 | |
When are you too old to drive?
Classic Cars (UK) Classic Cars in the UK (uk.rec.cars.classic)
 |
| | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#11
 
| |||
| |||
|
Re: When are you too old to drive? -
04-10-2007
, 11:16 AM
|
An owner of two cars would be just as much a VED payer as an owner of one - |
Quote:
|
it seems to be your claim that only those who have paid VED can "have a say". Correct. |
--
Conor
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright
until you hear them speak.........
#12
| |||
| |||
|
|
On 10 Apr 2007 06:37:48 GMT, Adrian wrote: And if an owner (& vehicle excise duty payer) of a motorcar decides to ride a cycle, your attitude would be... VED pays for the vehicle, not the user of the vehicle. Your logic would mean that I don't need to buy a tax disc for each of my cars, one is sufficient. How does that follow? An owner of two cars would be just as much a VED payer as an owner of one - the amount is immaterial; it seems to be your claim that only those who have paid VED can "have a say". So, again, I ask, what would you say to an owner of a motorcar (and VED payer) who decides to ride a cycle? It cannot be that because they have not paid (for they have) that they should "have no say"? For that matter, there are some motorcars for which the VED is zero - should they also "have no say"? Please explain yourself further. |
When you pay, you can have a say.
#13
| |||
| |||
|
|
_ (jtaylor (AT) NOSPAMeastlink (DOT) ca) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying : And if an owner (& vehicle excise duty payer) of a motorcar decides to ride a cycle, your attitude would be... VED pays for the vehicle, not the user of the vehicle. Your logic would mean that I don't need to buy a tax disc for each of my cars, one is sufficient. How does that follow? Simple. You claim somebody who pays VED on one vehicle can expect that VED to cover their use of another vehicle. I maintain it does not. |
#14
| |||
| |||
|
|
In article <fveiarrcqodt$.1a4a6irhx6pj8$.dlg (AT) 40tude (DOT) net>, _ says... An owner of two cars would be just as much a VED payer as an owner of one - Wrong, They'd pay twice. |
should be different, merly because they pay different amounts?
Quote:
|
it seems to be your claim that only those who have paid VED can "have a say". Correct. |
#15
| |||
| |||
|
|
You claim somebody who pays VED on one vehicle can expect that VED to cover their use of another vehicle. I maintain it does not. What VED is payable for the bicycle? |
#16
| |||
| |||
|
|
An owner of two cars would be just as much a VED payer as an owner of one - Wrong, They'd pay twice. In either case, they have paid VED. |
Quote:
|
Are you saying that their status should be different, merly because they pay different amounts? |
Quote:
|
it seems to be your claim that only those who have paid VED can "have a say". Correct. So owners of motorcars for which the VED is zero should have no say? |
The tax disc proves compliance of the vehicle with other regulations, too -
it proves a certain degree of compliance with roadworthiness, insurance and
registration regulations which are deemed essential for safe, tracable road
use of most classes of vehicles.
#17
| |||
| |||
|
|
"Brian Nystrom" <brian.nystrom (AT) verizon (DOT) net> wrote in message news:a5qRh.9046$hI4.8448 (AT) trndny08 (DOT) .. Judging by the list of newsgroups this crap was spammed to and the fake return address, it appears that the real point of this post is to piss off as many people as possible. This is TROLL, nothing more. As a cyclist, this is aggravating as it's hard enough to get drivers to share the road without some moron like this guy encouraging them to "knock us off". Although I wouldn't go as far as advocating knocking someone off his/her pushbike, it is bloody enfuriating when I (and no doubt many others as well) come up behind 2 (or more) brain-dead self-centred cycling fucktards (and yes, I appreciate that not all cyclists fall into that description) cycling at least two-abreast on a main "A" road when the highway code clearly states single file on "A" roads! Happens a lot around my neck of the woods, creating frustration and congestion when there doesn't need to be. Oh, and why do some cyclists have this exceedingly selfish "I'll cycle where I want when I want because I can" attitude, ignoring the smooth, clean, pothole-free specially-constructed £1.2million cycle-way in favour of creating congestion on the rough-surfaced, dirty highway 3 yards away?? Now, live and let live is all very well etc etc, but if I was to use their empty cycleway on my motorbike or 4x4 (it's plenty wide enough!) I bet they'd be up in arms! Wankers! |
driving with the french rules on junctions? Because that's what you've
effectively got to do on pavement cyclepaths, give way to side roads rather
than have them give way to you, which is a massive pain in the arse. And if
you struggle to overtake a cyclist, get a faster car or learn how to drive -
it's not hard work.
#18
| |||
| |||
|
|
_ (jtaylor (AT) NOSPAMeastlink (DOT) ca) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying : You claim somebody who pays VED on one vehicle can expect that VED to cover their use of another vehicle. I maintain it does not. What VED is payable for the bicycle? Precisely. |
collect a bit of cash. Bikes, like horses and pedestrians, are allowed to
use the road whenever they like, whereas cars have to have an MOT, VED and a
licensed driver - it's everyone apart from people in cars who have a right
to use the roads.
And, FWIW, bikes have to be road legal, and can be pulled up and checked
just the same as a car. The fact that the police seem not to GAF about
enforcing this pisses me off as much as it does you - every cunt riding a
fucking bike with no brakes (take a look at the next BMX you see being
ridden by an adult), or only back brakes, or riding on the pavement, or
jumping lights, is making drivers think that cyclists are cunts. The even
more irritating part of it is that most of the time it's obvious if a bike
isn't road legal, whereas a car with bald tyres is much harder to spot, so
the police haven't really got an excuse.
#19
| |||
| |||
|
|
The VED is a way to make people keep cars registered in their names, and collect a bit of cash. Bikes, like horses and pedestrians, are allowed to use the road whenever they like, whereas cars have to have an MOT, VED and a licensed driver - it's everyone apart from people in cars who have a right to use the roads. And, FWIW, bikes have to be road legal, and can be pulled up and checked just the same as a car. The fact that the police seem not to GAF about enforcing this pisses me off as much as it does you - every cunt riding a fucking bike with no brakes (take a look at the next BMX you see being ridden by an adult), or only back brakes, or riding on the pavement, or jumping lights, is making drivers think that cyclists are cunts. The even more irritating part of it is that most of the time it's obvious if a bike isn't road legal, whereas a car with bald tyres is much harder to spot, so the police haven't really got an excuse. |
paperwork? How would they fulfil their revenue collecting role by picking on
bicycles?
#20
| |||
| |||
|
|
Would the police issue an on-the-spot fine |
untracable.
|
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
| |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.