Cyclists above the law
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Cunting lorry drivers.
Next: Britain's scariest roads
From: DavidR on 1 Dec 2009 18:47 "JNugent" <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote in message > DavidR wrote: >> "JNugent" <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote >>> DavidR wrote: >>>> "JNugent" <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote >>>>> DavidR wrote: >>>>>> "Conor" <conor(a)gmx.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>>> mileburner says... > > [mileburner] >>>>>>>> People own cars through choice. > > [Conor} >>>>>>> There speaks someone who lives in an urban area with decent public >>>>>>> transport. > > [DavidR} >>>>>> Does it? I have a bus stop outside my house with a half hourly 2.5 >>>>>> mile >>>>>> trip into town for �1.50. I rarely use it because a bike is faster >>>>>> and >>>>>> more convenient. > > [JN] >>>>> If you live only 2.5m from town, that's urban. You'd call Speke (SE >>>>> Liverpool) or Wythenshawe (S Manchester) urban, and each is seven >>>>> miles or more from town. > > [DavidR] >>>> Of course it is. How did I suggest otherwise? > > [JN] >>> Do you mean "How?", or "When?"? >>> You did it when Conor said: "There speaks someone who lives in an urban >>> area with decent public transport" and you answered: "Does it?". How, when, where or what in my reply to Conor gives you the suggestion that I was under some illusion that I do not live in an urban area? > [DavidR] >>>> It was a reply to Conor's suggestion that when living "in an urban area >>>> with decent public transport", that public transport isn't particularly >>>> useful. >>>> Or was that too tricky for you? > > [JN] >>> Let's run that one again. >>> Conor says that public transport isn't particularly useful, and you say: >>> "Does it?". > > [DavidR] >> Eh? He didn't say that! > > He did say that. Or at least, that's your version of what he said. Re-read > your own post, just one message back, wherein you said (verbatim): > > "It was a reply to Conor's suggestion that when living "in an urban area > with decent public transport", that public transport isn't particularly > useful." Conor did not say the bit after the comma. To paraphrase:- Mileburner said that cars are owned by choice. Conor said that is only where there is good public transport. I said that public transport isn't much use (even when it's on my doorstep). > Oddly, though I have been able to get almost the whole thread to appear > back on the drive, Conor's post is not present (though he appears in the > attributes above). > >> Clearly it was too tricky for you. > > Well, for someone. Well, don't jump in with only half the story.
From: JNugent on 1 Dec 2009 19:10 DavidR wrote: > "JNugent" <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote: >> DavidR wrote: >>> "JNugent" <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote >>>> DavidR wrote: >>>>> "JNugent" <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote >>>>>> DavidR wrote: >>>>>>> "Conor" <conor(a)gmx.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>>>> mileburner says... >> [mileburner] >>>>>>>>> People own cars through choice. >> [Conor} >>>>>>>> There speaks someone who lives in an urban area with decent public >>>>>>>> transport. >> [DavidR} >>>>>>> Does it? I have a bus stop outside my house with a half hourly 2.5 >>>>>>> mile >>>>>>> trip into town for �1.50. I rarely use it because a bike is faster >>>>>>> and more convenient. >> [JN] >>>>>> If you live only 2.5m from town, that's urban. You'd call Speke (SE >>>>>> Liverpool) or Wythenshawe (S Manchester) urban, and each is seven >>>>>> miles or more from town. >> [DavidR] >>>>> Of course it is. How did I suggest otherwise? >> [JN] >>>> Do you mean "How?", or "When?"? >>>> You did it when Conor said: "There speaks someone who lives in an urban >>>> area with decent public transport" and you answered: "Does it?". > How, when, where or what in my reply to Conor gives you the suggestion that > I was under some illusion that I do not live in an urban area? You did notice that everything was predicated on what you had said? That's why it started with an if. >> [DavidR] >>>>> It was a reply to Conor's suggestion that when living "in an urban area >>>>> with decent public transport", that public transport isn't particularly >>>>> useful. >>>>> Or was that too tricky for you? >> [JN] >>>> Let's run that one again. >>>> Conor says that public transport isn't particularly useful, and you say: >>>> "Does it?". >> [DavidR] >>> Eh? He didn't say that! >> He did say that. Or at least, that's your version of what he said. Re-read >> your own post, just one message back, wherein you said (verbatim): >> "It was a reply to Conor's suggestion that when living "in an urban area >> with decent public transport", that public transport isn't particularly >> useful." > Conor did not say the bit after the comma. I never said he did. I understood immediately that your version of what he had said was a paraphrasing. > To paraphrase:- > Mileburner said that cars are owned by choice. > Conor said that is only where there is good public transport. > I said that public transport isn't much use (even when it's on my doorstep). Fair enough. It read more as though you were arguing that people do without cars by choice even when they don't have access to public transport. >> Oddly, though I have been able to get almost the whole thread to appear >> back on the drive, Conor's post is not present (though he appears in the >> attributes above). >>> Clearly it was too tricky for you. >> Well, for someone. > Well, don't jump in with only half the story. What you posted was ambiguous at best.
From: NM on 2 Dec 2009 02:51 On 2 Dec, 02:12, Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote: > Adrian <toomany2...(a)gmail.com> considered 1 Dec 2009 11:37:03 GMT the > perfect time to write: > > > > >"mileburner" <milebur...(a)btinternet.com> gurgled happily, sounding much > >like they were saying: > > >>>> Not true. As a cyclist I pay income tax, council tax, VAT and > >>>> specifically for cycling, > > >>> No you don't. The only thing out of all of that lot that is specific to > >>> cycling is the VAT on any purchases directly connected to the bicycle. > > >> You seem to have snipped the relevant sentence: > > >> "and specifically for cycling, import duty on the components of my all > >> bikes in addition to the VAT." > > >> Please read properly before making a knee-jerk reaction. > > >No, you need to think properly. > > >That VAT and duty is the _only_ contribution you make to the exchequer AS > >A CYCLIST. You do not pay income tax, council tax or VAT on non-cycling > >items AS A CYCLIST. > > Are you seriously suggesting that all cyclists get income tax > exemption on the portion of their income which they choose to spend on > cycling? > > This is only true for those fortunate people who can use the CTW > scheme, and even then only for that part of their cycling expenditure > that they purchase through the scheme. > > In any case, if motorists paid the full cost of their addiction in > additional taxation, you might have something approaching a point, but > since they fall far short of reaching that, you don't. How far short of the full costs do motorists pay for their addiction (an approx percentage will do)? Who makes up the shortfall, cyclists perhaps?
From: Adrian on 2 Dec 2009 03:08 Doug <jagmad(a)riseup.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: > Maybe why mass motoring is allowed to be a drain on the exchequer, as > well as a serious inconvenience and hazard on our roads, is because it > has been allowed to become integrated into the commerce of our country, > as a necessary evil so to speak. When this is taken alongside your loathing for "slave animals", it becomes even funnier. Will you be using the "There's no reason why supermarkets can't have all their stock delivered on hand barrows" line again - I love it when you do that. > Look no further for an anomalous contradiction than pub car parks which > actively encourage drink driving. Because, of course, no pub ever allows anybody to drink soft drinks, do they? There's bouncers on the door forcing people back in, to continue drinking alcohol until they have to be poured out, right?
From: mileburner on 2 Dec 2009 04:11
"Phil W Lee" <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote in message news:c0jbh5tu49m2fv5os0unla0pal4tjhkscf(a)4ax.com... > Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> considered 1 Dec 2009 11:37:03 GMT the >> >>That VAT and duty is the _only_ contribution you make to the exchequer AS >>A CYCLIST. You do not pay income tax, council tax or VAT on non-cycling >>items AS A CYCLIST. > > Are you seriously suggesting that all cyclists get income tax > exemption on the portion of their income which they choose to spend on > cycling? I have a bit of a shock revelation. I do about 4,000 miles a year by bicycle, and about 6,000 a year by car. I pay the same VED on my car as someone who does not cycle and does 10,000 miles a year by car. That means that my so called "Road Tax" is subsidising all those motorists who do not cycle at all. Further, I do not get a rebate on my Council Tax, Income Tax, or Any Other Tax for cycling, perhaps I should, as my cycling does not cause the pollution, road damage, danger to others and traffic jams which using a car does. Instead I pay *extra* tax for my cycling related purchases. Something should be done about this as it is clearly not fair :-) |