On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 10:53:33 +0000 (UTC)
Adrian wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 10:03:13 +0000, spud-u-dont-like wrote:
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.

Oh well, I misread it in that case.

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.

Personally I'd dispense with the tax disc altogether and do what they do in
most of europe - require you to display an insurance and/or MOT equiv sticker
somewhere on the vehicle - bikes included. Any tax money lost by the treasury
they can easily recoup from fuel sales.

--
Spud

On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 11:32:28 +0000, spud-u-dont-like wrote:

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.

Oh well, I misread it in that case.

Care to answer it, though?

On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 06:42:55PM +0100, Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 30/07/2013 13:11, David Cantrell wrote:
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?

They should ride with awareness of their surroundings, consideration for
other road users, and stick to the rules of the road.

It's a sorry state of affairs when, on my walk from home to the station
(which is all on suburban roads, with one road crossing) I have to spend
more time looking out for cyclists than for all motorised vehicles put
together. That's despite there being orders of magnitude more motorised
vehicles, moving faster, and which, were one to run into me, would hurt a
lot more. The reason I have to be more careful about cyclists is that a
far larger proportion of cyclists are inconsiderate oblivious arseholes.

--
David Cantrell | Bourgeois reactionary pig

Only some sort of ghastly dehumanised moron would want to get
rid of Routemasters
-- Ken Livingstone, four years before he got rid of 'em

On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 02:16:00PM +0000, Adrian wrote:

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

I can. I can imagine that someone who can afford to blow 10 grand on a
bike which is only a tiny little bit better than a much cheaper bike can
do all kinds of things. After all, they're the sort of person who has
plenty of money to spend unwisely.

--
David Cantrell | London Perl Mongers Deputy Chief Heretic

You may now start misinterpreting what I just
wrote, and attacking that misinterpretation.

On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 12:00:52 +0000 (UTC)
Adrian wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 11:32:28 +0000, spud-u-dont-like wrote:

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.

Oh well, I misread it in that case.

Care to answer it, though?

I don't think I mentioned "VED enhancing priority" whatever that means
in english. I think I simply said bikes should pay road tax if the rider
wishes to ride on numbered roads. Is that too complex for you?

--
Spud

On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 12:40:08 +0000, spud-u-dont-like wrote:

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.

Oh well, I misread it in that case.

Care to answer it, though?

I don't think I mentioned "VED enhancing priority" whatever that means
in english. I think I simply said bikes should pay road tax if the rider
wishes to ride on numbered roads. Is that too complex for you?

Not at all. Quite the opposite, I think. Either you fail to understand my
question or you are trying hard to avoid answering it.

I shall explain. You think cyclists should not be able to use certain
roads since they do not pay to use the roads. Right?
Therefore paying conveys enhanced priority. Right?

(If it helps clear up what I suspect is the cause of confusion, then I
don't mean "priority" in a Give Way sense, but in the more general sense.
Importance. Relevance. Whatever word you may prefer.)

Is the question clearer to you now?

Do people in cars who have not paid VED (ie older cars, low emission
cars, disabled drivers) sit on the same perceived "normal" level of
priority as other drivers, or the perceived lower level as cyclists, in
your view?

I assume when you're not cycling you are a politician. Only a politician would
obfuscate like that. An entire post consisting of irrelevant gibberish designed
solely to divert the argument away from its central theme.

On 31/07/2013 13:09, David Cantrell wrote:
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 06:42:55PM +0100, Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 30/07/2013 13:11, David Cantrell wrote:
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?

They should ride with awareness of their surroundings, consideration for
other road users, and stick to the rules of the road.

No, really? Although I suspect people who ride without awareness of
their surroundings will sooner or later remove themselves from
circulation anyway.

It's a sorry state of affairs when, on my walk from home to the station
(which is all on suburban roads, with one road crossing) I have to spend
more time looking out for cyclists than for all motorised vehicles put
together.

OTOH, on my walk to the station I have to look out for motorists. There
are rather more of them, and it only takes the odd one who sails through
the puffin crossing for me to end up very dead. At least in the event a
cyclist were to go through a red light I would do them more harm than
they would do me. A motorbike went through the lights the other day -
straight into the back of car stood on the road ahead.

When I'm on a bus or train or tram it is all someone else's problem, and
I'll probably be on the winning side in any collision (unless someone
does an Ufton or Great Heck or Lockington).

One thing motorists don't generally have to worry about is deliberate
attack, which is a minor but non-zero risk on a push bike, and much less
common but I guess still non-zero on foot. Fortunately the people who
think throwing things at bikes is a fun thing to do are (by definition)
idiots, and usually overlook the need to aim in front of a moving target.
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On 31/07/2013 14:43, Adrian wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 12:40:08 +0000, spud-u-dont-like wrote:

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.

Oh well, I misread it in that case.

Care to answer it, though?

I don't think I mentioned "VED enhancing priority" whatever that means
in english. I think I simply said bikes should pay road tax if the rider
wishes to ride on numbered roads. Is that too complex for you?

Not at all. Quite the opposite, I think. Either you fail to understand my
question or you are trying hard to avoid answering it.

I shall explain. You think cyclists should not be able to use certain
roads since they do not pay to use the roads. Right?
Therefore paying conveys enhanced priority. Right?

(If it helps clear up what I suspect is the cause of confusion, then I
don't mean "priority" in a Give Way sense, but in the more general sense.
Importance. Relevance. Whatever word you may prefer.)

Is the question clearer to you now?

Do people in cars who have not paid VED (ie older cars, low emission
cars, disabled drivers) sit on the same perceived "normal" level of
priority as other drivers, or the perceived lower level as cyclists, in
your view?

And what about disabled cyclists?
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 18:06:58 +0100, Arthur Figgis wrote:

And what about disabled cyclists?

Duhg's dead.