Move to change law

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, ®i©ardo
('[email protected]') wrote:

> What do you mean by "change the law". I think you'll find that this has
> been the situation for some considerable time. "Police Question Motorist
> After Collision With Cyclist" is the headline norm. I've never yet seen
> it reported that police have questioned the cyclist. Perhaps those
> cyclists who bother to use the roads are perfect, so it must be the
> motorist's fault.

More likely that when a car has been in collision with a cyclist, the only
person who is going to question that cyclist is St Peter. We don't have a
ton of self propelled steel armour.

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

;; Human history becomes more and more a race between
;; education and catastrophe.
H.G. Wells, "The Outline of History"

 

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 19:56:31 +0000, Ian Smith <[email protected]>
wrote:


>Ccylists, on the other hand are nothing but parasites who clutter up the
>roads, ignore the law and make no extra contibution.

They damage your car and you get nothing you damage them or their
damned bike with your car and they have the pants of you .

 

[Derek Geldard]

On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 20:43:45 -0000, "Brimstone"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>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.
>

Absolute "Baying at the Moon" Bollox.

DG

 

[mb]

On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 20:48:15 +0000, Ian Smith wrote:

> 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?

I like you, you amuse me. Do you do tricks?

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

 

[Brimstone]

Derek Geldard wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 20:43:45 -0000, "Brimstone"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Absolute "Baying at the Moon" Bollox.

Which part of "Prior to the introduction of "road tax", all roads were
funded out of general taxation" is bollox?.

 

[Matt B]

Brimstone wrote:
> 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.

Yes, and if it wasn't for motor vehicles, income tax and VAT would have
to be _much_ higher too.

> Prior to the introduction of "road tax", all roads were funded out of
> general taxation.

As indeed they are now. "Road tax" revenue goes into the same pot as
most of the other duties and taxes. By "coincidence" it is also close
to the amount spent on roads from the pot.

--
Matt B

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=AEi=A9ardo?=]

Paul Boyd wrote:
> On 12/03/2007 15:52, archierob said,
>
>> Idiot! Do you honestly think that roads and all the associated
>> infrastructure was funded entirely by the Road Fund Licence? When will
>> you ever get into your heads that the road network is funded out of
>> GENERAL taxation which is paid by anyone that is earning a wage or
>> paying VAT or indeed any other tyax you can think of.
>
> See - you're trying to use reason! That'll never work with these
> people. They think that every time a road needs repairing the local
> council, rather than dip into funds provided by council tax payers and
> central government, dip into a bucket marked "money from motorists".
> These so-called cycle facilities that are neither wanted nor asked for
> by cyclists are paid for, amazingly, from general taxes as well. These
> people seem unable to understand that cyclists, funnily enough, pay
> council tax and income tax, so we do pay towards the roads the same as
> everyone else.
>
> This is some sort of delusional world they live in, whilst quietly
> ignoring that fact that *all* local and national tax payers contribute
> towards the maintenance of the roads. The only roads funded entirely by
> central government from taxes in general (AIUI) are motorways, that
> cyclists can't use anyway.
>
Motorists, however, pay rather more for the privilege than cyclists.
It's not their fault that taxes specifically labelled "road" are nothing
of the sort. It's like calling something "National Insurance" when it is
nothing to do with insurance, it's just another form of tax under a
fancy name.

The insurance contribution to the welfare of the working man was blown
out by the various National Insurance Acts of 1948 when the state took
over what was provided by mutual insurers. Unfortunately, the state's
lack of expertise in matters of "insurance", perpetuated since that
time, gives us the balls-up that we have today.
--
Moving things in still pictures!

 

[Phil Bradshaw]

Brimstone wrote:

> Doug wrote:
>> 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?
>>
>> It is based on the principle that the least vulnerable road user is
>> primarily to blame. Seems reasonable to me, when one tonne of out-of-
>> control metal hits 25kg of bike.
>
> 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?

Har har har.

 

[Brimstone]

®i©ardo wrote:

> Motorists, however, pay rather more for the privilege than cyclists.
> It's not their fault that taxes specifically labelled "road" are
> nothing of the sort. It's like calling something "National Insurance"
> when it is nothing to do with insurance, it's just another form of
> tax under a fancy name.

Which taxes are specifically labelled "road"?

 

[Phil Bradshaw]

NM wrote:

> On 12 Mar, 17:47, "Brimstone" <[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?
>
> Obviously it's the birds fault. (How do you rescue something that's
> dead?)

Depends what interest one has in dead things.

In later life could this lead to grave robbing for light amusement..?

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=AEi=A9ardo?=]

Doug wrote:
> 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?
>
> It is based on the principle that the least vulnerable road user is
> primarily to blame. Seems reasonable to me, when one tonne of out-of-
> control metal hits 25kg of bike.
>
> --
> UK Radical Campaigns
> www.zing.icom43.net
> "The car, more of a toilet than a convenience".
>
You call that a principle? What if 25kg of bike drives into another road
user such as a lorry - does your principle still hold good?

--
Moving things in still pictures!

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=AEi=A9ardo?=]

[email protected] wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 17:33:34 +0000, Paul Boyd <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>> These so-called cycle facilities that are neither wanted nor asked for
>> by cyclists are paid for, amazingly, from general taxes as well.
>
> And until cyclists ARE made to buy a road fund licence AND also carry
> third party insurance and their cycles be subjected to a MOT like test
> they should be kept as far away from other road users as is possible .
>
>
>
>
>
PLUS, of course, a driving test with a written exam and an eyesight
test. That'll bugger quite a few of them!

--
Moving things in still pictures!

 

[Phil Bradshaw]

vernon wrote:

>
>> 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.......

Shorthand: MRSA

 

[=?UTF-8?B?wq5pwqlhcmRv?=]

mb 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.
>
> Reference? Dutch is OK.
>
As in Dutch cap? Is that some kind of spam trap?

--
Moving things in still pictures!

 

[mb]

On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 21:50:22 +0000, ®i©ardo wrote:

>>
> PLUS, of course, a driving test with a written exam and an eyesight
> test. That'll bugger quite a few of them!
>

How many cyclists do you think there are who haven't actually passed a
driving test and have cars/motorbikes in the driveway?

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

 

[Derek Geldard]

On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 21:24:31 -0000, "Brimstone"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Derek Geldard wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 20:43:45 -0000, "Brimstone"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> Absolute "Baying at the Moon" Bollox.
>
>Which part of "Prior to the introduction of "road tax", all roads were
>funded out of general taxation" is bollox?.
>

Like the curates egg

All of it.

HTH.

DG

 

[Pyromancer]

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Paul George
<[email protected]> gently breathed:
>On 12 Mar, 17:26, Alistair Gunn <[email protected]> wrote:

>> Oh but don't you know that "cyclists don't pay tax". There's a form you
>> can download fromwww.hmrc.gov.ukwhere you tell them you're a cyclist,
>> and you never have to pay income tax, NI or VAT *ever again!*

>Similarly when I fill my car with fuel I always show my CTC
>membership card and ask to be directed the the duty free pump
>that only cyclists can use, apparently.

You should buy fuel at Tesco - their pay-at-pump machines auto-detect
registered cyclist credit and debit cards and let you have the fuel
duty-free. You can register your clubcard too and all the VAT is taken
off your shopping at the checkout, it's brilliant (apparently)!

--
- DJ Pyromancer, Black Sheep, Leeds. <http://www.sheepish.net>

Broadband, Dialup, Domains = <http://www.wytches.net> = The UK's Pagan ISP!
<http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk> <http://www.revival.stormshadow.com>

 

[Brimstone]

Derek Geldard wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 21:24:31 -0000, "Brimstone"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Derek Geldard wrote:
>>> On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 20:43:45 -0000, "Brimstone"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Absolute "Baying at the Moon" Bollox.
>>
>> Which part of "Prior to the introduction of "road tax", all roads
>> were funded out of general taxation" is bollox?.
>>
>
> Like the curates egg
>
> All of it.

Evidence?

 

[John B]

NM wrote:

> On 12 Mar, 18:48, John B <[email protected]> wrote:
> > [email protected] wrote:
> > > On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 17:33:34 +0000, Paul Boyd <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > >These so-called cycle facilities that are neither wanted nor asked for
> > > >by cyclists are paid for, amazingly, from general taxes as well.
> >
> > > And until cyclists ARE made to buy a road fund licence AND also carry
> > > third party insurance and their cycles be subjected to a MOT like test
> > > they should be kept as far away from other road users as is possible .
> >
> > And until motorists can control their vehicles and stop slaughtering over
> > 3000 innocent people and injuring a third of a million a year they should
> > be locked away from society.
> >
> Perhaps at the same time we should close all hospitals as many more
> people are killed there.

They would certainly be less necessary if motorists didn't cause so much
carnage.

John B

 

[Paul Boyd]

On 12/03/2007 19:56, Ian Smith said,

> OK, everybody who pays taxes may pay for the roads, but drivers pay to
> use the roads

Since when have drivers paid to use the roads? Unless you're using the
M6 toll road or any other toll road, you don't pay to use the road any
more than I do as either a cyclist or a motorist. WE ALL PAY to
maintain the roads through income tax and council tax. We don't pay to
use them, yet. The money collected by the government from Vehicle
Excise Duty (a tax on ownership that may be zero) and fuel duty (a tax
on fuel just like tax on electricity or gas) is not used to pay for the
roads - it goes into the collective pot. There isn't a bucket marked
"money from motorists to use on roads." The money used to maintain and
build roads comes from local councils and central government.

How many more ways are there to explain it?

> Ccylists, on the other hand are nothing but parasites who clutter up the
> roads, ignore the law and make no extra contibution.

So if cyclists were able to withhold the proportion of council tax and
income tax they pay that is used towards the roads, you would be quite
happy to make up the difference, would you? I don't have kids, so
perhaps I should withhold the proportion of tax I pay that's used for
schools. I don't agree with the war in Iraq, so should I withhold the
proportion of tax that's used for that? Of course not, so why do you
think that as a cyclist I shouldn't be allowed to use the roads that I
pay taxes to provide. Seems you have an extremely selfish attitude -
you pay taxes that provide a road for you to use - I pay taxes that
provide a road for me to use but you don't think I should use it.
Instead, you want us all to jump into cars so that the roads are even
more gridlocked than they are now.

As far as ignoring the law is concerned, yes there are cyclists who do
that. That is a valid criticism. Why did you forget to mention that
there are many more motorists who ignore the law? Have you never
exceeded the speed limit? Have you never jumped a red light? Have you
never not stopped at a roundabout? Have you never parked on a pavement?
Maybe you can polish your halo with a clear conscience, but I can
assure you that there are many more motorists who don't. Perhaps you
live in some parallel idyllic universe where all drivers are saints.

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