![[DOD]Asprilla](/styles/overclockers/avatars/8.png){kind=avatar}
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 14,034
- Location
- Surrey, by the river
It won't become true just because you keep saying it.
Stupid Cyclist
- Thread starter support_bae
- Start date
It won't become true just because you keep saying it.
[DOD]Asprilla;18372570 said:
I would prefer if VED had absolutely nothing to do with emissions and that any green taxes along those lines went instead on petrol but that is a whole different argument and has nothing at all to do with cycling.
But the "Well I own a car too" is silly, it doesn't exclude the rest of us that own two vehicles and it doesn't cover cyclists that don't own cars. If you had come out with the emissions and axel weight argument first time round that would have been better.
There are some pretty valid arguments to be made around compulsary registration and insurance of cyclists as anyone who has had the paint scraped along the side of their car by a filtering cyclist could attest to. Again though, different argument.
Do you make stuff up to argue against for other subjects or is it just cycling?
*Yawn*
You've joined this thread a little late.
That was not a safe overtaking maneuver no matter what was involved.
Secondly it's been found in a court of law that the motorist caused dangerous driving without due care and attention and was punished as a result of it.
As for why cyclists have helmet cams... it's because stuff likes this happens and you have little rebuttle to do anything about it, especially when you only have public liability insurance vs that of a car insurance company.
I've had a couple of friends who have been knocked off their bikes, then been off work when the driver left the scene of the accident and they didn't get their plates. Having a camera means you can prosecute that driver.
There is no reason why a motorist can't install a camera if they wish to their cars.
I do. Basing VED on emissions is an absolutely idiotic measure that bears no relevance to the charge.
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 14,034
- Location
- Surrey, by the river
I agree with your other points, but this isn't 'silly'. Most anti-cyclists rely on the 'You don't pay road tax' argument and in most case this is a complete falicy. If you want to make the argument more detail and look at figures of people who don't own a car or who own two then you should probably been looking at exempt cars and cars which aren't taxed (approx double the number of regular cyclists in the UK).
thats if they even have lights, theres several guys who ride on the road every night i come out of work with no lights or flourescent jackets, you can't see them and it's 10pm in a dark industrial estate. and them flashing lights are tiny, they need to be bigger or 1 constant light and one flashing on both ends of the bike to make it more obvious they are there
i agree, bikes on the path would be a lot safer for everyone, if i was allowed to ride on the path i'd always use a bike as i do not feel safe on a road using a bike.
i don't understand why there are cycle lanes that only go for 10 feet if that then stop, what is the point in those?
and there should be tests for all road users, not just petrol powered vehicles.
Last edited:
Yes, make stuff up. Please point out the anger?
No I wasn't. I was saying that "Well I have a car and so pay VED" is a poor counter argument for the "Cyclists should pay VED" argument someone else made. So yes, it does indeed seem that you are making stuff up.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 May 2007
- Posts
- 9,214
- Location
- Surrey
[DOD]Asprilla;18371841 said:
What is that an acronym for?
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 17,316
- Location
- Bristol
Indeed, imo the charge should be based on emissions, but also include mileage with that. You have to have an MOT to get a tax disc, so why not combine the two and pay tax retrospectively based on how many miles you did that year (as checked during the MOT)?
It makes no sense that an owner of a 2L Jaguar doing 2,000 miles a year pays more on emissions-based tax than an owner of a 1.1L Fiesta doing 30,000 miles a year (let alone business drivers who exceed 100k miles a year).
Who said you should pay fuel duty?
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 16,024
- Location
- 9th Inner Circle
Great opening post. Nice well laid out argument with key points and counter-views.
Oh hang on it was just a rabid "I hate cyclists" and "They don't pay to use the road" diatribe.
Kthnxbye.
Surely putting it on petrol would be so much easier to manage and would also mean any non UK drivers would also pay? The more fuel you use, the more emissions you make. No need for complex caluclations and additional red tape with VED or MOTs.
