T2000 - Is this a joke?
Discussion
In reply to Dave Pashby...
Why don`t cyclists pay `road duty` or insurance? The main reason is that cycling, like walking, pushing a pram, riding a horse or even using a horse-drawn carriage on the public road is a legal right. Legally such users are the public! In comparison, using a motor vehicle on the public`s road is a privilege controlled though licence. Calling for cyclists to pay what they already have an absolute legal right to use is about as logical as calling for all pedestrians to have to pay ‘pavement duty’ before they are allowed to leave the house!
Cyclists pose such a minimal danger to other road users that insurance is somewhat superfluous. The danger posed by motor vehicles, which makes insurance so necessary, is very obvious, given the 3500 road deaths a year arising from car use.
In reality there is no such thing as `road tax` or duty. Motor vehicle users pay for an annual licence based on the amount of pollution that their vehicle emits. In reality most cyclists do pay what drivers call `road tax` as most cyclists own cars (I certainly do!). Many cyclists also have insurance through bodies such as CTC (again, I certainly do).
-------------------------------------
I'm a professional but this sort of ignorance really winds me up.
Why don`t cyclists pay `road duty` or insurance? The main reason is that cycling, like walking, pushing a pram, riding a horse or even using a horse-drawn carriage on the public road is a legal right. Legally such users are the public! In comparison, using a motor vehicle on the public`s road is a privilege controlled though licence. Calling for cyclists to pay what they already have an absolute legal right to use is about as logical as calling for all pedestrians to have to pay ‘pavement duty’ before they are allowed to leave the house!
Cyclists pose such a minimal danger to other road users that insurance is somewhat superfluous. The danger posed by motor vehicles, which makes insurance so necessary, is very obvious, given the 3500 road deaths a year arising from car use.
In reality there is no such thing as `road tax` or duty. Motor vehicle users pay for an annual licence based on the amount of pollution that their vehicle emits. In reality most cyclists do pay what drivers call `road tax` as most cyclists own cars (I certainly do!). Many cyclists also have insurance through bodies such as CTC (again, I certainly do).
-------------------------------------
I'm a professional but this sort of ignorance really winds me up.
hertsbiker said:
When are motorists ever going to be given "the right" to drive ? surely we are being treated badly if we are still 2nd class citizens that need to pay for the priveledge??????
I have to disagree here. Driving is not a right, it has to be earned by proving your skill at driving. Thr government has (and should keep) the right to take away that right from anyone who drink drives, kills, has no insurance or otherwise is guilty of dangerous driving.
Although the RFL has many disadvantages it does help (at least in part) in making sure that a car has an MOT and that the car is insured.
Driving a privilege? Bollocks. I have a RIGHT to personal mobility.
Time to ram this message into the minds of these ninny control freaks.
I feel a crusade coming on.
Pollution?
Cyclists don't cause pollution?
Cyclists exhale CO2....don't they? Fair bit of methane expelled, too....I'll be bound.
Right then....if cars are taxed on pollution generated, there's no reason to hold back on taxing cyclists. You listening, Gordon?
Cyclists don't need insurance because they don't hurt people? Tell that to the lady knocked down and killed by a cyclist in Rotherham bus station.
Cyclists? Set the dogs on 'em.............
Time to ram this message into the minds of these ninny control freaks.
I feel a crusade coming on.
Pollution?
Cyclists don't cause pollution?
Cyclists exhale CO2....don't they? Fair bit of methane expelled, too....I'll be bound.
Right then....if cars are taxed on pollution generated, there's no reason to hold back on taxing cyclists. You listening, Gordon?
Cyclists don't need insurance because they don't hurt people? Tell that to the lady knocked down and killed by a cyclist in Rotherham bus station.
Cyclists? Set the dogs on 'em.............
So what happens then if I am,(indicating correctly btw) turning left at some traffic lights, and a cyclist zooms up on the inside and crashes into my passenger door causing some serious damage to my car. (as an example)
Why should I have to lose my hard earned no claims bonus, because some uninsured dimwit on a bike was not excercising due care and attention...
Not knocking cycling in general here,btw, it is great excercise and a bloody good sport and hobby, but I am sure MOST cyclists would not object to paying around 20 pounds a year for decent insurance cover which would also protect THEM in the event of an accident.....
Why should I have to lose my hard earned no claims bonus, because some uninsured dimwit on a bike was not excercising due care and attention...
Not knocking cycling in general here,btw, it is great excercise and a bloody good sport and hobby, but I am sure MOST cyclists would not object to paying around 20 pounds a year for decent insurance cover which would also protect THEM in the event of an accident.....
Once had a tw@t on a bike ride into my (stationary) vehicle and knock himself out. Cops + ambulance called. No damage to my truck, but I got the bill for the ambulance because "You are more likely to be insured sir - pass it to your insurance company". Went right up to threatening court action before they bottled out and forgot about it.
And while we are on the subject, why do we build cycle paths if the lycralouts don`t use them?
Steve
And while we are on the subject, why do we build cycle paths if the lycralouts don`t use them?
Steve
mybrainhurts said:
Pollution?
Cyclists don't cause pollution?
Cyclists exhale CO2....don't they? Fair bit of methane expelled, too....I'll be bound.
Methane? though....... farting?
CO2 is not a problem, plants synthesise this back to oxygen. It is the CO you should be much more worried about, a concentration of only 0.1% will have you dead in a couple of hours. People do not exhale CO, but cars pump out shed loads of it, and there is nothing that can re-synthesise this by any useful amount.
Don't get me started!
Oh, you have done!!!!
a) If you unharness the horse from the front of the horse-drawn carriage making it a horseless carriage does that stop the guy in the driving seat being a member of the public or reduce the legal right of it to be on the road?
b) If you put an engine in the back of the horseless carriage does that stop the guy in the driving seat being a member of the public or reduce his legal right to be on the road?
c) So, why, if you hook up the engine to the wheels of the horseless carriage does that stop the guy in the driving seat being a member of the public, or remove his legal right to be on the road?
d) Are not cyclists only suffered on the roads because of legislation that granted them honorary carriage status?
e) If so, why does that give horseless carriages any less right to use the roads than horseless cycles?
f) Why does a requirement for a driver to have a license, or a car to pay duty, remove a "right" to the road? It merely imposes conditions on the excercise of that right, does it not?
Or if they scrapped driving licences, registration and VED, and brought in same for cycles are you saying that a new "right" would suddenly appear for motorists and agree wholeheartedly that cyclists didn't have a right to be on the roads?
Haven't I already covered that?
Oh, yes, I have!
I AM the public.
So it's MY road.
And before they brought in Road Tax, licenses, registration, etc, horseless CARiages ALSO had "an absolute legal right to use" the roads, did they not?
Now, according to you, they no longer have.
So how come:
According to you it's perfectly logical!
Errrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Motor vehicles don't cause road deaths:
They cause SOME of the road deaths.
While covering something like 4 - 500 billion km.
A few hundred of which are pedestrians.
I don't know how many car occupants cyclists kill.
But in 4 - 5 billion km cyclists kill something like three to five pedestrians and five to ten other cyclists per year.
So cyclists kill comparable numbers of "vulnerable" road users per vehicle mile, possibly more per passenger mile than cars.
And god knows how many cars they cause to crash, possibly into pedestrians or other cyclists.
So if "Cyclists pose such a minimal danger to other road users that insurance is somewhat superfluous." then surely it's even more superfluous for motorists to have insurance.
Or have I got hold of the wrong end of the stick again?
Equally many have neither.
Many, the hard core kamikaze urban cyclo-terrorists especially, no doubt, probably don't pay any other taxes either (can anyone confirm that only 15% of the population pay council taxes?).
While motorists contribute one seventh of the Revenue's income from motoring taxes alone, and no doubt much more then the average in other taxes.
If they stopped paying motoring taxes, we'd soon find out whether motorists paid for the roads.
We'd probably also find out that not only would road building, repair and maintenance have to stop, but the rail-roads, buses, and most of the "jobs" done by the anti-motoring faction could no longer be funded.
-------------------------------------
I'm no professional but this sort of ignorance really winds me up.
>> Edited by bogush on Thursday 2nd September 23:06
Oh, you have done!!!!
millsee said:
In reply to Dave Pashby...
Why don`t cyclists pay `road duty` or insurance? The main reason is that cycling, like walking, pushing a pram, riding a horse or even using a horse-drawn carriage on the public road is a legal right. Legally such users are the public!
a) If you unharness the horse from the front of the horse-drawn carriage making it a horseless carriage does that stop the guy in the driving seat being a member of the public or reduce the legal right of it to be on the road?
b) If you put an engine in the back of the horseless carriage does that stop the guy in the driving seat being a member of the public or reduce his legal right to be on the road?
c) So, why, if you hook up the engine to the wheels of the horseless carriage does that stop the guy in the driving seat being a member of the public, or remove his legal right to be on the road?
d) Are not cyclists only suffered on the roads because of legislation that granted them honorary carriage status?
e) If so, why does that give horseless carriages any less right to use the roads than horseless cycles?
f) Why does a requirement for a driver to have a license, or a car to pay duty, remove a "right" to the road? It merely imposes conditions on the excercise of that right, does it not?
Or if they scrapped driving licences, registration and VED, and brought in same for cycles are you saying that a new "right" would suddenly appear for motorists and agree wholeheartedly that cyclists didn't have a right to be on the roads?
millsee said:
In comparison, using a motor vehicle on the public`s road is a privilege controlled though licence.
Haven't I already covered that?
Oh, yes, I have!
I AM the public.
So it's MY road.
And before they brought in Road Tax, licenses, registration, etc, horseless CARiages ALSO had "an absolute legal right to use" the roads, did they not?
Now, according to you, they no longer have.
So how come:
millsee said:
Calling for cyclists to pay what they already have an absolute legal right to use is about as logical as calling for all pedestrians to have to pay ‘pavement duty’ before they are allowed to leave the house!
According to you it's perfectly logical!
millsee said:
Cyclists pose such a minimal danger to other road users that insurance is somewhat superfluous. The danger posed by motor vehicles, which makes insurance so necessary, is very obvious, given the 3500 road deaths a year arising from car use.
Errrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Motor vehicles don't cause road deaths:
They cause SOME of the road deaths.
While covering something like 4 - 500 billion km.
A few hundred of which are pedestrians.
I don't know how many car occupants cyclists kill.
But in 4 - 5 billion km cyclists kill something like three to five pedestrians and five to ten other cyclists per year.
So cyclists kill comparable numbers of "vulnerable" road users per vehicle mile, possibly more per passenger mile than cars.
And god knows how many cars they cause to crash, possibly into pedestrians or other cyclists.
So if "Cyclists pose such a minimal danger to other road users that insurance is somewhat superfluous." then surely it's even more superfluous for motorists to have insurance.
Or have I got hold of the wrong end of the stick again?
millsee said:
In reality there is no such thing as `road tax` or duty. Motor vehicle users pay for an annual licence based on the amount of pollution that their vehicle emits. In reality most cyclists do pay what drivers call `road tax` as most cyclists own cars (I certainly do!). Many cyclists also have insurance through bodies such as CTC (again, I certainly do).
Equally many have neither.
Many, the hard core kamikaze urban cyclo-terrorists especially, no doubt, probably don't pay any other taxes either (can anyone confirm that only 15% of the population pay council taxes?).
While motorists contribute one seventh of the Revenue's income from motoring taxes alone, and no doubt much more then the average in other taxes.
If they stopped paying motoring taxes, we'd soon find out whether motorists paid for the roads.
We'd probably also find out that not only would road building, repair and maintenance have to stop, but the rail-roads, buses, and most of the "jobs" done by the anti-motoring faction could no longer be funded.
-------------------------------------
I'm no professional but this sort of ignorance really winds me up.
>> Edited by bogush on Thursday 2nd September 23:06
munta said:
When are motorists ever going to be given "the right" to drive ? surely we are being treated badly if we are still 2nd class citizens that need to pay for the priveledge??????
I have to disagree here. Driving is not a right, it has to be earned by proving your skill at driving. Thr government has (and should keep) the right to take away that right from anyone who drink drives, kills, has no insurance or otherwise is guilty of dangerous driving.
Although the RFL has many disadvantages it does help (at least in part) in making sure that a car has an MOT and that the car is insured.
Oh you disagree do you? Well hush me. The man disagrees. At these prices you can disagree all you want mate I have paid for the right to drive on the road and any little official who tries to take it away from me will meet with strenuous opposition. It is high time the motorist used their considerable collective teeth to have certain badly thought out strategies scrapped and some NGO anti car lobbyists deported to Afghanisatan. Let them do rooooaaaad protests there and see what happens. Time the political trash learned "you take my money in the name of tax, I own you" end of. Get real.
nonegreen said:
munta said:
hertsbiker said:
When are motorists ever going to be given "the right" to drive ? surely we are being treated badly if we are still 2nd class citizens that need to pay for the priveledge??????
I have to disagree here. Driving is not a right, it has to be earned by proving your skill at driving. Thr government has (and should keep) the right to take away that right from anyone who drink drives, kills, has no insurance or otherwise is guilty of dangerous driving.
Although the RFL has many disadvantages it does help (at least in part) in making sure that a car has an MOT and that the car is insured.
Oh you disagree do you? Well hush me. The man disagrees. At these prices you can disagree all you want mate I have paid for the right to drive on the road and any little official who tries to take it away from me will meet with strenuous opposition. It is high time the motorist used their considerable collective teeth to have certain badly thought out strategies scrapped and some NGO anti car lobbyists deported to Afghanisatan. Let them do rooooaaaad protests there and see what happens. Time the political trash learned "you take my money in the name of tax, I own you" end of. Get real.
If you have paid your tax, have insurance and don't drink drive then you have the right. Do you diagree with this part?
Get to drive having been convicted of DD, paying no insurance or tax like the rest of us then you have no right. Or with this part?
So the right to drive is earned, not given. In my opinion.
>> Edited by munta on Thursday 2nd September 23:12
munta said:
munta said:
hertsbiker said:
When are motorists ever going to be given "the right" to drive ? surely we are being treated badly if we are still 2nd class citizens that need to pay for the priveledge??????
I have to disagree here. Driving is not a right, it has to be earned by proving your skill at driving. Thr government has (and should keep) the right to take away that right from anyone who drink drives, kills, has no insurance or otherwise is guilty of dangerous driving.
Although the RFL has many disadvantages it does help (at least in part) in making sure that a car has an MOT and that the car is insured.
Oh you disagree do you? Well hush me. The man disagrees. At these prices you can disagree all you want mate I have paid for the right to drive on the road and any little official who tries to take it away from me will meet with strenuous opposition. It is high time the motorist used their considerable collective teeth to have certain badly thought out strategies scrapped and some NGO anti car lobbyists deported to Afghanisatan. Let them do rooooaaaad protests there and see what happens. Time the political trash learned "you take my money in the name of tax, I own you" end of. Get real.
If you have paid your tax, have insurance and don't drink drive then you have the right. Do you diagree with this part?
Get to drive having been convicted of DD, paying no insurance or tax like the rest of us then you have no right. Or with this part?
So the right to drive is earned, not given. In my opinion.
>> Edited by munta on Thursday 2nd September 23:12
I think you have missed the point
nonegreen said:
I think you have missed the point
I was soley commenting upon the people being given the right to drive. Which I belive is earnt and not given.
For what its worth (probably not much) but I think that the quote in reply to Dave Pashby is a load of rubbish. Pedestrians have the right to the pavement (free) and drivers have the right to the road (paid). Cyclists in my opinion should also have insurance in order to use the road. And as both cars and cycles can be dangerous in the wrong hands, the government/police should be able to remove this right.
Are there any other points I have missed.
>> Edited by munta on Friday 3rd September 01:24
supraman2954 said:
Pollution?
Cyclists don't cause pollution?
Cyclists exhale CO2....don't they? Fair bit of methane expelled, too....I'll be bound.
Methane? though....... farting?
CO2 is not a problem, plants synthesise this back to oxygen. It is the CO you should be much more worried about, a concentration of only 0.1% will have you dead in a couple of hours. People do not exhale CO, but cars pump out shed loads of it, and there is nothing that can re-synthesise this by any useful amount.
Never mind that. Gordon taxes vehicles according to CO2 emissions, thus my reference to sweaty pedallers.......tax cars, tax them...same principle.
Methane? Got it in one......
millsee said:I couldn't agree more!
this sort of ignorance really winds me up
millsee said:Who cares what the legal position is? Everyone I know has some law or legal ruling that they disagree with. Just because something is legal doesn't make it right, just as being right doesn't make things legal. In my book a failure to question rules is a dereliction of personal and civic duty. You may agree with them or not, but the fact that a law exists does not make it right.
Why don`t cyclists pay `road duty` or insurance? The main reason is that cycling, like walking, pushing a pram, riding a horse or even using a horse-drawn carriage on the public road is a legal right.
millsee said:Are you trying to tell me that motorists are not members of the public?
Legally such users are the public! In comparison, using a motor vehicle on the public`s road is a privilege controlled though licence.
millsee said:That makes most cyclists on a par with motorists, yet you seem to feel that they have some "right" to be treated differently. Probably because you are one.
most cyclists own cars (I certainly do!)
millsee said:... or making people pay tax on what they inherit despite the fact that tax has already been paid when the asset was purchased with money left over after tax and that the sale of the asset may well be further taxed. Tax has nothing to do with what is logical, it has to do with getting money into the public purse.
Calling for cyclists to pay what they already have an absolute legal right to use is about as logical as calling for all pedestrians to have to pay ‘pavement duty’ before they are allowed to leave the house!
millsee said:Actually, motor insurance is only required to cover damage to other's property. All your hysterical ranting about road deaths is just that. Cyclists that jump red lights, swerve violently off the pavement or ride while drunk are just as likely to cause damage to property. For some reason it appears not to be a crime to cycle away from an accident without leaving details or reporting it to the police.
Cyclists pose such a minimal danger to other road users that insurance is somewhat superfluous. The danger posed by motor vehicles, which makes insurance so necessary, is very obvious, given the 3500 road deaths a year arising from car use.
millsee said:Quite what pollution has to do with the price of fish I don't know. Any sane system would base it on mileage or - if you want to be environmentally friendly - the quantity of fuel used.
In reality there is no such thing as `road tax` or duty. Motor vehicle users pay for an annual licence based on the amount of pollution that their vehicle emits.
Oh! And if cars hadn't been invented you would have the roads to cycle on.
Who asked this wally to come in here?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff