We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
it makes me so angry when cyclists refuse to obey traffic signs
Comments
-
Yes. What most people call "road tax". Whoosh... I was taking the p**s out of the point that cyclists pay the tax indirectly by paying others who then pay the tax!
Indirectly we pay every tax there is. To use that as an argument that certain groups shouldn't pay the tax directly is :rotfl:
Other arguments may apply. I'm not really interested in the usual pathetic flame war between motorists and cyclists. But I do enjoy taking the p out of ridiculous arguments.
Sorry about that.
3 and a half hours sleep and just arrived in work for a 10 hour shift so was half asleep and quoted the wrong post. Fixed it now.:jAll your base are belong to us.0 -
Cyclists don't produce emissions, so they don't pay VED for their bike.
Small cars don't produce enough emissions, so they don't pay VED for their small cars.
Other cars do produce enough emissions, and their owners pay appropriate VED for their cars.
This is not difficult to understand. There is no tax to use the road.
Road repairs are paid for by general taxation. Some road users may contribute, they may not, depending on if they ever pay VAT, or ever pay income tax etc. A 16 year old with a job may be contributing more to road repairs, despite not being able to drive a car, than a driver of 60 years ever has.0 -
Oh really? So why don't agricultural vehicles used off road have to pay VED? Do they produce no emissions?Cyclists don't produce emissions, so they don't pay VED for their bike.
Small cars don't produce enough emissions, so they don't pay VED for their small cars.
Other cars do produce enough emissions, and their owners pay appropriate VED for their cars.
This is not difficult to understand. There is no tax to use the road.
Someone with a private racetrack who uses high emission vehicles on their track but not on public roads doesn't have to pay VED. Why is that? If it's a tax on emissions, not a tax on using public roads?
A SORN declaration exempts vehicles from VED. Regardless of the emissions they produce. What do you think the OR in SORN stands for?0 -
I don't write the law. But what I said stands.
It's not a tax to use the road. It's a tax to use your vehicle on the road, based on the emissions it produces. The tax does not pay for the roads.
I cycle and I drive a car. I cycle 5000-6000 miles a year and drive 2000-3000. I pay over £10k income tax, I don't need anybody telling me I don't pay to use the roads.0 -
Using your vehicle on the road is using the road! Therefore it's a tax to use the road by definition, paid by some road users but not others.I don't write the law. But what I said stands.
It's not a tax to use the road. It's a tax to use your vehicle on the road,
Just like income tax is a tax on income, paid by some people with income but not others.
Don't use the road, don't pay VED. Don't have income, don't pay income tax.
Use the road, you might have to pay VED, depending on how. Have income, you might have to pay income tax, depending what sort of income and how much.
VED is a tax on using the road. Income tax is a tax on income.0 -
Using your vehicle on the road is using the road!
Indeed it is. But there is no tax for that, there is a tax for using your vehicle on the road that has certain emissions. There is no tax for driving, cycling, running or walking on the road.zafles wrote:Therefore it's a tax to use the road by definition, paid by some road users but not others.
No it isn't. It's definition is to use your vehicle on the road depending on its emissions.Just like income tax is a tax on income, paid by some people with income but not others.
I cannot argue with that. But it's not a tax to earn an income, it's a tax paid on it. Just like a tax to use your vehicle with high emissions on the road is a tax for that, not a tax to use the road. Similarly income tax is not a tax on using the NHS, but it goes some way to funding it.Don't use the road, don't pay VED. Don't have income, don't pay income tax.
You've already contradicted this. If you have a non-SORNd high emission producing vehicle parked in your drive, you'd be paying VED and not using the road. If you earn £1000 a year, you'd not be paying income tax.
VED is a tax on using your emission producing vehicle on the road. You are correct about income tax.Use the road, you might have to pay VED, depending on how. Have income, you might have to pay income tax, depending what sort of income and how much.
VED is a tax on using the road. Income tax is a tax on income.
I'm only saying how it is. I don't create laws.
At the end of the day, as a cyclist I pay more than my fair share to use the roads through income tax. By cycling 2-3x as many miles as I drive, I am also wearing the roads less, and polluting less. I also have £5m of public liability insurance on the roads while on my bike.
To actually go back to the OP's post, I also find cyclists breaking the rules annoying. I often feel daft sat at a red light in a village in the night with no traffic, but I still do it; I do the same in a car.
People seem to pick out the lycra clad as being the worst offenders; I think they're more likely to be more experienced and argue their case, especially when an irate motorist complains about them doing things they're legally allowed (two abreast, filtering, taking a centre of lane position) but on my travels its your casual commuter who tends to do most of the red light jumping. I am in the former, lycra clad lot.0 -
Spider_In_The_Bath wrote: »
I live in a rural area with lots of farmers who all seem to own vintage tractors with no indicators so alongwith the numerous horse riders hand signals are used quite a lot.
It confuses townies though... I once had the indicators pack up on an elderly Astra and spent 2 or 3 days doing hand signals which a lot of drivers failed to understand.
And back to cyclists; it's supposed to be arm out straight y'know; most wave it at 30 degrees below horizontal if at all. When I'm driving, I actually watch for the head turn over a cyclist's shoulder as a better clue that they want to manoeuvre and then hold back until I can see where they are going.I need to think of something new here...0 -
In my walking commute around Central London, it's definitely commuters and Boris bikes who like to plough through zebras and pelicans - as said above, sometimes whizzing past 2 or 3 other reasonable cyclists who have stopped.but on my travels its your casual commuter who tends to do most of the red light jumping. I am in the former, lycra clad lot.
Nearer to home, there's a 3/4 mile downhill run to a crossroads with lights and pelicans. In rush hour, the traffic coming down the hill tails back from the lights and there's a certain percentage of cyclists who like to freewheel down the wrong side of the road, passing the traffic and then dive back across the slow-moving stream when they realise they are heading directly for a bus coming uphill. That's not filtering, that's unsafe overtaking. Note I said ACROSS, not just back to the centre line but diving at 90 degrees across the front of a car and up onto the pavement so they can undertake a few more.I need to think of something new here...0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.7K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454K Spending & Discounts
- 244.7K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.3K Life & Family
- 258.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards