Cyclists above the law
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Cunting lorry drivers.
Next: Britain's scariest roads
From: mileburner on 3 Dec 2009 09:05 "paul george" <paulgrg1(a)googlemail.com> wrote in message news:1328ccf8-b67c-4602-b695-ff7a29d4b50e(a)m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... > 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. The irony is that motorists don't actually need a stick to beat cyclists with even if they wanted to. They harass and intimidate cyclists anyway using their vehicles.
From: Adrian on 3 Dec 2009 09:17 "mileburner" <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: > The irony is that motorists don't actually need a stick to beat cyclists > with even if they wanted to. They harass and intimidate cyclists anyway > using their vehicles. OK, since we've already established that you are a motorist and a cyclist, I just have one question... Why do you do that to yourself?
From: paul george on 3 Dec 2009 09:43 On 3 Dec, 14:05, "mileburner" <milebur...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > > The irony is that motorists don't actually need a stick to beat cyclists > with even if they wanted to. They harass and intimidate cyclists anyway > using their vehicles. That's the whole point. Those who are most vocal about wanting cycling regulated and taxed are never going to say "welcome to the brotherhood of fully paid up road users", it will be more like "serves you bastards right, now get out of the ****ing way."
From: mileburner on 3 Dec 2009 11:04 "Adrian" <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:7npvknF3n4836U21(a)mid.individual.net... > "mileburner" <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> gurgled happily, sounding much > like they were saying: > >> The irony is that motorists don't actually need a stick to beat cyclists >> with even if they wanted to. They harass and intimidate cyclists anyway >> using their vehicles. > > OK, since we've already established that you are a motorist and a > cyclist, I just have one question... > > Why do you do that to yourself? Didn't you know? Cyclists ride on the pavement and jump red lights, and drivers tailgate and hurl abuse from their windows. I am sure you will find an argument in there...
From: johnwright ""john" on 3 Dec 2009 12:09
dan(a)telent.net wrote: > Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> writes: > >> Peter Grange <peter(a)plgrange.demon.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much >> like they were saying: >>> I am a motorist and a cyclist. >> Yes, you are. At different times. As am I. I am also a pedestrian. But >> not at the same time as being either a cyclist or a motorist. > [...] >> But you do not pay VED as a cyclist, and you do not pay VED as a >> pedestrian. You pay VED as the keeper of a vehicle - a subset of >> "motorist". > > This argument is logically inconsistent. If I am only a cyclist when > cycling and only a motorist when motoring, and only a pedestrian when > walking, yet I am the keeper of a vehicle *all the time* (it still needs > VED even when I'm not using it, if it is parked on the public road), > keepers of vehicles cannot be a subset of motorists. The most you could > claim is that they are people who may also at times be assumed to be > motorists. That's precisely the difference between the keeper and a motorist. Strictly speaking you are only a motorist when driving the vehicle. The same person may be all three at different times. I know I am. -- I'm not apathetic... I just don't give a sh** anymore ?John Wright |