Therefore, very clearly, VED is a tax to use our roads.
Agreed, but importantly it is [i]only[/i] a tax for motor vehicles whose emissions exceed a certain level to use our roads.
You can use the roads quite happily without paying VED.
[i]You only have to drive your car for 5 minutes to realise how many clueless morons drive cars[/i]
Try riding a bike on the road for five minutes if you want to understand how truly clueless they are 😉
This whole conversation shows why 'taxing' vehicles is a bad idea though. Irrespective of where the money goes, stupid people think it gives them more rights. Take away VED, slap it onto fuel, no more arguments.
If I buy three identical vehicles, with identical emissions, use one for closed circuit racing, one for closer circuit rallying, and one on the road...guess what, only the one I use on the road requirs VED. Therefore, very clearly, VED is a tax to use our roads.
To split hairs - Its a duty on a road-going motor vehicle. Not on road use. Everyone can use the road freely; children, foreigners, the sick,lunatics, criminals, perverts. They can walk all over them, cycle on them, ride horses, walk their dog, pogo, crawl on their belly like a reptile. I've even fallen asleep in the middle of the road. Motor vehicle owner/users can only use motor vehicles on the road under the condition of a license. They need to be of legal age, to have passed test, be in good health, be sober, be a registered,license holding driver, they need to maintain a road worthy vehicle and they need to pay a duty (even if that duty is discounted to zero). If they don't do those things then the right to be a [i]driver [/i]gets taken away from them, but the right, as a human, to use a road doesn't.
The notion that paying duty confers the duty payer more rights on the road than anyone else is incorrect - its indicative of having far, far fewer rights on the road than anyone else.
[img] 
[/img]
[i]foreigners, the sick,lunatics, criminals, perverts.[/i]
Hey, don't start bringing lorry drivers into this.
Following your own logic that is also incorrect. What would be correct is saying [b]VED is a tax to use vehicles that produce a certain amount of emissions our roads[/b]If I buy three identical vehicles, with identical emissions, use one for closed circuit racing, one for closed circuit rallying, and one on the road...guess what, only the one I use on the road requires VED. Therefore, very clearly, VED is a tax to use our roads.
edit: although I guess technically any car requires a tax disc even if it hasn't cost any money
[i]The humble car driver[/i]
- an endangered species, which needs the support of all of us. It's years since I saw one.
You can use the roads quite happily without paying VED.
Absolutely.
Following your own logic that is also incorrect. What would be correct is saying VED is a tax to use vehicles that produce a certain amount of emissions our roads
Not at all. I didn't say for ALL vehicles. And of course old very polluting cars are exempt, so your statement is incorrect anyway.
Perhaps, to make my statement 100% accurate, I should have added the word 'some' to prevent any incorrect inferences.
Hey, don't start bringing lorry drivers into this.
I was about to - Lorry drivers are a perfect example - they need to be[i] further[/i] trained and licensed to drive, theres an operators license to aquire pay and abide by, the operator needs planning permission just to park their truck at night and their fuel duty payments are astronomical - and for all that they have fewer rights, not more and have to have every minute they drive, stop and sleep metered and measured.
If I buy three identical vehicles, with identical emissions, use one for closed circuit racing, one for closed circuit rallying, and one on the road...guess what, only the one I use on the road requires VED. Therefore, very clearly, VED is a tax to use our roads.
It's a running cost associated with your car. If it's a tax to use the roads then so is buying petrol for your car.
Next time tell him you drive a pre-tax V8 range rover that does 9mpg while holding up traffic, see what happens.
Have to say though, every time a cyclist says "Actually nobody pays road tax since year wheneveritwas", I sigh a little sigh. Smartassery will never convince anyone but it'll make some people even more hostile.
Have to say though, every time a cyclist says "Actually nobody pays road tax since year wheneveritwas", I sigh a little sigh. Smartassery will never convince anyone but it'll make some people even more hostile.
I only dredged that up when he (rather bizarrely) announced that Churchill hadn't anticipated there would be so many cyclists and [i]"Eco warrior hippy beatnik drivers"[/i] when he introduced charging by CO2 emissions... 😯
But there are plenty of people out there who genuinely still call it the "road fund licence" and believe that it goes in a special pot to pay for the roads.
Answer to "you don't pay road tax" is "great, isn't it".
He's got a point about Toyota Pious drivers. 'Hybrid' vehicles still create pollution.
Less overall, and besides not all band A vehicles are hybrids anyway.
He's funny, he can come to my party. 🙂
The humble car driver- an endangered species, which needs the support of all of us. It's years since I saw one.
I'm a humble car driver, I own a Skoda to prove it! 😉
not seen that one before Birky, thankyou 🙂
may save maccruiskeen's post for C&Ping into future arguments with idiots too
Teh inerwebz is now back to playground rules. If graham leave the discussion now with a comment of "it's obviously no good arguing with you" then it's a flounce and he's "lost"
Don't think he's trolling, eco warrior beatnick drivers, no pay no say, sounds more like he's a regular and the church of car and has all the mantras off pat. Scary individual anyway.
Apparently the guy drives two Band M motors (a 6-litre Merc and a Landie) so he is shelling out nearly a grand a year in car tax alone.
LOL. No wonder he has such a chip on his shoulder about it.
I suggested he get himself a nice Prius instead but he didn't seem impressed 😀
I think the debate was over when 1CuppaChar said this:
And you're right, LEGALLY cyclists have the same rights as motorists,
Troll or not, people like this are out on our roads. I've had enough incidents with dangerous people like this to keep off the roads.
Troll. The only thing that works is not responding in the first place. Being ignored [b]really[/b] hurts a troll.
You engage in a "debate" and he wins automatically.
in the mindset of said troll my counter argument would be "BIKES WERE HERE FIRST FELLA!" 😉
Every troll needs a billy goat
Try pointing out that the average cyclist earns more than the average driver and therefore pays more tax. Road maintenance comes out of general taxation therefore cyclists pay more than drivers per head towards the roads. Given the logic of the moron you're arguing with, in theory he should see that cyclists have more right to use the road than motorists.
Except that the guy is a complete half wit and no doubt won't.
No pay, no say
Try pointing out that the average cyclist earns more than the average driver and therefore pays more tax.
Tried that.
And pointed out that of we're going by tax paid then why do allow the unemployed on the roads (or indeed give them education, healthcare etc)
Even gave the example that the tax paid by a keen cyclist like Sir Alan Sugar would likely dwarf that of thousands of motorists. But that still doesn't count because he's not paying the FEE?!?
Or, ask him what a fair road tax would be for cyclists.
I pay 120 quid a year on my two ton, 2.2 litre car which tears up the roads with it's 150bhp. My bike weighs about 25lb and develops one human power. So assuming we're just going on weight, that's £1.50 I should pay a year, which would be a lot less than the admin charge.
He's just cost us all money.
But that still doesn't count because he's not paying the FEE?!?
This is where you are wasting your time. The argument about cars and bikes is impossible because your adversary doesn't understand the concept of tax. You can't do the remedial work on a youtube comment section, but that lack of grasp on his part handicaps both your arguments. He thinks he's buying something. Paying a tax doesn't buy you anything.