Move to change law

[Matt B]

spindrift wrote:
>
> "That's what I said. "liable drivers"..."
>
> So taxpayers bear the cost of all non-blame accidents and uninsured
> drives.

No. Injuries for which uninsured drivers are liable, are paid for by
the MIB, so by other, insured, drivers - inequitable as that may sound.

Would you expect victims of non-blame accidents to pay for their own
treatment? The tax payer pays for all other non-blame accidents, so why
not those on the roads?

> The MIB don't pay for consequential loss,

Good. Why should they (by charging other motorists more) pay for a loss
for which none of their policy holders are liable.

Would you expect your house insurers to charge you extra so that they
can charitably pay claims made by uninsured house owners???

> and police are
> drifting away from the view that there is always an at fault party in
> an RTA.

Whether they are or aren't is not relevant. They do not decide liability.

> Taxpayers cover this, even the taxpayers who don't have a car.

What has whether they have a car, or not, got to do with it? Tax isn't
pigeon-holed. That is one of the benefits of living in socialist
society. Tax is collected and put into a pot. The tax is then used, in
theory at least, to provide the services that the community need. That
includes paying for the NHS and all its extravagances. The only anomaly
is that liable motorists are expected to pay for the treatment of
injuries that they have caused.

> More subsidies for drivers from the public purse.

The opposite actually. Liable motorists have to subsidise the NHS. If
you are liable for an injury not involving a car you are rarely expected
to pay for the necessary treatment.

--
Matt B

 

[NM]

On 15 Mar, 08:18, "spindrift" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> The worst examples in England are a new lane on the M5 between
> junctions 19 and 20 which was budgeted to cost £6m, rose to £8m in a
> revised estimate but cost £17m to complete, and a crossroads on the
> A14, budgeted at £5m, which was revised to £6.7m but cost £13.4m to
> build.

That's fine by me, all quality needed improvments, so they cost a bit
more, the long term benefits will be worth it and I like seeing the
taxes bled out of me as a motorist actually spent on road improvments
we need, Let's have some more.

 

[Paul Boyd]

Dave Larrington said the following on 15/03/2007 08:39:

> Most food is zero-rated, but items demmed to be "luxury goods" aren't. VAT
> is applied to chocolate digestives, but not to plain ones.

What??? Chocolate Digestives are an essential food, not a luxury

Sheesh - you'll be trying to kid me that Jaffa cakes are a luxury next...

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

 

[Perro Blanco]

"Mark Thompson"
<pleasegivegenerously@warmmail*_turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
>>>> according to official uk stats we had 3201 deaths on the roads in 2005
>>>> and the only thing you can go on about is having someone scratch your
>>>> penis substitute as they ride by on a bike!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>> And the NHS killed 5,000 people with MRSA, or their inability to control
>> it, so what is your point?
>
> MRSA was a factor in around 5000 deaths. This is a lot different to it
> being the cause (or even primary cause) of death.

No different to a terminal cancer patient being run over and killed by a
motorist and claiming that the motorist's contribution was a only "factor".
--
When you discover that "they" really are out to get you, you may realise
that you're not quite as paranoid as you thought you were.

 

[Matt B]

spindrift wrote:
>
> Meanwhile:
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/transport/Story/0,,2034264,00.html
>
> Watchdog reveals cost overruns on road schemes leave taxpayer with
> £3bn bill

It's quite controlled then really at only 40% over-budget. Compare it
to, say, the way the NHS medical record IT project. The last I heard
that was more than 200% over-budget - at £20bn, rather that the budgeted
£6.2bn. The "lost" £13.8bn, of which about £1.38bn was received from
motoring taxes, could have been used to lower VED by 30%. ;-)

--
Matt B

 

[Daniel Barlow]

®i©ardo wrote:
> Sorry, you are correct - but you'll still get harassed for not having
> one even if you don't have a television.

I also get harassed by bums on the street for not giving them money.
Doesn't make /that/ a tax either ;-)

Anyway, this is clearly off-topic for either group


-dan

--
http://www.coruskate.net/

 

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 10:37:09 -0000, "Dave Larrington"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In news:[email protected],
>Dave Larrington <[email protected]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to
>tell us:
>> In news:[email protected],
>> Ian Smith <[email protected]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell
>> us:
>>> Paul Boyd wrote:
>>>
>>>> What does it take to make people realise that VED and fuel duty have
>>>> no connection to money spent on roads? *ALL* taxpayers contribute
>>>> to the roads, regardless of which vehicle they choose to use.
>>>
>>> OK, everybody who pays taxes may pay for the roads, but drivers pay
>>> to use the roads, thus adding more than their fair share to the pot.
>>>
>>> Ccylists, on the other hand are nothing but parasites who clutter up
>>> the roads, ignore the law and make no extra contibution.
>>
>> Would the Troll care to tell us how much he believes an equitable
>> vehicle excise duty on a bicycle might be? If you have difficulty
>> with the mathematical side of things, you may get a grown-up to help
>> you.
>
>Clearly the Troll cannot find any grown-ups, so I'll save it the bother.
>

Grown-ups have long since decided to ignore the Troll.

 

[Clive.]

In message <[email protected]>, Martin Dann
<[email protected]> writes
>For a tyre that has little or no deformation when placed on the road,
>the pressure on the road will be completely different to that of the
>air inside the tyre. As weight is put onto the wheel, the tyre will
>deform, increasing the surface area on the road, but the tyre will
>still hold some of the air pressure at the interface.
What does the above gibberish mean?
>> I am seeing a tyre that distorts so that the area under the tyre is
>proportional to it's weight in psi divided by the tyre
>pressure, and the deformation of the road surface.
>What does "weight in psi" mean (and the rest of the sentence).
Very poorly put, sorry. What I meant to say was the down force on the
road is they same as that inside the tyre and the two balance, so the
load (axle weight?) Is the same as the down force per square inch times
the number of square inches in that area.
--
Clive.

 

[Clive.]

In message <[email protected]>, John
Hearns <[email protected]> writes
>Twaddle. Pressure = force per unit area,
>ie weight of vehicle divided by area of contact patch of tyres
Twaddle. Not really, unless you don't know what you're talking about.
Pressure. More or less the gist of what I was saying, hence if your
tyre pressure is higher on a bike you could be doing more damage than a
car.
--
Clive.

 

[Ian Smith]

["Followup-To:" header set to uk.rec.cycling.]
On Wed, 14 Mar, Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>
> Roads are free at the point of use, except to most motorists. Most
> motorists have to pay VED before they can use roads.

Really? You pay your VED as you pull out of your driveway each time
you set off on a journey? I wasn't aware that option existed.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Peter Clinch]

Clive. wrote:

> Twaddle. Not really, unless you don't know what you're talking about.
> Pressure. More or less the gist of what I was saying, hence if your
> tyre pressure is higher on a bike you could be doing more damage than a
> car.

For some values of "could" which had knife-edge tyres running at
impractical pressures...

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Matt B]

Ian Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Mar, Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>> Roads are free at the point of use, except to most motorists. Most
>> motorists have to pay VED before they can use roads.
>
> Really?

Yes. The only road users that have to pay explicitly to use the roads
are those who are using it in/on a motor vehicle.

Check out this link if you don't believe me:
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/OwningAVehicle/TaxationClasses/DG_4022042


> You pay your VED as you pull out of your driveway each time
> you set off on a journey? I wasn't aware that option existed.

It doesn't, unlike with PT, where season tickets are optional, with VED
there is no option to pay-as-you-go. Once you've bought the VED "season
ticket" it is difficult to justify using alternate means of travel, as
you would be wasting your investment.

--
Matt B

 

[stevo]

Ian Smith wrote:
> I saw something in my local paper today that really made my blood boil.
>
> Apparantly there are moves afoot to make the police always assume that
> it is the car driver who is guilty in any accident involving a bike.
>
> These bikers don't contribute to the cost of the roads, aren't tracable,
> are forever riding on the pavements and jumping red lights so why the
> hell should they be treated like little demigods?

Sounds fine to me, it they are forever on the pavements then any car
hitting them is clearly in the wrong.

>
> Until they start contributing to the costs of the roads they use for

Hang on, you just said they don't use the roads, they are forever on the
pavments.

> nothing and obeying the traffic laws, surely they shouldn't be given
> even more privileges.
>
> What do others think?

Do you ever think?

 

[stevo]

Jim Bird wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 12:36:17 +0000, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I saw something in my local paper today that really made my blood boil.
>>
>> Apparantly there are moves afoot to make the police always assume that
>> it is the car driver who is guilty in any accident involving a bike.
>>
>> These bikers don't contribute to the cost of the roads, aren't tracable,
>> are forever riding on the pavements and jumping red lights so why the
>> hell should they be treated like little demigods?
>>
>> Until they start contributing to the costs of the roads they use for
>> nothing and obeying the traffic laws, surely they shouldn't be given
>> even more privileges.
>>
>> What do others think?
>
> Round our way there are loads of people riding on the pavements. At night they
> don't bother with nicities such as lights. So if they cycle out in front of a
> car at a junction, it's assumed to be the car drivers fault? Bloody great! No
> wonder this country's going to the dogs.

Anyone that says "No wonder this country's going to the dogs." is
clearly a miserable old git that just likes to moan.


>
> Jim

 

[Brimstone]

Matt B" <"matt.bourke wrote:
> Ian Smith wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Mar, Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>>> Roads are free at the point of use, except to most motorists. Most
>>> motorists have to pay VED before they can use roads.
>>
>> Really?
>
> Yes. The only road users that have to pay explicitly to use the roads
> are those who are using it in/on a motor vehicle.
>
> Check out this link if you don't believe me:
> http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/OwningAVehicle/TaxationClasses/DG_4022042
>
>
>> You pay your VED as you pull out of your driveway each time
>> you set off on a journey? I wasn't aware that option existed.
>
> It doesn't, unlike with PT, where season tickets are optional, with
> VED there is no option to pay-as-you-go. Once you've bought the VED
> "season ticket" it is difficult to justify using alternate means of
> travel, as you would be wasting your investment.

Hence the proposed shift to road-pricing.

 

[Tony Raven]

Martin Dann wrote on 15/03/2007 08:42 +0100:
> Clive. wrote:
>
>> Care to enlighten me, simple physics can be followed if you want.
>
> What does "weight in psi" mean (and the rest of the sentence).
>

Perhaps that is Clive's simple, err I mean wrong, physics ;-)


--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

 

[Tony Raven]

Clive. wrote on 15/03/2007 10:45 +0100:
> In message <[email protected]>, John
> Hearns <[email protected]> writes
>> Twaddle. Pressure = force per unit area,
>>
> Twaddle. Not really, unless you don't know what you're talking about.
>

So Twaddle then. Do you have any references at all to any research that
shows road damage is a function of tyre pressure and not the fourth
power of axle load? Or are you just making it up as you go?

--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

 

[NM]

On 15 Mar, 09:01, "Dave Larrington" <[email protected]>
wrote:

> If RFL/VED had kept pace with inflation, that Focus would cost almost six
> hundred quid[3] a year to tax, so I'd say the average motorist is getting
> off lightly...
>
What do you mean 'getting off' ? What exactly are they avoiding?

 

[John Hearns]

Clive. wrote:
> In message <[email protected]>, John
> Hearns <[email protected]> writes
>> Twaddle. Pressure = force per unit area,
>> ie weight of vehicle divided by area of contact patch of tyres
> Twaddle. Not really, unless you don't know what you're talking about.

Pressure is defined as force per unit area.
Its SI unit is the Pascal.
I know this as I have a first in Physics.

 

[Matt B]

Brimstone wrote:
> Matt B" <"matt.bourke wrote:
>> Ian Smith wrote:
>>> On Wed, 14 Mar, Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>>>> Roads are free at the point of use, except to most motorists. Most
>>>> motorists have to pay VED before they can use roads.
>>> Really?
>> Yes. The only road users that have to pay explicitly to use the roads
>> are those who are using it in/on a motor vehicle.
>>
>> Check out this link if you don't believe me:
>> http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/OwningAVehicle/TaxationClasses/DG_4022042
>>
>>
>>> You pay your VED as you pull out of your driveway each time
>>> you set off on a journey? I wasn't aware that option existed.
>> It doesn't, unlike with PT, where season tickets are optional, with
>> VED there is no option to pay-as-you-go. Once you've bought the VED
>> "season ticket" it is difficult to justify using alternate means of
>> travel, as you would be wasting your investment.
>
> Hence the proposed shift to road-pricing.

Only for road use in motor vehicles though, so just another unfairly
regressive tax dedicated to motorists.

--
Matt B