Cyclists above the law
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Cunting lorry drivers.
Next: Britain's scariest roads
From: MasonS on 16 Dec 2009 11:43 On 15 Dec, 21:42, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > Mas...(a)BP.com wrote: > > On 15 Dec, 09:53, Conor <co...(a)gmx.co.uk> wrote: > >> In article <q4mei59akbtu18cbavblv4nu1tsuhh4...(a)4ax.com>, Peter Grange > >> says... > > >>> So, let's get this straight. You say a motorist who payed more vat > >>> on a car than a cyclist payed on his bike (which is true in most, > >>> but not all, cases) has more right to use the road, even if they > >>> both paid zero VED, but someone who paid more vat on his yacht than > >>> the motorist paid on his car has no more right to use the road? > > >> BWAHAHAHA...someone who has to resort to the argument of the right to > >> use a boat on a road has well and truly lost the argument. > > > Dear oh dear, do you honestly think there is a dept. at HM Treasury > > which separates the VAT from new boats from the VAT from car tyres, so > > that the right pound coin can go to road building? I'm afraid Medway > > Highwayman well and truly shot himself in the foot by bringing in VAT > > to his old "road tax" argument. > > When did I bring VAT into it, other than in your deranged mind? > > -- > Dave - The Tax Paying Motorist- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - You said car drivers pay more VAT on their cars that a cyclist pays on their bikes. I quote: >>> 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? Medway Highwayman said! **Because its a hell of a lot more innit.** Medwayman admits that a cyclist who pay more VAT than him does not need to pay admin costs for a £0 VED disc. Done up like a kipper! -- Simon Masom
From: MasonS on 16 Dec 2009 11:46 On 16 Dec, 03:06, Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote: > > I know you're thick, so I'll type this slowly. > > The cost of motoring to society is about twice as much as the taxes > raised directly from motoring, JNugent has already denounced those "figures" as "biased" by dodgy groups such as Transport 2000. -- Simon Mason
From: MasonS on 16 Dec 2009 11:51 On 16 Dec, 10:07, Happi Monday <ha...(a)munday.com> wrote: > paul george wrote: > > On 15 Dec, 12:31, JNugent <J...(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote: > >> Peter Grange wrote: > > >>> Oi, what's wrong withGillingham? > >> Nothing. Nice little place in Dorset, on the way to more important places. > > > No, that's Gillingham, he said Gillingham. > > I meant gil'ham, home of the Chav, and worse, home of the lovely Chavette. Chatham is home of the Chav. "However one of many suggested 'origins' for the word 'Chav' was that it is an abbreviation of 'Chatham Average', alluding to a public perception of a segment of Chatham residents as tracksuit-wearing, gold hoop-earringed common people with a penchant for hard drinking, recreational drug use, and aggressive and anti-social behaviour."
From: MasonS on 16 Dec 2009 11:57 On 15 Dec, 21:12, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > DavidR wrote: > > "Judith M Smith" <judithmsm...(a)live.co.uk> wrote > >> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 00:44:03 +0000, Peter Grange > > >>>> I have written with my suggestions and my MP is very interested - > >>>> they will be taken up with the DfT: > > >>>> All cyclists over 16 who wish to ride on public roads must take and > >>>> pass a written test based on the Highway Code and basic cycle > >>>> maintenance; passing the test entitles them to a cycle licence and > >>>> gives them a cyclist registration number. > > >>>> Cyclists over the age of 16 must not ride on public roads unless > >>>> they possess a cycle licence. > > >>>> Cyclists over the age of 16 must not ride on public roads unless > >>>> they possess third party liability insurance. > > >>>> Cyclists over the age of 16 must only ride cycles which conform to > >>>> some required standards when on public roads > > >>>> Cyclists over the age of 16 must not ride on public roads unless > >>>> they wear a hi-viz outer garment (or slip on vest) on the back of > >>>> which is clearly displayed their cyclist registration number. > > >>>> The cycles of habitual cycling law breakers will be confiscated and > >>>> crushed. > > >>>> (With many thanks to KeithT for the ideas) > > >>> And you have every right to do that, but I repeat, why don't you put > >>> your stupid proposals to them instead of posting like a prat here. > > >> I am sorry - I thought that cyclists may be interested in ideas which > >> may affect their future. > > >> Is this not the case? > > > Well... you have merely produced a child's Christmas present list. > > For each item in the list, how about telling us what you think the > > problem is and why you think your idea will help to solve it? > > Perhaps you could tell us why you object so strongly to a perfectly > reasonable concept? > > Why shouldn't cyclists pass a test of competance, be identified easily & > have compulsory insurance? We could easily cover the admin costs by > charging a fee - we could call it Road Tax. > > -- > Dave - The Tax Paying Motorist- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Yes, we could call it the "cycling proficiency test" and "home insurance third part cover". Oh silly me, we've already had them for decades. -- Simon Mason
From: mileburner on 16 Dec 2009 12:41
<MasonS(a)BP.com> wrote in message news:ffa88b07-4b6b-4702-b748-3c7f11617ec2(a)e7g2000vbi.googlegroups.com... > > What reputation do white van men have with drivers AND cyclists? In the reputed order of society, they lie one place above taxi-drivers and one place below child abusers. HTH |