On Tue, 30 Jul 2013 10:07:09 +0000, spud-u-dont-like wrote:

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 again - do you apply that to the drivers of older cars, low-emission
cars and to disabled drivers? After all - none of them pay VED, either.

On Tue, 30 Jul 2013 11:34:47 +0000 (UTC)
Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jul 2013 10:07:09 +0000, spud-u-dont-like wrote:

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 again - do you apply that to the drivers of older cars, low-emission
cars and to disabled drivers? After all - none of them pay VED, either.

I think I've already answered that when you asked if they should be made
an exception to VED, the answer being no. Apart from the disabled since their
lives are hard enough already.

--
Spud

On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 10:03:13 +0000, spud-u-dont-like wrote:

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 again - do you apply that to the drivers of older cars,
low-emission cars and to disabled drivers? After all - none of them pay
VED, either.

I think I've already answered that when you asked if they should be made
an exception to VED, the answer being no.

Actually, I asked if they were an exception to your argument about paying
VED enhancing priority.

B'sides, they aren't an exception to VED, since all still need to possess
and display a valid disc, with MOT (where applicable) and insurance
needed in order to obtain one. It's just that the cost for that disc
happens to be zero.

On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 10:53:33 +0000 (UTC)
Adrian wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 10:03:13 +0000, spud-u-dont-like wrote:
I think I've already answered that when you asked if they should be made
an exception to VED, the answer being no.

Actually, I asked if they were an exception to your argument about paying
VED enhancing priority.

Oh well, I misread it in that case.

B'sides, they aren't an exception to VED, since all still need to possess
and display a valid disc, with MOT (where applicable) and insurance
needed in order to obtain one. It's just that the cost for that disc
happens to be zero.

Personally I'd dispense with the tax disc altogether and do what they do in
most of europe - require you to display an insurance and/or MOT equiv sticker
somewhere on the vehicle - bikes included. Any tax money lost by the treasury
they can easily recoup from fuel sales.

--
Spud

On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 11:32:28 +0000, spud-u-dont-like wrote:

I think I've already answered that when you asked if they should be
made an exception to VED, the answer being no.

Actually, I asked if they were an exception to your argument about
paying VED enhancing priority.

Oh well, I misread it in that case.

Care to answer it, though?

On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 12:00:52 +0000 (UTC)
Adrian wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 11:32:28 +0000, spud-u-dont-like wrote:

I think I've already answered that when you asked if they should be
made an exception to VED, the answer being no.

Actually, I asked if they were an exception to your argument about
paying VED enhancing priority.

Oh well, I misread it in that case.

Care to answer it, though?

I don't think I mentioned "VED enhancing priority" whatever that means
in english. I think I simply said bikes should pay road tax if the rider
wishes to ride on numbered roads. Is that too complex for you?

--
Spud

On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 12:40:08 +0000, spud-u-dont-like wrote:

I think I've already answered that when you asked if they should be
made an exception to VED, the answer being no.

Actually, I asked if they were an exception to your argument about
paying VED enhancing priority.

Oh well, I misread it in that case.

Care to answer it, though?

I don't think I mentioned "VED enhancing priority" whatever that means
in english. I think I simply said bikes should pay road tax if the rider
wishes to ride on numbered roads. Is that too complex for you?

Not at all. Quite the opposite, I think. Either you fail to understand my
question or you are trying hard to avoid answering it.

I shall explain. You think cyclists should not be able to use certain
roads since they do not pay to use the roads. Right?
Therefore paying conveys enhanced priority. Right?

(If it helps clear up what I suspect is the cause of confusion, then I
don't mean "priority" in a Give Way sense, but in the more general sense.
Importance. Relevance. Whatever word you may prefer.)

Is the question clearer to you now?

Do people in cars who have not paid VED (ie older cars, low emission
cars, disabled drivers) sit on the same perceived "normal" level of
priority as other drivers, or the perceived lower level as cyclists, in
your view?