From: MasonS on 14 Dec 2009 06:49
On 14 Dec, 11:46, "Mr Benn" <nos...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote:
> <Mas...(a)BP.com> wrote in message
> > On 14 Dec, 09:37, "Mr Benn" <nos...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >> > So you admit you are a danger to innocent motorists?
> >> He's a danger to himself because he won't take sensible advice.- Hide
> >> quoted text -
> >> - Show quoted text -
> > When you've clocked up 60,000 miles in 10 years on a bike, then you
> > can lecture me on safety.
> > Even our work's HSE dept has admitted that relying solely on hi-vis is
> > a failure.
> You would have to be mad to rely solely on high-visibility clothing on a
> bicycle. This is why it is a useful complement to lighting. Anything which
> improves safety has to be a good thing.
> Anyway, I can see I'm wasting my time offering you advice.
I have never said I don't use hi-vis, but it is cycling specific
clothing, not a Navvy's vest.
From: NM on 14 Dec 2009 07:16
On 14 Dec, 10:56, Keitht <KeithT> wrote:
> The Medway Handyman wrote:
> > Keitht wrote:
> >> The excise varies but not due to road use, only what comes out the
> >> rear end.
> > They should tax what comes out of your rear end. You talk complete shite.
> Ta, sometimes you just know what's coming.
> Well folks, this is the shallow end of the gene pool . . .
> Its never too late to reinvent the bicycle
Must be, I saw you there
From: NM on 14 Dec 2009 07:21
On 14 Dec, 11:01, Peter Grange <pe...(a)plgrange.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 01:52:52 -0800 (PST), NM <nik.mor...(a)mac.com>
> >On 14 Dec, 01:46, Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote:
> >> "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> considered
> >> Sun, 13 Dec 2009 23:34:48 GMT the perfect time to write:
> >> >Mas...(a)BP.com wrote:
> >> >> 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. I'd suggest a strip on top of the melon helmet, rather like a
> >> >mohican, showing the number so they can be traced when they frequently
> >> >ignore traffic rules.
> >> >You have to earn respect. If you want respect from van drivers, stop acting
> >> >like a prat.
> >> You can have compulsory registration of foam hats if you want.
> >> It's about time that something was done to discourage them.
> >A better idea would be a small transfer fixed to the bike frame with a
> >bar code that shows details of the cyclists usage permit (or you could
> >call it a riders license) and the CED (cyclists excise duty) payment
> >also you could incorporate a COI (certificate of inspection) that
> >would have to be renewed annually by a responsible approved repair and
> >maintainence facility. Wardens/Police could have barcode readers that
> >work in a similar fashion to number plate recognition systems already
> >fitted to police cars.
> So a barcode reader is going to pick up this small transfer as the
> cyclist whizzes by? One of the arguments for cycle registration from
> the loony motorist fringe is that each of the thousands of pedestrians
> injured by cyclists each year can note the number plate of the errant
> cyclist. Some chance with your small transfer. When I got hit by a car
> I foolishly omitted to note the registration number of the car as I
> passed over the bonnet, so that works well too.
> >These measures would go a long way to making cycling safer for all
> >which is of course what we all want isn't it?
> >In time all this will come, via the EU.
> Oh yes, lots of EU countries have such a scheme. Can't think of one
> offhand, but I'm sure they do.
> <bump> oh, back on earth again.
That's the problem you can't think. there are those who lobby for
legislation on these matters it will only be a matter of time before
controls will be introduced on the grounds of safety of course.
From: Halmyre on 14 Dec 2009 08:41
On 12 Dec, 20:33, "mileburner" <milebur...(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
> Halmyre wrote:
> >> 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?
> > Why would/should bicycles be in band A? (Answers of "because I'm a
> > cyclist and say so", accompanied by hysterics and foot-stamping, are
> > not acceptable).
> Zero vehicle emmissions. VED is based on vehicle emmisions. And Zero is
> considerably less than required to be in band B
You see the bold type at the top of this web page?
"The cost of vehicle tax for cars, motorcycles, light goods vehicles
and trade licences"
As far as I am aware, bicycles don't fall into any of those
From: MasonS on 14 Dec 2009 08:51
On 14 Dec, 13:41, Halmyre <flashgordonreced...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 12 Dec, 20:33, "mileburner" <milebur...(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
> > Halmyre wrote:
> > >> 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?
> > > Why would/should bicycles be in band A? (Answers of "because I'm a
> > > cyclist and say so", accompanied by hysterics and foot-stamping, are
> > > not acceptable).
> > Zero vehicle emmissions. VED is based on vehicle emmisions. And Zero is
> > considerably less than required to be in band B
> You see the bold type at the top of this web page?
> "The cost of vehicle tax for cars, motorcycles, light goods vehicles
> and trade licences"
> As far as I am aware, bicycles don't fall into any of those
"How to Tax Your Vehicle", eh?
Double the reason why they don't attract VED then. The Govt doesn't
even class them as vehicles. Medway Highwayman *will* be upset.