WVM again

Quoted message said:

Any suggestions?

Neutering.

Brian Drury said:

Any suggestions?

Ignore and move on. Reasoning is no use, they have not the brain cell
required although it's hardly his fault - society makes them like that
dontcha know. Attitudes take years to turn around, assuming anyone can
be arsed to help (inc WVM himself) and there is nothing in the world
(other than CS) that will show him the errors of his ways in the short
time you have available in these sort of situations. Thatcher's Britain eh!

Or move to France and let the tossers fight it out amongst themselves...

hth,

Tony B

Brian Drury said:

I stopped ok and as his window was open asked 'what now?'

No He Doesnt

And in any case - even if Road Tax DID exist and it DID pay for "you to
use the road" White Van Man is driving for a company, in a vehicle pai
for by said company and Vehicle Excise Duty paid for by the company.
So he isn;t "paying to use the road" either.

Brian Drury said:

I stopped ok and as his window was open asked 'what now?'

The enlightening reply was 'I pay to use the road, you don't'

Perhaps he should have said: "To enable me to use the road legally, in
this specific vehicle, an extra tax has had to be paid - no such tax is
required for the vehicle on which you are using the road. I therefore
consider that logically, I pay to use the road, you don't"? ;-)

Quoted message said:

Discussing this in the office later a fellow cyclist suggested that
perhaps this is the reason behind a lot of motorist hostility to
cyclists.

Is it fanned by the tabloid press, like the intolerance of immigrants
getting housing, benefits and health care without paying in?

Quoted message said:

His suggestion is that we wear a small sign saying the car
is at home or something to that effect.

That may only rub salt into his wounds because he may also have a car at
home, but his van needs taxing /too/.

Quoted message said:

Would this be pandering to stupidity or could it be of benefit?

It would be adding insult to injury.

Quoted message said:

I might give it a go if it would reduce the aggressive behaviour.

Report back! ;-)

Quoted message said:

Any suggestions?

Lobby for the abolition of VED?

--
Matt B

In news:[email hidden],
Brian Drury <brian@ibisdesignsdotukfsndotorg> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to
tell us:

Quoted message said:

Any suggestions?

o gun
o petrol
o matches

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Among the calamities of war may be jointly numbered the
diminution of the love of truth, by the falsehoods which
interest dictates and credulity encourages.

Dave Larrington said:

In news:[email hidden],
Brian Drury <brian@ibisdesignsdotukfsndotorg> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to
tell us:

Quoted message said:

Any suggestions?

o gun
o petrol
o matches

Wot? No Lighthouse Family?

Tim

Brian Drury wrote on 04/04/2007 22:32 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Heading home last night from work I went as usual south down London
road in Brighton towards the Old Stein. The north bound traffic on
this road was as usual grid locked up to the traffic lights.

WVM wanted to join the stationary traffic by turning right from a
junction on my left. The problem was no room.

We achieved eye contact so I figured there was no way he would pull
out....... wrong!

I stopped ok and as his window was open asked 'what now?'

The enlightening reply was 'I pay to use the road, you don't'

Discussing this in the office later a fellow cyclist suggested that
perhaps this is the reason behind a lot of motorist hostility to
cyclists. His suggestion is that we wear a small sign saying the car
is at home or something to that effect.

Would this be pandering to stupidity or could it be of benefit?

I might give it a go if it would reduce the aggressive behaviour.

Any suggestions?

Two retorts much easier thought of after the event than during

"So it true when they say WVM thinks he owns the road"

or

"Its a good job I left my car at home or you could have had a modified door"
--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

On 5 Apr, 09:05, "Dave Larrington" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Innews:[email hidden],
Brian Drury <brian@ibisdesignsdotukfsndotorg> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to
tell us:

Quoted message said:

Any suggestions?

o gun
o petrol
o matches

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Among the calamities of war may be jointly numbered the
diminution of the love of truth, by the falsehoods which
interest dictates and credulity encourages.

Point out that YOU pay for HIM to use the roads.

He owes you and other cyclists around £1000 a year.

Tell him you'll accept used fivers.

Brian Drury said the following on 04/04/2007 22:32:

Quoted message said:

Any suggestions?

You say the window was open? Well, there's no problem there that a
well-aimed hand grenade wouldn't cure :-)

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Brian Drury said:

The enlightening reply was 'I pay to use the road, you don't'

Discussing this in the office later a fellow cyclist suggested that
perhaps this is the reason behind a lot of motorist hostility to
cyclists. His suggestion is that we wear a small sign saying the car
is at home or something to that effect.

Would this be pandering to stupidity or could it be of benefit?

The former. WVM neither knows nor cares whether you pay to use the
road, but to rationalise his selfish behaviour he seizes upon the
possibility[*] that you don't. Take that excuse away and he'll find
some other way of kidding himself that he has more right to be on the
road than you do.

-dan

[*] the extremely unlikely possibility, given that roads are mostly paid
for by general taxation

On Apr 4, 10:32 pm, Brian Drury <brian@ibisdesignsdotukfsndotorg>

Quoted message said:

Heading home last night from work I went as usual south down London
road in Brighton towards the Old Stein. The north bound traffic on
this road was as usual grid locked up to the traffic lights.

WVM wanted to join the stationary traffic by turning right from a
junction on my left. The problem was no room.

We achieved eye contact so I figured there was no way he would pull
out....... wrong!

I stopped ok and as his window was open asked 'what now?'

The enlightening reply was 'I pay to use the road, you don't'

Discussing this in the office later a fellow cyclist suggested that
perhaps this is the reason behind a lot of motorist hostility to
cyclists. His suggestion is that we wear a small sign saying the car
is at home or something to that effect.

Would this be pandering to stupidity or could it be of benefit?

I might give it a go if it would reduce the aggressive behaviour.

Any suggestions?

Brian

"Pity you didn't spend the money on an education"

MBQ

spindrift said:

On 5 Apr, 09:05, "Dave Larrington" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Innews:[email hidden],
Brian Drury <brian@ibisdesignsdotukfsndotorg> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to
tell us:

Quoted message said:

Any suggestions?

o gun
o petrol
o matches

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Among the calamities of war may be jointly numbered the
diminution of the love of truth, by the falsehoods which
interest dictates and credulity encourages.

Point out that YOU pay for HIM to use the roads.

He owes you and other cyclists around £1000 a year.

What for, and why just cyclists?

--
Matt B

"Brian Drury" <brian@ibisdesignsdotukfsndotorg> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Heading home last night from work I went as usual south down London
road in Brighton towards the Old Stein. The north bound traffic on
this road was as usual grid locked up to the traffic lights.

WVM wanted to join the stationary traffic by turning right from a
junction on my left. The problem was no room.

We achieved eye contact so I figured there was no way he would pull
out....... wrong!

I stopped ok and as his window was open asked 'what now?'

The enlightening reply was 'I pay to use the road, you don't'

Discussing this in the office later a fellow cyclist suggested that
perhaps this is the reason behind a lot of motorist hostility to
cyclists. His suggestion is that we wear a small sign saying the car
is at home or something to that effect.

Would this be pandering to stupidity or could it be of benefit?

I might give it a go if it would reduce the aggressive behaviour.

Any suggestions?

Brian

Ask him if he wouldn't object to lorries and buses cutting him up on a
regular basis as they "pay more to use the road" than he does.

"Brian Drury" <brian@ibisdesignsdotukfsndotorg> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Heading home last night from work I went as usual south down London
road in Brighton towards the Old Stein. The north bound traffic on
this road was as usual grid locked up to the traffic lights.

WVM wanted to join the stationary traffic by turning right from a
junction on my left. The problem was no room.

We achieved eye contact so I figured there was no way he would pull
out....... wrong!

I stopped ok and as his window was open asked 'what now?'

The enlightening reply was 'I pay to use the road, you don't'

Discussing this in the office later a fellow cyclist suggested that
perhaps this is the reason behind a lot of motorist hostility to
cyclists. His suggestion is that we wear a small sign saying the car
is at home or something to that effect.

Would this be pandering to stupidity or could it be of benefit?

I might give it a go if it would reduce the aggressive behaviour.

Any suggestions?

I don't think he does pay to use the road - that is called a Toll and whilst
there are a few in the UK most are not.

What he pays is a tax for his vehicle. Vehicle Exise Duty and whilst some of
it may be used for roads so is some income tax etc.

From what he says then a big 40ft artic has more right to the road than him
as they pay considerably more, and various other vehicles pay differing
rates so presumably his van has more right on the road than my wife's car
that the tax is £40 on or a motorcycle that pays £15?.

Dave

Daniel Barlow said:

Brian Drury said:

The enlightening reply was 'I pay to use the road, you don't'

Discussing this in the office later a fellow cyclist suggested that
perhaps this is the reason behind a lot of motorist hostility to
cyclists. His suggestion is that we wear a small sign saying the car
is at home or something to that effect.

Would this be pandering to stupidity or could it be of benefit?

[*] the extremely unlikely possibility, given that roads are mostly paid
for by general taxation

There is a subtle distinction between paying for the provision of the
roads, and paying to /use/ the roads.

As you say, the roads are provided out of the central pot, but most
motorists have to pay again, to actually use them.

--
Matt B

Dave said:

"Brian Drury" <brian@ibisdesignsdotukfsndotorg> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Heading home last night from work I went as usual south down London
road in Brighton towards the Old Stein. The north bound traffic on
this road was as usual grid locked up to the traffic lights.

WVM wanted to join the stationary traffic by turning right from a
junction on my left. The problem was no room.

We achieved eye contact so I figured there was no way he would pull
out....... wrong!

I stopped ok and as his window was open asked 'what now?'

The enlightening reply was 'I pay to use the road, you don't'

Discussing this in the office later a fellow cyclist suggested that
perhaps this is the reason behind a lot of motorist hostility to
cyclists. His suggestion is that we wear a small sign saying the car
is at home or something to that effect.

Would this be pandering to stupidity or could it be of benefit?

I might give it a go if it would reduce the aggressive behaviour.

Any suggestions?

I don't think he does pay to use the road - that is called a Toll and whilst
there are a few in the UK most are not.

What he pays is a tax for his vehicle.

We've done this one over and over, and seen that it is not simply a
vehicle tax. It is a tax for certain motor vehicles, and then /only/ if
they are to be kept or used on public roads. So it is a "motor vehicle
road use tax".

Quoted message said:

Vehicle Exise Duty and whilst some of
it may be used for roads so is some income tax etc.

It is not what it is used for, but what it is collected for, that is the
key issue. It is only payable to permit road use in specified motor
vehicles.

--
Matt B

Dave said:

"Brian Drury" <brian@ibisdesignsdotukfsndotorg> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Heading home last night from work I went as usual south down London
road in Brighton towards the Old Stein. The north bound traffic on
this road was as usual grid locked up to the traffic lights.

Quoted message said:

WVM wanted to join the stationary traffic by turning right from a
junction on my left. The problem was no room.

Quoted message said:

We achieved eye contact so I figured there was no way he would pull
out....... wrong!

Quoted message said:

I stopped ok and as his window was open asked 'what now?'

Quoted message said:

The enlightening reply was 'I pay to use the road, you don't'

Quoted message said:

Discussing this in the office later a fellow cyclist suggested that
perhaps this is the reason behind a lot of motorist hostility to
cyclists. His suggestion is that we wear a small sign saying the car
is at home or something to that effect.

Quoted message said:

Would this be pandering to stupidity or could it be of benefit?

Quoted message said:

I might give it a go if it would reduce the aggressive behaviour.

Quoted message said:

Any suggestions?

I don't think he does pay to use the road - that is called a Toll and whilst
there are a few in the UK most are not.

What he pays is a tax for his vehicle. Vehicle Exise Duty and whilst someof
it may be used for roads so is some income tax etc.

From what he says then a big 40ft artic has more right to the road than him
as they pay considerably more, and various other vehicles pay differing
rates so presumably his van has more right on the road than my wife's car
that the tax is £40 on or a motorcycle that pays £15?.

Dave- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"I don't think he does pay to use the road"

He is paid to use the road.

He is subsidised by everyone else, even those who don't even have a
car.

Cyclists subsidise car drivers, urban drivers more than rural drivers,
it's true, but the danger predicted by Churchill that a road tax would
imply that drivers "own" the roads has come true, and in this driver's
mind it means that all other considerations (the Highway Code, the
law, other peoples' safety) is secondary to MAKING WAY.

It's the mindset exemplified by idiots who presuppose that cyclists
don't pay tax.

Impose a fiscal balancing act by gouging a furrow with your cleat in
his wing, then stop and insist he pays for a new pedal. His actions
caused the coillision after all, you do not pull out until you have a
space.

Alternatively let him go. You only have to put up with him for ten
seconds, he and the other "persecuted motorists" have to put up with
their own pathetic whining for the rest of their lives.

spindrift said:

"I don't think he does pay to use the road"

He is paid to use the road.

He is subsidised by everyone else, even those who don't even have a
car.

Ah, that ill-informed unsupported assertion _again_. I assume it is
based on a CBA that, not only ignores the value of the benefits of
"motoring", but assigns congestion as a cost to "society" imposed by
motorists rather a cost to motorists caused by "society" not providing
an appropriate road infrastructure, and which conveniently ignores the
fact that since 1999 the insurance companies (i.e. premium paying
motorists) have had to pay the full health service costs of treating
casualties for which a motorist was liable, and similarly for fire
service costs.

In fact, given that about 10% of all tax revenue is raised from the
activity of "motoring", it is clear that our economy benefits very
substantially from motorists.

--
Matt B

in message <[email hidden]>, Daniel Barlow

(') said:

Brian Drury said:

The enlightening reply was 'I pay to use the road, you don't'

Discussing this in the office later a fellow cyclist suggested that
perhaps this is the reason behind a lot of motorist hostility to
cyclists. His suggestion is that we wear a small sign saying the car
is at home or something to that effect.

Would this be pandering to stupidity or could it be of benefit?

The former. WVM neither knows nor cares whether you pay to use the
road, but to rationalise his selfish behaviour he seizes upon the
possibility[*] that you don't. Take that excuse away and he'll find
some other way of kidding himself that he has more right to be on the
road than you do.

We might suggest to Sniper, though, that it would be no bad thing to have a
plain clothes copper on a bike with a bag full of fixed penalty notices,
just gently patrolling the streets of our Great Wen^WCities.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; An enamorata is for life, not just for weekends.