WVM again

spindrift said:

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.

Maybe Matt B is right and it is time to scrap VED. AFAICS its main
benefit is as an annual check that motorists have got insurance and an
MOT.

Why not have the VED disc replaced by an MOT disc? Scrap mandatory 3rd
party insurance and have it replaced by a scheme that automatically
covered every car. If the car is illegal or being driven illegally the
scheme still pays out to the victim but then pursues the driver to
recover the costs. Fund all the costs of the scheme out of fuel duty.
The cost of motoring would fall for many people.

Would that work, or something along similar lines? What refinements
would it need? Maybe people living remotely from good public transport
services and therefore needing to use more fuel should be able claim a
rebate on their fuel duty?

--
Dave...

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Apr 4, 10:32 pm, Brian Drury <brian@ibisdesignsdotukfsndotorg>
"Pity you didn't spend the money on an education"

MBQ

Beautiful. This followed by smacking him in the mouth would really make me
smile.

But in all honesty I'd just ride into him - claim off his insurance for
something and maybe next time he'll think about it. I've come very close to
this a few times - less bike-unfriendly on a mountain bike as they take the
punishment well. Whip round and shoulder barge the side window or a large
flat panel that will bend easily.

spindrift said the following on 05/04/2007 11:11:

Quoted message said:

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.

I like that :-) I can see it now:-
"WTF did you do that for?"
"I was just imposing a fiscal balancing act."

By the time he's worked out what you mean (i.e., when hell has frozen
over) you'll be long gone!

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

dkahn400 said:

Why not have the VED disc replaced by an MOT disc? Scrap mandatory 3rd
party insurance and have it replaced by a scheme that automatically
covered every car. If the car is illegal or being driven illegally the
scheme still pays out to the victim but then pursues the driver to
recover the costs. Fund all the costs of the scheme out of fuel duty.
The cost of motoring would fall for many people.

It may well be that the cost would fall for many people if such measures
were persued, but ISTM that such an effect would not be at all desirable.

--
Regards
Alex
The From address above is a spam-trap.
The Reply-To address is valid

Brian Drury brian@ibisdesignsdotukfsndotorg 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

owch.

i had some lady in a hot hatch try to overtake me before a roundabout
and turn left, as she didn't attaully pull past enought, she ended up
stranded in the roundabout. luckly it was at slow speed so i was able to
brake, and would of been unlucky to have hurt me though i suspect the
narly peddles might have made a mess of her nice paint work!

though yesturday got let ahead by white van man at a crossing. so they
aren't all like your charmer.

roger

dkahn400 said:

Maybe people living remotely from good public transport
services and therefore needing to use more fuel should be able claim a
rebate on their fuel duty?

Why should folks who live remotely be subsidised for their travel to
civilization? Should those who live in the city get subsidised if
they fancy travelling to fresh air and open spaces?

In news:[email hidden],
Roger Merriman <[email hidden]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell
us:

Quoted message said:

i had some lady in a hot hatch try to overtake me before a roundabout
and turn left

Mrs. A. Spannerinagolf did that to me yesterday. She came perilously close
to getting a Carnac-shaped dent in her passenger door, but I instead
contented myself with an Evil Scowl as I passed her.

Yes, that's right, fifteen yards after exiting said roundabout, she reached
the queue for the traffic lights opposite Walthamstow dog track :-(

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
I have a shell collection, have you seen it? I keep it scattered
on the world's beaches.

Budstaff said:

"Matt B" <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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.

Disingenuous use of spurious logic.

You'll need to elaborate.

Quoted message said:

The fact that a journey may be of
benefit to society, does not mean that the cost of the journey to society
cannot be meaningfully compared with the revenue that society derives from
the journey (i.e. the taxes specific to that journey).

That is the point - you can't. Society derives more benefit from motor
journeys than simply the direct tax raised by the use of motor vehicles.

Quoted message said:

As such motor vehicle
journeys _are_ subsidised by the public purse,

No they aren't - by a long long way.

Quoted message said:

as are bicycle journeys (but
the impact on infrastructure by bicycle journeys compared with motor vehicle
journeys is vanishingly small).

The cost to society of bike journeys needs to include, not only the cost
of infrastructure provided solely for bikes, but the cost of having to
restrain motor traffic to facilitate cycling - such as the cost of
increased dead-time at traffic lights, the cost of the congestion
created by cycle facilities, etc.

Quoted message said:

The benefits to society of economic activity are best compared against the
tax take as a whole (transport being just a small enabling part of economic
activity). That is why society is prepared to pay more out to provide a
transport infrastructure than it derives in revenue from transport. Motor
transport (be it road, rail, or air) is subsidised. Get over it.

But it isn't. Imagine what a poorer place it would be with no cars and
no road transport (or air transport for that matter).

--
Matt B

"Matt B" <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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:

> 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

Yawnnn...

"Matt B" <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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

Disingenuous use of spurious logic. The fact that a journey may be of
benefit to society, does not mean that the cost of the journey to society
cannot be meaningfully compared with the revenue that society derives from
the journey (i.e. the taxes specific to that journey). As such motor vehicle
journeys _are_ subsidised by the public purse, as are bicycle journeys (but
the impact on infrastructure by bicycle journeys compared with motor vehicle
journeys is vanishingly small).

The benefits to society of economic activity are best compared against the
tax take as a whole (transport being just a small enabling part of economic
activity). That is why society is prepared to pay more out to provide a
transport infrastructure than it derives in revenue from transport. Motor
transport (be it road, rail, or air) is subsidised. Get over it.

Tim Hall said:

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?

Sadist.

Simon Brooke said:

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.

Ah, finally, a use for Police Community Support Officers.*

(I believe only 85% of the UK (by population) has these, though.)

*I think they should just pay teenagers to hang around wearing high-viz
jackets rather than having to pay groups of four adults to stand around
watching them

A

Budstaff' budstaffdotusegroup@btinternetdotcom said:

"Matt B" <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That is the point - you can't. Society derives more benefit from motor
journeys than simply the direct tax raised by the use of motor vehicles.

Yes you _can_. Below the line and qualitative, intangible benefits are
subjective and should be discounted.

Using that argument "below the line and qualitative, intangible
*costs*" are also subjective and thus should be discounted - blowing
"Spinny's" contention straight out of the water.

On 5 Apr, 13:43, "Dave Larrington" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Innews:[email hidden],
Roger Merriman <[email hidden]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell
us:

Quoted message said:

i had some lady in a hot hatch try to overtake me before a roundabout
and turn left

Mrs. A. Spannerinagolf did that to me yesterday. She came perilously close
to getting a Carnac-shaped dent in her passenger door, but I instead
contented myself with an Evil Scowl as I passed her.

Yes, that's right, fifteen yards after exiting said roundabout, she reached
the queue for the traffic lights opposite Walthamstow dog track :-(

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
I have a shell collection, have you seen it? I keep it scattered
on the world's beaches.

I wonder if she was thinking that cyclists don't pay tax. I suspect
many drivers do think exactly that. Bizarre. Like a lady in a mink
coat queue-jumping, "my rank is higher", you see?

Budstaff wrote on 05/04/2007 13:53 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

--
Matt B

Yawnnn...

The Yawn if for you as the only one engaging our resident Troll and
pulling him out of our kill files and parading his posts.

--
Tony

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

"Matt B" <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Budstaff said:

"Matt B" <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

spindrift wrote:
> "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.

Disingenuous use of spurious logic.

You'll need to elaborate.

Weird comment to make on the first phrase of a post which does just that.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The fact that a journey may be of benefit to society, does not mean that
the cost of the journey to society cannot be meaningfully compared with
the revenue that society derives from the journey (i.e. the taxes
specific to that journey).

That is the point - you can't. Society derives more benefit from motor
journeys than simply the direct tax raised by the use of motor vehicles.

Yes you _can_. Below the line and qualitative, intangible benefits are
subjective and should be discounted.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

As such motor vehicle journeys _are_ subsidised by the public purse,

No they aren't - by a long long way.

Your opinion only. If in the past it was not economic for me to eat foods
out of season by having them airfreighted from all over the world, if I
could afford to take the train to Manchester but not to drive there, if I
used local tradesmen and suppliers because the transport costs made remote
ones expensive, then the difference between then and now is a rebalancing of
subsidies.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

as are bicycle journeys (but the impact on infrastructure by bicycle
journeys compared with motor vehicle journeys is vanishingly small).

The cost to society of bike journeys needs to include, not only the cost
of infrastructure provided solely for bikes, but the cost of having to
restrain motor traffic to facilitate cycling - such as the cost of
increased dead-time at traffic lights, the cost of the congestion created
by cycle facilities, etc.

Now you're changing your ground to suit your argument (as per usual).
Benefits which _you_ are ignoring include environmental, reduction in
congestion resulting from cycle use, decreased need for parking facilities,
benefit to the public's health, noise pollution reduction. You don't see
Amsterdam or Cambridge adopting policies to increase car use in order to
improve the quality of life, and cities like Beijing and Shanghai where the
move to motorised transport is occurring regardless are in a hell of a mess.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The benefits to society of economic activity are best compared against
the tax take as a whole (transport being just a small enabling part of
economic activity). That is why society is prepared to pay more out to
provide a transport infrastructure than it derives in revenue from
transport. Motor transport (be it road, rail, or air) is subsidised. Get
over it.

But it isn't. Imagine what a poorer place it would be with no cars and no
road transport (or air transport for that matter).

I'm not sure how the process of imagining a hypothetical dystopia is
supposed to make the subsidy of motor transport invisible. Nobody said ban
all cars (let alone 'ban all road transport'😉. Just recognise that society
cannot afford the increasing demands of the road lobby, and that the tab for
the subsidy to date will have to be picked up some time soon.

Quoted message said:

In news:[email hidden],
spindrift <[email hidden]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:

Quoted message said:

On 5 Apr, 13:43, "Dave Larrington" <[email hidden]>
wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Mrs. A. Spannerinagolf did that to me yesterday. She came
perilously close to getting a Carnac-shaped dent in her passenger
door, but I instead contented myself with an Evil Scowl as I passed
her.

Yes, that's right, fifteen yards after exiting said roundabout, she
reached the queue for the traffic lights opposite Walthamstow dog
track :-(

I wonder if she was thinking that cyclists don't pay tax. I suspect
many drivers do think exactly that.

I don't reckon she was thinking at all...

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
I'm just a primitive creature of the heath, so pardon my savage
ignorance.

On 5 Apr, 15:38, "Dave Larrington" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Innews:[email hidden],
spindrift <[email hidden]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:

Quoted message said:

On 5 Apr, 13:43, "Dave Larrington" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Mrs. A. Spannerinagolf did that to me yesterday. She came
perilously close to getting a Carnac-shaped dent in her passenger
door, but I instead contented myself with an Evil Scowl as I passed
her.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Yes, that's right, fifteen yards after exiting said roundabout, she
reached the queue for the traffic lights opposite Walthamstow dog
track :-(

Quoted message said:

I wonder if she was thinking that cyclists don't pay tax. I suspect
many drivers do think exactly that.

I don't reckon she was thinking at all...

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
I'm just a primitive creature of the heath, so pardon my savage
ignorance.

Well, if this is similar to what happens to me, she's pulled out to
overtake you. She knows you're there, but as soon as she's past you,
you don't exist.

POHB said:

dkahn400 said:

Maybe people living remotely from good public transport
services and therefore needing to use more fuel should be able claim a
rebate on their fuel duty?

Why should folks who live remotely be subsidised for their travel
to civilization? Should those who live in the city get
subsidised if they fancy travelling to fresh air and open spaces?

They shouldn't. Ideally they should have good public transport
services. But in the event of society's failure to provide those a
rebate on fuel tax sound like reasonable compensation.

--
Dave...

spindrift twisted the electrons to say:

Quoted message said:

Well, if this is similar to what happens to me, she's pulled out to
overtake you. She knows you're there, but as soon as she's past you,
you don't exist.

ITYM "as soon as you're no longer visible through the windscreen you
don't exist"?
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...