldn't want it though. I have no problem paying my way. Unlike >> freeloading cyclists. > > But you don't pay income tax on the cost of your tax disc. > Bloody freeloading tightarsed shelf-bodger. No idiot, because its an allowable business expense. BTW 'Bodger' ;- "Bodgers were highly skilled itinerant wood-turners, who worked in the beech woods on the chalk hills of the Chilterns. " So thank you for the compliment about my highly skilled shelf fitting. I rather think you meant "botcher". Not too bright are you? -- Dave - The Tax Paying Motorist
From: The Medway Handyman on 14 Dec 2009 03:48 Adrian wrote: > "The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(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 > >> If I lived in France I might. > > Depends where in France, but - being in Kent - you wouldn't have very > much further to travel to collect it than somebody in the North of > France. > >> Are you trying out for idiot of the year? > > I'm not the one who doesn't seem to understand the concept of > importing a vehicle. I have no wish to do so. -- Dave - The Tax Paying Motorist
From: Peter Grange on 14 Dec 2009 04:33 On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 08:32:27 GMT, "The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >Peter Grange wrote: >> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 22:59:36 GMT, "The Medway Handyman" >> <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >> >>> Peter Grange wrote: >>> >>>> I was responding to "Cyclists don't pay VED". I am a cyclist, I pay >>>> VED. The End. >>> >>> Not to use your push bike on the road you don't. Fuckwit. >> >> That wasn't what you said, fuckwit. "Cyclists don't pay VED" is >> incorrect. Which SPECIFIC bit of the English language do you have a >> problem with? > >Nice one, except that I've never caled it VED, I've called it Road Tax. > >Which SPECIFIC bit of paying your way do you have a problem with? > > I pay all the SPECIFIC taxes the government asks me for. Do you? -- Pete - The Tax Paying Driving Licence Owning Cyclist
From: Mr Benn on 14 Dec 2009 04:37 "The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:cueVm.14974$Ym4.13557(a)text.news.virginmedia.com... > MasonS(a)BP.com wrote: >> 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. > > So you admit you are a danger to innocent motorists? He's a danger to himself because he won't take sensible advice.
From: Peter Grange on 14 Dec 2009 04:38
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 08:39:32 GMT, "The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >Adrian wrote: >> "The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> gurgled >> happily, sounding much like they were saying: >> >>>> Would it be OK if all of country's millions of bicycles, which >>>> would be in VED band A (Fee = �0), got a stamped round bit of paper >>>> from the Post Office and stuck it on their frames? Would that do it >>>> for you? I wouldn't mind if it made van drivers gave me more >>>> respect on the road. >> >>> No, not really. They would have to pay a fee to cover the >>> inconvenience of admin. >> >> Why does that apply to one form of zero-charge VED, yet not to others? >> >Because zero rated cars still have number plates, so the pokice can check >they have insurance & trace them when they break traffic laws. > >> Or do you think that all zero-charge VED should pay an "inconvenience >> of admin" fee? > >No, they pay enough in VAT & fuel duty to cover it. Hang on, we had the VAT argument already. In your strange world VAT on bikes doesn't count, so wht does it on cars? -- Pete - The Tax Paying Driving Licence Owning Cyclist |