Cyclist casualties up 9% in London.

On May 25, 4:36*pm, JNugent wrote:
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?

Doubt it. He would probably support the introduction of automatic
braking.

On May 25, 4:35*pm, JNugent wrote:
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).

How much would it cost to enforce the system?

On 25/05/2011 18:56, Squashme wrote:
On May 25, 4:36 pm, wrote:
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?

Doubt it. He would probably support the introduction of automatic
braking.

That's what I said.

On 25/05/2011 18:57, Squashme wrote:
On May 25, 4:35 pm, wrote:
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).

How much would it cost to enforce the system?

It doesn't matter. It can and should be charged up to those who need to
register but fail to do so.

On May 25, 7:12*pm, JNugent wrote:
On 25/05/2011 18:57, Squashme wrote:

On May 25, 4:35 pm, *wrote:
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).

How much would it cost to enforce the system?

It doesn't matter. It can and should be charged up to those who need to
register but fail to do so.

But how would you find them?

On May 25, 6:57*pm, Squashme wrote:
On May 25, 4:35*pm, JNugent wrote:

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).

How much would it cost to enforce the system?

And who, other than a madman, would want to create even more laws and
new taxes for no net benefit whatsoever?
Like compulsory helmets, it would just create more bureaucracy which
would cost millions to introduce, create criminals of paper boys and
little old ladies alike and be hugely detrimental to the health and
safety of the nation. Impossible to police as well, since the police
do not seem to feel minor transgressions by cyclists are worth the
effort *already*, without making even more laws for Plod to ignore.

--
Simon Mason

On 25/05/2011 19:18, Squashme wrote:
On May 25, 7:12 pm, wrote:
On 25/05/2011 18:57, Squashme wrote:

On May 25, 4:35 pm, wrote:
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).

How much would it cost to enforce the system?

It doesn't matter. It can and should be charged up to those who need to
register but fail to do so.

But how would you find them?

In the same was as motorised road tax dodgers are "found".

Being able to identify offences and offenders is one of the principal reasons
- in fact, the principal reason - for the necessity of registration and
licensing.

On 25/05/2011 07:49, Doug wrote:
On May 25, 7:42 am, wrote:
On 24/05/2011 23:00, wrote:

Yes. Second only to walking. If it wasn't for an actual bike to keep
chaining up, it would be better than walking. (I'm talking mainly about
the congestion-charge zone, where bikes can easily keep up with traffic.)

But other than that a completely useless form of transport.

Useless how? I used to walk my short journeys and take my car on longer
ones mainly from a time perspective. There was a point where (to me)
there was a time payoff where taking the car became a better choice.

With the bike I've extended my range further and reduce my number of car
trips, and I feel fitter for it.

It's all about using the most appropriate form of transport for the job
in hand. I wouldn't for example try and take a huge parcel to the Post
Office on my bike, I'd take the car even though I could easily ride
there in 5 minutes. Likewise I wouldn't take the car to the local shop
if all I wanted was a few nicknacks

You could use a bicycle trailer for trips to the Post Office. Where
there's a will there's a way.

Indeed you could. Like the Cwispin idiot who towed a vastly overloaded
trailer full of compost through rush hour traffic.

--
Dave - Cyclists VOR.

On 25/05/2011 08:10, Abo wrote:
On 24/05/2011 23:10, wrote:
On 24/05/2011 19:36, FrengaX wrote:
On May 24, 7:30 pm, wrote:
On 24/05/2011 19:11, Squashme wrote:





On May 24, 4:01 pm, wrote:
On 24/05/2011 10:45, FrengaX wrote:

On May 23, 11:53 pm, wrote:
On 23/05/2011 22:08, BartC wrote:

wrote in message
...

More reasons to ban them from the roads.

And move them onto pavements, or ban them completely?

Ban them completely.

Actually, regulation would be much better. Number plates,
compulsory
hi-viz, proficiency test before licence, compulsory insurance,
payment
of a specific tax before the cycle could be used on the road.

Oh, of course regulation always solves everything doesn't it? So
many
cack-handed examples of regulation by government doing nothing but
frustrating people and keeping civil servants in a job. How, for
example, would taxing cyclists reduce the casualty rate?

By paying for the registration system and its operation (along with
inspection and enforcement of cycling standards and compulsory
insurance) so
that it would be not a charge upon the taxpayer.

Is there any reason why the taxpayer should bear the cost?

Accepting your idea that "inspection and enforcement of cycling
standards" would "reduce the casualty rate," do you have any idea of
how much your idea would cost and how much it would reduce the
casualty rate?

Was there an accurate idea of how many casualties would be eliminated
by the
introduction of motor vehicle driving licences, road tax, compulsory
insurance, regulation of construction (constantly amended), compulsory
driving tests or periodic test of vehicle roadworthiness?

If there wasn't, does that mean it all shouldn't have been done?

Do you think that cyclists would be any more willing to pay for the
scheme than motorists would be willing to pay for vehicles with
automatic braking in order to save many thousands of deaths and
serious injuries?

You're trying to compare apples and oranges, aren't you?

Why on Earth would law-abiding cyclist not be willing to pay for
registration, licenising and insurance?

Er, are you seriously asking that? Why on earth should I pay some
arbitrary tax that would be of zero benefit to me?

Because you accept the benefit of using the roads.

Sponging freeloader.


He pays for the roads through general taxation same as everyone else who
pays tax in this country.

Here we go again;

See John paying Income Tax, NI & VAT.
See Janet paying exactly the same Income Tax, NI & VAT.

See John buy a shiny new pushbike.
See Janet buy a shiny new car - but not one of the very few exceptions
to Road Tax.

See John ride his new pushbike on public roads without paying a specific
extra tax.
John likes his new pushbike.

John has a new pair of lycra bib shorts.
See John searching for the pockets.

John can’t find any pockets, but its OK because cyclists never put their
hands in them.

See PC Plod telling Janet she can't use her new car on the road unless
she has Road Tax.
PC Plod uses the term Road Tax because everyone knows what it means.

Janet knows what Road Tax is. Its a specific extra tax.
Janet knows her shiny new car could be crushed if she doesn’t pay Road Tax.

John pretends not to know what Road Tax is - because he is a sponging
freeloader.

See Janet going to the Post Office with a large amount of cash.

Mr Stamp at the Post Office knows exactly what Janet means when she asks
for Road Tax.

Janet pays lots of money to Mr Stamp for her Road Tax Disc.

See Janet drive her car on the road without having to worry about PC
Plod and his ANPR cameras.







--
Dave - Cyclists VOR.

On May 25, 7:37*pm, JNugent wrote:
On 25/05/2011 19:18, Squashme wrote:



On May 25, 7:12 pm, *wrote:
On 25/05/2011 18:57, Squashme wrote:

On May 25, 4:35 pm, * *wrote:
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).

How much would it cost to enforce the system?

It doesn't matter. It can and should be charged up to those who need to
register but fail to do so.

But how would you find them?

In the same was as motorised road tax dodgers are "found".

Being able to identify offences and offenders is one of the principal reasons
- in fact, the principal reason - for the necessity of registration and
licensing.

2007:-
"The National Audit Office (NAO) survey revealed that the number of
vehicles without road tax rose from 3.6% to 5% between June 2005 and
2006, meaning an additional loss of £70 million in unpaid tax over the
12 months.

The NAO also warned that, as a result, the Driver and Vehicle
Licensing Agency (DVLA) had little prospect of achieving its target of
reducing tax evasion to 2.5% by December 2007.

Sir John Bourn, head of the NAO, cautioned: 'I was concerned last year
that the significantly higher rates of VED evasion might undermine
confidence in the DVLA's enforcement regime. My concern is even
stronger this year.'

In addition, the NAO discovered that 60% of people who were issued
Late Licensing Penalties for either avoiding road tax or late payment
were not pursued through the courts or debt-collection agencies."