Move to change law



Clive. wrote on 15/03/2007 12:37 +0100:
> In message <[email protected]>, Tony Raven
> <[email protected]> writes
>> So Twaddle then.
> What is it that you don't understand?

Lots. Is there life after death,

>> Do you have any references at all to any research
> To what research are you referring?

Keep reading

>> that shows road damage is a function of tyre pressure and not the
>> fourth power of axle load?

That research.

> Can you show "axle load" to be relevant?

Yes. Its more complex in reality than the fourth power law but axle
load is a key parameter. You might care to read David Cebon's excellent
paper on the subject:
http://www-mech.eng.cam.ac.uk/trg/publications/downloads/veh_road/veh_road11.pdf

>> Or are you just making it up as you go?
> A mind experiment.

A euphemism here for you are making it up.

--
Tony

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

Or lacks the vision to realise that it has already gone to the dogs.

--
Moving things in still pictures!
 
In message <[email protected]>, ®i©ardo
<[email protected]> writes
>Flavoured water and organic vegetable juice 17½%
>Earl Grey tea bags and Fox's Millionaire shortcake biscuits 0%
>
>I'm sure there's some logic in it somewhere.
I can see the sense in it. The people who decided what is to be zero
rated, drank Earl Grey in which they dunked their Fox's Millionaire
biscuits.
--
Clive.
 
Brimstone wrote:
> ®i©ardo wrote:
>> Dave Larrington wrote:
>>> In news:[email protected],
>>> ®i©ardo <[email protected]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
>>>
>>>> PLUS, should you wish to remain below the tax threshold (which isn't
>>>> easy, being set at just over £5,000 per year), you're still required
>>>> to pay VAT on goods and services, you still need a TV licence (a tax
>>>> by any other name and more iniquitous than most as it doesn't take
>>>> into account ability to pay), you're still liable to pay council
>>>> tax, even if, at great expense, the council employs a middle-man to
>>>> then give it back by way of rebate and if you have a car you are
>>>> required to pay VED (see comment about TV licence!).
>>> But note that monies from the TV Licence goes directly to the BBC,
>>> not into Mr. Brown's piggy bank.
>>>
>> But the collection is, I think you'll find, funded by the Home Office.
>
> The collection is by a private company.
>
> http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/aboutus/index.jsp
>
>
Thank you, I stand corrected. It USED to be collected by a government
agency, but has now been contracted out. Who pays the private company?

--
Moving things in still pictures!
 
In message <[email protected]>, Ian Smith
<[email protected]> writes
>The twaddle is that Clive has spontaneously decided that the amount of
>damage done to a road is a function of the pressure of the tyre. It
>isn't,
Would this be a guess, or so you actually know better.
> it's much more closely correlated to the weight on the tyre
>group, which for all but very unusual vehicles is half axle weight.
I'll accept you premise, if you can show me a good reason, defined by
the laws of physics.
>So, Clive was talking twaddle,
Not shown.
> but decided to defend the one accurate
>statement in his message rather than address the nonsense,
Which is/was?
>. and the
>rest of you have got into arguing that black isn't white
Which is correct.
>regards, Ian Smith

--
Clive.
 
"Clive." <[email protected]> writes:

> In message <[email protected]>, Brendan Halpin
> <[email protected]> writes
>> Road surfaces are different -- tyres don't cut in,
> Many, many miles of the M6 and other heavily used motorways show
> that assessment to be incorrect.

OK, dead loss.

Brendan
--
Brendan Halpin, Department of Sociology, University of Limerick, Ireland
Tel: w +353-61-213147 f +353-61-202569 h +353-61-338562; Room F2-025 x 3147
mailto:[email protected] http://www.ul.ie/sociology/brendan.halpin.html
 
Clive. wrote:
> In message <[email protected]>, Brendan Halpin
> <[email protected]> writes
>> Road surfaces are different -- tyres don't cut in,
> Many, many miles of the M6 and other heavily used motorways show that
> assessment to be incorrect.

There is a difference between "cutting in" and "wearing out". Cutting
requires high pressure (blades do pressure very well because there is so
little surface area) but you can do plenty of damage just by grinding
things down with weight.

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/
 
In message <[email protected]>, Tony Raven
<[email protected]> writes
>Clive. wrote on 15/03/2007 12:37 +0100:
>> What is it that you don't understand?
>Lots. Is there life after death,
Consult your preferred local minister/pastor/priest/imam/rabbi, as
appropriate.
>>> Do you have any references at all to any research
>> To what research are you referring?
Any physics.
>Keep reading
?
>>> that shows road damage is a function of tyre pressure and not the
>>>fourth power of axle load?
Show me where I've made an error.
>That research.
>
>> Can you show "axle load" to be relevant?
>
>Yes. Its more complex in reality than the fourth power law but axle
>load is a key parameter.
I can accept that, what I will not accept is blind adherence to the
fourth power law.
>You might care to read David Cebon's excellent paper on the subject:
>http://www-mech.eng.cam.ac.uk/trg/publications/downloads/veh_road/veh_ro
>ad11.pdf
I you post the link I'll peruse it, and comment.
>>> Or are you just making it up as you go?
No, I just question what seem to me to be just plain wrong, if you've
had a university education you would know this.
>> A mind experiment.
>A euphemism here for you are making it up.
Or, it's beyond your understanding.
--
Clive.
 
Brimstone wrote:
> Matt B" <"matt.bourke wrote:
>> Brimstone wrote:
>>> Matt B" <"matt.bourke wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>> A rather poor effort. You must try harder to be less obvious to be a
>>> successful trol.
>> Oh no, not you too! Are discussions "outside of the box" to be
>> avoided?
>> Is it not a legitimate view, that road use should be tax-free for
>> motorised users too?
>
> Since roads are not "tax-free" for anyone,

We're going in circles a bit here! Roads are built and maintained using
money from the central pot, filled with money from all tax sources -
yes. We know, accept, and agree upon that (I think!).

So the roads have been built - we've all contributed to that. Now we
come to use them...

I can walk as a pedestrian on them, no problem, no charge (other than my
normal tax liabilities).

I can cycle on them as a cyclist with no specific tax pre-requisites.

I can similarly ride a horse upon them.

If I want to use them in a car I need first to pay a special tax,
specifically to allow me to use the road.

I might be struggling to describe this and to convey my meaning , but is
there not a distinction to be made there somewhere? Is there not a
motor vehicle road use tax, over and above all the other "normal" taxes,
which doesn't apply to those who aren't using a motor vehicle, which
must be paid - or road use will be denied?

It is like having a School Excise Duty payable by those who come to
school with a blue pencil case, but not required of those with other
colours. They've all contributed "equally" to school provision, in so
far as they have paid all their "normal" taxes, but then for some
arbitrary reason, some have to pay some more, yet others don't.

> why should those responsible for
> them being developed to their present state (amount, type and weight of
> construction) be excluded from contributing to their costs?

Eh? How would they be excluded from contributing? They pay all their
taxes - as non-motor users do.

--
Matt B
 
On 15 Mar, 12:39, "Clive." <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> That's a good start, then you'll know what it is I'm saying about tyre
> pressures and loads on roads.

What you appear to be saying is that if I rolled my 10kg bicycle
with 100psi tyres over your bare foot it would break as many
bones as a 40 ton truck would.
 
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 13:46:45 +0000, Clive. <[email protected]> wrote:
> In message <[email protected]>, Ian Smith
> <[email protected]> writes
> >
> >The twaddle is that Clive has spontaneously decided that the amount of
> >damage done to a road is a function of the pressure of the tyre. It
> >isn't,
>
> Would this be a guess, or so you actually know better.

I know better. The references have been provided in the thread,
you've just apparently decided to ignore them.

I'm not going to spend more time providing more information for you to
ignore. I'm just hoping the pointlessness of arguing with you will
become apparent to more people soon.

> >rest of you have got into arguing that black isn't white
>
> Which is correct.

Wow, you're slow.
Yes it's correct. That was the whole point of the statement.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
 
Ian Smith wrote:
> ["Followup-To:" header set to uk.rec.cycling.]
> On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> 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.
>>
>>> 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.
>
> Two messages ago you said you did - you said road use was not free at
> the point of use.

That's correct, it's not - but only if use want to use it in/on most
types of motor vehicle. You need a season ticket for those. Are you
suggesting that trains are free to use if you buy a season ticket?

--
Matt B
 
In news:[email protected],
NM <[email protected]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
> 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?

Avoiding having to pay the extra four hundred and seventy-five pounds
between what one currently pays in VED on a 1.6 litre Focus and what one
/would/ pay if the cost of taxing a 1.6 litre motorcar had risen in line
with inflation since 1926?

Are you stupid or something? Or what?

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Putting just the right amount of gin in your goldfish bowl makes
the fishies' eyes bulge and causes them to swim in a very
amusing manner.
 
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 14:02:21 +0000, Matt B
<"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:

>Brimstone wrote:
>> Matt B" <"matt.bourke wrote:
>>> Brimstone wrote:
>>>> Matt B" <"matt.bourke wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>> A rather poor effort. You must try harder to be less obvious to be a
>>>> successful trol.
>>> Oh no, not you too! Are discussions "outside of the box" to be
>>> avoided?
>>> Is it not a legitimate view, that road use should be tax-free for
>>> motorised users too?
>>
>> Since roads are not "tax-free" for anyone,
>
>We're going in circles a bit here! Roads are built and maintained using
> money from the central pot, filled with money from all tax sources -
>yes. We know, accept, and agree upon that (I think!).
>
>So the roads have been built - we've all contributed to that. Now we
>come to use them...
>
>I can walk as a pedestrian on them, no problem, no charge (other than my
>normal tax liabilities).
>
>I can cycle on them as a cyclist with no specific tax pre-requisites.
>
>I can similarly ride a horse upon them.
>
>If I want to use them in a car I need first to pay a special tax,
>specifically to allow me to use the road.
>

Not only that, but you must first ask for permission, and past tests.
 
On 15 Mar 2007 06:26:33 -0700, "dkahn400" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Mar 13, 7:51 pm, Steve Walker <[email protected]> wrote:
>> In message <[email protected]>, Brimstone
>> <[email protected]> writes
>>
>> >Care to try and find something even faintly relevant?
>>
>> Most rights can be removed by imprisonment, both cycling and
>> driving included.
>
>All rights can be taken away, as can privileges such as driving.

Such action does not mean that the character of the ability is
equivalent. It is not the potential for removal but the process of
aquisition which makes the difference; for cyclists they need only
exist to have the right; whereas motorists to have permission thay
must first ask, pay, and pass tests.

A right is a right, where one is possessed of it or not; similarly a
permission is merely that, nomatter whether one has it or no; it is
the nature of the thing, not of the possession
 
[email protected] wrote:
> On 15 Mar 2007 06:26:33 -0700, "dkahn400" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> On Mar 13, 7:51 pm, Steve Walker <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> In message <[email protected]>, Brimstone
>>> <[email protected]> writes
>>>
>>>> Care to try and find something even faintly relevant?
>>> Most rights can be removed by imprisonment, both cycling and
>>> driving included.
>> All rights can be taken away, as can privileges such as driving.
>
> Such action does not mean that the character of the ability is
> equivalent.

No, but in this case we have seen demonstrated that it is.

> It is not the potential for removal but the process of
> aquisition which makes the difference; for cyclists they need only
> exist to have the right; whereas motorists to have permission thay
> must first ask, pay, and pass tests.

Those are just technicalities - alterable at the whim of the government.
They could easily be changed within weeks as a knee-jerk reaction to a
tabloid press campaign.

> A right is a right, where one is possessed of it or not; similarly a
> permission is merely that, nomatter whether one has it or no; it is
> the nature of the thing, not of the possession

You are arguing about the pin-head fairy population - again.

You know, I know, we all know that rights, such as those you are
discussing, are ephemeral - especially under the present regime.

--
Matt B
 
®i©ardo wrote:
> Brimstone wrote:
>> ®i©ardo wrote:
>>> Dave Larrington wrote:
>>>> In news:[email protected],
>>>> ®i©ardo <[email protected]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
>>>>
>>>>> PLUS, should you wish to remain below the tax threshold (which
>>>>> isn't easy, being set at just over £5,000 per year), you're still
>>>>> required to pay VAT on goods and services, you still need a TV
>>>>> licence (a tax by any other name and more iniquitous than most as
>>>>> it doesn't take into account ability to pay), you're still liable
>>>>> to pay council tax, even if, at great expense, the council
>>>>> employs a middle-man to then give it back by way of rebate and if
>>>>> you have a car you are required to pay VED (see comment about TV
>>>>> licence!).
>>>> But note that monies from the TV Licence goes directly to the BBC,
>>>> not into Mr. Brown's piggy bank.
>>>>
>>> But the collection is, I think you'll find, funded by the Home
>>> Office.
>>
>> The collection is by a private company.
>>
>> http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/aboutus/index.jsp
>>
>>
> Thank you, I stand corrected. It USED to be collected by a government
> agency, but has now been contracted out. Who pays the private company?

Presumably they get paid out of what they collect.
 
Matt B" <"matt.bourke wrote:
> Brimstone wrote:
>> Matt B" <"matt.bourke wrote:
>>> Brimstone wrote:
>>>> Matt B" <"matt.bourke wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>> A rather poor effort. You must try harder to be less obvious to be
>>>> a successful trol.
>>> Oh no, not you too! Are discussions "outside of the box" to be
>>> avoided?
>>> Is it not a legitimate view, that road use should be tax-free for
>>> motorised users too?
>>
>> Since roads are not "tax-free" for anyone,
>
> We're going in circles a bit here! Roads are built and maintained
> using money from the central pot, filled with money from all tax
> sources - yes. We know, accept, and agree upon that (I think!).
>
> So the roads have been built - we've all contributed to that. Now we
> come to use them...
>
> I can walk as a pedestrian on them, no problem, no charge (other than
> my normal tax liabilities).
>
> I can cycle on them as a cyclist with no specific tax pre-requisites.
>
> I can similarly ride a horse upon them.
>
> If I want to use them in a car I need first to pay a special tax,
> specifically to allow me to use the road.
>
> I might be struggling to describe this and to convey my meaning , but
> is there not a distinction to be made there somewhere? Is there not a
> motor vehicle road use tax, over and above all the other "normal"
> taxes, which doesn't apply to those who aren't using a motor vehicle,
> which must be paid - or road use will be denied?
>
> It is like having a School Excise Duty payable by those who come to
> school with a blue pencil case, but not required of those with other
> colours. They've all contributed "equally" to school provision, in so
> far as they have paid all their "normal" taxes, but then for some
> arbitrary reason, some have to pay some more, yet others don't.
>
>> why should those responsible for
>> them being developed to their present state (amount, type and weight
>> of construction) be excluded from contributing to their costs?
>
> Eh? How would they be excluded from contributing? They pay all their
> taxes - as non-motor users do.

Because without motor vehicles being used they wouldn't need to be built as
strongly as they are and there would be no need for dual carriageways,
motorways and other high performance roads. Therefore those who have caused
these roads to be built should pay for them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
Did the Earth move for Simon?
Replies
3
Views
293
UK and Europe
Simon Brooke
S
A
How the media move on...
Replies
28
Views
438
UK and Europe
Don Whybrow
D
S
Cars edging out at junctions or to change lanes
Replies
20
Views
855
UK and Europe
LSMike
L
W
Learn English!!!! Change ur language and you change ur thoughts.
Replies
0
Views
360
UK and Europe
[email protected]
W
B
Radical gearing change: advice needed...
Replies
71
Views
2K
UK and Europe
David Martin
D
Top Bottom Back