two-wheeled scum murdering pedestrians again

On 11 apr, 19:26, The Medway Handyman
wrote:
On 10/04/2011 20:02, Front Mech wrote:

You fail to understand the difference between not being liable to pay
VED (non-payers) and evaders (many motorists).

You fail to understand the difference between motorists who pay Road Tax
and sponging cyclists who should pay to use push bikes on public roads.
The law is not with you on that one. Given that the rate of VED is
proportional to CO2 emissions of the vehicle, and the lowest band has
rate of 0 pounds per year, which Band would bicycles fall under?

And why should cyclists pay VED?

On 11 apr, 18:58, The Medway Handyman
wrote:
On 11/04/2011 06:11, Front Mech wrote:









Simon Mason - who cycles at 25mph in 20mph limits just because the limits do not apply to cyclists.

You attribute a motive or reason to Simon's behavior. Upon what is
this based?

A total disreagrd for the *well-being of vulnerable road users.

It is possible to drive or cycle at 25 mph with regard to other road
users. Not every motorist who breaks the speed limit is immediately
charged with careless, reckless or dangerous driving. In Simon's case
there is no speed limit. How do you know he disregarded the well-being
of vulnerable road users?

If the limit is 20 mph for cars there will be a good reason for it. *To
cycle at above that speed shows a total disregard for the safety of
others, particularly as a push bike is unstable under heavy braking &
cannot stop efficiently.

--
Dave - The Medway Handymanwww.medwayhandyman.co.uk

In what way is a bicycle unstable under heavy braking?

On 11/04/2011 21:17, Front Mech wrote:

Given that the rate of VED is
proportional to CO2 emissions of the vehicle,

Not in the UK it isn't. CO2 emission isn't taken into account.

and the lowest band has rate of 0 pounds per year,
which Band would bicycles fall under?

Given that it's not related to CO2 emissions, who knows.

And why should cyclists pay VED?

Why should motorists?

--
Matt B

On Apr 11, 9:17*pm, Front Mech wrote:
On 11 apr, 19:26, The Medway Handyman
wrote: On 10/04/2011 20:02, Front Mech wrote:

You fail to understand the difference between not being liable to pay
VED (non-payers) and evaders (many motorists).

You fail to understand the difference between motorists who pay Road Tax
and sponging cyclists who should pay to use push bikes on public roads.

The law is not with you on that one. Given that the rate of VED is
proportional to CO2 emissions of the vehicle, and the lowest band has
rate of 0 pounds per year, which Band would bicycles fall under?


VED Rates in 2010-11
Band A (up to 100g/km CO2) no fee

Since a bicycle emits less than 100g/km CO2 (actually 0g) it would be
in Band A - no fee.

--
Simon Mason

On 11/04/2011 21:54, Simon Mason wrote:
On Apr 11, 9:17 pm, Front wrote:
On 11 apr, 19:26, The Medway
wrote: On 10/04/2011 20:02, Front Mech wrote:

You fail to understand the difference between not being liable to pay
VED (non-payers) and evaders (many motorists).

You fail to understand the difference between motorists who pay Road Tax
and sponging cyclists who should pay to use push bikes on public roads.

The law is not with you on that one. Given that the rate of VED is
proportional to CO2 emissions of the vehicle, and the lowest band has
rate of 0 pounds per year, which Band would bicycles fall under?


VED Rates in 2010-11
Band A (up to 100g/km CO2) no fee

Since a bicycle emits less than 100g/km CO2 (actually 0g) it would be
in Band A - no fee.

If bikes were subject to VED what makes you think that it would (or
should) be based on their CO2 emission rate? With motor vehicles VED is
used to "persuade" people to buy vehicles with more efficient engines.
As bikes they don't have CO2 emitting engines why would the government
choose that measure?

In the event that bikes were taxed, what measure could be sensibly be
used to rate the environmental friendliness of bikes?

--
Matt B

Matt B wrote:
On 11/04/2011 21:54, Simon Mason wrote:
On Apr 11, 9:17 pm, Front wrote:
On 11 apr, 19:26, The Medway
wrote: On 10/04/2011 20:02, Front Mech wrote:

You fail to understand the difference between not being liable to
pay VED (non-payers) and evaders (many motorists).

You fail to understand the difference between motorists who pay
Road Tax and sponging cyclists who should pay to use push bikes on
public roads.

The law is not with you on that one. Given that the rate of VED is
proportional to CO2 emissions of the vehicle, and the lowest band
has rate of 0 pounds per year, which Band would bicycles fall under?


VED Rates in 2010-11
Band A (up to 100g/km CO2) no fee

Since a bicycle emits less than 100g/km CO2 (actually 0g) it would be
in Band A - no fee.

If bikes were subject to VED what makes you think that it would (or
should) be based on their CO2 emission rate? With motor vehicles VED
is used to "persuade" people to buy vehicles with more efficient
engines. As bikes they don't have CO2 emitting engines why would the
government choose that measure?

In the event that bikes were taxed, what measure could be sensibly be
used to rate the environmental friendliness of bikes?

zero rate for old ones that are kept in use. highest rate for unnecessary
frippery stuff.

On 11/04/2011 21:18, Front Mech wrote:
On 11 apr, 18:58, The Medway
wrote:
On 11/04/2011 06:11, Front Mech wrote:









Simon Mason - who cycles at 25mph in 20mph limits just because the limits do not apply to cyclists.

You attribute a motive or reason to Simon's behavior. Upon what is
this based?

A total disreagrd for the well-being of vulnerable road users.

It is possible to drive or cycle at 25 mph with regard to other road
users. Not every motorist who breaks the speed limit is immediately
charged with careless, reckless or dangerous driving. In Simon's case
there is no speed limit. How do you know he disregarded the well-being
of vulnerable road users?

If the limit is 20 mph for cars there will be a good reason for it. To
cycle at above that speed shows a total disregard for the safety of
others, particularly as a push bike is unstable under heavy braking&
cannot stop efficiently.

--
Dave - The Medway Handymanwww.medwayhandyman.co.uk

In what way is a bicycle unstable under heavy braking?

Just how thick are you?

Car; Four tyres roughly 150mm wide, servo, ABS.
Push bike; Two tyres roughly 25mm wide.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On 11/04/2011 21:17, Front Mech wrote:
On 11 apr, 19:26, The Medway
wrote:
On 10/04/2011 20:02, Front Mech wrote:

You fail to understand the difference between not being liable to pay
VED (non-payers) and evaders (many motorists).

You fail to understand the difference between motorists who pay Road Tax
and sponging cyclists who should pay to use push bikes on public roads.

The law is not with you on that one. Given that the rate of VED is
proportional to CO2 emissions of the vehicle, and the lowest band has
rate of 0 pounds per year, which Band would bicycles fall under?

Road Tax has been altered to pacify the Green lobby & raise extra
revenue. It has **** all to do with CO2 emissions. If it did, pre 1973
cars wouldn't be exempt would they?

And why should cyclists pay Road Tax?

IFYPFY.

Because they use 'Roads'.



--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On 11/04/2011 22:39, Mrcheerful wrote:
Matt B wrote:
On 11/04/2011 21:54, Simon Mason wrote:
On Apr 11, 9:17 pm, Front wrote:
On 11 apr, 19:26, The Medway
wrote: On 10/04/2011 20:02, Front Mech wrote:

You fail to understand the difference between not being liable to
pay VED (non-payers) and evaders (many motorists).

You fail to understand the difference between motorists who pay
Road Tax and sponging cyclists who should pay to use push bikes on
public roads.

The law is not with you on that one. Given that the rate of VED is
proportional to CO2 emissions of the vehicle, and the lowest band
has rate of 0 pounds per year, which Band would bicycles fall under?


VED Rates in 2010-11
Band A (up to 100g/km CO2) no fee

Since a bicycle emits less than 100g/km CO2 (actually 0g) it would be
in Band A - no fee.

If bikes were subject to VED what makes you think that it would (or
should) be based on their CO2 emission rate? With motor vehicles VED
is used to "persuade" people to buy vehicles with more efficient
engines. As bikes they don't have CO2 emitting engines why would the
government choose that measure?

In the event that bikes were taxed, what measure could be sensibly be
used to rate the environmental friendliness of bikes?

zero rate for old ones that are kept in use. highest rate for unnecessary
frippery stuff.

Extra tax on lycra?




--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 22:39:09 +0100, "Mrcheerful"
wrote:

Matt B wrote:
On 11/04/2011 21:54, Simon Mason wrote:
On Apr 11, 9:17 pm, Front wrote:
On 11 apr, 19:26, The Medway
wrote: On 10/04/2011 20:02, Front Mech wrote:

You fail to understand the difference between not being liable to
pay VED (non-payers) and evaders (many motorists).

You fail to understand the difference between motorists who pay
Road Tax and sponging cyclists who should pay to use push bikes on
public roads.

The law is not with you on that one. Given that the rate of VED is
proportional to CO2 emissions of the vehicle, and the lowest band
has rate of 0 pounds per year, which Band would bicycles fall under?


VED Rates in 2010-11
Band A (up to 100g/km CO2) no fee

Since a bicycle emits less than 100g/km CO2 (actually 0g) it would be
in Band A - no fee.

If bikes were subject to VED what makes you think that it would (or
should) be based on their CO2 emission rate? With motor vehicles VED
is used to "persuade" people to buy vehicles with more efficient
engines. As bikes they don't have CO2 emitting engines why would the
government choose that measure?

In the event that bikes were taxed, what measure could be sensibly be
used to rate the environmental friendliness of bikes?

zero rate for old ones that are kept in use. highest rate for unnecessary
frippery stuff.

Would carbon bikes attract extra tax as being "unnecessary frippery
stuff" or a subsidy for using up carbon?