Road signs

[The Natural Philosopher]

Round here there are signs saying 'Race horses for two miles'

I always win...

[The Natural Philosopher]

The latter. Mostly. Although the air losses are very high at high speeds, the spectrum is less noticeable.

Nope.

>

[Mike Barnes]

I'm not inclined to argue with any of that but I don't see how it relates to the question of the bar (or lack of) on the red-and-white "no cycling" sign, which is what's being discussed. I'm not even sure that that sign appears at the entrance to motorways: I've a suspicion that all you get is the (blue, rectangular: ha!) sign telling you in words what's prohibited.

[Dave]

Went down there when the gantries said 60 MPH and the hard shoulder was open for use in the last couple of weeks.

The remit of the police, is to stop you in a safe place, so how can they decide that a motorway hard shoulder is a safe place to stop you, when they tell us it is not a safe place to stop?

On a motorway, you usually have enough spead to get to the hard shoulder. Then M42 does not have one, depending on the time of the day.

I can't be sure which direction I was driving down that road, but I think it was North to South and one car was driving down the hard shoulder without the permision from the overhead gantries.

Dave

[Dave]

There is VAT on food. Buy a take away and count the tax that the government takes off you.

Mind you, the way that GB has crippled this county, expect VAT on food from the supermarkets :-(

Dave

[geoff]

In message , ARWadsworth writes

Ah my spelchecker

should have said "had Reich of way"

[The Medway Handyman]

How about the cyclists who don't drive cars f****it?

As a cyclist or a car driver?

No, I want cyclists to pay the equivilant to tax on fuel, which is why I said "+ the equivilant to the tax on fuel".

Now we know why you have a thing about speed limits. You don't have a car do you? You ride a bike.

[Clot]

I suspect a faux pas here! I think you meant CFLs rather than CFCs for cooling systems!

[Clot]

Agreed, but "laybys" have been included beyond the hard shoulder.

I've seen that on several occasions, but fortunately without mishap.

[Dave Liquorice]

Some foods and I thought it was the other way round with take aways. "Eat in" had VAT as they provided the service of table/chairs etc. But I ain't going to argue... B-)

Some food already has VAT on it no matter where you buy it. Some foods are deemed "essential" and are zero rated but fruit juices, fizzy drinks, biscuits, confectionary are standard rate.

[Huge]

Congratulations on just having contradicted your own point. Indeed they do pay loads of tax - but not as cyclists. So the tax they pay has nothing to do with cycling. So cyclists cannot use the argument "I already pay loads of taxes". Cyclists pay no taxes - as cyclists.

Do you live in a cave? Or are SORN and ANPR just letters to you? Not that the "tu quoque" argument beloved of cyclists everywhere actually has any merit.

[andrew_d_may]

Do you make the same distinction for drivers of electric cars?

[dennis]

VAT on cycles and spares.

[Clumsy Bastard]

we expect to have pavements properly maintained without any specific tax on walking.

[Dave Liquorice]

Because you are taking the prohibition of bicycles to the extreme of those being carried on other means of transport rather than just being the means of transport.

How about the pavement?

'Cause a round sign with red border, white ground (no pictogram) is "All vehicles prohibited except non-mechanically propelled vehicles being pushed by pedestrians". A cycle is a "mechanically propelled vehicle".

The addition of a pictogram restricts the above general prohibition to that particular case, like buses, all motor vehicles, solo motor bikes, vehicles over a certain weight, towed caravans, horses (ridden or accompanied. Presumably unaccompanied is OK...), horse draw vehicles, pedestrians.

The pictogram of a bicycle meaning "Riding of Pedal Cycles Prohibited" rather than "Pedal Cycles Prohibited" doesn't appear to fit. However the cycle pictogram is for the action of cycling, as used for cycleway marking and directions for cyclists. Thus the prohibition sign is for the action of cycling and therefore does fit.

Adding a bar negates the prohibition (from the round red bordered sign) so would actually mean it's OK to ride a bicycle.

Pedant. ICBA to dig out the legal definition of "propelling" but I should imagine it includes the use of the pedals, which would include standing on one and scooting.

[andrew_d_may]

Apart from children I only know one person who cycles and does not own a car and therefore pays car tax as well. And I live in Cambridge where one might expect there to be rather more than elsewhere in the country. I discount students in the city because (i) I don't personally know any and (ii) they are prohibited from owning cars in the city anyway.

So which equivalent would that be then? Equivalent to a Mini, an average family car or your van. And what about drivers of electric cars. The VAT they pay on their electricity for charging is less than the VAT on (non-essential) food.

But all of that is irrelevent really since we don't have hypothicated taxation in this country.

Andrew

[Dave Liquorice]

Ride it of the side/back of truck?

[Alan Braggins]

I bet they'd beat you over a steeplechase course though.

[Clive George]

Cyclists = people, just like everybody else. People pay for the roads via taxes. All people have the right to complain about potholes etc, because they all pay for them.

SORN and ANPR are nothing to do with cars which don't have any VED. There are at least two classes of cars out there which are zero-rated.

[Steve Walker]

It isn't on most motorways, but does appear at the occasional one. There was one near where I live. That section of motorway was unusual though, as it was a single carriageway with no central reservation and looked like a continuation of the road that lead up to it (it has since been downgraded to an A road).

SteveW