Cyclist rant

[XLBaconDoubleCheese]

So you want more money spent on the roads BUT only pay to tax one of your cars. Hummmmmm, interesting

[Llanigraham]

I never said i worked on a farm, i live on one, i work offshore! (much better money) but you will find that bus companies also pay zero tax and insurance WRONG!! and get subsidies from the goverment. NOT ALL OF THEM, SO WRONG AGAIN! realistically, a small farmer couldn't make a living if he didn't get the zero rated VED and dispensation to use red diesel. there is very little money in farming anymore, unless you have a plethra of land and the workforce to work the land. our farm rents the land to a neighbour farm. we simply use the sheds to store our track cars and rent out a few to other lads that do the same. and we make more money off that than we did farming the land.  

 

I don't disagree with people using bikes, I'm trying to stress the point that they should be made to learn the rules of the road and pay for the privalidge. they should also have a road worthy bike! or be subject to a bann. i'm sure it's holland or somewhere like that that have licence plates for their bikes! this way police can trace offenders and ensure they meet the requirments, why should drivers and motorbikes be the only ones that get punished for driving like idiots?

 

How will you tax and register a bike owned and used by someone under 16?

Who will pay for the cost of the registration scheme?

How will an MOT type test be administered?

Who will pay for that administration?

[howley87]

How will you tax and register a bike owned and used by someone under 16?

Who will pay for the cost of the registration scheme?

How will an MOT type test be administered?

Who will pay for that administration?

Children under 16 shouldn't cycle on the roads, same as someone under 18 can't drive on the roads when they turn 16 they can apply for a licence and sit their cycling test.

the registration scheme can be paid when they apply/pay for their license

Mot testing could be piggy backed onto motorcycle mot's

the cyclists could be covered under the DVLA so they keep a track of peoples registration plates issued to the bike and assign point to their licences as and when appropriate,

 

It would also mean that police can track offenders caught on cctv running red lights, cycling over pedestrian crossings while being used by the public.

[howley87]

So you want more money spent on the roads BUT only pay to tax one of your cars. Hummmmmm, interesting

it was a general statment, but why shouldn't it be that way? as it stands i don't really have a problem taxing 3 cars, it is my choice to have that many I'm lucky enough to be able to afford too. it was more to get the point across that the motorists are treated as cash cows, while speaking from my point of view, there is very little money spent on improving the road network around where i live. instead the goverment in their infinate wisdom decide that Edinburgh would benift from a multi million pound tram network that charges an arm and a leg to use the service, has killed 2 pedestrians in the 6 months it's been running and hell, it causes a danger to cyclists who get their wheels stuck in the line! lol the system is all backwards.

[harry vederci]

NSS! but the fact is that motorists pay more tax into the "pot" than someone who just cycles everywhere! Your paying your road tax does entitle you to drive on the roads, if you don't pay your car tax, you can't drive on the roads! it's as simple as that! geez, if you don't pay road tax, you cannot even park your vehicle on the bloody road! lol plus the fact that fines issued to motorists by police are injected back into the system! the goverment is cashing in on motorists, full stop! it's a fact! deal with it! so why shouldn't they do the same to cyclists?

 

Do you understand that?

A person's access to public services is not determined by his level of tax contribution.

It doesn't matter if you're the highest tax payer in Scotland, you are no more entitled to use a road, a school, a library or a hospital than I am.

HV

[howley87]

A person's access to public services is not determined by his level of tax contribution.

It doesn't matter if you're the highest tax payer in Scotland, you are no more entitled to use a road, a school, a library or a hospital than I am.

HV

that's exactly what i said a couple of comments down!

[harry vederci]

that's exactly what i said a couple of comments down!

Well lose the 'we pay more than cyclists' attitude.

HV

[howley87]

Well lose the 'we pay more than cyclists' attitude.

HV

HAHAHA listen lad, i'll have whatever attitue i want! get over it! if you have a problem feel free to write it down fold it up and insert it! failing that your welcome to MAKE me change my attitue, i'll tell you where and when i get back onshore and you can do something about it!

 

It seams you have a real problem with me so the offer is there! otherwise jog on!

 

Cyclists don't pay road tax, so what i said still stands! motorists pay more in the "tax pot" they fine motorists millions of pounds every year that goes back into the "pot" we also pay vat on the vehicles, vat on a £500 bike is £100 vat on a £20000 car is £4000. and your trying to argue that cyclists do put as much into the kitty as motorists! grow up!

[matt_theforce]

hmmmm... I've spent more over the past 3years on bikes/equipment etc than I've spent buying and running my car! as do a lot of cyclists, therefore as a cyclist I have paid more into the tax pot than I've done as a motorist.

if you don't like paying ved, then get a car that ved free and stop polluting the earth (the worse your car is on emissions the more ved you pay). simple.

Sent from my BlackBerry Runtime for Android Apps using Tapatalk 2 Beta-5

[howley87]

hmmmm... I've spent more over the past 3years on bikes/equipment etc than I've spent buying and running my car! as do a lot of cyclists, therefore as a cyclist I have paid more into the tax pot than I've done as a motorist.

if you don't like paying ved, then get a car that ved free and stop polluting the earth (the worse your car is on emissions the more ved you pay). simple.

Sent from my BlackBerry Runtime for Android Apps using Tapatalk 2 Beta-5

fair enough, but i would say your in the minority! the people i see cycling about normally can't afford the basics like a helmet and lights!

 

As said before i have no problem paying the ved, anything more than 1 car is a not really essential but i have 3 cars because i earn enough money to have 3 cars. and as for buying one of those ved free cars, there is no chance!  i'm a fan of the PD block hence why i have the fabia and the abarth and celica are just for the sheer fun factor, in hind sight the abarth was a mistake, but it you learn from your mistakes, it'll be sold next year when i find another little pocket rocket. atleast one i wouldn't have to spend a fortune on coilies and a remap just to make it feel like it's suppose to! lol

[loskie]

HAHAHA listen lad, i'll have whatever attitue i want! get over it! if you have a problem feel free to write it down fold it up and insert it! failing that your welcome to MAKE me change my attitue, i'll tell you where and when i get back onshore and you can do something about it!

 

It seams you have a real problem with me so the offer is there! otherwise jog on!

 

Cyclists don't pay road tax, so what i said still stands! motorists pay more in the "tax pot" they fine motorists millions of pounds every year that goes back into the "pot" we also pay vat on the vehicles, vat on a £500 bike is £100 vat on a £20000 car is £4000. and your trying to argue that cyclists do put as much into the kitty as motorists! grow up!

TO55ER

[Llanigraham]

Children under 16 shouldn't cycle on the roads, same as someone under 18 can't drive on the roads when they turn 16 they can apply for a licence and sit their cycling test.

the registration scheme can be paid when they apply/pay for their license

Mot testing could be piggy backed onto motorcycle mot's

the cyclists could be covered under the DVLA so they keep a track of peoples registration plates issued to the bike and assign point to their licences as and when appropriate,

 

It would also mean that police can track offenders caught on cctv running red lights, cycling over pedestrian crossings while being used by the public.

 

I read this reply, and to put it bluntly, wonder whether you are actually able to understand what you have written? 

I drove on the road on my 17th birthday, and passed my test before I was 18! I know of a few people who passed their test within a month of their 17th birthday. That makes one of your first comments here factually incorrect AGAIN.

 

So you wish ALL children to be banned from riding bikes at any time?

Do you realise how many children ride bikes to school? What are they supposed to do?

Who is going to administer the Cycle Test? At present the Driving Test has to be subsidised as the charges aren't enough to pay for it, so perhaps you also agree with greatly increasing the cost of the Driving Licence as well?

 

I suggest that before you rant any further you actually engage your brain and THINK about what you are saying, because you really are coming over as a bit of an idiot, especially as it is a very small minority of cyclists that cause a problem. 

[howley87]

I read this reply, and to put it bluntly, wonder whether you are actually able to understand what you have written? 

I drove on the road on my 17th birthday, and passed my test before I was 18! I know of a few people who passed their test within a month of their 17th birthday. That makes one of your first comments here factually incorrect AGAIN.

 

So you wish ALL children to be banned from riding bikes at any time?

Do you realise how many children ride bikes to school? What are they supposed to do?

Who is going to administer the Cycle Test? At present the Driving Test has to be subsidised as the charges aren't enough to pay for it, so perhaps you also agree with greatly increasing the cost of the Driving Licence as well?

 

I suggest that before you rant any further you actually engage your brain and THINK about what you are saying, because you really are coming over as a bit of an idiot, especially as it is a very small minority of cyclists that cause a problem. 

how old are you? they are putting the driving age upto 18! i also past my driving test 2 months after my 17th!

 

i don't think children should be banned from riding bikes, but i don't think they should be cycling on the roads! they should get dispensation to cycle on the pavement, a child of 6 doesn't know the rules of the road so shouldn't be on it! if they cycle to school, they can have a group of them, like they do on the walks to school, there is safety in numbers! the driving test isn't subsidised! it is covered by the £90 charge for the test! and you pay to apply for a licence! do some homework before you comment!

 

TO55ER

if you have nothing of value to bring to the table!

[howley87]

You asked 4 questions and I answered them with possible outcomes! Obviously you didn't like my answers, but to be honest maybe you shouldn't have asked them if you didn't want them answered! Everyone knows that you only comment on posts to disagree with people. These are all my opinions! That is the perk of the Internet, you can express your opinion!

My view on cyclists is they should be made to sit a test to ensure they are compentant to cycle on the road, their bike should be road legal and they should have valid insurance! My opinion is based on my personal experience having been left out of pocket because a cyclist thought he could make it through a red light even tho the traffic had stopped and I had right of way. So how if it fair that I had to buy a new door and pay to get it sprayed because of his disregard for the rules of the road!

Even the police said there was nothing they could do! It would have been a diffent story if I'd hit him and damaged his bike! He's have taken my plate and got me charged with dangerous driving! Why should it be one rule for motorists and another rule for cyclists?

As for your earlier quote, the 2 bus services operating in the city centre and the shire in Grampian are not subject to vehicle tax and they don't have an insurance policy for damage cause on public roads! I know this because a friend was hit my a bus and the compensation was paid by the bus company, not an insurance company! Obviously they must by law have liability insurance as do pretty much all companies!

I think I should just leave this thread, as all I'm doing in defending my opinion when I shouldn't have to! I have better things to do with my life than argue with narrow minded people who can't accept other people have an opinion!

[loskie]

The example you give about the bus co's insurance is termed being "self insured". Local councils will use it because they are deemed to have enough assets to cover claims. So in effect they are insured.

[loskie]

That is the perk of the Internet, you can express your opinion! 

TO55ER

 

 

"

[TroyChallenger]

The example you give about the bus co's insurance is termed being "self insured". Local councils will use it because they are deemed to have enough assets have enough of other people's money to cover claims. So in effect they are insured.

 

I corrected your typo.

[slider]

Children under 16 shouldn't cycle on the roads, same as someone under 18 can't drive on the roads

funny that, I passed my test when I was 17.  My Son (admittedly in the army) passed his car test on his 17th birthday then when on to pass his class 1 HGV 5 days later and was let loose on public roads unsupervised 2 days after that.

[Llanigraham]

how old are you? they are putting the driving age upto 18! i also past my driving test 2 months after my 17th!

 

i don't think children should be banned from riding bikes, but i don't think they should be cycling on the roads! they should get dispensation to cycle on the pavement, a child of 6 doesn't know the rules of the road so shouldn't be on it! if they cycle to school, they can have a group of them, like they do on the walks to school, there is safety in numbers! the driving test isn't subsidised! it is covered by the £90 charge for the test! and you pay to apply for a licence! do some homework before you comment!

 

if you have nothing of value to bring to the table!

 

I'm 61. How old are you?

The raising of the age limit to 18 was a PROPOSAL in a discussion document issued by a Government Dept. Nothing more than that. It is not and has never been Government policy. it has also been soundly dismissed by nearly all the experts in the field. 

 

So children should not be allowed to ride on roads but only on pavements? Then please explain how my friends 14 year old children will ride to the local High School when most of the 4 miles they ride have NO pavements? And no the can't go by car as they don't own one!

 

There are many organistions that "self insure" from the likes of Arriva Transport to the Post Office, Government vehicles to Network Rail. Any one can do as long as they can provide a surety of (I believe) £5 million. The few buses in this area all display a PAID FOR excise licence.

 

Your final sentence, and the subsequent posting, shows you don't even understand what a DISCUSSION forum is, especially when people start to dissect your points and don't agree with your somewhat idealistic, un-reasonable and un-researched points. I won't use the description others have used, however I will suggest that before you have a "rant" you think about what you write first, otherwise you end up sounding like a petulant little child.

[vindaloo]

The people on the telly in Glasgow sound quite reasonable. Somone here sounds like Rab C Nesbit!

[harry vederci]

HAHAHA listen lad, i'll have whatever attitue i want! get over it! if you have a problem feel free to write it down fold it up and insert it! failing that your welcome to MAKE me change my attitue, i'll tell you where and when i get back onshore and you can do something about it!

 

 

 

 

Are you not long out of school or something?

 

You've clearly got an irrational hatred of cyclists because, having been shown that your arguments against cyclists being on the road are nonsense, you revert to type and come out with this playground bravado.

 

I don't have a problem with you but with your attitude to driving: you admit you will deliberately endanger someone elses's life just because he or she is a

cyclist.

 

Does it make you feel a big man to terrorise strangers like that?  You're no bigger than the school bully.  I hope that if you ever do hit someone you'll hang around and admit responsibility for your actions, because a hit & run would be the ultimate act of a coward.

 

You are a serious danger on the roads and my only hope is that, sooner rather than later, you'll execute one of your punishment passes on someone who is camera-equipped and it'll be recorded and reported because you deserve to be prosecuted for this behaviour.

 

Since you don't want to share the road and you won't listen to reason, there's no point in discussing this any more.  You've made your views clear, as have I - you'll get no further response from me on this thread.

 

 

HV

[SkodaTC]

Blimey charlie.

[XLBaconDoubleCheese]

On 8/2/2014 at 12:58, howley87 said:

 

Edited 21 May, 2017 by matt1chelski

[cheezemonkhai]

There are plenty of things that could be cut:

 

 - Excessive spending on vanity left projects for people who are earning just fine, but think they deserve it as they've "paid in".

 - All these extra mayors and other public servants that are not required (Again vanity projects)

 - The replication of admin services for every council, when they could share between local areas.

 - All elective surgery on the NHS. If it's not essential or likely to help your general health, you don't need it (Boob job, nope sorry).

 - Schools. Well this is contentious, but have people noticed how you're not getting effectively private school educations on the state in areas of a high middle class population. They all turn up in huge range rovers.
   Middle classes are loving it, because they now don't have to pay for education, so they can splurge on the evokes. Of course the poor kids can't get their kids in as they can't afford to live in the catchment areas or pass the interviews.

 - Privatised railways, where we are paying more now to the private companies than we were to BR. Of course if there are any profits, we don't see them. Perhaps we should take the tracks and run them centrally, then allow the public sector to bid against the private for running services too. Flat charges to all, so in theory it should be fair.

 - All these think tanks and SPADs and other political crap that gets paid for.

 - Stupid vanity schemes for public transport where it isn't needed. (How about some real investments in local mass transport systems such as Trams and trains - Bristol I'm talking about you here with local trains!)

 

The public purse ****es away money, because everyone thinks they paid in and they should get everything out.

Cut a project and the voters scream.

Don't fund a project and the voters scream.

 

You can't win, however it's clear we are spending well over what we can afford and rather than trying to grow everything, a sensible first step would be to maintain what we have properly and enhance it at key areas to make it function most efficiently.

Only then can you look at what else needs doing improve things.

[Llanigraham]

There are plenty of things that could be cut:

 

 - Excessive spending on vanity left projects for people who are earning just fine, but think they deserve it as they've "paid in".

 - All these extra mayors and other public servants that are not required (Again vanity projects)

 - The replication of admin services for every council, when they could share between local areas.

 - All elective surgery on the NHS. If it's not essential or likely to help your general health, you don't need it (Boob job, nope sorry).

 - Schools. Well this is contentious, but have people noticed how you're not getting effectively private school educations on the state in areas of a high middle class population. They all turn up in huge range rovers.

   Middle classes are loving it, because they now don't have to pay for education, so they can splurge on the evokes. Of course the poor kids can't get their kids in as they can't afford to live in the catchment areas or pass the interviews.

 - Privatised railways, where we are paying more now to the private companies than we were to BR. Of course if there are any profits, we don't see them. Perhaps we should take the tracks and run them centrally, then allow the public sector to bid against the private for running services too. Flat charges to all, so in theory it should be fair.

 - All these think tanks and SPADs and other political crap that gets paid for.

 - Stupid vanity schemes for public transport where it isn't needed. (How about some real investments in local mass transport systems such as Trams and trains - Bristol I'm talking about you here with local trains!)

 

The public purse ****es away money, because everyone thinks they paid in and they should get everything out.

Cut a project and the voters scream.

Don't fund a project and the voters scream.

 

You can't win, however it's clear we are spending well over what we can afford and rather than trying to grow everything, a sensible first step would be to maintain what we have properly and enhance it at key areas to make it function most efficiently.

Only then can you look at what else needs doing improve things.

 

Ignoring the rest of the usual rant, which has nothing to do with cyclists, you really need to get your facts straight on this point!

Network Rail are the publically owned company that do own and run the tracks and things like the signalling. There are no shareholders other than we tax payers. NR are paid a "track access fee" by the operating companies so they can run their trains.