We don't dent, we die.

[marc]

Matt B wrote:
> marc wrote:
>> Matt B wrote:
>>> marc wrote:
>>>> Matt B wrote:
>>>>> Paul Boyd wrote:
>>>>>> Noel said the following on 04/09/2007 08:49:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I wonder if this was the same rider who was in one of the local
>>>>>>> papers
>>>>>>> around Redhill/Reigate? She was describing how some drivers
>>>>>>> actually hoot
>>>>>>> and rev their engines to get the horses out of the way and drive
>>>>>>> past
>>>>>>> shouting and signalling abuse. Worse, one driver actually used
>>>>>>> his car to
>>>>>>> push the horse out of the way!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's quite unbelievable!
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you not familiar with human nature? ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>>> What the hell has happened to people to make them so selfish and
>>>>>> arrogant?
>>>>>
>>>>> The root is often their bitterness at being required to pay such a
>>>>> heavy tax burden to use the road - especially compared to
>>>>> non-motorised road users.
>>>>
>>>> How does a driver manage to work out at a glance how much tax a
>>>> non-motorised road user has paid compared to them?
>>>
>>> He doesn't, but that's not the point - is it. He can, however, be
>>> sure, that certain users have paid nothing specifically to be allowed
>>> to use the road by their present mode.
>>
>> Yes, himself and every other road user.
>
> No, he's a motorist, remember?

I remember but he has"paid nothing specifically to be allowed
to use the road by their present mode." just like every other road user.
>
>> As far as I am aware apart from road tolls there are no fees to use
>> the road apart from non hypothecated general taxation.
>
> In the UK you have to pay Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) on most types of
> motor vehicle manufactured since about 1973, to legally use them, or
> keep them, on the public road.

No you pay VED to keep a motorvehicle on the road, not to use the road.
If you have two vehicles you pay two VED duties, not one road use levy.
This tax raised about £5 billion last year.
>
> In the UK you also have to pay fuel duty on most types of hydrocarbon
> fuel, if it is used to power a normal road vehicle, to legally use that
> vehicle on the public road.

So you are paying a fuel duty, just like lots of other duties, none of
these duties, including fuel duty is a payment to use the road.



This tax raised about £30 billion last
> year. This'll make you laugh - they charge VAT on the duty, and that
> alone (ignoring the VAT also paid on the fuel itself) raised about £5
> billion last year!

>
> Your confusion, as does that of many drivers, arises from the fact that
> although those taxes have to be paid to legally use the road, they are
> _not_ hypothecated.


No it's not my confusion, the taxes and duties were not to use the road.
>
> In a large area of central London, the users of most types of
> conventionally powered motor vehicles _also_ have to pay another tax, on
> top of all the others, the innapropriately named "Congestion Charge".
> This could add up to more than £2000 for a year. This tax raised more
> than £120 million last year.

That's a charge to enter an area, not to use the road.
>
> In an increasing number of towns and cities around the UK, users of
> motor vehicles also have to pay another tax if they park their vehicles
> at the side of the public road. This tax raised more than £1 billion
> last year for local authorities.

If you store your boat when you are not using it you pay a charge, but
it's not a tax to use the river, equally parking charges are not taxes
to use roads.
>
> So there we have about £41 billion worth of tax raised purely from
> motorists to allow them to use the road.
No those taxes and duties are, to allow them to keep a car, a tax on
fuel for that car, a charge to enter an area, a charge to store the car
( so saving fuel) none of these are payments to use the road.



That doesn't include the
> lesser, other taxes, disguised as charges and fees, such as registration
> fees,
Not a charge to use the road



MOT fees,

Not a charge to use the road

insurance premium tax,

Not a charge to use the road

etc., which also need to be paid
> to be road-legal, or VAT (except on fuel duty).

Still not a charge to use the road


So we arrive back where we started. A motorist who "paid nothing
specifically to be allowed
to use the road by their present mode."
who is getting so wound up by others who "paid nothing specifically to
be allowed
to use the road by their present mode." that he has to get agressive.

 

[David Martin]

On Sep 4, 4:22 pm, Matt B <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> > As far as I am aware apart from
> > road tolls there are no fees to use the road apart from non hypothecated
> > general taxation.
>
> In the UK you have to pay Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) on most types of
> motor vehicle manufactured since about 1973, to legally use them, or
> keep them, on the public road. This tax raised about £5 billion last year.

It is a duty, not a tax.

For a car to be kept on the road, a fee must be paid. That fee can be
zero. The user of the car is not necessarily the one who pays the fee.
My kids do not pay VED, yet they still use the car (albeit as
passengers). So your assetion that all car users pay VED is wrong.

> In the UK you also have to pay fuel duty on most types of hydrocarbon
> fuel, if it is used to power a normal road vehicle, to legally use that
> vehicle on the public road. This tax raised about £30 billion last
> year. This'll make you laugh - they charge VAT on the duty, and that
> alone (ignoring the VAT also paid on the fuel itself) raised about £5
> billion last year!
>
> Your confusion, as does that of many drivers, arises from the fact that
> although those taxes have to be paid to legally use the road, they are
> _not_ hypothecated.

They have to be paid to legally use fuel in a road going vehicle. You
can use a car on a road without paying a penny in fuel duty. Legally.
Driving it back up the hill would however require the use of fuel.

> In a large area of central London, the users of most types of
> conventionally powered motor vehicles _also_ have to pay another tax, on
> top of all the others, the innapropriately named "Congestion Charge".
> This could add up to more than £2000 for a year. This tax raised more
> than £120 million last year.

Or on average about £300 per car. Then compare that to the cost of
other forms of transport.


> In an increasing number of towns and cities around the UK, users of
> motor vehicles also have to pay another tax if they park their vehicles
> at the side of the public road. This tax raised more than £1 billion
> last year for local authorities.

You mean pay a fee to be allowed to use the highway as a car park?
Fair enough. Roads are for passing and repassing. Why should I
subsidise your parking space? Pay for it yourself.

> So there we have about £41 billion worth of tax raised purely from
> motorists to allow them to use the road. That doesn't include the
> lesser, other taxes, disguised as charges and fees, such as registration
> fees, MOT fees, insurance premium tax, etc., which also need to be paid
> to be road-legal, or VAT (except on fuel duty).

Hmm.. about £4k per year. Still cheap compared to traveling by public
transport (with all it's stealth taxes).

...d

 

[Dylan Smith]

On 2007-09-04, Rob Morley <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Marc Brett
> [email protected] says...
>
>> Maybe the horses need a camera mounted on their rear ends?
>>
> Maybe they need a Winchester slung from the saddle.

How would an old 30 megabyte hard disc help the horse rider? [0] Perhaps
they have so much metal in them they could be used as a weapon...

I think I'm too much of a geek.


[0] I know you mean a rifle before you point this out. It's just the old
name of the hard disc came to mind before the rifle.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

 

[Clive George]

"Dylan Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> [0] I know you mean a rifle before you point this out. It's just the old
> name of the hard disc came to mind before the rifle.

But do you know where the name for the hard disc came from?

cheers,
clive

 

[Matt B]

Adrian Godwin wrote:
> Matt B <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Ignorance, reinforced by being revered as "king of the road" for much of
>> the last century. Motor traffic all but had rose petals laid before it
>> to enhance its progress, by the road engineers and traffic planners of
>> the middle decades of the last century.
>
> True enough - and it hasn't stopped yet, with any number of roadbuilding
> programs that take little or no account of other quality-of-life issues.

Yes, and it's not so much the road building, as the road "safety
improvements", which are the problem. More roads, particularly
motorways, would release "local roads" from the duty to serve inter-city
traffic.

>> Now their passage is being
>> hampered and hindered by speed cameras, cycle lanes, ASLs, poorly phased
>> traffic lights etc., and it frustrates their assumed power. You wonder
>> why many drivers are so arrogant?
>
> I get as frustrated as anyone whilst driving : it's one of the reasons
> I'm starting to avoid doing it. But none of those are the things that
> annoy me : they may cause minor delays but most appear to have some
> point behind them.

If we assume "good faith", then they _do_ have a point, but I believe
that actually they _miss_ the point, and add to the problems, not only
of congestion, but of road safety, or rather road /danger/, too.

> Road tax is bad enough, but petrol tax is higher and
> that's a constant choice I make - the convenience of motoring vs. the
> lower cost of public transport.

For many there is no alternative. Our society has adapted to become
reliant on motr transport over the last century. It would take a lot of
"un-inventing" to get away from that reality.

> What really, really, winds me up is the behaviour, and yes, even the
> presence of other drivers.

I believe their behaviour is exasperated, or even triggered, by the
environment we give them.

> It's being stuck in an endless queue that
> has taken all the joy out of it and leaves me irritable and impatient.

Yes.

> Even if I'm not in a hurry .. and I don't even live in London.

Most roads are free-flowing for most of the time, but when you get stuck
in one that isn't it brings it home how poorly successive transport
policies have served us.

> But I'm not so stupid that I want to fix it with more tarmac - that's
> been tried for years,

I disagree. We have yet to experience the effect of a full motorway
network. The Romans, noted for their efficient communications, built
2000 miles of road network to support their transport mode. The
Victorians, and their successors, built about 20,000 miles of rail
network, in 100 years or so, to support the transport mode of their day.

In the century, or so, since the motor vehicle has come to prominence
how much dedicated network have we built to support it - about 2000
miles! The same as the Romans managed 2000 years ago! One-tenth of
that that the railway engineers managed!

> it doesn't work and never will.

We have never tried it. We provide networks to solve other
communication problems, so why not for motor vehicles?

> The only
> sensible solution is to use less cars. It'll be painful, but it will
> happen - and the longer it takes, the harder it will be. Start getting
> used to it now and be ahead of the game.

That's only one possibility, and a none too attractive one at that. We
should have a vision - be looking forward to unlimited, pollution-free,
personal transport - not doom-mongering, or resigning ourselves to the
certain hell that is public transport future.

--
Matt B

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> On 4 Sep, 14:44, Rob Morley <[email protected]> wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] says...
> >
> > > Round here, if a community complains about speeding traffic, they can
> > > borrow a speed gun to gather evidence.
> >
> > ITYF they can't do that any more because the frequency the guns use is
> > reserved for police use, so civilian use contravenes radio licensing
> > regulations.
>
> No personal knowledge of this, but they still seem to be on offer
> (it's the council you get them from, I didn't even know that bit).
>
> http://www.gloucestershire.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=1267
>
> Maybe they work on different frequencies to the police ones.
>
Interesting, I guess they do. I don't know anything about speed guns or
cameras - as I don't break speed limits such knowledge would not be
useful.

 

[Marc Brett]

On Tue, 4 Sep 2007 17:06:21 +0100, "Clive George"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"Dylan Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>> [0] I know you mean a rifle before you point this out. It's just the old
>> name of the hard disc came to mind before the rifle.
>
>But do you know where the name for the hard disc came from?

The song about the cathedral?

# Winchester Cathedral
You're bringing me down... #

 

[Marc Brett]

On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 17:09:54 +0100, Matt B
<[email protected]> wrote:



>We should have a vision - be looking forward to unlimited, pollution-free,
>personal transport

Welcome back to the cycling newsgroup! I hope all your future posts are
as on-topic as this.

 

[Matt B]

marc wrote:
> Matt B wrote:
>> marc wrote:
>>> Matt B wrote:
>>>> marc wrote:
>>>>> Matt B wrote:
>>>>>> Paul Boyd wrote:
>>>>>>> Noel said the following on 04/09/2007 08:49:
>>>>>>>
>>> As far as I am aware apart from road tolls there are no fees to use
>>> the road apart from non hypothecated general taxation.
>>
>> In the UK you have to pay Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) on most types of
>> motor vehicle manufactured since about 1973, to legally use them, or
>> keep them, on the public road.
>
> No you pay VED to keep a motorvehicle on the road, not to use the road.
> If you have two vehicles you pay two VED duties, not one road use levy.

You pay it to keep /or/ to use. If you never keep it on the road you
only pay for use, and vice-versa.

>> In the UK you also have to pay fuel duty on most types of hydrocarbon
>> fuel, if it is used to power a normal road vehicle, to legally use
>> that vehicle on the public road.
>
> So you are paying a fuel duty, just like lots of other duties, none of
> these duties, including fuel duty is a payment to use the road.

Fuel duty is only payable for fuel to be used in a road-going vehicle.
There is no duty to pay, on exactly the same fuel, if it isn't used to
power a road vehicle. So, in effect, it _is_ a road use tax.

>> Your confusion, as does that of many drivers, arises from the fact
>> that although those taxes have to be paid to legally use the road,
>> they are _not_ hypothecated.
>
> No it's not my confusion, the taxes and duties were not to use the road.

In which case you will be able to explain to us how you can use (not
keep) a standard car (one which /is/ liable for non-zero VED, one which
/does/ require duty-paid fuel) on the road without paying the tax.

>> In a large area of central London, the users of most types of
>> conventionally powered motor vehicles _also_ have to pay another tax,
>> on top of all the others, the innapropriately named "Congestion
>> Charge". This could add up to more than £2000 for a year. This tax
>> raised more than £120 million last year.
>
> That's a charge to enter an area, not to use the road.

No, it only applies if the car is used. A car can be carried into, and
kept in, the zone free of CC.

>> In an increasing number of towns and cities around the UK, users of
>> motor vehicles also have to pay another tax if they park their
>> vehicles at the side of the public road.
>
> If you store your boat when you are not using it you pay a charge, but
> it's not a tax to use the river,

It is if the charge is for storing it in the river.

> equally parking charges are not taxes
> to use roads.

They are charges for using the road to park a car on. They don't apply
if you don't use the road for that purpose.

>> So there we have about £41 billion worth of tax raised purely from
>> motorists to allow them to use the road.

>> That doesn't include the
>> lesser, other taxes, disguised as charges and fees, such as
>> registration fees,
>
> Not a charge to use the road

Indirectly, it is. You cannot use the car on the road unless it is
registered. You only have to register it if you wish to use it on the road.

> MOT fees,
>
> Not a charge to use the road

The same, not required other than for road use.

> insurance premium tax,
>
> Not a charge to use the road

And that.

So we see, generally motorists /do/ have to pay a whole variety of taxes
specifically, and for no other purpose than, to use the road.

--
Matt B

 

[[email protected]]

On 4 Sep, 17:09, Matt B <[email protected]> wrote:
> Adrian Godwin wrote:
> > But I'm not so stupid that I want to fix it with more tarmac - that's
> > been tried for years,
>
> In the century, or so, since the motor vehicle has come to prominence
> how much dedicated network have we built to support it - about 2000
> miles! The same as the Romans managed 2000 years ago! One-tenth of
> that that the railway engineers managed!

Route miles, or "lane" miles? Taking London to Birmingham to be 100
miles (it's a bit more actually), a single track road provides 100
route miles and 100 lane miles. Single carriageway - one lane in each
direction - is 200 lane miles. Were Roman roads wide enough for
passing? Think so, but I'm not sure, but assuming yes, this would be
200 lane miles for them. London to Birmingham can be done on the M1/M6
or M40 which are both a minimum of 6 lanes (3 in each direction), so
this route has a minimum of 1200 lane miles, 6 times what the Romans
had.

Apply this to our motorway network and I think you'll get rather more
than 2000 miles, and it's a much better measure of capacity. Add to
that long stretches of 70 mph dual carriageway such as the A9 in
Scotland which while not technically dedicated was built solely for
motorised transport and is barely used by anything else and you'll get
a bigger number still.

> > it doesn't work and never will.
>
> We have never tried it. We provide networks to solve other
> communication problems, so why not for motor vehicles?

It's been tried in LA, a city that came in to existence with the motor
car. Look at a map and you'll see masses of freeways, but they still
clog up, and they were (I believe) one of the first with multi-
occupancy lanes (i.e. min. number of people in the car). Motoring
taxes are lower, petrol is cheap, and they still have road rage.

Morphology for a city based on public transport is very different to
that for a car. For public transport, you need a dense central core to
which many people want to travel to support the high transport flows
that make PT (particularly rail) economic. This layout is typical of
most British towns/cities (new towns such as MK being the exception).
You can't put an adequate road network into these cities, there just
isn't the space.

Private transport suits a much more spread out city. LA doesn't really
have an obvious centre, because people had cars, it just grew up in
all directions. It's very difficult to put a good public transport
network into this sort of city because journeys are ad hoc, so you
don't get the dense flows you need for a good service.

There's a good OU course on city morphology if you're genuinely
interested in the topic.

Rob

 

[marc]

Matt B wrote:
> marc wrote:
>> Matt B wrote:
>>> marc wrote:
>>>> Matt B wrote:
>>>>> marc wrote:
>>>>>> Matt B wrote:
>>>>>>> Paul Boyd wrote:
>>>>>>>> Noel said the following on 04/09/2007 08:49:
>>>>>>>>
>>>> As far as I am aware apart from road tolls there are no fees to use
>>>> the road apart from non hypothecated general taxation.
>>>
>>> In the UK you have to pay Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) on most types of
>>> motor vehicle manufactured since about 1973, to legally use them, or
>>> keep them, on the public road.
>>
>> No you pay VED to keep a motorvehicle on the road, not to use the
>> road. If you have two vehicles you pay two VED duties, not one road
>> use levy.
>
> You pay it to keep /or/ to use. If you never keep it on the road you
> only pay for use, and vice-versa.


I've just realised who you are... how did you get out? Plonk!

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <[email protected]>, Paul Boyd wrote:
>Budstaff said the following on 04/09/2007 14:43:
>
>> Agreed 100 percent - If the _only_ loutish behaviour we saw nowadays was
>> perpetrated by car drivers, then there might be some substance to troll b's
>> hypothesis.
>
>In this particular instance, I wouldn't consider MattB's post to be
>trolling at all.

Making one substance free but non-trolling post among many trolling ones
wouldn't make him not a troll.

 

[[email protected]]

On 4 Sep, 17:52, marc <[email protected]> wrote:
> Matt B wrote:
> > marc wrote:
> >> Matt B wrote:
> >>> marc wrote:
> >>>> Matt B wrote:
> >>>>> marc wrote:
> >>>>>> Matt B wrote:
> >>>>>>> Paul Boyd wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Noel said the following on 04/09/2007 08:49:
>
> >>>> As far as I am aware apart from road tolls there are no fees to use
> >>>> the road apart from non hypothecated general taxation.
>
> >>> In the UK you have to pay Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) on most types of
> >>> motor vehicle manufactured since about 1973, to legally use them, or
> >>> keep them, on the public road.
>
> >> No you pay VED to keep a motorvehicle on the road, not to use the
> >> road. If you have two vehicles you pay two VED duties, not one road
> >> use levy.
>
> > You pay it to keep /or/ to use. If you never keep it on the road you
> > only pay for use, and vice-versa.
>
> I've just realised who you are... how did you get out? Plonk!

How could you forget :-o

 

[Matt B]

David Martin wrote:
> On Sep 4, 4:22 pm, Matt B <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> As far as I am aware apart from
>>> road tolls there are no fees to use the road apart from non hypothecated
>>> general taxation.
>> In the UK you have to pay Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) on most types of
>> motor vehicle manufactured since about 1973, to legally use them, or
>> keep them, on the public road. This tax raised about £5 billion last year.
>
> It is a duty, not a tax.

Ah, semantics. Nice ploy. ;-)

You _are_ Gordon (NI isn't income tax) Brown, AICMFP.

> For a car to be kept on the road,

or used, even if it _isn't_ kept there.

> a fee must be paid.

No. Only, like I said: "on most types of motor vehicle manufactured
since about 1973".

> That fee can be
> zero.

Not on the vehicles we were discussing, we deliberately excluded those.

> The user of the car is not necessarily the one who pays the fee.

No. Like all other taxes really. In this case they are the
responsibility of the vehicle "keeper", but who knows, or cares, who
actually forks-out?

> My kids do not pay VED, yet they still use the car (albeit as
> passengers). So your assetion that all car users pay VED is wrong.

Damn, my case collapses, I knew I should have employed a lawyer and
legal draughtsman to ensure that the wording couldn't be undermined by
the resident urc pedant. ;-)

>> Your confusion, as does that of many drivers, arises from the fact that
>> although those taxes have to be paid to legally use the road, they are
>> _not_ hypothecated.
>
> They have to be paid to legally use fuel in a road going vehicle. You
> can use a car on a road without paying a penny in fuel duty. Legally.
> Driving it back up the hill would however require the use of fuel.

We sure can rely on you, can't we.

>> In a large area of central London, the users of most types of
>> conventionally powered motor vehicles _also_ have to pay another tax, on
>> top of all the others, the innapropriately named "Congestion Charge".
>> This could add up to more than £2000 for a year. This tax raised more
>> than £120 million last year.
>
> Or on average about £300 per car. Then compare that to the cost of
> other forms of transport.

Go on then, you tell us: how much is the CC on a bike, on a train, on a
pair of shoes, on a horse, on an average bus passenger. Is it zero?
Yes I think so.

>> In an increasing number of towns and cities around the UK, users of
>> motor vehicles also have to pay another tax if they park their vehicles
>> at the side of the public road. This tax raised more than £1 billion
>> last year for local authorities.
>
> You mean pay a fee to be allowed to use the highway as a car park?

Yes.

> Fair enough. Roads are for passing and repassing. Why should I
> subsidise your parking space? Pay for it yourself.

No-one said you should. We were itemising the taxes applicable to cars,
for using the road - that is one of them. How much tax is charged to
park a bike in the public spaces in your town?

>> So there we have about £41 billion worth of tax raised purely from
>> motorists to allow them to use the road. That doesn't include the
>> lesser, other taxes, disguised as charges and fees, such as registration
>> fees, MOT fees, insurance premium tax, etc., which also need to be paid
>> to be road-legal, or VAT (except on fuel duty).
>
> Hmm.. about £4k per year. Still cheap compared to traveling by public
> transport (with all it's stealth taxes).

That's only the tax element. How much tax does the average PT user have
to pay then, specifically to use PT? Don't include income tax, council
tax etc., or any of the other taxes that are paid by non-PT users too.

If we were to exclude mode specific taxes, how would the cost of PT
compare to private car use, including just capital, depreciation,
maintenance, fuel, insurance, etc..

--
Matt B

 

[Matt B]

marc wrote:
> Matt B wrote:
>> marc wrote:
>>> Matt B wrote:
>>>> marc wrote:
>>>>> Matt B wrote:
>>>>>> marc wrote:
>>>>>>> Matt B wrote:
>>>>>>>> Paul Boyd wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Noel said the following on 04/09/2007 08:49:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> As far as I am aware apart from road tolls there are no fees to use
>>>>> the road apart from non hypothecated general taxation.
>>>>
>>>> In the UK you have to pay Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) on most types of
>>>> motor vehicle manufactured since about 1973, to legally use them, or
>>>> keep them, on the public road.
>>>
>>> No you pay VED to keep a motorvehicle on the road, not to use the
>>> road. If you have two vehicles you pay two VED duties, not one road
>>> use levy.
>>
>> You pay it to keep /or/ to use. If you never keep it on the road you
>> only pay for use, and vice-versa.
>
> I've just realised who you are... how did you get out?

Who do you think I am then?

> Plonk!

Ah, it's dawned on you at last, but you're too arrogant to concede the
point.

What is it that is lacking in the moral fibre of the "plonkers" that
frequent urc? Many seem to resort to that coward's escape, rather than
make an honest admission.

<shrugs/>

--
Matt B

 

[marc]

[email protected] wrote:
> On 4 Sep, 17:52, marc <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Matt B wrote:
>>> marc wrote:
>>>> Matt B wrote:
>>>>> marc wrote:
>>>>>> Matt B wrote:
>>>>>>> marc wrote:
>>>>>>>> Matt B wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Paul Boyd wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Noel said the following on 04/09/2007 08:49:
>>>>>> As far as I am aware apart from road tolls there are no fees to use
>>>>>> the road apart from non hypothecated general taxation.
>>>>> In the UK you have to pay Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) on most types of
>>>>> motor vehicle manufactured since about 1973, to legally use them, or
>>>>> keep them, on the public road.
>>>> No you pay VED to keep a motorvehicle on the road, not to use the
>>>> road. If you have two vehicles you pay two VED duties, not one road
>>>> use levy.
>>> You pay it to keep /or/ to use. If you never keep it on the road you
>>> only pay for use, and vice-versa.
>> I've just realised who you are... how did you get out? Plonk!
>
> How could you forget :-o
>

Weeellll he confused me by

a) being there, I had killfiled him weeks ago, because I was fed up of
seeing x numbers of posts on the NG and then finding it was all his threads


b) by talking a bit of sense for a few minutes.

I must admit I didn't see the name and I "knew" that Matt B was in the
killfile, I'd like to know how he climbed out, anyone know how to make a
better oubliette?

 

[Don Whybrow]

Brian G wrote:
> Brian G wrote:
>>
>> Too often it's Person Weilding Vehicle.
>>
>
> Um, make that Wielding.
>

At first I thought is was roger, then I saw the capitals.

--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

A child of five could understand this! Fetch me a child of five.

 

[Tony Raven]

"Clive George" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> "Dylan Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> [0] I know you mean a rifle before you point this out. It's just the old
>> name of the hard disc came to mind before the rifle.
>
> But do you know where the name for the hard disc came from?
>

<geek>

After the Winchester 30-30 rifle because it was originally spec'd for two
30MB spindles

</geek>


--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

 

[John Clayton]

"Matt B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> What the hell has happened to people to make them so selfish and
>> arrogant?
>
> The root is often their bitterness at being required to pay such a heavy
> tax burden to use the road - especially compared to non-motorised road
> users.
> Matt B

Wouldn't worry me if it was tripled, certainly increased enough to get a lot
of cars off the road -permanently.
Then we could get tools and men to workplaces more quickly and productively
and I might enjoy cycling a bit more without these (truthfuly) selfish and
arrogant drivers I encounter far too often.
John

 

[Matt B]

Marc Brett wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 17:09:54 +0100, Matt B
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> We should have a vision - be looking forward to unlimited, pollution-free,
>> personal transport
>
> Welcome back to the cycling newsgroup! I hope all your future posts are
> as on-topic as this.

I'm glad to meet with your approval. Perhaps you'll now give more
support to some of my posts, especially those which discuss measures
which, if accepted, stick a good chance of bringing us closer to that
vision!

--
Matt B