When are you too old to drive?
http://www.helium.com/tm/163485/alwa...-phrase-people

Road Rage
http://www.helium.com/tm/191075/take...ct-forms-first

Avoid those speeding tickets!
http://www.helium.com/tm/208225/avoi...-tickets-tough

What does your car say about your personality? They have lots to say.
http://www.helium.com/tm/128353/firs...ntion-yourself

The date being 6 Apr 2007, "Jim Warren"
<jimwarren (AT) OMITblueyonder (DOT) co.uk> decided to write:

That's very true, but the ones that pull out and get a move on don't
inconvenience you so you don't remember them.

Huge has shown that he has totally the wrong attitude to be allowed
anywhere near a motor vehicle on a public road. He won't think that
when he's 75 and there are no bus services and no local shops so using
a car to go to Tesco's is the only way to get food. Remember the CAT
acronym - Concentrate, Anticipate, Tolerate.

I think drivers should be retested every five years regardless of age.
It's no good having "30 years of driving experience" if what that
really amounts to is one year of experience and 29 years of
repetition. We have to keep our driving skills and knowledge up to
date, and a regular test would be a good way of doing that. It's
rediculous that I should have to have my car maintenance skills tested
every year but my driving skills were tested mandatorily only once
when I was 17. 95% of accidents are caused by road user error rather
than by mechanical failure or unroadworthy vehicles.

Incidentally has anyone seen the 2006 edition of the Highway Code
(with the green cover)? The bookshops around here are still selling
the obsolete 2004 revision of the 1999 edition.

--
Richard Porter
Mail to username ricp at domain minijem.plus.com
"You can't have Windows without pains."

"Brian Nystrom" <brian.nystrom (AT) verizon (DOT) net> wrote

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!
Badger.

"Richard Porter" <dontusethis (AT) address (DOT) uk.invalid> wrote

I drive well over one thousand five hundred miles per week, this country is
full of sanctimonious wankers scared shitless
of getting a speeding ticket just like you, its been drummed into your tiny
little brain 'till the point that 24 mph has become the 'norm'

Bus drivers also deserve no special treatment now its a privatised
business.They'll get none from me
Its infuriating that some 'bus lanes' also are 'taxi' lanes, wheres my own
personal lane?

Its also infuriating when I queue, just to see some hypocritical fuck-face
like 'Richard' come hairing down the inside
of bus lane not giving a fuck!

Badger <brianhatton (AT) btinternet (DOT) com> wrote

<snip>
Sheer luxury! Round my way they usually ride on the pavement and expect the
pedestrians to get out of their way. The few who do use the road all seem
to be totally incapable of understanding what a red traffic light means.

Jim

On 10 Apr 2007 06:37:48 GMT, Adrian wrote:

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.

The date being 10 Apr 2007, _ <jtaylor (AT) NOSPAMeastlink (DOT) ca> decided to
write:

We could have a system like they have in Switzerland. There, the
registration plate belongs to the driver, not the vehicle. It is
clipped into a holder on the car that the driver is using.

We have laws and taxes, not because they are fair or sensible, but
because they are enforceable at not much cost. We ban the use of
hand-held mobile phones whilst driving, but not iPods.

We should get rid of VED altogether. We should be taxing the use of
vehicles, not the ownership or parking of them. It is unfair that a
family which needs a large MPV but which also has a small car to use
when the MPV isn't needed pays a lot more than somebody who drives
around in a large MPV all the time. This also applies to the new
parking charges in Richmond, Surrey.

--
Richard Porter
Mail to username ricp at domain minijem.plus.com
"You can't have Windows without pains."

Richard Porter <dontusethis (AT) address (DOT) uk.invalid> wrote:

The truth is that the use of vehicles is taxed, in the only way that
makes sense, in direct proportion to the use of fuel by fuel taxation.
The taxation is enormous and it's clear that the government has severe
issues over raising that taxation further when it already charges
taxation at the highest rate in Europe, possibly in the world.

Current move to increase taxation on vehicles has nothing to do with
"green" issues nor indeed with any deep seatd need to reduce the use of
personal transportation. It has everything to do with raising more
revenue for a spendthrift government.

To that end charges do not need to be fair, not indeed related in any
way to the reason given for the imposition of the tax.

Unfair, but no one in government (national or local) gives a damn. All
they want is the money.

_ (jtaylor (AT) NOSPAMeastlink (DOT) ca) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

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.

Not my claim.

They have not paid for the use of that vehicle on the road.

If the vehicle is not covered by a current tax disc, then yes. They have
gone through the process required by law to cover their use of that vehicle
on the road, proved that they have MOT and insurance and that the vehicle
is correctly registered.

Richard Porter (dontusethis (AT) address (DOT) uk.invalid) gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying :

Presumably, vehicles parked on the road are required to have plates on
display?

The law already bans people driving without paying sufficient attention to
the task in hand - no matter what the cause. The mobile phone ban merely
duplicates one offence with a second specific, less serious, offence.