Looking like a commuter is safer ...

[Jezston]

Wankelshrauben - have you come on this forum specifically to look for an argument or something?

You made some points that were innaccurate, especially the RFL thing. 'Road Tax' was a term abolished in 1936, 'Road Fund License' similarly abolished in 1955. RFL was NEVER ringfenced for spending on the roads:

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

Some people POLITELY corrected that, you drew negative conclusions about us, threw insults about, and have turned a thread about how you dress into a three page argument about something you haven't conceded being wrong about and instead turned it into a meaningless argument about the semantics of who is more 'dangerous' on the road.

Step off.

 

[Davidc]

[QUOTE 1376480"]
How? A misinterpretation of VED is misinterpretated by those who could not see the misinterpretation in the first place.

And has led to the last two pages of - I dunno and don't care. I just feel I just be the mod of commuting as I feel it's given me so much and I feel I need to repay my debt.
[/quote]

er... it wasn't meant for you!

 

[John the Monkey]

Perhaps there shouldn't be any road users......then no one would need road awareness, however we'd soon fall back to the dark ages with no means for our produce to mobilise, no means for our supermarkets to re-stock and no means to ferry our young ones to the gates of school on time.

Or maybe, JUST MAYBE there is some middle ground between this, and the current near absolute primacy of the motor vehicle?

I know, CRAZY TALK, right?

 

[Wankelschrauben]

I can't see where I've actually insulted someone, except perhaps the fictional person I would have liked to say my original post to in that unlikely event.

The statement "my reply wasn't meant for you" was a simple statement of fact that a reply someone had become upset about, wasn't in reply to him.

The simple fact is, VED is collected as a means of owning a vehicle for use on the road which is essentially the same tax that was collected under RFL but now under a different name allowing the government to spend the funds as they see fit. You can polish a turd but it's still a turd.

I'm not even going to bother arguing on this topic anymore, as the above point I've reiterated above many times over explains my argument which hasn't yet been disproven or factually stated as wrong, for reference the argument is "I am paying taxes for the specific purpose of using a vehicle on the road."

I've pretty much cleared up the "motorists at fault by default" argument hook line and sinker with the referenced argument of Fitzgerald V Lane & Patel 1988 case.

If someone can actually prove that legitimate motorists are not subject to taxation for the purpose of owning a vehicle for use on the road then please feel free to message me to discuss it further as I won't be doing it here.

 

[John the Monkey]

The simple fact is, VED is collected as a means of owning a vehicle for use on the road

You're tying yourself in knots.

There are a few cars that pay no VED at all - what of them?

 

[vorsprung]

I can't see where I've actually insulted someone, except perhaps the fictional person I would have liked to say my original post to in that unlikely event.

I agree. You haven't been rude at all. And the VED thing is just one of those things, quite agree that if you don't go on a road you don't need it!

However I should point out that you have made the following assertions which the average cyclechatter probably doesn't find that appealing

1) You admit you drive a beemer
2) You claim cyclists specifically are raging "rage...many cyclists fall victim too"
3) Pedestrians make the road dangerous
4) You admit to taking your children to school in the car

None of these would be particularly strong opinions elsewhere but here, they are like going on the UKIP forum and saying "The British and the French? They are so similar!"

 

[Wankelschrauben]

Scratch that comment in my previous post, this is my last.

Motor vehicles that do not pay VED are still subject to taxation and must still display a valid tax disc, the rate however is currently zero for some low emission vehicles.

Where you aware that some bicycles are also subject to taxation under VED, bicycles used for trade purposes?


EDIT****

LOL, good reply above. I don't have any children however, I was being sarcastic in that point.

The rage point I can understand being interpretted incorrectly, the intention of that point is to express that some cyclists feel the brunt of road rage by other road users for the poor actions of other cyclists to that road user.

 

[BentMikey]

The point remains, it's a vehicle tax, not a road tax. Roads, excluding a few exceptions, are public highways for use by all. You imply that vehicle tax means only drivers are entitled to use roads, and all the rest are there by sufferance and should put up with it or get off, despite that clearly not being the case.

On the contrary, pedestrians, horses/carriages, and cyclists are there by right. Motor vehicles are only on the roads by privilege and not by right.

 

[Jezston]

Wankelschrauben - I think the issue here comes from many people's experience from drivers who tie the ficticious 'road tax' with paying for the roads (which it has never been allocated to) and whom believe that means they have more 'right' to use the roads (when in fact motor vehicles, as opposed to bikes, horses and pedestrians in fact have NO right to use the road, and have to get a license) and so cyclists shouldn't be allowed to.

I apologise if that isn't the point you are trying to make, but then ... I'm not sure what the point then is that you are trying to make?

This, and the matter of liability are both discussions that have repeatedly been brought up on this forum and facts have repeatedly countered the points you are rather insistently making. In other words, we've all heard it all before and it's wrong. I felt that accusing people of being 'arrogant' because we've all been over this ground before and know what the facts are is rather insulting.

 

[tongskie01]

The point remains, it's a vehicle tax, not a road tax. Roads, excluding a few exceptions, are public highways for use by all. You imply that vehicle tax means only drivers are entitled to use roads, and all the rest are there by sufferance and should put up with it or get off, despite that clearly not being the case.

On the contrary, pedestrians, horses/carriages, and cyclists are there by right. Motor vehicles are only on the roads by privilege and not by right.

+1. i used to think that roads are for motor vehicles only. til i cycled and joined cyclechat.

 

[tongskie01]

Scratch that comment in my previous post, this is my last.

Motor vehicles that do not pay VED are still subject to taxation and must still display a valid tax disc, the rate however is currently zero for some low emission vehicles.

Where you aware that some bicycles are also subject to taxation under VED, bicycles used for trade purposes?


EDIT****

LOL, good reply above. I don't have any children however, I was being sarcastic in that point.

The rage point I can understand being interpretted incorrectly, the intention of that point is to express that some cyclists feel the brunt of road rage by other road users for the poor actions of other cyclists to that road user.

psychologically if all car drivers think that cyclist makes the roads unsafe, they should be more alert and looking out for them all the time. driving a car is stressful. hence the road rage......

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

Where you aware that some bicycles are also subject to taxation under VED, bicycles used for trade purposes?

I wasn't aware of that, but you appear to be right, £74.00. Trade licences appear to be for the use of untaxed vehicles as part of the trade in those vehicles, e.g. for road testing, or delivery, so a bicycle shop might be expected to pay such a tax.

The rage point I can understand being interpretted incorrectly, the intention of that point is to express that some cyclists feel the brunt of road rage by other road users for the poor actions of other cyclists to that road user.

Yes, you are right, there is a strange predisposition to anger that appears to take hold of many people when they get behind the wheel of a car, and that this predisposition is accompanied by a tendency to associate the actions of some prats with a whole group of other people simply because they happen to be using a similar mode of transport.

It is interesting, though, that I sometimes see pedestrians walking out in front of me when I am cycling but, although I might think they were silly, I don't tend to feel rage towards them, and I don't then assume that all pedestrians are idiots who deserve to be threatened with death just for being there. I suspect the difference may be partly to do with the fact that drivers of motor vehicles don't have the opportunity to work off their frustration by pedalling a bit harder, so all they can do is act aggressively towards other road users, press harder on the accelerator, and scream obscenities at people.

Regarding the road tax thing, I think there is a misunderstanding here in the sense that nobody disagrees with the view that some money has to be paid to the Government before one is allowed to take a motor vehicle onto the roads. The issue is simply that the term "Road Tax" carries a lot of baggage with it, which has already been explained here, and consequently is best avoided for some very practical reasons that I explained earlier.

 

[pshore]

There is a particularly famous legal case, Fitzgerald V Lane & Patel 1988, whereby it was declared that a pedestrian was as equally at fault as a pair of speeding motorists for he crossed the road without paying attention. The claimant was deemed to have contributed negligently to the act and was therfore awarded a fraction of the damages he would have otherwise been awarded.

This case isn't quite as simple as it is presented in the quote above. Sorry in advance for being so pedantic.

I looked into this because I thought it sounded morally wrong. IMHO, the person who has the larger and more dangerous vehicle should take more care and the pedestrian should not be equally liable. Spotting an inattentive pedestrian walking towards a road is easy to do as a motorist where there is a clear view.

Because I am not a legal person I cannot quite unpick this so I will let you make your own mind up. From reading these quotes it is not clear to me what the final outcome actually was.



http://www.swarb.co....glg19851989.php :

Fitzgerald -v- Lane [1987] 2 All ER 455
6 Mar 1987 CA Slade and Nourse LJJ and Sir Edward Eveleigh
Negligence
The plaintiff was struck by the defendant's car as he crossed at a pelican crossing and suffered severe injuries when the first defendant's car passed the stationary of the second defendant. The judge found all three parties negligent. Held: There had been no evidence that the second defendant who had stopped at the crossing was negligent, however Wilsher had shown that the case of McGhee had to be applied so as to find him liable.

http://sixthformlaw....d%20v%20Lane%20[1988]%20HL :

Fitzgerald v Lane [1988] HL
C was struck on a pelican crossing by a car driven without due care, thrown into the path of another car also driven without due care, and struck by that car too. There was no medical or scientific evidence to show which of the two cars had been the cause of C's injuries.
Held: the two drivers should be jointly liable.

http://www.swarb.co....glg19851989.php :

Fitzgerald -v- Lane [1989] AC 328; [1988] UKHL 5; [1988] 2 All ER 961
14 Jul 1988 HL Lord Bridge of Harwich, Lord Brandon of Oakbrook, Lord Templeman, Lord Ackner, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton
The plaintiff crossed road at a pelican crossing. The lights were against him but one car had stopped. As he passed that car he was struck by another in the second lane and again by a car coming the other way. The judge had held the three equally responsible. The defendants appealed the calculation of damages. Held: Apportionment of liability in a case of contributory negligence between plaintiff and defendants must be kept separate from apportionment of contribution between the defendants inter se. The judge should first have set the plaintiff's level of contribution, and then as a different stage apportioned the liability thus found between the defendants.

 

[John the Monkey]

Chuffing hell.

You talked about road tax and how owning a BMW meant you paid more, or somesuch.

Someone else pointed out your terminology was incorrect (true).

You said "Not so"

I said that the various taxes you talked about were not hypothecated to pay for roads (true), and that was what your original respondent was pointing out.

You said "Of course it is, if I didn't want to use it on the road then I certainly would not pay the RFL or insurance."

And on it went.

The various taxes you pay ARE NOT earmarked (hypothecated) for spending on roads. This is the truth, honest it is. I suspect you have confused the reason for collection (to allow the use of a road going vehicle) with the use of the collected money (chucked in a big pot with the rest of the tax take & portioned out for various things the government decides to spend it on).

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

Because I am not a legal person I cannot quite unpick this so I will let you make your own mind up. From reading these quotes it is not clear to me what the final outcome actually was.

IANAL, but my understanding is that, as a result of the last appeal, the pedestrian was held to be 50% liable, as he crossed when the "red man" was showing, and the two drivers were also jointly held 50% liable, which was apportioned as 25% each.

A particularly alarming thing here is that the driver that hit the pedestrian first must have broken the law by overtaking the leading (stationary) car on the zig-zag lines approaching the crossing, and yet that doesn't appear to have been taken into account (though I haven't seen the full report of course).