Move to change law

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

Paul Boyd 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?
>
A parked car, albeit illegally parked, doesn't ride into people or shout
abuse at them for being in the way. And yes, some of them are extremely odd.

--
Moving things in still pictures!

 

[Brimstone]

"peter-potato" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "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...
>

It's perfectly possible to be both.

 

[Brimstone]

"®i©ardo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:2%[email protected]...

> 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.

How do you arrive at that conclusion, do you actually notice when a motorist
does something illegal, e.g. driving without a licence?

 

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

Martin Dann wrote:
> ®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.

Fine, I don't doubt it, but could you please explain the line:

"At night by bicycle lights exceed the brightness required."

--
Moving things in still pictures!

 

[Buck]

On 2007-03-12 19:56:31 +0000, Ian Smith <[email protected]> said:

> 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.

I agree, bloody parasites the lot of them, and young people, don't get
me started on the youth of
today, oh and the police, bastards! Oh and lorries, a menace, A MENACE
I SAY! And that Osama
bin Laden, git he is, oh yes, and what happened to red telephone boxes? eh?

Are Ccylists a special breed of motorist by the way? Now where did I
put my glasses? NURSE!
--
Three wheels good, two wheels ok

www.catrike.co.uk

 

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

Brimstone wrote:
> "®i©ardo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:2%[email protected]...
>
>> 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.
>
> How do you arrive at that conclusion, do you actually notice when a motorist
> does something illegal, e.g. driving without a licence?
>
>
Less easy to spot than many things, but in terms of observing jumping
lights, riding without them in the dark - both of which are safety
matters - I still think that cyclists have the edge.

--
Moving things in still pictures!

 

[Dave Larrington]

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.

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Life - loathe it or ignore it, you can't like it.

 

[Dave Larrington]

In news:[email protected],
[email protected] <[email protected]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to
tell us:
> 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 .

What is this "road fund licence" of which you speak?

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
The System is well pleased with this Unit's performance, which
falls within expected parameters.

 

[Paul Boyd]

®i©ardo said the following on 13/03/2007 08:12:

> A parked car, albeit illegally parked, doesn't ride into people or shout
> abuse at them for being in the way. And yes, some of them are extremely
> odd.

No, but the drivers or passengers do. Have you never had a car door
opened into you, as a pedestrian? Then been shouted at for being in the
way? I had that just last weekend, so you picked the wrong timing to
make that point

And yes, some people are extremely odd

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

 

[Paul Boyd]

®i©ardo said the following on 13/03/2007 08:31:

> Less easy to spot than many things, but in terms of observing jumping
> lights, riding without them in the dark - both of which are safety
> matters - I still think that cyclists have the edge.

I think on the cycling group this perception comes down to local areas.
In Lincolnshire, for instance, it's rare to see anyone jump red
lights. (The bits I've seen, anyway) Where I live in Somerset, cars,
buses and vans jump red lights as a matter of routine, even after
traffic is already starting to move from the other direction. Lorries
tend not to. We also have some ridiculous cycle facilities that
actually allow cyclists to use the "pavement" (actually a shared
facility) to bypass traffic lights. If you saw a cyclist using one of
these facilities, would your perception be "there's a cyclist using the
pavement to jump a light" or "that cyclist might be jumping the queue,
but he is doing it legally"?

In Weston-super-Mare, I would put the percentage of car drivers breaking
the law *much* higher than the percentage of cyclists, and that's just
the ones you can see. You can't see whether drivers have no insurance
or MOT, or even tax unless you look closely. No-one, but no-one drives
at 30mph or less on the main road on which I live, so that percentage of
drivers breaking the law is near as dammit 100%. I hope you're not one
of those people that considers speeding to be not breaking the law.

And, FWIW, a cyclist can exceed 30mph in a 30 limit legally. Strange,
but true!

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

 

[Paul Boyd]

®i©ardo said the following on 13/03/2007 08:07:

> It also f*cks up your car, leaving the roads free for non-motorists.

That was a secret plot by cyclists to reduce the number of cars on the
roads

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

 

[Matt B]

[email protected] wrote:
> 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.

And that's exactly the arrogant attitude that "gets up the noses" of
motorists, who have to pay very handsomely to achieve their right to drive.

--
Matt B

 

[Brimstone]

®i©ardo wrote:
> Brimstone wrote:
>> "®i©ardo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:2%[email protected]...
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> How do you arrive at that conclusion, do you actually notice when a
>> motorist does something illegal, e.g. driving without a licence?
>>
>>
> Less easy to spot than many things, but in terms of observing jumping
> lights, riding without them in the dark - both of which are safety
> matters - I still think that cyclists have the edge.

As are driving too close to the vehicle in front, failing to indicate an
intended turn, breaking the speed limit, failing to keep left on a
multi-lane road, ignoring traffic signs (e,g, turning right where
prohibited). I could go on but I'm sure you get the idea.

 

[Brimstone]

Matt B" <"matt.bourke wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>> 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.
>
> And that's exactly the arrogant attitude that "gets up the noses" of
> motorists, who have to pay very handsomely to achieve their right to
> drive.

A) their choice, B) there is no "right" to drive a car, that why drivers are
licenced.

Motorists are actually more arrogant than most since they appear to believe
that everything revolves around them, hence this pathetic attitude that
everyone else should pay the same taxes as they do. Perhaps when motorists
realise that it is they who are the "odd one out" then they will be a
happier and more contented species.

 

[Simon Brooke]

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

> Paul Boyd wrote:
>> On 12/03/2007 15:52, archierob said,
>>
> 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.

What taxes are those?

And while you're at it, does 'income tax' pay for your income, and
does 'stamp duty' pay for your stamps?

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

'You cannot put "The Internet" into the Recycle Bin.'

 

[Derek Geldard]

On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 23:08:44 -0000, "Brimstone"
<[email protected]> wrote:


>> 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".
>

No.

DG

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Brimstone
('[email protected]') 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. Prior to the introduction of "road tax", all roads were funded out
> of general taxation.

There is no "road tax" in the UK, and hasn't been since 1936; and all
roads /are/ funded out of general taxation.

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

;; when in the ****, the wise man plants courgettes

 

[mb]

On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 16:22:31 -0500, mb wrote:

> 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?
>

<drums fingers>
OK, you can play dead. Can you roll over and jump through hoops?

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

 

[John B]

Brimstone wrote:

> Matt B" <"matt.bourke wrote:

Usual trolling twaddle.

Shhh... Brimstone, don't encourage.
I don't know if this poster inhabits ukt, but over in urc he is virually
ostracised and known as TrollB.
He's like Duhg but worse - no humour [1]

[1] everything Dugh posts is funny.

John B

 

[Matt B]

Brimstone wrote:
> Matt B" <"matt.bourke wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> 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.
>> And that's exactly the arrogant attitude that "gets up the noses" of
>> motorists, who have to pay very handsomely to achieve their right to
>> drive.
>
> A) their choice, B) there is no "right" to drive a car, that why drivers are
> licenced.

a) Yes - they have the right to choose.
b) There is, as the Home Office say: "The right to drive is a privilege,
earned by proving competence in safe driving, and withdrawable on proof
of incompetence and dangerousness."[1]

> Motorists are actually more arrogant than most since they appear to believe
> that everything revolves around them, hence this pathetic attitude that
> everyone else should pay the same taxes as they do.

I think everyone else does have to pay the same taxes as them, except
the one to use the road, and fuel duty.

> Perhaps when motorists
> realise that it is they who are the "odd one out" then they will be a
> happier and more contented species.

I think the problem is that they /are/ the "odd one out", in that they
have such a raft of taxes and regulations governing their use of the roads.

[1]
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/cons-bad-driving-2005/cons-bad-driving-report?view=Binary

--
Matt B