From: Adrian on
"mileburner" <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

>>> * The unqualified statement "Cyclists don't pay VED" is incorrect
>>> unless a person is only considered a cyclist while astride the bike,

>> Which, of course, is absolutely bob-on, otherwise Duhg is correct in
>> his assertion that uk.rec.cycling is full of "closet-motorists".

> Thanks for that. It must mean that I am neither a cyclist not a
> motorist, in fact all I am is a monkey on a keyboard posting drivel to
> Usenet.

You may be other things, simultaneously, of course. <slurps tea>

Unless, of course, you are posting whilst driving or cycling - not
recommended on road safety grounds...
From: mileburner on

"Adrian" <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7npmv0F3n4836U14(a)mid.individual.net...
> "mileburner" <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> gurgled happily, sounding much
> like they were saying:
>
>>> You would seem to be heading towards agreeing with Duhg that somebody
>>> who uses a car, no matter how occasionally, can never be a "proper
>>> cyclist"...
>
>> You seem to be twisting things to try to make them mean the opposite, is
>> this so that you can make an argument out of it?
>
> Not at all.
>
> If you are a cyclist in everything you do, then surely you are also a
> motorist in everything you do? Even riding a bike...

I don't have a problem with that. You *can* be both. Just because you are
not participating in the activity at the time it does not mean that you
cannot describe yourself as a person who does participate at times by
labelling yourself a cyclist or a motorist. I am both, although under your
definition I am neither. I wonder who is deluding themselves, one of us must
be.



From: Adrian on
"mileburner" <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

>>>> You would seem to be heading towards agreeing with Duhg that somebody
>>>> who uses a car, no matter how occasionally, can never be a "proper
>>>> cyclist"...

>>> You seem to be twisting things to try to make them mean the opposite,
>>> is this so that you can make an argument out of it?

>> Not at all.
>>
>> If you are a cyclist in everything you do, then surely you are also a
>> motorist in everything you do? Even riding a bike...

> I don't have a problem with that. You *can* be both. Just because you
> are not participating in the activity at the time it does not mean that
> you cannot describe yourself as a person who does participate at times
> by labelling yourself a cyclist or a motorist. I am both, although under
> your definition I am neither. I wonder who is deluding themselves, one
> of us must be.

That's all well and good, but doesn't affect the key tenet - which is
that your cycling in no way impacts on your payment of VED, council tax,
income tax etc. Which was the original point.
From: Adrian on
dan(a)telent.net gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

> Well, by exactly the same argument "Motorists don't pay VED" is also
> mostly incorrect. People are by and large not motoring at the exact
> instant that they hand over £120 or however much - the Post Office doors
> aren't wide enough. And for the majority of the period covered by that
> payment, most of the people who make it are not motoring either.

Quite right.

Registered keepers of vehicles, otoh...
From: mileburner on

"Adrian" <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7npol0F3n4836U17(a)mid.individual.net...
> dan(a)telent.net gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:
>
>> Well, by exactly the same argument "Motorists don't pay VED" is also
>> mostly incorrect. People are by and large not motoring at the exact
>> instant that they hand over �120 or however much - the Post Office doors
>> aren't wide enough. And for the majority of the period covered by that
>> payment, most of the people who make it are not motoring either.
>
> Quite right.
>
> Registered keepers of vehicles, otoh...

Or their spouses :-)