More anti-cycling C"£$

TJ

Re:More anti-cycling C"£$

Postby TJ » 11 Sep 2005, 8:21pm

I think it was Peter Ustinov that said, "If you are fit you don't need to exercise, and if you're unfit, it's dangerous!"
There's a strange logic in it.

Stilly

Re:More anti-cycling C"£$

Postby Stilly » 13 Sep 2005, 2:21pm

Glad to see another thread hijacked and taken completly away from its original subject by the usual suspects mud slinging and name calling. Now I see why people do not bother replying or getting involved with this BB. I hoped I was going to get friendly, helpful support from other cyclists but I was obviously mistaken.

TJ

Re:More anti-cycling C"£$

Postby TJ » 13 Sep 2005, 7:23pm

Come on Stilly, if you take away the "usual suspects", there wouldn't be any replies.
Your original question could have been answered with a "yes" or a "no", do you really want that?
Threads on forums DO deviate as part of the debate. You obviously didn't feel the need to participate. No-one has hijacked the subject, everyone has an opinion and not all perceptions are the same.
No, I don't think the government can tax cycles in the same way cars are taxed, it wouldn't be cost effective as the cost of collection would exceed the revenue raised. Furthermore, cars are now taxed according to their emissions, bicycles don't have emissions.
The only possible way that bicycles could be taxed further would be at source by way of a one off purchase tax, but I don't think any government would deliberately sabotage something that saves the NHS money, which the benefits of cycling do.

Kay

Re:More anti-cycling C"£$

Postby Kay » 8 Oct 2005, 4:26pm

I cycle to work as I don't have a car (although I have in the past) but I am seriously thinking of buying a car and adding to the congestion. After having my cycle damged at work as there are no facilities for it to be kept securely I have been campaiging for a cycle shed/shelter but as I am the sole cyclist I am having no luck! Very frustrating.
As the car park literally has no space for the amount of cars alreay parked up let alone for another car it would mean my having to block somebody in. Blocking the managing directors car would be first on my list!
Very annoyed cyclist

TJ

Re:More anti-cycling C"£$

Postby TJ » 8 Oct 2005, 5:26pm

Block him in and then explain that if there were cycling facilities, maybe, just maybe, more people would cycle in to work, freeing up some space.
I'm lucky I suppose, as my bike lives in my office during the day.

gar

Re:More anti-cycling C"£$

Postby gar » 8 Oct 2005, 8:08pm

Glad to see another thread hijacked and taken completly away from its original subject by the usual suspects mud slinging and name callin

I don't know what Stilly is complaining about
the subject matter of this thread is as follows

C"£$ What's that?

gar

Re:More anti-cycling C"£$

Postby gar » 8 Oct 2005, 8:09pm

bicycles don't have emissions.

TJ talking through his hat again!

Andy Tallis

Re:More anti-cycling C"£$

Postby Andy Tallis » 8 Oct 2005, 10:08pm

Motorist think they pay for road tax by vehicle excise license? It does not come close to covering the cost of the facilities they require and the damage they cause. WE HELP SUBSIDISE THEIR CARS THROUGH OUR TAXES.

gar

Re:More anti-cycling C"£$

Postby gar » 9 Oct 2005, 7:57am

No doubt about that.... but then where did you go to school??! I paid twice for school and I ended up mentally defective. TJ will like that! How would you like it if you paid taxes for the road, didn't use them and then weren't allowed to do any off road cycling?!

Ah Well such is life.!

TJ

Re:More anti-cycling C"£$

Postby TJ » 9 Oct 2005, 10:03am

Could someone explain what cycle emissions are? Once the machine is built, there aren't any, are there?
Cars produce all sorts of nasties,but I can't think of any that bicycles produce.
Perhaps gar could enlighten us!

Andy Tallis

Re:More anti-cycling C"£$

Postby Andy Tallis » 9 Oct 2005, 10:14am

I calculate: rear brake pads every 1200 miles, front ones every 1600, rear and front tyrees at about 3000 and 4000 miles respectively. Not much, especially if measured per time of enjoyment and compared to Clarkson thrashing his big car around. Batteries from lights are the only real problem, but it would take years to make up the size of a car battery.
Oh yes - The odd rims, spokes, chains and cassttes.

All in all not very much compared to motorists, who also kill far more people.

TJ

Re:More anti-cycling C"£$

Postby TJ » 9 Oct 2005, 1:05pm

Agreed, but I was talking about the exhaust emissions that engines produce, and that is what the road fund licence is now based on.
The consumables you mention are miniscule when compared to those of cars, and yes I also agree that a nut case behind the wheel of a car is much more dangerous than any cyclist.

Andy Tallis

Re:More anti-cycling C"£$

Postby Andy Tallis » 9 Oct 2005, 6:14pm

I was being a bit sarchastic in what I said. No, we produce no exhaust emissions and negligible material emissions. Thus we pay no road tax. Neither do pedestrians or horse riders for the same reason.

gar

Re:More anti-cycling C"£$

Postby gar » 9 Oct 2005, 6:42pm

Dam you! My bike never has engine emissions!

The new Bill in Parliament by the way acknowledges the bike as a "Vehicle".

gar

Re:More anti-cycling C"£$

Postby gar » 9 Oct 2005, 6:46pm

If we could have a "road fund benefit" for people who use bikes and a "road fund licence" for those who use cars we would be making real progress.

What worries me is the Chinese. In the old days if you did a world tour on a bike you were amongst friends as soon as you got to China. Not any more;
now they only want to know about cars.