Demand for cyclists number plates.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Musicman said:
1 ) Road Fund was introduced in 1920 and ceased being hypothecated for building and maintenance of roads after 1936. It hasn't existed at all since 1955.

2) Today, you pay Vehicle Excise Duty, which is calculated on the CO2 emissions of your vehicle.

3) If you have a zero or low emissions vehicle, you pay no VED.

4) My bicycle produces zero CO2 emissions.

5) I also pay VED for my car, which it is impossible for me to be using when I'm riding my bike.
Click to expand...

About item 4: Um, pardon me if I'm wrong, but I thought we breath out CO2, therefore the rider do produce some CO2 when riding a bicycle? :-D But, still, well it is a very, very, very, low amount of CO2, so we don't have to have VED.
 
neil_g said:
i dont believe VED pays for the upkeep of the roads anyway. the councils/highways authority have budget for that.
Click to expand...

I agree therefore drivers (who dislike cycles on the road) have no excuse to be abusive towards some cyclist on the road, with the "I pay road tax, get off the road" sort of speech.

I know a friend of mine who moans that he pays VED and wants cyclist off the road because they don't pay road tax, no matter how hard I try to explain the facts to him.
 
Musicman said:
1 ) Road Fund was introduced in 1920 and ceased being hypothecated for building and maintenance of roads after 1936. It hasn't existed at all since 1955.

2) Today, you pay Vehicle Excise Duty, which is calculated on the CO2 emissions of your vehicle.

3) If you have a zero or low emissions vehicle, you pay no VED.

4) My bicycle produces zero CO2 emissions.

5) I also pay VED for my car, which it is impossible for me to be using when I'm riding my bike.
Click to expand...

So what, if you have 5 cars you pay 5 sets of VED. The point is on the road at the time a bike is a non paying device, a car is. I couldn't give a crap about the CO2 emissions or the fuel consumption, these sort of cars pay more in VED proportionally per gram of co2 so should have in my view, priority.
 
So an Audi R8 has 'priority' over a BMW 1 series?

And what do you mean by 'priority'?
 
It does raise the rather entertaining possibility that a Trabant, with its dirty two stroke engine, may have 'priority' over both, though :D
 
Last edited:
Mind you, you'd have to be giving way to articulated lorries and buses all the time, as they pay huge amounts of VED…
 
ST4 said:
Why is that. They pay more in tax, clearly they should get something back that's better? Priority lanes, higher speed limits but road traffic law is the last bastion of communism that needs reformed
Click to expand...

i already pay 180/year for the delight of driving my car thank you.

ST4 said:
It should have.
Click to expand...

wow. elitism at its finest.
 
This idea that cyclists are using bikes instead of cars is simply misleading. Many cyclists, particularly where I live, cycle for fun. The consequential increases in GHG emissions from cars and trucks and tractors as they wait for a safe overtake (normally because the cyclists are riding 3 or more abreast) must be huge. I do not think bikes should be registered but cyclists should and they should wear their registration number on a sash so my in car camera can trace the numpties when they cause an accident. When BOTH cyclists and car drivers can be identified maybe everyone will drive or ride with more respect for other users.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
I was verbally abused by a cyclist recently because I was crossing a road a few yards from a crossing. I was obviously in the wrong and he obviously had every right to go though a red light on the wrong side of the road.

This behaviour seems more rife than amongst car drivers and personally I see more cyclists doing wrong than right. Is there a more arrogant and aggressive group of road users?

Maybe we should forget about moral persuasion to behave responsibly and just have a few of them shot?

PS. :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
BBR said:
This idea that cyclists are using bikes instead of cars is simply misleading. Many cyclists, particularly where I live, cycle for fun. The consequential increases in GHG emissions from cars and trucks and tractors as they wait for a safe overtake (normally because the cyclists are riding 3 or more abreast) must be huge. I do not think bikes should be registered but cyclists should and they should wear their registration number on a sash so my in car camera can trace the numpties when they cause an accident. When BOTH cyclists and car drivers can be identified maybe everyone will drive or ride with more respect for other users.
Click to expand...
to quote the guardian article from earlier in the thread:

"For a start, it’s absurdly impractical and virtually unenforceable. Where does the number go? A plate on a bike? What happens if you have several bikes, or borrow one, or rent one? Or on a wearable tabard? But what if you carry a bag? Or it’s very hot? Or you need to put on a raincoat?

Then you have the parameters: would it only be for adults, or would, say, children need numbers? If children are excepted would, say, 15-year-olds need to carry ID to show they are exempt?"
 
I'll put a number plate on my bike when pedestrians start hanging them around their neck. I would love to be able to identify the dopey tart that stepped out into the road in front on me this morning without so much as a glance in my direction. Then I could report her for walking without due care and attention.

Surely there isn't a point where this starts to get a bit silly is there?
 
Last edited:
Musicman said:
"Last bastion of communism"?!
Click to expand...

for sure. If you have more money you can live in a better house, live in a nicer area, send your kids to better school, have private healthcare, sit in a nicer carriage on the train with better seats, but still can only drive at 70mph on a motorway and sit in the same jams as people with lesser cars despite paying more in VAT, more in VED, more in everything to have the superior car. Seems to me the roads are the last bastion of that awful marxist fella.
 
A typical Bristolian if memory still serves me right. I have tried everything to block those memories.

Ian D J said:
Or simply tattoo the registration number on your bum. And some of us will have plenty of room for that going by what I do get to see.

DeafCyclists_zpsc9be736c.jpg~original
Click to expand...
 
And those that can afford to hire an assassin to murder their enemies should get shorter sentences, no doubt?

Pesky Marx interfering with the system again.
 
ST4 said:
for sure. If you have more money you can live in a better house, live in a nicer area, send your kids to better school, have private healthcare, sit in a nicer carriage on the train with better seats, but still can only drive at 70mph on a motorway and sit in the same jams as people with lesser cars despite paying more in VAT, more in VED, more in everything to have the superior car. Seems to me the roads are the last bastion of that awful marxist fella.
Click to expand...
We could also reduce the sentence for murder to 100 lines of "I must not get kill people richer than me" for those earning over £200 per year. I mean, it would be unfair to keep them away from the big houses that they paid for.
 
bass_junkie83 said:
I'll put a number plate on my bike when pedestrians start hanging them around their neck. I would love to be able to identify the dopey tart that stepped out into the road in front on me this morning without so much as a glance in my direction. Then I could report her for walking without due care and attention.

Surely there isn't a point where this starts to get a bit silly is there?
Click to expand...

I'm not gong to suggest tatooing - someone will only invoke Godwins :D
 
Musicman said:
And those that can afford to hire an assassin to murder their enemies should get shorter sentences, no doubt?

Pesky Marx interfering with the system again.
Click to expand...

Murder is not a part of day to day life, driving is. The current system is deeply flawed and should be rectified to award those that pay more in tax, not less.
 
OK: those that can afford to hire an accountant to look after their financial affairs should pay less tax…

Oh.
 
Musicman said:
At 20 mph (32 km/h) there is only a 1 in 20 chance of the pedestrian being killed. So kill your speed"
Click to expand...

but if the pedestrian wasnt on the road there'd be a 0 in 20 chance of them being killed - so stay on the effing pavement

I'm not saying people should drive recklessly , but even at 20 it a tot runs out from between two cars chasing a football right in front of you (or a granny not looking, or a suit on a mobile phone, or a drunk or whatever) you can't miss them if they are inside the stopping distance (well you could perhaps swerve round them if nothing is coming the other way, but you know what i mean)

The green cross code says Stop, look,listen ... it doesnt say "wander aimelessly across the road content in the knowledge that if a car hits you it must be someonelses fault"
 
Waaay off topic but a lot of higher earners havent "acheived more" - the way wealth is distributed doesnt actually follow free market conditions, if it did farmers,doctors, teachers, policemen, firemen, and soliders would be paid the most , because they provide tangible things we have to have Food, health, education, secuity, safety etc ... most of the proffesions of the truly wealthy don't fall into providing the essentials of society
 
ST4 said:
The rich, who support this country, pay more in relative and absolute terms in tax. How is it fair to tax someone 40% of their income just because they have achieved more to get it high?
Click to expand...

Or let's turn it around? How is fair to pay benefits to thieving scum that openly admit they'd make less if the work hence they don't?
 
So a secondary road network should be built just for use for the rich funded by the extra they pay in VED for having a bigger/more cars?
But should rich people's VED go into a seperate pot it still wouldn't cover the cost of a secondary road network (ignoring the fact that isn't what VED funds and there simply isn't the room).
So those poor people, who's megre individual VED payments collectively add up to much more would have to fund it.

But then, it's the poor that have funded your new roads, so we will have those thank you and you can have the crappy old pot hole ridden roads.

And share them with cyclists.

This is the trouble with trying to run with such obviously flawed and ridiculous ideas. In trying to make them work you just go round and round in circles until you disappear up you own a******e.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top