Cyclist casualties up 9% in London.

On 25 May, 10:42, Simon Mason wrote:
On May 25, 8:12*am, Abo wrote:

On 25/05/2011 00:12, JNugent wrote:

Why would/should it be different for cyclists (not that I suggested
setting the taxation at any more than the cost of administering the
system)?

How much would it cost to administer the system?

As a VED disc cost about a quid to issue, then it would be at least 30
million to issue a VED disc saying "fee £0" on it.
Every year, i.e. heavily cash negative to the Treasury.

--
Simon Mason

Many years ago, I was involved in the abolition of the dog licence.
Dogs, and their ****, and their encouragement or otherwise, provoked
(and still do) passions as intense, on both sides of the case, as
displayed on this group.

When it was abolished in 1987 it stood at the grand sum of 37.5p: it
had proved impossible, politically, ever to increase it from the
original 7s/6d introduced a century or so earlier. It had proved
equally impossible to abolish it, despite the fact that it served
absolutely no purpose in controlling dogs or enforcing responsible
ownership; cost quite a few pounds to process each one; and was bought
by a smallish minority of dog owners.

The government's hand was forced by the abolition of the decimal
halfpenny. It was equally impossible, politically, to reduce it to
37p, or to increase it to 38p (or some much higher figure that might
at least have covered its costs). And it was clearly insane to spend
the huge amounts (of money and political capital) needed to ensure
that most dog-owners actually bought it, whatever price you charged.

So ministers took their courage in both hands and abolished it: this
was considered at the time to be enormously brave (even when done by
Mrs T's government at the height of her pomp).

The moral, I think, is that you need to think pretty hard about what
you want to achieve before introducing a licence; even harder about
whether a licence is a cost-effective way of achieving what you want
to achieve; and even harder about whether it would carry on being
effective in the longer term, after immediate passions have died down.

I don't see much sign of such thinking here.

On May 25, 11:30*am, martynh wrote:
On 25 May, 10:42, Simon Mason wrote:





On May 25, 8:12*am, Abo wrote:

On 25/05/2011 00:12, JNugent wrote:

Why would/should it be different for cyclists (not that I suggested
setting the taxation at any more than the cost of administering the
system)?

How much would it cost to administer the system?

As a VED disc cost about a quid to issue, then it would be at least 30
million to issue a VED disc saying "fee £0" on it.
Every year, i.e. heavily cash negative to the Treasury.

--
Simon Mason

Many years ago, I was involved in the abolition of the dog licence.
Dogs, and their ****, and their encouragement or otherwise, provoked
(and still do) passions as intense, on both sides of the case, as
displayed on this group.

When it was abolished in 1987 it stood at the grand sum of 37.5p: it
had proved impossible, politically, ever to increase it from the
original 7s/6d introduced a century or so earlier. It had proved
equally impossible to abolish it, despite the fact that it served
absolutely no purpose in controlling dogs or enforcing responsible
ownership; cost quite a few pounds to process each one; and was bought
by a smallish minority of dog owners.

Interesting story. I assume that the same impracticality led to the
abolition of the separate wireless licence, as they mutated from large
valve sets anchored in one's drawing room, to millions of small
trannies that teenagers listened to Radio Caroline on?

--
Simon Mason

On 25 May, 13:02, Simon Mason wrote:
On May 25, 11:30*am, martynh wrote:





On 25 May, 10:42, Simon Mason wrote:

On May 25, 8:12*am, Abo wrote:

On 25/05/2011 00:12, JNugent wrote:

Why would/should it be different for cyclists (not that I suggested
setting the taxation at any more than the cost of administering the
system)?

How much would it cost to administer the system?

As a VED disc cost about a quid to issue, then it would be at least 30
million to issue a VED disc saying "fee £0" on it.
Every year, i.e. heavily cash negative to the Treasury.

--
Simon Mason

Many years ago, I was involved in the abolition of the dog licence.
Dogs, and their ****, and their encouragement or otherwise, provoked
(and still do) passions as intense, on both sides of the case, as
displayed on this group.

When it was abolished in 1987 it stood at the grand sum of 37.5p: it
had proved impossible, politically, ever to increase it from the
original 7s/6d introduced a century or so earlier. It had proved
equally impossible to abolish it, despite the fact that it served
absolutely no purpose in controlling dogs or enforcing responsible
ownership; cost quite a few pounds to process each one; and was bought
by a smallish minority of dog owners.

Interesting story. I assume that the same impracticality led to the
abolition of the separate wireless licence, as they mutated from large
valve sets anchored in one's drawing room, to millions of small
trannies that teenagers listened to Radio Caroline on?

--
Simon Mason

Partly, but reinforced in that case by the fact that almost everyone
with a radio was also paying a lot more for a TV licence, which was
much easier, and more cost-effective, to enforce. On the same
argument, most adult cyclists would get their bike licence for free,
on the basis that they already pay VED.

On Wed, 25 May 2011 01:42:32 -0700 (PDT), Simon Mason
wrote:

On May 25, 8:12*am, Abo wrote:
On 25/05/2011 00:12, JNugent wrote:

Why would/should it be different for cyclists (not that I suggested
setting the taxation at any more than the cost of administering the
system)?

How much would it cost to administer the system?

As a VED disc cost about a quid to issue, then it would be at least 30
million to issue a VED disc saying "fee £0" on it.
Every year, i.e. heavily cash negative to the Treasury.



Now lets have a think about this.

Is there any way at all we could recover that money? Hmmmm - difficult one,
that.

Please Sir, please Sir - says a 5 year old. Why not make the cyclists pay for
all the costs of collection - it would only be an extra pound each.

My, my - what a Simple and effective answer.
--
Simon Mason - who cycles at 25mph in 20mph limits just because the limits do not apply to cyclists.
This includes exceeding the speed limit past three schools. A total disregard for the well-being of vulnerable road users.
The actions of a true psycholist.

On Wed, 25 May 2011 01:37:27 -0700 (PDT), Simon Mason
wrote:

On May 24, 11:19*pm, wrote:
On 24/05/2011 17:26, Simon Mason wrote:





On May 23, 12:16 pm, *wrote:

"...During his time as a councillor in the London Borough of Barnet,
Coleman has built up a reputation as an outspoken supporter of car
driving, leading Richard Littlejohn to label him a "hero" for
introducing a policy of removing road humps when the roads of Barnet
are resurfaced.

In Hull, residents can contact KHCC and request that a 20mph zone be
put in down their street. The Traffic Services officer then assesses
the request and if passed, a 20mph zone policed by humps is installed.
Since their introduction, not a single one has been removed, on the
contrary, there is a back log of requests. No wonder, as they are so
popular.

5. *WHAT RESIDENTS THINK

* *In August 2000, we asked 3,700 residents of existing 20 mph zones
what they thought of the scheme, 546 replied (15 per cent).

— *Over 25 per cent of respondents said that they walked or cycled
more since the scheme was introduced.

— *Nearly 80 per cent of respondents thought that the installation of
the scheme was a good idea.

— *Over 70 per cent of respondents said that they would recommend
traffic calming to someone in another area.

— *78 per cent of respondents felt that traffic speeds had reduced
since the measures were installed.

— *25 per cent of respondents felt that there was less traffic since
the 20 mph zone had been installed.

— *Over 50 per cent of respondents felt that the 20 mph zone had made
the area a more pleasant place in which to live. This was particularly
encouraging since all of the areas surveyed also suffer from a variety
of other problems.

— *60 per cent of respondents felt that more children played in the
street.

And 100% of arrogant anti social cyclists rode at 25mph because "the law
doesn't apply to me".

--
Dave - Cyclists VOR.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I also cycle with bald tyres, no MOT, no VED disc, no reg number, no
windscreen wipers, over the drink drive limit (in the past), no
catalyser or exhaust pipe and guess what?

I am breaking no laws *whatsoever* - get over it.



You missed off exceeding the speed limit.

Simple really.

--
Simon Mason - who cycles at 25mph in 20mph limits just because the limits do not apply to cyclists.
This includes exceeding the speed limit past three schools. A total disregard for the well-being of vulnerable road users.
The actions of a true psycholist.

On 25/05/2011 08:12, Abo wrote:

On 25/05/2011 00:12, JNugent wrote:

Why would/should it be different for cyclists (not that I suggested
setting the taxation at any more than the cost of administering the
system)?

How much would it cost to administer the system?

It doesn't matter. It can and should be charged up to those who need to
register. Just as with motor vehicles (where the registration and licensing
scheme makes a whopping profit as well as creating a control and
identification system).

On 25/05/2011 09:37, Simon Mason wrote:

I also cycle with bald tyres, no MOT, no VED disc, no reg number, no
windscreen wipers, over the drink drive limit (in the past), no
catalyser or exhaust pipe and guess what?

You're completely self-centred and couldn't give a tinker's cuss for the
safety of anyone else?

On May 25, 12:17*pm, martynh wrote:

Interesting story. I assume that the same impracticality led to the
abolition of the separate wireless licence, as they mutated from large
valve sets anchored in one's drawing room, to millions of small
trannies that teenagers listened to Radio Caroline on?

--
Simon Mason

Partly, but reinforced in that case by the fact that almost everyone
with a radio was also paying a lot more for a TV licence, which was
much easier, and more cost-effective, to enforce. On the same
argument, most adult cyclists would get their bike licence for free,
on the basis that they already pay VED.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Good idea.
It would be a better scheme for a car owner who predominantly cycles
and yet pays full VED to be entitled to some sort of rebate.
Since I cycle 6000 miles a year, all year round, then I am paying 245
quid for not polluting the air. I am a big advocate of scrapping VED
all together and putting an extra tax on fuel, then at least the
people who use the most fuel and thus cause the most pollution end up
paying their true share and those who choose not to pollute,
effectively get a rebate.

--
Simon Mason

On 25/05/2011 16:49, Simon Mason wrote:

It would be a better scheme for a car owner who predominantly cycles
and yet pays full VED to be entitled to some sort of rebate.
Since I cycle 6000 miles a year, all year round, then I am paying 245
quid for not polluting the air. I am a big advocate of scrapping VED
all together and putting an extra tax on fuel, then at least the
people who use the most fuel and thus cause the most pollution end up
paying their true share and those who choose not to pollute,
effectively get a rebate.

But then we'd have a tax which actually taxed you for the amount you
pollute, congest, wear out the roads etc. etc. Surely that makes too
much common sense :/

On May 25, 5:09*pm, Abo wrote:
On 25/05/2011 16:49, Simon Mason wrote:

It would be a better scheme for a car owner who predominantly cycles
and yet pays full VED to be entitled to some sort of rebate.
Since I cycle 6000 miles a year, all year round, then I am paying 245
quid for not polluting the air. I am a big advocate of scrapping VED
all together and putting an extra tax on fuel, then at least the
people who use the most fuel and thus cause the most pollution end up
paying their true share and those who choose not to pollute,
effectively get a rebate.

But then we'd have a tax which actually taxed you for the amount you
pollute, congest, wear out the roads etc. etc. Surely that makes too
much common sense :/

Of course we can't have taxation policies that actually make sense can
we?
--
Simon Mason