Police launch inquiries after sabotage at Wiggle cycling event in the New Forest

Daily Echo: Police launch inquiries after sabotage at cycling event Police launch inquiries after sabotage at cycling event

POLICE are carrying out door-to-door inquiries in the hunt for saboteurs who targeted a mass cycling event in Hampshire.

As reported by the Daily Echo, lives were put at risk after nails were thrown along Braggers Lane, Bransgore, during the Wiggle New Forest Spring Sportive, which attracted more than 2,000 entrants.

A total of 15 cyclists suffered punctures but police say no-one was injured.

Now officers are carrying out house-to-house inquiries in a bid to trace the culprits.

Bransgore Parish Council chairman Cllr Richard Frampton hit out at attempts to sabotage the ride and endanger the safety of riders.

He said: “I know there’s been sensitivity over these events, partly because of the numbers, but there’s no excuse for anyone to take the law into their own hands.

“If there are genuine concerns they should go through the proper channels and be looked at in the correct way.”

It follows a similar incident last year in which opponents placed drawing pins in the road.

Cllr Frampton said any genuine arguments against mass cycling events in the Forest were being undermined by people taking illegal action.

The New Forest National Park Authority (NPA) said it was shocked to learn that nails had been left in the road.

An NPA spokesman said: “There can be no justification for acts that may cause accident or injury.

“The event was closely monitored and while we’ve heard reports that the behaviour of a minority of cyclists was unsatisfactory, the large majority behaved well and followed the New Forest Cycling Code, which encourages responsible cycling.”

The spokesman confirmed that a draft cycling charter for event organisers was being prepared and would be debated by the Cycling Liaison Group on April 29.

UK Cycling Events, organisers of the Wiggle event, have already introduced a number of changes ahead of the proposed new charter.

Director Martin Barden said: “Our focus is delivering a safe, enjoyable cycling event which is considerate to locals. We’ve made considerable changes to ensure this happens including, a new venue, a new route, increased marshal presence and a reduction in the number of participants by more than 20 per cent.”

Dr Tony Hockley, chairman of the New Forest Equestrian Association, has been an outspoken critic of mass cycling events in the Forest.

But he took part in the weekend ride, saying he wanted to see for himself how cyclists affected the animals.

Last night Dr Hockley welcomed the decision to improve the route by removing Blissford Hill and some of the narrow country lanes from the event.

He added: “I think it caused the usual problems given the size of the event, but I’m not aware of any significant events.

“The route was better and the vast majority of cyclists behaved themselves, although I still think the numbers were too big for forest lanes.

“I’d also like to see numbers on the backs of riders so that the few cyclists who spoil things can be identified.”

Comments (82)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

5:06am Tue 15 Apr 14

Dchadder says...

I cycled, motor cycled and drove through sleepy Bransgore countless times during 1958-1974. Never found anything sharp around there.
I cycled, motor cycled and drove through sleepy Bransgore countless times during 1958-1974. Never found anything sharp around there. Dchadder
  • Score: 13

6:31am Tue 15 Apr 14

skeptik says...

I cycled, motor cycled and drove through sleepy Bransgore countless times during 1958-1974. Never found anything sharp around there. Ah, but since then a few 'townies' have moved in - sharp as tacks.
I cycled, motor cycled and drove through sleepy Bransgore countless times during 1958-1974. Never found anything sharp around there. Ah, but since then a few 'townies' have moved in - sharp as tacks. skeptik
  • Score: 1

6:35am Tue 15 Apr 14

nervousbumskin420 says...

ahhh just give up and buy a car...**** cyclists!! time for a trip to rymans...
ahhh just give up and buy a car...**** cyclists!! time for a trip to rymans... nervousbumskin420
  • Score: -43

6:47am Tue 15 Apr 14

skeptik says...

How about a caravan rally? Oh, look mother a hoose wi' wheels.
How about a caravan rally? Oh, look mother a hoose wi' wheels. skeptik
  • Score: 16

7:01am Tue 15 Apr 14

Forest Resident says...

It is good fortune alone which prevented someone being seriously injured or killed as a result of the actions of these mindless saboteurs. Having seen the wildly inaccurate and accusatory anti cycling posters that New Forest District Councillor Ann Sevier distributed, the Police and the local authorities standards committee should be knocking at her door for inciting this criminal behaviour. Imagine one of these nails was embedded in the tyre of a young families car which a few miles later subsenqeuntly suffered a blow out on a national speed Iimit road, the consequences are serious and potentially deadly.
It is good fortune alone which prevented someone being seriously injured or killed as a result of the actions of these mindless saboteurs. Having seen the wildly inaccurate and accusatory anti cycling posters that New Forest District Councillor Ann Sevier distributed, the Police and the local authorities standards committee should be knocking at her door for inciting this criminal behaviour. Imagine one of these nails was embedded in the tyre of a young families car which a few miles later subsenqeuntly suffered a blow out on a national speed Iimit road, the consequences are serious and potentially deadly. Forest Resident
  • Score: 56

9:08am Tue 15 Apr 14

sotonwinch09 says...

nervousbumskin420 wrote:
ahhh just give up and buy a car...**** cyclists!! time for a trip to rymans...
I have a car. A nice 14 plate BMW thanks. I also have a cycle bike as I like to get off my lazy **** and participate in events.
[quote][p][bold]nervousbumskin420[/bold] wrote: ahhh just give up and buy a car...**** cyclists!! time for a trip to rymans...[/p][/quote]I have a car. A nice 14 plate BMW thanks. I also have a cycle bike as I like to get off my lazy **** and participate in events. sotonwinch09
  • Score: 31

9:10am Tue 15 Apr 14

camerajuan says...

nervousbumskin420 wrote:
ahhh just give up and buy a car...**** cyclists!! time for a trip to rymans...
Soooo many words need ***** to describe this attitude.
[quote][p][bold]nervousbumskin420[/bold] wrote: ahhh just give up and buy a car...**** cyclists!! time for a trip to rymans...[/p][/quote]Soooo many words need ***** to describe this attitude. camerajuan
  • Score: 15

9:42am Tue 15 Apr 14

Torchie1 says...

Forest Resident wrote:
It is good fortune alone which prevented someone being seriously injured or killed as a result of the actions of these mindless saboteurs. Having seen the wildly inaccurate and accusatory anti cycling posters that New Forest District Councillor Ann Sevier distributed, the Police and the local authorities standards committee should be knocking at her door for inciting this criminal behaviour. Imagine one of these nails was embedded in the tyre of a young families car which a few miles later subsenqeuntly suffered a blow out on a national speed Iimit road, the consequences are serious and potentially deadly.
With a bit more thought you could have included the possibility of a nuclear catastrophe in to your 'Drama Queen' diatribe.
[quote][p][bold]Forest Resident[/bold] wrote: It is good fortune alone which prevented someone being seriously injured or killed as a result of the actions of these mindless saboteurs. Having seen the wildly inaccurate and accusatory anti cycling posters that New Forest District Councillor Ann Sevier distributed, the Police and the local authorities standards committee should be knocking at her door for inciting this criminal behaviour. Imagine one of these nails was embedded in the tyre of a young families car which a few miles later subsenqeuntly suffered a blow out on a national speed Iimit road, the consequences are serious and potentially deadly.[/p][/quote]With a bit more thought you could have included the possibility of a nuclear catastrophe in to your 'Drama Queen' diatribe. Torchie1
  • Score: -29

10:18am Tue 15 Apr 14

whattowrite2013 says...

All credit to Dr Hockley, looking at this from both sides and for taking part and coming up with some sensible ideas of how to make the event a success and help eleviate some of the complaints rather than just sitting back and complaining about it.

As for the posters and the nails in the road, shame on the people who did this, the cycling community is a very tight one and actions like this will not ruin the event or make cyclist back down from taking part, quite the opposite.
All credit to Dr Hockley, looking at this from both sides and for taking part and coming up with some sensible ideas of how to make the event a success and help eleviate some of the complaints rather than just sitting back and complaining about it. As for the posters and the nails in the road, shame on the people who did this, the cycling community is a very tight one and actions like this will not ruin the event or make cyclist back down from taking part, quite the opposite. whattowrite2013
  • Score: 20

10:34am Tue 15 Apr 14

southamptonadi says...

The anti wiggle brigade are starting to lose some credibility In their argument, supposedly looking out for the greater good go the forest, what about the animals crossing the road and injuring themselves on nails.

Quite selfish really. I wonder if they would do the same on the roads that are gridlocked with tourists and show visitors
The anti wiggle brigade are starting to lose some credibility In their argument, supposedly looking out for the greater good go the forest, what about the animals crossing the road and injuring themselves on nails. Quite selfish really. I wonder if they would do the same on the roads that are gridlocked with tourists and show visitors southamptonadi
  • Score: 21

11:03am Tue 15 Apr 14

bigfella777 says...

sotonwinch09 wrote:
nervousbumskin420 wrote:
ahhh just give up and buy a car...**** cyclists!! time for a trip to rymans...
I have a car. A nice 14 plate BMW thanks. I also have a cycle bike as I like to get off my lazy **** and participate in events.
Exactly, it's normal people who work hard all week and want to get a bit of fresh air and take some exercise in a social environment. How can anyone be against this? It's not like a 1000 Hells Angels are descending on Lyndhurst and burning it to the ground.
It's good in a way that this criminal act has been committed because now how can they be taken seriously, no council , politician, doctor or the police can possibly support criminality or they are in contempt.
[quote][p][bold]sotonwinch09[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nervousbumskin420[/bold] wrote: ahhh just give up and buy a car...**** cyclists!! time for a trip to rymans...[/p][/quote]I have a car. A nice 14 plate BMW thanks. I also have a cycle bike as I like to get off my lazy **** and participate in events.[/p][/quote]Exactly, it's normal people who work hard all week and want to get a bit of fresh air and take some exercise in a social environment. How can anyone be against this? It's not like a 1000 Hells Angels are descending on Lyndhurst and burning it to the ground. It's good in a way that this criminal act has been committed because now how can they be taken seriously, no council , politician, doctor or the police can possibly support criminality or they are in contempt. bigfella777
  • Score: 23

11:06am Tue 15 Apr 14

Positively4thStreet says...

Forest Resident wrote:
It is good fortune alone which prevented someone being seriously injured or killed as a result of the actions of these mindless saboteurs. Having seen the wildly inaccurate and accusatory anti cycling posters that New Forest District Councillor Ann Sevier distributed, the Police and the local authorities standards committee should be knocking at her door for inciting this criminal behaviour. Imagine one of these nails was embedded in the tyre of a young families car which a few miles later subsenqeuntly suffered a blow out on a national speed Iimit road, the consequences are serious and potentially deadly.
Absolutely Forest,no matter what anybody feels about something,there is just simply no excuse for that.
As you rightly say,the consequences for some innocent people could be disastrous, and happen so far away,that the connection with the incident would never be made,and mean someone guilty of manslaughter, would go unpunished.
Some years ago,I worked for a firm whose carpark was sprayed with tacks,in some kind of vendetta attack,they managed to clear the area with a large industrial magnet in the end,but the people who carry out these attacks,don't seem to think further than tyre damage,and not the very strong possibility,that they may very well be responsible for someone's injury or death.
[quote][p][bold]Forest Resident[/bold] wrote: It is good fortune alone which prevented someone being seriously injured or killed as a result of the actions of these mindless saboteurs. Having seen the wildly inaccurate and accusatory anti cycling posters that New Forest District Councillor Ann Sevier distributed, the Police and the local authorities standards committee should be knocking at her door for inciting this criminal behaviour. Imagine one of these nails was embedded in the tyre of a young families car which a few miles later subsenqeuntly suffered a blow out on a national speed Iimit road, the consequences are serious and potentially deadly.[/p][/quote]Absolutely Forest,no matter what anybody feels about something,there is just simply no excuse for that. As you rightly say,the consequences for some innocent people could be disastrous, and happen so far away,that the connection with the incident would never be made,and mean someone guilty of manslaughter, would go unpunished. Some years ago,I worked for a firm whose carpark was sprayed with tacks,in some kind of vendetta attack,they managed to clear the area with a large industrial magnet in the end,but the people who carry out these attacks,don't seem to think further than tyre damage,and not the very strong possibility,that they may very well be responsible for someone's injury or death. Positively4thStreet
  • Score: 7

11:26am Tue 15 Apr 14

Drhysted says...

Is it coincidence that one of the largest anti's, and UKCE organiser live in the same village?
This sounds more personal to me, as the other events in the New Forest don't even make it to press, let alone protest.
Is it coincidence that one of the largest anti's, and UKCE organiser live in the same village? This sounds more personal to me, as the other events in the New Forest don't even make it to press, let alone protest. Drhysted
  • Score: 8

11:30am Tue 15 Apr 14

Drhysted says...

Just to head off people commenting that the photo shows cyclists two abreast at the front. They had just overtaken a slower rider, after checking there was no interference to motor traffic.
How do you know this as fact, I hear you ask?
I am the slower rider in the picture.
Just to head off people commenting that the photo shows cyclists two abreast at the front. They had just overtaken a slower rider, after checking there was no interference to motor traffic. How do you know this as fact, I hear you ask? I am the slower rider in the picture. Drhysted
  • Score: 19

12:14pm Tue 15 Apr 14

camerajuan says...

Drhysted wrote:
Just to head off people commenting that the photo shows cyclists two abreast at the front. They had just overtaken a slower rider, after checking there was no interference to motor traffic.
How do you know this as fact, I hear you ask?
I am the slower rider in the picture.
Where were you yestereday?!?!

People were losing their minds! Stupid people of course!
[quote][p][bold]Drhysted[/bold] wrote: Just to head off people commenting that the photo shows cyclists two abreast at the front. They had just overtaken a slower rider, after checking there was no interference to motor traffic. How do you know this as fact, I hear you ask? I am the slower rider in the picture.[/p][/quote]Where were you yestereday?!?! People were losing their minds! Stupid people of course! camerajuan
  • Score: 7

12:56pm Tue 15 Apr 14

Mushymat says...

Drhysted wrote:
Just to head off people commenting that the photo shows cyclists two abreast at the front. They had just overtaken a slower rider, after checking there was no interference to motor traffic.
How do you know this as fact, I hear you ask?
I am the slower rider in the picture.
Worth pointing out of course that cycling 2 abreast is totally, 100% factually fine and is in accordance to the Highway code.

Wish more drivers would know and accept this.
[quote][p][bold]Drhysted[/bold] wrote: Just to head off people commenting that the photo shows cyclists two abreast at the front. They had just overtaken a slower rider, after checking there was no interference to motor traffic. How do you know this as fact, I hear you ask? I am the slower rider in the picture.[/p][/quote]Worth pointing out of course that cycling 2 abreast is totally, 100% factually fine and is in accordance to the Highway code. Wish more drivers would know and accept this. Mushymat
  • Score: 11

1:13pm Tue 15 Apr 14

Drhysted says...

camerajuan wrote:
Drhysted wrote:
Just to head off people commenting that the photo shows cyclists two abreast at the front. They had just overtaken a slower rider, after checking there was no interference to motor traffic.
How do you know this as fact, I hear you ask?
I am the slower rider in the picture.
Where were you yestereday?!?!

People were losing their minds! Stupid people of course!
I was on a day shift so.
4am "abuse the tranquility of the New Forest" by cycling to work.
Carry out a 12 hour shift.
Then "abuse the tranquility of the New Forest" by cycling home.

Thing is apart from some heavy breathing I don't honestly believe that I abused the tranquility of the New Forest at all.
I suppose I could of driven my car to work, but can't see the point in wasting Diesel.
[quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Drhysted[/bold] wrote: Just to head off people commenting that the photo shows cyclists two abreast at the front. They had just overtaken a slower rider, after checking there was no interference to motor traffic. How do you know this as fact, I hear you ask? I am the slower rider in the picture.[/p][/quote]Where were you yestereday?!?! People were losing their minds! Stupid people of course![/p][/quote]I was on a day shift so. 4am "abuse the tranquility of the New Forest" by cycling to work. Carry out a 12 hour shift. Then "abuse the tranquility of the New Forest" by cycling home. Thing is apart from some heavy breathing I don't honestly believe that I abused the tranquility of the New Forest at all. I suppose I could of driven my car to work, but can't see the point in wasting Diesel. Drhysted
  • Score: 12

1:23pm Tue 15 Apr 14

chimneysweep 1234 says...

The photo above shows the bikes all over the road ..simple ....photos don't lie
The photo above shows the bikes all over the road ..simple ....photos don't lie chimneysweep 1234
  • Score: -20

1:26pm Tue 15 Apr 14

Drhysted says...

chimneysweep 1234 wrote:
The photo above shows the bikes all over the road ..simple ....photos don't lie
This will be my only reply on this subject.

I have told you what was going on. I KNOW what was going on because not only was I there, I'm actually shown in the picture.
If you can not accept the truth, that is your problem not mine.
[quote][p][bold]chimneysweep 1234[/bold] wrote: The photo above shows the bikes all over the road ..simple ....photos don't lie[/p][/quote]This will be my only reply on this subject. I have told you what was going on. I KNOW what was going on because not only was I there, I'm actually shown in the picture. If you can not accept the truth, that is your problem not mine. Drhysted
  • Score: 13

1:37pm Tue 15 Apr 14

Mushymat says...

chimneysweep 1234 wrote:
The photo above shows the bikes all over the road ..simple ....photos don't lie
What? Stop being an idiot.

Not one of them is taking up anymore space than a car, on an empty road.

Do you know the Highway code?
[quote][p][bold]chimneysweep 1234[/bold] wrote: The photo above shows the bikes all over the road ..simple ....photos don't lie[/p][/quote]What? Stop being an idiot. Not one of them is taking up anymore space than a car, on an empty road. Do you know the Highway code? Mushymat
  • Score: 12

1:45pm Tue 15 Apr 14

camerajuan says...

chimneysweep 1234 wrote:
The photo above shows the bikes all over the road ..simple ....photos don't lie
This is one you are not gonna do well on. I would give up now.
[quote][p][bold]chimneysweep 1234[/bold] wrote: The photo above shows the bikes all over the road ..simple ....photos don't lie[/p][/quote]This is one you are not gonna do well on. I would give up now. camerajuan
  • Score: 17

2:15pm Tue 15 Apr 14

Torchie1 says...

Mushymat wrote:
Drhysted wrote:
Just to head off people commenting that the photo shows cyclists two abreast at the front. They had just overtaken a slower rider, after checking there was no interference to motor traffic.
How do you know this as fact, I hear you ask?
I am the slower rider in the picture.
Worth pointing out of course that cycling 2 abreast is totally, 100% factually fine and is in accordance to the Highway code.

Wish more drivers would know and accept this.
Of course it's fine but you have to accept that a car legally overtaking you as the slow moving vehicle will be a lot closer than a lot of you seem to like when you choose to ride two abreast on narrow roads. Accept all of the 'legalities' and not just the ones that seem to back up your case.
[quote][p][bold]Mushymat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Drhysted[/bold] wrote: Just to head off people commenting that the photo shows cyclists two abreast at the front. They had just overtaken a slower rider, after checking there was no interference to motor traffic. How do you know this as fact, I hear you ask? I am the slower rider in the picture.[/p][/quote]Worth pointing out of course that cycling 2 abreast is totally, 100% factually fine and is in accordance to the Highway code. Wish more drivers would know and accept this.[/p][/quote]Of course it's fine but you have to accept that a car legally overtaking you as the slow moving vehicle will be a lot closer than a lot of you seem to like when you choose to ride two abreast on narrow roads. Accept all of the 'legalities' and not just the ones that seem to back up your case. Torchie1
  • Score: -9

2:35pm Tue 15 Apr 14

Drhysted says...

Torchie1 wrote:
Mushymat wrote:
Drhysted wrote:
Just to head off people commenting that the photo shows cyclists two abreast at the front. They had just overtaken a slower rider, after checking there was no interference to motor traffic.
How do you know this as fact, I hear you ask?
I am the slower rider in the picture.
Worth pointing out of course that cycling 2 abreast is totally, 100% factually fine and is in accordance to the Highway code.

Wish more drivers would know and accept this.
Of course it's fine but you have to accept that a car legally overtaking you as the slow moving vehicle will be a lot closer than a lot of you seem to like when you choose to ride two abreast on narrow roads. Accept all of the 'legalities' and not just the ones that seem to back up your case.
As long as they are a safe distance away I do not have a problem.

Leave as much room as you would a horse, and we'll be fine. Horses can react violently when startled, causing a cyclist to jump because you are too close can cause a primitive instinct before the main brain has taken full control.
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mushymat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Drhysted[/bold] wrote: Just to head off people commenting that the photo shows cyclists two abreast at the front. They had just overtaken a slower rider, after checking there was no interference to motor traffic. How do you know this as fact, I hear you ask? I am the slower rider in the picture.[/p][/quote]Worth pointing out of course that cycling 2 abreast is totally, 100% factually fine and is in accordance to the Highway code. Wish more drivers would know and accept this.[/p][/quote]Of course it's fine but you have to accept that a car legally overtaking you as the slow moving vehicle will be a lot closer than a lot of you seem to like when you choose to ride two abreast on narrow roads. Accept all of the 'legalities' and not just the ones that seem to back up your case.[/p][/quote]As long as they are a safe distance away I do not have a problem. Leave as much room as you would a horse, and we'll be fine. Horses can react violently when startled, causing a cyclist to jump because you are too close can cause a primitive instinct before the main brain has taken full control. Drhysted
  • Score: 9

3:20pm Tue 15 Apr 14

RomseyKeith says...

Maybe it wasn't the anti-Wiggle brigade at all. Maybe it was just kids messing around, thinking it'd be funny. There's still no excuse of course, but we still don't know all the facts.
Maybe it wasn't the anti-Wiggle brigade at all. Maybe it was just kids messing around, thinking it'd be funny. There's still no excuse of course, but we still don't know all the facts. RomseyKeith
  • Score: -6

4:01pm Tue 15 Apr 14

camerajuan says...

Torchie1 wrote:
Mushymat wrote:
Drhysted wrote:
Just to head off people commenting that the photo shows cyclists two abreast at the front. They had just overtaken a slower rider, after checking there was no interference to motor traffic.
How do you know this as fact, I hear you ask?
I am the slower rider in the picture.
Worth pointing out of course that cycling 2 abreast is totally, 100% factually fine and is in accordance to the Highway code.

Wish more drivers would know and accept this.
Of course it's fine but you have to accept that a car legally overtaking you as the slow moving vehicle will be a lot closer than a lot of you seem to like when you choose to ride two abreast on narrow roads. Accept all of the 'legalities' and not just the ones that seem to back up your case.
Why would it be closer? Is it trying to cause an accident?

If there isn't enough space to go past safely, you don't go past.
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mushymat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Drhysted[/bold] wrote: Just to head off people commenting that the photo shows cyclists two abreast at the front. They had just overtaken a slower rider, after checking there was no interference to motor traffic. How do you know this as fact, I hear you ask? I am the slower rider in the picture.[/p][/quote]Worth pointing out of course that cycling 2 abreast is totally, 100% factually fine and is in accordance to the Highway code. Wish more drivers would know and accept this.[/p][/quote]Of course it's fine but you have to accept that a car legally overtaking you as the slow moving vehicle will be a lot closer than a lot of you seem to like when you choose to ride two abreast on narrow roads. Accept all of the 'legalities' and not just the ones that seem to back up your case.[/p][/quote]Why would it be closer? Is it trying to cause an accident? If there isn't enough space to go past safely, you don't go past. camerajuan
  • Score: 2

4:02pm Tue 15 Apr 14

Torchie1 says...

Drhysted wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Mushymat wrote:
Drhysted wrote:
Just to head off people commenting that the photo shows cyclists two abreast at the front. They had just overtaken a slower rider, after checking there was no interference to motor traffic.
How do you know this as fact, I hear you ask?
I am the slower rider in the picture.
Worth pointing out of course that cycling 2 abreast is totally, 100% factually fine and is in accordance to the Highway code.

Wish more drivers would know and accept this.
Of course it's fine but you have to accept that a car legally overtaking you as the slow moving vehicle will be a lot closer than a lot of you seem to like when you choose to ride two abreast on narrow roads. Accept all of the 'legalities' and not just the ones that seem to back up your case.
As long as they are a safe distance away I do not have a problem.

Leave as much room as you would a horse, and we'll be fine. Horses can react violently when startled, causing a cyclist to jump because you are too close can cause a primitive instinct before the main brain has taken full control.
As I pointed out, a narrow road restricts the amount of available space and if you then choose to ride two abreast, you will be a lot closer to the overtaking vehicle. If you can't control your bicycle, can't manage to keep it in a straight line while being overtaken or you can't read the road ahead then you really should stick to the paths in the local park because you aren't yet ready to use the public highway.
[quote][p][bold]Drhysted[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mushymat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Drhysted[/bold] wrote: Just to head off people commenting that the photo shows cyclists two abreast at the front. They had just overtaken a slower rider, after checking there was no interference to motor traffic. How do you know this as fact, I hear you ask? I am the slower rider in the picture.[/p][/quote]Worth pointing out of course that cycling 2 abreast is totally, 100% factually fine and is in accordance to the Highway code. Wish more drivers would know and accept this.[/p][/quote]Of course it's fine but you have to accept that a car legally overtaking you as the slow moving vehicle will be a lot closer than a lot of you seem to like when you choose to ride two abreast on narrow roads. Accept all of the 'legalities' and not just the ones that seem to back up your case.[/p][/quote]As long as they are a safe distance away I do not have a problem. Leave as much room as you would a horse, and we'll be fine. Horses can react violently when startled, causing a cyclist to jump because you are too close can cause a primitive instinct before the main brain has taken full control.[/p][/quote]As I pointed out, a narrow road restricts the amount of available space and if you then choose to ride two abreast, you will be a lot closer to the overtaking vehicle. If you can't control your bicycle, can't manage to keep it in a straight line while being overtaken or you can't read the road ahead then you really should stick to the paths in the local park because you aren't yet ready to use the public highway. Torchie1
  • Score: -6

4:31pm Tue 15 Apr 14

DanWeston says...

nervousbumskin420 wrote:
ahhh just give up and buy a car...**** cyclists!! time for a trip to rymans...
Which really sums up the intelligence of the scum who put tacks and nails on the road?
[quote][p][bold]nervousbumskin420[/bold] wrote: ahhh just give up and buy a car...**** cyclists!! time for a trip to rymans...[/p][/quote]Which really sums up the intelligence of the scum who put tacks and nails on the road? DanWeston
  • Score: 8

4:36pm Tue 15 Apr 14

DanWeston says...

Ann Sevier was keen to have any infringements reported...see her post e 're


Let's utilise her foresight and her contacts, and then wonder at how no-one saw this cowardly vandalism

Why not call upon Ann Sevier to use her contacts and assist the Police in this investigation?
Ann Sevier was keen to have any infringements reported...see her post e 're Let's utilise her foresight and her contacts, and then wonder at how no-one saw this cowardly vandalism Why not call upon Ann Sevier to use her contacts and assist the Police in this investigation? DanWeston
  • Score: 6

4:53pm Tue 15 Apr 14

binghammac says...

These imbeciles, between Beaulieu and Brockenhurst, were riding 4 abreast, obstructing traffic going the same way and endangering traffic going the opposite direction because frequently they suddenly went over the white line. They should be banned from the New Forest and make a nuisance of themselves in places where the population density is a great deal lower.
These imbeciles, between Beaulieu and Brockenhurst, were riding 4 abreast, obstructing traffic going the same way and endangering traffic going the opposite direction because frequently they suddenly went over the white line. They should be banned from the New Forest and make a nuisance of themselves in places where the population density is a great deal lower. binghammac
  • Score: -9

5:01pm Tue 15 Apr 14

camerajuan says...

Torchie1 wrote:
Drhysted wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Mushymat wrote:
Drhysted wrote:
Just to head off people commenting that the photo shows cyclists two abreast at the front. They had just overtaken a slower rider, after checking there was no interference to motor traffic.
How do you know this as fact, I hear you ask?
I am the slower rider in the picture.
Worth pointing out of course that cycling 2 abreast is totally, 100% factually fine and is in accordance to the Highway code.

Wish more drivers would know and accept this.
Of course it's fine but you have to accept that a car legally overtaking you as the slow moving vehicle will be a lot closer than a lot of you seem to like when you choose to ride two abreast on narrow roads. Accept all of the 'legalities' and not just the ones that seem to back up your case.
As long as they are a safe distance away I do not have a problem.

Leave as much room as you would a horse, and we'll be fine. Horses can react violently when startled, causing a cyclist to jump because you are too close can cause a primitive instinct before the main brain has taken full control.
As I pointed out, a narrow road restricts the amount of available space and if you then choose to ride two abreast, you will be a lot closer to the overtaking vehicle. If you can't control your bicycle, can't manage to keep it in a straight line while being overtaken or you can't read the road ahead then you really should stick to the paths in the local park because you aren't yet ready to use the public highway.
You're missing the point. Riding two abreast is legal. If riders are doing so, there shouldn't be any room for overtaking and therefore NO overtaking vehicle. If you try to overtake when there's not a safe enough gap, that's dangerous driving and is punishable by law.

And what does riding two abreast have to do with riding in a straight line?? If you can't get past safely, you don't go past. If you can't abide by these simple rules then you shouldn't have passed your test and you shouldn't be driving. Get a bike!
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Drhysted[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mushymat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Drhysted[/bold] wrote: Just to head off people commenting that the photo shows cyclists two abreast at the front. They had just overtaken a slower rider, after checking there was no interference to motor traffic. How do you know this as fact, I hear you ask? I am the slower rider in the picture.[/p][/quote]Worth pointing out of course that cycling 2 abreast is totally, 100% factually fine and is in accordance to the Highway code. Wish more drivers would know and accept this.[/p][/quote]Of course it's fine but you have to accept that a car legally overtaking you as the slow moving vehicle will be a lot closer than a lot of you seem to like when you choose to ride two abreast on narrow roads. Accept all of the 'legalities' and not just the ones that seem to back up your case.[/p][/quote]As long as they are a safe distance away I do not have a problem. Leave as much room as you would a horse, and we'll be fine. Horses can react violently when startled, causing a cyclist to jump because you are too close can cause a primitive instinct before the main brain has taken full control.[/p][/quote]As I pointed out, a narrow road restricts the amount of available space and if you then choose to ride two abreast, you will be a lot closer to the overtaking vehicle. If you can't control your bicycle, can't manage to keep it in a straight line while being overtaken or you can't read the road ahead then you really should stick to the paths in the local park because you aren't yet ready to use the public highway.[/p][/quote]You're missing the point. Riding two abreast is legal. If riders are doing so, there shouldn't be any room for overtaking and therefore NO overtaking vehicle. If you try to overtake when there's not a safe enough gap, that's dangerous driving and is punishable by law. And what does riding two abreast have to do with riding in a straight line?? If you can't get past safely, you don't go past. If you can't abide by these simple rules then you shouldn't have passed your test and you shouldn't be driving. Get a bike! camerajuan
  • Score: 4

6:40pm Tue 15 Apr 14

bunc1969 says...

The photo is a non story.It's quite simple. The riders on the right are riding in single file and the riders on the left are overtaking in single file. The only car in shot is nowhere near. When one car overtakes another they will pass one another. If you took a picture of this it might look like they were driving side by side.
The photo is a non story.It's quite simple. The riders on the right are riding in single file and the riders on the left are overtaking in single file. The only car in shot is nowhere near. When one car overtakes another they will pass one another. If you took a picture of this it might look like they were driving side by side. bunc1969
  • Score: 5

6:41pm Tue 15 Apr 14

Mushymat says...

Torchie1 wrote:
Drhysted wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Mushymat wrote:
Drhysted wrote:
Just to head off people commenting that the photo shows cyclists two abreast at the front. They had just overtaken a slower rider, after checking there was no interference to motor traffic.
How do you know this as fact, I hear you ask?
I am the slower rider in the picture.
Worth pointing out of course that cycling 2 abreast is totally, 100% factually fine and is in accordance to the Highway code.

Wish more drivers would know and accept this.
Of course it's fine but you have to accept that a car legally overtaking you as the slow moving vehicle will be a lot closer than a lot of you seem to like when you choose to ride two abreast on narrow roads. Accept all of the 'legalities' and not just the ones that seem to back up your case.
As long as they are a safe distance away I do not have a problem.

Leave as much room as you would a horse, and we'll be fine. Horses can react violently when startled, causing a cyclist to jump because you are too close can cause a primitive instinct before the main brain has taken full control.
As I pointed out, a narrow road restricts the amount of available space and if you then choose to ride two abreast, you will be a lot closer to the overtaking vehicle. If you can't control your bicycle, can't manage to keep it in a straight line while being overtaken or you can't read the road ahead then you really should stick to the paths in the local park because you aren't yet ready to use the public highway.
What broken logic.

Cycling 2 abrest is legal

Overtaking when not safe todo so is not. Do that in your driving test and you would fail.

You know this, and yet you manage to find away to blame your actions on the others following the rules corrects.

Can u suggest that perhaps it's people like you who are not ready to use the public highway?
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Drhysted[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mushymat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Drhysted[/bold] wrote: Just to head off people commenting that the photo shows cyclists two abreast at the front. They had just overtaken a slower rider, after checking there was no interference to motor traffic. How do you know this as fact, I hear you ask? I am the slower rider in the picture.[/p][/quote]Worth pointing out of course that cycling 2 abreast is totally, 100% factually fine and is in accordance to the Highway code. Wish more drivers would know and accept this.[/p][/quote]Of course it's fine but you have to accept that a car legally overtaking you as the slow moving vehicle will be a lot closer than a lot of you seem to like when you choose to ride two abreast on narrow roads. Accept all of the 'legalities' and not just the ones that seem to back up your case.[/p][/quote]As long as they are a safe distance away I do not have a problem. Leave as much room as you would a horse, and we'll be fine. Horses can react violently when startled, causing a cyclist to jump because you are too close can cause a primitive instinct before the main brain has taken full control.[/p][/quote]As I pointed out, a narrow road restricts the amount of available space and if you then choose to ride two abreast, you will be a lot closer to the overtaking vehicle. If you can't control your bicycle, can't manage to keep it in a straight line while being overtaken or you can't read the road ahead then you really should stick to the paths in the local park because you aren't yet ready to use the public highway.[/p][/quote]What broken logic. Cycling 2 abrest is legal Overtaking when not safe todo so is not. Do that in your driving test and you would fail. You know this, and yet you manage to find away to blame your actions on the others following the rules corrects. Can u suggest that perhaps it's people like you who are not ready to use the public highway? Mushymat
  • Score: 2

6:54pm Tue 15 Apr 14

Mushymat says...

binghammac wrote:
These imbeciles, between Beaulieu and Brockenhurst, were riding 4 abreast, obstructing traffic going the same way and endangering traffic going the opposite direction because frequently they suddenly went over the white line. They should be banned from the New Forest and make a nuisance of themselves in places where the population density is a great deal lower.
No one believes you, because it didn't happen.

If it did happen we would have photographs of it, like we do of every other illegal activity by cyclists. But we don't have any photos. And as a cyclist who have ridden maybe 20-30 of rides of this size I can honestly say I have never seen 4 cyclists riding abreast, not once.

Forget the fact theirs simply not technically possible as roads are never wide enough, it also serves no purpose for the cyclists. With wind they wouldn't be able to speak to anyone but the closest cyclist, let alone the cyclists 2-3 down. And finally, the one single major reason it won't happen would be that it would aggravate ever other cyclist behind them that would be unable to overtake them.

Can I suggest you try a little harder when trolling. The tip is not to over exaggerate and use hyperbole too much. It makes you look quite frankly a little stupid.
[quote][p][bold]binghammac[/bold] wrote: These imbeciles, between Beaulieu and Brockenhurst, were riding 4 abreast, obstructing traffic going the same way and endangering traffic going the opposite direction because frequently they suddenly went over the white line. They should be banned from the New Forest and make a nuisance of themselves in places where the population density is a great deal lower.[/p][/quote]No one believes you, because it didn't happen. If it did happen we would have photographs of it, like we do of every other illegal activity by cyclists. But we don't have any photos. And as a cyclist who have ridden maybe 20-30 of rides of this size I can honestly say I have never seen 4 cyclists riding abreast, not once. Forget the fact theirs simply not technically possible as roads are never wide enough, it also serves no purpose for the cyclists. With wind they wouldn't be able to speak to anyone but the closest cyclist, let alone the cyclists 2-3 down. And finally, the one single major reason it won't happen would be that it would aggravate ever other cyclist behind them that would be unable to overtake them. Can I suggest you try a little harder when trolling. The tip is not to over exaggerate and use hyperbole too much. It makes you look quite frankly a little stupid. Mushymat
  • Score: 8

7:12pm Tue 15 Apr 14

tidierbike says...

binghammac wrote:
These imbeciles, between Beaulieu and Brockenhurst, were riding 4 abreast, obstructing traffic going the same way and endangering traffic going the opposite direction because frequently they suddenly went over the white line. They should be banned from the New Forest and make a nuisance of themselves in places where the population density is a great deal lower.
I did the event on Saturday and yes there were some idiots, but you can't stop some people. However, at no point did I see anyone cycling more than 2 abreast unless they were overtaking at a safe point. UKCE make it VERY clear at the start briefing given to all competitors immediately before the start that anyone caught cycling 3 or more abreast will be banned. All users of the forest should respect everyone else as well as the beautiful countryside and wildlife. It was a fantastic day to be out on a bike!

and yes, I do own a car - cycling is "exercise". Some narrow-minded people should try it sometime....
[quote][p][bold]binghammac[/bold] wrote: These imbeciles, between Beaulieu and Brockenhurst, were riding 4 abreast, obstructing traffic going the same way and endangering traffic going the opposite direction because frequently they suddenly went over the white line. They should be banned from the New Forest and make a nuisance of themselves in places where the population density is a great deal lower.[/p][/quote]I did the event on Saturday and yes there were some idiots, but you can't stop some people. However, at no point did I see anyone cycling more than 2 abreast unless they were overtaking at a safe point. UKCE make it VERY clear at the start briefing given to all competitors immediately before the start that anyone caught cycling 3 or more abreast will be banned. All users of the forest should respect everyone else as well as the beautiful countryside and wildlife. It was a fantastic day to be out on a bike! and yes, I do own a car - cycling is "exercise". Some narrow-minded people should try it sometime.... tidierbike
  • Score: 6

7:19pm Tue 15 Apr 14

binghammac says...

I have a foreward looking video camera and the infringements are recorded on this camera.
I have a foreward looking video camera and the infringements are recorded on this camera. binghammac
  • Score: -1

8:07pm Tue 15 Apr 14

mrmac1 says...

MushyMat

Here is what the Highway Code says about cycling 2 abreast;

You should never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends.

It is also probably worth pointing out that you could also be reported for obstructing the highway.
MushyMat Here is what the Highway Code says about cycling 2 abreast; You should never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends. It is also probably worth pointing out that you could also be reported for obstructing the highway. mrmac1
  • Score: 5

8:56pm Tue 15 Apr 14

Mushymat says...

mrmac1 wrote:
MushyMat

Here is what the Highway Code says about cycling 2 abreast;

You should never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends.

It is also probably worth pointing out that you could also be reported for obstructing the highway.
Don't need to tell me, I'm more than aware of the rules.

But...

Cycling in single file is not done to benifit motorists. You will notice the HC does not once ask cyclists to cycle at the edge of a road. And as such you should know that cyclists have every right to cycle in any position in their lane.

As for "obstructing traffic" - cycling in a safe maner will never be regarded as obstructing traffic. And I'm sure you're aware that speed limits are limits and not targets. As such if traffic (ie cyclists) are traveling at a safe speed any police officer would have a hard time defining that as an obstruction. I'm yet to hear of a single reported case of such a thing.

Ofcourse if you want to look at cyclists like that, next time you drive (let's say though a town or city) please make a note of all the time congestion, badly parked cars cause you an obstruction.
[quote][p][bold]mrmac1[/bold] wrote: MushyMat Here is what the Highway Code says about cycling 2 abreast; You should never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends. It is also probably worth pointing out that you could also be reported for obstructing the highway.[/p][/quote]Don't need to tell me, I'm more than aware of the rules. But... Cycling in single file is not done to benifit motorists. You will notice the HC does not once ask cyclists to cycle at the edge of a road. And as such you should know that cyclists have every right to cycle in any position in their lane. As for "obstructing traffic" - cycling in a safe maner will never be regarded as obstructing traffic. And I'm sure you're aware that speed limits are limits and not targets. As such if traffic (ie cyclists) are traveling at a safe speed any police officer would have a hard time defining that as an obstruction. I'm yet to hear of a single reported case of such a thing. Ofcourse if you want to look at cyclists like that, next time you drive (let's say though a town or city) please make a note of all the time congestion, badly parked cars cause you an obstruction. Mushymat
  • Score: 2

9:10pm Tue 15 Apr 14

DanWeston says...

Am I reading this correctly.....

There are people on this forum, who are justifying the injury of animals and people on the grounds that they think someone took up too much room?
Am I reading this correctly..... There are people on this forum, who are justifying the injury of animals and people on the grounds that they think someone took up too much room? DanWeston
  • Score: 3

10:09pm Tue 15 Apr 14

southamptonadi says...

binghammac wrote:
I have a foreward looking video camera and the infringements are recorded on this camera.
Please post on YouTube and give us the link so we can all see and pass to the relevant people.

If you can't please go away.
[quote][p][bold]binghammac[/bold] wrote: I have a foreward looking video camera and the infringements are recorded on this camera.[/p][/quote]Please post on YouTube and give us the link so we can all see and pass to the relevant people. If you can't please go away. southamptonadi
  • Score: 1

12:33am Wed 16 Apr 14

Georgethepie says...

What a waste of time..... All because a few Lycra clad cyclists got punchers or sent the wrong way. We now need old bill knocking on doors.
What a waste of time..... All because a few Lycra clad cyclists got punchers or sent the wrong way. We now need old bill knocking on doors. Georgethepie
  • Score: -6

12:36am Wed 16 Apr 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Georgethepie wrote:
What a waste of time..... All because a few Lycra clad cyclists got punchers or sent the wrong way. We now need old bill knocking on doors.
A puncher is another name for a boxer isn't it? Or do you mean "PUNCTURES"? Also, it's not just because some PEOPLE got punctures, it's because it was not only dangerous to those in the ride but it was also dangerous to anyone else AND dangerous to the wildlife.
[quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: What a waste of time..... All because a few Lycra clad cyclists got punchers or sent the wrong way. We now need old bill knocking on doors.[/p][/quote]A puncher is another name for a boxer isn't it? Or do you mean "PUNCTURES"? Also, it's not just because some PEOPLE got punctures, it's because it was not only dangerous to those in the ride but it was also dangerous to anyone else AND dangerous to the wildlife. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 2

12:39am Wed 16 Apr 14

Georgethepie says...

Mushymat wrote:
chimneysweep 1234 wrote:
The photo above shows the bikes all over the road ..simple ....photos don't lie
What? Stop being an idiot.

Not one of them is taking up anymore space than a car, on an empty road.

Do you know the Highway code?
Cars pay road tax. You also need insurance and a licence. Unlike people on bikes who just go out and do as they please.
[quote][p][bold]Mushymat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]chimneysweep 1234[/bold] wrote: The photo above shows the bikes all over the road ..simple ....photos don't lie[/p][/quote]What? Stop being an idiot. Not one of them is taking up anymore space than a car, on an empty road. Do you know the Highway code?[/p][/quote]Cars pay road tax. You also need insurance and a licence. Unlike people on bikes who just go out and do as they please. Georgethepie
  • Score: -4

12:44am Wed 16 Apr 14

Georgethepie says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
What a waste of time..... All because a few Lycra clad cyclists got punchers or sent the wrong way. We now need old bill knocking on doors.
A puncher is another name for a boxer isn't it? Or do you mean "PUNCTURES"? Also, it's not just because some PEOPLE got punctures, it's because it was not only dangerous to those in the ride but it was also dangerous to anyone else AND dangerous to the wildlife.
Sorry predictive text. Either way it's a waste of time and money in my view as they won't find the person or persons who carried out this crime.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: What a waste of time..... All because a few Lycra clad cyclists got punchers or sent the wrong way. We now need old bill knocking on doors.[/p][/quote]A puncher is another name for a boxer isn't it? Or do you mean "PUNCTURES"? Also, it's not just because some PEOPLE got punctures, it's because it was not only dangerous to those in the ride but it was also dangerous to anyone else AND dangerous to the wildlife.[/p][/quote]Sorry predictive text. Either way it's a waste of time and money in my view as they won't find the person or persons who carried out this crime. Georgethepie
  • Score: -3

12:47am Wed 16 Apr 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Georgethepie wrote:
Mushymat wrote:
chimneysweep 1234 wrote:
The photo above shows the bikes all over the road ..simple ....photos don't lie
What? Stop being an idiot.

Not one of them is taking up anymore space than a car, on an empty road.

Do you know the Highway code?
Cars pay road tax. You also need insurance and a licence. Unlike people on bikes who just go out and do as they please.
Cars do NOT pay road tax,neither do motorists as road tax has NOT existed since 1937 and was replaced by VED which is a tax on the pollution that vehicles produce as for insurance, cycle insurance is literally given away as cyclists pose little to no risk, especially compared to a car and the same goes for licencing, plus, a licence means you only have PERMISSION to drive on the road(like my rod licence gives me permission to fish in fresh water but not to fish on private land), cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders use the roads by automatic RIGHT.
[quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mushymat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]chimneysweep 1234[/bold] wrote: The photo above shows the bikes all over the road ..simple ....photos don't lie[/p][/quote]What? Stop being an idiot. Not one of them is taking up anymore space than a car, on an empty road. Do you know the Highway code?[/p][/quote]Cars pay road tax. You also need insurance and a licence. Unlike people on bikes who just go out and do as they please.[/p][/quote]Cars do NOT pay road tax,neither do motorists as road tax has NOT existed since 1937 and was replaced by VED which is a tax on the pollution that vehicles produce as for insurance, cycle insurance is literally given away as cyclists pose little to no risk, especially compared to a car and the same goes for licencing, plus, a licence means you only have PERMISSION to drive on the road(like my rod licence gives me permission to fish in fresh water but not to fish on private land), cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders use the roads by automatic RIGHT. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 2

12:48am Wed 16 Apr 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Georgethepie wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
What a waste of time..... All because a few Lycra clad cyclists got punchers or sent the wrong way. We now need old bill knocking on doors.
A puncher is another name for a boxer isn't it? Or do you mean "PUNCTURES"? Also, it's not just because some PEOPLE got punctures, it's because it was not only dangerous to those in the ride but it was also dangerous to anyone else AND dangerous to the wildlife.
Sorry predictive text. Either way it's a waste of time and money in my view as they won't find the person or persons who carried out this crime.
Still, you clearly don't know how dangerou sharp objects can be to more than just tyres.
[quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: What a waste of time..... All because a few Lycra clad cyclists got punchers or sent the wrong way. We now need old bill knocking on doors.[/p][/quote]A puncher is another name for a boxer isn't it? Or do you mean "PUNCTURES"? Also, it's not just because some PEOPLE got punctures, it's because it was not only dangerous to those in the ride but it was also dangerous to anyone else AND dangerous to the wildlife.[/p][/quote]Sorry predictive text. Either way it's a waste of time and money in my view as they won't find the person or persons who carried out this crime.[/p][/quote]Still, you clearly don't know how dangerou sharp objects can be to more than just tyres. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 3

1:21am Wed 16 Apr 14

BeyondImagination says...

Torchie1 wrote:
Drhysted wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Mushymat wrote:
Drhysted wrote:
Just to head off people commenting that the photo shows cyclists two abreast at the front. They had just overtaken a slower rider, after checking there was no interference to motor traffic.
How do you know this as fact, I hear you ask?
I am the slower rider in the picture.
Worth pointing out of course that cycling 2 abreast is totally, 100% factually fine and is in accordance to the Highway code.

Wish more drivers would know and accept this.
Of course it's fine but you have to accept that a car legally overtaking you as the slow moving vehicle will be a lot closer than a lot of you seem to like when you choose to ride two abreast on narrow roads. Accept all of the 'legalities' and not just the ones that seem to back up your case.
As long as they are a safe distance away I do not have a problem.

Leave as much room as you would a horse, and we'll be fine. Horses can react violently when startled, causing a cyclist to jump because you are too close can cause a primitive instinct before the main brain has taken full control.
As I pointed out, a narrow road restricts the amount of available space and if you then choose to ride two abreast, you will be a lot closer to the overtaking vehicle. If you can't control your bicycle, can't manage to keep it in a straight line while being overtaken or you can't read the road ahead then you really should stick to the paths in the local park because you aren't yet ready to use the public highway.
If you can't control your right foot on the accelerator and have patience with cyclists a couple of days a year you shouldn't be allowed behind the wheel of a car. Then you'll end up on a bike.
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Drhysted[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mushymat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Drhysted[/bold] wrote: Just to head off people commenting that the photo shows cyclists two abreast at the front. They had just overtaken a slower rider, after checking there was no interference to motor traffic. How do you know this as fact, I hear you ask? I am the slower rider in the picture.[/p][/quote]Worth pointing out of course that cycling 2 abreast is totally, 100% factually fine and is in accordance to the Highway code. Wish more drivers would know and accept this.[/p][/quote]Of course it's fine but you have to accept that a car legally overtaking you as the slow moving vehicle will be a lot closer than a lot of you seem to like when you choose to ride two abreast on narrow roads. Accept all of the 'legalities' and not just the ones that seem to back up your case.[/p][/quote]As long as they are a safe distance away I do not have a problem. Leave as much room as you would a horse, and we'll be fine. Horses can react violently when startled, causing a cyclist to jump because you are too close can cause a primitive instinct before the main brain has taken full control.[/p][/quote]As I pointed out, a narrow road restricts the amount of available space and if you then choose to ride two abreast, you will be a lot closer to the overtaking vehicle. If you can't control your bicycle, can't manage to keep it in a straight line while being overtaken or you can't read the road ahead then you really should stick to the paths in the local park because you aren't yet ready to use the public highway.[/p][/quote]If you can't control your right foot on the accelerator and have patience with cyclists a couple of days a year you shouldn't be allowed behind the wheel of a car. Then you'll end up on a bike. BeyondImagination
  • Score: 2

3:55am Wed 16 Apr 14

Drhysted says...

Georgethepie wrote:
What a waste of time..... All because a few Lycra clad cyclists got punchers or sent the wrong way. We now need old bill knocking on doors.
I don't know the original bloke to do it in Scotland (see these idiots can't even come up with a new idea) got arrested.
He has never reoffended.
A sudden deflation on a cycle can have catastrophic effect, just ask the commuter last year who broke his collar bone due to this idiot.
[quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: What a waste of time..... All because a few Lycra clad cyclists got punchers or sent the wrong way. We now need old bill knocking on doors.[/p][/quote]I don't know the original bloke to do it in Scotland (see these idiots can't even come up with a new idea) got arrested. He has never reoffended. A sudden deflation on a cycle can have catastrophic effect, just ask the commuter last year who broke his collar bone due to this idiot. Drhysted
  • Score: 0

5:37am Wed 16 Apr 14

Georgethepie says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Mushymat wrote:
chimneysweep 1234 wrote:
The photo above shows the bikes all over the road ..simple ....photos don't lie
What? Stop being an idiot.

Not one of them is taking up anymore space than a car, on an empty road.

Do you know the Highway code?
Cars pay road tax. You also need insurance and a licence. Unlike people on bikes who just go out and do as they please.
Cars do NOT pay road tax,neither do motorists as road tax has NOT existed since 1937 and was replaced by VED which is a tax on the pollution that vehicles produce as for insurance, cycle insurance is literally given away as cyclists pose little to no risk, especially compared to a car and the same goes for licencing, plus, a licence means you only have PERMISSION to drive on the road(like my rod licence gives me permission to fish in fresh water but not to fish on private land), cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders use the roads by automatic RIGHT.
Thanks for that!!! So road tax hasn't existed since 1937 if only I had found out sooner I wouldn't have bothered paying 400 odd pounds a year for a silly round disk to go in my window.
Car tax, road fund licence call it what you will . Fact remains without the motorist you would be riding your bike on a mud track anyway. Horses belong in fields and bikes have no place on busy roads in my opinion.
You say they give away insurance but not all cyclists have it and again in my opinion they should along with a proficiency test.
To say they course little to No risk is just stupid. After all how many accident are coursed by idiots on bikes jumping red lights or slipping up the side of trucks into blind spots. Not to mention the ones that ride on pavements.
Funny how the driver is always to blame but never the idiot on the bike.
I don't agree with lives being put at risk by a fool with a grudge against bikes however when I see the stupid things people do on bikes day in day out I would think a few pins are the least of your worries.
Anyway I thought you cyclist had run flat tyres these days or do you blow all your money on trying to look like Chris Hoy.......
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mushymat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]chimneysweep 1234[/bold] wrote: The photo above shows the bikes all over the road ..simple ....photos don't lie[/p][/quote]What? Stop being an idiot. Not one of them is taking up anymore space than a car, on an empty road. Do you know the Highway code?[/p][/quote]Cars pay road tax. You also need insurance and a licence. Unlike people on bikes who just go out and do as they please.[/p][/quote]Cars do NOT pay road tax,neither do motorists as road tax has NOT existed since 1937 and was replaced by VED which is a tax on the pollution that vehicles produce as for insurance, cycle insurance is literally given away as cyclists pose little to no risk, especially compared to a car and the same goes for licencing, plus, a licence means you only have PERMISSION to drive on the road(like my rod licence gives me permission to fish in fresh water but not to fish on private land), cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders use the roads by automatic RIGHT.[/p][/quote]Thanks for that!!! So road tax hasn't existed since 1937 if only I had found out sooner I wouldn't have bothered paying 400 odd pounds a year for a silly round disk to go in my window. Car tax, road fund licence call it what you will . Fact remains without the motorist you would be riding your bike on a mud track anyway. Horses belong in fields and bikes have no place on busy roads in my opinion. You say they give away insurance but not all cyclists have it and again in my opinion they should along with a proficiency test. To say they course little to No risk is just stupid. After all how many accident are coursed by idiots on bikes jumping red lights or slipping up the side of trucks into blind spots. Not to mention the ones that ride on pavements. Funny how the driver is always to blame but never the idiot on the bike. I don't agree with lives being put at risk by a fool with a grudge against bikes however when I see the stupid things people do on bikes day in day out I would think a few pins are the least of your worries. Anyway I thought you cyclist had run flat tyres these days or do you blow all your money on trying to look like Chris Hoy....... Georgethepie
  • Score: -1

6:17am Wed 16 Apr 14

DanWeston says...

Georgethepie wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Mushymat wrote:
chimneysweep 1234 wrote:
The photo above shows the bikes all over the road ..simple ....photos don't lie
What? Stop being an idiot.

Not one of them is taking up anymore space than a car, on an empty road.

Do you know the Highway code?
Cars pay road tax. You also need insurance and a licence. Unlike people on bikes who just go out and do as they please.
Cars do NOT pay road tax,neither do motorists as road tax has NOT existed since 1937 and was replaced by VED which is a tax on the pollution that vehicles produce as for insurance, cycle insurance is literally given away as cyclists pose little to no risk, especially compared to a car and the same goes for licencing, plus, a licence means you only have PERMISSION to drive on the road(like my rod licence gives me permission to fish in fresh water but not to fish on private land), cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders use the roads by automatic RIGHT.
Thanks for that!!! So road tax hasn't existed since 1937 if only I had found out sooner I wouldn't have bothered paying 400 odd pounds a year for a silly round disk to go in my window.
Car tax, road fund licence call it what you will . Fact remains without the motorist you would be riding your bike on a mud track anyway. Horses belong in fields and bikes have no place on busy roads in my opinion.
You say they give away insurance but not all cyclists have it and again in my opinion they should along with a proficiency test.
To say they course little to No risk is just stupid. After all how many accident are coursed by idiots on bikes jumping red lights or slipping up the side of trucks into blind spots. Not to mention the ones that ride on pavements.
Funny how the driver is always to blame but never the idiot on the bike.
I don't agree with lives being put at risk by a fool with a grudge against bikes however when I see the stupid things people do on bikes day in day out I would think a few pins are the least of your worries.
Anyway I thought you cyclist had run flat tyres these days or do you blow all your money on trying to look like Chris Hoy.......
Yet another one with a poor grip on reality

You pay £400 per year because you have chosen to, end of!

MY car is in Band A with an emission of less than 100g CO2 -no charge. Bicycles if included would also be in this zero rated Band

Then your claims about insurance... well we recognise that like Geoff51, motorists in your world never speed, jump lights, cause accidents and the Police are wrong in their estimates that 10% of drivers won't have a licence, insurance or MOT either

Then of course your demands for the New Forest Ponies to be fenced in to keep them of 'your roads" as well!

Have you ever visited Earth, never mind the New Forest
[quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mushymat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]chimneysweep 1234[/bold] wrote: The photo above shows the bikes all over the road ..simple ....photos don't lie[/p][/quote]What? Stop being an idiot. Not one of them is taking up anymore space than a car, on an empty road. Do you know the Highway code?[/p][/quote]Cars pay road tax. You also need insurance and a licence. Unlike people on bikes who just go out and do as they please.[/p][/quote]Cars do NOT pay road tax,neither do motorists as road tax has NOT existed since 1937 and was replaced by VED which is a tax on the pollution that vehicles produce as for insurance, cycle insurance is literally given away as cyclists pose little to no risk, especially compared to a car and the same goes for licencing, plus, a licence means you only have PERMISSION to drive on the road(like my rod licence gives me permission to fish in fresh water but not to fish on private land), cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders use the roads by automatic RIGHT.[/p][/quote]Thanks for that!!! So road tax hasn't existed since 1937 if only I had found out sooner I wouldn't have bothered paying 400 odd pounds a year for a silly round disk to go in my window. Car tax, road fund licence call it what you will . Fact remains without the motorist you would be riding your bike on a mud track anyway. Horses belong in fields and bikes have no place on busy roads in my opinion. You say they give away insurance but not all cyclists have it and again in my opinion they should along with a proficiency test. To say they course little to No risk is just stupid. After all how many accident are coursed by idiots on bikes jumping red lights or slipping up the side of trucks into blind spots. Not to mention the ones that ride on pavements. Funny how the driver is always to blame but never the idiot on the bike. I don't agree with lives being put at risk by a fool with a grudge against bikes however when I see the stupid things people do on bikes day in day out I would think a few pins are the least of your worries. Anyway I thought you cyclist had run flat tyres these days or do you blow all your money on trying to look like Chris Hoy.......[/p][/quote]Yet another one with a poor grip on reality You pay £400 per year because you have chosen to, end of! MY car is in Band A with an emission of less than 100g CO2 -no charge. Bicycles if included would also be in this zero rated Band Then your claims about insurance... well we recognise that like Geoff51, motorists in your world never speed, jump lights, cause accidents and the Police are wrong in their estimates that 10% of drivers won't have a licence, insurance or MOT either Then of course your demands for the New Forest Ponies to be fenced in to keep them of 'your roads" as well! Have you ever visited Earth, never mind the New Forest DanWeston
  • Score: 6

6:22am Wed 16 Apr 14

Drhysted says...

Georgethepie wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Mushymat wrote:
chimneysweep 1234 wrote:
The photo above shows the bikes all over the road ..simple ....photos don't lie
What? Stop being an idiot.

Not one of them is taking up anymore space than a car, on an empty road.

Do you know the Highway code?
Cars pay road tax. You also need insurance and a licence. Unlike people on bikes who just go out and do as they please.
Cars do NOT pay road tax,neither do motorists as road tax has NOT existed since 1937 and was replaced by VED which is a tax on the pollution that vehicles produce as for insurance, cycle insurance is literally given away as cyclists pose little to no risk, especially compared to a car and the same goes for licencing, plus, a licence means you only have PERMISSION to drive on the road(like my rod licence gives me permission to fish in fresh water but not to fish on private land), cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders use the roads by automatic RIGHT.
Thanks for that!!! So road tax hasn't existed since 1937 if only I had found out sooner I wouldn't have bothered paying 400 odd pounds a year for a silly round disk to go in my window.
Car tax, road fund licence call it what you will . Fact remains without the motorist you would be riding your bike on a mud track anyway. Horses belong in fields and bikes have no place on busy roads in my opinion.
You say they give away insurance but not all cyclists have it and again in my opinion they should along with a proficiency test.
To say they course little to No risk is just stupid. After all how many accident are coursed by idiots on bikes jumping red lights or slipping up the side of trucks into blind spots. Not to mention the ones that ride on pavements.
Funny how the driver is always to blame but never the idiot on the bike.
I don't agree with lives being put at risk by a fool with a grudge against bikes however when I see the stupid things people do on bikes day in day out I would think a few pins are the least of your worries.
Anyway I thought you cyclist had run flat tyres these days or do you blow all your money on trying to look like Chris Hoy.......
Without cyclists there would be no roads. It was cyclist groups that brought about the sealed road surface.
The majority of cycle to car accidents are caused by cars pulling out of side roads into the path off, or into cyclists.
The majority of cyclists hit by cars are those that are light like christmas trees and wearing full hi-viz clothing, according to a DfT report improper lighting was responsible for only 20% of accidents.
On average there is one pedestrian per year killed by cyclists in the UK, and normally that is caused by the pedestrian walking into the road without looking.
The vast majority of home insurance policies will cover cyclists, I have taken out extra at the grand sum of £28 for the year (which is much lower than my cars insurance).
If the DVLA charged cyclists VED, we would be in class A which would be £0 (much less that my car again).
In order to drive on the road you must have a license this gives you permission to use the roads, cyclists however (along with horses) have use of the road by right, so your opinion does not count, this was settled in court in 1897.
On my ride to work last night I only saw one car obey the highway code, I don't bother counting the cars that failed because there were too many.

I am not a cycling Nazi, I drive as well (but much less now because I can't stand the poor driving standards of others). But the more drivers put my life at risk for failing to comply with the highway code, when I am in full compliance, the more assertive my riding becomes.
[quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mushymat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]chimneysweep 1234[/bold] wrote: The photo above shows the bikes all over the road ..simple ....photos don't lie[/p][/quote]What? Stop being an idiot. Not one of them is taking up anymore space than a car, on an empty road. Do you know the Highway code?[/p][/quote]Cars pay road tax. You also need insurance and a licence. Unlike people on bikes who just go out and do as they please.[/p][/quote]Cars do NOT pay road tax,neither do motorists as road tax has NOT existed since 1937 and was replaced by VED which is a tax on the pollution that vehicles produce as for insurance, cycle insurance is literally given away as cyclists pose little to no risk, especially compared to a car and the same goes for licencing, plus, a licence means you only have PERMISSION to drive on the road(like my rod licence gives me permission to fish in fresh water but not to fish on private land), cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders use the roads by automatic RIGHT.[/p][/quote]Thanks for that!!! So road tax hasn't existed since 1937 if only I had found out sooner I wouldn't have bothered paying 400 odd pounds a year for a silly round disk to go in my window. Car tax, road fund licence call it what you will . Fact remains without the motorist you would be riding your bike on a mud track anyway. Horses belong in fields and bikes have no place on busy roads in my opinion. You say they give away insurance but not all cyclists have it and again in my opinion they should along with a proficiency test. To say they course little to No risk is just stupid. After all how many accident are coursed by idiots on bikes jumping red lights or slipping up the side of trucks into blind spots. Not to mention the ones that ride on pavements. Funny how the driver is always to blame but never the idiot on the bike. I don't agree with lives being put at risk by a fool with a grudge against bikes however when I see the stupid things people do on bikes day in day out I would think a few pins are the least of your worries. Anyway I thought you cyclist had run flat tyres these days or do you blow all your money on trying to look like Chris Hoy.......[/p][/quote]Without cyclists there would be no roads. It was cyclist groups that brought about the sealed road surface. The majority of cycle to car accidents are caused by cars pulling out of side roads into the path off, or into cyclists. The majority of cyclists hit by cars are those that are light like christmas trees and wearing full hi-viz clothing, according to a DfT report improper lighting was responsible for only 20% of accidents. On average there is one pedestrian per year killed by cyclists in the UK, and normally that is caused by the pedestrian walking into the road without looking. The vast majority of home insurance policies will cover cyclists, I have taken out extra at the grand sum of £28 for the year (which is much lower than my cars insurance). If the DVLA charged cyclists VED, we would be in class A which would be £0 (much less that my car again). In order to drive on the road you must have a license this gives you permission to use the roads, cyclists however (along with horses) have use of the road by right, so your opinion does not count, this was settled in court in 1897. On my ride to work last night I only saw one car obey the highway code, I don't bother counting the cars that failed because there were too many. I am not a cycling Nazi, I drive as well (but much less now because I can't stand the poor driving standards of others). But the more drivers put my life at risk for failing to comply with the highway code, when I am in full compliance, the more assertive my riding becomes. Drhysted
  • Score: 5

9:23am Wed 16 Apr 14

camerajuan says...

Georgethepie wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Mushymat wrote:
chimneysweep 1234 wrote:
The photo above shows the bikes all over the road ..simple ....photos don't lie
What? Stop being an idiot.

Not one of them is taking up anymore space than a car, on an empty road.

Do you know the Highway code?
Cars pay road tax. You also need insurance and a licence. Unlike people on bikes who just go out and do as they please.
Cars do NOT pay road tax,neither do motorists as road tax has NOT existed since 1937 and was replaced by VED which is a tax on the pollution that vehicles produce as for insurance, cycle insurance is literally given away as cyclists pose little to no risk, especially compared to a car and the same goes for licencing, plus, a licence means you only have PERMISSION to drive on the road(like my rod licence gives me permission to fish in fresh water but not to fish on private land), cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders use the roads by automatic RIGHT.
Thanks for that!!! So road tax hasn't existed since 1937 if only I had found out sooner I wouldn't have bothered paying 400 odd pounds a year for a silly round disk to go in my window.
Car tax, road fund licence call it what you will . Fact remains without the motorist you would be riding your bike on a mud track anyway. Horses belong in fields and bikes have no place on busy roads in my opinion.
You say they give away insurance but not all cyclists have it and again in my opinion they should along with a proficiency test.
To say they course little to No risk is just stupid. After all how many accident are coursed by idiots on bikes jumping red lights or slipping up the side of trucks into blind spots. Not to mention the ones that ride on pavements.
Funny how the driver is always to blame but never the idiot on the bike.
I don't agree with lives being put at risk by a fool with a grudge against bikes however when I see the stupid things people do on bikes day in day out I would think a few pins are the least of your worries.
Anyway I thought you cyclist had run flat tyres these days or do you blow all your money on trying to look like Chris Hoy.......
Oh my word. So much wrong in such a little space!

I believe people have thrown their corrections your way so hopefully you will be better educated on the subject for the next unjustified rant that you go on but there is one which nobody has touched on yet. I'll sort it.

If we wanted to look like SIR Chris Hoy, we'd spend years perfecting our bodies for the sole purpose of absolutely tearing up the track on a single geared track bike and be NOWHERE near the roads. Also, what's so wrong about aspiring to be similar to one of the greatest British Olympians of all time exactly? Speaking for myself, my thighs are HUGE so I'm closer to him physically than most are. And I have the same accent.

Seriously. Must. Troll. Better.
[quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mushymat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]chimneysweep 1234[/bold] wrote: The photo above shows the bikes all over the road ..simple ....photos don't lie[/p][/quote]What? Stop being an idiot. Not one of them is taking up anymore space than a car, on an empty road. Do you know the Highway code?[/p][/quote]Cars pay road tax. You also need insurance and a licence. Unlike people on bikes who just go out and do as they please.[/p][/quote]Cars do NOT pay road tax,neither do motorists as road tax has NOT existed since 1937 and was replaced by VED which is a tax on the pollution that vehicles produce as for insurance, cycle insurance is literally given away as cyclists pose little to no risk, especially compared to a car and the same goes for licencing, plus, a licence means you only have PERMISSION to drive on the road(like my rod licence gives me permission to fish in fresh water but not to fish on private land), cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders use the roads by automatic RIGHT.[/p][/quote]Thanks for that!!! So road tax hasn't existed since 1937 if only I had found out sooner I wouldn't have bothered paying 400 odd pounds a year for a silly round disk to go in my window. Car tax, road fund licence call it what you will . Fact remains without the motorist you would be riding your bike on a mud track anyway. Horses belong in fields and bikes have no place on busy roads in my opinion. You say they give away insurance but not all cyclists have it and again in my opinion they should along with a proficiency test. To say they course little to No risk is just stupid. After all how many accident are coursed by idiots on bikes jumping red lights or slipping up the side of trucks into blind spots. Not to mention the ones that ride on pavements. Funny how the driver is always to blame but never the idiot on the bike. I don't agree with lives being put at risk by a fool with a grudge against bikes however when I see the stupid things people do on bikes day in day out I would think a few pins are the least of your worries. Anyway I thought you cyclist had run flat tyres these days or do you blow all your money on trying to look like Chris Hoy.......[/p][/quote]Oh my word. So much wrong in such a little space! I believe people have thrown their corrections your way so hopefully you will be better educated on the subject for the next unjustified rant that you go on but there is one which nobody has touched on yet. I'll sort it. If we wanted to look like SIR Chris Hoy, we'd spend years perfecting our bodies for the sole purpose of absolutely tearing up the track on a single geared track bike and be NOWHERE near the roads. Also, what's so wrong about aspiring to be similar to one of the greatest British Olympians of all time exactly? Speaking for myself, my thighs are HUGE so I'm closer to him physically than most are. And I have the same accent. Seriously. Must. Troll. Better. camerajuan
  • Score: 1

9:33am Wed 16 Apr 14

Franks Tank says...

Georgethepie wrote:
Mushymat wrote:
chimneysweep 1234 wrote:
The photo above shows the bikes all over the road ..simple ....photos don't lie
What? Stop being an idiot.

Not one of them is taking up anymore space than a car, on an empty road.

Do you know the Highway code?
Cars pay road tax. You also need insurance and a licence. Unlike people on bikes who just go out and do as they please.
"Cars pay road tax"?? Oh really? Not very bright are we?
[quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mushymat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]chimneysweep 1234[/bold] wrote: The photo above shows the bikes all over the road ..simple ....photos don't lie[/p][/quote]What? Stop being an idiot. Not one of them is taking up anymore space than a car, on an empty road. Do you know the Highway code?[/p][/quote]Cars pay road tax. You also need insurance and a licence. Unlike people on bikes who just go out and do as they please.[/p][/quote]"Cars pay road tax"?? Oh really? Not very bright are we? Franks Tank
  • Score: 2

9:41am Wed 16 Apr 14

Franks Tank says...

Georgethepie wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Mushymat wrote:
chimneysweep 1234 wrote:
The photo above shows the bikes all over the road ..simple ....photos don't lie
What? Stop being an idiot.

Not one of them is taking up anymore space than a car, on an empty road.

Do you know the Highway code?
Cars pay road tax. You also need insurance and a licence. Unlike people on bikes who just go out and do as they please.
Cars do NOT pay road tax,neither do motorists as road tax has NOT existed since 1937 and was replaced by VED which is a tax on the pollution that vehicles produce as for insurance, cycle insurance is literally given away as cyclists pose little to no risk, especially compared to a car and the same goes for licencing, plus, a licence means you only have PERMISSION to drive on the road(like my rod licence gives me permission to fish in fresh water but not to fish on private land), cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders use the roads by automatic RIGHT.
Thanks for that!!! So road tax hasn't existed since 1937 if only I had found out sooner I wouldn't have bothered paying 400 odd pounds a year for a silly round disk to go in my window.
Car tax, road fund licence call it what you will . Fact remains without the motorist you would be riding your bike on a mud track anyway. Horses belong in fields and bikes have no place on busy roads in my opinion.
You say they give away insurance but not all cyclists have it and again in my opinion they should along with a proficiency test.
To say they course little to No risk is just stupid. After all how many accident are coursed by idiots on bikes jumping red lights or slipping up the side of trucks into blind spots. Not to mention the ones that ride on pavements.
Funny how the driver is always to blame but never the idiot on the bike.
I don't agree with lives being put at risk by a fool with a grudge against bikes however when I see the stupid things people do on bikes day in day out I would think a few pins are the least of your worries.
Anyway I thought you cyclist had run flat tyres these days or do you blow all your money on trying to look like Chris Hoy.......
Around 3 million motorists drive around perfectly legally without paying VED (that's "road tax" to you).
If you are dim enough to choose a car that is charged at a rate of £400 pa you really shouldn't compound your embarrassment by complaining about it on a public forum.
[quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mushymat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]chimneysweep 1234[/bold] wrote: The photo above shows the bikes all over the road ..simple ....photos don't lie[/p][/quote]What? Stop being an idiot. Not one of them is taking up anymore space than a car, on an empty road. Do you know the Highway code?[/p][/quote]Cars pay road tax. You also need insurance and a licence. Unlike people on bikes who just go out and do as they please.[/p][/quote]Cars do NOT pay road tax,neither do motorists as road tax has NOT existed since 1937 and was replaced by VED which is a tax on the pollution that vehicles produce as for insurance, cycle insurance is literally given away as cyclists pose little to no risk, especially compared to a car and the same goes for licencing, plus, a licence means you only have PERMISSION to drive on the road(like my rod licence gives me permission to fish in fresh water but not to fish on private land), cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders use the roads by automatic RIGHT.[/p][/quote]Thanks for that!!! So road tax hasn't existed since 1937 if only I had found out sooner I wouldn't have bothered paying 400 odd pounds a year for a silly round disk to go in my window. Car tax, road fund licence call it what you will . Fact remains without the motorist you would be riding your bike on a mud track anyway. Horses belong in fields and bikes have no place on busy roads in my opinion. You say they give away insurance but not all cyclists have it and again in my opinion they should along with a proficiency test. To say they course little to No risk is just stupid. After all how many accident are coursed by idiots on bikes jumping red lights or slipping up the side of trucks into blind spots. Not to mention the ones that ride on pavements. Funny how the driver is always to blame but never the idiot on the bike. I don't agree with lives being put at risk by a fool with a grudge against bikes however when I see the stupid things people do on bikes day in day out I would think a few pins are the least of your worries. Anyway I thought you cyclist had run flat tyres these days or do you blow all your money on trying to look like Chris Hoy.......[/p][/quote]Around 3 million motorists drive around perfectly legally without paying VED (that's "road tax" to you). If you are dim enough to choose a car that is charged at a rate of £400 pa you really shouldn't compound your embarrassment by complaining about it on a public forum. Franks Tank
  • Score: 3

10:13am Wed 16 Apr 14

Torchie1 says...

Franks Tank wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Mushymat wrote:
chimneysweep 1234 wrote:
The photo above shows the bikes all over the road ..simple ....photos don't lie
What? Stop being an idiot.

Not one of them is taking up anymore space than a car, on an empty road.

Do you know the Highway code?
Cars pay road tax. You also need insurance and a licence. Unlike people on bikes who just go out and do as they please.
Cars do NOT pay road tax,neither do motorists as road tax has NOT existed since 1937 and was replaced by VED which is a tax on the pollution that vehicles produce as for insurance, cycle insurance is literally given away as cyclists pose little to no risk, especially compared to a car and the same goes for licencing, plus, a licence means you only have PERMISSION to drive on the road(like my rod licence gives me permission to fish in fresh water but not to fish on private land), cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders use the roads by automatic RIGHT.
Thanks for that!!! So road tax hasn't existed since 1937 if only I had found out sooner I wouldn't have bothered paying 400 odd pounds a year for a silly round disk to go in my window.
Car tax, road fund licence call it what you will . Fact remains without the motorist you would be riding your bike on a mud track anyway. Horses belong in fields and bikes have no place on busy roads in my opinion.
You say they give away insurance but not all cyclists have it and again in my opinion they should along with a proficiency test.
To say they course little to No risk is just stupid. After all how many accident are coursed by idiots on bikes jumping red lights or slipping up the side of trucks into blind spots. Not to mention the ones that ride on pavements.
Funny how the driver is always to blame but never the idiot on the bike.
I don't agree with lives being put at risk by a fool with a grudge against bikes however when I see the stupid things people do on bikes day in day out I would think a few pins are the least of your worries.
Anyway I thought you cyclist had run flat tyres these days or do you blow all your money on trying to look like Chris Hoy.......
Around 3 million motorists drive around perfectly legally without paying VED (that's "road tax" to you).
If you are dim enough to choose a car that is charged at a rate of £400 pa you really shouldn't compound your embarrassment by complaining about it on a public forum.
Where did you get the figure of 'around 3 million' ? There's a rolling cut-off date to allow the classic vehicles to have a zero rated tax disc and there is modest number of electric/hybrid/low emission vehicles that will soon be in for a surprise, currently paying no VED, but I don't think the whole group consists of 3 million motorists. Let's have a little more flesh on the bones.
[quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mushymat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]chimneysweep 1234[/bold] wrote: The photo above shows the bikes all over the road ..simple ....photos don't lie[/p][/quote]What? Stop being an idiot. Not one of them is taking up anymore space than a car, on an empty road. Do you know the Highway code?[/p][/quote]Cars pay road tax. You also need insurance and a licence. Unlike people on bikes who just go out and do as they please.[/p][/quote]Cars do NOT pay road tax,neither do motorists as road tax has NOT existed since 1937 and was replaced by VED which is a tax on the pollution that vehicles produce as for insurance, cycle insurance is literally given away as cyclists pose little to no risk, especially compared to a car and the same goes for licencing, plus, a licence means you only have PERMISSION to drive on the road(like my rod licence gives me permission to fish in fresh water but not to fish on private land), cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders use the roads by automatic RIGHT.[/p][/quote]Thanks for that!!! So road tax hasn't existed since 1937 if only I had found out sooner I wouldn't have bothered paying 400 odd pounds a year for a silly round disk to go in my window. Car tax, road fund licence call it what you will . Fact remains without the motorist you would be riding your bike on a mud track anyway. Horses belong in fields and bikes have no place on busy roads in my opinion. You say they give away insurance but not all cyclists have it and again in my opinion they should along with a proficiency test. To say they course little to No risk is just stupid. After all how many accident are coursed by idiots on bikes jumping red lights or slipping up the side of trucks into blind spots. Not to mention the ones that ride on pavements. Funny how the driver is always to blame but never the idiot on the bike. I don't agree with lives being put at risk by a fool with a grudge against bikes however when I see the stupid things people do on bikes day in day out I would think a few pins are the least of your worries. Anyway I thought you cyclist had run flat tyres these days or do you blow all your money on trying to look like Chris Hoy.......[/p][/quote]Around 3 million motorists drive around perfectly legally without paying VED (that's "road tax" to you). If you are dim enough to choose a car that is charged at a rate of £400 pa you really shouldn't compound your embarrassment by complaining about it on a public forum.[/p][/quote]Where did you get the figure of 'around 3 million' ? There's a rolling cut-off date to allow the classic vehicles to have a zero rated tax disc and there is modest number of electric/hybrid/low emission vehicles that will soon be in for a surprise, currently paying no VED, but I don't think the whole group consists of 3 million motorists. Let's have a little more flesh on the bones. Torchie1
  • Score: 0

10:28am Wed 16 Apr 14

Dover Saint says...

Torchie1 wrote:
Franks Tank wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Mushymat wrote:
chimneysweep 1234 wrote:
The photo above shows the bikes all over the road ..simple ....photos don't lieWhat? Stop being an idiot.

Not one of them is taking up anymore space than a car, on an empty road.

Do you know the Highway code?Cars pay road tax. You also need insurance and a licence. Unlike people on bikes who just go out and do as they please.Cars do NOT pay road tax,neither do motorists as road tax has NOT existed since 1937 and was replaced by VED which is a tax on the pollution that vehicles produce as for insurance, cycle insurance is literally given away as cyclists pose little to no risk, especially compared to a car and the same goes for licencing, plus, a licence means you only have PERMISSION to drive on the road(like my rod licence gives me permission to fish in fresh water but not to fish on private land), cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders use the roads by automatic RIGHT.Thanks for that!!! So road tax hasn't existed since 1937 if only I had found out sooner I wouldn't have bothered paying 400 odd pounds a year for a silly round disk to go in my window.
Car tax, road fund licence call it what you will . Fact remains without the motorist you would be riding your bike on a mud track anyway. Horses belong in fields and bikes have no place on busy roads in my opinion.
You say they give away insurance but not all cyclists have it and again in my opinion they should along with a proficiency test.
To say they course little to No risk is just stupid. After all how many accident are coursed by idiots on bikes jumping red lights or slipping up the side of trucks into blind spots. Not to mention the ones that ride on pavements.
Funny how the driver is always to blame but never the idiot on the bike.
I don't agree with lives being put at risk by a fool with a grudge against bikes however when I see the stupid things people do on bikes day in day out I would think a few pins are the least of your worries.
Anyway I thought you cyclist had run flat tyres these days or do you blow all your money on trying to look like Chris Hoy.......Around 3 million motorists drive around perfectly legally without paying VED (that's "road taxThe figure is actually nearer 2 million, the list includes, electric cars, hybrids as well as cars such as the VW Golf bluemotion. All the details here: http://ipayroadtax.c
om/no-such-thing-as-
road-tax/who-pays-ro
ad-tax/
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mushymat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]chimneysweep 1234[/bold] wrote: The photo above shows the bikes all over the road ..simple ....photos don't lie[/p][/quote]What? Stop being an idiot. Not one of them is taking up anymore space than a car, on an empty road. Do you know the Highway code?[/p][/quote]Cars pay road tax. You also need insurance and a licence. Unlike people on bikes who just go out and do as they please.[/p][/quote]Cars do NOT pay road tax,neither do motorists as road tax has NOT existed since 1937 and was replaced by VED which is a tax on the pollution that vehicles produce as for insurance, cycle insurance is literally given away as cyclists pose little to no risk, especially compared to a car and the same goes for licencing, plus, a licence means you only have PERMISSION to drive on the road(like my rod licence gives me permission to fish in fresh water but not to fish on private land), cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders use the roads by automatic RIGHT.[/p][/quote]Thanks for that!!! So road tax hasn't existed since 1937 if only I had found out sooner I wouldn't have bothered paying 400 odd pounds a year for a silly round disk to go in my window. Car tax, road fund licence call it what you will . Fact remains without the motorist you would be riding your bike on a mud track anyway. Horses belong in fields and bikes have no place on busy roads in my opinion. You say they give away insurance but not all cyclists have it and again in my opinion they should along with a proficiency test. To say they course little to No risk is just stupid. After all how many accident are coursed by idiots on bikes jumping red lights or slipping up the side of trucks into blind spots. Not to mention the ones that ride on pavements. Funny how the driver is always to blame but never the idiot on the bike. I don't agree with lives being put at risk by a fool with a grudge against bikes however when I see the stupid things people do on bikes day in day out I would think a few pins are the least of your worries. Anyway I thought you cyclist had run flat tyres these days or do you blow all your money on trying to look like Chris Hoy.......[/p][/quote]Around 3 million motorists drive around perfectly legally without paying VED (that's "road taxThe figure is actually nearer 2 million, the list includes, electric cars, hybrids as well as cars such as the VW Golf bluemotion. All the details here: http://ipayroadtax.c om/no-such-thing-as- road-tax/who-pays-ro ad-tax/ Dover Saint
  • Score: 0

10:29am Wed 16 Apr 14

Franks Tank says...

Torchie1 wrote:
Franks Tank wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Mushymat wrote:
chimneysweep 1234 wrote:
The photo above shows the bikes all over the road ..simple ....photos don't lie
What? Stop being an idiot.

Not one of them is taking up anymore space than a car, on an empty road.

Do you know the Highway code?
Cars pay road tax. You also need insurance and a licence. Unlike people on bikes who just go out and do as they please.
Cars do NOT pay road tax,neither do motorists as road tax has NOT existed since 1937 and was replaced by VED which is a tax on the pollution that vehicles produce as for insurance, cycle insurance is literally given away as cyclists pose little to no risk, especially compared to a car and the same goes for licencing, plus, a licence means you only have PERMISSION to drive on the road(like my rod licence gives me permission to fish in fresh water but not to fish on private land), cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders use the roads by automatic RIGHT.
Thanks for that!!! So road tax hasn't existed since 1937 if only I had found out sooner I wouldn't have bothered paying 400 odd pounds a year for a silly round disk to go in my window.
Car tax, road fund licence call it what you will . Fact remains without the motorist you would be riding your bike on a mud track anyway. Horses belong in fields and bikes have no place on busy roads in my opinion.
You say they give away insurance but not all cyclists have it and again in my opinion they should along with a proficiency test.
To say they course little to No risk is just stupid. After all how many accident are coursed by idiots on bikes jumping red lights or slipping up the side of trucks into blind spots. Not to mention the ones that ride on pavements.
Funny how the driver is always to blame but never the idiot on the bike.
I don't agree with lives being put at risk by a fool with a grudge against bikes however when I see the stupid things people do on bikes day in day out I would think a few pins are the least of your worries.
Anyway I thought you cyclist had run flat tyres these days or do you blow all your money on trying to look like Chris Hoy.......
Around 3 million motorists drive around perfectly legally without paying VED (that's "road tax" to you).
If you are dim enough to choose a car that is charged at a rate of £400 pa you really shouldn't compound your embarrassment by complaining about it on a public forum.
Where did you get the figure of 'around 3 million' ? There's a rolling cut-off date to allow the classic vehicles to have a zero rated tax disc and there is modest number of electric/hybrid/low emission vehicles that will soon be in for a surprise, currently paying no VED, but I don't think the whole group consists of 3 million motorists. Let's have a little more flesh on the bones.
You'll have to excuse me cutting and pasting but I sure you'll get my point.

According to the latest registration stats from the Department for Transport, there are 57,000 cars in VED band A.
Additionally, 38.2 percent of new cars have emissions of less than 130g/km so that’s 474,000 vehicles which pay no VED for the first year of ownership.
Cars built before 1973 are classified as historic and are exempt from VED. In 2006, there were 307,407 such vehicles on the road.
Those ex-soldiers in receipt of war pensioners’ mobility supplement, are exempt from VED, and there are at least 18,340 individuals who have a VED-waiving WPA442 form.
Disabled drivers are also exempt from VED. in 2007, 1.12 million Vehicle Excise Duty exemptions were granted to disabled people.
American soldiers operating in Britain pay no VED on their imported cars. Emergency vehicles don’t pay VED, either. And that includes police cars, fire-engines, and ambulances and other health-service vehicles, of which there are 450,000 on the roads.
Road construction vehicles and gritters are also exempt from VED.
And guess what, QEII pays zero VED. It’s not just the Queen who gets away with it, other Royals do, too: no Crown vehicles pay Vehicle Excise Duty.
Ministerial cars don’t have to cough up, either. The entire fleet of vehicles operated by the Government Car and Despatch Agency (873 cars in 2008, 30 of which would be in the highest, most CO2-emitting car tax bands) is exempt from paying Vehicle Excise Duty.
Even been stuck behind a farm tractor on a rural road? That tractor doesn’t pay VED. In fact, agricultural vehicles are supplied with free tax discs. There are about 17,000 new tractors sold per year in the UK, with many thousands of older ones on farms across Britain.

"Tax Dodgers" there's millions of them not paying to use the road.
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mushymat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]chimneysweep 1234[/bold] wrote: The photo above shows the bikes all over the road ..simple ....photos don't lie[/p][/quote]What? Stop being an idiot. Not one of them is taking up anymore space than a car, on an empty road. Do you know the Highway code?[/p][/quote]Cars pay road tax. You also need insurance and a licence. Unlike people on bikes who just go out and do as they please.[/p][/quote]Cars do NOT pay road tax,neither do motorists as road tax has NOT existed since 1937 and was replaced by VED which is a tax on the pollution that vehicles produce as for insurance, cycle insurance is literally given away as cyclists pose little to no risk, especially compared to a car and the same goes for licencing, plus, a licence means you only have PERMISSION to drive on the road(like my rod licence gives me permission to fish in fresh water but not to fish on private land), cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders use the roads by automatic RIGHT.[/p][/quote]Thanks for that!!! So road tax hasn't existed since 1937 if only I had found out sooner I wouldn't have bothered paying 400 odd pounds a year for a silly round disk to go in my window. Car tax, road fund licence call it what you will . Fact remains without the motorist you would be riding your bike on a mud track anyway. Horses belong in fields and bikes have no place on busy roads in my opinion. You say they give away insurance but not all cyclists have it and again in my opinion they should along with a proficiency test. To say they course little to No risk is just stupid. After all how many accident are coursed by idiots on bikes jumping red lights or slipping up the side of trucks into blind spots. Not to mention the ones that ride on pavements. Funny how the driver is always to blame but never the idiot on the bike. I don't agree with lives being put at risk by a fool with a grudge against bikes however when I see the stupid things people do on bikes day in day out I would think a few pins are the least of your worries. Anyway I thought you cyclist had run flat tyres these days or do you blow all your money on trying to look like Chris Hoy.......[/p][/quote]Around 3 million motorists drive around perfectly legally without paying VED (that's "road tax" to you). If you are dim enough to choose a car that is charged at a rate of £400 pa you really shouldn't compound your embarrassment by complaining about it on a public forum.[/p][/quote]Where did you get the figure of 'around 3 million' ? There's a rolling cut-off date to allow the classic vehicles to have a zero rated tax disc and there is modest number of electric/hybrid/low emission vehicles that will soon be in for a surprise, currently paying no VED, but I don't think the whole group consists of 3 million motorists. Let's have a little more flesh on the bones.[/p][/quote]You'll have to excuse me cutting and pasting but I sure you'll get my point. According to the latest registration stats from the Department for Transport, there are 57,000 cars in VED band A. Additionally, 38.2 percent of new cars have emissions of less than 130g/km so that’s 474,000 vehicles which pay no VED for the first year of ownership. Cars built before 1973 are classified as historic and are exempt from VED. In 2006, there were 307,407 such vehicles on the road. Those ex-soldiers in receipt of war pensioners’ mobility supplement, are exempt from VED, and there are at least 18,340 individuals who have a VED-waiving WPA442 form. Disabled drivers are also exempt from VED. in 2007, 1.12 million Vehicle Excise Duty exemptions were granted to disabled people. American soldiers operating in Britain pay no VED on their imported cars. Emergency vehicles don’t pay VED, either. And that includes police cars, fire-engines, and ambulances and other health-service vehicles, of which there are 450,000 on the roads. Road construction vehicles and gritters are also exempt from VED. And guess what, QEII pays zero VED. It’s not just the Queen who gets away with it, other Royals do, too: no Crown vehicles pay Vehicle Excise Duty. Ministerial cars don’t have to cough up, either. The entire fleet of vehicles operated by the Government Car and Despatch Agency (873 cars in 2008, 30 of which would be in the highest, most CO2-emitting car tax bands) is exempt from paying Vehicle Excise Duty. Even been stuck behind a farm tractor on a rural road? That tractor doesn’t pay VED. In fact, agricultural vehicles are supplied with free tax discs. There are about 17,000 new tractors sold per year in the UK, with many thousands of older ones on farms across Britain. "Tax Dodgers" there's millions of them not paying to use the road. Franks Tank
  • Score: 3

11:44am Wed 16 Apr 14

Torchie1 says...

Franks Tank wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Franks Tank wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Mushymat wrote:
chimneysweep 1234 wrote:
The photo above shows the bikes all over the road ..simple ....photos don't lie
What? Stop being an idiot.

Not one of them is taking up anymore space than a car, on an empty road.

Do you know the Highway code?
Cars pay road tax. You also need insurance and a licence. Unlike people on bikes who just go out and do as they please.
Cars do NOT pay road tax,neither do motorists as road tax has NOT existed since 1937 and was replaced by VED which is a tax on the pollution that vehicles produce as for insurance, cycle insurance is literally given away as cyclists pose little to no risk, especially compared to a car and the same goes for licencing, plus, a licence means you only have PERMISSION to drive on the road(like my rod licence gives me permission to fish in fresh water but not to fish on private land), cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders use the roads by automatic RIGHT.
Thanks for that!!! So road tax hasn't existed since 1937 if only I had found out sooner I wouldn't have bothered paying 400 odd pounds a year for a silly round disk to go in my window.
Car tax, road fund licence call it what you will . Fact remains without the motorist you would be riding your bike on a mud track anyway. Horses belong in fields and bikes have no place on busy roads in my opinion.
You say they give away insurance but not all cyclists have it and again in my opinion they should along with a proficiency test.
To say they course little to No risk is just stupid. After all how many accident are coursed by idiots on bikes jumping red lights or slipping up the side of trucks into blind spots. Not to mention the ones that ride on pavements.
Funny how the driver is always to blame but never the idiot on the bike.
I don't agree with lives being put at risk by a fool with a grudge against bikes however when I see the stupid things people do on bikes day in day out I would think a few pins are the least of your worries.
Anyway I thought you cyclist had run flat tyres these days or do you blow all your money on trying to look like Chris Hoy.......
Around 3 million motorists drive around perfectly legally without paying VED (that's "road tax" to you).
If you are dim enough to choose a car that is charged at a rate of £400 pa you really shouldn't compound your embarrassment by complaining about it on a public forum.
Where did you get the figure of 'around 3 million' ? There's a rolling cut-off date to allow the classic vehicles to have a zero rated tax disc and there is modest number of electric/hybrid/low emission vehicles that will soon be in for a surprise, currently paying no VED, but I don't think the whole group consists of 3 million motorists. Let's have a little more flesh on the bones.
You'll have to excuse me cutting and pasting but I sure you'll get my point.

According to the latest registration stats from the Department for Transport, there are 57,000 cars in VED band A.
Additionally, 38.2 percent of new cars have emissions of less than 130g/km so that’s 474,000 vehicles which pay no VED for the first year of ownership.
Cars built before 1973 are classified as historic and are exempt from VED. In 2006, there were 307,407 such vehicles on the road.
Those ex-soldiers in receipt of war pensioners’ mobility supplement, are exempt from VED, and there are at least 18,340 individuals who have a VED-waiving WPA442 form.
Disabled drivers are also exempt from VED. in 2007, 1.12 million Vehicle Excise Duty exemptions were granted to disabled people.
American soldiers operating in Britain pay no VED on their imported cars. Emergency vehicles don’t pay VED, either. And that includes police cars, fire-engines, and ambulances and other health-service vehicles, of which there are 450,000 on the roads.
Road construction vehicles and gritters are also exempt from VED.
And guess what, QEII pays zero VED. It’s not just the Queen who gets away with it, other Royals do, too: no Crown vehicles pay Vehicle Excise Duty.
Ministerial cars don’t have to cough up, either. The entire fleet of vehicles operated by the Government Car and Despatch Agency (873 cars in 2008, 30 of which would be in the highest, most CO2-emitting car tax bands) is exempt from paying Vehicle Excise Duty.
Even been stuck behind a farm tractor on a rural road? That tractor doesn’t pay VED. In fact, agricultural vehicles are supplied with free tax discs. There are about 17,000 new tractors sold per year in the UK, with many thousands of older ones on farms across Britain.

"Tax Dodgers" there's millions of them not paying to use the road.
I'll take your word for it but you're wrong about farm tractors which do require a tax disc unless they are only briefly using the public highway to access the owners field. Apart from that they have to pay road tax and as lots of farmers do contract work it means that they pay to be on the road.
As for concerning yourself about 'tax dodgers' there is a myriad of legal dodges to avoid MOT/Plating requirements, to drive vehicles without obtaining the pertinent licence or undertake training, and to obtain really cheap insurance and finally a way to obtain free fuel if you know your way around the system. Next time you're fretting over a motorist getting something for nothing, include these on your angst list.
[quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mushymat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]chimneysweep 1234[/bold] wrote: The photo above shows the bikes all over the road ..simple ....photos don't lie[/p][/quote]What? Stop being an idiot. Not one of them is taking up anymore space than a car, on an empty road. Do you know the Highway code?[/p][/quote]Cars pay road tax. You also need insurance and a licence. Unlike people on bikes who just go out and do as they please.[/p][/quote]Cars do NOT pay road tax,neither do motorists as road tax has NOT existed since 1937 and was replaced by VED which is a tax on the pollution that vehicles produce as for insurance, cycle insurance is literally given away as cyclists pose little to no risk, especially compared to a car and the same goes for licencing, plus, a licence means you only have PERMISSION to drive on the road(like my rod licence gives me permission to fish in fresh water but not to fish on private land), cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders use the roads by automatic RIGHT.[/p][/quote]Thanks for that!!! So road tax hasn't existed since 1937 if only I had found out sooner I wouldn't have bothered paying 400 odd pounds a year for a silly round disk to go in my window. Car tax, road fund licence call it what you will . Fact remains without the motorist you would be riding your bike on a mud track anyway. Horses belong in fields and bikes have no place on busy roads in my opinion. You say they give away insurance but not all cyclists have it and again in my opinion they should along with a proficiency test. To say they course little to No risk is just stupid. After all how many accident are coursed by idiots on bikes jumping red lights or slipping up the side of trucks into blind spots. Not to mention the ones that ride on pavements. Funny how the driver is always to blame but never the idiot on the bike. I don't agree with lives being put at risk by a fool with a grudge against bikes however when I see the stupid things people do on bikes day in day out I would think a few pins are the least of your worries. Anyway I thought you cyclist had run flat tyres these days or do you blow all your money on trying to look like Chris Hoy.......[/p][/quote]Around 3 million motorists drive around perfectly legally without paying VED (that's "road tax" to you). If you are dim enough to choose a car that is charged at a rate of £400 pa you really shouldn't compound your embarrassment by complaining about it on a public forum.[/p][/quote]Where did you get the figure of 'around 3 million' ? There's a rolling cut-off date to allow the classic vehicles to have a zero rated tax disc and there is modest number of electric/hybrid/low emission vehicles that will soon be in for a surprise, currently paying no VED, but I don't think the whole group consists of 3 million motorists. Let's have a little more flesh on the bones.[/p][/quote]You'll have to excuse me cutting and pasting but I sure you'll get my point. According to the latest registration stats from the Department for Transport, there are 57,000 cars in VED band A. Additionally, 38.2 percent of new cars have emissions of less than 130g/km so that’s 474,000 vehicles which pay no VED for the first year of ownership. Cars built before 1973 are classified as historic and are exempt from VED. In 2006, there were 307,407 such vehicles on the road. Those ex-soldiers in receipt of war pensioners’ mobility supplement, are exempt from VED, and there are at least 18,340 individuals who have a VED-waiving WPA442 form. Disabled drivers are also exempt from VED. in 2007, 1.12 million Vehicle Excise Duty exemptions were granted to disabled people. American soldiers operating in Britain pay no VED on their imported cars. Emergency vehicles don’t pay VED, either. And that includes police cars, fire-engines, and ambulances and other health-service vehicles, of which there are 450,000 on the roads. Road construction vehicles and gritters are also exempt from VED. And guess what, QEII pays zero VED. It’s not just the Queen who gets away with it, other Royals do, too: no Crown vehicles pay Vehicle Excise Duty. Ministerial cars don’t have to cough up, either. The entire fleet of vehicles operated by the Government Car and Despatch Agency (873 cars in 2008, 30 of which would be in the highest, most CO2-emitting car tax bands) is exempt from paying Vehicle Excise Duty. Even been stuck behind a farm tractor on a rural road? That tractor doesn’t pay VED. In fact, agricultural vehicles are supplied with free tax discs. There are about 17,000 new tractors sold per year in the UK, with many thousands of older ones on farms across Britain. "Tax Dodgers" there's millions of them not paying to use the road.[/p][/quote]I'll take your word for it but you're wrong about farm tractors which do require a tax disc unless they are only briefly using the public highway to access the owners field. Apart from that they have to pay road tax and as lots of farmers do contract work it means that they pay to be on the road. As for concerning yourself about 'tax dodgers' there is a myriad of legal dodges to avoid MOT/Plating requirements, to drive vehicles without obtaining the pertinent licence or undertake training, and to obtain really cheap insurance and finally a way to obtain free fuel if you know your way around the system. Next time you're fretting over a motorist getting something for nothing, include these on your angst list. Torchie1
  • Score: -3

12:52pm Wed 16 Apr 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Torchie1 wrote:
Franks Tank wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Franks Tank wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Mushymat wrote:
chimneysweep 1234 wrote:
The photo above shows the bikes all over the road ..simple ....photos don't lie
What? Stop being an idiot.

Not one of them is taking up anymore space than a car, on an empty road.

Do you know the Highway code?
Cars pay road tax. You also need insurance and a licence. Unlike people on bikes who just go out and do as they please.
Cars do NOT pay road tax,neither do motorists as road tax has NOT existed since 1937 and was replaced by VED which is a tax on the pollution that vehicles produce as for insurance, cycle insurance is literally given away as cyclists pose little to no risk, especially compared to a car and the same goes for licencing, plus, a licence means you only have PERMISSION to drive on the road(like my rod licence gives me permission to fish in fresh water but not to fish on private land), cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders use the roads by automatic RIGHT.
Thanks for that!!! So road tax hasn't existed since 1937 if only I had found out sooner I wouldn't have bothered paying 400 odd pounds a year for a silly round disk to go in my window.
Car tax, road fund licence call it what you will . Fact remains without the motorist you would be riding your bike on a mud track anyway. Horses belong in fields and bikes have no place on busy roads in my opinion.
You say they give away insurance but not all cyclists have it and again in my opinion they should along with a proficiency test.
To say they course little to No risk is just stupid. After all how many accident are coursed by idiots on bikes jumping red lights or slipping up the side of trucks into blind spots. Not to mention the ones that ride on pavements.
Funny how the driver is always to blame but never the idiot on the bike.
I don't agree with lives being put at risk by a fool with a grudge against bikes however when I see the stupid things people do on bikes day in day out I would think a few pins are the least of your worries.
Anyway I thought you cyclist had run flat tyres these days or do you blow all your money on trying to look like Chris Hoy.......
Around 3 million motorists drive around perfectly legally without paying VED (that's "road tax" to you).
If you are dim enough to choose a car that is charged at a rate of £400 pa you really shouldn't compound your embarrassment by complaining about it on a public forum.
Where did you get the figure of 'around 3 million' ? There's a rolling cut-off date to allow the classic vehicles to have a zero rated tax disc and there is modest number of electric/hybrid/low emission vehicles that will soon be in for a surprise, currently paying no VED, but I don't think the whole group consists of 3 million motorists. Let's have a little more flesh on the bones.
You'll have to excuse me cutting and pasting but I sure you'll get my point.

According to the latest registration stats from the Department for Transport, there are 57,000 cars in VED band A.
Additionally, 38.2 percent of new cars have emissions of less than 130g/km so that’s 474,000 vehicles which pay no VED for the first year of ownership.
Cars built before 1973 are classified as historic and are exempt from VED. In 2006, there were 307,407 such vehicles on the road.
Those ex-soldiers in receipt of war pensioners’ mobility supplement, are exempt from VED, and there are at least 18,340 individuals who have a VED-waiving WPA442 form.
Disabled drivers are also exempt from VED. in 2007, 1.12 million Vehicle Excise Duty exemptions were granted to disabled people.
American soldiers operating in Britain pay no VED on their imported cars. Emergency vehicles don’t pay VED, either. And that includes police cars, fire-engines, and ambulances and other health-service vehicles, of which there are 450,000 on the roads.
Road construction vehicles and gritters are also exempt from VED.
And guess what, QEII pays zero VED. It’s not just the Queen who gets away with it, other Royals do, too: no Crown vehicles pay Vehicle Excise Duty.
Ministerial cars don’t have to cough up, either. The entire fleet of vehicles operated by the Government Car and Despatch Agency (873 cars in 2008, 30 of which would be in the highest, most CO2-emitting car tax bands) is exempt from paying Vehicle Excise Duty.
Even been stuck behind a farm tractor on a rural road? That tractor doesn’t pay VED. In fact, agricultural vehicles are supplied with free tax discs. There are about 17,000 new tractors sold per year in the UK, with many thousands of older ones on farms across Britain.

"Tax Dodgers" there's millions of them not paying to use the road.
I'll take your word for it but you're wrong about farm tractors which do require a tax disc unless they are only briefly using the public highway to access the owners field. Apart from that they have to pay road tax and as lots of farmers do contract work it means that they pay to be on the road.
As for concerning yourself about 'tax dodgers' there is a myriad of legal dodges to avoid MOT/Plating requirements, to drive vehicles without obtaining the pertinent licence or undertake training, and to obtain really cheap insurance and finally a way to obtain free fuel if you know your way around the system. Next time you're fretting over a motorist getting something for nothing, include these on your angst list.
No, tractors only need VED if they're traveling over a certain distance.
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mushymat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]chimneysweep 1234[/bold] wrote: The photo above shows the bikes all over the road ..simple ....photos don't lie[/p][/quote]What? Stop being an idiot. Not one of them is taking up anymore space than a car, on an empty road. Do you know the Highway code?[/p][/quote]Cars pay road tax. You also need insurance and a licence. Unlike people on bikes who just go out and do as they please.[/p][/quote]Cars do NOT pay road tax,neither do motorists as road tax has NOT existed since 1937 and was replaced by VED which is a tax on the pollution that vehicles produce as for insurance, cycle insurance is literally given away as cyclists pose little to no risk, especially compared to a car and the same goes for licencing, plus, a licence means you only have PERMISSION to drive on the road(like my rod licence gives me permission to fish in fresh water but not to fish on private land), cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders use the roads by automatic RIGHT.[/p][/quote]Thanks for that!!! So road tax hasn't existed since 1937 if only I had found out sooner I wouldn't have bothered paying 400 odd pounds a year for a silly round disk to go in my window. Car tax, road fund licence call it what you will . Fact remains without the motorist you would be riding your bike on a mud track anyway. Horses belong in fields and bikes have no place on busy roads in my opinion. You say they give away insurance but not all cyclists have it and again in my opinion they should along with a proficiency test. To say they course little to No risk is just stupid. After all how many accident are coursed by idiots on bikes jumping red lights or slipping up the side of trucks into blind spots. Not to mention the ones that ride on pavements. Funny how the driver is always to blame but never the idiot on the bike. I don't agree with lives being put at risk by a fool with a grudge against bikes however when I see the stupid things people do on bikes day in day out I would think a few pins are the least of your worries. Anyway I thought you cyclist had run flat tyres these days or do you blow all your money on trying to look like Chris Hoy.......[/p][/quote]Around 3 million motorists drive around perfectly legally without paying VED (that's "road tax" to you). If you are dim enough to choose a car that is charged at a rate of £400 pa you really shouldn't compound your embarrassment by complaining about it on a public forum.[/p][/quote]Where did you get the figure of 'around 3 million' ? There's a rolling cut-off date to allow the classic vehicles to have a zero rated tax disc and there is modest number of electric/hybrid/low emission vehicles that will soon be in for a surprise, currently paying no VED, but I don't think the whole group consists of 3 million motorists. Let's have a little more flesh on the bones.[/p][/quote]You'll have to excuse me cutting and pasting but I sure you'll get my point. According to the latest registration stats from the Department for Transport, there are 57,000 cars in VED band A. Additionally, 38.2 percent of new cars have emissions of less than 130g/km so that’s 474,000 vehicles which pay no VED for the first year of ownership. Cars built before 1973 are classified as historic and are exempt from VED. In 2006, there were 307,407 such vehicles on the road. Those ex-soldiers in receipt of war pensioners’ mobility supplement, are exempt from VED, and there are at least 18,340 individuals who have a VED-waiving WPA442 form. Disabled drivers are also exempt from VED. in 2007, 1.12 million Vehicle Excise Duty exemptions were granted to disabled people. American soldiers operating in Britain pay no VED on their imported cars. Emergency vehicles don’t pay VED, either. And that includes police cars, fire-engines, and ambulances and other health-service vehicles, of which there are 450,000 on the roads. Road construction vehicles and gritters are also exempt from VED. And guess what, QEII pays zero VED. It’s not just the Queen who gets away with it, other Royals do, too: no Crown vehicles pay Vehicle Excise Duty. Ministerial cars don’t have to cough up, either. The entire fleet of vehicles operated by the Government Car and Despatch Agency (873 cars in 2008, 30 of which would be in the highest, most CO2-emitting car tax bands) is exempt from paying Vehicle Excise Duty. Even been stuck behind a farm tractor on a rural road? That tractor doesn’t pay VED. In fact, agricultural vehicles are supplied with free tax discs. There are about 17,000 new tractors sold per year in the UK, with many thousands of older ones on farms across Britain. "Tax Dodgers" there's millions of them not paying to use the road.[/p][/quote]I'll take your word for it but you're wrong about farm tractors which do require a tax disc unless they are only briefly using the public highway to access the owners field. Apart from that they have to pay road tax and as lots of farmers do contract work it means that they pay to be on the road. As for concerning yourself about 'tax dodgers' there is a myriad of legal dodges to avoid MOT/Plating requirements, to drive vehicles without obtaining the pertinent licence or undertake training, and to obtain really cheap insurance and finally a way to obtain free fuel if you know your way around the system. Next time you're fretting over a motorist getting something for nothing, include these on your angst list.[/p][/quote]No, tractors only need VED if they're traveling over a certain distance. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 1

6:43pm Wed 16 Apr 14

Torchie1 says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Franks Tank wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Franks Tank wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Mushymat wrote:
chimneysweep 1234 wrote:
The photo above shows the bikes all over the road ..simple ....photos don't lie
What? Stop being an idiot.

Not one of them is taking up anymore space than a car, on an empty road.

Do you know the Highway code?
Cars pay road tax. You also need insurance and a licence. Unlike people on bikes who just go out and do as they please.
Cars do NOT pay road tax,neither do motorists as road tax has NOT existed since 1937 and was replaced by VED which is a tax on the pollution that vehicles produce as for insurance, cycle insurance is literally given away as cyclists pose little to no risk, especially compared to a car and the same goes for licencing, plus, a licence means you only have PERMISSION to drive on the road(like my rod licence gives me permission to fish in fresh water but not to fish on private land), cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders use the roads by automatic RIGHT.
Thanks for that!!! So road tax hasn't existed since 1937 if only I had found out sooner I wouldn't have bothered paying 400 odd pounds a year for a silly round disk to go in my window.
Car tax, road fund licence call it what you will . Fact remains without the motorist you would be riding your bike on a mud track anyway. Horses belong in fields and bikes have no place on busy roads in my opinion.
You say they give away insurance but not all cyclists have it and again in my opinion they should along with a proficiency test.
To say they course little to No risk is just stupid. After all how many accident are coursed by idiots on bikes jumping red lights or slipping up the side of trucks into blind spots. Not to mention the ones that ride on pavements.
Funny how the driver is always to blame but never the idiot on the bike.
I don't agree with lives being put at risk by a fool with a grudge against bikes however when I see the stupid things people do on bikes day in day out I would think a few pins are the least of your worries.
Anyway I thought you cyclist had run flat tyres these days or do you blow all your money on trying to look like Chris Hoy.......
Around 3 million motorists drive around perfectly legally without paying VED (that's "road tax" to you).
If you are dim enough to choose a car that is charged at a rate of £400 pa you really shouldn't compound your embarrassment by complaining about it on a public forum.
Where did you get the figure of 'around 3 million' ? There's a rolling cut-off date to allow the classic vehicles to have a zero rated tax disc and there is modest number of electric/hybrid/low emission vehicles that will soon be in for a surprise, currently paying no VED, but I don't think the whole group consists of 3 million motorists. Let's have a little more flesh on the bones.
You'll have to excuse me cutting and pasting but I sure you'll get my point.

According to the latest registration stats from the Department for Transport, there are 57,000 cars in VED band A.
Additionally, 38.2 percent of new cars have emissions of less than 130g/km so that’s 474,000 vehicles which pay no VED for the first year of ownership.
Cars built before 1973 are classified as historic and are exempt from VED. In 2006, there were 307,407 such vehicles on the road.
Those ex-soldiers in receipt of war pensioners’ mobility supplement, are exempt from VED, and there are at least 18,340 individuals who have a VED-waiving WPA442 form.
Disabled drivers are also exempt from VED. in 2007, 1.12 million Vehicle Excise Duty exemptions were granted to disabled people.
American soldiers operating in Britain pay no VED on their imported cars. Emergency vehicles don’t pay VED, either. And that includes police cars, fire-engines, and ambulances and other health-service vehicles, of which there are 450,000 on the roads.
Road construction vehicles and gritters are also exempt from VED.
And guess what, QEII pays zero VED. It’s not just the Queen who gets away with it, other Royals do, too: no Crown vehicles pay Vehicle Excise Duty.
Ministerial cars don’t have to cough up, either. The entire fleet of vehicles operated by the Government Car and Despatch Agency (873 cars in 2008, 30 of which would be in the highest, most CO2-emitting car tax bands) is exempt from paying Vehicle Excise Duty.
Even been stuck behind a farm tractor on a rural road? That tractor doesn’t pay VED. In fact, agricultural vehicles are supplied with free tax discs. There are about 17,000 new tractors sold per year in the UK, with many thousands of older ones on farms across Britain.

"Tax Dodgers" there's millions of them not paying to use the road.
I'll take your word for it but you're wrong about farm tractors which do require a tax disc unless they are only briefly using the public highway to access the owners field. Apart from that they have to pay road tax and as lots of farmers do contract work it means that they pay to be on the road.
As for concerning yourself about 'tax dodgers' there is a myriad of legal dodges to avoid MOT/Plating requirements, to drive vehicles without obtaining the pertinent licence or undertake training, and to obtain really cheap insurance and finally a way to obtain free fuel if you know your way around the system. Next time you're fretting over a motorist getting something for nothing, include these on your angst list.
No, tractors only need VED if they're traveling over a certain distance.
"but you're wrong about farm tractors which do require a tax disc unless they are only briefly using the public highway to access the owners field. Apart from that they have to pay road tax and as lots of farmers do contract work it means that they pay to be on the road"

Read the reply again before jumping in with both feet.

That 'certain distance' allows them to use the public highway only to travel to contiguous fields that are part of the main farm. When they own, rent or work satellite fields they are required to have a tax disc for the tractor, combine or whatever power driven vehicle they want to use. Farmers also tend to have arrangements with their neighbours so that there aren't duplicate sets of equipment lying idle waiting to be used only at harvest time which sees one do the cutting, one do the turning and one do the baling all of which mean road journeys.When you come from a family with a farming background, you tend to know about these things. Please ask if you need any points clarifying.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mushymat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]chimneysweep 1234[/bold] wrote: The photo above shows the bikes all over the road ..simple ....photos don't lie[/p][/quote]What? Stop being an idiot. Not one of them is taking up anymore space than a car, on an empty road. Do you know the Highway code?[/p][/quote]Cars pay road tax. You also need insurance and a licence. Unlike people on bikes who just go out and do as they please.[/p][/quote]Cars do NOT pay road tax,neither do motorists as road tax has NOT existed since 1937 and was replaced by VED which is a tax on the pollution that vehicles produce as for insurance, cycle insurance is literally given away as cyclists pose little to no risk, especially compared to a car and the same goes for licencing, plus, a licence means you only have PERMISSION to drive on the road(like my rod licence gives me permission to fish in fresh water but not to fish on private land), cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders use the roads by automatic RIGHT.[/p][/quote]Thanks for that!!! So road tax hasn't existed since 1937 if only I had found out sooner I wouldn't have bothered paying 400 odd pounds a year for a silly round disk to go in my window. Car tax, road fund licence call it what you will . Fact remains without the motorist you would be riding your bike on a mud track anyway. Horses belong in fields and bikes have no place on busy roads in my opinion. You say they give away insurance but not all cyclists have it and again in my opinion they should along with a proficiency test. To say they course little to No risk is just stupid. After all how many accident are coursed by idiots on bikes jumping red lights or slipping up the side of trucks into blind spots. Not to mention the ones that ride on pavements. Funny how the driver is always to blame but never the idiot on the bike. I don't agree with lives being put at risk by a fool with a grudge against bikes however when I see the stupid things people do on bikes day in day out I would think a few pins are the least of your worries. Anyway I thought you cyclist had run flat tyres these days or do you blow all your money on trying to look like Chris Hoy.......[/p][/quote]Around 3 million motorists drive around perfectly legally without paying VED (that's "road tax" to you). If you are dim enough to choose a car that is charged at a rate of £400 pa you really shouldn't compound your embarrassment by complaining about it on a public forum.[/p][/quote]Where did you get the figure of 'around 3 million' ? There's a rolling cut-off date to allow the classic vehicles to have a zero rated tax disc and there is modest number of electric/hybrid/low emission vehicles that will soon be in for a surprise, currently paying no VED, but I don't think the whole group consists of 3 million motorists. Let's have a little more flesh on the bones.[/p][/quote]You'll have to excuse me cutting and pasting but I sure you'll get my point. According to the latest registration stats from the Department for Transport, there are 57,000 cars in VED band A. Additionally, 38.2 percent of new cars have emissions of less than 130g/km so that’s 474,000 vehicles which pay no VED for the first year of ownership. Cars built before 1973 are classified as historic and are exempt from VED. In 2006, there were 307,407 such vehicles on the road. Those ex-soldiers in receipt of war pensioners’ mobility supplement, are exempt from VED, and there are at least 18,340 individuals who have a VED-waiving WPA442 form. Disabled drivers are also exempt from VED. in 2007, 1.12 million Vehicle Excise Duty exemptions were granted to disabled people. American soldiers operating in Britain pay no VED on their imported cars. Emergency vehicles don’t pay VED, either. And that includes police cars, fire-engines, and ambulances and other health-service vehicles, of which there are 450,000 on the roads. Road construction vehicles and gritters are also exempt from VED. And guess what, QEII pays zero VED. It’s not just the Queen who gets away with it, other Royals do, too: no Crown vehicles pay Vehicle Excise Duty. Ministerial cars don’t have to cough up, either. The entire fleet of vehicles operated by the Government Car and Despatch Agency (873 cars in 2008, 30 of which would be in the highest, most CO2-emitting car tax bands) is exempt from paying Vehicle Excise Duty. Even been stuck behind a farm tractor on a rural road? That tractor doesn’t pay VED. In fact, agricultural vehicles are supplied with free tax discs. There are about 17,000 new tractors sold per year in the UK, with many thousands of older ones on farms across Britain. "Tax Dodgers" there's millions of them not paying to use the road.[/p][/quote]I'll take your word for it but you're wrong about farm tractors which do require a tax disc unless they are only briefly using the public highway to access the owners field. Apart from that they have to pay road tax and as lots of farmers do contract work it means that they pay to be on the road. As for concerning yourself about 'tax dodgers' there is a myriad of legal dodges to avoid MOT/Plating requirements, to drive vehicles without obtaining the pertinent licence or undertake training, and to obtain really cheap insurance and finally a way to obtain free fuel if you know your way around the system. Next time you're fretting over a motorist getting something for nothing, include these on your angst list.[/p][/quote]No, tractors only need VED if they're traveling over a certain distance.[/p][/quote]"but you're wrong about farm tractors which do require a tax disc unless they are only briefly using the public highway to access the owners field. Apart from that they have to pay road tax and as lots of farmers do contract work it means that they pay to be on the road" Read the reply again before jumping in with both feet. That 'certain distance' allows them to use the public highway only to travel to contiguous fields that are part of the main farm. When they own, rent or work satellite fields they are required to have a tax disc for the tractor, combine or whatever power driven vehicle they want to use. Farmers also tend to have arrangements with their neighbours so that there aren't duplicate sets of equipment lying idle waiting to be used only at harvest time which sees one do the cutting, one do the turning and one do the baling all of which mean road journeys.When you come from a family with a farming background, you tend to know about these things. Please ask if you need any points clarifying. Torchie1
  • Score: -2

8:15pm Wed 16 Apr 14

Georgethepie says...

Franks Tank wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Mushymat wrote:
chimneysweep 1234 wrote:
The photo above shows the bikes all over the road ..simple ....photos don't lie
What? Stop being an idiot.

Not one of them is taking up anymore space than a car, on an empty road.

Do you know the Highway code?
Cars pay road tax. You also need insurance and a licence. Unlike people on bikes who just go out and do as they please.
"Cars pay road tax"?? Oh really? Not very bright are we?
I'm sorry Einstein. Ok car owners have to pay road fund licence......Nob
[quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mushymat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]chimneysweep 1234[/bold] wrote: The photo above shows the bikes all over the road ..simple ....photos don't lie[/p][/quote]What? Stop being an idiot. Not one of them is taking up anymore space than a car, on an empty road. Do you know the Highway code?[/p][/quote]Cars pay road tax. You also need insurance and a licence. Unlike people on bikes who just go out and do as they please.[/p][/quote]"Cars pay road tax"?? Oh really? Not very bright are we?[/p][/quote]I'm sorry Einstein. Ok car owners have to pay road fund licence......Nob Georgethepie
  • Score: -2

8:21pm Wed 16 Apr 14

Georgethepie says...

camerajuan wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Mushymat wrote:
chimneysweep 1234 wrote:
The photo above shows the bikes all over the road ..simple ....photos don't lie
What? Stop being an idiot.

Not one of them is taking up anymore space than a car, on an empty road.

Do you know the Highway code?
Cars pay road tax. You also need insurance and a licence. Unlike people on bikes who just go out and do as they please.
Cars do NOT pay road tax,neither do motorists as road tax has NOT existed since 1937 and was replaced by VED which is a tax on the pollution that vehicles produce as for insurance, cycle insurance is literally given away as cyclists pose little to no risk, especially compared to a car and the same goes for licencing, plus, a licence means you only have PERMISSION to drive on the road(like my rod licence gives me permission to fish in fresh water but not to fish on private land), cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders use the roads by automatic RIGHT.
Thanks for that!!! So road tax hasn't existed since 1937 if only I had found out sooner I wouldn't have bothered paying 400 odd pounds a year for a silly round disk to go in my window.
Car tax, road fund licence call it what you will . Fact remains without the motorist you would be riding your bike on a mud track anyway. Horses belong in fields and bikes have no place on busy roads in my opinion.
You say they give away insurance but not all cyclists have it and again in my opinion they should along with a proficiency test.
To say they course little to No risk is just stupid. After all how many accident are coursed by idiots on bikes jumping red lights or slipping up the side of trucks into blind spots. Not to mention the ones that ride on pavements.
Funny how the driver is always to blame but never the idiot on the bike.
I don't agree with lives being put at risk by a fool with a grudge against bikes however when I see the stupid things people do on bikes day in day out I would think a few pins are the least of your worries.
Anyway I thought you cyclist had run flat tyres these days or do you blow all your money on trying to look like Chris Hoy.......
Oh my word. So much wrong in such a little space!

I believe people have thrown their corrections your way so hopefully you will be better educated on the subject for the next unjustified rant that you go on but there is one which nobody has touched on yet. I'll sort it.

If we wanted to look like SIR Chris Hoy, we'd spend years perfecting our bodies for the sole purpose of absolutely tearing up the track on a single geared track bike and be NOWHERE near the roads. Also, what's so wrong about aspiring to be similar to one of the greatest British Olympians of all time exactly? Speaking for myself, my thighs are HUGE so I'm closer to him physically than most are. And I have the same accent.

Seriously. Must. Troll. Better.
And then cyclists wonder why they are not liked very much........ Don't forget your repair kits on your next bike ride.
[quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mushymat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]chimneysweep 1234[/bold] wrote: The photo above shows the bikes all over the road ..simple ....photos don't lie[/p][/quote]What? Stop being an idiot. Not one of them is taking up anymore space than a car, on an empty road. Do you know the Highway code?[/p][/quote]Cars pay road tax. You also need insurance and a licence. Unlike people on bikes who just go out and do as they please.[/p][/quote]Cars do NOT pay road tax,neither do motorists as road tax has NOT existed since 1937 and was replaced by VED which is a tax on the pollution that vehicles produce as for insurance, cycle insurance is literally given away as cyclists pose little to no risk, especially compared to a car and the same goes for licencing, plus, a licence means you only have PERMISSION to drive on the road(like my rod licence gives me permission to fish in fresh water but not to fish on private land), cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders use the roads by automatic RIGHT.[/p][/quote]Thanks for that!!! So road tax hasn't existed since 1937 if only I had found out sooner I wouldn't have bothered paying 400 odd pounds a year for a silly round disk to go in my window. Car tax, road fund licence call it what you will . Fact remains without the motorist you would be riding your bike on a mud track anyway. Horses belong in fields and bikes have no place on busy roads in my opinion. You say they give away insurance but not all cyclists have it and again in my opinion they should along with a proficiency test. To say they course little to No risk is just stupid. After all how many accident are coursed by idiots on bikes jumping red lights or slipping up the side of trucks into blind spots. Not to mention the ones that ride on pavements. Funny how the driver is always to blame but never the idiot on the bike. I don't agree with lives being put at risk by a fool with a grudge against bikes however when I see the stupid things people do on bikes day in day out I would think a few pins are the least of your worries. Anyway I thought you cyclist had run flat tyres these days or do you blow all your money on trying to look like Chris Hoy.......[/p][/quote]Oh my word. So much wrong in such a little space! I believe people have thrown their corrections your way so hopefully you will be better educated on the subject for the next unjustified rant that you go on but there is one which nobody has touched on yet. I'll sort it. If we wanted to look like SIR Chris Hoy, we'd spend years perfecting our bodies for the sole purpose of absolutely tearing up the track on a single geared track bike and be NOWHERE near the roads. Also, what's so wrong about aspiring to be similar to one of the greatest British Olympians of all time exactly? Speaking for myself, my thighs are HUGE so I'm closer to him physically than most are. And I have the same accent. Seriously. Must. Troll. Better.[/p][/quote]And then cyclists wonder why they are not liked very much........ Don't forget your repair kits on your next bike ride. Georgethepie
  • Score: 1

8:40pm Wed 16 Apr 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Georgethepie wrote:
Franks Tank wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Mushymat wrote:
chimneysweep 1234 wrote:
The photo above shows the bikes all over the road ..simple ....photos don't lie
What? Stop being an idiot.

Not one of them is taking up anymore space than a car, on an empty road.

Do you know the Highway code?
Cars pay road tax. You also need insurance and a licence. Unlike people on bikes who just go out and do as they please.
"Cars pay road tax"?? Oh really? Not very bright are we?
I'm sorry Einstein. Ok car owners have to pay road fund licence......Nob
Motorists don't pay "Road Fund Licence" either as it was ALSO abolished in 1937 along with "road tax".
[quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mushymat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]chimneysweep 1234[/bold] wrote: The photo above shows the bikes all over the road ..simple ....photos don't lie[/p][/quote]What? Stop being an idiot. Not one of them is taking up anymore space than a car, on an empty road. Do you know the Highway code?[/p][/quote]Cars pay road tax. You also need insurance and a licence. Unlike people on bikes who just go out and do as they please.[/p][/quote]"Cars pay road tax"?? Oh really? Not very bright are we?[/p][/quote]I'm sorry Einstein. Ok car owners have to pay road fund licence......Nob[/p][/quote]Motorists don't pay "Road Fund Licence" either as it was ALSO abolished in 1937 along with "road tax". Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 1

9:29pm Wed 16 Apr 14

Torchie1 says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Franks Tank wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Mushymat wrote:
chimneysweep 1234 wrote:
The photo above shows the bikes all over the road ..simple ....photos don't lie
What? Stop being an idiot.

Not one of them is taking up anymore space than a car, on an empty road.

Do you know the Highway code?
Cars pay road tax. You also need insurance and a licence. Unlike people on bikes who just go out and do as they please.
"Cars pay road tax"?? Oh really? Not very bright are we?
I'm sorry Einstein. Ok car owners have to pay road fund licence......Nob
Motorists don't pay "Road Fund Licence" either as it was ALSO abolished in 1937 along with "road tax".
Perhaps you'd better write to David Cameron and get him to correct Gov.UK.....

https://www.gov.uk/c
alculate-vehicle-tax
-rates

You do for bicycle riders what Southy does for politics and it isn't good. Are you sure that you aren't the same person?
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mushymat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]chimneysweep 1234[/bold] wrote: The photo above shows the bikes all over the road ..simple ....photos don't lie[/p][/quote]What? Stop being an idiot. Not one of them is taking up anymore space than a car, on an empty road. Do you know the Highway code?[/p][/quote]Cars pay road tax. You also need insurance and a licence. Unlike people on bikes who just go out and do as they please.[/p][/quote]"Cars pay road tax"?? Oh really? Not very bright are we?[/p][/quote]I'm sorry Einstein. Ok car owners have to pay road fund licence......Nob[/p][/quote]Motorists don't pay "Road Fund Licence" either as it was ALSO abolished in 1937 along with "road tax".[/p][/quote]Perhaps you'd better write to David Cameron and get him to correct Gov.UK..... https://www.gov.uk/c alculate-vehicle-tax -rates You do for bicycle riders what Southy does for politics and it isn't good. Are you sure that you aren't the same person? Torchie1
  • Score: -1

9:44pm Wed 16 Apr 14

southamptonadi says...

Torchie1 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Franks Tank wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Mushymat wrote:
chimneysweep 1234 wrote:
The photo above shows the bikes all over the road ..simple ....photos don't lie
What? Stop being an idiot.

Not one of them is taking up anymore space than a car, on an empty road.

Do you know the Highway code?
Cars pay road tax. You also need insurance and a licence. Unlike people on bikes who just go out and do as they please.
"Cars pay road tax"?? Oh really? Not very bright are we?
I'm sorry Einstein. Ok car owners have to pay road fund licence......Nob
Motorists don't pay "Road Fund Licence" either as it was ALSO abolished in 1937 along with "road tax".
Perhaps you'd better write to David Cameron and get him to correct Gov.UK.....

https://www.gov.uk/c

alculate-vehicle-tax

-rates

You do for bicycle riders what Southy does for politics and it isn't good. Are you sure that you aren't the same person?
It is a tax, it's a tax on emissions. And does not pay for new roads.

There are a lot of cars now in the lower tax bands that pay under fifty quid a year, a bargain I say.

Let's take the 2.0 tdi passant blue motion. At under £30 a year, I bet the owners of cars like that don't care what a cyclists pays or doesn't pay.

Please lobby your local councillor for changes in the law don't take it out on cyclists, it's not their fault.
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mushymat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]chimneysweep 1234[/bold] wrote: The photo above shows the bikes all over the road ..simple ....photos don't lie[/p][/quote]What? Stop being an idiot. Not one of them is taking up anymore space than a car, on an empty road. Do you know the Highway code?[/p][/quote]Cars pay road tax. You also need insurance and a licence. Unlike people on bikes who just go out and do as they please.[/p][/quote]"Cars pay road tax"?? Oh really? Not very bright are we?[/p][/quote]I'm sorry Einstein. Ok car owners have to pay road fund licence......Nob[/p][/quote]Motorists don't pay "Road Fund Licence" either as it was ALSO abolished in 1937 along with "road tax".[/p][/quote]Perhaps you'd better write to David Cameron and get him to correct Gov.UK..... https://www.gov.uk/c alculate-vehicle-tax -rates You do for bicycle riders what Southy does for politics and it isn't good. Are you sure that you aren't the same person?[/p][/quote]It is a tax, it's a tax on emissions. And does not pay for new roads. There are a lot of cars now in the lower tax bands that pay under fifty quid a year, a bargain I say. Let's take the 2.0 tdi passant blue motion. At under £30 a year, I bet the owners of cars like that don't care what a cyclists pays or doesn't pay. Please lobby your local councillor for changes in the law don't take it out on cyclists, it's not their fault. southamptonadi
  • Score: 4

9:47pm Wed 16 Apr 14

southamptonadi says...

southamptonadi wrote:
binghammac wrote:
I have a foreward looking video camera and the infringements are recorded on this camera.
Please post on YouTube and give us the link so we can all see and pass to the relevant people.

If you can't please go away.
Do you want instructions on how to do it or does this footage not exist?
[quote][p][bold]southamptonadi[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]binghammac[/bold] wrote: I have a foreward looking video camera and the infringements are recorded on this camera.[/p][/quote]Please post on YouTube and give us the link so we can all see and pass to the relevant people. If you can't please go away.[/p][/quote]Do you want instructions on how to do it or does this footage not exist? southamptonadi
  • Score: -1

10:27pm Wed 16 Apr 14

Positively4thStreet says...

Georgethepie wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Mushymat wrote:
chimneysweep 1234 wrote:
The photo above shows the bikes all over the road ..simple ....photos don't lie
What? Stop being an idiot.

Not one of them is taking up anymore space than a car, on an empty road.

Do you know the Highway code?
Cars pay road tax. You also need insurance and a licence. Unlike people on bikes who just go out and do as they please.
Cars do NOT pay road tax,neither do motorists as road tax has NOT existed since 1937 and was replaced by VED which is a tax on the pollution that vehicles produce as for insurance, cycle insurance is literally given away as cyclists pose little to no risk, especially compared to a car and the same goes for licencing, plus, a licence means you only have PERMISSION to drive on the road(like my rod licence gives me permission to fish in fresh water but not to fish on private land), cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders use the roads by automatic RIGHT.
Thanks for that!!! So road tax hasn't existed since 1937 if only I had found out sooner I wouldn't have bothered paying 400 odd pounds a year for a silly round disk to go in my window.
Car tax, road fund licence call it what you will . Fact remains without the motorist you would be riding your bike on a mud track anyway. Horses belong in fields and bikes have no place on busy roads in my opinion.
You say they give away insurance but not all cyclists have it and again in my opinion they should along with a proficiency test.
To say they course little to No risk is just stupid. After all how many accident are coursed by idiots on bikes jumping red lights or slipping up the side of trucks into blind spots. Not to mention the ones that ride on pavements.
Funny how the driver is always to blame but never the idiot on the bike.
I don't agree with lives being put at risk by a fool with a grudge against bikes however when I see the stupid things people do on bikes day in day out I would think a few pins are the least of your worries.
Anyway I thought you cyclist had run flat tyres these days or do you blow all your money on trying to look like Chris Hoy.......
Oh my word. So much wrong in such a little space!

I believe people have thrown their corrections your way so hopefully you will be better educated on the subject for the next unjustified rant that you go on but there is one which nobody has touched on yet. I'll sort it.

If we wanted to look like SIR Chris Hoy, we'd spend years perfecting our bodies for the sole purpose of absolutely tearing up the track on a single geared track bike and be NOWHERE near the roads. Also, what's so wrong about aspiring to be similar to one of the greatest British Olympians of all time exactly? Speaking for myself, my thighs are HUGE so I'm closer to him physically than most are. And I have the same accent.

Seriously. Must. Troll. Better.
And then cyclists wonder why they are not liked very much........ Don't forget your repair kits on your next bike ride.
I agree that some cyclists don't do themselves any favours in the popularity stakes,mainly because some(not all),point blank refuse to even consider another point of view,and have to shout anyone down and make the same contradictory arguments to every person who comes on with what in a lot of cases are perfectly reasonable comments.That said,there was absolutely no excuse for the nail incident,which should be roundly condemned, and not made light of.
[quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mushymat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]chimneysweep 1234[/bold] wrote: The photo above shows the bikes all over the road ..simple ....photos don't lie[/p][/quote]What? Stop being an idiot. Not one of them is taking up anymore space than a car, on an empty road. Do you know the Highway code?[/p][/quote]Cars pay road tax. You also need insurance and a licence. Unlike people on bikes who just go out and do as they please.[/p][/quote]Cars do NOT pay road tax,neither do motorists as road tax has NOT existed since 1937 and was replaced by VED which is a tax on the pollution that vehicles produce as for insurance, cycle insurance is literally given away as cyclists pose little to no risk, especially compared to a car and the same goes for licencing, plus, a licence means you only have PERMISSION to drive on the road(like my rod licence gives me permission to fish in fresh water but not to fish on private land), cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders use the roads by automatic RIGHT.[/p][/quote]Thanks for that!!! So road tax hasn't existed since 1937 if only I had found out sooner I wouldn't have bothered paying 400 odd pounds a year for a silly round disk to go in my window. Car tax, road fund licence call it what you will . Fact remains without the motorist you would be riding your bike on a mud track anyway. Horses belong in fields and bikes have no place on busy roads in my opinion. You say they give away insurance but not all cyclists have it and again in my opinion they should along with a proficiency test. To say they course little to No risk is just stupid. After all how many accident are coursed by idiots on bikes jumping red lights or slipping up the side of trucks into blind spots. Not to mention the ones that ride on pavements. Funny how the driver is always to blame but never the idiot on the bike. I don't agree with lives being put at risk by a fool with a grudge against bikes however when I see the stupid things people do on bikes day in day out I would think a few pins are the least of your worries. Anyway I thought you cyclist had run flat tyres these days or do you blow all your money on trying to look like Chris Hoy.......[/p][/quote]Oh my word. So much wrong in such a little space! I believe people have thrown their corrections your way so hopefully you will be better educated on the subject for the next unjustified rant that you go on but there is one which nobody has touched on yet. I'll sort it. If we wanted to look like SIR Chris Hoy, we'd spend years perfecting our bodies for the sole purpose of absolutely tearing up the track on a single geared track bike and be NOWHERE near the roads. Also, what's so wrong about aspiring to be similar to one of the greatest British Olympians of all time exactly? Speaking for myself, my thighs are HUGE so I'm closer to him physically than most are. And I have the same accent. Seriously. Must. Troll. Better.[/p][/quote]And then cyclists wonder why they are not liked very much........ Don't forget your repair kits on your next bike ride.[/p][/quote]I agree that some cyclists don't do themselves any favours in the popularity stakes,mainly because some(not all),point blank refuse to even consider another point of view,and have to shout anyone down and make the same contradictory arguments to every person who comes on with what in a lot of cases are perfectly reasonable comments.That said,there was absolutely no excuse for the nail incident,which should be roundly condemned, and not made light of. Positively4thStreet
  • Score: -1

10:50pm Wed 16 Apr 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Torchie1 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Franks Tank wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Mushymat wrote:
chimneysweep 1234 wrote:
The photo above shows the bikes all over the road ..simple ....photos don't lie
What? Stop being an idiot.

Not one of them is taking up anymore space than a car, on an empty road.

Do you know the Highway code?
Cars pay road tax. You also need insurance and a licence. Unlike people on bikes who just go out and do as they please.
"Cars pay road tax"?? Oh really? Not very bright are we?
I'm sorry Einstein. Ok car owners have to pay road fund licence......Nob
Motorists don't pay "Road Fund Licence" either as it was ALSO abolished in 1937 along with "road tax".
Perhaps you'd better write to David Cameron and get him to correct Gov.UK.....

https://www.gov.uk/c

alculate-vehicle-tax

-rates

You do for bicycle riders what Southy does for politics and it isn't good. Are you sure that you aren't the same person?
I saw NOTHING on that site that references the non-existent "road tax" or the non-existent "road fund licence".
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mushymat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]chimneysweep 1234[/bold] wrote: The photo above shows the bikes all over the road ..simple ....photos don't lie[/p][/quote]What? Stop being an idiot. Not one of them is taking up anymore space than a car, on an empty road. Do you know the Highway code?[/p][/quote]Cars pay road tax. You also need insurance and a licence. Unlike people on bikes who just go out and do as they please.[/p][/quote]"Cars pay road tax"?? Oh really? Not very bright are we?[/p][/quote]I'm sorry Einstein. Ok car owners have to pay road fund licence......Nob[/p][/quote]Motorists don't pay "Road Fund Licence" either as it was ALSO abolished in 1937 along with "road tax".[/p][/quote]Perhaps you'd better write to David Cameron and get him to correct Gov.UK..... https://www.gov.uk/c alculate-vehicle-tax -rates You do for bicycle riders what Southy does for politics and it isn't good. Are you sure that you aren't the same person?[/p][/quote]I saw NOTHING on that site that references the non-existent "road tax" or the non-existent "road fund licence". Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 2

10:52pm Wed 16 Apr 14

southamptonadi says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Mushymat wrote:
chimneysweep 1234 wrote:
The photo above shows the bikes all over the road ..simple ....photos don't lie
What? Stop being an idiot.

Not one of them is taking up anymore space than a car, on an empty road.

Do you know the Highway code?
Cars pay road tax. You also need insurance and a licence. Unlike people on bikes who just go out and do as they please.
Cars do NOT pay road tax,neither do motorists as road tax has NOT existed since 1937 and was replaced by VED which is a tax on the pollution that vehicles produce as for insurance, cycle insurance is literally given away as cyclists pose little to no risk, especially compared to a car and the same goes for licencing, plus, a licence means you only have PERMISSION to drive on the road(like my rod licence gives me permission to fish in fresh water but not to fish on private land), cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders use the roads by automatic RIGHT.
Thanks for that!!! So road tax hasn't existed since 1937 if only I had found out sooner I wouldn't have bothered paying 400 odd pounds a year for a silly round disk to go in my window.
Car tax, road fund licence call it what you will . Fact remains without the motorist you would be riding your bike on a mud track anyway. Horses belong in fields and bikes have no place on busy roads in my opinion.
You say they give away insurance but not all cyclists have it and again in my opinion they should along with a proficiency test.
To say they course little to No risk is just stupid. After all how many accident are coursed by idiots on bikes jumping red lights or slipping up the side of trucks into blind spots. Not to mention the ones that ride on pavements.
Funny how the driver is always to blame but never the idiot on the bike.
I don't agree with lives being put at risk by a fool with a grudge against bikes however when I see the stupid things people do on bikes day in day out I would think a few pins are the least of your worries.
Anyway I thought you cyclist had run flat tyres these days or do you blow all your money on trying to look like Chris Hoy.......
Oh my word. So much wrong in such a little space!

I believe people have thrown their corrections your way so hopefully you will be better educated on the subject for the next unjustified rant that you go on but there is one which nobody has touched on yet. I'll sort it.

If we wanted to look like SIR Chris Hoy, we'd spend years perfecting our bodies for the sole purpose of absolutely tearing up the track on a single geared track bike and be NOWHERE near the roads. Also, what's so wrong about aspiring to be similar to one of the greatest British Olympians of all time exactly? Speaking for myself, my thighs are HUGE so I'm closer to him physically than most are. And I have the same accent.

Seriously. Must. Troll. Better.
And then cyclists wonder why they are not liked very much........ Don't forget your repair kits on your next bike ride.
I agree that some cyclists don't do themselves any favours in the popularity stakes,mainly because some(not all),point blank refuse to even consider another point of view,and have to shout anyone down and make the same contradictory arguments to every person who comes on with what in a lot of cases are perfectly reasonable comments.That said,there was absolutely no excuse for the nail incident,which should be roundly condemned, and not made light of.
As a cyclists I quite like your posts. Your nearly spot on. I would like to see the NPA and the councillors who were quite vocal against the wiggle come out and publicly condemn this action. Otherwise some might think they are happy with it and as your friends sometimes do lose some credibility with the arguments.
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mushymat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]chimneysweep 1234[/bold] wrote: The photo above shows the bikes all over the road ..simple ....photos don't lie[/p][/quote]What? Stop being an idiot. Not one of them is taking up anymore space than a car, on an empty road. Do you know the Highway code?[/p][/quote]Cars pay road tax. You also need insurance and a licence. Unlike people on bikes who just go out and do as they please.[/p][/quote]Cars do NOT pay road tax,neither do motorists as road tax has NOT existed since 1937 and was replaced by VED which is a tax on the pollution that vehicles produce as for insurance, cycle insurance is literally given away as cyclists pose little to no risk, especially compared to a car and the same goes for licencing, plus, a licence means you only have PERMISSION to drive on the road(like my rod licence gives me permission to fish in fresh water but not to fish on private land), cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders use the roads by automatic RIGHT.[/p][/quote]Thanks for that!!! So road tax hasn't existed since 1937 if only I had found out sooner I wouldn't have bothered paying 400 odd pounds a year for a silly round disk to go in my window. Car tax, road fund licence call it what you will . Fact remains without the motorist you would be riding your bike on a mud track anyway. Horses belong in fields and bikes have no place on busy roads in my opinion. You say they give away insurance but not all cyclists have it and again in my opinion they should along with a proficiency test. To say they course little to No risk is just stupid. After all how many accident are coursed by idiots on bikes jumping red lights or slipping up the side of trucks into blind spots. Not to mention the ones that ride on pavements. Funny how the driver is always to blame but never the idiot on the bike. I don't agree with lives being put at risk by a fool with a grudge against bikes however when I see the stupid things people do on bikes day in day out I would think a few pins are the least of your worries. Anyway I thought you cyclist had run flat tyres these days or do you blow all your money on trying to look like Chris Hoy.......[/p][/quote]Oh my word. So much wrong in such a little space! I believe people have thrown their corrections your way so hopefully you will be better educated on the subject for the next unjustified rant that you go on but there is one which nobody has touched on yet. I'll sort it. If we wanted to look like SIR Chris Hoy, we'd spend years perfecting our bodies for the sole purpose of absolutely tearing up the track on a single geared track bike and be NOWHERE near the roads. Also, what's so wrong about aspiring to be similar to one of the greatest British Olympians of all time exactly? Speaking for myself, my thighs are HUGE so I'm closer to him physically than most are. And I have the same accent. Seriously. Must. Troll. Better.[/p][/quote]And then cyclists wonder why they are not liked very much........ Don't forget your repair kits on your next bike ride.[/p][/quote]I agree that some cyclists don't do themselves any favours in the popularity stakes,mainly because some(not all),point blank refuse to even consider another point of view,and have to shout anyone down and make the same contradictory arguments to every person who comes on with what in a lot of cases are perfectly reasonable comments.That said,there was absolutely no excuse for the nail incident,which should be roundly condemned, and not made light of.[/p][/quote]As a cyclists I quite like your posts. Your nearly spot on. I would like to see the NPA and the councillors who were quite vocal against the wiggle come out and publicly condemn this action. Otherwise some might think they are happy with it and as your friends sometimes do lose some credibility with the arguments. southamptonadi
  • Score: 1

10:09am Thu 17 Apr 14

Franks Tank says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Mushymat wrote:
chimneysweep 1234 wrote:
The photo above shows the bikes all over the road ..simple ....photos don't lie
What? Stop being an idiot.

Not one of them is taking up anymore space than a car, on an empty road.

Do you know the Highway code?
Cars pay road tax. You also need insurance and a licence. Unlike people on bikes who just go out and do as they please.
Cars do NOT pay road tax,neither do motorists as road tax has NOT existed since 1937 and was replaced by VED which is a tax on the pollution that vehicles produce as for insurance, cycle insurance is literally given away as cyclists pose little to no risk, especially compared to a car and the same goes for licencing, plus, a licence means you only have PERMISSION to drive on the road(like my rod licence gives me permission to fish in fresh water but not to fish on private land), cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders use the roads by automatic RIGHT.
Thanks for that!!! So road tax hasn't existed since 1937 if only I had found out sooner I wouldn't have bothered paying 400 odd pounds a year for a silly round disk to go in my window.
Car tax, road fund licence call it what you will . Fact remains without the motorist you would be riding your bike on a mud track anyway. Horses belong in fields and bikes have no place on busy roads in my opinion.
You say they give away insurance but not all cyclists have it and again in my opinion they should along with a proficiency test.
To say they course little to No risk is just stupid. After all how many accident are coursed by idiots on bikes jumping red lights or slipping up the side of trucks into blind spots. Not to mention the ones that ride on pavements.
Funny how the driver is always to blame but never the idiot on the bike.
I don't agree with lives being put at risk by a fool with a grudge against bikes however when I see the stupid things people do on bikes day in day out I would think a few pins are the least of your worries.
Anyway I thought you cyclist had run flat tyres these days or do you blow all your money on trying to look like Chris Hoy.......
Oh my word. So much wrong in such a little space!

I believe people have thrown their corrections your way so hopefully you will be better educated on the subject for the next unjustified rant that you go on but there is one which nobody has touched on yet. I'll sort it.

If we wanted to look like SIR Chris Hoy, we'd spend years perfecting our bodies for the sole purpose of absolutely tearing up the track on a single geared track bike and be NOWHERE near the roads. Also, what's so wrong about aspiring to be similar to one of the greatest British Olympians of all time exactly? Speaking for myself, my thighs are HUGE so I'm closer to him physically than most are. And I have the same accent.

Seriously. Must. Troll. Better.
And then cyclists wonder why they are not liked very much........ Don't forget your repair kits on your next bike ride.
I agree that some cyclists don't do themselves any favours in the popularity stakes,mainly because some(not all),point blank refuse to even consider another point of view,and have to shout anyone down and make the same contradictory arguments to every person who comes on with what in a lot of cases are perfectly reasonable comments.That said,there was absolutely no excuse for the nail incident,which should be roundly condemned, and not made light of.
Quite frankly, if anyone trolls about "Road Tax" or "Road Fund License" they are going to get flamed.
I know the tax system can be a bit opaque to the uninitiated but pleeezzzzeeee get the very basics right.
Opinion can be debated but stuff that is just plain incorrect will always elicit derision.
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mushymat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]chimneysweep 1234[/bold] wrote: The photo above shows the bikes all over the road ..simple ....photos don't lie[/p][/quote]What? Stop being an idiot. Not one of them is taking up anymore space than a car, on an empty road. Do you know the Highway code?[/p][/quote]Cars pay road tax. You also need insurance and a licence. Unlike people on bikes who just go out and do as they please.[/p][/quote]Cars do NOT pay road tax,neither do motorists as road tax has NOT existed since 1937 and was replaced by VED which is a tax on the pollution that vehicles produce as for insurance, cycle insurance is literally given away as cyclists pose little to no risk, especially compared to a car and the same goes for licencing, plus, a licence means you only have PERMISSION to drive on the road(like my rod licence gives me permission to fish in fresh water but not to fish on private land), cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders use the roads by automatic RIGHT.[/p][/quote]Thanks for that!!! So road tax hasn't existed since 1937 if only I had found out sooner I wouldn't have bothered paying 400 odd pounds a year for a silly round disk to go in my window. Car tax, road fund licence call it what you will . Fact remains without the motorist you would be riding your bike on a mud track anyway. Horses belong in fields and bikes have no place on busy roads in my opinion. You say they give away insurance but not all cyclists have it and again in my opinion they should along with a proficiency test. To say they course little to No risk is just stupid. After all how many accident are coursed by idiots on bikes jumping red lights or slipping up the side of trucks into blind spots. Not to mention the ones that ride on pavements. Funny how the driver is always to blame but never the idiot on the bike. I don't agree with lives being put at risk by a fool with a grudge against bikes however when I see the stupid things people do on bikes day in day out I would think a few pins are the least of your worries. Anyway I thought you cyclist had run flat tyres these days or do you blow all your money on trying to look like Chris Hoy.......[/p][/quote]Oh my word. So much wrong in such a little space! I believe people have thrown their corrections your way so hopefully you will be better educated on the subject for the next unjustified rant that you go on but there is one which nobody has touched on yet. I'll sort it. If we wanted to look like SIR Chris Hoy, we'd spend years perfecting our bodies for the sole purpose of absolutely tearing up the track on a single geared track bike and be NOWHERE near the roads. Also, what's so wrong about aspiring to be similar to one of the greatest British Olympians of all time exactly? Speaking for myself, my thighs are HUGE so I'm closer to him physically than most are. And I have the same accent. Seriously. Must. Troll. Better.[/p][/quote]And then cyclists wonder why they are not liked very much........ Don't forget your repair kits on your next bike ride.[/p][/quote]I agree that some cyclists don't do themselves any favours in the popularity stakes,mainly because some(not all),point blank refuse to even consider another point of view,and have to shout anyone down and make the same contradictory arguments to every person who comes on with what in a lot of cases are perfectly reasonable comments.That said,there was absolutely no excuse for the nail incident,which should be roundly condemned, and not made light of.[/p][/quote]Quite frankly, if anyone trolls about "Road Tax" or "Road Fund License" they are going to get flamed. I know the tax system can be a bit opaque to the uninitiated but pleeezzzzeeee get the very basics right. Opinion can be debated but stuff that is just plain incorrect will always elicit derision. Franks Tank
  • Score: 0

11:04am Thu 17 Apr 14

Reconciler says...

southamptonadi wrote:
The anti wiggle brigade are starting to lose some credibility In their argument, supposedly looking out for the greater good go the forest, what about the animals crossing the road and injuring themselves on nails. Quite selfish really. I wonder if they would do the same on the roads that are gridlocked with tourists and show visitors
Please don't lump the poster-posters and tin-tack spreaders into the same group. The poster merely asked for incidents to be reported and tried to let people know in advance so that essential journeys could be planned, anad all were removed immediately after the event - no littering. On the contrary, the tin-tack spreaders behaved illegally, irresponsibly, dangerously, cruelly, selfishly, and counter-productively
, and I hope they are found and prosecuted. I get the impression that the "cyclists can do no wrong" brigade include me in their list of enemies, but I am trying to reconcile them with the "cyclists can do nothing right" brigade. I think the pressure has forced Wiggle to make considerable improvements, and on the whole cycling behaviour was not so bad as in previous years. However there was still a lot of inconsiderate and dangerous riding, and without legible identification numbers on cyclists' backs the culprits cannot be identified. I have heard of no defecation in public, but I understand a video exists of riders urinating in bushes near the Brockenhurst food-station. The police managed to prevent this on the Sunday. Where police were on duty the cycling behaviour was excellent! ( I suppose the local tax-payer has paid for police services? May I suggest that Wiggle make enough profit to cover these costs - like football clubs?) However I personally experienced lengthy harrassment by racing riders trying to overtake me and slow riders in front of me whom I could not safely pass.
Another point: better organisaton was needed at the start venue, as there was a 1.5 mile queue from the Ringwood direction on the Saturday. I wonder how many folk were late for appointments in Bournemouth because of it? People who claim that these events do no harm are not seeing the whole picture.
Let's keep on working towards an acceptable compromise!
[quote][p][bold]southamptonadi[/bold] wrote: The anti wiggle brigade are starting to lose some credibility In their argument, supposedly looking out for the greater good go the forest, what about the animals crossing the road and injuring themselves on nails. Quite selfish really. I wonder if they would do the same on the roads that are gridlocked with tourists and show visitors[/p][/quote]Please don't lump the poster-posters and tin-tack spreaders into the same group. The poster merely asked for incidents to be reported and tried to let people know in advance so that essential journeys could be planned, anad all were removed immediately after the event - no littering. On the contrary, the tin-tack spreaders behaved illegally, irresponsibly, dangerously, cruelly, selfishly, and counter-productively , and I hope they are found and prosecuted. I get the impression that the "cyclists can do no wrong" brigade include me in their list of enemies, but I am trying to reconcile them with the "cyclists can do nothing right" brigade. I think the pressure has forced Wiggle to make considerable improvements, and on the whole cycling behaviour was not so bad as in previous years. However there was still a lot of inconsiderate and dangerous riding, and without legible identification numbers on cyclists' backs the culprits cannot be identified. I have heard of no defecation in public, but I understand a video exists of riders urinating in bushes near the Brockenhurst food-station. The police managed to prevent this on the Sunday. Where police were on duty the cycling behaviour was excellent! ( I suppose the local tax-payer has paid for police services? May I suggest that Wiggle make enough profit to cover these costs - like football clubs?) However I personally experienced lengthy harrassment by racing riders trying to overtake me and slow riders in front of me whom I could not safely pass. Another point: better organisaton was needed at the start venue, as there was a 1.5 mile queue from the Ringwood direction on the Saturday. I wonder how many folk were late for appointments in Bournemouth because of it? People who claim that these events do no harm are not seeing the whole picture. Let's keep on working towards an acceptable compromise! Reconciler
  • Score: -2

1:08pm Thu 17 Apr 14

Drhysted says...

Reconciler wrote:
southamptonadi wrote:
The anti wiggle brigade are starting to lose some credibility In their argument, supposedly looking out for the greater good go the forest, what about the animals crossing the road and injuring themselves on nails. Quite selfish really. I wonder if they would do the same on the roads that are gridlocked with tourists and show visitors
Please don't lump the poster-posters and tin-tack spreaders into the same group. The poster merely asked for incidents to be reported and tried to let people know in advance so that essential journeys could be planned, anad all were removed immediately after the event - no littering. On the contrary, the tin-tack spreaders behaved illegally, irresponsibly, dangerously, cruelly, selfishly, and counter-productively

, and I hope they are found and prosecuted. I get the impression that the "cyclists can do no wrong" brigade include me in their list of enemies, but I am trying to reconcile them with the "cyclists can do nothing right" brigade. I think the pressure has forced Wiggle to make considerable improvements, and on the whole cycling behaviour was not so bad as in previous years. However there was still a lot of inconsiderate and dangerous riding, and without legible identification numbers on cyclists' backs the culprits cannot be identified. I have heard of no defecation in public, but I understand a video exists of riders urinating in bushes near the Brockenhurst food-station. The police managed to prevent this on the Sunday. Where police were on duty the cycling behaviour was excellent! ( I suppose the local tax-payer has paid for police services? May I suggest that Wiggle make enough profit to cover these costs - like football clubs?) However I personally experienced lengthy harrassment by racing riders trying to overtake me and slow riders in front of me whom I could not safely pass.
Another point: better organisaton was needed at the start venue, as there was a 1.5 mile queue from the Ringwood direction on the Saturday. I wonder how many folk were late for appointments in Bournemouth because of it? People who claim that these events do no harm are not seeing the whole picture.
Let's keep on working towards an acceptable compromise!
I don't lump you as an enemy. I read your posts and understand that you don't know cycling. In that case you can be included with many others.
Not all cyclists out over the weekend were entrants, I found myself swamped in Ringwood by what I presume was a local racing team as there were working time trial style. My thought as they swallowed me up and then spat me out the back was "there's bound to be a complaint against UKCE here".

I'm sorry but I have always have a live and let live attitude, and have shared the forest for all my life with all the other events without open complaint, despite how much they disrupt or inconvenient me. Now considering that UKCE are only holder events over 6 days this entire year, it would be nice if others could understand that the forest is not their back gardens and share it back!
[quote][p][bold]Reconciler[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southamptonadi[/bold] wrote: The anti wiggle brigade are starting to lose some credibility In their argument, supposedly looking out for the greater good go the forest, what about the animals crossing the road and injuring themselves on nails. Quite selfish really. I wonder if they would do the same on the roads that are gridlocked with tourists and show visitors[/p][/quote]Please don't lump the poster-posters and tin-tack spreaders into the same group. The poster merely asked for incidents to be reported and tried to let people know in advance so that essential journeys could be planned, anad all were removed immediately after the event - no littering. On the contrary, the tin-tack spreaders behaved illegally, irresponsibly, dangerously, cruelly, selfishly, and counter-productively , and I hope they are found and prosecuted. I get the impression that the "cyclists can do no wrong" brigade include me in their list of enemies, but I am trying to reconcile them with the "cyclists can do nothing right" brigade. I think the pressure has forced Wiggle to make considerable improvements, and on the whole cycling behaviour was not so bad as in previous years. However there was still a lot of inconsiderate and dangerous riding, and without legible identification numbers on cyclists' backs the culprits cannot be identified. I have heard of no defecation in public, but I understand a video exists of riders urinating in bushes near the Brockenhurst food-station. The police managed to prevent this on the Sunday. Where police were on duty the cycling behaviour was excellent! ( I suppose the local tax-payer has paid for police services? May I suggest that Wiggle make enough profit to cover these costs - like football clubs?) However I personally experienced lengthy harrassment by racing riders trying to overtake me and slow riders in front of me whom I could not safely pass. Another point: better organisaton was needed at the start venue, as there was a 1.5 mile queue from the Ringwood direction on the Saturday. I wonder how many folk were late for appointments in Bournemouth because of it? People who claim that these events do no harm are not seeing the whole picture. Let's keep on working towards an acceptable compromise![/p][/quote]I don't lump you as an enemy. I read your posts and understand that you don't know cycling. In that case you can be included with many others. Not all cyclists out over the weekend were entrants, I found myself swamped in Ringwood by what I presume was a local racing team as there were working time trial style. My thought as they swallowed me up and then spat me out the back was "there's bound to be a complaint against UKCE here". I'm sorry but I have always have a live and let live attitude, and have shared the forest for all my life with all the other events without open complaint, despite how much they disrupt or inconvenient me. Now considering that UKCE are only holder events over 6 days this entire year, it would be nice if others could understand that the forest is not their back gardens and share it back! Drhysted
  • Score: 2

2:40pm Thu 17 Apr 14

Positively4thStreet says...

Franks Tank wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Mushymat wrote:
chimneysweep 1234 wrote:
The photo above shows the bikes all over the road ..simple ....photos don't lie
What? Stop being an idiot.

Not one of them is taking up anymore space than a car, on an empty road.

Do you know the Highway code?
Cars pay road tax. You also need insurance and a licence. Unlike people on bikes who just go out and do as they please.
Cars do NOT pay road tax,neither do motorists as road tax has NOT existed since 1937 and was replaced by VED which is a tax on the pollution that vehicles produce as for insurance, cycle insurance is literally given away as cyclists pose little to no risk, especially compared to a car and the same goes for licencing, plus, a licence means you only have PERMISSION to drive on the road(like my rod licence gives me permission to fish in fresh water but not to fish on private land), cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders use the roads by automatic RIGHT.
Thanks for that!!! So road tax hasn't existed since 1937 if only I had found out sooner I wouldn't have bothered paying 400 odd pounds a year for a silly round disk to go in my window.
Car tax, road fund licence call it what you will . Fact remains without the motorist you would be riding your bike on a mud track anyway. Horses belong in fields and bikes have no place on busy roads in my opinion.
You say they give away insurance but not all cyclists have it and again in my opinion they should along with a proficiency test.
To say they course little to No risk is just stupid. After all how many accident are coursed by idiots on bikes jumping red lights or slipping up the side of trucks into blind spots. Not to mention the ones that ride on pavements.
Funny how the driver is always to blame but never the idiot on the bike.
I don't agree with lives being put at risk by a fool with a grudge against bikes however when I see the stupid things people do on bikes day in day out I would think a few pins are the least of your worries.
Anyway I thought you cyclist had run flat tyres these days or do you blow all your money on trying to look like Chris Hoy.......
Oh my word. So much wrong in such a little space!

I believe people have thrown their corrections your way so hopefully you will be better educated on the subject for the next unjustified rant that you go on but there is one which nobody has touched on yet. I'll sort it.

If we wanted to look like SIR Chris Hoy, we'd spend years perfecting our bodies for the sole purpose of absolutely tearing up the track on a single geared track bike and be NOWHERE near the roads. Also, what's so wrong about aspiring to be similar to one of the greatest British Olympians of all time exactly? Speaking for myself, my thighs are HUGE so I'm closer to him physically than most are. And I have the same accent.

Seriously. Must. Troll. Better.
And then cyclists wonder why they are not liked very much........ Don't forget your repair kits on your next bike ride.
I agree that some cyclists don't do themselves any favours in the popularity stakes,mainly because some(not all),point blank refuse to even consider another point of view,and have to shout anyone down and make the same contradictory arguments to every person who comes on with what in a lot of cases are perfectly reasonable comments.That said,there was absolutely no excuse for the nail incident,which should be roundly condemned, and not made light of.
Quite frankly, if anyone trolls about "Road Tax" or "Road Fund License" they are going to get flamed.
I know the tax system can be a bit opaque to the uninitiated but pleeezzzzeeee get the very basics right.
Opinion can be debated but stuff that is just plain incorrect will always elicit derision.
Yes but why is someone trolling if they say the words "road tax" or "road fund"?
Everyone with half a brain knows what they are talking about,and it is disingenuous for anyone to say they dont.
To criticise someone for using the old terms for what has evolved into VED,is just as patronising as criticising someone for using the terms " rates or poll tax" for council tax,or hoovering for vacuuming.
Vehicle excise duty is a tax,look up the word "duty" in any dictionary.Without it,any vehicle not exempt, cannot legally be taken out on a road,ergo it is a "road tax" of sorts,and that is all anyone using the term is implying when making their point.
The arguments about emissions is an entirely different issue.
[quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mushymat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]chimneysweep 1234[/bold] wrote: The photo above shows the bikes all over the road ..simple ....photos don't lie[/p][/quote]What? Stop being an idiot. Not one of them is taking up anymore space than a car, on an empty road. Do you know the Highway code?[/p][/quote]Cars pay road tax. You also need insurance and a licence. Unlike people on bikes who just go out and do as they please.[/p][/quote]Cars do NOT pay road tax,neither do motorists as road tax has NOT existed since 1937 and was replaced by VED which is a tax on the pollution that vehicles produce as for insurance, cycle insurance is literally given away as cyclists pose little to no risk, especially compared to a car and the same goes for licencing, plus, a licence means you only have PERMISSION to drive on the road(like my rod licence gives me permission to fish in fresh water but not to fish on private land), cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders use the roads by automatic RIGHT.[/p][/quote]Thanks for that!!! So road tax hasn't existed since 1937 if only I had found out sooner I wouldn't have bothered paying 400 odd pounds a year for a silly round disk to go in my window. Car tax, road fund licence call it what you will . Fact remains without the motorist you would be riding your bike on a mud track anyway. Horses belong in fields and bikes have no place on busy roads in my opinion. You say they give away insurance but not all cyclists have it and again in my opinion they should along with a proficiency test. To say they course little to No risk is just stupid. After all how many accident are coursed by idiots on bikes jumping red lights or slipping up the side of trucks into blind spots. Not to mention the ones that ride on pavements. Funny how the driver is always to blame but never the idiot on the bike. I don't agree with lives being put at risk by a fool with a grudge against bikes however when I see the stupid things people do on bikes day in day out I would think a few pins are the least of your worries. Anyway I thought you cyclist had run flat tyres these days or do you blow all your money on trying to look like Chris Hoy.......[/p][/quote]Oh my word. So much wrong in such a little space! I believe people have thrown their corrections your way so hopefully you will be better educated on the subject for the next unjustified rant that you go on but there is one which nobody has touched on yet. I'll sort it. If we wanted to look like SIR Chris Hoy, we'd spend years perfecting our bodies for the sole purpose of absolutely tearing up the track on a single geared track bike and be NOWHERE near the roads. Also, what's so wrong about aspiring to be similar to one of the greatest British Olympians of all time exactly? Speaking for myself, my thighs are HUGE so I'm closer to him physically than most are. And I have the same accent. Seriously. Must. Troll. Better.[/p][/quote]And then cyclists wonder why they are not liked very much........ Don't forget your repair kits on your next bike ride.[/p][/quote]I agree that some cyclists don't do themselves any favours in the popularity stakes,mainly because some(not all),point blank refuse to even consider another point of view,and have to shout anyone down and make the same contradictory arguments to every person who comes on with what in a lot of cases are perfectly reasonable comments.That said,there was absolutely no excuse for the nail incident,which should be roundly condemned, and not made light of.[/p][/quote]Quite frankly, if anyone trolls about "Road Tax" or "Road Fund License" they are going to get flamed. I know the tax system can be a bit opaque to the uninitiated but pleeezzzzeeee get the very basics right. Opinion can be debated but stuff that is just plain incorrect will always elicit derision.[/p][/quote]Yes but why is someone trolling if they say the words "road tax" or "road fund"? Everyone with half a brain knows what they are talking about,and it is disingenuous for anyone to say they dont. To criticise someone for using the old terms for what has evolved into VED,is just as patronising as criticising someone for using the terms " rates or poll tax" for council tax,or hoovering for vacuuming. Vehicle excise duty is a tax,look up the word "duty" in any dictionary.Without it,any vehicle not exempt, cannot legally be taken out on a road,ergo it is a "road tax" of sorts,and that is all anyone using the term is implying when making their point. The arguments about emissions is an entirely different issue. Positively4thStreet
  • Score: -1

4:41pm Thu 17 Apr 14

Franks Tank says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
Franks Tank wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Mushymat wrote:
chimneysweep 1234 wrote:
The photo above shows the bikes all over the road ..simple ....photos don't lie
What? Stop being an idiot.

Not one of them is taking up anymore space than a car, on an empty road.

Do you know the Highway code?
Cars pay road tax. You also need insurance and a licence. Unlike people on bikes who just go out and do as they please.
Cars do NOT pay road tax,neither do motorists as road tax has NOT existed since 1937 and was replaced by VED which is a tax on the pollution that vehicles produce as for insurance, cycle insurance is literally given away as cyclists pose little to no risk, especially compared to a car and the same goes for licencing, plus, a licence means you only have PERMISSION to drive on the road(like my rod licence gives me permission to fish in fresh water but not to fish on private land), cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders use the roads by automatic RIGHT.
Thanks for that!!! So road tax hasn't existed since 1937 if only I had found out sooner I wouldn't have bothered paying 400 odd pounds a year for a silly round disk to go in my window.
Car tax, road fund licence call it what you will . Fact remains without the motorist you would be riding your bike on a mud track anyway. Horses belong in fields and bikes have no place on busy roads in my opinion.
You say they give away insurance but not all cyclists have it and again in my opinion they should along with a proficiency test.
To say they course little to No risk is just stupid. After all how many accident are coursed by idiots on bikes jumping red lights or slipping up the side of trucks into blind spots. Not to mention the ones that ride on pavements.
Funny how the driver is always to blame but never the idiot on the bike.
I don't agree with lives being put at risk by a fool with a grudge against bikes however when I see the stupid things people do on bikes day in day out I would think a few pins are the least of your worries.
Anyway I thought you cyclist had run flat tyres these days or do you blow all your money on trying to look like Chris Hoy.......
Oh my word. So much wrong in such a little space!

I believe people have thrown their corrections your way so hopefully you will be better educated on the subject for the next unjustified rant that you go on but there is one which nobody has touched on yet. I'll sort it.

If we wanted to look like SIR Chris Hoy, we'd spend years perfecting our bodies for the sole purpose of absolutely tearing up the track on a single geared track bike and be NOWHERE near the roads. Also, what's so wrong about aspiring to be similar to one of the greatest British Olympians of all time exactly? Speaking for myself, my thighs are HUGE so I'm closer to him physically than most are. And I have the same accent.

Seriously. Must. Troll. Better.
And then cyclists wonder why they are not liked very much........ Don't forget your repair kits on your next bike ride.
I agree that some cyclists don't do themselves any favours in the popularity stakes,mainly because some(not all),point blank refuse to even consider another point of view,and have to shout anyone down and make the same contradictory arguments to every person who comes on with what in a lot of cases are perfectly reasonable comments.That said,there was absolutely no excuse for the nail incident,which should be roundly condemned, and not made light of.
Quite frankly, if anyone trolls about "Road Tax" or "Road Fund License" they are going to get flamed.
I know the tax system can be a bit opaque to the uninitiated but pleeezzzzeeee get the very basics right.
Opinion can be debated but stuff that is just plain incorrect will always elicit derision.
Yes but why is someone trolling if they say the words "road tax" or "road fund"?
Everyone with half a brain knows what they are talking about,and it is disingenuous for anyone to say they dont.
To criticise someone for using the old terms for what has evolved into VED,is just as patronising as criticising someone for using the terms " rates or poll tax" for council tax,or hoovering for vacuuming.
Vehicle excise duty is a tax,look up the word "duty" in any dictionary.Without it,any vehicle not exempt, cannot legally be taken out on a road,ergo it is a "road tax" of sorts,and that is all anyone using the term is implying when making their point.
The arguments about emissions is an entirely different issue.
Unfortunately using the terms "Road Tax" and "Road Fund Licence" almost invariably go hand in hand with the assumption that it pays for road building and maintenance leading to the implication that motor vehicles have more right to use the roads than other users.
In actual fact the majority of roads are funded out of local taxation (i.e. council tax) from which cyclists are not exempt.
"Everyone with half a brain knows that"!

Roads would be hopelessly underfunded if it's only source of money was VED.

You only need to read the numerous comments on any story to do with cyclist to the effect of "cyclists, they don't pay road tax" to realise that people are either "trolling" or they just don't know what their taxes are spent on.
Additionally I suggest that the vast majority of cyclists also own a car so that argument is blown straight out the water.

No one is disputing that VED is a tax but there are millions of vehicles on the road today that are exempt for various reasons.

All this ground gets covered several times a month, but still some folks just don't (or wont) get it, so maybe it is necessary to be disingenuous and patronising.
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mushymat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]chimneysweep 1234[/bold] wrote: The photo above shows the bikes all over the road ..simple ....photos don't lie[/p][/quote]What? Stop being an idiot. Not one of them is taking up anymore space than a car, on an empty road. Do you know the Highway code?[/p][/quote]Cars pay road tax. You also need insurance and a licence. Unlike people on bikes who just go out and do as they please.[/p][/quote]Cars do NOT pay road tax,neither do motorists as road tax has NOT existed since 1937 and was replaced by VED which is a tax on the pollution that vehicles produce as for insurance, cycle insurance is literally given away as cyclists pose little to no risk, especially compared to a car and the same goes for licencing, plus, a licence means you only have PERMISSION to drive on the road(like my rod licence gives me permission to fish in fresh water but not to fish on private land), cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders use the roads by automatic RIGHT.[/p][/quote]Thanks for that!!! So road tax hasn't existed since 1937 if only I had found out sooner I wouldn't have bothered paying 400 odd pounds a year for a silly round disk to go in my window. Car tax, road fund licence call it what you will . Fact remains without the motorist you would be riding your bike on a mud track anyway. Horses belong in fields and bikes have no place on busy roads in my opinion. You say they give away insurance but not all cyclists have it and again in my opinion they should along with a proficiency test. To say they course little to No risk is just stupid. After all how many accident are coursed by idiots on bikes jumping red lights or slipping up the side of trucks into blind spots. Not to mention the ones that ride on pavements. Funny how the driver is always to blame but never the idiot on the bike. I don't agree with lives being put at risk by a fool with a grudge against bikes however when I see the stupid things people do on bikes day in day out I would think a few pins are the least of your worries. Anyway I thought you cyclist had run flat tyres these days or do you blow all your money on trying to look like Chris Hoy.......[/p][/quote]Oh my word. So much wrong in such a little space! I believe people have thrown their corrections your way so hopefully you will be better educated on the subject for the next unjustified rant that you go on but there is one which nobody has touched on yet. I'll sort it. If we wanted to look like SIR Chris Hoy, we'd spend years perfecting our bodies for the sole purpose of absolutely tearing up the track on a single geared track bike and be NOWHERE near the roads. Also, what's so wrong about aspiring to be similar to one of the greatest British Olympians of all time exactly? Speaking for myself, my thighs are HUGE so I'm closer to him physically than most are. And I have the same accent. Seriously. Must. Troll. Better.[/p][/quote]And then cyclists wonder why they are not liked very much........ Don't forget your repair kits on your next bike ride.[/p][/quote]I agree that some cyclists don't do themselves any favours in the popularity stakes,mainly because some(not all),point blank refuse to even consider another point of view,and have to shout anyone down and make the same contradictory arguments to every person who comes on with what in a lot of cases are perfectly reasonable comments.That said,there was absolutely no excuse for the nail incident,which should be roundly condemned, and not made light of.[/p][/quote]Quite frankly, if anyone trolls about "Road Tax" or "Road Fund License" they are going to get flamed. I know the tax system can be a bit opaque to the uninitiated but pleeezzzzeeee get the very basics right. Opinion can be debated but stuff that is just plain incorrect will always elicit derision.[/p][/quote]Yes but why is someone trolling if they say the words "road tax" or "road fund"? Everyone with half a brain knows what they are talking about,and it is disingenuous for anyone to say they dont. To criticise someone for using the old terms for what has evolved into VED,is just as patronising as criticising someone for using the terms " rates or poll tax" for council tax,or hoovering for vacuuming. Vehicle excise duty is a tax,look up the word "duty" in any dictionary.Without it,any vehicle not exempt, cannot legally be taken out on a road,ergo it is a "road tax" of sorts,and that is all anyone using the term is implying when making their point. The arguments about emissions is an entirely different issue.[/p][/quote]Unfortunately using the terms "Road Tax" and "Road Fund Licence" almost invariably go hand in hand with the assumption that it pays for road building and maintenance leading to the implication that motor vehicles have more right to use the roads than other users. In actual fact the majority of roads are funded out of local taxation (i.e. council tax) from which cyclists are not exempt. "Everyone with half a brain knows that"! Roads would be hopelessly underfunded if it's only source of money was VED. You only need to read the numerous comments on any story to do with cyclist to the effect of "cyclists, they don't pay road tax" to realise that people are either "trolling" or they just don't know what their taxes are spent on. Additionally I suggest that the vast majority of cyclists also own a car so that argument is blown straight out the water. No one is disputing that VED is a tax but there are millions of vehicles on the road today that are exempt for various reasons. All this ground gets covered several times a month, but still some folks just don't (or wont) get it, so maybe it is necessary to be disingenuous and patronising. Franks Tank
  • Score: 1

6:11pm Thu 17 Apr 14

Positively4thStreet says...

Franks Tank wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Franks Tank wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Mushymat wrote:
chimneysweep 1234 wrote:
The photo above shows the bikes all over the road ..simple ....photos don't lie
What? Stop being an idiot.

Not one of them is taking up anymore space than a car, on an empty road.

Do you know the Highway code?
Cars pay road tax. You also need insurance and a licence. Unlike people on bikes who just go out and do as they please.
Cars do NOT pay road tax,neither do motorists as road tax has NOT existed since 1937 and was replaced by VED which is a tax on the pollution that vehicles produce as for insurance, cycle insurance is literally given away as cyclists pose little to no risk, especially compared to a car and the same goes for licencing, plus, a licence means you only have PERMISSION to drive on the road(like my rod licence gives me permission to fish in fresh water but not to fish on private land), cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders use the roads by automatic RIGHT.
Thanks for that!!! So road tax hasn't existed since 1937 if only I had found out sooner I wouldn't have bothered paying 400 odd pounds a year for a silly round disk to go in my window.
Car tax, road fund licence call it what you will . Fact remains without the motorist you would be riding your bike on a mud track anyway. Horses belong in fields and bikes have no place on busy roads in my opinion.
You say they give away insurance but not all cyclists have it and again in my opinion they should along with a proficiency test.
To say they course little to No risk is just stupid. After all how many accident are coursed by idiots on bikes jumping red lights or slipping up the side of trucks into blind spots. Not to mention the ones that ride on pavements.
Funny how the driver is always to blame but never the idiot on the bike.
I don't agree with lives being put at risk by a fool with a grudge against bikes however when I see the stupid things people do on bikes day in day out I would think a few pins are the least of your worries.
Anyway I thought you cyclist had run flat tyres these days or do you blow all your money on trying to look like Chris Hoy.......
Oh my word. So much wrong in such a little space!

I believe people have thrown their corrections your way so hopefully you will be better educated on the subject for the next unjustified rant that you go on but there is one which nobody has touched on yet. I'll sort it.

If we wanted to look like SIR Chris Hoy, we'd spend years perfecting our bodies for the sole purpose of absolutely tearing up the track on a single geared track bike and be NOWHERE near the roads. Also, what's so wrong about aspiring to be similar to one of the greatest British Olympians of all time exactly? Speaking for myself, my thighs are HUGE so I'm closer to him physically than most are. And I have the same accent.

Seriously. Must. Troll. Better.
And then cyclists wonder why they are not liked very much........ Don't forget your repair kits on your next bike ride.
I agree that some cyclists don't do themselves any favours in the popularity stakes,mainly because some(not all),point blank refuse to even consider another point of view,and have to shout anyone down and make the same contradictory arguments to every person who comes on with what in a lot of cases are perfectly reasonable comments.That said,there was absolutely no excuse for the nail incident,which should be roundly condemned, and not made light of.
Quite frankly, if anyone trolls about "Road Tax" or "Road Fund License" they are going to get flamed.
I know the tax system can be a bit opaque to the uninitiated but pleeezzzzeeee get the very basics right.
Opinion can be debated but stuff that is just plain incorrect will always elicit derision.
Yes but why is someone trolling if they say the words "road tax" or "road fund"?
Everyone with half a brain knows what they are talking about,and it is disingenuous for anyone to say they dont.
To criticise someone for using the old terms for what has evolved into VED,is just as patronising as criticising someone for using the terms " rates or poll tax" for council tax,or hoovering for vacuuming.
Vehicle excise duty is a tax,look up the word "duty" in any dictionary.Without it,any vehicle not exempt, cannot legally be taken out on a road,ergo it is a "road tax" of sorts,and that is all anyone using the term is implying when making their point.
The arguments about emissions is an entirely different issue.
Unfortunately using the terms "Road Tax" and "Road Fund Licence" almost invariably go hand in hand with the assumption that it pays for road building and maintenance leading to the implication that motor vehicles have more right to use the roads than other users.
In actual fact the majority of roads are funded out of local taxation (i.e. council tax) from which cyclists are not exempt.
"Everyone with half a brain knows that"!

Roads would be hopelessly underfunded if it's only source of money was VED.

You only need to read the numerous comments on any story to do with cyclist to the effect of "cyclists, they don't pay road tax" to realise that people are either "trolling" or they just don't know what their taxes are spent on.
Additionally I suggest that the vast majority of cyclists also own a car so that argument is blown straight out the water.

No one is disputing that VED is a tax but there are millions of vehicles on the road today that are exempt for various reasons.

All this ground gets covered several times a month, but still some folks just don't (or wont) get it, so maybe it is necessary to be disingenuous and patronising.
Yes I understand your point,and I'm not disputing it,but there are a few posters on here who would do their cases no harm,by being a little less stringent and more understanding, by letting people down a little more gently in imparting their technically superior knowledge in such matters.
[quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mushymat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]chimneysweep 1234[/bold] wrote: The photo above shows the bikes all over the road ..simple ....photos don't lie[/p][/quote]What? Stop being an idiot. Not one of them is taking up anymore space than a car, on an empty road. Do you know the Highway code?[/p][/quote]Cars pay road tax. You also need insurance and a licence. Unlike people on bikes who just go out and do as they please.[/p][/quote]Cars do NOT pay road tax,neither do motorists as road tax has NOT existed since 1937 and was replaced by VED which is a tax on the pollution that vehicles produce as for insurance, cycle insurance is literally given away as cyclists pose little to no risk, especially compared to a car and the same goes for licencing, plus, a licence means you only have PERMISSION to drive on the road(like my rod licence gives me permission to fish in fresh water but not to fish on private land), cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders use the roads by automatic RIGHT.[/p][/quote]Thanks for that!!! So road tax hasn't existed since 1937 if only I had found out sooner I wouldn't have bothered paying 400 odd pounds a year for a silly round disk to go in my window. Car tax, road fund licence call it what you will . Fact remains without the motorist you would be riding your bike on a mud track anyway. Horses belong in fields and bikes have no place on busy roads in my opinion. You say they give away insurance but not all cyclists have it and again in my opinion they should along with a proficiency test. To say they course little to No risk is just stupid. After all how many accident are coursed by idiots on bikes jumping red lights or slipping up the side of trucks into blind spots. Not to mention the ones that ride on pavements. Funny how the driver is always to blame but never the idiot on the bike. I don't agree with lives being put at risk by a fool with a grudge against bikes however when I see the stupid things people do on bikes day in day out I would think a few pins are the least of your worries. Anyway I thought you cyclist had run flat tyres these days or do you blow all your money on trying to look like Chris Hoy.......[/p][/quote]Oh my word. So much wrong in such a little space! I believe people have thrown their corrections your way so hopefully you will be better educated on the subject for the next unjustified rant that you go on but there is one which nobody has touched on yet. I'll sort it. If we wanted to look like SIR Chris Hoy, we'd spend years perfecting our bodies for the sole purpose of absolutely tearing up the track on a single geared track bike and be NOWHERE near the roads. Also, what's so wrong about aspiring to be similar to one of the greatest British Olympians of all time exactly? Speaking for myself, my thighs are HUGE so I'm closer to him physically than most are. And I have the same accent. Seriously. Must. Troll. Better.[/p][/quote]And then cyclists wonder why they are not liked very much........ Don't forget your repair kits on your next bike ride.[/p][/quote]I agree that some cyclists don't do themselves any favours in the popularity stakes,mainly because some(not all),point blank refuse to even consider another point of view,and have to shout anyone down and make the same contradictory arguments to every person who comes on with what in a lot of cases are perfectly reasonable comments.That said,there was absolutely no excuse for the nail incident,which should be roundly condemned, and not made light of.[/p][/quote]Quite frankly, if anyone trolls about "Road Tax" or "Road Fund License" they are going to get flamed. I know the tax system can be a bit opaque to the uninitiated but pleeezzzzeeee get the very basics right. Opinion can be debated but stuff that is just plain incorrect will always elicit derision.[/p][/quote]Yes but why is someone trolling if they say the words "road tax" or "road fund"? Everyone with half a brain knows what they are talking about,and it is disingenuous for anyone to say they dont. To criticise someone for using the old terms for what has evolved into VED,is just as patronising as criticising someone for using the terms " rates or poll tax" for council tax,or hoovering for vacuuming. Vehicle excise duty is a tax,look up the word "duty" in any dictionary.Without it,any vehicle not exempt, cannot legally be taken out on a road,ergo it is a "road tax" of sorts,and that is all anyone using the term is implying when making their point. The arguments about emissions is an entirely different issue.[/p][/quote]Unfortunately using the terms "Road Tax" and "Road Fund Licence" almost invariably go hand in hand with the assumption that it pays for road building and maintenance leading to the implication that motor vehicles have more right to use the roads than other users. In actual fact the majority of roads are funded out of local taxation (i.e. council tax) from which cyclists are not exempt. "Everyone with half a brain knows that"! Roads would be hopelessly underfunded if it's only source of money was VED. You only need to read the numerous comments on any story to do with cyclist to the effect of "cyclists, they don't pay road tax" to realise that people are either "trolling" or they just don't know what their taxes are spent on. Additionally I suggest that the vast majority of cyclists also own a car so that argument is blown straight out the water. No one is disputing that VED is a tax but there are millions of vehicles on the road today that are exempt for various reasons. All this ground gets covered several times a month, but still some folks just don't (or wont) get it, so maybe it is necessary to be disingenuous and patronising.[/p][/quote]Yes I understand your point,and I'm not disputing it,but there are a few posters on here who would do their cases no harm,by being a little less stringent and more understanding, by letting people down a little more gently in imparting their technically superior knowledge in such matters. Positively4thStreet
  • Score: 0

7:51pm Thu 17 Apr 14

mrmac1 says...

The roads are a resource for EVERYONE to use. The rules and advice of the Highway Code are there for EVERY road user to read, understand and abide by. Some, not all are the law. Those that are not the law rely on the use of common sense, and possibly good manners, courtesy and consideration of others of a by gone age.

I ride a motorcycle and I also drive, I find that generally the most arrogant and uncooperative bunch on the roads are cyclists.

As a motorbike rider we do actually face many similar problems to cyclists, when TFL in London opened up some bus lanes to motor cycles, who complained the loudest? Yes you guessed it, the ones without an engine, it has since been proved that motorcycles are not their biggest problem, buses are.

Never heard them complaining about buses using the bus lane.

I do accept that some road users could use a refresher course but that would apply to ALL road users as the motoring, motorcycling and cycling sections all have their fair share of pillocks.

I did also see the other day a thread on a cycling website trying to defend someone riding a bicycle and paying the ultimate price whilst he was twice the legal **** drive limit.

Imagine the squealing if that had been a car driver hitting a cyclist!!
The roads are a resource for EVERYONE to use. The rules and advice of the Highway Code are there for EVERY road user to read, understand and abide by. Some, not all are the law. Those that are not the law rely on the use of common sense, and possibly good manners, courtesy and consideration of others of a by gone age. I ride a motorcycle and I also drive, I find that generally the most arrogant and uncooperative bunch on the roads are cyclists. As a motorbike rider we do actually face many similar problems to cyclists, when TFL in London opened up some bus lanes to motor cycles, who complained the loudest? Yes you guessed it, the ones without an engine, it has since been proved that motorcycles are not their biggest problem, buses are. Never heard them complaining about buses using the bus lane. I do accept that some road users could use a refresher course but that would apply to ALL road users as the motoring, motorcycling and cycling sections all have their fair share of pillocks. I did also see the other day a thread on a cycling website trying to defend someone riding a bicycle and paying the ultimate price whilst he was twice the legal **** drive limit. Imagine the squealing if that had been a car driver hitting a cyclist!! mrmac1
  • Score: 0

7:59pm Thu 17 Apr 14

Franks Tank says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
Franks Tank wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Franks Tank wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Mushymat wrote:
chimneysweep 1234 wrote:
The photo above shows the bikes all over the road ..simple ....photos don't lie
What? Stop being an idiot.

Not one of them is taking up anymore space than a car, on an empty road.

Do you know the Highway code?
Cars pay road tax. You also need insurance and a licence. Unlike people on bikes who just go out and do as they please.
Cars do NOT pay road tax,neither do motorists as road tax has NOT existed since 1937 and was replaced by VED which is a tax on the pollution that vehicles produce as for insurance, cycle insurance is literally given away as cyclists pose little to no risk, especially compared to a car and the same goes for licencing, plus, a licence means you only have PERMISSION to drive on the road(like my rod licence gives me permission to fish in fresh water but not to fish on private land), cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders use the roads by automatic RIGHT.
Thanks for that!!! So road tax hasn't existed since 1937 if only I had found out sooner I wouldn't have bothered paying 400 odd pounds a year for a silly round disk to go in my window.
Car tax, road fund licence call it what you will . Fact remains without the motorist you would be riding your bike on a mud track anyway. Horses belong in fields and bikes have no place on busy roads in my opinion.
You say they give away insurance but not all cyclists have it and again in my opinion they should along with a proficiency test.
To say they course little to No risk is just stupid. After all how many accident are coursed by idiots on bikes jumping red lights or slipping up the side of trucks into blind spots. Not to mention the ones that ride on pavements.
Funny how the driver is always to blame but never the idiot on the bike.
I don't agree with lives being put at risk by a fool with a grudge against bikes however when I see the stupid things people do on bikes day in day out I would think a few pins are the least of your worries.
Anyway I thought you cyclist had run flat tyres these days or do you blow all your money on trying to look like Chris Hoy.......
Oh my word. So much wrong in such a little space!

I believe people have thrown their corrections your way so hopefully you will be better educated on the subject for the next unjustified rant that you go on but there is one which nobody has touched on yet. I'll sort it.

If we wanted to look like SIR Chris Hoy, we'd spend years perfecting our bodies for the sole purpose of absolutely tearing up the track on a single geared track bike and be NOWHERE near the roads. Also, what's so wrong about aspiring to be similar to one of the greatest British Olympians of all time exactly? Speaking for myself, my thighs are HUGE so I'm closer to him physically than most are. And I have the same accent.

Seriously. Must. Troll. Better.
And then cyclists wonder why they are not liked very much........ Don't forget your repair kits on your next bike ride.
I agree that some cyclists don't do themselves any favours in the popularity stakes,mainly because some(not all),point blank refuse to even consider another point of view,and have to shout anyone down and make the same contradictory arguments to every person who comes on with what in a lot of cases are perfectly reasonable comments.That said,there was absolutely no excuse for the nail incident,which should be roundly condemned, and not made light of.
Quite frankly, if anyone trolls about "Road Tax" or "Road Fund License" they are going to get flamed.
I know the tax system can be a bit opaque to the uninitiated but pleeezzzzeeee get the very basics right.
Opinion can be debated but stuff that is just plain incorrect will always elicit derision.
Yes but why is someone trolling if they say the words "road tax" or "road fund"?
Everyone with half a brain knows what they are talking about,and it is disingenuous for anyone to say they dont.
To criticise someone for using the old terms for what has evolved into VED,is just as patronising as criticising someone for using the terms " rates or poll tax" for council tax,or hoovering for vacuuming.
Vehicle excise duty is a tax,look up the word "duty" in any dictionary.Without it,any vehicle not exempt, cannot legally be taken out on a road,ergo it is a "road tax" of sorts,and that is all anyone using the term is implying when making their point.
The arguments about emissions is an entirely different issue.
Unfortunately using the terms "Road Tax" and "Road Fund Licence" almost invariably go hand in hand with the assumption that it pays for road building and maintenance leading to the implication that motor vehicles have more right to use the roads than other users.
In actual fact the majority of roads are funded out of local taxation (i.e. council tax) from which cyclists are not exempt.
"Everyone with half a brain knows that"!

Roads would be hopelessly underfunded if it's only source of money was VED.

You only need to read the numerous comments on any story to do with cyclist to the effect of "cyclists, they don't pay road tax" to realise that people are either "trolling" or they just don't know what their taxes are spent on.
Additionally I suggest that the vast majority of cyclists also own a car so that argument is blown straight out the water.

No one is disputing that VED is a tax but there are millions of vehicles on the road today that are exempt for various reasons.

All this ground gets covered several times a month, but still some folks just don't (or wont) get it, so maybe it is necessary to be disingenuous and patronising.
Yes I understand your point,and I'm not disputing it,but there are a few posters on here who would do their cases no harm,by being a little less stringent and more understanding, by letting people down a little more gently in imparting their technically superior knowledge in such matters.
Fair point, nice to have a civilized discussion on here.
The next time anyone mentions “Road Tax” I shall first ask them what they think it is and what it's spent on.
I may also enquire why they think it is relevant to a cycling story.

Good evening to you.
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mushymat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]chimneysweep 1234[/bold] wrote: The photo above shows the bikes all over the road ..simple ....photos don't lie[/p][/quote]What? Stop being an idiot. Not one of them is taking up anymore space than a car, on an empty road. Do you know the Highway code?[/p][/quote]Cars pay road tax. You also need insurance and a licence. Unlike people on bikes who just go out and do as they please.[/p][/quote]Cars do NOT pay road tax,neither do motorists as road tax has NOT existed since 1937 and was replaced by VED which is a tax on the pollution that vehicles produce as for insurance, cycle insurance is literally given away as cyclists pose little to no risk, especially compared to a car and the same goes for licencing, plus, a licence means you only have PERMISSION to drive on the road(like my rod licence gives me permission to fish in fresh water but not to fish on private land), cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders use the roads by automatic RIGHT.[/p][/quote]Thanks for that!!! So road tax hasn't existed since 1937 if only I had found out sooner I wouldn't have bothered paying 400 odd pounds a year for a silly round disk to go in my window. Car tax, road fund licence call it what you will . Fact remains without the motorist you would be riding your bike on a mud track anyway. Horses belong in fields and bikes have no place on busy roads in my opinion. You say they give away insurance but not all cyclists have it and again in my opinion they should along with a proficiency test. To say they course little to No risk is just stupid. After all how many accident are coursed by idiots on bikes jumping red lights or slipping up the side of trucks into blind spots. Not to mention the ones that ride on pavements. Funny how the driver is always to blame but never the idiot on the bike. I don't agree with lives being put at risk by a fool with a grudge against bikes however when I see the stupid things people do on bikes day in day out I would think a few pins are the least of your worries. Anyway I thought you cyclist had run flat tyres these days or do you blow all your money on trying to look like Chris Hoy.......[/p][/quote]Oh my word. So much wrong in such a little space! I believe people have thrown their corrections your way so hopefully you will be better educated on the subject for the next unjustified rant that you go on but there is one which nobody has touched on yet. I'll sort it. If we wanted to look like SIR Chris Hoy, we'd spend years perfecting our bodies for the sole purpose of absolutely tearing up the track on a single geared track bike and be NOWHERE near the roads. Also, what's so wrong about aspiring to be similar to one of the greatest British Olympians of all time exactly? Speaking for myself, my thighs are HUGE so I'm closer to him physically than most are. And I have the same accent. Seriously. Must. Troll. Better.[/p][/quote]And then cyclists wonder why they are not liked very much........ Don't forget your repair kits on your next bike ride.[/p][/quote]I agree that some cyclists don't do themselves any favours in the popularity stakes,mainly because some(not all),point blank refuse to even consider another point of view,and have to shout anyone down and make the same contradictory arguments to every person who comes on with what in a lot of cases are perfectly reasonable comments.That said,there was absolutely no excuse for the nail incident,which should be roundly condemned, and not made light of.[/p][/quote]Quite frankly, if anyone trolls about "Road Tax" or "Road Fund License" they are going to get flamed. I know the tax system can be a bit opaque to the uninitiated but pleeezzzzeeee get the very basics right. Opinion can be debated but stuff that is just plain incorrect will always elicit derision.[/p][/quote]Yes but why is someone trolling if they say the words "road tax" or "road fund"? Everyone with half a brain knows what they are talking about,and it is disingenuous for anyone to say they dont. To criticise someone for using the old terms for what has evolved into VED,is just as patronising as criticising someone for using the terms " rates or poll tax" for council tax,or hoovering for vacuuming. Vehicle excise duty is a tax,look up the word "duty" in any dictionary.Without it,any vehicle not exempt, cannot legally be taken out on a road,ergo it is a "road tax" of sorts,and that is all anyone using the term is implying when making their point. The arguments about emissions is an entirely different issue.[/p][/quote]Unfortunately using the terms "Road Tax" and "Road Fund Licence" almost invariably go hand in hand with the assumption that it pays for road building and maintenance leading to the implication that motor vehicles have more right to use the roads than other users. In actual fact the majority of roads are funded out of local taxation (i.e. council tax) from which cyclists are not exempt. "Everyone with half a brain knows that"! Roads would be hopelessly underfunded if it's only source of money was VED. You only need to read the numerous comments on any story to do with cyclist to the effect of "cyclists, they don't pay road tax" to realise that people are either "trolling" or they just don't know what their taxes are spent on. Additionally I suggest that the vast majority of cyclists also own a car so that argument is blown straight out the water. No one is disputing that VED is a tax but there are millions of vehicles on the road today that are exempt for various reasons. All this ground gets covered several times a month, but still some folks just don't (or wont) get it, so maybe it is necessary to be disingenuous and patronising.[/p][/quote]Yes I understand your point,and I'm not disputing it,but there are a few posters on here who would do their cases no harm,by being a little less stringent and more understanding, by letting people down a little more gently in imparting their technically superior knowledge in such matters.[/p][/quote]Fair point, nice to have a civilized discussion on here. The next time anyone mentions “Road Tax” I shall first ask them what they think it is and what it's spent on. I may also enquire why they think it is relevant to a cycling story. Good evening to you. Franks Tank
  • Score: 0

8:17pm Thu 17 Apr 14

Positively4thStreet says...

Franks Tank wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Franks Tank wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Franks Tank wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgethepie wrote:
Mushymat wrote:
chimneysweep 1234 wrote:
The photo above shows the bikes all over the road ..simple ....photos don't lie
What? Stop being an idiot.

Not one of them is taking up anymore space than a car, on an empty road.

Do you know the Highway code?
Cars pay road tax. You also need insurance and a licence. Unlike people on bikes who just go out and do as they please.
Cars do NOT pay road tax,neither do motorists as road tax has NOT existed since 1937 and was replaced by VED which is a tax on the pollution that vehicles produce as for insurance, cycle insurance is literally given away as cyclists pose little to no risk, especially compared to a car and the same goes for licencing, plus, a licence means you only have PERMISSION to drive on the road(like my rod licence gives me permission to fish in fresh water but not to fish on private land), cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders use the roads by automatic RIGHT.
Thanks for that!!! So road tax hasn't existed since 1937 if only I had found out sooner I wouldn't have bothered paying 400 odd pounds a year for a silly round disk to go in my window.
Car tax, road fund licence call it what you will . Fact remains without the motorist you would be riding your bike on a mud track anyway. Horses belong in fields and bikes have no place on busy roads in my opinion.
You say they give away insurance but not all cyclists have it and again in my opinion they should along with a proficiency test.
To say they course little to No risk is just stupid. After all how many accident are coursed by idiots on bikes jumping red lights or slipping up the side of trucks into blind spots. Not to mention the ones that ride on pavements.
Funny how the driver is always to blame but never the idiot on the bike.
I don't agree with lives being put at risk by a fool with a grudge against bikes however when I see the stupid things people do on bikes day in day out I would think a few pins are the least of your worries.
Anyway I thought you cyclist had run flat tyres these days or do you blow all your money on trying to look like Chris Hoy.......
Oh my word. So much wrong in such a little space!

I believe people have thrown their corrections your way so hopefully you will be better educated on the subject for the next unjustified rant that you go on but there is one which nobody has touched on yet. I'll sort it.

If we wanted to look like SIR Chris Hoy, we'd spend years perfecting our bodies for the sole purpose of absolutely tearing up the track on a single geared track bike and be NOWHERE near the roads. Also, what's so wrong about aspiring to be similar to one of the greatest British Olympians of all time exactly? Speaking for myself, my thighs are HUGE so I'm closer to him physically than most are. And I have the same accent.

Seriously. Must. Troll. Better.
And then cyclists wonder why they are not liked very much........ Don't forget your repair kits on your next bike ride.
I agree that some cyclists don't do themselves any favours in the popularity stakes,mainly because some(not all),point blank refuse to even consider another point of view,and have to shout anyone down and make the same contradictory arguments to every person who comes on with what in a lot of cases are perfectly reasonable comments.That said,there was absolutely no excuse for the nail incident,which should be roundly condemned, and not made light of.
Quite frankly, if anyone trolls about "Road Tax" or "Road Fund License" they are going to get flamed.
I know the tax system can be a bit opaque to the uninitiated but pleeezzzzeeee get the very basics right.
Opinion can be debated but stuff that is just plain incorrect will always elicit derision.
Yes but why is someone trolling if they say the words "road tax" or "road fund"?
Everyone with half a brain knows what they are talking about,and it is disingenuous for anyone to say they dont.
To criticise someone for using the old terms for what has evolved into VED,is just as patronising as criticising someone for using the terms " rates or poll tax" for council tax,or hoovering for vacuuming.
Vehicle excise duty is a tax,look up the word "duty" in any dictionary.Without it,any vehicle not exempt, cannot legally be taken out on a road,ergo it is a "road tax" of sorts,and that is all anyone using the term is implying when making their point.
The arguments about emissions is an entirely different issue.
Unfortunately using the terms "Road Tax" and "Road Fund Licence" almost invariably go hand in hand with the assumption that it pays for road building and maintenance leading to the implication that motor vehicles have more right to use the roads than other users.
In actual fact the majority of roads are funded out of local taxation (i.e. council tax) from which cyclists are not exempt.
"Everyone with half a brain knows that"!

Roads would be hopelessly underfunded if it's only source of money was VED.

You only need to read the numerous comments on any story to do with cyclist to the effect of "cyclists, they don't pay road tax" to realise that people are either "trolling" or they just don't know what their taxes are spent on.
Additionally I suggest that the vast majority of cyclists also own a car so that argument is blown straight out the water.

No one is disputing that VED is a tax but there are millions of vehicles on the road today that are exempt for various reasons.

All this ground gets covered several times a month, but still some folks just don't (or wont) get it, so maybe it is necessary to be disingenuous and patronising.
Yes I understand your point,and I'm not disputing it,but there are a few posters on here who would do their cases no harm,by being a little less stringent and more understanding, by letting people down a little more gently in imparting their technically superior knowledge in such matters.
Fair point, nice to have a civilized discussion on here.
The next time anyone mentions “Road Tax” I shall first ask them what they think it is and what it's spent on.
I may also enquire why they think it is relevant to a cycling story.

Good evening to you.
Good idea FT.
[quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mushymat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]chimneysweep 1234[/bold] wrote: The photo above shows the bikes all over the road ..simple ....photos don't lie[/p][/quote]What? Stop being an idiot. Not one of them is taking up anymore space than a car, on an empty road. Do you know the Highway code?[/p][/quote]Cars pay road tax. You also need insurance and a licence. Unlike people on bikes who just go out and do as they please.[/p][/quote]Cars do NOT pay road tax,neither do motorists as road tax has NOT existed since 1937 and was replaced by VED which is a tax on the pollution that vehicles produce as for insurance, cycle insurance is literally given away as cyclists pose little to no risk, especially compared to a car and the same goes for licencing, plus, a licence means you only have PERMISSION to drive on the road(like my rod licence gives me permission to fish in fresh water but not to fish on private land), cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders use the roads by automatic RIGHT.[/p][/quote]Thanks for that!!! So road tax hasn't existed since 1937 if only I had found out sooner I wouldn't have bothered paying 400 odd pounds a year for a silly round disk to go in my window. Car tax, road fund licence call it what you will . Fact remains without the motorist you would be riding your bike on a mud track anyway. Horses belong in fields and bikes have no place on busy roads in my opinion. You say they give away insurance but not all cyclists have it and again in my opinion they should along with a proficiency test. To say they course little to No risk is just stupid. After all how many accident are coursed by idiots on bikes jumping red lights or slipping up the side of trucks into blind spots. Not to mention the ones that ride on pavements. Funny how the driver is always to blame but never the idiot on the bike. I don't agree with lives being put at risk by a fool with a grudge against bikes however when I see the stupid things people do on bikes day in day out I would think a few pins are the least of your worries. Anyway I thought you cyclist had run flat tyres these days or do you blow all your money on trying to look like Chris Hoy.......[/p][/quote]Oh my word. So much wrong in such a little space! I believe people have thrown their corrections your way so hopefully you will be better educated on the subject for the next unjustified rant that you go on but there is one which nobody has touched on yet. I'll sort it. If we wanted to look like SIR Chris Hoy, we'd spend years perfecting our bodies for the sole purpose of absolutely tearing up the track on a single geared track bike and be NOWHERE near the roads. Also, what's so wrong about aspiring to be similar to one of the greatest British Olympians of all time exactly? Speaking for myself, my thighs are HUGE so I'm closer to him physically than most are. And I have the same accent. Seriously. Must. Troll. Better.[/p][/quote]And then cyclists wonder why they are not liked very much........ Don't forget your repair kits on your next bike ride.[/p][/quote]I agree that some cyclists don't do themselves any favours in the popularity stakes,mainly because some(not all),point blank refuse to even consider another point of view,and have to shout anyone down and make the same contradictory arguments to every person who comes on with what in a lot of cases are perfectly reasonable comments.That said,there was absolutely no excuse for the nail incident,which should be roundly condemned, and not made light of.[/p][/quote]Quite frankly, if anyone trolls about "Road Tax" or "Road Fund License" they are going to get flamed. I know the tax system can be a bit opaque to the uninitiated but pleeezzzzeeee get the very basics right. Opinion can be debated but stuff that is just plain incorrect will always elicit derision.[/p][/quote]Yes but why is someone trolling if they say the words "road tax" or "road fund"? Everyone with half a brain knows what they are talking about,and it is disingenuous for anyone to say they dont. To criticise someone for using the old terms for what has evolved into VED,is just as patronising as criticising someone for using the terms " rates or poll tax" for council tax,or hoovering for vacuuming. Vehicle excise duty is a tax,look up the word "duty" in any dictionary.Without it,any vehicle not exempt, cannot legally be taken out on a road,ergo it is a "road tax" of sorts,and that is all anyone using the term is implying when making their point. The arguments about emissions is an entirely different issue.[/p][/quote]Unfortunately using the terms "Road Tax" and "Road Fund Licence" almost invariably go hand in hand with the assumption that it pays for road building and maintenance leading to the implication that motor vehicles have more right to use the roads than other users. In actual fact the majority of roads are funded out of local taxation (i.e. council tax) from which cyclists are not exempt. "Everyone with half a brain knows that"! Roads would be hopelessly underfunded if it's only source of money was VED. You only need to read the numerous comments on any story to do with cyclist to the effect of "cyclists, they don't pay road tax" to realise that people are either "trolling" or they just don't know what their taxes are spent on. Additionally I suggest that the vast majority of cyclists also own a car so that argument is blown straight out the water. No one is disputing that VED is a tax but there are millions of vehicles on the road today that are exempt for various reasons. All this ground gets covered several times a month, but still some folks just don't (or wont) get it, so maybe it is necessary to be disingenuous and patronising.[/p][/quote]Yes I understand your point,and I'm not disputing it,but there are a few posters on here who would do their cases no harm,by being a little less stringent and more understanding, by letting people down a little more gently in imparting their technically superior knowledge in such matters.[/p][/quote]Fair point, nice to have a civilized discussion on here. The next time anyone mentions “Road Tax” I shall first ask them what they think it is and what it's spent on. I may also enquire why they think it is relevant to a cycling story. Good evening to you.[/p][/quote]Good idea FT. Positively4thStreet
  • Score: 0

11:19pm Thu 17 Apr 14

southamptonadi says...

Reconciler wrote:
southamptonadi wrote:
The anti wiggle brigade are starting to lose some credibility In their argument, supposedly looking out for the greater good go the forest, what about the animals crossing the road and injuring themselves on nails. Quite selfish really. I wonder if they would do the same on the roads that are gridlocked with tourists and show visitors
Please don't lump the poster-posters and tin-tack spreaders into the same group. The poster merely asked for incidents to be reported and tried to let people know in advance so that essential journeys could be planned, anad all were removed immediately after the event - no littering. On the contrary, the tin-tack spreaders behaved illegally, irresponsibly, dangerously, cruelly, selfishly, and counter-productively

, and I hope they are found and prosecuted. I get the impression that the "cyclists can do no wrong" brigade include me in their list of enemies, but I am trying to reconcile them with the "cyclists can do nothing right" brigade. I think the pressure has forced Wiggle to make considerable improvements, and on the whole cycling behaviour was not so bad as in previous years. However there was still a lot of inconsiderate and dangerous riding, and without legible identification numbers on cyclists' backs the culprits cannot be identified. I have heard of no defecation in public, but I understand a video exists of riders urinating in bushes near the Brockenhurst food-station. The police managed to prevent this on the Sunday. Where police were on duty the cycling behaviour was excellent! ( I suppose the local tax-payer has paid for police services? May I suggest that Wiggle make enough profit to cover these costs - like football clubs?) However I personally experienced lengthy harrassment by racing riders trying to overtake me and slow riders in front of me whom I could not safely pass.
Another point: better organisaton was needed at the start venue, as there was a 1.5 mile queue from the Ringwood direction on the Saturday. I wonder how many folk were late for appointments in Bournemouth because of it? People who claim that these events do no harm are not seeing the whole picture.
Let's keep on working towards an acceptable compromise!
Did not think I mentioned posters but hey ho.

I will refresh your memory, me and you discussed at great lengths last year on how a, to improve the event end b, improve the image,

I was quite open in How I wanted a bigger police presence, which shows does work.

I did not do this event as I was on holiday but plan to the the next and will definatly have a helmet cam on, and show the uncut footage, see if I can catch the bad cycling. Of which I'm openly disgusted with. With my experience on the wiggle is not often although I can agree it does happen

Has anyone had issue with the local cycle clubs who continue to hold time trials, which are races on open roads, as they are very fast.

I never had an issue with the posters, thought it was so good way of keeping trafic away. But did not like the term speeding as how many broke the 40mph limit.
[quote][p][bold]Reconciler[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southamptonadi[/bold] wrote: The anti wiggle brigade are starting to lose some credibility In their argument, supposedly looking out for the greater good go the forest, what about the animals crossing the road and injuring themselves on nails. Quite selfish really. I wonder if they would do the same on the roads that are gridlocked with tourists and show visitors[/p][/quote]Please don't lump the poster-posters and tin-tack spreaders into the same group. The poster merely asked for incidents to be reported and tried to let people know in advance so that essential journeys could be planned, anad all were removed immediately after the event - no littering. On the contrary, the tin-tack spreaders behaved illegally, irresponsibly, dangerously, cruelly, selfishly, and counter-productively , and I hope they are found and prosecuted. I get the impression that the "cyclists can do no wrong" brigade include me in their list of enemies, but I am trying to reconcile them with the "cyclists can do nothing right" brigade. I think the pressure has forced Wiggle to make considerable improvements, and on the whole cycling behaviour was not so bad as in previous years. However there was still a lot of inconsiderate and dangerous riding, and without legible identification numbers on cyclists' backs the culprits cannot be identified. I have heard of no defecation in public, but I understand a video exists of riders urinating in bushes near the Brockenhurst food-station. The police managed to prevent this on the Sunday. Where police were on duty the cycling behaviour was excellent! ( I suppose the local tax-payer has paid for police services? May I suggest that Wiggle make enough profit to cover these costs - like football clubs?) However I personally experienced lengthy harrassment by racing riders trying to overtake me and slow riders in front of me whom I could not safely pass. Another point: better organisaton was needed at the start venue, as there was a 1.5 mile queue from the Ringwood direction on the Saturday. I wonder how many folk were late for appointments in Bournemouth because of it? People who claim that these events do no harm are not seeing the whole picture. Let's keep on working towards an acceptable compromise![/p][/quote]Did not think I mentioned posters but hey ho. I will refresh your memory, me and you discussed at great lengths last year on how a, to improve the event end b, improve the image, I was quite open in How I wanted a bigger police presence, which shows does work. I did not do this event as I was on holiday but plan to the the next and will definatly have a helmet cam on, and show the uncut footage, see if I can catch the bad cycling. Of which I'm openly disgusted with. With my experience on the wiggle is not often although I can agree it does happen Has anyone had issue with the local cycle clubs who continue to hold time trials, which are races on open roads, as they are very fast. I never had an issue with the posters, thought it was so good way of keeping trafic away. But did not like the term speeding as how many broke the 40mph limit. southamptonadi
  • Score: 0

10:39am Sat 3 May 14

Reconciler says...

Thank you, Southamptonadi. You pose two questions.
It is difficult to define 'speeding' when applied to cyclists. When I write it, I mean obviously riding at the top of their ability, faster than a reasonably aware and careful person would in the circumstances, quite often drafting to increase speed. If you can offer a word which is shorthand for all this, I will gladly use it! Speed limits don't apply to cyclists, but quite often they do exceed them.

The local cycling clubs do get comments about excessive speed, but arouse little resentment because they are few in numbers. Also, they are recognised as racing, have due regulation from the Police, etc., and Time Trial rules are pretty stringent - no 'bunching', for instance. The Sportive organisers do liaise with the Safety Advisory Committee in the New Forest, but by avoiding the term 'race' they can ignore virtually all rules and there is nothing the locals can do about it - which is probably why some extremists feel forced to go beyond acceptable behaviour themselves, after years and years of ineffective lawful protest. PLEASE DON'T READ THIS AS MEANING THAT I IN ANY WAY CONDONE THEIR ACTIONS!
Good idea about the helmet camera. If you ride with a good group you will witness nothing wrong, but sometimes you can pick up evidence to get the culprits who give all cyclists a bad name removed from the sport. For example the incident which has become known as 'the stampede' in the latest sportive.
Regarding Police supervision, have you any comment on who should pay for this? It was quite comical to see the way some riders became all virtuous when they were aware of a 'copper car'!
Thank you, Southamptonadi. You pose two questions. It is difficult to define 'speeding' when applied to cyclists. When I write it, I mean obviously riding at the top of their ability, faster than a reasonably aware and careful person would in the circumstances, quite often drafting to increase speed. If you can offer a word which is shorthand for all this, I will gladly use it! Speed limits don't apply to cyclists, but quite often they do exceed them. The local cycling clubs do get comments about excessive speed, but arouse little resentment because they are few in numbers. Also, they are recognised as racing, have due regulation from the Police, etc., and Time Trial rules are pretty stringent - no 'bunching', for instance. The Sportive organisers do liaise with the Safety Advisory Committee in the New Forest, but by avoiding the term 'race' they can ignore virtually all rules and there is nothing the locals can do about it - which is probably why some extremists feel forced to go beyond acceptable behaviour themselves, after years and years of ineffective lawful protest. PLEASE DON'T READ THIS AS MEANING THAT I IN ANY WAY CONDONE THEIR ACTIONS! Good idea about the helmet camera. If you ride with a good group you will witness nothing wrong, but sometimes you can pick up evidence to get the culprits who give all cyclists a bad name removed from the sport. For example the incident which has become known as 'the stampede' in the latest sportive. Regarding Police supervision, have you any comment on who should pay for this? It was quite comical to see the way some riders became all virtuous when they were aware of a 'copper car'! Reconciler
  • Score: 0

10:55pm Sat 3 May 14

candypayton53@yahoo.co.uk says...

Reconciler wrote:
Thank you, Southamptonadi. You pose two questions.
It is difficult to define 'speeding' when applied to cyclists. When I write it, I mean obviously riding at the top of their ability, faster than a reasonably aware and careful person would in the circumstances, quite often drafting to increase speed. If you can offer a word which is shorthand for all this, I will gladly use it! Speed limits don't apply to cyclists, but quite often they do exceed them.

The local cycling clubs do get comments about excessive speed, but arouse little resentment because they are few in numbers. Also, they are recognised as racing, have due regulation from the Police, etc., and Time Trial rules are pretty stringent - no 'bunching', for instance. The Sportive organisers do liaise with the Safety Advisory Committee in the New Forest, but by avoiding the term 'race' they can ignore virtually all rules and there is nothing the locals can do about it - which is probably why some extremists feel forced to go beyond acceptable behaviour themselves, after years and years of ineffective lawful protest. PLEASE DON'T READ THIS AS MEANING THAT I IN ANY WAY CONDONE THEIR ACTIONS!
Good idea about the helmet camera. If you ride with a good group you will witness nothing wrong, but sometimes you can pick up evidence to get the culprits who give all cyclists a bad name removed from the sport. For example the incident which has become known as 'the stampede' in the latest sportive.
Regarding Police supervision, have you any comment on who should pay for this? It was quite comical to see the way some riders became all virtuous when they were aware of a 'copper car'!
well thanks for this had two tyres go on my trailer when I was carrying a horse could have been fatal for me as the driver and the horse so next time you sabotage a race try and think of other road users you ****









Police launch inquiries after sabotage at cycling event
[quote][p][bold]Reconciler[/bold] wrote: Thank you, Southamptonadi. You pose two questions. It is difficult to define 'speeding' when applied to cyclists. When I write it, I mean obviously riding at the top of their ability, faster than a reasonably aware and careful person would in the circumstances, quite often drafting to increase speed. If you can offer a word which is shorthand for all this, I will gladly use it! Speed limits don't apply to cyclists, but quite often they do exceed them. The local cycling clubs do get comments about excessive speed, but arouse little resentment because they are few in numbers. Also, they are recognised as racing, have due regulation from the Police, etc., and Time Trial rules are pretty stringent - no 'bunching', for instance. The Sportive organisers do liaise with the Safety Advisory Committee in the New Forest, but by avoiding the term 'race' they can ignore virtually all rules and there is nothing the locals can do about it - which is probably why some extremists feel forced to go beyond acceptable behaviour themselves, after years and years of ineffective lawful protest. PLEASE DON'T READ THIS AS MEANING THAT I IN ANY WAY CONDONE THEIR ACTIONS! Good idea about the helmet camera. If you ride with a good group you will witness nothing wrong, but sometimes you can pick up evidence to get the culprits who give all cyclists a bad name removed from the sport. For example the incident which has become known as 'the stampede' in the latest sportive. Regarding Police supervision, have you any comment on who should pay for this? It was quite comical to see the way some riders became all virtuous when they were aware of a 'copper car'![/p][/quote]well thanks for this had two tyres go on my trailer when I was carrying a horse could have been fatal for me as the driver and the horse so next time you sabotage a race try and think of other road users you **** Police launch inquiries after sabotage at cycling event candypayton53@yahoo.co.uk
  • Score: 0

10:59pm Sat 3 May 14

candypayton53@yahoo.co.uk says...

well thanks for this had two tyres go on my trailer when I was carrying a horse could have been fatal for me as the driver and the horse so next time you sabotage a race try and think of other road users you ****
well thanks for this had two tyres go on my trailer when I was carrying a horse could have been fatal for me as the driver and the horse so next time you sabotage a race try and think of other road users you **** candypayton53@yahoo.co.uk
  • Score: 0

11:15pm Sat 3 May 14

Reconciler says...

I have made it very clear that I had nothing to do with the sabotage and completely and utterly condemn it. Why don't you recognise the significance of my capital letters above? If I had any idea of who might have carried it out I would inform the Police immediately.

I just try to make the point that adversely affected residents and road-users feel they get nowhere by being reasonable. It is good to see that some cyclists do seem to understand this, and my aim is to get everyone to see the other point of view and cooperate in a spirit of friendship. I know this is difficult, but I keep trying!
PS Sorry about your trailer tyres!
I have made it very clear that I had nothing to do with the sabotage and completely and utterly condemn it. Why don't you recognise the significance of my capital letters above? If I had any idea of who might have carried it out I would inform the Police immediately. I just try to make the point that adversely affected residents and road-users feel they get nowhere by being reasonable. It is good to see that some cyclists do seem to understand this, and my aim is to get everyone to see the other point of view and cooperate in a spirit of friendship. I know this is difficult, but I keep trying! PS Sorry about your trailer tyres! Reconciler
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree