I don't think VED has actually gone directly into road maintenance/building funds since the Roads Fund was abolished as long ago as ca. 1936; true, VED *was* introduced in order to pay for the road network, but it hasn't been set aside especially for that purpose for nearly 70 years!
And the Road Fund only ever /contributed/ to road construction, it never came close to meeting the full cost.
Churchill opposed the Road Fund on the grounds that it would be but a short step from there to drivers asserting ownership of the roads that their tax had paid for. Prescient man on occasions, that Mr Churchill.
On the subject of which, I'm not aware of horse riders getting the sort of "why don't you lot pay any road tax?" stick that cyclists have to put up with. The word 'scapegoats' springs to mind.
That's because the ones who are leading the idiocy are the ones driving Tarquin and Jocasta half a mile to their riding lessons in the Range-Rover.
Ambrose Nankivell <[email hidden]> wrote: : "Arthur Clune" <[email hidden]> writes: :> :> http://www-mech.eng.cam.ac.uk/trg/publications/abstracts/veh_road10.html :> : That said, I wonder how road damage varies in proportion to speed. If : cars are going 90mph (as I hear is normal on the M6 Toll) and the : trucks going 56mph, then some of the truck's damage must be mitigated.
Read the above. But to a first approximation, you can just ignore the car.
Unless road damage is also quartic on speed as well as weight.
David E. Belcher vaguely muttered something like ...
Quoted message said:
"Paulmouk" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...
Quoted message said:
Public roads are for the use of the public and includes everybody.
This includes motorists, disabled people in 8mph electric wheelchairs, cyclists, horse riders
On the subject of which, I'm not aware of horse riders getting the sort of "why don't you lot pay any road tax?" stick that cyclists have to put up with. The word 'scapegoats' springs to mind.
Maybe you don't ride horses on the road much then. For those that do this cry is heard often, in fact (in my experience) much more when riding a horse on the road than when riding a bike .. and generally in rather more colourful language ..
-- Paul ...
(8(|) Homer Rules !!!
"A [censored] is a [censored], no matter what mode of transport they're using."
That said, I wonder how road damage varies in proportion to speed. If cars are going 90mph (as I hear is normal on the M6 Toll) and the trucks going 56mph, then some of the truck's damage must be mitigated.
Arthur's figures are low, becasue he's assuming a uniformish weight distribution, but the back axles on a 40 tonne carry more load than teh tractor unit axles. I forget how much, and I meant to check the design assumptions in BD37 (highway structures loading code) yesterday at work but forgot - but even if it's only a 20% weight variation, that doubles teh damage when raised to teh fourth power.
Speed makes not much difference if teh surface is flattish. It makes a big difference if there's (say) a hump-back bridge. For most general flat road not on a structure, I doubt speed comes into it much.
That said, I wonder how road damage varies in proportion to speed. If cars are going 90mph (as I hear is normal on the M6 Toll) and the trucks going 56mph, then some of the truck's damage must be mitigated.
Speed makes not much difference if teh surface is flattish. It makes a big difference if there's (say) a hump-back bridge. For most general flat road not on a structure, I doubt speed comes into it much.
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 09:56:51 +0100 someone who may be "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote this:-
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
As a car driver and cyclist I find the disparity of insurance, and the taxing of insurance, more of an issue
Yes, so do I. Bikes pose so little risk that I get £5m of third-party liability insurance thrown in for nothing with my CTC membership, but large numbers of car drivers (who pose such high risk that the third party liability component of their insurance can be hundreds of pounds per year) are not insured at all, or driving without MoT (in which case their insurance is invalid).
Or was that not the disparity you meant?
Well said.
Of course third-party insurance for all members of a household when cycling is so cheap to provide that many/most insurers include it "free" with household insurance. If the premium was to be separated out I imagine it would be under five pounds a year.
-- David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 09:36:32 +0100 someone who may be "njf>badger<" <"njf>badger<"@soton.ac.uk> wrote this:-
Quoted message said:
some cyclists do set out to provoke some drivers
Really. Perhaps you are thinking of those that cycle in the correct place, rather than in the gutter? Some drivers do think that is done to provoke them.
-- David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 09:36:32 +0100 someone who may be "njf>badger<" <"njf>badger<"@soton.ac.uk> wrote this:-
Quoted message said:
some cyclists do set out to provoke some drivers
Really. Perhaps you are thinking of those that cycle in the correct place, rather than in the gutter? Some drivers do think that is done to provoke them.
And indeed it is. It provokes them into actually noticing the cyclist before the crunch under the wheels and blood on the bumper.
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 09:36:32 +0100 someone who may be "njf>badger<" <"njf>badger<"@soton.ac.uk> wrote this:-
Quoted message said:
some cyclists do set out to provoke some drivers
Really. Perhaps you are thinking of those that cycle in the correct place, rather than in the gutter? Some drivers do think that is done to provoke them.
Hell no, I ride 3-4 feet out, and would rather others did, rather than hit the [censored] in the gutter and end up out of control.....The one's I hate are those that bate drivers whilst passing them in traffic then disappear leaving others (like me) to face angry drivers whose box got scrape'd...
Speed makes not much difference if teh surface is flattish. It makes a big difference if there's (say) a hump-back bridge. For most general flat road not on a structure, I doubt speed comes into it much.
Except on bends, I guess, where there is noticeably more surface wear than on the flat bits.
Even 60 years' motoring at £8100 won't buy you a mini roundabout.
However, 40 years of paying a return adult fare on a London bus 5 days a week, 48 weeks a year, at £19,200, will pay for a shinny new bus shelter with an electronic display board showing the expected time of the next bus.
Having been on the roads a few years and harassed by a few motorists for being freeloading scum ("When you start paying road tax and insurance, THEN you can yell at me for cutting you up!"😉, and seen plenty more of this sort of [censored] in the media - just what *is* the situation with so-called road tax?
It goes in a big pot with all other taxes and is in just the same category as taxes on [censored], booze, VAT etc.
On the subject of which, I'm not aware of horse riders getting the sort of "why don't you lot pay any road tax?" stick that cyclists have to put up with. The word 'scapegoats' springs to mind.
That's because the ones who are leading the idiocy are the ones driving Tarquin and Jocasta half a mile to their riding lessons in the Range-Rover.
Guy
Why are riding lessons thought necessary, but cycling lessons are not?
I'm going to enjoy a good argument when the Labour canvassers come round next year. I think my opening gambit will be "So what DID you spend all our money on, apart from blowing up [censored] like Dubya told you to?"
(FWIW I hate the Tories even more...)
I look forward to meeting a Tory canvasser, so that I can tell them I can't possibly vote for them because I want a government that will be tough on crime. When they bleat: "But we are tough on crime", I can add: "Particularly motoring offences."
I don't have much time for a party that claims to be tough on crime, then goes on about removing speed cameras and reducing speeding fines.
-- Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address) <URL:http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/> "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine
On the subject of which, I'm not aware of horse riders getting the sort of "why don't you lot pay any road tax?" stick that cyclists have to put up with. The word 'scapegoats' springs to mind.
I've heard quite a bit of anti-horse riding on public roads sentiment expressed. Then again I've heard car drivers complain about caravans, HGVs, milk floats, whatever or whomever they percieve as delaying them on their important missions to sell widgets, sit on a beach, save the world, get home early to catch whoever is shaggin' their missus and so on.
Let's face it driving is a frustrating experience, you sit in a cosy cage, a modest one of which will propel you at 100mph <1>, and travel at a miserably low average speed most of the time, OTOH once out of suburbia I travel at maximum speed on my bike nearly all the time :-))
<1> Why are 0 to 60 statistics of such interest? Usually when in my family car or on my road bike the cars in front accelerate at a miserable rate when lights turn to green.
True. A technical term is that VED is not hypothecated taxation - hypothecated taxation being that which is dedicated to a particular purpose. VED is no more paying for roads than VAT, income tax, or any of the myriad of other taxes moist people pay.
It's very easy to understand: Get [censored]. Then thump someone that's sober. When they complain, tell them that they've no right to until they've paid as much alchohol duty as you.
