Killer motorists!

Norman_Castle

RMS2 wrote: »

More fool you, if all it takes is a name change to confuse you that much.


If they called Income Tax, a tax on earnings, you'd think that they had abolished Income Tax?


How easily people are brainwashed by MPs and civil servants.

More fool you. Here's a quote from your government explaining VED.
Sorry to remove your perceived entitlement over cyclists.

"Motoring taxation is made up of two elements, vehicle excise duty (VED), which can be
considered a tax on ownership, and fuel duty, which is a tax on use. Although historically the
road fund tax was considered a hypothecated tax to pay for the building and maintenance of
the road network, this has not been so since 1937 and it is now a general revenue raising
tax. Changes to the rates and coverage of the duty are made in the Finance Acts. The
Labour Government introduced a new system of VED, based primarily on carbon dioxide
emissions, for cars registered on and after 1 March 2001".
Louise Butcher. House of commons. (Brainwashing People)

Out of interest, how much VED do you pay?.

Educate yourself. http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.parliament.uk%2Fbriefing-papers%2Fsn00402.pdf&ei=Xr-aVMzTE4G2UdKFgpgL&usg=AFQjCNHjPX2panoYjHXEgKhxIR-ACz9_hg&sig2=4TUVeQRuYMuQs3XPx3dq8g&bvm=bv.82001339,d.d24

Strider590

Norman_Castle wrote: »

Out of interest, how much VED do you pay?.

Which raises another interesting point.

I own 2 cars, one is £180 a year VED and does 12'000miles, the other is £210 and does less than 3000miles a year.
What right does anyone have to shout "road tax" related abuse at me, when i'm out for my occasional bike ride?

matttye

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Speaking as one of the motorists who does do that I'd also suggest that a (thougtful) slow motorist - tractors are generally good at this - will usually pull over and allow a building queue to pass occasionally. I've never yet seen a cyclist do that - even when all they need to do is ride through a layby without slowing.

That doesn't excuse poor driving, but neither does poor driving excuse poor cycling.

It irritates me no end when cyclists don't use laybys as they ride past.

I know they have as much right to be on the road as the motorists do but that doesn't mean they can't exercise a little common sense and let people get past when the opportunity arises.

I usually judge people by my own standards and I would definitely make use of laybys if I was the one on the bike.

[Deleted User]

Marktheshark wrote: »

It's about "right and wrong" these days.
In the old days it was about give and take

It's about cyclists who want to go on motoring boards and compare bad motorists with good cyclists, and motorists who want to go on cycling boards comparing bad cyclists with good motorists. Thus there becomes less and less give and take. There are good and bad road users, and the difference has little or nothing to do with what mode of transport they're using.

It has considerable bearing on the debate that people are many times more sensitive to a risk they are in control of than one that is outside their control, given that the capacity for cars to damage cyclists is far greater than the capacity of a bike to damage a motorist.

[Deleted User]

Cyclists worry about having their kidneys wrapped around a prop shaft, and motorists worry about being delayed a few minutes, it says quite a lot about todays society that these seem to be comparable.

Retrogamer

I never used to realise how dangerous cycling on the roads could be until i started driving cars.
If some people can't see me when i'm in my car, i've no chance on my bike.

arcon5

matttye wrote: »

It irritates me no end when cyclists don't use laybys as they ride past.

I know they have as much right to be on the road as the motorists do but that doesn't mean they can't exercise a little common sense and let people get past when the opportunity arises.

I usually judge people by my own standards and I would definitely make use of laybys if I was the one on the bike.

Problem is when the cyclist comes to the end of the lay by there is an increased risk of colliding with a vehicle as he rejoins the carriageway since a lot of people have sheep mentality or aren't thinking.

If the cyclist holds his position on the road there will be no ambiguity as to the fact he's continuing on that road and space must be made to pass him by the motorist, rather than space given to the motorist by the cyclists.

This, IMO of course, is as bad as cyclists that ride in the gutter making it very unsafe for themselves.

RMS2

Car_54 wrote: »

So you remember the state of the roads before 1936? How old are you?

You must have been educated under NuLabour if you think you can only know about something if you were living at that time.


Going by your logic, virtually not one person knows anything about WWI, because they either weren't living then or were too young to remember.

RMS2

Norman_Castle wrote: »

More fool you. Here's a quote from your government explaining VED.

Yes, governments say what they like, just like the leader of our current government, who promised lots of things and failed on just about every one.


If you'd bother to look, you'd see that a large percentage of people involved in green energy, on government panels etc. have been investigated for a conflict of interests.


They can talk on all they like about low pollution electric cars, whilst not telling us about the pollution from power stations to charge them or the horrendous environmental costs in throwing something away that works and manufacturing a new item to replace it.


Like I said in my earlier post, VED is now just some arbitrary figure the government likes to play about with in the name of green taxes.

wheelz

Retrogamer wrote: »

I never used to realise how dangerous cycling on the roads could be until i started driving cars.
If some people can't see me when i'm in my car, i've no chance on my bike.

As said before, cars don't even see police motorcyclists with all their hi-viz, scary.