Law abiding motorists again

David Hansen said:

We often hear the whines from the unacceptable face of motoring
about how motorists "have to pay road tax".

They _do_ "have to"[1].

Quoted message said:

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article3359650.ece reveals
the reality behind these claims.

Yes - it confirms they are true. Most motorists actually _do_ "have to
pay road tax". The fact that 5% evade it has no bearing on that claim.

Quoted message said:

Other than using the incorrect
term, "road tax",

It may not be the term that those who wish to obscure its real function
prefer to use, but it is nothing other than a "road tax". Take a look
at the OCED definition:
road tax. noun Brit. a periodic tax payable on motor vehicles using
public roads.

It couldn't be clearer.

Quoted message said:

the article is not too bad.

Would you recommend similar strong-arm tactics be applied to those who
are a month late with the payment of other bills? Would yo have
televisions crushed for late payment of the telly licence fee? What
about those who pay their gas or electricity bills late?

Notice it also goes on to talk about the measures of chipping etc.,
which would, as with ID cards & passports, simply make breaking the law
almost undetectable in the case of those willing to buy forged documents.

The most cost effective solution would be to abolish the tax. That way,
law abiding citizens would not have to fund the ridiculous measures,
which are failing anyway, that are being used in a futile attempt to
collect the few last pounds of the tax.

Another benefit of abolishing ANPR enforced motorist specific
taxes/penalties, such as the road tax, the London congestion charge, and
speed camera revenue, would be that all of the main motivators for
carrying false number plates would be removed.

Us cyclists would also benefit from the removal of one of the causes of
motorist resentment of us, their requirement to pay road tax to be
allowed use the roads.

[1] Acknowledging the few well known exceptions to do with age, VED
band, energy source, etc.

--
Matt B

David Hansen wibbled

Quoted message said:

We often hear the whines from the unacceptable face of motoring
about how motorists "have to pay road tax".

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article3359650.ece reveals
the reality behind these claims. Other than using the incorrect
term, "road tax", the article is not too bad.

Motorists do have to pay VED, and that in fact most of them _do_ pay
this duty.

I wonder what your point was?

--
Paul - [censored]

'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi 'Big and Butch'
'98 Suzuki DR 200 Djebel 'Small but perfectly formed'
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp "When I feel fit enough'

"I wonder what your point was?"

Possibly that the acres of newsprint devoted to "lycra nazis" strikes
one as strange considering there are more untaxed cars on the roads
(1.25m) than regular cycle commuters (1m)

Matt B said:

The most cost effective solution would be to abolish the tax. That way,
law abiding citizens would not have to fund the ridiculous measures,
which are failing anyway, that are being used in a futile attempt to
collect the few last pounds of the tax.

Yes, OK then. let's raise the money needed by increasing the penalties
for speeding. Then the law abising motorist would have to pay nothing.
Roger Thorpe

Roger Thorpe said:

Matt B said:

The most cost effective solution would be to abolish the tax. That
way, law abiding citizens would not have to fund the ridiculous
measures, which are failing anyway, that are being used in a futile
attempt to collect the few last pounds of the tax.

Yes, OK then. let's raise the money needed by increasing the penalties
for speeding. Then the law abising motorist would have to pay nothing.
Roger Thorpe

Why target only those who "commit" one specific victimless technical
offence to make up the difference? Why not raise the money needed to
run the country fairly, and based on the ability to pay. Motorists
already pay more than their fair share through fuel tax?

--
Matt B

Matt B said:

Roger Thorpe said:

Matt B said:

The most cost effective solution would be to abolish the tax. That
way, law abiding citizens would not have to fund the ridiculous
measures, which are failing anyway, that are being used in a futile
attempt to collect the few last pounds of the tax.

Yes, OK then. let's raise the money needed by increasing the penalties
for speeding. Then the law abising motorist would have to pay nothing.
Roger Thorpe

Why target only those who "commit" one specific victimless technical
offence to make up the difference? Why not raise the money needed to
run the country fairly, and based on the ability to pay. Motorists
already pay more than their fair share through fuel tax?

Oh, you didn't actually mean 'law abiding' then!
Roger Thorpe

Roger Thorpe said:

Matt B said:

Roger Thorpe wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Matt B wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> The most cost effective solution would be to abolish the tax.  That
> way, law abiding citizens would not have to fund the ridiculous
> measures, which are failing anyway, that are being used in a futile
> attempt to collect the few last pounds of the tax.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Yes, OK then. let's raise the money needed by increasing the penalties
for speeding. Then the law abising motorist would have to pay nothing.
Roger Thorpe

Quoted message said:

Why target only those who "commit" one specific victimless technical
offence to make up the difference?  Why not raise the money needed to
run the country fairly, and based on the ability to pay.  Motorists
already pay more than their fair share through fuel tax?

Oh, you didn't actually mean 'law abiding' then!
Roger Thorpe- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There's an elderly lady near me who does a quarter mile detour to
avoid crossing a road where drivers speed so much she is too scared to
cross the road. She's never been hit by a car though, so she's not a
"victim" of speeding, according to the speedophiles. KSI rates are all
that matters to the pro-speeding lobby, the fact that people who have
not been killed or crippled by speeding drivers are motivated enough
up and down the country to lobby, protest and march for lower speed
limits in their neighbourhoods makes no difference to the pro-speeders
because these people are not "victims."

Scrap the points, treble the fine for speeders so they begin to
realise that even if they are lucky enough not to kill someone their
behaviour is still aggressive and anti-social.

"spindrift" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Scrap the points, treble the fine for speeders so they begin to
realise that even if they are lucky enough not to kill someone their
behaviour is still aggressive and anti-social.

Even trebled, the fines would be insignificant.

Drop the fines, increase the points to base of 5 points, plus one extra
point per 10% over the limit.

12points is disqualification, surplus points to disqualification /start/
when the license is renewed.

Oh yes, mandatory full extended retest and mandatory driving lessons with L
plates before the test can be retaken.

The success of drink driving has shown how productive removing the licenses
of criminals can be.

(and similar penalties for red light jumping/pavement cycling
etc...impound/destruction of bikes etc...)

pOB

spindrift said:

Scrap the points, treble the fine for speeders so they begin to
realise that even if they are lucky enough not to kill someone their
behaviour is still aggressive and anti-social.

Nahh..
real traffic police. Pull the car over. Clamp it for 4 hours.

That'll learn 'em that speeding doesn't pay.

...d

PoB said:

The success of drink driving has shown how productive removing the licenses
of criminals can be.

ie not very!

http://uk.virginmoney.com/newscentre/press-releases/2005/ferdinand-scores-as-the-uks-worst-football-star-driver.html

http://bloodbus.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=20827&sid=dc7b748a704ae4d018e97977a62c9035

http://www.watfordobserver.co.uk/mostpopular.var.1615631.mostcommented.drink_driver_too_intoxicated_for_court.php

30 seconds googling gives hundreds of reports of people driving whilst
banned

Roger Thorpe said:

Matt B said:

Roger Thorpe said:

Matt B wrote:

> The most cost effective solution would be to abolish the tax. That
> way, law abiding citizens would not have to fund the ridiculous
> measures, which are failing anyway, that are being used in a futile
> attempt to collect the few last pounds of the tax.

Yes, OK then. let's raise the money needed by increasing the
penalties for speeding. Then the law abising motorist would have to
pay nothing.
Roger Thorpe

Why target only those who "commit" one specific victimless technical
offence to make up the difference? Why not raise the money needed to
run the country fairly, and based on the ability to pay. Motorists
already pay more than their fair share through fuel tax?

Oh, you didn't actually mean 'law abiding' then!
Roger Thorpe

Eh? Ah, I see the source of your confusion. By "law abiding" I meant
all those good and decent citizens who pay their taxes (especially
motorists who certainly shoulder a huge burden in this respect). I
didn't really mean, and have never in their lives broken any of the
other laws of the land. Sorry for you confusion.

--
Matt B

Matt B said:

Roger Thorpe said:

Matt B said:

Roger Thorpe wrote:

> Matt B wrote:
>
>> The most cost effective solution would be to abolish the tax. That
>> way, law abiding citizens would not have to fund the ridiculous
>> measures, which are failing anyway, that are being used in a futile
>> attempt to collect the few last pounds of the tax.
>
>
>
> Yes, OK then. let's raise the money needed by increasing the
> penalties for speeding. Then the law abising motorist would have to
> pay nothing.
> Roger Thorpe

Why target only those who "commit" one specific victimless technical
offence to make up the difference? Why not raise the money needed to
run the country fairly, and based on the ability to pay. Motorists
already pay more than their fair share through fuel tax?

Oh, you didn't actually mean 'law abiding' then!
Roger Thorpe

Eh? Ah, I see the source of your confusion. By "law abiding" I meant
all those good and decent citizens who pay their taxes (especially
motorists who certainly shoulder a huge burden in this respect). I
didn't really mean, and have never in their lives broken any of the
other laws of the land. Sorry for you confusion.

No, I'm not confused, but drivers who speed and then call themselves
'law abiding' are confused.
Roger

spindrift said:

There's an elderly lady near me who does a quarter mile detour to
avoid crossing a road where drivers speed so much she is too scared to
cross the road.

You should lobby for "Shared Space", it solves that type of problem
beautifully.

Quoted message said:

She's never been hit by a car though, so she's not a
"victim" of speeding, according to the speedophiles.

Even if she /was/ hit by a car, it is extremely unlikely that she would
have been the victim of speeding. You see, most most collisions
involving a car and a pedestrian don't involve speeding. Fact.

Quoted message said:

KSI rates are all
that matters to the pro-speeding lobby,

Elaborate, explaining who the "pro-speeding lobby" are, and explain why
you think KSI rates are unimportant?

Quoted message said:

the fact that people who have
not been killed or crippled by speeding drivers are motivated enough
up and down the country to lobby, protest and march for lower speed
limits in their neighbourhoods makes no difference to the pro-speeders
because these people are not "victims."

They have swallowed the propaganda and spin from people like yourself
(some of whom actually believe it themselves, and some of whom are
simply anti-car) and thus are convinced that the problem they have /is/
connected with "speeding". Usually though, the council will then set-up
one of those rubber tube gizmos to measure vehicle speeds for a while,
and report back that speeding isn't happening, so their residents'
ill-considered request is doomed to failure.

They need to frame their request in a different way. They need to ask
for the road to be converted to "Shared Space". That way all users get
equal priority, rather than the likely current situation where motorists
are given de-facto priority. The results from places where this type of
scheme have been used, including a view places in the UK, is casualty
collisions are virtually eliminated, congestion is reduced, and peds get
a fair crack of the whip.

Quoted message said:

Scrap the points, treble the fine for speeders so they begin to
realise that even if they are lucky enough not to kill someone their
behaviour is still aggressive and anti-social.

Or invest in a policy designed to solve the road use problems. It's not
rocket science is it.

--
Matt B

PoB said:

"spindrift" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Scrap the points, treble the fine for speeders so they begin to
realise that even if they are lucky enough not to kill someone their
behaviour is still aggressive and anti-social.

The success of drink driving has shown how productive removing the licenses
of criminals can be.

If by "productive" you mean it increases the number of unlicensed
drivers on our roads, then yes.

Alternatively you could go back to first principles, and start again.
Now, what was the original objective? Ah, it was /actually/ to make the
roads better and safer for all. So let's drop the measures which do
not, and cannot achieve that (yes, even if it does mean that fewer
motorists will be punished for something (anything)), and design and
implement measures which have a chance of achieving the real objective.

Maybe even look at places that have made huge strides in solving the
problem, and see what methods they have used.

--
Matt B

Roger Thorpe said:

Matt B said:

Roger Thorpe said:

Matt B wrote:

> Roger Thorpe wrote:
>
>> Matt B wrote:
>>
>>> The most cost effective solution would be to abolish the tax.
>>> That way, law abiding citizens would not have to fund the
>>> ridiculous measures, which are failing anyway, that are being used
>>> in a futile attempt to collect the few last pounds of the tax.
>>
>> Yes, OK then. let's raise the money needed by increasing the
>> penalties for speeding. Then the law abising motorist would have to
>> pay nothing.
>> Roger Thorpe
>
> Why target only those who "commit" one specific victimless technical
> offence to make up the difference? Why not raise the money needed
> to run the country fairly, and based on the ability to pay.
> Motorists already pay more than their fair share through fuel tax?

Oh, you didn't actually mean 'law abiding' then!
Roger Thorpe

Eh? Ah, I see the source of your confusion. By "law abiding" I meant
all those good and decent citizens who pay their taxes (especially
motorists who certainly shoulder a huge burden in this respect). I
didn't really mean, and have never in their lives broken any of the
other laws of the land. Sorry for you confusion.

No, I'm not confused, but drivers who speed and then call themselves
'law abiding' are confused.

Like all the men in the country who don't do their mandatory archery
practice each Sunday?

--
Matt B

spindrift said:

Scrap the points, treble the fine for speeders so they begin to
realise that even if they are lucky enough not to kill someone their
behaviour is still aggressive and anti-social.

Much simpler to have random, unmarked, manned stations where speeding is
the focus; and impound the motorcars alleged to have been speeding (as
evidence, of course). Should this not decrease the rate of sppeding
sufficiently, increase the penalty for breaking this law to crushing.

Law-abiding motorists will have nothing about which to worry.

_ said:

spindrift said:

Scrap the points, treble the fine for speeders so they begin to
realise that even if they are lucky enough not to kill someone their
behaviour is still aggressive and anti-social.

Much simpler to have random, unmarked, manned stations where speeding is
the focus; and impound the motorcars alleged to have been speeding (as
evidence, of course).

But, alas, no matter what devious schemes you could devise to catch
speeding motorists, as we have in fact learnt from our recent history,
it won't make the roads any safer. The reason being, that speeding is
not a /real/ causal factor.

Quoted message said:

Should this not decrease the rate of sppeding
sufficiently, increase the penalty for breaking this law to crushing.

Like I said, even if you eradicated speeding all together, there would
still be road conflict, and road casualties.

Quoted message said:

Law-abiding motorists will have nothing about which to worry.

Ha ha ha.

--
Matt B

David Hansen said:

We often hear the whines from the unacceptable face of motoring
about how motorists "have to pay road tax".

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article3359650.ece reveals
the reality behind these claims. Other than using the incorrect
term, "road tax", the article is not too bad.

Apparently (from someone who used to be part of the scene) a lot of
sports bikes are also registered in a false name, have false plates and
are uninsured; a sure-fire way to beat those inevitable speeding tickets
when you hoon around the Peaks trying to kill yourself.

spindrift said:

Scrap the points, treble the fine for speeders so they begin to
realise that even if they are lucky enough not to kill someone their
behaviour is still aggressive and anti-social.

Scrapping the points would allow the rich to speed as much as they
liked.

--
Dave...