Loophole in the new "tax on motoring"
Tom Crispin
law-breakers face for offences such as speeding, pavement parking and
waiting in the advance stop reservoir at traffic light signals.
This loophole is trivial for any would-be law breaker to exploit:
stick to the speed limit; don't park on the pavement; and keep out of
advance stop reservoirs.
Mas...@bp.com
wrote:
It's another "idiot tax" - so the people who fall for these fines all
the time won't really understand your simple logic.
They must enjoy giving HM Treasury even more of their hard earned
money.
--
Simon Mason
Peter Grange
According to more than one poster here, the vast majority of motorists
won't be affected by it anyway....
Mas...@bp.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ah yes, the old "innocent law abiding" put-upon motorists being fined
for breaking the law complaint.
--
Simon Mason
Tony Dragon
If I kept out of advance stop reservoirs I would never get past the
first crossroad to my house.
--
Tony Dragon
Tom Crispin
And thus you would avoid the 'tax'.
Chris Bartram
doesn't make sense. Speeding can be a victimless crime. If someone
becomes a victim of speeding, then surely the crime of dangerous or
careless driving would apply? In that case, no problem.
I'm not suggesting the law should not be upheld, but who is the victim
if someone speeds along a well lit clear motorway in good conditions?
Regarding parking on pavements and filling advance stop reservoirs (I'm
presuming these are the marked areas for cyclists at traffic lights?),
then it's a bit more applicable: there's clearly potential victims
(pedestrians and cyclists).
Steve Firth
>
> This loophole is trivial for any would-be law breaker to exploit:
> stick to the speed limit; don't park on the pavement; and keep out of
> advance stop reservoirs.
Any reason why you are trolling?
You're still guilty of not thinking imaginatively or thoroughly. There's
a simple solution to evrything that you complain about and one that will
solve all the problems in this country. Just kill everyone who chooses
to live inside the M25. That will reduce the population, traffic and the
number of whining twats on usenet to manageable proportions.
NM
wrote:
Who are the victims in the crimes you mention ? How is this new
stealth tax going to healp them?
NM
Then the tax should be levied only when there is a victim. potential
victims should attract a potential tax.
NM
East of the Cornish border would be better.
Mike
wrote:
I assume it is for the victims of more serious crimes. The money has
to come from somewhere. At the moment from all tax payers pockets
indirectly.
So if you break the law ... you pay twice. Now what can you learn from
that and how do you think you could avoid it ? Not too difficult.
Mike P
JNugent
Is there any word on its also being applied to footway-cycling and ignoring
traffic lights?
Steve Firth
>
> East of the Cornish border would be better.
You want the country to be populated by people with 12 fingers and to
have no more than three faces for the entire population? And where is
one going to find anyone sober or even a virgin if your plan succeeds?
Steve Firth
> I assume it is for the victims of more serious crimes. The money has
> to come from somewhere. At the moment from all tax payers pockets
> indirectly.
> So if you break the law ... you pay twice. Now what can you learn from
> that and how do you think you could avoid it ? Not too difficult.
And in a wonderful display of justice and fairness, the mugger, burglar,
rapist and robber, those who commit acts of violence against the
vulnerable, murdering scum and those who cheat thousands or even
millions from the pockets of the general population will not have to pay
this levy.
Tom Crispin
I expect so. However, there's a loophole: don't ride on pavements and
obey traffic signals and you will avoid the "tax".
Nick Finnigan
> There is a massive loophole in the new �15 victim surcharge
> law-breakers face for offences such as speeding, pavement parking and
> waiting in the advance stop reservoir at traffic light signals.
Pavement parking and waiting in advance stop reservoirs are not offences
in the UK.
Tony Dragon
Why can't I go in the advance stop reservoirs?
--
Tony Dragon
Tony Dragon
I live inside the M25 & I can find you a sober virgin if you need one,
please state sex & age preferences.
--
Tony Dragon
Nick Finnigan
>
> Is there any word on its also being applied to footway-cycling and
> ignoring traffic lights?
It probably even applies to using a bicycle trailer without a rear
reflector fitted to it.
ARWadsworth
"Tony Dragon" <tony....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:TYCdnUBpwMiY7qLW...@bt.com...
Do you do special offers for Catholic priests?
Adam
Chris Bartram
> Then the tax should be levied only when there is a victim. potential
> victims should attract a potential tax.
:-)
Chris Bartram
> So if you break the law ... you pay twice.
Assuming you get caught.
So do you think it is a reasonable thing that a speeding motorist who is
caught, having harmed no-one compensates the victims of an rapist who
isn't, for example?
Tom Crispin
<tony....@btinternet.com> wrote:
You can go in advance stop reservoirs, But if you move into an
advance stop reservoir while lights are red you risk paying the "tax",
which could legally be avoided.
Elder
tony....@btinternet.com says...
--
Carl Robson
Get cashback on your purchases
Topcashback http://www.TopCashBack.co.uk/skraggy_uk/ref/index.htm
Greasypalm http://www.greasypalm.co.uk/r/?l=1006553
Tom Crispin
wrote:
It's lucky then that I have already found the loophole that avoids the
"tax" by having two reflectors fitted to my bicycle trailer.
One of the reflectors can be seen in the bottom right of the first
photo.
www.britishschoolofcycling.com/photos/trailer/
Mike
Yes .. it goes to a good cause
Mike P
Tony Dragon
Yes, that seems to be correct, but originally you said I could not wait
in them.
--
Tony Dragon
Tony Dragon
Do you want a sober virgin Catholic priest?
If so you will have to pay a premium rate (rarity value)
--
Tony Dragon
Doug
> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 05:53:49 -0800 (PST), "Mas...@BP.com"
>
>
>
> <Mas...@BP.com> wrote:
> >On 2 Jan, 13:33, Tom Crispin <kije.rem...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge>
> >> There is a massive loophole in the new £15 victim surcharge
> >> law-breakers face for offences such as speeding, pavement parking and
> >> waiting in the advance stop reservoir at traffic light signals.
>
> >> This loophole is trivial for any would-be law breaker to exploit:
> >> stick to the speed limit; don't park on the pavement; and keep out of
> >> advance stop reservoirs.
>
> >>www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1239955/
>
> >the time won't really understand your simple logic.
> >They must enjoy giving HM Treasury even more of their hard earned
> >money.
>
> According to more than one poster here, the vast majority of motorists
> won't be affected by it anyway....
>
Mainly because of a lack of enforcement. Hence the all too common
sight of speeders, cars on pavements and in ASLs.
--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.
Ret.
It is certainly more reasonable than expecting the law abiding majority to
do so!
Kev
Vicko Zoomba
Hahahahahaha!
Chris Bartram
surcharge' on a victimless crime seems rather illogical.
Tony Dragon
I try not to speed, I don't drive on footways (except to park on my
driveway) but you can often see my car in ASL's
--
Tony Dragon
NM
Nick Finnigan
> On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 16:31:14 +0000, Nick Finnigan <n...@genie.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> JNugent wrote:
>>> Is there any word on its also being applied to footway-cycling and
>>> ignoring traffic lights?
>> It probably even applies to using a bicycle trailer without a rear
>> reflector fitted to it.
>
> It's lucky then that I have already found the loophole that avoids the
> "tax" by having two reflectors fitted to my bicycle trailer.
And what about the other bicycle trailers ?
Trevor A Panther
news:hho5kd$vms$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Well both my trailers each have two reflectors and my workhorse trailer is
also fitted with rear lights!
--
From
Trevor A Panther
In South Yorkshire,
England, United Kingdom
www.tapan.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
Elder
says...
> It is certainly more reasonable than expecting the law abiding majority to
> do so!
>
motorists are not. Bear in mind very few of those paying a speeding fine
are actually convicted of anything.
Tom Crispin
<tony....@btinternet.com> wrote:
I also said that pavement parking was an offence when in certain cases
it is not. Most intelligent people would be able to work out the
difference between illegal waiting in advance stop reservoirs and
legal waiting without having it spelled out.
Tom Crispin
wrote:
Yes, the loophole in the "tax" exists for that one too: with a
refelctor clearly visible the "tax" would not have to be paid.
However, I am not convinced that the law covering reflectors on
bicycles applies to bicycle trailers. So long as the bicycle has a
clearly visible reflector I don't think that a cyclist would be
comitting an offense by haulling a trailer without a reflector. I
will be delighted if you can show me to be mistaken, and clarifiy the
issue.
Ray Keattch
> On 2 Jan, 13:33, Tom Crispin <kije.rem...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge>
>> There is a massive loophole in the new �15 victim surcharge
>> law-breakers face for offences such as speeding, pavement parking and
>> waiting in the advance stop reservoir at traffic light signals.
>>
>> This loophole is trivial for any would-be law breaker to exploit:
>> stick to the speed limit; don't park on the pavement; and keep out of
>> advance stop reservoirs.
>>
>> www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1239955/
>
> the time won't really understand your simple logic.
I followed one of these drivers home tonight in an NSL section of road.
They were doing 40mph and had their fog lights on, despite it being
the clearest night for months. They approached a roundabout, slowing
down well back, despite the temperature being around 6 degrees and salt
covering the road. They got into a right turn lane a good half mile
before the turn.
--
MrBitsy
delboy
wrote:
> There is a massive loophole in the new £15 victim surcharge
> law-breakers face for offences such as speeding, pavement parking and
> waiting in the advance stop reservoir at traffic light signals.
>
> This loophole is trivial for any would-be law breaker to exploit:
> stick to the speed limit; don't park on the pavement; and keep out of
> advance stop reservoirs.
>
> www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1239955/
The only real victims are motorists. who are once again being screwed
by the New Labour Government. Most of the extra fine will go to the
Treasury. As the majority of voters are motorists, I can only assume
that this is a suicide note by Nu Lab!
DC
Matt B
> On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 17:29:18 +0000, Tony Dragon
> <tony....@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>> On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 16:20:36 +0000, Tony Dragon
>>> <tony....@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> Why can't I go in the advance stop reservoirs?
>>>
>>> You can go in advance stop reservoirs, But if you move into an
>>> advance stop reservoir while lights are red you risk paying the "tax",
>>> which could legally be avoided.
>>
>> Yes, that seems to be correct, but originally you said I could not wait
>> in them.
>
> I also said that pavement parking was an offence when in certain cases
> it is not.
In fact, outside of "Greater London", it is perfectly *legal*, unless it
is explicitly banned by a TRO and appropriate signage.
--
Matt B
ARWadsworth
Do I pay extra for one inside the M25?
Adam
Colin McKenzie
<ne...@delete-me.piglet-net.net> wrote:
> I'm not suggesting the law should not be upheld, but who is the victim
> if someone speeds along a well lit clear motorway in good conditions?
The people affected by the extra noise.
Everyone affected by the extra pollution and CO2 emissions.
On non-motorways, people put off walking and cycling by increased danger
(perceived or actual) and increased difficulty crossing the road.
And anyway, it's arguable that an increased likelihood of creating a
casualty should count as creating victims, even if there isn't one on a
particular occasion.
Colin McKenzie
--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at the
population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.
NM
That together with the fuel price hike I have just experienced at
Tesco's, obviously they don't want another term.
Tony Dragon
Unfortunately many on this NG would not know the difference.
--
Tony Dragon
Tony Dragon
Same price but there may be a waiting list.
--
Tony Dragon
Nick Finnigan
> On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 19:08:55 +0000, Nick Finnigan <n...@genie.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>> On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 16:31:14 +0000, Nick Finnigan <n...@genie.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> JNugent wrote:
>>>>> Is there any word on its also being applied to footway-cycling and
>>>>> ignoring traffic lights?
>>>> It probably even applies to using a bicycle trailer without a rear
>>>> reflector fitted to it.
>>> It's lucky then that I have already found the loophole that avoids the
>>> "tax" by having two reflectors fitted to my bicycle trailer.
>> And what about the other bicycle trailers ?
>
> Yes, the loophole in the "tax" exists for that one too: with a
> refelctor clearly visible the "tax" would not have to be paid.
It would if there is no reflector on the trailer and the police can be
bothered. Is there a rear reflector on that trailer too?
> However, I am not convinced that the law covering reflectors on
> bicycles applies to bicycle trailers.
It doesn't, it is a separate, specific regulation.
So long as the bicycle has a
> clearly visible reflector I don't think that a cyclist would be
> comitting an offense by haulling a trailer without a reflector. I
> will be delighted if you can show me to be mistaken, and clarifiy the
> issue.
I have already shown you that you are mistaken. Read, once again, the
RVLR for bicycle trailers.
Nick Finnigan
>>
>> I also said that pavement parking was an offence when in certain cases
>> it is not.
>
> In fact, outside of "Greater London", it is perfectly *legal*, unless it
> is explicitly banned by a TRO and appropriate signage.
How many of the London Boroughs do not have de-criminalised parking
enforcement?
delboy
>
> - Show quoted text -
That is down to the increase in VAT, which adds about 3p/litre to the
price of petrol.
If they could tax cyclists for the extra air they are breathing, I am
sure they would!
DC
aaa
> On 2 Jan, 14:08, Peter Grange <pe...@plgrange.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 05:53:49 -0800 (PST), "Mas...@BP.com"
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > <Mas...@BP.com> wrote:
> > > On 2 Jan, 13:33, Tom Crispin
> > > <kije.rem...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
> > >> There is a massive loophole in the new �15 victim surcharge
> > >> law-breakers face for offences such as speeding, pavement
> > parking and >> waiting in the advance stop reservoir at traffic
> > light signals.
> >
> > >> This loophole is trivial for any would-be law breaker to exploit:
> > >> stick to the speed limit; don't park on the pavement; and keep
> > out of >> advance stop reservoirs.
> >
> > > > www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1239955/
> >
> > > It's another "idiot tax" - so the people who fall for these fines
> > > all the time won't really understand your simple logic.
> > > They must enjoy giving HM Treasury even more of their hard earned
> > > money.
> >
> > According to more than one poster here, the vast majority of
> > motorists won't be affected by it anyway....- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Ah yes, the old "innocent law abiding" put-upon motorists being fined
> for breaking the law complaint.
The olc greened eyed monster can be quite a beast.
Road_Hog
"Tom Crispin" <kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote in message
news:ilhuj51b8ulq8ritp...@4ax.com...
> There is a massive loophole in the new �15 victim surcharge
> law-breakers face for offences such as speeding, pavement parking and
> waiting in the advance stop reservoir at traffic light signals.
>
> This loophole is trivial for any would-be law breaker to exploit:
> stick to the speed limit; don't park on the pavement; and keep out of
> advance stop reservoirs.
>
motorists and reduced our speeds, unfortunately that has meant reduced
revenue for our speed cameras. So, have the police thanked us for being good
conscientious law abiding citizens who have made the roads safer? No,
they've reduced the NSL on virtually every single track road to 50MPH
because they need more money. It's got fuck all to do with obeying the law,
it's about revenue generation. If we all keep to the new speed limit then we
can look forward to a new 40MPH speed limit next year.
Tom Crispin
wrote:
>Tom Crispin wrote:
>> On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 19:08:55 +0000, Nick Finnigan <n...@genie.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 16:31:14 +0000, Nick Finnigan <n...@genie.co.uk>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> JNugent wrote:
>>>>>> Is there any word on its also being applied to footway-cycling and
>>>>>> ignoring traffic lights?
>>>>> It probably even applies to using a bicycle trailer without a rear
>>>>> reflector fitted to it.
>>>> It's lucky then that I have already found the loophole that avoids the
>>>> "tax" by having two reflectors fitted to my bicycle trailer.
>>> And what about the other bicycle trailers ?
>>
>> Yes, the loophole in the "tax" exists for that one too: with a
>> refelctor clearly visible the "tax" would not have to be paid.
>
> It would if there is no reflector on the trailer and the police can be
>bothered. Is there a rear reflector on that trailer too?
Oh! Do you mean the trailer in the fourth photo that I have just
added?
www.britishschoolofcycling.com/photos/trailer/
It looks like it has two excellent reflectors/lights fitted, so that
would pass the "tax" loophole too.
>> However, I am not convinced that the law covering reflectors on
>> bicycles applies to bicycle trailers.
>
> It doesn't, it is a separate, specific regulation.
Chris Juden agrees with you. I stand corrected.
thomas
"Tom Crispin" <kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote in message
news:ilhuj51b8ulq8ritp...@4ax.com...
> stick to the speed limit; don't park on the pavement; and keep out of
> advance stop reservoirs.
>
destroying the planet) but surely when someone parking is fined more than
someone who beats up a little old lady and steals her pension MUST surely be
wrong?
Its the same with the greenies influence - drug peddlars are fined less than
those who leave their bin lid open by 2 inches or put stuff in the wrong
bin
FrengaX
> On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 14:33:44 -0000, Chris Bartram
>
> > I'm not suggesting the law should not be upheld, but who is the victim
> > if someone speeds along a well lit clear motorway in good conditions?
>
> The people affected by the extra noise.
>
> Everyone affected by the extra pollution and CO2 emissions.
>
> On non-motorways, people put off walking and cycling by increased danger
> (perceived or actual) and increased difficulty crossing the road.
>
Er, none of your supposed "victims" is actually a victim of a crime
that would be elligible for any kind of payout.
Try again, and use your brain next time.
Ret.
> In article <t7mdnS-CRqr7GaLW...@pipex.net>, "Ret." <xxx>
> says...
>> It is certainly more reasonable than expecting the law abiding
>> majority to do so!
>>
> Speeding motorists are the "law abiding" majority. "Convicted"
> speeding motorists are not. Bear in mind very few of those paying a
> speeding fine are actually convicted of anything.
If you choose to pay a fixed penalty then you are admitting your guilt and
accepting your punishment.
Kev
thomas
"Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1jbp69r.1puabfe1ub7zb4N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
> Mike <Mi...@wherever.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> I assume it is for the victims of more serious crimes. The money has
>> to come from somewhere. At the moment from all tax payers pockets
>> indirectly.
>> So if you break the law ... you pay twice. Now what can you learn from
>> that and how do you think you could avoid it ? Not too difficult.
>
> And in a wonderful display of justice and fairness, the mugger, burglar,
> rapist and robber, those who commit acts of violence against the
> vulnerable, murdering scum and those who cheat thousands or even
> millions from the pockets of the general population will not have to pay
> this levy.
Agree completely with you - no joke, no insult!
delboy
>
> --
> No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at the
> population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as walking.
> Make an informed choice - visitwww.cyclehelmets.org.
One telling conclusion:
Non-helmeted riders are 14 times more likely to be involved in a fatal
crash than helmeted riders.
DC
Ian Dalziel
Provided you can park on the pavement without driving on the footpath.
--
Ian D
Nigel Cliffe
Do trace the source of the stats back, then you don't look silly. I stopped
tracing back the quote when I reached Thompson, Rivara and Thompson. Google
for it, the paper is a load of made up statistical tosh. The method can
prove that cycle helmets prevent leg and arm injuries !
- Nigel
--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/
Matt B
Not at all, that's another myth. It is quite legal to drive across the
footpath for access.
--
Matt B
Ian Dalziel
<matt....@nospam.london.com> wrote:
Access to property. Not access to the pavement.
--
Ian D
Steve Firth
> >Not at all, that's another myth. It is quite legal to drive across the
> >footpath for access.
>
> Access to property. Not access to the pavement.
Wrong again. It's quite legal to drive on the pavement in order to park
on the pavement. Even in London where parking on the pavement is
normally an offence.
You wil find that even in the most rabid anti-motorist boroughs such as
Kensington and Chelsea that there are areas where the borough has
provided on-pavement parking.
Mas...@bp.com
> Non-helmeted riders are 14 times more likely to be involved in a fatal
> crash than helmeted riders.
>
> DC
The Netherlands must be carnage for cyclists then, as nobody wears a
cycle helmet there.
--
Simon Mason
Matt B
Yes, and access to park.
> Not access to the pavement.
Unless parking. It is specifically NOT illegal for the purposes of parking.
--
Matt B
Peter Grange
Please don't believe everything you read. Please don't believe
_anything_ you read on that web site in particular unless you can
independently ascertain the accuracy.
Peter Grange
You will remember how fuel came down by 3p a litre when the VAT came
down, of course.
Elder
says...
--
Carl Robson
Get cashback on your purchases
Topcashback http://www.TopCashBack.co.uk/skraggy_uk/ref/index.htm
Greasypalm http://www.greasypalm.co.uk/r/?l=1006553
NM
> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 14:50:28 -0800 (PST), delboy
>
>
>
No, I've got a short memory but I do recall just how the cost of
living has risen with this bunch of clowns in charge, they have
brought stealth tax to an artform.
Adrian
like they were saying:
>>That is down to the increase in VAT, which adds about 3p/litre to the
>>price of petrol.
> You will remember how fuel came down by 3p a litre when the VAT came
> down, of course.
It didn't. As with alcohol, an amount equivalent to the VAT reduction was
added to the duty last year, with the intent of preventing a reduction.
What a surprise that that's not come off.
And, yes, I did sodding forget to fill up the other day.
Judith Smith
Please desist from posting bollocks here.
(It is impossible to sensibly compare the safety of cycling, the
wearing of helmets, the education of cyclists, the laws for
cyclists.......... and on, and on, and on - between the Netherlands
and the UK - because the circumstances are totally different)
--
Many cyclists are proving the need for registration by their contempt for the Highway Code and laws.
The answer:
All cyclists over 16 to take compulsory test, have compulsory insurance, and be registered.
Registration number to be clearly visible on the back of mandatory hi-viz vest.
Habitual law breakers' cycles confiscated and crushed.
(With thanks to KeithT for the idea)
Judith Smith
I am sorry - surely you are thinking of cyclehelmets.org : it is well
very known for factually incorrect and biased articles.
Judith Smith
<phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote:
>delboy <del.co...@tiscali.co.uk> considered Sun, 3 Jan 2010
>Thus proving that you will believe anything, even if it's a total
>fabrication.
Snigger : says the guy who still believes that 8 pedestrians are
killed each and every day because they have tripped up; hence proving
that cycling is a safer means of transport than walking.
Why not admit *your* stat is actually incorrect?
Peter Grange
I know precisely what I'm thinking of thank you.
Mas...@bp.com
> On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 02:59:38 -0800 (PST), "Mas...@BP.com"
>
> <Mas...@BP.com> wrote:
> >On 3 Jan, 09:51, delboy <del.copel...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> Non-helmeted riders are 14 times more likely to be involved in a fatal
> >> crash than helmeted riders.
>
> >> DC
>
> >The Netherlands must be carnage for cyclists then, as nobody wears a
> >cycle helmet there.
>
> Please desist from posting bollocks here.
Apologies. I realise that there has to be at least *one* helmeted
cyclist in the Netherlands for that statement to be true, as 14 times
nothing is still nothing.
--
Smon Mason
Matt B
> On 3 Jan, 09:51, delboy <del.copel...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Non-helmeted riders are 14 times more likely to be involved in a fatal
>> crash than helmeted riders.
>
> cycle helmet there.
That then is possibly why the world-renowned SWOV (the Dutch national
road safety research institute) state in their October 2009 "Bicycle
helmets" fact sheet:
"All in all, the SWOV has concluded that a bicycle helmet is
an effective means of protecting cyclists against head and brain
injury."
Ref: <http://www.swov.nl/rapport/Factsheets/UK/FS_Bicycle_helmets.pdf>
--
Matt B
Mas...@bp.com
> Mas...@BP.com wrote:
> > On 3 Jan, 09:51, delboy <del.copel...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> Non-helmeted riders are 14 times more likely to be involved in a fatal
> >> crash than helmeted riders.
>
> > The Netherlands must be carnage for cyclists then, as nobody wears a
> > cycle helmet there.
>
> That then is possibly why the world-renowned SWOV (the Dutch national
> road safety research institute) state in their October 2009 "Bicycle
> helmets" fact sheet:
>
> "All in all, the SWOV has concluded that a bicycle helmet is
> an effective means of protecting cyclists against head and brain
> injury."
I doubt if that report has had much of an impact on the ordinary Dutch
cycling fraternity. Mind you, the last time I was there was in June,
so maybe after Oct 09 they've become converted to helmet wearing. I
shall have to see if that is true in May when I visit again.
--
Simon Mason
Tom Crispin
I have no doubt that is true; I have little doubt that the following
is also true: wearing goggles is an effective means of protecting
cyclists against eye injury. That doesn't imply that wearing goggles
is necessary for safe trips by bicycle.
Mas...@bp.com
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
The big problem with these reports is that they lump (NPI) in small
knocks to the head as "head injuries". Most of these are nothing more
than something you would simply rub the affected spot and carry on. Of
course, serious head trauma caused by your bonce being hit at 40 mph
by a car are not mitigated by a plastic cup hat as they just compact
or get destroyed.
--
Simon Mason
The Medway Handyman
> There is a massive loophole in the new �15 victim surcharge
> law-breakers face for offences such as speeding, pavement parking and
> waiting in the advance stop reservoir at traffic light signals.
>
> This loophole is trivial for any would-be law breaker to exploit:
> stick to the speed limit; don't park on the pavement; and keep out of
> advance stop reservoirs.
>
> www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1239955/
You sem to be forgetting that
(a) motorists have clearly displayed registration numbers and can therefore
be aprehended for breaking the speed limit, wheras lycra louts can
completely ignore public safety by breaking them with no fear of punishment.
(b) parking on the pavement is a perfectly legal activity and is condoned by
many local authorities, wheras cycling on the pavement is dangerous to
pedestrians & illegal.
(c) advance stop reservoirs are a totally ridiculous concept, ironically
paid for by motorists for the benifit of sponging freeloading wanker
cyclists.
Cyclists of course love loopholes which enable them to remain unregulated
and avoid paying their share.
--
Dave - the small piece of 14th century armour used to protect the armpit.
JNugent
> Chris Bartram wrote:
>> Mike wrote:
>>> So if you break the law ... you pay twice.
>> Assuming you get caught.
>> So do you think it is a reasonable thing that a speeding motorist who
>> is caught, having harmed no-one compensates the victims of an rapist
>> who isn't, for example?
> It is certainly more reasonable than expecting the law abiding majority
> to do so!
Why?
We already support the social security system, legal aid and a host of other
forms of special assistance through taxes.
Making an offender compensate their specific victim is one thing (and very
fair, as long as kept within reason), but the idea of a �15 charge is
nonsensical. Its relatively low value is indicative of it being something
which has to be paid by *many* people before it can amount to anything which
can be of much compensation to anyone.
If people need to be compensated for crimes of which they have been victims,
and if the specific offender cannot be traced or cannot pay (the majority of
cases one way or other, I should think), the compensation (kept within
reasonable bounds) shouild come from the taxpayer in general, not from an
unconnected sub-group of individuals chosen by a method which is is near-random.
What next?
People with red hair to pay it?
People with a "K" in their name?
Fans of Des O'Connor?
The Medway Handyman
> On 2 Jan, 14:08, Peter Grange <pe...@plgrange.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 05:53:49 -0800 (PST), "Mas...@BP.com"
>>
>>
>>
>> <Mas...@BP.com> wrote:
>>> On 2 Jan, 13:33, Tom Crispin <kije.rem...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge>
>>>> There is a massive loophole in the new �15 victim surcharge
>>>> law-breakers face for offences such as speeding, pavement parking
>>>> and waiting in the advance stop reservoir at traffic light signals.
>>
>>>> This loophole is trivial for any would-be law breaker to exploit:
>>>> stick to the speed limit; don't park on the pavement; and keep out
>>>> of advance stop reservoirs.
>>
>>>> www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1239955/
>>
>>> all the time won't really understand your simple logic.
>>> They must enjoy giving HM Treasury even more of their hard earned
>>> money.
>>
>> According to more than one poster here, the vast majority of
>> motorists won't be affected by it anyway....
>>
> Mainly because of a lack of enforcement. Hence the all too common
> sight of speeders, cars on pavements and in ASLs.
Cars on pavements? You hypocritical cunt. Cyclists regularly terrorise
pedestrians by riding on the pavements.
ASL's simply should not exist. They delay tax paying motorists - who
ironically pay for them.
Mas...@bp.com
<davidl...@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> (c) advance stop reservoirs are a totally ridiculous concept, ironically
> paid for by motorists for the benifit of sponging freeloading wanker
> cyclists.
Wrong - like all city road infrastructure (except safety cameras)
ASL's are paid for out of Council Tax.
Including ones that don't drive.
--
Simon Mason
Mas...@bp.com
<davidl...@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> ASL's simply should not exist. They delay tax paying motorists
You can get rid of them if you wish. You can lobby your local Council
in Rochester or wherever, to simply remove them. Explain how they are
slowing you down as you go about your work and convince them that the
best place for cyclists is not in front where they are visible, but on
your left where they can be knocked over by left turners. Let us know
how you get on.
--
Simon Mason
Tony Dragon
Are the ASL's on the A3 in Wandsworth paid for from council tax?
--
Tony Dragon
Mas...@bp.com
You would have to look at the relevant Council's area of
responsibility to find out whether it comes under the Council's remit,
or is a trunk road which would be funded from the central Govt
treasury. Either way you look at it, it will not be directly funded in
any way from taxes a motorist would pay, purely from the fact of them
being a motorist and not just a payer of VAT, NI, PAYE etc.
--
Simon Mason
JNugent
Well, they're paid for out of local authority revenues, at least.
And 75% of that comes from sources other than the Council Tax. IOW, that 75%
comes from the general tax pot. So a maximum of about 25% of the cost of
street works not funded through the DoT comes from Council Tax.
And as we know (although there is much obfuscation about it), other things
being equal as regards income and expenditure on other goods with high duties
and taxes on them (eg, alcohol, tobacco), motorists pay more tax than
non-motorists. Not willingly, of course...
JNugent
The most positive it could possibly be would be "about 25%". But it might not
be even that.