Cyclists above the law
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Cunting lorry drivers.
Next: Britain's scariest roads
From: NM on 15 Dec 2009 02:18 On 14 Dec, 21:39, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > Peter Grange wrote: > > On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 17:54:24 GMT, "The Medway Handyman" > > <davidl...(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > > >> Peter Grange wrote: > >>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 08:39:32 GMT, "The Medway Handyman" > >>> <davidl...(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > > >>>> Adrian wrote: > >>>>> "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...(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? > > >> Because its a hell of a lot more innit. > > > So what was your argument against the millionaire paying more tax > > then? > > The percentage of VAT is the same, but 15% on a £100 push bike and 15% on a > £10,000 car are vastly different sums of money. > > I didn't have an argument about millionaire cyclists. > > -- > Dave - The Tax Paying Motorist Show me a millionaire cyclist, I'll bet you can count them on the fingers of one hand.
From: NM on 15 Dec 2009 02:19 On 15 Dec, 03:52, Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote: > ChelseaTractorMan <mr.c.trac...(a)hotmail.co.uk> considered Mon, 14 Dec > 2009 14:17:16 +0000 the perfect time to write: > > >On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 00:38:09 +0000, Peter Grange > ><pe...(a)plgrange.demon.co.uk> wrote: > > >> "Cyclists don't pay VED" is > >>incorrect. Which SPECIFIC bit of the English language do you have a > >>problem with? > > >which bit do you have a problem with? "Cyclists don't pay VED" is > >correct, only the disingenuous could interpret it the way you try to. > > I'm a cyclist. > I pay VED on my car. > Most (i.e. >50% of) cyclists who are old enough to drive also own > cars, and pay VED on them. > > So most cyclists do pay VED, and the assertion is incorrect, although > if he actually described it as "road tax" it would be technically > correct by virtue of the fact that there is no such thing, so that > should be tempered by the realisation that motorists don't pay it > either. Semantics, pure and simple, like the poster.
From: Adrian on 15 Dec 2009 02:46 NM <nik.morgan(a)mac.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: > Show me a millionaire cyclist, I'll bet you can count them on the > fingers of one hand. Mayor of London and next Prime Minister apart, since you'll probably suggest they only do it for political gain, how about a self-made billionaire? http://snipurl.com/tp2kp
From: Peter Grange on 15 Dec 2009 04:04 On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 23:14:10 -0800 (PST), NM <nik.morgan(a)mac.com> wrote: >On 14 Dec, 20:10, "Mas...(a)BP.com" <Mas...(a)BP.com> wrote: >> On 14 Dec, 19:02, Adrian <toomany2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > "Mas...(a)BP.com" <Mas...(a)BP.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they >> > were saying: >> >> > >> >> > And put places like Toys R Us and Argos out of the bike business - >> > >> >> > along with so many others that would fail even if brand new. >> > >> >> The UK's largest toy retailers. �Proves that bikes are for kids, not >> > >> >> adults. >> > >> > More ad hominen attacks - yawn. >> > >> <shrug> >> >> > >> Well, if they ain't vehicles, what are they...? >> > > Toys apparently. >> > > So now in Medway Man's crazy mixed up world he wants people to pay tax >> > > for playing with their toys in the road. Presumbly, I can pay with Bank >> > > of Toytown money! >> >> > Hmm. I don't really think that the middle of the road is a suitable >> > location for toys, do you? Surely it's somewhere that's better kept to >> > sensible vehicles...? >> >> > Like I said, Simon - I'm not sure that suggesting that bikes aren't >> > vehicles is a particularly sensible tactic... >> >> I know they are vehicles. >> Anyone who knows the HC will understand the difference between the >> white circular sign with a red border and the same one with Evel >> Kneivel in it, but if some big butch man in a van wants to call them >> kid's toys to make himself look clever in front of his mates, then he >> should realise that's kid's toys don't incur VED. >> >> His choice of reasoning, not mine. >> >> -- >> Simon Mason > >Bikes are on sale in toy shops,in fact one of the biggest sellers, >that makes them toys. The ones they sell there perhaps. Few of the regular cyclist posters here would ride such things.
From: Peter Grange on 15 Dec 2009 04:06
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 23:12:07 -0800 (PST), NM <nik.morgan(a)mac.com> wrote: >On 14 Dec, 19:23, "Mas...(a)BP.com" <Mas...(a)BP.com> wrote: >> On 14 Dec, 18:02, Adrian <toomany2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > "Mas...(a)BP.com" <Mas...(a)BP.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they >> > were saying: >> >> > >> > And put places like Toys R Us and Argos out of the bike business - >> > >> > along with so many others that would fail even if brand new. >> > >> The UK's largest toy retailers. �Proves that bikes are for kids, not >> > >> adults. >> > > More ad hominen attacks - yawn. >> >> > <shrug> >> >> > Well, if they ain't vehicles, what are they...? >> >> Toys apparently. >> So now in Medway Man's crazy mixed up world he wants people to pay tax >> for playing with their toys in the road. >> Presumbly, I can pay with Bank of Toytown money! >> >> -- >> Simon Mason > >Having seen some of the prices you cyclists are prepared to pay for >rudimentary engineering it must be Bank of Toytown money you are using. There speaks a non-cyclist who has never bothered to look. Show me a car that can reach efficiency percentages in the high 90s then come back and we'll talk about "rudimentary engineering". |