Cyclists above the law
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Cunting lorry drivers.
Next: Britain's scariest roads
From: Adrian on 3 Dec 2009 07:34 "mileburner" <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: > I guess though there are a lot of motorists who do not understand what > VED is, and why the government levy it. "Because they can" Strange how other countries manage to provide considerably better road networks without charging a VED equivalent.
From: mileburner on 3 Dec 2009 07:50 "Adrian" <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:7nppi2F3n4836U18(a)mid.individual.net... > "mileburner" <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> gurgled happily, sounding much > like they were saying: > >> I guess though there are a lot of motorists who do not understand what >> VED is, and why the government levy it. > > "Because they can" > > Strange how other countries manage to provide considerably better road > networks without charging a VED equivalent. Perhaps this has something to do with there being little correlation between road building and VED.
From: Mike P on 3 Dec 2009 08:08 On 3 Dec, 10:20, Adrian <toomany2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > "mileburner" <milebur...(a)btinternet.com> gurgled happily, sounding much > like they were saying: > > > "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in > > messagenews:SIDRm.11223$Ym4.7974(a)text.news.virginmedia.com... > >> The only good cyclist is a dead cyclist. > > That comment certainly highlights the problems that cyclists face on the > > roads. > > I find it hilarious that David Lang, the Medway Handyman (http://www.medwayhandyman.co.uk/) thinks that he's actually doing anything > positive by advertising his business in this manner. Well, quite. Mike P
From: paul george on 3 Dec 2009 08:47 On 3 Dec, 13:32, Peter Grange <pe...(a)plgrange.demon.co.uk> wrote: > > The whole point of my pedantry on this was because the "Cyclists don't > pay VED" (and "VED" has only recently replaced the more emotive "road > tax" in this thread) statement is inferring, and I am quite sure the > Medway Handyman believes it, that cyclists are a separate race > inferior to motorists and have no, or much less, right to be on the > road because the government chooses not to levy the same tax on a > cycle as it does on the majority of motor vehicles. I don't agree that it is because cycles are not subject to VED. That is just a convenient stick with which to beat cyclists. If cyclists were licenced, taxed, insured, MOT'd and plated bigots like Medway would just find another stick.
From: mileburner on 3 Dec 2009 09:00
"Peter Grange" <peter(a)plgrange.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:klefh51uhitv4g60ia3sps7n1s0it5jhfu(a)4ax.com... > The whole point of my pedantry on this was because the "Cyclists don't > pay VED" (and "VED" has only recently replaced the more emotive "road > tax" in this thread) statement is inferring, and I am quite sure the > Medway Handyman believes it, that cyclists are a separate race > inferior to motorists and have no, or much less, right to be on the > road because the government chooses not to levy the same tax on a > cycle as it does on the majority of motor vehicles. If we can all > agree that being a cyclist and being a motorist are not mutually > exclusive and the cyclist has every right to be on the road this > overlong thread will not have been in vain. (But don't hold your > breath...) I think a large part of the problem is the volume of non-cycling motorists we have in this country. If those non-cycling motorists were to get some experience of cycling, they would have a better understanding of it and the hazards posed by other traffic. It seems to be though a convenient excuse not to cycle, by claiming that cyclists are some kind of inferior group of outcasts which they do not want to belong to. However ridiculous The Medway Handyman comes across, he is certainly not alone in his thinking. |