Cost of borrowing a Boris bike to double

[Mrcheerful]

Unfortunately even doubling the cost (which will reduce takeup) will not
make them break even. Apparently the breakeven point at present is 5 times
the number of hirings.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/9660911/Cost-of-hiring-Boris-Bikes-to-double.html#

[davi...@blueyonder.co.uk]

In other words, another huge sum of money wasted on trying to encourage
cycling.

When will they realise that;
"Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a legitimate mode of
transport; it is either a toy for children or a vehicle fit only for the
poor and/or strange. For them, cycling is a bit embarrassing, they fail
to see its purpose, and have no interest in integrating it into their
lives, certainly on a regular basis."

--
Dave - Cyclists VOR
Bicycles Are For Children…Like Masturbation, and something you should
grow out of. There is something seriously sick and stunted about grown
men who want to ride a bike."

[PhilO]

On Friday, November 9, 2012 8:40:19 AM UTC, Dave VOR wrote:

> In other words, another huge sum of money wasted on trying to encourage
> cycling.
>
>
>
> When will they realise that;
>
> "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a legitimate mode of
> transport; it is either a toy for children or a vehicle fit only for the
> poor and/or strange. For them, cycling is a bit embarrassing, they fail
> to see its purpose, and have no interest in integrating it into their
> lives, certainly on a regular basis."
>

Exactly - that's why they are spending money trying to change that attitude. Dave Horton's report (which you quoted above) reached that conclusion:

"The study concludes that even training the young to ride safely achieves little while road conditions remain unfriendly. The only way to bring in mass cycling, the researchers argue, would be a series of hugely costly – and seemingly unlikely – measures to reshape towns and cities. Chief among these would be to build well-made, continuous, segregated cycle routes on all major urban roads and encourage people out of cars by restricting traffic speeds and parking."

As long as people like you pretend to see no benefit to cycling, money will be spent trying to enlighten you.

[nik.morgan]

Where is the pretence? Fact is people don't like cycling, get over it and
stop wasting money trying to brainwash and coerce them into liking it.
--
ennemm

[PhilO]

On Friday, November 9, 2012 12:02:22 PM UTC, nik. morgan wrote:

> Where is the pretence? Fact is people don't like cycling, get over it and
> stop wasting money trying to brainwash and coerce them into liking it.
>
> --
>
> ennemm

You appear to be unaware that many people do like cycling. I'm not wasting any money trying to brainwash or coerce anyone. Do you have trouble reading?

[Mentalguy2k8]

"PhilO" <goo1...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:b7c3c2eb-6bd1-482c...@googlegroups.com...

> On Friday, November 9, 2012 12:02:22 PM UTC, nik. morgan wrote:
>
>> Where is the pretence? Fact is people don't like cycling, get over it and
>> stop wasting money trying to brainwash and coerce them into liking it.
>>
>> --
>>
>> ennemm
>
> You appear to be unaware that many people do like cycling.

More people like driving.

[PhilO]

On Friday, November 9, 2012 3:24:17 PM UTC, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:
>
>
> >> Where is the pretence? Fact is people don't like cycling,
>

> >> ennemm
>
> >
>
> > You appear to be unaware that many people do like cycling.
>
>
>
> More people like driving.

Which is irrelevant to ennemm's incorrect statement that people don't like cycling.

[Judith]

On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 08:29:23 -0000, "Mrcheerful" <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

So insufficient people are using it and they are going to increase the price
(which will deter people) and extend it so that even more insufficient people
can use it from new points.


Hmmmmm....

[JNugent]

On 09/11/2012 15:38, PhilO wrote:

> Mentalguy2k8 wrote:
>
>>>> Where is the pretence? Fact is people don't like cycling,
>>>> ennemm
>
>>> You appear to be unaware that many people do like cycling.
>
>> More people like driving.
>
> Which is irrelevant to ennemm's incorrect statement that people don't like cycling.

"People don't..." is an idiomatic way of making a statement of tendency about
people.

It needs to be read as though it were prefaced by a modifier phrase such as
"by and large", or "on the whole".

You *know* this already.

[Mentalguy2k8]

"PhilO" <goo1...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message

news:26ccabe0-73b7-402a...@googlegroups.com...

He didn't say *all* people, so he's not incorrect. People don't like cycling
and yet people *do* like cycling :)

[Mentalguy2k8]

"Mrcheerful" <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ig3ns.237462$9W6....@fx08.am4...

Here's the current charges:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/cycling/14811.aspx

It seems rather like a driver refusing to buy a car yet spending 5 times the
cost of running a car, on taxis.

[JNugent]

Well... I don't take my car to the USA... but I do drive while I'm there.

It's a question of the best way of doing it.

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

And what if people don't want to be "enlightened"? And why do 98% of
journey makers choose not to use a push bike?




--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. Bicycles Are For Children…Like Masturbation, and

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

On 09/11/2012 15:38, PhilO wrote:

If they liked it they would do it. But they don't.

Huge sums of public money have been wasted trying - and failed.

Cycling is for socially inadequate, immature weirdo's.

--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a

legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a

vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton, of Lancaster
University, wrote in an interim assessment of the Understanding Walking
and Cycling study. "For them, cycling is a bit embarrassing, they fail

[al Mossah]

On Friday, November 9, 2012 3:24:17 PM UTC, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:

>

> More people like driving.

That's why I see so many happy smiling faces behind the wheel.....

[Mentalguy2k8]

"al Mossah" <almo...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:feec3a25-1151-43d5...@googlegroups.com...

> On Friday, November 9, 2012 3:24:17 PM UTC, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:
>
>>
>> More people like driving.
>
> That's why I see so many happy smiling faces behind the wheel.....

Oh FFS...

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

I see more happy faces on drivers than I do on cyclists. They all look
like they have a bad smell under their noses.

--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a

legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a

vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton, of Lancaster
University, wrote in an interim assessment of the Understanding Walking

and Cycling study. "For them, cycling is a bit embarrassing, they fail

[M Wicks]

On Nov 9, 11:52 am, PhilO <goo18...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> encourage people out of cars by restricting traffic speeds and parking

No, that never, ever, EVER happens. We know this because the
psycholists (URC and ex-URC) have continually denied that it happens
(or that they support such an approach), and harassed and attempted to
bully those who claimed that it did. All speed limits are absolutely
sacred and have been imposed purely for the "right" reasons. After
all, it would be outrageous to ban someone for exceeding a speed limit
which had been imposed just to "encourage" cycling and not because it
was actually dangerous to exceed it.

Of course most of us (whatever our opinions) can see that such
"encouragement" is in fact happening, as speed limits get ever lower
and yellow lines continually increase. Yet the local authorities who
create these restrictions take the same "playing dumb" line as the
psycholists. This, of course, is because we live in a democracy, and
everyone is well aware that it is only a small minority of people who
wish to encourage cycling by spiting drivers, so councils are hardly
likely to advertise that they are doing this. Of course, they
shouldn't be doing it at all if the electorate as a whole don't want
it.

PhilO, do you support democracy? If so, how can you support the
coercion tactics described above when they are so clearly against
public opinion? Is government really there to nanny us and tell us
what's best for us? Do you generally take the view that everyone
should be forced to do what you think is right, even when the majority
don't want such measures to be taken? What about someone else who
thinks that you should be forced to do something, against public
opinion, which you don't want to do? Why should they get their way any
less than you? Who's to say which one of you is correct? This, of
course, is why we need to ask everyone else what they think
(democracy: it's not perfect but it's better than people simply
imposing their prejudices arbitrarily on others).

If you think society needs changing in some way, then get public
opinion on your side first before trying to force changes on people
which they (at the moment) don't want. 25 years ago the legalisation
of cannabis and gay marriage were both things which almost everyone
opposed and which it didn't look like we'd get for a very long time,
if ever. Yet both have happened this week across the pond (and a good
thing too). So perhaps in another 25 years, or less, the majority will
want the remaining car drivers to be bullied onto bikes (I doubt it
for many reasons, but it could happen). But until then, please take a
"live and let live" attitude towards those sinful car drivers and
leave them alone. For the time being, the people have spoken, and
that's what they want.

[Mrcheerful]

Phil W Lee wrote:
> "Mentalguy2k8" <Mental...@gmail.com> considered Fri, 9 Nov 2012

> Far fewer people drive for recreation that cycle for recreation.
> A simple poll among the grid-locked commuters trapped in their cages
> after any minor disruption of the highway will find an overwhelming
> majority absolutely HATE driving, but see it as necessary.
> Cycling commuters, otoh, almost universally proclaim enjoyment as one
> of the (many) reasons for their choice of vehicle.
>
> So far more people seem to like cycling than driving.

The vastly different quantities of each class would belie that claim.

If cyclists are so happy, then why do they always look and seem to be, peed
off. Why is the first thing they say: F### off. ? Why do they hurl their
bicycles to the ground? Why do they spit and throw things?

[Ian Smith]

On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 03:52:01 -0800 (PST), PhilO <goo1...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Friday, November 9, 2012 8:40:19 AM UTC, Dave VOR wrote:
>
> > When will they realise that;
> >
> > "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a legitimate mode of
> > transport; it is either a toy for children or a vehicle fit only
> > for the poor and/or strange. For them, cycling is a bit
> > embarrassing, they fail to see its purpose, and have no interest
> > in integrating it into their lives, certainly on a regular basis."
> >
> Exactly - that's why they are spending money trying to change that
> attitude. Dave Horton's report (which you quoted above) reached
> that conclusion:

Why does Dave (idiot Dave, not Dave Horton) continue to post his
quote? Is he really too stupid to realise that teh person he is
quoting was saying that the 'many people' are wrong in their opinon?

The statement he quotes is completely true, just as is teh statement
that at one time many people believed that the earth was flat and teh
whole of teh universe - earth, sun, stars and all, rotyated around
Jerusalem.

Yes Dave, many people do not recognise the bicycle as a legitimate
form of transport. They are wrong. That's the point of the quote you
keep promoting.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

On 10/11/2012 01:00, Phil W Lee wrote:
> "Mentalguy2k8" <Mental...@gmail.com> considered Fri, 9 Nov 2012
> 15:24:14 -0000 the perfect time to write:
>
>>

> Far fewer people drive for recreation that cycle for recreation.
> A simple poll among the grid-locked commuters trapped in their cages
> after any minor disruption of the highway will find an overwhelming
> majority absolutely HATE driving, but see it as necessary.
> Cycling commuters, otoh, almost universally proclaim enjoyment as one
> of the (many) reasons for their choice of vehicle.
>
> So far more people seem to like cycling than driving.
>

I wonder why 8 million in the UK and 300 million worldwide watch Top
Gear if they hate driving?

--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a

legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a

vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton, of Lancaster
University, wrote in an interim assessment of the Understanding Walking

and Cycling study. "For them, cycling is a bit embarrassing, they fail

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

On 10/11/2012 01:04, Phil W Lee wrote:
> "Mentalguy2k8" <Mental...@gmail.com> considered Fri, 9 Nov 2012

> Yes, that's a very typical expression, usually accompanied by apparent
> attempts to chew the steering wheel because there's so much motor
> traffic in their way.
>
I wonder why this phenomenon is only visible to psycholists?

Traffic jams are relatively rare, at least around here. Most motorists
I encounter are pleasant, happy & courteous.

Why would they be unhappy? Sitting in a nice, comfortable seat,
listening to a quality sound system, protected from the elements, in a
safe, stable vehicle capable of reaching their destination in a
reasonable time.

--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a

legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a

vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton, of Lancaster
University, wrote in an interim assessment of the Understanding Walking

and Cycling study. "For them, cycling is a bit embarrassing, they fail

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

On 10/11/2012 09:01, Ian Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 03:52:01 -0800 (PST), PhilO <goo1...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Friday, November 9, 2012 8:40:19 AM UTC, Dave VOR wrote:
>>
>>> When will they realise that;
>>>
>>> "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a legitimate mode of
>>> transport; it is either a toy for children or a vehicle fit only
>>> for the poor and/or strange. For them, cycling is a bit
>>> embarrassing, they fail to see its purpose, and have no interest
>>> in integrating it into their lives, certainly on a regular basis."
>>>
>> Exactly - that's why they are spending money trying to change that
>> attitude. Dave Horton's report (which you quoted above) reached
>> that conclusion:
>
> Why does Dave (idiot Dave, not Dave Horton) continue to post his
> quote? Is he really too stupid to realise that teh person he is
> quoting was saying that the 'many people' are wrong in their opinon?

He wasn't saying that, idiot boy. He was saying that it was "their
opinion". Despite being a cyclist he conducted the research correctly.

He may not have agreed with "their opinion", but he reported what he found.

>
> The statement he quotes is completely true, just as is teh statement
> that at one time many people believed that the earth was flat and teh
> whole of teh universe - earth, sun, stars and all, rotyated around
> Jerusalem.

Completely irrelevant rubbish.

>
> Yes Dave, many people do not recognise the bicycle as a legitimate
> form of transport. They are wrong. That's the point of the quote you
> keep promoting.

If they are "wrong", that is your opinion. Since only 2% of journeys are
made on silly Victorian diversions, it is the opinion of an
insignificant minority.

"Years of government efforts to promote cycling have had almost no
impact on a sceptical population who largely view bikes as either
children's toys or the preserve of Lycra-clad hobbyists, a university
study has found".

That is the opinion of the population. Thats what properly carried out
research found. You may not like it, being a Lycra-clad hobbyist, but
it remains true.

"The coalition has pledged more than £500m over five years on
pro-cycling efforts. But the research indicates these reach only the
small proportion of people already interested in cycling, leaving others
unmoved".

Vast sums of wasted public money have not changed that opinion.





--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a

legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a

vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton, of Lancaster
University, wrote in an interim assessment of the Understanding Walking

and Cycling study. "For them, cycling is a bit embarrassing, they fail

[JNugent]

On 10/11/2012 09:01, Ian Smith wrote:

> PhilO <goo1...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> Dave VOR wrote:
>
>>> When will they realise that;
>
>>> "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a legitimate mode of
>>> transport; it is either a toy for children or a vehicle fit only
>>> for the poor and/or strange. For them, cycling is a bit
>>> embarrassing, they fail to see its purpose, and have no interest
>>> in integrating it into their lives, certainly on a regular basis."
>
>> Exactly - that's why they are spending money trying to change that
>> attitude. Dave Horton's report (which you quoted above) reached
>> that conclusion:
>
> Why does Dave (idiot Dave, not Dave Horton) continue to post his
> quote? Is he really too stupid to realise that teh person he is
> quoting was saying that the 'many people' are wrong in their opinon?

So is Mr Horton:

(i) a respected and respectable social scientist who would never dream of
making - or trying to make - such silly (and totally normative) statements in
a work of real scholarship (that's how I have regarded him up till now), or

(ii) just a cynical single issue obsessive, trying to pompously lard his own
biased opinions with a basting of pseudo-science (which is how you paint him)?

Try to treat him with respect, eh?

> The statement he quotes is completely true, just as is teh statement
> that at one time many people believed that the earth was flat and teh
> whole of teh universe - earth, sun, stars and all, rotyated around
> Jerusalem.

It is as true as that sort of thing, but it is much more than that.

It is not a matter of unreasoning belief in phenomena which don't really
affect day to day life (flat Earth, rotation around a particular point). It
is an appraisal of the usefulness of a particular technology or application
of same by the only people qualified to make the appraisal: potential users.

Potential users are are the only ones who know their own requirements and how
they might be met by one technological application or another. They, by
definition, cannot be wrong. Or, to the extent that you might believe that
they are wrong, you can adduce not an ounce of evidence to countervail.

The customer is always [something or other].

Can you fill in the missing word?

> Yes Dave, many people do not recognise the bicycle as a legitimate
> form of transport. They are wrong. That's the point of the quote you
> keep promoting.

In what way is that the "the point" of the quotation?

It sounds fairly factual and a straightforward / honest reporting of the
situation.

[Judith]

On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 09:13:19 +0000, Dave - Cyclists VOR
<davi...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

<snip>

>Why would they be unhappy? Sitting in a nice, comfortable seat,
>listening to a quality sound system, protected from the elements, in a
>safe, stable vehicle capable of reaching their destination in a
>reasonable time.

Now come on!!

It is much more pleasant riding along breathing in the fumes of the traffic,
sweating like a pig - even though it is pissing with rain. Not knowing if you
are going to come off your bike and go under a bus or a lorry giving you that
extra little frisson.

Much more satisfying!!

[Judith]

On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 09:01:06 +0000 (UTC), Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk>
wrote:

Sorry - sunshine - what ever you think, the research found what most people
think - it is as clear as a bell. Why on earth should Dave not publicise that
fact.

Oh - they are wrong are they. Perhaps you can explain where this was stated in
the research. Don't bother looking - it wasn't. No expression was made as to
whether the views of the public at large are incorrect - perhaps because they
aren't.


"Academics claim that attempts by successive governments to get more people
cycling have failed to have an effect on the wider public, who continue to
consider bicycles as being either something suitable only for children, those
without the means to buy and run a car, or strange types clothed in Lycra."

As a result, many people view cycling as something to be done perhaps in the
country at weekends rather than as a means of getting around on a daily basis,
with those who do regularly ride in urban areas tending to be the keenest
cyclists in the first place, underlining cycling’s status as a minority
activity

http://road.cc/content/news/36715-investment-cycling-preaching-converted-say-academics-masses-continue-shun-bikes


Get that? : "minority activity"

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

On 10/11/2012 09:01, Ian Smith wrote:

"Regrettably, we did not find this mass of people on the threshold of
change, who only needed a little push to start cycling as a daily means
of getting around," explained Dr Griet Scheldeman, a colleague of Dr
Horton’s at Lancaster University.

"The hardy, Lycra-clad cyclists confirm that cycling is a very skilled
practice, from which most people immediately distance themselves. So
far, cycling promotion still reaches mainly that smallish part of the
population that does not really need that much convincing."

--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a

legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a

vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton, of Lancaster
University, wrote in an interim assessment of the Understanding Walking

and Cycling study. "For them, cycling is a bit embarrassing, they fail

[Mrcheerful]

Kim Bolton wrote:

> PhilO wrote:
>
>> encourage people out of cars by restricting traffic speeds and

>> parking.
>
> When the local council round here brought in parking charges for the
> car park next to the local shops, it virtually wiped them out.
>
> Just in time they converted half the car park to a 'free for 2 hours'
> section, and many local shops, pubs, and restaurants were saved.
>
> No-one took up cycling instead.

I would always drive a longer distance rather than pay parking, and a
bicycle would not carry the shopping , nor do the journey in a reasonable
time or convenient manner. Many town centres have been ruined by
'pedestrianisation' coupled with remote expensive car parking.

[Phil]

PhilO <goo1...@yahoo.co.uk> writes:

> On Friday, November 9, 2012 12:02:22 PM UTC, nik. morgan wrote:
>
>> Where is the pretence? Fact is people don't like cycling, get over it and
>> stop wasting money trying to brainwash and coerce them into liking it.
>>
>> --
>>
>> ennemm
>

> You appear to be unaware that many people do like cycling. I'm not
> wasting any money trying to brainwash or coerce anyone. Do you have
> trouble reading?

However, I think the problem here is that people who do like cycling own
their own bikes.

The annual fee will discourage tourist use, so who uses them? Maybe if
I could just put my Oyster card in and have some money deducted, then
they would get more use.

Whilst I have seen lots of pickup/dropoff points around central London,
but are they convienent in the suburbs where people actually live?

Phil

[JNugent]

Ah... but hey... it's proper right-on to make driving more difficult, more
frustrating, more expensive, any combination of those three (or even
impossible), isn't it?

It warms the cockles of some folks' hearts. And might even have certain other
anatomical effects.

[Rob Morley]

On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 11:59:59 +0000
Phil <trigp...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Whilst I have seen lots of pickup/dropoff points around central
> London, but are they convienent in the suburbs where people actually
> live?

If you were riding in from the suburbs you'd use your own bike.
If you get the train from Slough you use a Boris bike to get around
the city.

[Peter Keller]

On Fri, 09 Nov 2012 18:29:12 +0000, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:

> On 09/11/2012 15:38, PhilO wrote:
>> On Friday, November 9, 2012 3:24:17 PM UTC, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:
>> >
>> >
>>>>> Where is the pretence? Fact is people don't like cycling,
>>>
>>>>> ennemm
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> You appear to be unaware that many people do like cycling.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> More people like driving.
>>
>> Which is irrelevant to ennemm's incorrect statement that people don't
>> like cycling.
>>
> If they liked it they would do it. But they don't.
>
> Huge sums of public money have been wasted trying - and failed.
>
> Cycling is for socially inadequate, immature weirdo's.

I am very glad to be called a socially inadequate immature weirdo by the
dave.



--
Life is a venereal disease with 100% mortality.

[Mentalguy2k8]

"JNugent" <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:ag9ipt...@mid.individual.net...

> Ah... but hey... it's proper right-on to make driving more difficult, more
> frustrating, more expensive, any combination of those three (or even
> impossible), isn't it?
>
> It warms the cockles of some folks' hearts. And might even have certain
> other anatomical effects.

Which is the *whole* argument in a nutshell.

People will still want and choose to drive despite the best efforts to
inconvenience and extort them off the roads. Yet no matter how many millions
are pumped *into* cycling, hardly anyone wants to take it up.

Imagine how pitifully rare cycling would be if cyclists were treated and
taxed as badly as motorists. You can't even pay people to become cyclists,
never mind charge them.

[M Wicks]

On Nov 12, 1:42 pm, "Mentalguy2k8" <Mentalguy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "JNugent" <jennings...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message

No! You're imagining the war on the motorist! All of you! Because the
psycholists say so!

[JNugent]

On 12/11/2012 23:29, Phil W Lee wrote:

> Kim Bolton <nos...@all.invalid>:

>> PhilO wrote:
>
>>> encourage people out of cars by restricting traffic speeds and parking.
>
>> When the local council round here brought in parking charges for the
>> car park next to the local shops, it virtually wiped them out.
>> Just in time they converted half the car park to a 'free for 2 hours'
>> section, and many local shops, pubs, and restaurants were saved.
>> No-one took up cycling instead.

> Why should the council subsidise businesses that don't provide for
> their customers needs?

Indeed.

> It's not for the council tax payer to bail out businesses that have
> decided to establish themselves in locations that nobody can reach
> without a car, and fail to provide any parking.

And neither is it for a council (or council tax payer) to provide a cycle
hire service which raises less in hire-charges than it costs to run and to
repay the capital cost of setting it up.

I'm glad we agree.

[Mrcheerful]

Phil W Lee wrote:
> Kim Bolton <nos...@all.invalid> considered Sun, 11 Nov 2012 10:41:41

> +0000 the perfect time to write:
>
>>
>> PhilO wrote:
>>
>>> encourage people out of cars by restricting traffic speeds and
>>> parking.
>>
>> When the local council round here brought in parking charges for the
>> car park next to the local shops, it virtually wiped them out.
>>
>> Just in time they converted half the car park to a 'free for 2 hours'
>> section, and many local shops, pubs, and restaurants were saved.
>>
>> No-one took up cycling instead.
>
> Why should the council subsidise businesses that don't provide for
> their customers needs?
>

> It's not for the council tax payer to bail out businesses that have
> decided to establish themselves in locations that nobody can reach
> without a car, and fail to provide any parking.

I wonder whether the car park was there (and free) when the businesses were
set up?

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

On 12/11/2012 23:29, Phil W Lee wrote:
> Kim Bolton <nos...@all.invalid> considered Sun, 11 Nov 2012 10:41:41
> +0000 the perfect time to write:
>
>>
>> PhilO wrote:
>>
>>> encourage people out of cars by restricting traffic speeds and parking.
>>
>> When the local council round here brought in parking charges for the
>> car park next to the local shops, it virtually wiped them out.
>>
>> Just in time they converted half the car park to a 'free for 2 hours'
>> section, and many local shops, pubs, and restaurants were saved.
>>
>> No-one took up cycling instead.
>
> Why should the council subsidise businesses that don't provide for
> their customers needs?

Why should the taxpayer subsidise cyclists who chose a non viable form
of transport?

>
> It's not for the council tax payer to bail out businesses that have
> decided to establish themselves in locations that nobody can reach
> without a car, and fail to provide any parking.
>

It's the councils duty to provide facilities for the tax paying motorist.

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

Or to provide cycle lanes for sponging freeloaders.

>
> I'm glad we agree.

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

On 12/11/2012 23:29, Phil W Lee wrote:

> Kim Bolton <nos...@all.invalid> considered Sun, 11 Nov 2012 10:41:41
> +0000 the perfect time to write:
>
>>

>> PhilO wrote:
>>
>>> encourage people out of cars by restricting traffic speeds and parking.
>>
>> When the local council round here brought in parking charges for the
>> car park next to the local shops, it virtually wiped them out.
>>
>> Just in time they converted half the car park to a 'free for 2 hours'
>> section, and many local shops, pubs, and restaurants were saved.
>>
>> No-one took up cycling instead.
>
> Why should the council subsidise businesses that don't provide for
> their customers needs?

Stick to the point. Why did no-one take up cycling instead?

[PhilO]

On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 8:26:16 AM UTC, Dave VOR wrote:
>
> Why should the taxpayer subsidise cyclists who chose a non viable form
> of transport?
>
> >

Dave, for some, it is perfectly viable. I'll accept it may not be practical for you but I can make my daily commute faster and cheaper by bike, so for me it is more than valuable. Your pig ignorance in acknowledging this just shows how bigotted you are.

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

Its only faster because you weave in and out of traffic in a dangerous
manner, probably ignore most traffic laws and is a very short journey.
Or maybe you use those ridiculous cycle lanes paid for by the motorist?

It's cheaper because you don't pay any specific extra taxes to use the
road and are a sponging freeloader.

[PhilO]

On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 8:52:01 AM UTC, Dave VOR wrote:
> On 13/11/2012 08:40, PhilO wrote:
>
> Its only faster because you weave in and out of traffic in a dangerous
> manner, probably ignore most traffic laws and is a very short journey.
> Or maybe you use those ridiculous cycle lanes paid for by the motorist?
>

Wrong. I don't weave in and out of any traffic, I obey all traffic laws and use no cycle lanes. You made all of it up, didn't you?

>
> It's cheaper because you don't pay any specific extra taxes to use the
> road and are a sponging freeloader.
>
>

Actuaaly, I pay my road tax and leave the car at home. How does that compute?

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

On 13/11/2012 09:08, PhilO wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 8:52:01 AM UTC, Dave VOR wrote:
>> On 13/11/2012 08:40, PhilO wrote:
>>
>> Its only faster because you weave in and out of traffic in a
>> dangerous manner, probably ignore most traffic laws and is a very
>> short journey. Or maybe you use those ridiculous cycle lanes paid
>> for by the motorist?
>>
>
> Wrong. I don't weave in and out of any traffic, I obey all traffic
> laws and use no cycle lanes. You made all of it up, didn't you?

So, you tell lies as well?

It is however, a very short journey isn't it?

>
>>
>> It's cheaper because you don't pay any specific extra taxes to use
>> the road and are a sponging freeloader.
>>
>>
> Actuaaly, I pay my road tax and leave the car at home. How does that
> compute?
>

It doesn't. You pay Road Tax to use that specific car on the road. It
isn't transferable to a push bike. Therefore, when cycling you are a

[Judith]

On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 08:16:48 -0000, "Mrcheerful" <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

<snip>

>> It's not for the council tax payer to bail out businesses that have
>> decided to establish themselves in locations that nobody can reach
>> without a car, and fail to provide any parking.
>
>I wonder whether the car park was there (and free) when the businesses were
>set up?
>

There is more than a fair chance that the shop premises in most high streets
and surrounding areas were there even before the cars were.

But Anchor is not that bright.

[Judith]

On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 01:08:51 -0800 (PST), PhilO <goo1...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 8:52:01 AM UTC, Dave VOR wrote:
>> On 13/11/2012 08:40, PhilO wrote:
>>
>> Its only faster because you weave in and out of traffic in a dangerous
>> manner, probably ignore most traffic laws and is a very short journey.
>> Or maybe you use those ridiculous cycle lanes paid for by the motorist?
>>
>
>Wrong. I don't weave in and out of any traffic, I obey all traffic laws and use no cycle lanes.

But not the advice of the Highway Code?

Why do you not use the facilities provided for you?

[Partac]

"Phil W Lee" wrote in message
news:ug03a8tfetulopk7r...@4ax.com...

Kim Bolton <nos...@all.invalid> considered Sun, 11 Nov 2012 10:41:41
+0000 the perfect time to write:

>
>PhilO wrote:
>
>>encourage people out of cars by restricting traffic speeds and parking.
>
>When the local council round here brought in parking charges for the
>car park next to the local shops, it virtually wiped them out.
>
>Just in time they converted half the car park to a 'free for 2 hours'
>section, and many local shops, pubs, and restaurants were saved.
>
>No-one took up cycling instead.

Why should the council subsidise businesses that don't provide for
their customers needs?

It's not for the council tax payer to bail out businesses that have
decided to establish themselves in locations that nobody can reach
without a car, and fail to provide any parking.

The Business rates tax (commercial premises) is based on what facilities are
available to the business, among other things, so the businesses have been
paying very handsomely for these provisions.

[Mrcheerful]

Kim Bolton wrote:

> If you're referring to my post, then yes it was.
>
> As the (small) High Street lost its 1950s-style shops and moved into
> the 21st Century (thereby attracting more shoppers) the parking
> charges went on. Then came off, partly, as businesses closed.

exactly, so the businesses did not establish themselves in a location
without access or parking, effectively the parking was made less accessible
and their businesses suffered all through the short term view of the local
council. This is a point that phillee seems unable to grasp.

[PhilO]

On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 9:47:22 AM UTC, Judith wrote:
>
> >Wrong. I don't weave in and out of any traffic, I obey all traffic laws and use no cycle lanes.
>
>
> But not the advice of the Highway Code?
>
>
> Why do you not use the facilities provided for you?

Because there aren't any to use!
Wow - you are on one of your thick days again, aren't you.

[PhilO]

On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 9:20:07 AM UTC, Dave VOR wrote:
> > Wrong. I don't weave in and out of any traffic, I obey all traffic
> > laws and use no cycle lanes. You made all of it up, didn't you?
>
> So, you tell lies as well?
>

No. That is why you don't see the advantages of cycling, because you refuse to believe them.

>
>
> It is however, a very short journey isn't it?
>

Depends on your definition of very short.
It is about 3 miles, but connects with a train to take me another 30 miles.
Both the bike ride and the whole journey are faster than by car.

> It doesn't. You pay Road Tax to use that specific car on the road. It
> isn't transferable to a push bike. Therefore, when cycling you are a
> sponging freeloader.
>

So even though I've paid the same as you on any particular day, I'm a freeloader.
Are you quite mad?

[JNugent]

On 13/11/2012 13:40, PhilO wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 9:47:22 AM UTC, Judith wrote:
>>
>>> Wrong. I don't weave in and out of any traffic, I obey all traffic laws and use no cycle lanes.
>>
>>
>> But not the advice of the Highway Code?
>>
>>
>> Why do you not use the facilities provided for you?
>
> Because there aren't any to use!

What? Nowhere at all?

I'm sure I saw some yesterday.

What happened overnight?

[PhilO]

Oh dear, are you having a thick day too?
We are discussing "my daily commute".
Please read the thread before posting.

[JNugent]

His point is not "mad", though that is not to unequivocally endorse it.

If using a bicycle counts as "freeloading" at all, that will not be
ameliorated by your having paid road tax in respect of a car which you are
not, at that moment, using. No more than than it would justify using an
untaxed car from point B to point C and "justifying" that untaxed use by
arguing that another car, in which you travelled from point A to point B, was
taxed.

Switch the bike to being another car (perhaps one kept at the other end of an
initial daily rail journey) and that point becomes clearer.

If you were try to address the point properly, you would concentrate on
whether it really is "freeloading" to use a bicycle on the road. One can only
reasonably assume that you haven't been able to think of a convincing
argument to that effect, hence your reliance on the unsound principle ("my
car is taxed") you have so far sought to rely upon.

[Judith]

"I ....... use no cycle lanes."

Well there we go - excellent value.

[nik.morgan]

Of course you are, you are using free of charge items provided for
cyclists, the fact that you are also owning a car that at that moment you
choose not to use has no relevance.
--
ennemm

[PhilO]

On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 2:15:31 PM UTC, Judith wrote:
>
> "I ....... use no cycle lanes."
>
>
>
> Well there we go - excellent value.

Yes, because there are no cycle lanes for me to use on my commute.
Was that too hard for you to work out?

[PhilO]

On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 3:42:30 PM UTC, nik. morgan wrote:
>
> Of course you are, you are using free of charge items provided for
> cyclists, the fact that you are also owning a car that at that moment you
> choose not to use has no relevance.
>
> --
>
> ennemm

What if I use a car for which road tax is zero?

[JNugent]

What of it?

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

On 13/11/2012 13:45, PhilO wrote:

> On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 9:20:07 AM UTC, Dave VOR wrote:
>>> Wrong. I don't weave in and out of any traffic, I obey all traffic
>>> laws and use no cycle lanes. You made all of it up, didn't you?
>>
>> So, you tell lies as well?
>>
>
> No. That is why you don't see the advantages of cycling, because you refuse to believe them.

You don't weave in & out of traffic? Come on.

>
>>
>>
>> It is however, a very short journey isn't it?
>>
> Depends on your definition of very short.
> It is about 3 miles, but connects with a train to take me another 30 miles.
> Both the bike ride and the whole journey are faster than by car.

So, you get on a train stinking of sweat & inflict that on the other
passengers?

>
>
>> It doesn't. You pay Road Tax to use that specific car on the road. It
>> isn't transferable to a push bike. Therefore, when cycling you are a
>> sponging freeloader.
>>
>
> So even though I've paid the same as you on any particular day, I'm a freeloader.
> Are you quite mad?
>

Are you completely thick?

You haven't paid a specific extra tax to use your push bike on the road.

I have 2 vehicles, a van & a car. I have to pay a specific extra tax to
use both on the road.

[Peter Keller]

On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 08:26:15 +0000, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:

> non viable form of transport?

Mine is very viable. And convenient and exhilarating.


--
Life is a venereal disease with 100% mortality.

[Peter Keller]

On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 08:52:00 +0000, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:

> It's cheaper because you don't pay any specific extra taxes to use the
> road

And don't pay for filthy petrol.

[PhilO]

On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 7:58:24 PM UTC, Dave VOR wrote:
>
> You don't weave in & out of traffic? Come on.
>

No, as I've already said.

>
> So, you get on a train stinking of sweat & inflict that on the other
> passengers?
>

No. I cycle at such a rate that I don't break out into a sweat. Because I cycle I am reasonably fit and so am able to cycle a short journey without sweating. I realise this might not be the case for you.

>
> Are you completely thick?
> You haven't paid a specific extra tax to use your push bike on the road.

What if the Road Tax for my car is zero? Am I still a "sponging freeloader" then?

[nik.morgan]

yes, fuel duty, vat on fuel,
--
ennemm

[Paul Cummins]

We were about to embark at Dover, when ig....@me.com (nik.morgan) came
up to me and whispered:

>
> yes, fuel duty, vat on fuel,

As against VAT on bike parts, clothing, batteries for lights etc. Not to
mention duty on lubricants.

Clearly Cyclists don't pay any taxes at all.

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981

---- If it's below this line, I didn't write it ----

[Paul Cummins]

We were about to embark at Dover, when davi...@blueyonder.co.uk (Dave -
Cyclists VOR) came up to me and whispered:

> It's cheaper because you don't pay any specific extra taxes to
> use the road and are a sponging freeloader.

That's because bicycles don't do any damage to the roads, unlike cars,
buses, lorries...

[nik.morgan]

Paul Cummins <uset...@stedtelephone.invalid> wrote:
> We were about to embark at Dover, when ig....@me.com (nik.morgan) came
> up to me and whispered:
>
>>
>> yes, fuel duty, vat on fuel,
>
> As against VAT on bike parts, clothing, batteries for lights etc. Not to
> mention duty on lubricants.
>
> Clearly Cyclists don't pay any taxes at all.

no they don't, of course they pay taxes on items they buy as does everyone
else but they pay no taxes or charges specificity for cycling as you well
know.

--
ennemm

[nik.morgan]

Paul Cummins <uset...@stedtelephone.invalid> wrote:
> We were about to embark at Dover, when davi...@blueyonder.co.uk (Dave -
> Cyclists VOR) came up to me and whispered:
>
>> It's cheaper because you don't pay any specific extra taxes to
>> use the road and are a sponging freeloader.
>
> That's because bicycles don't do any damage to the roads, unlike cars,
> buses, lorries...

Who pays for the cycling specific items, cycle lanes for example, there are
many others?
--
ennemm

[Paul Cummins]

We were about to embark at Dover, when ig....@me.com (nik.morgan) came
up to me and whispered:

> they pay no taxes or charges specificity for cycling as you well
> know.

Apart from the VAT on cycling clothing, bikes themselves, tyres, inner
tubes, parts, lights, batteries for the lights, and the duty hey pay on
lubricants and oil.

No, no taxes or charges specifically for cycling at all, no, none!

[PhilO]

On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 2:06:53 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
>
> If you were try to address the point properly, you would concentrate on
> whether it really is "freeloading" to use a bicycle on the road. One can only
> reasonably assume that you haven't been able to think of a convincing
> argument to that effect, hence your reliance on the unsound principle ("my
> car is taxed") you have so far sought to rely upon.

I was pointing out to Dave that I paid the same tax as him. Many cars on the road pay less tax - does that make them freeloaders too?

I wonder if Dave sees drivers of cars with zero road tax as freeloaders and what his views on pedestrians are. It is all irrelevant anyway, as Dave would dislike all cyclists no matter how much tax they paid.

[nik.morgan]

Paul Cummins <uset...@stedtelephone.invalid> wrote:
> We were about to embark at Dover, when ig....@me.com (nik.morgan) came
> up to me and whispered:
>
>> they pay no taxes or charges specificity for cycling as you well
>> know.
>
> Apart from the VAT on cycling clothing, bikes themselves, tyres, inner
> tubes, parts, lights, batteries for the lights, and the duty hey pay on
> lubricants and oil.
>
> No, no taxes or charges specifically for cycling at all, no, none!

none of those items are cycling specific, as you well know thus its a
spurious argument.

--
ennemm

[Paul Cummins]

We were about to embark at Dover, when ig....@me.com (nik.morgan) came
up to me and whispered:

> none of those items are cycling specific, as you well know thus
> its a
> spurious argument.

I see.

Bicycle tyres and Bicycle lights are not bicycle-specific.

Getting desperate now, aren't you?

[M Wicks]

On Nov 14, 3:14 pm, useth...@stedtelephone.invalid (Paul Cummins)
wrote:
> We were about to embark at Dover, when ig.t...@me.com (nik.morgan) came

> up to me and whispered:
>
> > none of those items are cycling specific, as you well know thus
> > its a
> > spurious argument.
>
> I see.
>
> Bicycle tyres and Bicycle lights are not bicycle-specific.

They don't have higher taxes on them than similar (but non-cycling-
related) items just because they can be used for cycling, whereas,
say, "normal" diesel is taxed far more highly than red diesel because
the former is used for motoring. The difference between the tax on
"normal" and red diesel is effectively a tax on motoring, and there is
no such difference between tax levels that applies to cycling instead.

Not that you needed that to be explained to you: as NM has already
pointed out, you know what he's been getting at and are just being
obtuse.

[nik.morgan]

Paul Cummins <uset...@stedtelephone.invalid> wrote:
> We were about to embark at Dover, when ig....@me.com (nik.morgan) came
> up to me and whispered:
>
>> none of those items are cycling specific, as you well know thus
>> its a
>> spurious argument.
>
> I see.
>
> Bicycle tyres and Bicycle lights are not bicycle-specific.
>

no more than car tyres and car lights are specific to motoring, they are in
that you would need to have them to enjoy (or in the case of cycling,
suffer) the activity but they are subject to the same tax regime as any
other consumer product. You could go cycling on a bike that was gifted to
you and buy none of the items you mention.
You, unlike motorists, pay no specific tax to endure the activity (cycling)

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

On 14/11/2012 13:35, PhilO wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 2:06:53 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
>>
>> If you were try to address the point properly, you would
>> concentrate on whether it really is "freeloading" to use a bicycle
>> on the road. One can only reasonably assume that you haven't been
>> able to think of a convincing argument to that effect, hence your
>> reliance on the unsound principle ("my car is taxed") you have so
>> far sought to rely upon.
>
> I was pointing out to Dave that I paid the same tax as him.

Not when you use your bicycle vehicle on the roads you don't.

> Many cars
> on the road pay less tax - does that make them freeloaders too?

No, because they pay fuel duty.

>
> I wonder if Dave sees drivers of cars with zero road tax as
> freeloaders and what his views on pedestrians are.

Pedestrians aren't vehicles.

Do you have learning difficulties?

>
> It is all
> irrelevant anyway, as Dave would dislike all cyclists no matter how
> much tax they paid.
>

As would most people. Cyclists are road scum.

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

No, you would pay fuel duty.

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

On 14/11/2012 11:33, Paul Cummins wrote:
> We were about to embark at Dover, when ig....@me.com (nik.morgan) came
> up to me and whispered:
>
>>
>> yes, fuel duty, vat on fuel,
>
> As against VAT on bike parts, clothing, batteries for lights etc. Not to
> mention duty on lubricants.
>
> Clearly Cyclists don't pay any taxes at all.
>

Clearly they don't pay a "specific" & "extra" tax to use a vehicle on
the roads.

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

On 14/11/2012 12:29, Paul Cummins wrote:
> We were about to embark at Dover, when ig....@me.com (nik.morgan) came
> up to me and whispered:
>
>> they pay no taxes or charges specificity for cycling as you well
>> know.
>
> Apart from the VAT on cycling clothing, bikes themselves, tyres, inner
> tubes, parts, lights, batteries for the lights, and the duty hey pay on
> lubricants and oil.
>
> No, no taxes or charges specifically for cycling at all, no, none!
>

No "specific" & "extra" tax to use their vehicle on the roads. Are you
a bit dim?

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

On 14/11/2012 11:33, Paul Cummins wrote:

> We were about to embark at Dover, when davi...@blueyonder.co.uk (Dave -
> Cyclists VOR) came up to me and whispered:
>
>> It's cheaper because you don't pay any specific extra taxes to
>> use the road and are a sponging freeloader.
>
> That's because bicycles don't do any damage to the roads, unlike cars,
> buses, lorries...
>

They just clog up the roads & get in the way of tax paying motorists.

It matters not if they cause damage - they still pay nothing. Bunch of
sponging freeloaders.

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

I wonder who will come out with the old "it's not called Road Tax, it's
VED" chestnut first?

[JNugent]

On 14/11/2012 11:33, Paul Cummins wrote:

> We were about to embark at Dover, when davi...@blueyonder.co.uk (Dave -
> Cyclists VOR) came up to me and whispered:
>
>> It's cheaper because you don't pay any specific extra taxes to
>> use the road and are a sponging freeloader.
>
> That's because bicycles don't do any damage to the roads, unlike cars,
> buses, lorries...

A very heavy vehicle might just cause damage to a road (particularly to a
bridge if the vehicle is grossly overweight for the load-bearing capacity of
the structure.

Any road which is robust enough to carry buses and lorries will certainly not
be "damaged" by a car or van. When it comes to the considerable effects that
lorries and buses can have on a carriageway (over time), you, like some
others, appear confused as between wear and damage, which are two separate
and distinct concepts and processes.

Wear is allowed for (it has to be) and expected. Damage is the result of
something untoward happening (like an overweight lorry crossing Hammersmith
Bridge or a tanker spilling diesel).

Look at the grooves in the tarmac at a heavily-used bus-stop. That's expected
and allowed-for wear, caused by repeated heavy braking and acceleration in
the same short space. Buses are known for that sort of road-wear. But than,
roads are designed to wear. The top surface is known as the wearing surface.

If a road does not wear, and bearing in mind that the non-wear road surface
has yet to be invented, that can only be because there isn't enough economic
activity to generate sufficient heavy traffic to make it wear. So let's all
drink a toast to road-wear: May all our roads wear out (and be re-surfaced)
profoundly and frequently. If it doesn't happen, we're in trouble.

You have not been charged for this rather obvious basic lesson in highway
engineering and economics.

[JNugent]

On 14/11/2012 15:12, Paul Cummins wrote:
> We were about to embark at Dover, when ig....@me.com (nik.morgan) came
> up to me and whispered:
>
>> none of those items are cycling specific, as you well know thus
>> its a
>> spurious argument.
>
> I see.
>
> Bicycle tyres and Bicycle lights are not bicycle-specific.
>
> Getting desperate now, aren't you?

He isn't. He really isn't.

Not unless you would classify the (significant) amount of VAT on a set of car
tyres as road tax.

[Ian Smith]

Nor do motorists. Consumers of petrol and diesel pay certain taxes,
but since (for example) people putting the petrol in their lawnmowers
pay teh same rate of tax, tax on fuel cannot be descibed as a charge
specifically for motoring.

There are zero-rated VED cars, so that can't be a tax on motoring.

What tax do you think is specifically on motoring?

--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

[Ian Smith]

Umm, are you saying a bicycle is not a cycling-sepcific purchase?

I don't want to know what you find to do with inner tubes taht's not
cycling specific.

[Ian Smith]

On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 11:08:06 -0600, nik.morgan <ig....@me.com> wrote:
> Paul Cummins <uset...@stedtelephone.invalid> wrote:
> > We were about to embark at Dover, when ig....@me.com (nik.morgan) came
> > up to me and whispered:
> >
> >> none of those items are cycling specific, as you well know thus
> >> its a
> >> spurious argument.
> >
> > I see.
> >
> > Bicycle tyres and Bicycle lights are not bicycle-specific.
>
> no more than car tyres and car lights are specific to motoring,
> they are in that you would need to have them to enjoy (or in the
> case of cycling, suffer) the activity but they are subject to the
> same tax regime as any other consumer product. You could go cycling
> on a bike that was gifted to you and buy none of the items you
> mention.

You can drive a car that was given to you already insured and fueled
with petrol given to you and pay no tax either. I'm not sure waht
this proves - otehr than that your argument is completely bogus, of
course.

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

On 14/11/2012 19:31, Ian Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 05:48:51 -0600, nik.morgan <ig....@me.com> wrote:
>> Paul Cummins <uset...@stedtelephone.invalid> wrote:
>>> We were about to embark at Dover, when ig....@me.com (nik.morgan) came
>>> up to me and whispered:
>>>>
>>>> yes, fuel duty, vat on fuel,
>>>
>>> As against VAT on bike parts, clothing, batteries for lights etc.
>>> Not to mention duty on lubricants.
>>>
>>> Clearly Cyclists don't pay any taxes at all.
>>
>> no they don't, of course they pay taxes on items they buy as does
>> everyone else but they pay no taxes or charges specificity for
>> cycling as you well know.
>
> Nor do motorists. Consumers of petrol and diesel pay certain taxes,
> but since (for example) people putting the petrol in their lawnmowers
> pay teh same rate of tax, tax on fuel cannot be descibed as a charge
> specifically for motoring.

(1) And what proportion of the fuel sold annually is for lawn mowers?
(2) A lawn mower is not a vehicle.

>
> There are zero-rated VED cars, so that can't be a tax on motoring.

Very few + they still pay fuel duty.

>
> What tax do you think is specifically on motoring?

Road Tax.

Q: Can you use the majority of cars on the road without paying a
specific extra tax?
A: No.

Q: Can you use a push bike on the road without paying a specific extra tax?
A: Yes.

Game over.

[Paul Cummins]

We were about to embark at Dover, when davi...@blueyonder.co.uk (Dave -

Cyclists VOR) came up to me and whispered:

> > What tax do you think is specifically on motoring?
>
> Road Tax.

No such thing - hasn't been since 1936.

I pay VED on my car. If you pay something else then you are being conned.

[Paul Cummins]

We were about to embark at Dover, when davi...@blueyonder.co.uk (Dave -

Cyclists VOR) came up to me and whispered:

> Clearly they don't pay a "specific" & "extra" tax to use a
> vehicle on the roads.

Nor do pedestrians.

[Mrcheerful]

Paul Cummins wrote:
> We were about to embark at Dover, when davi...@blueyonder.co.uk
> (Dave - Cyclists VOR) came up to me and whispered:
>
>>> What tax do you think is specifically on motoring?
>>
>> Road Tax.
>
> No such thing - hasn't been since 1936.
>
> I pay VED on my car. If you pay something else then you are being
> conned.

everyone knows it as road tax, if you don't, then you are very strange.

[Paul Cummins]

We were about to embark at Dover, when g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk
(Mrcheerful) came up to me and whispered:

> everyone knows it as road tax, if you don't, then you are very
> strange.

Most people know it as "Car Tax"

But then most people know the annual vehicle safety check as the MOT,
despite the fact the Ministry of Transport hasn't existed for years.

Next you'll be telling me that "No D(H)SS" has some meaning on lettings.
Or that the Department of the Environment has anything to do with
emissions. Or that the Home Office runs prisons. Or that you have to have
a licence for a TV set. Or that Customs and Excise seize tobacco at the
border.

Keep up to date. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

[JNugent]

On 15/11/2012 00:35, Paul Cummins wrote:

> (Mrcheerful):

>
>> everyone knows it as road tax, if you don't, then you are very
>> strange.

> Most people know it as "Car Tax"

Absolute rubbish.

That term is hardly ever used except in renewal notices from the DVLC. You
never hear anyone say that they have to renew their car tax (especially if
their car is a van).

> But then most people know the annual vehicle safety check as the MOT,
> despite the fact the Ministry of Transport hasn't existed for years.

You are undermining the very point you were trying to make. The fact is that
if people want to call the MOT Test the MOT test, they may. And you can't
stop them.

> Next you'll be telling me that "No D(H)SS" has some meaning on lettings.

It means that the landlord or agent is not prepared to let the property to a
prospective tenant who is in receipt of benefit.

What else could it mean?

> Or that the Department of the Environment has anything to do with
> emissions. Or that the Home Office runs prisons. Or that you have to have
> a licence for a TV set. Or that Customs and Excise seize tobacco at the
> border.

You're becoming cryptic now. And not, I suspect, in a nice way.

> Keep up to date. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

There is no law to the effect that one may not call road tax road tax. There
never has been.

[nik.morgan]

To be, or peruse, cycling you need to make no special purchase, to drive
car you need fuel, an mot (which has a cost) road tax if applicable and
some insurance (which has a tax component). as you well know, no matter how
much you wriggle.
--
ennemm

[nik.morgan]

Paul Cummins <uset...@stedtelephone.invalid> wrote:
> We were about to embark at Dover, when davi...@blueyonder.co.uk (Dave -
> Cyclists VOR) came up to me and whispered:
>
>>> What tax do you think is specifically on motoring?
>>
>> Road Tax.
>
> No such thing - hasn't been since 1936.
>
> I pay VED on my car. If you pay something else then you are being conned.

I wonder why is says road tax on my reminder form from the dvla, perhaps
you,know?
--
ennemm

[nik.morgan]

Previous post please replace peruse with pursue.
--
ennemm

[Mrcheerful]

apparently it doesn't, neither does the post office or anyone else in the
country. We are all living in a delusion that the term 'road tax' is in
very common usage throughout the UK.

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

On 14/11/2012 22:30, Paul Cummins wrote:
> We were about to embark at Dover, when davi...@blueyonder.co.uk (Dave -
> Cyclists VOR) came up to me and whispered:
>
>> Clearly they don't pay a "specific" & "extra" tax to use a
>> vehicle on the roads.
>
> Nor do pedestrians.
>

Pedestrians aren't using vehicles.

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

On 14/11/2012 17:41, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:
> On 14/11/2012 11:50, nik.morgan wrote:
>> Paul Cummins <uset...@stedtelephone.invalid> wrote:
>>> We were about to embark at Dover, when davi...@blueyonder.co.uk
>>> (Dave -
>>> Cyclists VOR) came up to me and whispered:
>>>
>>>> It's cheaper because you don't pay any specific extra taxes to
>>>> use the road and are a sponging freeloader.
>>>
>>> That's because bicycles don't do any damage to the roads, unlike cars,
>>> buses, lorries...
>>
>>
>> Who pays for the cycling specific items, cycle lanes for example,
>> there are
>> many others?
>
>
> I wonder who will come out with the old "it's not called Road Tax, it's
> VED" chestnut first?
>

And the winner was ........ Paul Cummins!