"Adrian" wrote in message
. 244.170...
Clive George ) gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying :

Nah, you still haven't worked it out. He didn't spend 5.5 grand on a
bicycle. Nor did he spend 3 grand (or whatever it was) on a bicycle.

So John's telling porkies when he says he dropped over £500 tax on a
bike, too?

Go and read the post again. There have been quite a few hints. No,
John isn't telling porkies.

So there's some dissembling worthy of a senior government spin doctor
going
on around here.

Nope. You're just missing the huge hints John kept dropping to you.

Forgive me, for I merely a stupid car driver and can't hope to keep pace
with you sneaky cyclists...

Let's do this s-l-o-w-l-y for my benefit...

But then the last cycle I bought contributed around five times more in
tax to the country's coffers than most people pay in VED :-(

He's stated elsewhere that he's based that on £105 VED, so £525. If that's
VAT, then that's a £3,525 bicycle.

So what other taxes are payable on a bicycle? Or are we playing with some
accounting shenanigans involving allocations of income tax or whatever?

Your mistake is nothing to do with the numbers. Read those bits above again,
a bit harder. The hint is you're making an assumption which is unfounded.

But you're failing to explain to me what spending all that cash on a
bike *does* other than make you feel warm and fluffy and all Lance
Armstrong.

Comfort and handling mainly. The expensive bike is loads more
comfortable at certain critical moments, and is easier to keep
upright.

So it's perfectly acceptible to ride to the limits of handling on public
roads? OK...

See, there you go again, making unfounded assumptions. I have no intention
at all of falling off on public roads.

Remember I mentioned Dixon of Dock Green? I may have been stretching the
truth just a little when I said all bikes were like what he rode.

BTW you really ought to withdraw that allegation that JohnB was lying - he
wasn't (well, not in that post, anyway).

cheers,
clive