Cyclists above the law
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Cunting lorry drivers.
Next: Britain's scariest roads
From: Adrian on 26 Nov 2009 15:55 David Hansen <SENDdavidNOhSPAM(a)spidacom.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>It's just zero-cost. > That is different to being zero-rated. ohforfucksakes...
From: johnwright ""john" on 26 Nov 2009 16:36 David Hansen wrote: > On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 19:08:16 +0000 someone who may be johnwright > <""john\"@no spam here.com"> wrote this:- > >>> They may think whatever they like, but they are wrong. They are >>> presumably more knowledgeable about work and pensions than tax. >> You may say they are but as a government organisation I expect them to >> know a bit about what they are talking about. > > You have a touching faith. Yes Minister was very amusing, but in > reality mandarins were not as organised as is portrayed in that. Yes > Minister was written a long time ago too, deskilling has proceeded > apace since then. Not really. I'm as cynical as the next man. But I do expect to hear the same message from different government departments. -- I'm not apathetic... I just don't give a sh** anymore ?John Wright
From: Peter Grange on 26 Nov 2009 19:07 On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 14:22:35 -0000, "Rob" <rsvptorob-newsREMOVE(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >Peter Grange wrote: >|| On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 23:30:31 GMT, "The Medway Handyman" >|| <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >|| >||| webreader wrote: >|||| Why do the police not do anything about the likes of these >|||| cyclists. Yet again proof that cyclists get special consideration >|||| unlike motorists. >|||| >|||| >|||| http://tiny.cc/iOoJY >||| >||| Do you mean those cyclists who pay no road tax, have no insurance, >||| don't have to pass a test of competance & don't have any visible >||| means of being traced? >|| What's road tax please? > >It's the tax one pays for permission to use a vehicle on the road. It's >referred to by various different names, eg. car tax, vehicle tax, Vehicle >excise duty, road tax etc. but most people understand what it means. > >||| >||| Or did you mean those cyclists who get free cycle lanes that hold >||| up tax paying motorists, ignore lights, one way systems and ride on >||| pavements? >|| Pretty much everyone in the uk pays tax, how do you recognise the >|| non-taxpayers please? > >Non-taxpayers (in the context used), can be recognised by the lack of a >vehicle excise duty disk attatched to their vehicle, ie. car, van, bike etc. > >HTH Quite. It's a tax. It pays for things. What it does not do is give someone who pays that tax any more right to use the road than someone who pays whatever tax the government requires them to pay. The inference was that cyclists are somehow second class road users because they do not pay VED, which is plain nonsense. -- Pete
From: Peter Grange on 26 Nov 2009 19:09 On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:13:48 -0800 (PST), thirty-six <thirty-six(a)live.co.uk> wrote: >On 26 Nov, 17:53, "mileburner" <milebur...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: >> "thirty-six" <thirty-...(a)live.co.uk> wrote in message >> >> news:129465ae-fb2f-4fd8-8e8a-e36f5446671e(a)m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On 26 Nov, 16:14, dgoldst...(a)charter.net (Dermot Goldstein) wrote: >> >> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 11:26:36 -0000, "mileburner" >> >> >> <milebur...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: >> >> >> >"webreader" <websiterea...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message >> >> >news:d281183f-003b-4a78-8185-ec7cbc50741a(a)n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> Why do the police not do anything about the likes of these cyclists. >> >> >> Yet again proof that cyclists get special consideration unlike >> >> >> motorists. >> >> >> >I disagree, I have contacted the police concerning drivers stopping past >> >> >the >> >> >stop line at a set of traffic lights in the advanced stop reservoir for >> >> >cyclists. They replied that drivers did not always understand what the >> >> >advanced stop meant and would not take action. >> >> >> Why do cyclists need this "advanced stop reservoir" if they don't stop >> >> at red lights? >> >> > They dont. �It's an excuse to move back stop lines for motorists in an >> > attempt to reduced the fatalities caused by amber gamblers, those who >> > jump the lights and dont ensure the junction is clear before >> > proceeding. �It's also an effort to gain the ecology conscious voter. >> > Cyclists do not as a rule go plowing into other vehicles because the >> > orange light turns on so do not require this mummying aimed at the >> > majority of drivers. >> >> So what's the point of having them if drivers ignore the first stop line >> (and sometimes the second one too) and the police do nothing to enforce the >> rule. > >That's why the government dont tell you why but give you a cover >story. If the movement of stiop lines had reduced accident >statistics, dont you think the government would be shouting about how >well they've performed in reducing RTAs at TS-controlled cjunctions? >Do you think they're saving it till next year? Would need to be early next year :-)
From: thirty-six on 26 Nov 2009 19:26
On 27 Nov, 00:09, Peter Grange <pe...(a)plgrange.demon.co.uk> wrote: > On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:13:48 -0800 (PST), thirty-six > > > > <thirty-...(a)live.co.uk> wrote: > >On 26 Nov, 17:53, "mileburner" <milebur...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > >> "thirty-six" <thirty-...(a)live.co.uk> wrote in message > > >>news:129465ae-fb2f-4fd8-8e8a-e36f5446671e(a)m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com.... > > >> > On 26 Nov, 16:14, dgoldst...(a)charter.net (Dermot Goldstein) wrote: > >> >> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 11:26:36 -0000, "mileburner" > > >> >> <milebur...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > > >> >> >"webreader" <websiterea...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message > >> >> >news:d281183f-003b-4a78-8185-ec7cbc50741a(a)n35g2000yqm.googlegroups..com... > >> >> >> Why do the police not do anything about the likes of these cyclists. > >> >> >> Yet again proof that cyclists get special consideration unlike > >> >> >> motorists. > > >> >> >I disagree, I have contacted the police concerning drivers stopping past > >> >> >the > >> >> >stop line at a set of traffic lights in the advanced stop reservoir for > >> >> >cyclists. They replied that drivers did not always understand what the > >> >> >advanced stop meant and would not take action. > > >> >> Why do cyclists need this "advanced stop reservoir" if they don't stop > >> >> at red lights? > > >> > They dont. It's an excuse to move back stop lines for motorists in an > >> > attempt to reduced the fatalities caused by amber gamblers, those who > >> > jump the lights and dont ensure the junction is clear before > >> > proceeding. It's also an effort to gain the ecology conscious voter. > >> > Cyclists do not as a rule go plowing into other vehicles because the > >> > orange light turns on so do not require this mummying aimed at the > >> > majority of drivers. > > >> So what's the point of having them if drivers ignore the first stop line > >> (and sometimes the second one too) and the police do nothing to enforce the > >> rule. > > >That's why the government dont tell you why but give you a cover > >story. If the movement of stiop lines had reduced accident > >statistics, dont you think the government would be shouting about how > >well they've performed in reducing RTAs at TS-controlled cjunctions? > >Do you think they're saving it till next year? > > Would need to be early next year :-) Before the budget which they promise to get you able to see your doctor of choice within 24hrs again, cut income tax to a flat rate of 10% after a personal allowance of 10 000, Claim that the national debt of xxxbillion be wiped out in three years and reduce the duty on scotch by a penny. Or save it until after, before the proles realise they've been had and the numbers will never add up, in an effort to divert attention that ypu cant buy a calculator battery anymore because they're not green. |