Forum menu
Easy to imagine stuff like this happening on a semi-regular basis. IT could lead to a bashed head which leads to a death, especially if the ped is elderly/frail
As said though, the numbers are vanishingly small when you consider the things that are likely to kill you.
I wonder how much the obsession with "building" cycle facilities by turning pavements into shared use paths has contributed to the collisions?
awhiles: yeah sounds about right. It is normally between 0 and 3 per year. Just checked the [url= https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-annual-report-2011 ]2011 complete report[/url] and Table RAS10012 lists 2 pedestrian fatalities in Single Vehicle Accidents with Pedal Cycles (out of 385 fatalities with any single vehicle, and 453 total pedestrian fatalities).
If you take the cyclist out of the equation here and replace it with a car or bigger vehicle - her coming round that blind bend at speed and out of control would have probably killed her and the oncoming driver - She's basically a shite driver.
She should be hanged! or only be allowed to drive an electric car with a 20mph max speed. Then we can laugh at her while she is over taken by my mum on a brompton!
Loving the logic here. This guy understands that it is VED not "road tax" but still thinks cyclists should pay it otherwise we lack "moral authority":
Yes, drivers do not pay road tax. This is true. However they do pay VED, which is a tax, so they directly contribute to the upkeep of the roads. Cyclists are not subject to this tax. At the very least the moral authority about tax is with the drivers as they have to make a contribution on their vehicles. Paying something is better than paying nothing.
I can think of [i]lots[/i] of taxes that I am exempt from. A many more that I pay that others don't. If tax is the basis for "moral authority" on the roads then why do we let pensioners and unemployed people drive?
I liked this guys response:
Do I have twice the moral authority by having two cars? Or do I get minus one for riding a bike?Or lose all moral
Do you have a specific calculation that allows us to know the impact on road condition of your average bike relative to a car?
So many questions, so many obvious answers...
Yep it is a whole world of logic that takes you to the point everyone not paying VED is banned from the road. Infact in VEDworld VED could actually be reduced by not putting in cycle lanes or providing pedestrian crossings as these people have no right to the road.
Thing I want to know is where do the people of VEDworld think the shortfall comes from as there does seem to be one. Even allowing for quick and dirty wikki sourced stats - UK public sector roads spending £10,000million aka £10billion in 2011. VED raised £5.63billion in 2009. Yes not the best comparison so either:
1)I dont know my billions, it's all dodgy maths
2)there has been an explosion in car and lorry numbers between 2009 and 2011, the country only spends what it raises in tax and is never in debt
3)there's a flipping huge hole covered by other taxes and grants, some of these might even come from the EU
4 there are still flipping huge holes in our riads
VED raised £5.63billion in 2009.
Does that figure consider the costs of collecting VED? (e.g. running the DVLA, forms, websites, helplines, databases, police time, legal enforcement and prosecution?)
So a local hack has raised the road tax debate on facebook. I just sent him this message.
Dear Nick,
I am amazed that you are trotting out the old road tax argument in response to someone's life being endangered by dangerous driving. As I'm sure you know, vehicle excise duty is based on CO2 emissions and related to engine size, a number of small cars have £0 VED and so would a bike, so collecting VED on bikes would generate negative tax for the Government as it would cost more to administer than it would raise.
Yours
I just pulled it of wikipeadia hence the dodgy maths health warning. Hopefully somewhere outhere a journalist is doing proper research and maths. My take is there are two ways to take the debate forward. Use the facts or more fun and less helpful following the logic to its extreme finding even more emotive examples who it's ok to run over.
As I'm sure you know, vehicle excise duty is based on CO2 emissions and related to engine size, a number of small cars have £0 VED and so would a bike, so collecting VED on bikes would generate negative tax for the Government as it would cost more to administer than it would raise.
Don't go down the emissions route, you'll just look silly. It's a red herring. The tax is for using roads.
Proof? Buy two cars, run one on the road, use the other only for closed course rallying and racing. They both produce the same emissions, yet only one has to pay [s]emissions[/s] road tax.
So, bikes don't pay road tax. So what? Ignorant or stupid car drivers don't pay an ignorance or stupidity tax. Anyone have an issue with either talk to the government.
there are still flipping huge holes in our riads
There are, I believe, almost always holes in riads. Helps with air flow in the warm climate in Morocco.
[img] 
[/img]
Don't go down the emissions route, you'll just look silly. It's a red herring. The tax is for using roads.Proof? Buy two cars, run one on the road, use the other only for closed course rallying and racing. They both produce the same emissions, yet only one has to pay emissions road tax.
In exactly the same way that Alcohol Duty is actually a tax on using pubs because I can brew my own alcohol on private land drink it and not pay "pub tax" 😀
Also Tobacco Tax is [i]actually[/i] a tax on using newsagents and Import Duty is [i]actually[/i] a tax on using the postal system. 😆
It'd be much easier if the government just taxed every person.
If the tax is for using the roads, then you'd only need to pay for one car anyway right? You couldn't drive both at once and besides, you've already paid for road use once.......
If the tax is for using the roads, then you'd only need to pay for one car anyway right? You couldn't drive both at once and besides, you've already paid for road use once.......
If it was for using the roads then wouldn't it also reflect the cost of building and maintaining the roads per vehicle.
So 40 tonne lorries would be charged a lot more (as they use more space and cause more damage) than small cars (which use less space and cause much less damage). In turn, bikes would be charged even less - when was the last time a bike cause braking bumps in tarmac?
I'm not quite sure what my point is because my children are hassling me, but I'm pretty sure that car drivers are in the wrong.
Don't go down the emissions route, you'll just look silly. It's a red herring. The tax is for using roads.Proof? Buy two cars, run one on the road, use the other only for closed course rallying and racing. They both produce the same emissions, yet only one has to pay emissions road tax.
Okay, I'll buy two VW Golf Bluemotions. Oh dear, that's your point kind of ruined.
I love crack cocaine/daily mail comments
lycra louts ride all over the road, ignoring road rules and being very mouthy to anyone who dares to get in their way. Not condoning what this lady did, but it`s fairly understandable
Okay, I'll buy two VW Golf Bluemotions. Oh dear, that's your point kind of ruined.
Not really.
They are still liable for the Tax, and have to display a Tax Disk that proves the Tax has been paid and is up to date.
It's just that the rate of Tax due to be paid is £0/year.
Try driving one of them without displaying a Valid Tax Disk for a year and see what it costs 😉
I despair of these selfish young drivers.
Very rarely do I venture onto the roads (mainly mtbing now), however on the odd 'off the road' ride there are sections where I have to ride on the road.
This week alone I was passed by 3 young drivers all female and all driving Fiat 500's, not one of them made any attempt to pass me safely, they don't see you and if they do, don't care.
My Golf Bluemotion costs me £20 a year in 'tax'.
Just saying, like. 😆
IT DOESNT ****ING MATTER WHO PAYS FOR WHAT. PAYING FOR SOMETHING NEVER GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO HURT PEOPLE WHO HAVENT PAID FOR IT.
IS THAT ****ING CLEAR?
RIGHT THEN
Does anyone have a constructive message for her employer?
http://www.larking-gowen.co.uk/contact#enquiry
IT DOESNT * MATTER WHO PAYS FOR WHAT. PAYING FOR SOMETHING NEVER GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO HURT PEOPLE WHO HAVENT PAID FOR IT.IS THAT
* CLEAR?RIGHT THEN
^
That´s a t-shirt I´ll wear.
Does anyone have a constructive message for her employer?
http://www.larking-gowen.co.uk/contact#enquiry
Been done. Her employer has made a public statement about it.
Leave them out of it now.
IT DOESNT * MATTER WHO PAYS FOR WHAT. PAYING FOR SOMETHING NEVER GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO HURT PEOPLE WHO HAVENT PAID FOR IT.IS THAT
* CLEAR?RIGHT THEN
Who are you trying to convince with that by the way ?
Nobody here has said any different have they.
Or do you just like shouting stuff.
Does anyone have a constructive message for her employer?
No need. Her employer already responded appropriately taking it v seriously. The ironic thing about it all is that they sponsored a local charity cycle that several of the partners participated in so I am sure that this girl is in deep s**t with them as well as the law 🙂
Why don't we, tax people (more) for using petrol and stop taxing 'em for having some types of car. That way people who drive about more pay more tax which is fair, no-one thinks they're more entitled to the road because all they're doing is paying for fuel, people who drive about more will want to drive about even less thus encouraging biking and buses and canal barges and every one will love cyclists.
Sometimes I'm so far in genius land my wife calls me Stephen.
There is a certain irony that one of her company's specialist areas is Tax advice.
That way people who drive about more pay more tax which is fair
Quite often the people who do the most miles are running small businesses.
Personally I do loads of miles as part of my job, and make very little money as it is.
I would reckon that such a change could do some serious damage to my business, or possibly even close me down.
It seems fair that those who use the roads the most should pay the most, otherwise they are just being subsidised by the rest of us.
[quote=nealglover ]
Quite often the people who do the most miles are running small businesses.
Personally I do loads of miles as part of my job, and make very little money as it is.
I would reckon that such a change could do some serious damage to my business, or possibly even close me down.
Your customers would have to pick up the full cost of your services then?
Why don't we, tax people (more) for using petrol and stop taxing 'em for having some types of car.
Well I suspect the theory is that VED /car tax is a "nudge" tax. By calling it out as a separate charge it makes folk think about it more and allows car manufacturers to make a feature out of an otherwise boring technical detail about emission levels. And it weights prices slightly more against the heavier polluting cars.
Conversely abolishing it and add 1p to petrol or whatever would be punishing the folk that have bought low CO2 cars.
I'd have to agree , abolish ved increase fuel duty
Takes away any issues with cars on private land etc and makes fuel
Tax purely an environmental thing
Low co2 cars will use less fuel ?
Your customers would have to pick up the full cost of your services then?
And everyone would pay more for everything because it cost more to get stuff onto the shelves.
So basically you would still be paying for the "subsidy" you didn't want to pay for in the first place.
It seems fair that those who use the roads the most should pay the most, otherwise they are just being subsidised by the rest of us.
Doesn't existing tax on petrol already do that?
[quote=GrahamS ]Why don't we, tax people (more) for using petrol and stop taxing 'em for having some types of car.
Well I suspect the theory is that VED /car tax is a "nudge" tax. By calling it out as a separate charge it makes folk think about it more and allows car manufacturers to make a feature out of an otherwise boring technical detail about emission levels. And it weights prices slightly more against the heavier polluting cars.
Conversely abolishing it and add 1p to petrol or whatever would be punishing the folk that have bought low CO2 cars.
I always assumed a cleaner car was a more efficient car (i.e. it got more out of the fuel you put in), so would it really punish low CO2 cars?
[quote=nealglover ]Your customers would have to pick up the full cost of your services then?
And everyone would pay more for everything because it cost more to get stuff onto the shelves.
So basically you would still be paying for the "subsidy" you didn't want to pay for in the first place.
Only if I bought your product.
[quote=GrahamS ]It seems fair that those who use the roads the most should pay the most, otherwise they are just being subsidised by the rest of us.
Doesn't existing tax on petrol already do that?
Yep - so why not go the whole hog? The Govt already gets another tax on new cars too - VAT.
I always assumed a cleaner car was a more efficient car (i.e. it got more out of the fuel you put in), so would it really punish low CO2 cars?
Yes it would because right now a low CO2 car benefits from zero car tax AND low fuel costs due to its efficiency.
So if you abolished car tax and put up fuel costs you'd increase the cost of running that car.
Gotcha. It would have worked if we'd not already introduced the zero rated VED level.
[i]Quite often the people who do the most miles are running small businesses.[/i]
Everyone does, it'd all even out. All your competitors would have the same problem, costs would move about. It's the only logical explanation both from a equality point of view (I for example pay full road tax on two cars and yet ride 6000 cycle commuting miles a year - It's not fair!!), and from an ecological point of view people will have to reconsider the way they do things. If fuel is a pony a gallon, riding down the local grocer with a trailer on your bike seems perfectly acceptable.
We HAVE to get on top of our fuel consumption. Raising fuel costs is the only way. That will necessitate different approaches to business, people will use local firms rather than great big ones, you'll not have to drive about so much, my business which operates over a huge geographical area will need to localise resources thus providing employment to some deprived areas, it'll all be for the best.
Gotcha. It would have worked if we'd not already introduced the zero rated VED level.
Sort of, though even at the Band B (£20pa) and Band C (£30pa) level they could end up paying more, depending on how much was added to fuel duty and how much they typically use a year.
e.g. abolish car tax and put 1p a litre on fuel duty instead and any Band B driver using more than 2000 litres a year would be worse off.
[quote=GrahamS ]Even at the Band B (£20pa) and Band C (£30pa) level they could end up paying more, depending on how much was added to fuel duty and how much they typically use a year.
e.g. abolish car tax and put 1p a litre on fuel duty instead and any Band B driver using more than 2000 litres a year would be worse off.
It should be possible to work out how much is collected by VED and how many litres of petrol/diesel are sold each year in order to come up with a figure. I suspect it would be a lot less than 1p per litre though?
Edit: £6Bn pa in VED 😯
Edit2: 5.6Bn Litres of Petrol/ 4.1Bn Litres of Diesel.
Edit3: and about £128m in collection costs
Ok - about .6p per litre (more than I'd have thought)
I suspect it would be a lot less than 1p per litre though?
In which case you have to ask would it actually have any effect on the factors people consider when buying a car?
Right now I doubt anyone would think about a 0.1 mpg difference when buying a car, but if it was Band C versus Band D then I bet they would.
Only if I bought your product
I'm probably not the only person who uses Petrol/Diesel in the course of running their business ??
There may be others.