JohnB ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying :

But then the last cycle I bought contributed around five times more
in tax to the country's coffers than most people pay in VED :-(

Eh? You spent FIVE AND A HALF GRAND ON A BICYCLE?

Nope.

puzzled
But you said you did.

The VAT on a £5,500 bicycle would be £819, which is (slightly under) five
times the £165 VED.

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005, Huge wrote:

the complete inability to construct a logical argument

Ah, the old self-descriptive sig; good work that man! Like yer shtyle!

tom

--
Hit to death in the future head

Adrian wrote:

JohnB ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying :

But then the last cycle I bought contributed around five times more
in tax to the country's coffers than most people pay in VED :-(

Eh? You spent FIVE AND A HALF GRAND ON A BICYCLE?

Nope.

puzzled
But you said you did.

Nope.

The VAT on a £5,500 bicycle would be £819, which is (slightly under) five
times the £165 VED.

My word. You have a calculator.
And isn't £165 the top end of the scale? Is that the average paid?

John B

JohnB ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying :

But then the last cycle I bought contributed around five times
more in tax to the country's coffers than most people pay in VED
:-(

Eh? You spent FIVE AND A HALF GRAND ON A BICYCLE?

Nope.

puzzled
But you said you did.

Nope.

The VAT on a £5,500 bicycle would be £819, which is (slightly under)
five times the £165 VED.

My word. You have a calculator.

Good job one of us has.

And isn't £165 the top end of the scale? Is that the average paid?

You said "most people pay", not average - and I would lay odds that "most"
VED are top-whack - certainly I would think that "most cars" are larger
than 1549cc - although that may have skewed since the introduction of the
CO2-based VED.

"JohnB" wrote in message
...
Adrian wrote:

Eh? You spent FIVE AND A HALF GRAND ON A BICYCLE?

Nope.

Oh, John, you bad man!

Adrian -

First up, you should probably read things a bit more carefully.

Second - what's wrong with spending 5K or so on a bike? Plenty of people
throw that much away in depreciation alone in the first year on their car,
and I don't see you shouting at them.

FWIW my rule is that no bike can cost less than the car. I'm just about
obeying that one now - good thing cars are so cheap these days.

cheers,
clive

Clive George ) gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying :

Second - what's wrong with spending 5K or so on a bike?

FWIW my rule is that no bike can cost less than the car.

I've never spent five grand on a car.
I've only once spent more than HALF that on a car.

Huge wrote:
cyclist-hater
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. So cycle back, if it's so
bloody marvellous.
/cyclist-hater

Not that bad an idea, and some people already do that. I've never,
but I've done the London-Cambridge both ways for the last 4 years,
which requires getting up at about 3.30am to cycle down to Lee Valley
for the start. (Not particularly fast!). Cycling through Herts in the
small hours is quite pleasant given the virtual complete lack of other
traffic at that time.

Can't someone charter a train or two?

Or 10 I'd think, given the numbers involved.

Rich wrote:

BTW, I think you'll find the definition of "road" includes the pavement.

Ah, so that's why so many cyclists seem to think that they are entitled
to ride on the pavement.

--
John Ray, London UK.

Adrian wrote:
Clive George ) gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying :


Second - what's wrong with spending 5K or so on a bike?


FWIW my rule is that no bike can cost less than the car.


I've never spent five grand on a car.
I've only once spent more than HALF that on a car.

You are not average in this regard amongst car drivers ....

"John Ray" wrote in message
...
Rich wrote:

BTW, I think you'll find the definition of "road" includes the pavement.

Ah, so that's why so many cyclists seem to think that they are entitled
to ride on the pavement.

As a cyclist (who doesn't use the pavements!) it astounds me that many
police forces now actively ENCOURAGE cyclists to use what we used to term
'the footpath', for their own safety.

OTOH, as a cyclist, why is it that when discrete footpaths and cyclepaths
are provided (even with grass strips between them), with clear signage on
the asphalt and on lamp-posts, half-witted pedestrians (usually with prams
and pushchairs) STILL insist on jay-walking along the cyclepath, then having
the audacity to verbally harangue any cyclists with the temerity to ask if
they can pass?

The bottom line is that, whether pedestrians, cyclists or motorists, there
is bad practise and intolerance between all groups. Ultimately, better
roadcraft, less arrogance and more consideration for other parties would
improve everybodys day!