"Huge" wrote in message
...
"Alan" writes:

"Chris" wrote in message
...
Huge wrote:

Well, it would be, cyclists not being acustomed to actually paying for
anything, given that they use the roads and the trains for nothing.


I'm a 40% tax payer, a paid-up motorist, and a cyclist. I pay for the
roads just as much anyone.

You really are as thick as **** aren't you?

******.

Same here - I have 2 cars insured, taxed and MOT'd in regular use on the
roads,

Irrelevant.

but I cycle to work occasionally. In what way do I use the road for
nothing?

As a cyclist, you pay nothing to use the roads. That makes you a
feeloader.

Ahhhhh, so I'm a feeloader. I'm not aware of any system I'm dodging by using
a bike. If there was such a system, and was sensibly priced, I'd be happy to
use it. Tax on motorbikes is far less than cars, so as bicycle tax would be
less still, it should be reasonable.
However, as there is currently no system, you cannot accuse cyclists of
anything.


Exactly how much wear to the road does a bike cause compared to a car?

Irrelevant. Road taxes are not hypothecated.

See point above.


How
about the zero pollution from each bike user?

The last time I looked, bikes were made from steel or aluminium, not
moonbeams.

But far less material in a bike than a car and therefore far less pollution
in their manufacture. And once manufactured they do not pollute further in
their use, unlike cars.

Surely it is far better for
the environment if *more* people cycled?

Not the point at issue.

There would be far less congestion, pollution and road wear if lots more
people cycled instead of drove everywhere.

Irrelevant.

Didn't think you'd have an answer for that.


Maybe "Huge" is too bloody lazy to get his fat arse out of the car and try
cycling anywhere.

'Ad hominem'

Or that.


Still, when you're robbing Peter to subsidise Paul, you can't really
expect
Paul to have any complaints, can you?


I'm not robbing from anyone, I am using the system provided by the
government perfectly legally. So you'd rather all cyclists had cars instead
and drove everywhere, however unnecessary just so that they can be in a
taxed vehicle every time they make any journey, instead of using another
transport solution which reduces pollution and congestion, and helps keep
the cyclist fit?

OK, so are you proposing pavement tax to anyone who walks anywhere because
they're using the pavement for free? Pavements are built as part of roads.

Go get a life.


Idiot.

You cyclists are fond of self-descriptive sigs, aren't you?


I don't have any signature. What's your point?