Move to change law

[mb]

On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 12:44:34 +0000, Paul Boyd wrote:

> Ian Smith said the following on 12/03/2007 12:36:
>> 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.
>
> Sounds good - just like it is in developed countries such as Holland.
>

Where does this keep coming from? Can you point me to the law which says
this is the case? All I can find is this, which only talks about the
damage claims. i.e. 100% for children under 14 and a minimum 50% in other
cases. And it only talks about legal precedent, not laws.

Time to test your Babelfish translator:
http://www.fietsersbond.nl/urlsearchresults.asp?itemnumber=790


--
Mike
Van Tuyl titanium Dura Ace 10
Fausto Coppi aluminium Ultegra 10
Raleigh Record Sprint mongrel

 

[mb]

On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 06:31:30 -0700, NM wrote:

> On 12 Mar, 12:44, Paul Boyd <usenet.dont.work@plusnet> wrote:
>
>>
>> Sounds good - just like it is in developed countries such as Holland.
>
> Where it was recently successfully contested.

Reference? Dutch is OK.

--
Mike
Van Tuyl titanium Dura Ace 10
Fausto Coppi aluminium Ultegra 10
Raleigh Record Sprint mongrel

 

[Clive Coleman.]

In message <[email protected]>, Paul Boyd
<[email protected]> writes
>I do also own a car, and for the privilege of owning it I pay VED - it
>is a tax on ownership, nothing else.
Sorry, don't agree, you can SORN it for as long as you want.
--
Clive.

 

[peter-potato]

"Steve Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In message <[email protected]>, Jim Bird
> <[email protected]> writes
>
>>Round our way there are loads of people riding on the pavements. At night
>>they
>>don't bother with nicities such as lights.
>
> On Sunday night, about 10pm, I saw a police traffic car stop at a zebra
> crossing to let a teenager on an unlit BMX cycle across from one pavement
> to the other. Plod then drove away without saying a word. They don't care.
> Why would anyone bother complying when there's no enforcement?

There's little or no enforcement because it doesn't really matter. Although
I don't condone cycling on pavements, I don't condemn it if it's done
reasonably.
Better that the above teenager cycle lightless on the pavement than
lightless on the road.

Anyway, half the time it's not possible to cycle on the pavement because
some berk has parked their car there...

Peter

 

[peter-potato]

"Brimstone" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Doug wrote:
>> On 12 Mar, 12:36, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

> So who is to blame when some pillock steps into the road directly in front
> of an oncoming car to rescue a dead bird? The driver who isn't given a
> chance to stop or the said pillock?

It was probably just trying to get to the other side...

 

[Clive Coleman.]

In message <[email protected]>,
[email protected] writes
>As soon as motorists realised the change, they would become much more
>careful to avoid cyclists,
I wouldn't bank on that, have you seen the way the average cyclist
wobbles around, even a drunk driver with a phone would find that hard to
do.
--
Clive.

 

[Clive Coleman.]

In message <[email protected]>, Doug
<[email protected]> writes
>On 12 Mar, 12:36, 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?
>Seems reasonable to me,
Rubbish snipped.
>UK Radical Campaigns
>www.zing.icom43.net
>"The car, more of a toilet than a convenience".
>

--
Clive.

 

[Ian Smith]

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.

 

[Matt B]

Paul Boyd wrote:
>
> I do also own a car, and for the privilege of owning it I pay VED - it
> is a tax on ownership, nothing else.

It's certainly /not/ an ownership tax. The bill goes to the /keeper/,
not the owner, and even the keeper only has to pay anything if the
vehicle is used, or kept, on a public road. If anything it is a "motor
vehicle road tax" - it only applies to motor vehicles, and then only if
they are used or kept on the public road.

> When I buy fuel to be able to
> drive it, I pay fuel duty in the same way as I do when I buy electricity
> or gas.

There is /no/ fuel duty on either gas or electricity - even though they
also produce CO2 from fossil fuel. Even VAT on those two is at the much
reduced rate of 5%. Motor fuel attracts not only VAT at 17.5% but also
fuel duty at something like 300%, and then VAT on the fuel duty too!

> Neither of the motoring duties would need to be paid if I
> didn't have a car, and neither contribute to the road infrastructure.

Both go into the central pot, and so /do/ contribute to the road
infrastructure.

> What does it take to make people realise that VED and fuel duty have no
> connection to money spent on roads?

Given that they /are/ used for roads, in the same way that most other
taxes are, I'm not sure where you're coming from here.

> *ALL* taxpayers contribute to the
> roads, regardless of which vehicle they choose to use.

The difference is that motor vehicle use attracts significant taxes
which the use of other vehicle types does not. Annually over £40bn,
close to 10% of the total tax revenue, is collected from the activity of
motoring, and only about £6bn is spent annually on all (local and
national) road building and maintenance.

--
Matt B

 

[NM]

On 12 Mar, 19:45, "peter-potato" <[email protected]> wrote:


>
> Anyway, half the time it's not possible to cycle on the pavement because
> some berk has parked their car there...
>
That's good, cars can get damaged when berks on bikes with no lights
ride on the pavement at night.

 

[NM]

On 12 Mar, 19:34, mb <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 06:31:30 -0700, NM wrote:
> > On 12 Mar, 12:44, Paul Boyd <usenet.dont.work@plusnet> wrote:
>
> >> Sounds good - just like it is in developed countries such as Holland.
>
> > Where it was recently successfully contested.
>
I don't remember exactly, it was a news item in Amsterdam Spitz
Newspaper a while ago, a motorist won a lot of damage money from a
cyclist, I have sent an e mail to my sister in law in AMS, she may be
able to find it.

 

[peter-potato]

"NM" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 12 Mar, 19:45, "peter-potato" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Anyway, half the time it's not possible to cycle on the pavement because
>> some berk has parked their car there...
>>
> That's good, cars can get damaged when berks on bikes with no lights
> ride on the pavement at night.
>

almost...never mind....

 

[Alistair Gunn]

In uk.rec.cycling [email protected] twisted the electrons to say:
> And until cyclists ARE made to buy a road fund licence

I think you'll find all cyclists already do pay the appropriate level of
VED on their cyclists. Your problem appears to be that the government
has set the appropriately level of VED at #0.00?

Perhaps I should also mention Honda Insights, Smart Diesels and cars
manufactured before 01/01/1973? Afterall, the owners of those vehicles
don't pay VED either so does your statement of :-

> they should be kept as far away from other road users as is possible .

.... apply to them as well?
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

 

[mb]

On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 19:56:31 +0000, Ian Smith wrote:
>
> 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.

Jesus H tap-dancing Christ but you're stupid.

--
Mike
Van Tuyl titanium Dura Ace 10
Fausto Coppi aluminium Ultegra 10
Raleigh Record Sprint mongrel

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, 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.

Oh look, a cross-posting troll. Roads are paid for out of general taxation,
which everyone pays, motorist and cyclist alike. Cyclists are on average
at least as good at obeying traffic laws as motorists, although that isn't
saying much - how many speed limits did you break today? And everyone who
gets out of their car and onto a bike leaves a bit more space on the road
for those of you still in cars, so you should be thanking them.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; If any council in the country has anything to say to cyclists
;; about cycle paths, it should be: "We are terribly, terribly sorry."
- Zoe Williams, The Guardian, 13th Sept 2006

 

[Brimstone]

Matt B" <"matt.bourke wrote:
> Paul Boyd wrote:
>>
>> I do also own a car, and for the privilege of owning it I pay VED -
>> it is a tax on ownership, nothing else.
>
> It's certainly /not/ an ownership tax. The bill goes to the /keeper/,
> not the owner, and even the keeper only has to pay anything if the
> vehicle is used, or kept, on a public road. If anything it is a
> "motor vehicle road tax" - it only applies to motor vehicles, and
> then only if they are used or kept on the public road.

And if it wasn't for motor vehicle much less would need to be spent on
roads. Prior to the introduction of "road tax", all roads were funded out of
general taxation.

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Ian Smith
('[email protected]') wrote:

> 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.

No, they don't. You (and everyone else) can use the road for free. What you
can't do is use a /motor/ /vehicle/ on the road for free. You pay to use a
motor vehicle. No-one forces you to.

It's like the national lottery: a purely voluntary tax.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Want to know what SCO stands for?
;; http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20030605

 

[vernon]

> Perhaps at the same time we should close all hospitals as many more
> people are killed there.
>
I've seen it written somewhere that hospitals are somewhere you go to become
ill.......

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Alan Holmes
('[email protected]') wrote:

> "Ian Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> What do others think?
>
> I gave up thinking a long time ago!

We've noticed.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; making jokes about dyslexia isn't big, it isn't clever and
;; it isn't furry.

 

[Ian Smith]

mb wrote:
>
>
> Jesus H tap-dancing Christ but you're stupid.

Nice bit of reasoning there.

I suppose you're one of the lycra-lout parasites?