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?