On Tue, 30 Jul 2013 10:07:09 +0000, spud-u-dont-like wrote:

All I'm saying is, if bikes were taxed, you would lose the ability to
demand they go away from you.

And all I'm saying is that if they want to complain about the roads and
other drivers they should pay for the priviledge.

Once again - do you apply that to the drivers of older cars, low-emission
cars and to disabled drivers? After all - none of them pay VED, either.

On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 06:42:34PM +0100, Arthur Figgis wrote:

The cyclists aren't usually causing a safety risk to other road users.

They mostly cause safety risks to themselves*, but also cause safety
risks to pedestrians. I remember with great fondness the time that the
Critical Mass thugs breezed through a red light and tried to run over me
and my blind mother as we were crossing the road.

The only good Critical Masser is one that is in a cell.

* for the ****wits in the audience, safety failures hardly ever have a
single cause. Yes, drivers also cause those risks, but IME of actual
and near accidents, yer average cyclist who is involved in an accident
is more at fault, and even if they aren't at fault, they're still the
ones who, when **** goes wrong, suffer the most. Therefore it behooves
them to do the most to mitigate the risk.

--
David Cantrell | Cake Smuggler Extraordinaire

I caught myself pulling grey hairs out of my beard.
I'm definitely not going grey, but I am going vain.

On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 01:25:43PM +0000, Adrian wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jul 2013 13:53:49 +0100, David Cantrell wrote:
There are bicycles out there on which the purchaser would pay a
considerably higher amount of VAT than they could on a new car.
Really? There exists a bicycle with a price tag over a million quid?
You're not very bright, are you?

Now now, no name-calling please.

Here's a clue. What I _actually_ said equates to some expensive bicycles
cost more than some cheap new cars.

If that were the case then you would have said "... than they would on
a new car". Instead you said "... than they could on a new car". One
letter difference.

But we all make mistakes sometimes.

--
David Cantrell | top google result for "internet beard fetish club"

On Tue, 30 Jul 2013 13:17:34 +0100, David Cantrell wrote:

There are bicycles out there on which the purchaser would pay a
considerably higher amount of VAT than they could on a new car.

Really? There exists a bicycle with a price tag over a million quid?

You're not very bright, are you?

Now now, no name-calling please.

It was more a statement of the bleedin' obvious than name-calling. The
other conclusion is that you're being deliberately obtuse in a vain
attempt to score some vacuous point.

Which?

Here's a clue. What I _actually_ said equates to some expensive
bicycles cost more than some cheap new cars.

If that were the case then you would have said "... than they would on a
new car". Instead you said "... than they could on a new car". One
letter difference.

Umm, no. Because they're very different things. I can't imagine the kind
of person who buys a £10k roadbike then buying a new Cit C1 or Dacia, so
"would" does not apply. But they could have.

On 30/07/2013 11:07, d wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jul 2013 19:32:23 +0100
Arthur Figgis wrote:
In that case they'd be stopped by the police and issued with a fixed penalty.

On what basis? Are you really saying people should have to pay to use a
bicycle but then be banned from making use of the roads?!

All I'm saying is, if bikes were taxed, you would lose the ability to
demand they go away from you.

And all I'm saying is that if they want to complain about the roads and
other drivers they should pay for the priviledge. Once they do then they can
whinge and bitch as much as they like, until then they can - to use an
americanism - talk to the hand.

It doesn't seem to be cyclists I hear moaning...


--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On 30/07/2013 13:11, David Cantrell wrote:
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 06:42:34PM +0100, Arthur Figgis wrote:

The cyclists aren't usually causing a safety risk to other road users.

They mostly cause safety risks to themselves*, but also cause safety
risks to pedestrians. I remember with great fondness the time that the
Critical Mass thugs breezed through a red light and tried to run over me
and my blind mother as we were crossing the road.

The only good Critical Masser is one that is in a cell.

* for the ****wits in the audience, safety failures hardly ever have a
single cause. Yes, drivers also cause those risks, but IME of actual
and near accidents, yer average cyclist who is involved in an accident
is more at fault, and even if they aren't at fault, they're still the
ones who, when **** goes wrong, suffer the most. Therefore it behooves
them to do the most to mitigate the risk.

But how far should they go - should they drive instead? Or ride on the
pavement, which lowers the risk of _serious_ injuries to someone, at the
increased(?) risk of _minor_ injuries - as well as being illegal and
massively antisocial?

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On Tue, 30 Jul 2013 11:34:47 +0000 (UTC)
Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jul 2013 10:07:09 +0000, spud-u-dont-like wrote:

All I'm saying is, if bikes were taxed, you would lose the ability to
demand they go away from you.

And all I'm saying is that if they want to complain about the roads and
other drivers they should pay for the priviledge.

Once again - do you apply that to the drivers of older cars, low-emission
cars and to disabled drivers? After all - none of them pay VED, either.

I think I've already answered that when you asked if they should be made
an exception to VED, the answer being no. Apart from the disabled since their
lives are hard enough already.

--
Spud

On Tue, 30 Jul 2013 18:12:21 +0100
Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 30/07/2013 11:07, d wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jul 2013 19:32:23 +0100
Arthur Figgis wrote:
In that case they'd be stopped by the police and issued with a fixed
penalty.

On what basis? Are you really saying people should have to pay to use a
bicycle but then be banned from making use of the roads?!

All I'm saying is, if bikes were taxed, you would lose the ability to
demand they go away from you.

And all I'm saying is that if they want to complain about the roads and
other drivers they should pay for the priviledge. Once they do then they can
whinge and bitch as much as they like, until then they can - to use an
americanism - talk to the hand.

It doesn't seem to be cyclists I hear moaning...

You must have cloth ears then. Every other week there's some shrieking crustie
on the TV or local radio saying "something must be done!" about cycling
deaths in London. I know - how about cyclists learn to use their ****ing
eyes and common sense and don't go up the inside of a truck or bus turning
left! You never know, it might just work.

--
Spud

On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 10:03:13 +0000, spud-u-dont-like wrote:

All I'm saying is, if bikes were taxed, you would lose the ability to
demand they go away from you.

And all I'm saying is that if they want to complain about the roads
and other drivers they should pay for the priviledge.

Once again - do you apply that to the drivers of older cars,
low-emission cars and to disabled drivers? After all - none of them pay
VED, either.

I think I've already answered that when you asked if they should be made
an exception to VED, the answer being no.

Actually, I asked if they were an exception to your argument about paying
VED enhancing priority.

B'sides, they aren't an exception to VED, since all still need to possess
and display a valid disc, with MOT (where applicable) and insurance
needed in order to obtain one. It's just that the cost for that disc
happens to be zero.

On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 10:12:11 +0000, spud-u-dont-like wrote:

Every other week there's some shrieking crustie on the TV or local
radio saying "something must be done!" about cycling deaths in London.
I know - how about cyclists learn to use their ****ing eyes and common
sense and don't go up the inside of a truck or bus turning left!

Whilst I disagree with much of what you say, you are _absolutely_ bang on
the money with the need for cyclists to ride defensively and
intelligently.