Cyclists above the law
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Cunting lorry drivers.
Next: Britain's scariest roads
From: Peter Grange on 3 Dec 2009 05:53 On 3 Dec 2009 10:43:59 GMT, Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Peter Grange <peter(a)plgrange.demon.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much >like they were saying: > >>>> You are qualifying the argument after the event, which is a well-known >>>> usenet ploy. > >>>It's difficult to correct you before you're wrong. > >> You changed the argument afterwards, not me. > >Not at all. > >> There is no qualification about "as a cyclist" in the original >> statement. > >There shouldn't need to be. > >> Am I or am I not a cyclist? Yes I am. Do I pay VED? Yes I do. > >But not as a cyclist you don't. > >I sometimes wear a hat. Am I a hat-wearer? <checks reflection> No, I am >not. Does whether I wear a hat or not affect whether I pay VED? No, it >does not. Which bit of the statement that "Cyclists don't pay VED" are you having difficulty with? It doesn't say anything about "as a cyclist". You added that afterwards. -- Pete
From: Adrian on 3 Dec 2009 05:58 dan(a)telent.net gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >> I sometimes wear a hat. Am I a hat-wearer? <checks reflection> No, I am >> not. Does whether I wear a hat or not affect whether I pay VED? No, it >> does not. > And again, I sometimes drive a car. At present, I am not driving a car. > Last time I paid VED I was not driving a car. It seems that paying VED > and driving cars are no more closely linked than paying VED and wearing > hats. No, it isn't. You're right. However, you'd have to agree that paying VED is very closely linked to being a vehicle keeper.
From: Adrian on 3 Dec 2009 05:59 Peter Grange <peter(a)plgrange.demon.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>I sometimes wear a hat. Am I a hat-wearer? <checks reflection> No, I am >>not. Does whether I wear a hat or not affect whether I pay VED? No, it >>does not. > Which bit of the statement that "Cyclists don't pay VED" are you having > difficulty with? It doesn't say anything about "as a cyclist". You added > that afterwards. Ah, the inherent zen of "a cyclist who is not a cyclist".
From: Peter Grange on 3 Dec 2009 06:08 On 3 Dec 2009 10:59:18 GMT, Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Peter Grange <peter(a)plgrange.demon.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much >like they were saying: > >>>I sometimes wear a hat. Am I a hat-wearer? <checks reflection> No, I am >>>not. Does whether I wear a hat or not affect whether I pay VED? No, it >>>does not. > >> Which bit of the statement that "Cyclists don't pay VED" are you having >> difficulty with? It doesn't say anything about "as a cyclist". You added >> that afterwards. > >Ah, the inherent zen of "a cyclist who is not a cyclist". Sorry, you'll need to explain that one :-( -- Pete
From: dan on 3 Dec 2009 06:30
Peter Grange <peter(a)plgrange.demon.co.uk> writes: > On 3 Dec 2009 10:59:18 GMT, Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>Peter Grange <peter(a)plgrange.demon.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much >>like they were saying: >> >>>>I sometimes wear a hat. Am I a hat-wearer? <checks reflection> No, I am >>>>not. Does whether I wear a hat or not affect whether I pay VED? No, it >>>>does not. >> >>> Which bit of the statement that "Cyclists don't pay VED" are you having >>> difficulty with? It doesn't say anything about "as a cyclist". You added >>> that afterwards. >> >>Ah, the inherent zen of "a cyclist who is not a cyclist". > > Sorry, you'll need to explain that one :-( Can we summarise? * Cyclists are not required by virtue of being cyclists to pay VED * Motorists are not required by virtue of being motorists to pay VED (as previously pointed out, hired or lent cars, etc) * Keepers of motor vehicles are required by virtue of keeping motor vehicles to pay VED on each kept vehicle * Most motorists are likely to be keepers of motor vehicles, and in that capacity they pay VED * Many cyclists are also keepers of motor vehicles, and therefore also pay VED * The unqualified statement "Cyclists don't pay VED" is incorrect unless a person is only considered a cyclist while astride the bike, and on that basis "motorists don't pay VED" is equally true * This could be considered to be splitting hairs -dan |