Best way to travel 5 miles to a train station?

Chris Malcolm () gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying :

You sound like a cyclist. Have you been tested for traffic light colour
blindness?

 

But not bicycles.

 

Ambrose Nankivell () gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying :

Exactly.

 

Spoken like a true caring human being.

 

So what in blue blazes is written on my tax disk?

 

Allow me to quote your previous post: "So where do cyclists go when faced
with a vehicle partially on the pavement, and partially on the road?"

As you will see, you were talking specifically about cyclists. So, do you
advocate riding on the pavements, or are you going to admit that a car
parked partially on the pavement makes, at worst, no difference to the law
abiding cyclist ?

 

In fact, totally legal, with restrictions ...
http://www.surrey.police.uk/news_item.asp?itemid=4663
"Therefore, before it can be used on the main road a goped must be
registered with the DVLA as a moped and the rider must comply with the
regulations set out for moped riders.
This means the rider must be aged 16 or over and they must hold a relevant
driving licence. If they hold a provisional licence, L-plates must be
displayed and they must have taken their Compulsory Basic Training.

Riders must also wear crash helmets and the vehicle must be insured, taxed
and hold an MOT certificate if over three years old."

 

I'm glad to know that it is my car that is liable for VED rather than the
owner. Good job we sorted that one out. So when the bailiffs come round I'll
say 'its not me, there is the criminal and good luck handcuffing the
blighter'.

Amusing that the only source of income for the exchequer is VED. Where is
all my income tax going?

...d

 

As the saying goes: "There's no noun which cannot be verbed".

Huw Francis

 

'Guiness'

 

Your house is also liable to council tax - so feel free to try that approach
there, too.

You've obviously ignored my acceptance of that error.

 

Oh, christ, you want logic out of DVLA now, too? FFS, they're *welsh*...

 

Paying VED for a class of motor vehicle allows a license to use that class
of motor vehicle on the road, subject to other conditions being met. It does
not give a right to use or stable a motor vehicle on the road any more than
paying council tax on a property you own gives you a right to reside in this
country.

Your original statement was that cyclists do not pay VED. You have now
accepted that this is false. You equate ability to pay for a license with a
right to use the road. Let's get this straight.

Everyone has a right to use all roads except certain private or segregated
roads. What you do not have is aright to use a motor vehicle on those roads.
You may apply for a license to use a motor vehicle and a license for a motor
vehicle to be used on certain roads. There are some roads where the use of a
motor vehicle is mandatory. Likewise there are other roads where the use of
certain classes of motor vehicle is prohibited. One is also prohibited form
using wheeled vehicles on the portions of carriageway set apart exclusively
for the use of pedestrians.

You have a right to use roads without licensing your shoes, bicycle, horse,
skateboard, skis or other form of non-motorised accompaniment to transport,
in some cases subject to the apparatus meeting certain criteria (C&U for
cycles).

Vehicles with the potential for causing significant damage are required by
law to carry insurance in the far to common event of them causing damage.

These roads are paid for out of general taxation. One of the side effects of
the VED is that it ensures that all vehicles are appropriately insured and
to a given mechanical standard at least once a year.

...d

 

No, it's not.

How about when there IS traffic about and pedestrians crossing?

Is it "safer" than waiting for the lights to change?

What about the rest?

 

Perhaps, but a typical street arround here looks like
http://www.isorox.co.uk/street.jpg - where are the cars on the pavement?

I've never seen a car driven on a pavement except in (legal) access to
property (drive, garage, etc).

 

We can probably discount them as being dangerous, not as necessarily
being illegal.

Given that you're on the road already, you'd stay on the road.

You're already in the 'motor stream' aren't you?

 

Too true, I was just quoting the previous poster's use of the capital as
an example and as, unfortunately, most of my last 12 or so years have
been in London it's the one place I feel I can confidently talk about too.

It does though seem that there is more flagrant disregard for traffic
laws in London than elsewhere, but maybe that's because I'm not normally
commuting in other areas of the country so don't see the quantity of
human traffic.

 

I'm not sure I'd appreciate any kid wiping their grubby mitts anywhere
near my bike ....

 

Erm, actually, the VAT that was payable on my current main bike is more
than the annual tax disc for a car (and it's less than a year old, so
that disc would still be current

 

How exactly does a speed camera stop a cyclist tearing through a
residential 20mph zone at over 30mph?

Actually, that's unfair. Speed cameras dont exist in areas like that, they
are mainly on through routes devoid of pedestrians (and bikes for the most
part)

I'm more concerned about the bikes that jump red lights in front of police
cars and the police dont stop them. As for speed, pretty irellevent really
- ride at an appropiate speed (not like that idiot that thought it would
be fun to do a time trial on a public road in 1999 and reached 53mph,
almost killing himself and causing a pile up), but more importantly ride
on the road.

I have no problems with law abiding bikes, and on the rare times I do
drive, I have always given them a wide berth and plenty of respect. It's
the wankers running me over on the pavement, or riding in packs of 4 or 5,
that annoy me.