Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Thu Apr 26, 2018 12:11

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 132 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Oct 06, 2013 22:51 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 04:10
Posts: 3244
They are funded out of "general taxation", since road tax is no longer hypothecated.
What is sure is that over 50-billion UK£ is directly routed to the government, from car (etc) operators.
Cyclists contribute very little, from cycling, mainly VAT on cycles and parts.
There is talk of the government legislating for the means to stop "fuel price wars", since the recent drop in price/s (petrol down by 5p/Ltr and diesel down by 6p/Ltr) is reducing the VAT take somewhat.
I'm feeling rather fed-up with cyclists at the moment, since being knocked base-about-apex by the female half of a couple of cyclists. After which the man hurried back and prompty started threatening me. I told him I had insurance and would need their names and addresses....the twot actually gave me them, so they'll be hearing from my legal reps quite soon. The place of the accident is a shared path...with signs saying let pedestrians pass.
I think whiplash, bruises, damaged clothing, stress, worry about the threat of physical violence....and I have witnesses.
(the address is right, since I drove over and had a look) (rub hands)

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 07, 2013 08:22 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
graball wrote:
If two identical brothers A and B who had identical jobs and lifestyles and tax expenses but brother A owned a car whereas brother B owned a bike and no car, then Brother A would be contributing more towards brother B's cycling than brother B would towards brother A's car use. (probably still too complicated though)



OK, right.

So what?

Do you then go onto to think that somehow brother A has more rights than brother B in some way, or is socially superior?

If so, please do explain how.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 07, 2013 08:24 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
jomukuk wrote:
I'm feeling rather fed-up with cyclists at the moment, since being knocked base-about-apex by the female half of a couple of cyclists.


You get knocked over by a cyclist and you're fed up with ALL cyclists? Really?

If you get mugged by a guy wearing Nike trainers do you get fed up with ALL guys wearing Nike trainers?

Or if a guy in a blue BMW went into the back of you would you get fed up by all blue BMWs?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 07, 2013 10:26 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
weepej wrote:
If you get mugged by a guy wearing Nike trainers do you get fed up with ALL guys wearing Nike trainers?

Or if a guy in a blue BMW went into the back of you would you get fed up by all blue BMWs?


...or indeed, if ANY cyclist was involved in an accident with ANY motor vehicle, you wouldn't, on the same logic, assume the motorist was to blame, would you? :wink: As you so rightly say, it's about the INDIVIDUAL!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 07, 2013 10:28 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
weepej wrote:
graball wrote:
If two identical brothers A and B who had identical jobs and lifestyles and tax expenses but brother A owned a car whereas brother B owned a bike and no car, then Brother A would be contributing more towards brother B's cycling than brother B would towards brother A's car use. (probably still too complicated though)



OK, right.

So what?

Do you then go onto to think that somehow brother A has more rights than brother B in some way, or is socially superior?

If so, please do explain how.


I don't believe he said either of the things you're suggesting Weepy, they're your words. What he DID say was:

"...Brother A would be contributing more towards brother B's cycling than brother B would towards brother A's car use...."

...and he was, of course, quite correct.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 07, 2013 22:10 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 23:26
Posts: 9235
Location: Treacletown ( just north of M6 J3),A MILE OR TWO PAST BEDROCK
One thing on this topic- i feel Weepy doth spout to much ,protest too much and I'd suggest Trolls to much . I'm not being Adhominie , just observant .

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 07, 2013 22:53 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
botach wrote:
One thing on this topic- i feel Weepy doth spout to much ,protest too much and I'd suggest Trolls to much . I'm not being Adhominie , just observant .


Me trolling? I think it's you that are trolling here!

Motoring taxes are not related to road spending in any way shape or form, only in your head.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 07, 2013 22:56 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
Oh? Does the government deliberately NOT spend ANY motoring taxes on the roads then?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 07, 2013 22:58 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
Mole wrote:
...or indeed, if ANY cyclist was involved in an accident with ANY motor vehicle, you wouldn't, on the same logic, assume the motorist was to blame, would you? :wink: As you so rightly say, it's about the INDIVIDUAL!



Yes I would, the driver of the bigger more powerful vehicle has a duty not to strike more vulnerable road users. That includes trucks on cars, cars on motorcyclists, cyclists and peds, and cyclists on peds. They have to prove they did everything they could NOT to hit the more vulnerable party.

There are only five countries in Europe where this principle does not apply, the UK, Cyprus, Malta, Romania and Ireland


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 07, 2013 23:01 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
Mole wrote:
Oh? Does the government deliberately NOT spend ANY motoring taxes on the roads then?


How would it know?

There used to be a road fund where motoring taxes were hived off for road spending, but that was wound up in 1955.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_Fund


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 00:01 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
So it might, then? As you say, how would it know? All we can say with any certainty is that it spends motoring taxes on SOMETHING - which may or may not be roads.

Now, what does it spend cycling taxes on?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 27, 2014 02:21 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7347
Location: Highlands
Of course many children can be a massive distraction in a car... various mothers I have known agree that at many points their children have been more of a distraction than almost anything else! :(

All distractions when driving / riding are not good or best practice, but we can control 'when' we 'allow', a distraction. Making a small volume adjustment of a volume control, is distracting but we can choose 'when' it is totally safe, and for the briefest moment, thus keeping safety at the forefront and completing that action perfectly safe.

So .. can we therefor conclude that it is only when an action 'takes over' from an existing conscious action, that it enters the danger area of taking over from all other activities. It is when people turn off the driving / riding that the distraction occurs and it is then that it becomes a danger?

There are only a few reports/surveys showing distraction but some are based off simulators which I don't think can be taken too seriously as it is not a real world condition.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 132 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.219s | 11 Queries | GZIP : Off ]