On Thu, 25 Jul 2013 13:46:32 +0100
David Cantrell wrote:
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 01:43:17PM +0000, d wrote:

When cyclists pay road tax for their bikes then they can have a say in how
the
roads are laid out and what they share them with. Until then they can put up
or
shut up.

They do pay taxes which get spent on road building and maintenance.
Those taxes are called income tax, national insurance, VAT, booze duty,
and a whole load of other taxes.

So what? We all pay those taxes. Are cyclists doing it out of the kindness
of their hearts and so should be given special dispensation not to have to
tax their bikes?

They even pay vehicle tax, because most of them also have cars,

God almighty , how often is this idiotic excuse going to keep coming up?
ALL vehicles should be taxed. Its the VEHICLE thats taxed , NOT the driver.
If you have 2 cars you have to tax both, so if you have a car and a bike you
should have to tax the car AND the bike. Got it?

Hope that helps.

You wish.

--
Spud

In article ,
d wrote:
God almighty , how often is this idiotic excuse going to keep coming up?
ALL vehicles should be taxed.

What cost would you charge each vehicle? In proportion to the damage they
do to roads? In proportion to the pollution they emit? Equally, no matter
what the vehicle?


--
Mike Bristow

In message , at 16:37:38 on Thu,
25 Jul 2013, Mike Bristow remarked:
God almighty , how often is this idiotic excuse going to keep coming up?
ALL vehicles should be taxed.

What cost would you charge each vehicle? In proportion to the damage they
do to roads? In proportion to the pollution they emit?

It's normally some sort of proxy for "as much as they can afford".

eg Bigger and more expensive cars, houses etc, the more the tax is.
--
Roland Perry

On Thu, 25 Jul 2013 16:37:38 +0100
Mike Bristow wrote:
In article ,
d wrote:
God almighty , how often is this idiotic excuse going to keep coming up?
ALL vehicles should be taxed.

What cost would you charge each vehicle? In proportion to the damage they
do to roads? In proportion to the pollution they emit? Equally, no matter
what the vehicle?

Equal to the amount of specialist infrastructure they require on the highways.
If cyclists want cycle paths and routes they can pay for them, not expect them
to be funded by local councils or the london assembly.

And whats more I'd insist cyclists had some sort of formal training before
they're allowed on B roads and above. If they want to potter about in their
own backstreets fine, but if they want to ride on a numbered road they need
a license.

--
Spud

On 26/07/2013 10:59, d wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jul 2013 16:37:38 +0100
Mike Bristow wrote:
In article ,
d wrote:
God almighty , how often is this idiotic excuse going to keep coming up?
ALL vehicles should be taxed.

What cost would you charge each vehicle? In proportion to the damage they
do to roads? In proportion to the pollution they emit? Equally, no matter
what the vehicle?

Equal to the amount of specialist infrastructure they require on the highways.
If cyclists want cycle paths and routes they can pay for them, not expect them
to be funded by local councils or the london assembly.

Cyclists don't need specialist infrastructure, other than maybe some
blue arrows on fence posts. Cyclists generally don't want cycle paths
which are designed to get them "out of the way" or exist to enable
someone to tick the "green transport" box.

There is also the risk a charge could backfire. If cyclists did pay, you
could kiss goodbye to demanding they use cycle lanes or stay in the gutter.

And whats more I'd insist cyclists had some sort of formal training before
they're allowed on B roads and above. If they want to potter about in their
own backstreets fine, but if they want to ride on a numbered road they need
a license.

Don't forget pedestrians. Even /children/ are allowed to go pretty much
where they want at the moment, with no tax, training or government
permit whatsoever.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On Fri, 26 Jul 2013 18:50:57 +0100
Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 26/07/2013 10:59, d wrote:
There is also the risk a charge could backfire. If cyclists did pay, you
could kiss goodbye to demanding they use cycle lanes or stay in the gutter.

In that case they'd be stopped by the police and issued with a fixed penalty.

And whats more I'd insist cyclists had some sort of formal training before
they're allowed on B roads and above. If they want to potter about in their
own backstreets fine, but if they want to ride on a numbered road they need
a license.

Don't forget pedestrians. Even /children/ are allowed to go pretty much
where they want at the moment, with no tax, training or government
permit whatsoever.

Using stupid analogies just makes you look like an ass. Some people can ride
bicycles faster than the max speed of some mopeds. When all pedestrians are
running down the street 10mph faster than Usain Bolt and are carrying sharp
bits of metal out in front of them then maybe we can talk about them requiring
licenses you ****ing idiot.

--
Spud

On 29/07/2013 10:19, d wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jul 2013 18:50:57 +0100
Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 26/07/2013 10:59, d wrote:
There is also the risk a charge could backfire. If cyclists did pay, you
could kiss goodbye to demanding they use cycle lanes or stay in the gutter.

In that case they'd be stopped by the police and issued with a fixed penalty.

On what basis? Are you really saying people should have to pay to use a
bicycle but then be banned from making use of the roads?!

All I'm saying is, if bikes were taxed, you would lose the ability to
demand they go away from you.

And whats more I'd insist cyclists had some sort of formal training before
they're allowed on B roads and above. If they want to potter about in their
own backstreets fine, but if they want to ride on a numbered road they need
a license.

Don't forget pedestrians. Even /children/ are allowed to go pretty much
where they want at the moment, with no tax, training or government
permit whatsoever.

Using stupid analogies just makes you look like an ass.

Bettering than looking like a selfish angry pillock.

Some people can ride
bicycles faster than the max speed of some mopeds. When all pedestrians are
running down the street 10mph faster than Usain Bolt and are carrying sharp
bits of metal out in front of them then maybe we can talk about them requiring
licenses you ****ing idiot.

If you are a road user, get help. The world might well be a better place
with you out of circulation, but it would be a shame if you harmed
anyone else in the process.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On Mon, 29 Jul 2013 19:32:23 +0100
Arthur Figgis wrote:
In that case they'd be stopped by the police and issued with a fixed penalty.

On what basis? Are you really saying people should have to pay to use a
bicycle but then be banned from making use of the roads?!

All I'm saying is, if bikes were taxed, you would lose the ability to
demand they go away from you.

And all I'm saying is that if they want to complain about the roads and
other drivers they should pay for the priviledge. Once they do then they can
whinge and bitch as much as they like, until then they can - to use an
americanism - talk to the hand.

Some people can ride
bicycles faster than the max speed of some mopeds. When all pedestrians are
running down the street 10mph faster than Usain Bolt and are carrying sharp
bits of metal out in front of them then maybe we can talk about them
requiring
licenses you ****ing idiot.

If you are a road user, get help. The world might well be a better place
with you out of circulation, but it would be a shame if you harmed
anyone else in the process.

Your analogy was shot down in flames and thats your bail out speech? Do try
a bit harder.

--
Spud