Road owners

[John Blake]

In message id <[email protected]> on Wed, 11 Jun 2003 10:44:43 +0100,
Paul M wrote in uk.rec.cycling :

>
>"Dave Kahn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Bob Flemming <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:<[email protected]>...
>>
>> > If, as cyclists, we knew that any revenue we gave to the treasury for the priviledge of using
>> > the road would go to the development of cycling in the UK, then I'm pretty sure most people
>> > would happily pay something...
>>
>> For cyclists, unlike motorists, using the road is not a privilege but a
>right.
>>
>> --
>> Dave...
>
>I've been putting all the arguments to 'can't walk or cycle motorists' for years but there are none
>so deaf as those that don't want to hear.
>
>One point that seems to get through more than others (which is giving in to them a bit) is to point
>out that 97% of adult cyclists are car drivers and DO pay vehicle taxes.
>
>They should give me a medal for using the bike and freeing up road space to make their
>journey easier.

They should give us (cyclists) a refund of the taxes we pay if they (vehicle license payers) want to
lay claim to the roads.

--
I don't do arguments, read the reply properly to get the context. Kind regards. If you want to take
it to email remove THE SPAM BLOKA

 

[John Blake]

In message id <[email protected]> on Wed, 11 Jun 2003 16:20:34 +0100, Bob
Flemming wrote in uk.rec.cycling :

>On 11 Jun 2003 01:34:06 -0700, [email protected] (Dave Kahn) wrote:
>
>>Bob Flemming <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:<[email protected]>...
>>
>>> If, as cyclists, we knew that any revenue we gave to the treasury for the priviledge of using
>>> the road would go to the development of cycling in the UK, then I'm pretty sure most people
>>> would happily pay something...
>>
>>For cyclists, unlike motorists, using the road is not a privilege but a right.
>
>oh boy, need to put an irony alert in here somewhere...
>
>also, is it all at the hands of the 'evil cager'....what about lifestyle? some people talk about
>doing exercise these days, especially in relation to things like type 2 diabetes, as some kind of
>weird religious lifestyle change, instead of it just being a part of a so-called normal life!! tvs,
>computers, cars, and **** food....and obesity. it's no longer as fashionable to just be as active
>as we once were.....put that with the preponderance of cars....we got yourself one big problem.
>...people go to gyms for exercise - sheesh!

People pay other people to sit on a machine called an exercycle where they pedal furiously for as
long as they can, and the scenery is static, and the air is full of other peoples sweat and odour.

Why?

Has the world gone mad?

Of course it has.

Why not get on the real thing and get constantly changing scenery and fresh air? All for a fraction
of the cost.

Every New Year, gyms advertise for new business so that folk can shift the flab before trying to
squeeze into beach wear in the Summer. The Govt (local or national) could do something similar.

"Why pay to drive to a gym and pay to sit on an cycle when you can cycle for free and clear the
roads at the same time? Everyone's a winner"

--
I don't do arguments, read the reply properly to get the context. Kind regards. If you want to take
it to email remove THE SPAM BLOKA

 

[Just Zis Guy]

"Arthur Clune" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...

> I've had the latter complaint "I'll start listening when you ******** pay road tax" etc shouted at
> me many times.

To which one might legitimately point out that, since the Road Fund was wound up in the Finance Act
of 1936, they don't pay road tax either...

--
Guy
===
I wonder if you wouldn't mind piecing out our imperfections with your thoughts; and while you're
about it perhaps you could think when we talk of bicycles, that you see them printing their proud
wheels i' the receiving earth; thanks awfully.

 

[Just Zis Guy]

"David Hansen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> I assume that VED is not paid on it, just like any other car operated by central government (which
> Mrs Queen is an employee of, though she does supplement the wages with her own income). These cars
> all have registration numbers.

From http://www.royal.gov.uk

"The Queen's State and private motor cars are housed in the Royal Mews. For official duties -
providing transport for State and other visitors as well as The Queen herself - there are nine
State limousines, consisting of one Bentley, five Rolls-Royces and three Daimlers. They are
painted in Royal maroon livery and the Bentley and Rolls-Royces uniquely do not have registration
number plates."

Whether Government cars have VED discs I don't know. It would surprise me if they didn't -
Government is not terribly clever about things like that, as any NHS manager seeing 17.5% of his
purchasing budget vanish because he can't reclaim VAT will tell you.

--
Guy
===
I wonder if you wouldn't mind piecing out our imperfections with your thoughts; and while you're
about it perhaps you could think when we talk of bicycles, that you see them printing their proud
wheels i' the receiving earth; thanks awfully.

 

[Ambrose Nankive]

In news:[email protected], David Hansen
<[email protected]> typed:
> On Wed, 11 Jun 2003 09:41:26 +0100 someone who may be "Ambrose Nankivell"
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>> Anyway, as it is received wisdom that the seat belt law had no downside,
>
> It is, but that is not a reason for avoiding confronting the "wisdom" with truth.

My intent was to point out that the truth was presented without enough backup, but I fully admit
that I did so far too obliquely. It's something I must get out of the habit of.

Ambrose

 

[Just Zis Guy]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Also:

"like every other qualified driver, The Queen holds a driving licence"

Now let's see the Royals riding bikes.

--
Guy
===
I wonder if you wouldn't mind piecing out our imperfections with your thoughts; and while you're
about it perhaps you could think when we talk of bicycles, that you see them printing their proud
wheels i' the receiving earth; thanks awfully.

 

[Ambrose Nankive]

In news:[email protected], Just zis Guy, you know?
<[email protected]> typed:
> Whether Government cars have VED discs I don't know. It would surprise me if they didn't -
> Government is not terribly clever about things like that, as any NHS manager seeing 17.5% of his
> purchasing budget vanish because he can't reclaim VAT will tell you.

I imagine that that might be the most efficient way of doing it. After all, the NHS manager will
still pay tax & NI on their salary, won't they?

A

 

[Just Zis Guy]

"Ambrose Nankivell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> > as[k] any NHS manager seeing 17.5% of his purchasing budget vanish because he can't reclaim VAT
> > will tell you.

> I imagine that that might be the most efficient way of doing it. After
all,
> the NHS manager will still pay tax & NI on their salary, won't they?

It seems very stupid to me. The NHS is given public money, and it then cannot reclaim VAT (paid
togovernment) on things it buys - so the buying power of the public money is effectively reduced.

Private hospitals can reclaim the VAT, as can charitable trusts.

--
Guy
===
I wonder if you wouldn't mind piecing out our imperfections with your thoughts; and while you're
about it perhaps you could think when we talk of bicycles, that you see them printing their proud
wheels i' the receiving earth; thanks awfully.

 

[Ambrose Nankive]

In news:[email protected], Just zis Guy, you know?
<[email protected]> typed:
> "Tim Woodall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> This is Ambrose quoting from the URL I gave
>
> In which case and in the Interests of Fairness, thanks Tim as well

And thanks to Shane Foran M.Sc., Cycle Campaigner, (Galway, Ireland), who wrote the text.

A

 

[Dave Kahn]

"Not me, someone else" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...

> I _did_ see defensive riding as being timid and maybe keeping closer to the kerb, but I stand
> corrected ..

No, that's called using the cycle lane.

--
Dave...

 

[Peter B]

"Adrian Tritschler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Not me, someone else wrote:
> > Do you have any actual references to where motorists maintain "that cyclists have no right to
> > use the road because (a) they are less numerous and (b) they do not pay"
>
> I have personally heard it *numerous* times, usually screamed in an abusive tone out the window of
> a passing car, but more scarily, argued in a perfectly reasonable tone of voice by people who
> believe that only private cars should be on the road[1]. "Get off the road", "Get on the bike
> path", "Pay registration or get off the road", etc, etc...

A letter was recently published in our local paper expressing these sentiments.

Pete

 

[Peter B]

"Not me, someone else" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Heheheh, I've heard Clarkson say it .. but I thought it was to be taken
like
> almost any other comment he makes .. or like I said, he only says it for effect ..
>
> Maybe I'm wrong ..

Clarkson amuses me, I don't take him seriously. Unfortunately I'm sure there are people who do take
him seriously.

Pete

 

[Peter B]

"Not me, someone else" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I don't ride defensively _ever_.

Riding assertively does not preclude riding defensively IMHO. They are different issues, one is not
allowing oneself to be intimidated into the gutter, f'rinstance, while the other means being alert
to other road users and without being paranoid do simple things like covering the brake levers,
planning bale out routes etc. and is mainly about anticipation.

No good riding assertively downhill at 30mph if Mr. Bozo <1>waiting to pull out of a side road
hasn't noticed you ;-)

I imagine as a seasoned cyclist you are automatically riding defensively.

<1> No offence is intended to anyone who is called Mr. Bozo as this is not meant personally and the
name was chosen simply to give anyone called Mr. Magoo a break.

Pete

 

[Peter B]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mind you, it's a fair bet that most men have willies which are too small -

> penis enlargement products?

Phew! You mean other people receive these adverts as well? I thought it was only me as a result
of careful market targeting or the vindictiveness of ex-girlfriends. (Or even the missus
dropping a hint).

A very relieved Pete.

 

[John Blake]

In message id <[email protected]> on Thu, 12 Jun 2003 10:47:30 +0100, Just zis
Guy, you know? wrote in uk.rec.cycling :

>"Ambrose Nankivell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>> > as[k] any NHS manager seeing 17.5% of his purchasing budget vanish because he can't reclaim VAT
>> > will tell you.
>
>> I imagine that that might be the most efficient way of doing it. After
>all,
>> the NHS manager will still pay tax & NI on their salary, won't they?
>
>It seems very stupid to me. The NHS is given public money, and it then cannot reclaim VAT (paid
>togovernment) on things it buys - so the buying power of the public money is effectively reduced.

It is swings and roundabouts. The NHS does not make taxable supplies as a normal part of its
business. The service is free at the point of delivery. So that would mean it would be a net
receiver of VAT from Customs and Excise.

For example if a NHS trust wants £117.5m cash to operate for a year it can go to the Treasury direct
to get £117.5m and not reclaim VAT. Or if it is reclaiming VAT it will ask Treasury for £100m and
C&E for £17.5m. The money from C&E is coming from Treasury anyway. So either way Treasury is forking
out £117.5m in cash.

If the NHS could reclaim VAT, the administration and compliance regimes necessary for VAT, will eat
into that cash allocation so that the full £117.5m does not get used where it needs to be used.

In reality, on a budget of £117.5m, I would guess that 80%+ is used up on remuneration, so the VAT
element, whilst still running to millions, is not going to be a big issue in the overall cash spend
compared to the cost of compliance.

>Private hospitals can reclaim the VAT, as can charitable trusts.

These do not receive the main part of their funding from the Treasury. Private hospitals will source
their operating cash from insurance companies, fee charging, donations and any other means available
to them. They are in business to make a profit delivering a service. The NHS is simply there to
deliver a service.

The focus in the NHS is/should be getting most use out each £1.

--
I don't do arguments, read the reply properly to get the context. Kind regards. If you want to take
it to email remove THE SPAM BLOKA

 

[David Hansen]

On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 09:32:21 +0100 someone who may be "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>Whether Government cars have VED discs I don't know. It would surprise me if they didn't

They have a little paper disc. This says something like, "this vehicle is in the service of Mrs
Queen, no VED is paid on it".

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked
keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.