Illegal parking in cycle lanes - name and shame

gadgetmind

Harry_Flashman wrote: »

The CO2 we emit depends heavily on the miles driven - road tax takes no account of this.

Not yet, but it might in the future.

It is a tax to use the road

No it's not. It's an annual duty payable on vehicles that emit more than 99g/km of CO2. Once you've paid that duty, or chosen to operate a vehicle for which the duty payable is zero, then use of the roads is free and you can enjoy unlimited mileage.

Those who pay more do *not* have any greater right to be on the roads than those who have paid less.

Harry_Flashman

gadgetmind wrote: »

No it's not. It's an annual duty payable on vehicles that emit more than 99g/km of CO2. Once you've paid that duty, or chosen to operate a vehicle for which the duty payable is zero, then use of the roads is free and you can enjoy unlimited mileage.

Those who pay more do *not* have any greater right to be on the roads than those who have paid less.

You can dress it up how you wish (you've more spin than a politician), but it amounts to a tax to use a vehicle on the road.

We won't agree on this so pointless arguing further.

gadgetmind

Harry_Flashman wrote: »

You can dress it up how you wish

I'm not dressing it up, I'm explaining how VED works, what it is, and what it isn't.

it amounts to a tax to use a vehicle on the road.

No, yet again, it's a duty for using *some* (but not all) motor vehicles on the road.

We won't agree on this so pointless arguing further.

I'm not arguing with you, I'm telling you what VED is, which is something you can easily look up for yourself to verify that what I'm saying is correct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_Excise_Duty

You may also like to look up where the law says that road users who have paid different levels of VED have different rights to be on the road.

I await your links.

Strider590

Harry_Flashman wrote: »

The fact remains, it's a tax that some of us have to pay to use the road. Or do you deny that as well?

On that logic im fully within my rights to ram low emission diesels, electrics and hybrids off the road?? The BiB might disagree

It doesn't matter how you dress it up (to coin a phrase), VED does not give one road user more rights than another.

Jamopy

Harry_Flashman wrote: »

No-one is claiming that road tax is used to build or maintain roads.

Road tax doesn't exist, and hasn't existed since the 30s. You're more than a little out of your depth if you don't know this.

Similarly, I hope no-one is stupid enough to claim that the amount of road tax paid is directly affected by the amount of pollution a vehicle supposedly creates.

Road tax doesn't exist. VED is based on carbon emissions. It's not a matter of argument, these are simple facts.

My point is simply this. In order to legally put my vehicle on the road, I have to have passed a government exam, I have to pay a tax first (and display an ugly governmental sign that says I have done so) and I have to have paid for extortionately expensive insurance. If I have two vehicles, I have to pay these amounts twice, etc, etc. A cyclist neither has to pass an exam nor has to pay these charges for their machine.

You have to pass an exam in order to be in considered safe to be in charge of a type of machine that kills thousands of people in this country every year. It's not a tax to be on the road, it's a legal requirement enacted to save lives.

You don't pay a tax for road use, you pay for using a vehicle that produces above a certain amount of carbon dioxide. Road users that produce below this amount - whether animal, vehicle, car, bike, bicycle, pedestrian, etc - don't pay this.

You pay insurance for your car, not for using the road. The road itself is paid for out of general taxation. You pay no more towards the cost of building and maintaining the roads than any pedestrian or cyclist.

(in which you're so fond of giving advice to those who have passed a driving test)

Most cyclists i know have passed their driving tests.

sassy_one

Just some constructive feedback, but it's all well having this thread but I'm fed up with cyclists who think they own the road.

For example, one cyclist came up along side me the other week because I didn't let him out at a busy junction (roundabout) he got off his bike at the red lights and kicked my car three times, all witnessed by CCTV cameras, causing several hundreds of pounds worth of damage, to which the Police arrested him and there awaiting the CPS to make a decision.


Cyclists also endanger themselves on the road, I've seen it with my own eyes, I always let them out on normal roads, but some of them pull in front of cars and also ride on the pavement, to which is a offence in the area I live in, I've had one lady drive her bike into me a month or so back, what if that were a old lady she knocked over?

There's blame on both parts here, and when your free of all guilt you can start pointing the finger but until your hands are clean don't start telling drivers to wash theirs.

custardy

sassy-one wrote: »

Just some constructive feedback, but it's all well having this thread but I'm fed up with cyclists who think they own the road.

For example, one cyclist came up along side me the other week because I didn't let him out at a busy junction (roundabout) he got off his bike at the red lights and kicked my car three times, all witnessed by CCTV cameras, causing several hundreds of pounds worth of damage, to which the Police arrested him and there awaiting the CPS to make a decision.


Cyclists also endanger themselves on the road, I've seen it with my own eyes, I always let them out on normal roads, but some of them pull in front of cars and also ride on the pavement, to which is a offence in the area I live in, I've had one lady drive her bike into me a month or so back, what if that were a old lady she knocked over?

There's blame on both parts here, and when your free of all guilt you can start pointing the finger but until your hands are clean don't start telling drivers to wash theirs.

interessting that another case of criminal damage on a car has a posssibility of charges.
yet a cyclist being hit by a car(as I linked to earlier) has no charges.
by your standards,you could perform surgery with my hands.

Harry_Flashman

custardy wrote: »

interessting that another case of criminal damage on a car has a posssibility of charges.

So you think there shouldn't be charges?

rev_henry

sassy-one wrote: »

Just some constructive feedback, but it's all well having this thread but I'm fed up with cyclists who think they own the road.

For example, one cyclist came up along side me the other week because I didn't let him out at a busy junction (roundabout) he got off his bike at the red lights and kicked my car three times, all witnessed by CCTV cameras, causing several hundreds of pounds worth of damage, to which the Police arrested him and there awaiting the CPS to make a decision.


Cyclists also endanger themselves on the road, I've seen it with my own eyes, I always let them out on normal roads, but some of them pull in front of cars and also ride on the pavement, to which is a offence in the area I live in, I've had one lady drive her bike into me a month or so back, what if that were a old lady she knocked over?

There's blame on both parts here, and when your free of all guilt you can start pointing the finger but until your hands are clean don't start telling drivers to wash theirs.

Well that behaviour is obviously unacceptable and ridiculous. I, however, am a law abiding cyclist and am fed up of cars parking illegally putting me in danger.

gadgetmind

sassy-one wrote: »

I'm fed up with cyclists who think they own the road.

Which cyclists think that and how do you know they think that?

all witnessed by CCTV cameras

I'd be interested in seeing the video.

until your hands are clean don't start telling drivers to wash theirs.

If it's all the same to you, I'll point out inconsiderate and dangerous behaviour from any road user.