Cyclist casualties up 9% in London.

On 25/05/2011 20:50, Squashme wrote:
On May 25, 7:37 pm, 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."

Even at the worst, that's 60% of 5%, ie, 3%, failing to pay what is due.

0% would be better.

I'm not going to apologise for failures in law enforcement.

On May 25, 9:27*pm, JNugent wrote:
On 25/05/2011 20:50, Squashme wrote:



On May 25, 7:37 pm, *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."

Even at the worst, that's 60% of 5%, ie, 3%, failing to pay what is due.

0% would be better.

I'm not going to apologise for failures in law enforcement.

Really, I assumed that in your exalted position you would bear some
responsiblity. Never mind, doubtless the £70 million can be made up
from cyclists' future taxation.

On 25/05/2011 20:50, Squashme wrote:
On May 25, 7:37 pm, wrote:


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.

2007:-
"The National Audit Office (NAO) survey revealed that the number of
vehicles with road tax fell from 96.4% to 95% between June 2005 and
2006, meaning that the overwhelming majority paid.



--
Dave - Cyclists VOR.

On 26/05/2011 01:07, wrote:

On 25/05/2011 20:50, Squashme wrote:
On May 25, 7:37 pm, wrote:

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.

2007:-
"The National Audit Office (NAO) survey revealed that the number of
vehicles with road tax fell from 96.4% to 95% between June 2005 and
2006, meaning that the overwhelming majority paid.

A proportion of this "lost" tax will be connected with the entirely contrived
requirement for vehicles to be taxed even when they're off-road and not in
use - unless a particular set of bureaucratic hoops is jumped through by
their owners.

Disregard the SORN requirement and the "lost" tax would be lower still. It's
already very low, of course. Much lower than the amount of income tax and VAT
lost through fraud on the Revenue & Customs and far lower than the amount of
taxpayer money lost to fraudulent benefit claimants.

That is not to say that the authorities should not take better steps to
detect road tax fraud. IMHO, they certainly should.

On May 25, 9:29*am, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 25/05/2011 07:17, Doug wrote:
...

Well we know from past surveys that a majority of motorists knowingly
exceed speed limits,...

When the Road Research Laboratory did an extensive study of speed
limits, their conclusion was that the purpose of speed limits should not
be seen as being to keep traffic at or below the set limit.

Source? Link? I would like to verify your claim.

Rather, they
should be seen as a way to avoid large differentials in traffic speed
and as a way to reduce significantly the number of vehicles that grossly
exceed the set limit. Their suggestions of what constituted 'grossly
exceeding' the limit quite closely match the ACPO recommendations on the
point at which prosecution would be appropriate.

So what are you suggesting here, that its OK to exceed speed limits as
long as its not by very much? I know there is some latitude because of
speedometer inaccuracies but it doesn't make it OK in principle. What
about places where locals want speed limits to be lowered anyway,
particularly past schools?

Doug.

On May 25, 8:33*pm, wrote:
Here we go again;

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



Here we go again, indeed.
See Janet in her car.
Janet has never paid any money at all for VED, fuel, tyres, MOT,
insurance, repairs, servicing yada, yada.
Ever.
She has never even paid for her speeding fines.
Her cycling husband, John has paid every penny for the last 30 years.
Janet is a sponging freeloading driver.

--
Simon Mason

On 26/05/2011 05:51, Doug wrote:
On May 25, 9:29 am, "Nightjar\"cpb\"@""insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 25/05/2011 07:17, Doug wrote:
...

Well we know from past surveys that a majority of motorists knowingly
exceed speed limits,...

When the Road Research Laboratory did an extensive study of speed
limits, their conclusion was that the purpose of speed limits should not
be seen as being to keep traffic at or below the set limit.

Source? Link? I would like to verify your claim.

The source would be the Road Research Laboratory SHB's.

Rather, they
should be seen as a way to avoid large differentials in traffic speed
and as a way to reduce significantly the number of vehicles that grossly
exceed the set limit. Their suggestions of what constituted 'grossly
exceeding' the limit quite closely match the ACPO recommendations on the
point at which prosecution would be appropriate.

So what are you suggesting here, that its OK to exceed speed limits as
long as its not by very much? I know there is some latitude because of
speedometer inaccuracies but it doesn't make it OK in principle. What
about places where locals want speed limits to be lowered anyway,
particularly past schools?

Speak to your bum chum Simple Simon.

The speed limit on a road past three schools is 20 mph. Simple rides
past at 25 mph because 'the limit doesn't apply' to him.


--
Dave - Cyclists VOR.

On May 26, 8:28*am, wrote:

The speed limit on a road past three schools is 20 mph. *Simple rides
past at 25 mph because 'the limit doesn't apply' to him.


I have "bald" tyres as well.

--
Simon Mason

On May 25, 11:58*pm, Phil W Lee wrote:
Simon Mason considered Wed, 25 May 2011 01:37:27
-0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:





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.

The sad git doesn't seem to realise that only a very small minority of
cyclists CAN exceed 25mph in most 20mph zones.

I bet you don't have working brake lights on your bicycle either - Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I don't.
Yet another law that I am accused of *not* breaking.
It's amazing the number of laws that I don't break on my daily
commute.
--
Simon Mason

On Wed, 25 May 2011 21:51:56 -0700 (PDT), Doug wrote:

snip

So what are you suggesting here, that its OK to exceed speed limits as
long as its not by very much? I know there is some latitude because of
speedometer inaccuracies but it doesn't make it OK in principle. What
about places where locals want speed limits to be lowered anyway,
particularly past schools?


Yes - they have done this in Hull past three schools.

The only problem is that the local ****wit cyclist says that the limits do not
apply to him - so up yours everyone.

--
Simple 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.