Move to change law

[John B]

Ian Smith 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,

There's no 'may' about it.

> but drivers pay to
> use the roads, thus adding more than their fair share to the pot.

Tosh. They pay to use their vehicle.

....just like cyclists do.

John B

 

[Paul Boyd]

On 12/03/2007 19:45, peter-potato said,

> 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.

Not only that, it's officially endorsed in some circumstances by the
government. Paul Boetang's office, I believe it was, as guidelines
issued to the police.

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

An illegal act that is also never enforced.

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

 

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 21:42:07 GMT, ®i©ardo <[email protected]> wrote:

>>
>Motorists, however, pay rather more for the privilege than cyclists.

Cyclists don't pay anything for the "privilege" because for them it is
a right.

 

[John B]

[email protected] wrote:

> 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

Then that's you fault for not employing a decent solicitor.

John B

 

[Paul Boyd]

On 12/03/2007 20:07, NM said,
> 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.

Cars parked on pavements can also get damaged by wheelchairs trying to
get past, by pedestrians trying to get past, by cyclists wheeling their
bikes trying to get past. So the odd cyclist riding on the pavement
doesn't really increase the odds of damage much, does it?

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

 

[Derek Geldard]

On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 22:39:55 -0000, "Brimstone"
<[email protected]> wrote:


>>>> 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?
>

http://www.bbtrust.org.uk/seymour-papers/misc/Passage & Carriage.pdf

When the Local Government Act 1888, at section 85, declared that
"bicycles, velocipedes, and other similar machines are hereby declared
to be carriages within the meaning of the Highway Acts" there arose,
once again, an inference that the roads upon which these "carriages"
were ridden were known as "carriageways" or "carriage roads" or
"public carriage roads".

But note also that earlier than this many old tracks, saltways, and
bridle paths were improved to be tollways, (the significant ones) and
all users of the route had to pay their fair (Fare) share, or find
another way around. )

Now, which part of ...

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

Can you still support?

Bearing in mind that the village in which I live was literally turned
inside out when the turnpike road went through. Several pubs were
turned back to front, only to be reached throught their back doors,
these and many ordinary houses became only accessible via a flight of
steps from the new main road which had been placed in a cutting.

All funded by paying a toll at the toll-bar house.

Cyclists paying their fair share.

DG

 

[Derek Geldard]

On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 22:49:57 +0000, Paul Boyd <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 12/03/2007 20:07, NM said,
>> 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.
>
>Cars parked on pavements can also get damaged by wheelchairs trying to
>get past, by pedestrians trying to get past, by cyclists wheeling their
>bikes trying to get past. So the odd cyclist riding on the pavement
>doesn't really increase the odds of damage much, does it?

They are more wobbly

DG

 

[Brimstone]

Derek Geldard wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 22:39:55 -0000, "Brimstone"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>>>> 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?
>>
>
> http://www.bbtrust.org.uk/seymour-papers/misc/Passage & Carriage.pdf
>
> When the Local Government Act 1888, at section 85, declared that
> "bicycles, velocipedes, and other similar machines are hereby declared
> to be carriages within the meaning of the Highway Acts" there arose,
> once again, an inference that the roads upon which these "carriages"
> were ridden were known as "carriageways" or "carriage roads" or
> "public carriage roads".
>
> But note also that earlier than this many old tracks, saltways, and
> bridle paths were improved to be tollways, (the significant ones) and
> all users of the route had to pay their fair (Fare) share, or find
> another way around. )
>
> Now, which part of ...
>
> "Prior to the introduction of "road tax", all road were funded out of
> general taxation"
>
> Can you still support?
>
> Bearing in mind that the village in which I live was literally turned
> inside out when the turnpike road went through. Several pubs were
> turned back to front, only to be reached throught their back doors,
> these and many ordinary houses became only accessible via a flight of
> steps from the new main road which had been placed in a cutting.
>
> All funded by paying a toll at the toll-bar house.
>
> Cyclists paying their fair share.

Try the period between the dissolution of turnpikes and the introduction of
vehicle "road tax".

 

[Martin Dann]

®i©ardo 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 .

The VED going rate for a zero emission vehicle is 0ukp. Why should the
tax payer fund the bureaucracy needed to administrate a licence that
costs the end user nothing.
I am a card carrying member of the CTC, so have third party insurance.
As for an MOT, bikes are far less complicated than cars, with the rider
legally obliged to make sure his brakes are efficient whenever he uses it.

At night by bicycle lights exceed the brightness required.

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

I am a cyclist, I passed my driving test, scored 100% in the theory
test, have a GCSE in English so could pass a written test.

Martin.

 

[NM]

On 12 Mar, 22:49, Paul Boyd <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 12/03/2007 20:07, NM said,
>
> > 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.
>
> Cars parked on pavements can also get damaged by wheelchairs trying to
> get past, by pedestrians trying to get past, by cyclists wheeling their
> bikes trying to get past. So the odd cyclist riding on the pavement
> doesn't really increase the odds of damage much, does it?
>
Glad you agree that cyclists are odd, a view I have held for some
time.

 

[Clive Coleman.]

In message <[email protected]>, Paul Boyd
<[email protected]> writes
>There isn't a bucket marked "money from motorists to use on roads
So I presume you would be happy for me and all other diesel car owners
to use red diesel?
--
Clive.

 

[Clive Coleman.]

In message <[email protected]>, mb
<[email protected]> writes
>How many cyclists do you think there are who haven't actually passed a
>driving test and have cars/motorbikes in the driveway?
Doug?
--
Clive.

 

[Clive Coleman.]

In message <[email protected]>, Martin Dann
<[email protected]> writes
>have a GCSE in English
I don't.
--
Clive.

 

[Clive Coleman.]

In message <[email protected]>,
[email protected] writes
>Cyclists don't pay anything for the "privilege" because for them it is
>a right.
Try riding a defective bike, or riding it whilst drunk, that'll tell you
how much "right" you have.
--
Clive.

 

[mb]

On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 02:20:15 +0000, Clive Coleman. wrote:

> In message <[email protected]>, Martin Dann
> <[email protected]> writes
>>have a GCSE in English
> I don't.

We noticed.

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

 

[peter-potato]

"NM" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 12 Mar, 22:49, Paul Boyd <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 12/03/2007 20:07, NM said,
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>> Cars parked on pavements can also get damaged by wheelchairs trying to
>> get past, by pedestrians trying to get past, by cyclists wheeling their
>> bikes trying to get past. So the odd cyclist riding on the pavement
>> doesn't really increase the odds of damage much, does it?
>>
> Glad you agree that cyclists are odd, a view I have held for some
> time.
>

Ah, but I'd much rather be odd than be a berk...

Peter

 

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

mb wrote:
> 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?
>
Judging by their use of the road and their abuse when advised of certain
courtesies that should be observed, very, very few of them. This seems
to be reflected in the maniacal outpourings of some (not all) cycling
fanatics in this group.

--
Moving things in still pictures!

 

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

Pyromancer wrote:
> 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)!
>
It also f*cks up your car, leaving the roads free for non-motorists.

--
Moving things in still pictures!

 

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

Paul Boyd wrote:
> 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.
>
As a PERCENTAGE I think that cyclists may have the edge on ignoring the
law, but then, they are not accountable to Mr Plod as what they do is
generally ignored.

--
Moving things in still pictures!

 

[Paul Boyd]

Clive Coleman. said the following on 13/03/2007 02:07:

> So I presume you would be happy for me and all other diesel car owners
> to use red diesel?

Wouldn't make a blind bit of difference to me - you would be the ones
breaking the law for tax evasion. I've never advocated breaking the
law. The theft of that tax would make no difference to the amount of
money spent on the roads.

Does your comment mean you think that there is a bucket marked "money
from motorists to use on roads"? If you do then you're very deluded.

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