Cyclists above the law
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Cunting lorry drivers.
Next: Britain's scariest roads
From: Peter Grange on 16 Dec 2009 17:50 On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 19:34:44 GMT, "The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >Peter Grange wrote: >> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 21:41:05 GMT, "The Medway Handyman" >> <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >> >>> Peter Grange wrote: >>>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 20:37:47 GMT, "The Medway Handyman" >>>> <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >>>> >>>>> MasonS(a)BP.com wrote: >>>>>> On 14 Dec, 17:54, "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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Dave - The Tax Paying Motorist- Hide quoted text - >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - Show quoted text - >>>>>> >>>>>> Ah, we are making progress now. So the millionaire cyclist who pay >>>>>> for his new yacht and incurs more in VAT than you will earn in >>>>>> your entire life, is more entitled to use the road than you? >>>>> >>>>> No idiot boy, he pays the same fee for using the road as I do. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Game, set and match. >>>>> >>>>> Only in your deranged mind. >>>> >>>> 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? >>> >>> No I don't say that. >> >> Read your posts. You have said that VAT on a car is "more innit", and >> you have said that the millionaire pays the same VED so has no more >> right to the road. > >VAT is more on a car because a car costs more than a push bike. The >mythical millionaire cyclists <chuckles> pays the same Road Tax so has the >same right to use the road. Cyclists pay no road tax, so have no right to >use the road. > >Simples Describes the likes of you adequately.
From: Peter Grange on 16 Dec 2009 17:53 On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 19:37:36 GMT, "The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >Peter Grange wrote: >> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 21:44:14 GMT, "The Medway Handyman" >> <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >> >>> Peter Grange wrote: >>>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 20:39:40 GMT, "The Medway Handyman" >>>> <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Peter Grange wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 17:54:24 GMT, "The Medway Handyman" >>>>>> <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Peter Grange wrote: >>>>>>>> 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? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> You really have no idea do you. I would no more ride a �100 bike >>>> than you would use a Trabant van to run your business. Try and stay >>>> on the same planet. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> I didn't have an argument about millionaire cyclists. >>>> >>>> Except to say that a motorist has more right to be on the road than >>>> a cyclist because he (in the majority of cases) pays more vat than >>>> the cyclist, but the millionaire who paid more vat than the motorist >>>> doesn't have an equally greater right than the motorist. >>> >>> Do stop making things up. Everyone whos pays road tax has the right >>> to use the road. Those who don't pay it, don't. >> >> You're entitled to your opinion, which is all that is. My opinion is >> that you are either a troll or gobsmackingly ignorant. > >My opinion is that you are a freeloading, sponging cyclist who will go to >any lengths to try & justify not paying his way. And you're entitled to that too.
From: NM on 16 Dec 2009 18:19 On 16 Dec, 22:53, Peter Grange <pe...(a)plgrange.demon.co.uk> wrote: > On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 19:37:36 GMT, "The Medway Handyman" > > > > <davidl...(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > >Peter Grange wrote: > >> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 21:44:14 GMT, "The Medway Handyman" > >> <davidl...(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > > >>> Peter Grange wrote: > >>>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 20:39:40 GMT, "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. > > >>>> You really have no idea do you. I would no more ride a £100 bike > >>>> than you would use a Trabant van to run your business. Try and stay > >>>> on the same planet. > > >>>>> I didn't have an argument about millionaire cyclists. > > >>>> Except to say that a motorist has more right to be on the road than > >>>> a cyclist because he (in the majority of cases) pays more vat than > >>>> the cyclist, but the millionaire who paid more vat than the motorist > >>>> doesn't have an equally greater right than the motorist. > > >>> Do stop making things up. Everyone whos pays road tax has the right > >>> to use the road. Those who don't pay it, don't. > > >> You're entitled to your opinion, which is all that is. My opinion is > >> that you are either a troll or gobsmackingly ignorant. > > >My opinion is that you are a freeloading, sponging cyclist who will go to > >any lengths to try & justify not paying his way. > > And you're entitled to that too. I should hope so, He's right.
From: The Medway Handyman on 16 Dec 2009 18:23 Peter Grange wrote: > On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 18:40:10 GMT, "The Medway Handyman" > <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > >> MasonS(a)BP.com wrote: >>> 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. >> >> "cycling proficiency test"? Thats the one ickle kiddies take in the >> school playground? I told you bikes were for kids not adults. >> >> And don't witter on about your home insurance covering you for >> riding a bike - we all know its bollox. > > Who's we? Normal people. e.g. not cyclists. -- Dave - The Tax Paying Motorist
From: JNugent on 16 Dec 2009 19:20
mileburner wrote: > "JNugent" <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote in message > news:LP2dnS_bW-O_g7TWnZ2dnUVZ8nli4p2d(a)pipex.net... > >> Or was it totally meaningless, because based only on the irrational belief >> of some that people shouldn't be allowed to drive their children to >> school, drive a van for a living, drive a taxi for living, etc, etc, etc? > > These things are usually based a very simple measure, and in this case it is > the opinion that said drivers often drive like c**ts. It's a bit like "we > asked 100 people... and our survey said: ..." Like I said... irrational. Not every driver on the school run *is* a bad driver. Not every taxi-driver *is* a bad driver. Not every van driver *is* a bad driver. Not every BMW owner *is* a bad driver. But you get the point, I'm sure. |