Road signs

[Steve Walker]

They'd have you for not wearing a seatbelt ;)

SteveW

[Huge]

Ahh, so you *do* live in a cave. Like most whinging freeloader cyclists you can now be safely treated in the same way you treat the Rules of the Road; ignored.

[dennis]

Don't bring logic into this, you will spoil the fun.

[Clive George]

Oh do f*ck off. I'm not talking about those cars where it is due but not paid, I'm talking about those cars which aren't liable to pay anything. You know they're out there - and becoming more common again. It's entirely reasonable to point out the hypocrisy in TMH's complaints about cyclists not paying VED when he doesn't complain about those motorists who don't need to do so either.

(I know what SORN is (do one every year, much less tedious now its online), and ditto ANPR. They aren't relevant to my argument)

[Man at B&Q]

In what way "equivalent"? One penny per pedal revolution or summat?

[Mike Barnes]

But a cycle isn't the means of transport if you're not riding it - which was, I though, the whole point. Never mind though, the point is adequately dealt with lower down.

OK, thanks. At least I know what you had in mind now, though it still doesn't make much sense to me in the context of the point being made.

I'm sure that that scheme has some merit but it doesn't actually address the way the public instinctively understands (or not) the signs. Consider the "no smoking" sign. That sign wasn't designed by committee but by ordinary people wanting to get their point across clearly. So they put a bar across it. The sign without its bar would be less likely to be understood. Hundreds of informal signs have appeared all over the world in the same style (no dogs, no horns, no swimming, no photography, etc, etc) and they have bars across them. It's what makes sense to the public.

Such cunning efforts to get the signs to "fit" miss the point. The point is communication, pure and simple.

I bet if you put that sign (cycle with a bar across it) in front of a crowd of people, the number who understood it to mean "OK to ride a bicycle" would be negligible, probably zero.

And if you put the official "no cycling" sign (cycle with no bar) in front of a crowd of people and asked what it meant, many would get it wrong.

[Clumsy Bastard]

my deepest apologies, what was I thinking of?

[Man at B&Q]

So if you're already in the hard shoulder when you break down, you'll have time to stop gracefully.

MBQ

[Frank Erskine]

On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 13:09:16 +0100, Mike Barnes had this to say:

A bit like people talking about a 'no-smoking ban'...

[Grimly Curmudgeon]

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember geoff saying something like:

I don't think even Dennis is that conceited.

[The Medway Handyman]

As far as I know exempt vehicles are those used by disabled people, agricultural/horticultural machinery & historic cars.

The former two deserve a break, the latter has paid tax in the past. Whinging freeloader lycra louts deserve bugger all.

[The Medway Handyman]

Equal in money terms. Cyclists are road users. They should pay their way like everyone else. The money should be used to pay for all these poxy cycle lanes & daft boxes that clutter up the roads for paying road users.

[The Medway Handyman]

If you mean electric vehicles used by the disabled, then no. If you mean hybrids then yes. They of course have insureance.

[Clive George]

You're wrong. HTH.

[The Medway Handyman]

Well enlighten us oh wise one. According to

Vehicles used by disabled drivers, mobility scooters, powered wheel chairs and invalid carriages, old vehicles constructed before 1 January 1973 (historic vehicles), electric vehicles, mowing machines, steam vehicles, agricultural, horticultural and forestry vehicles.

[Dave]

Why should the disabled drivers get road tax exemption? They also get a mobiliy payment to help pay for a car.

The latter will not be the person tyhat paid road tax when it was originally due.

Except higher tax :-)

Dave

[Clive George]

Now look at what other vehicles don't have to pay any VED. Try under "Cost of vehicle tax".

be a clue.

[Dave]

I can't put my hands on my highway code book, but I did find this on line.

Crossing the road

79

Do not ride across equestrian crossings, as they are for horse riders only. Do not ride across a pelican, puffin or zebra crossing. Dismount and wheel your cycle across.

In the back of my mind there used to be case law that said if you were pushing a cycle as a pedestrian, you were considered to be a cyclist.

Dave

[Clive George]

T'other way round - Crank vs Brooks.

[JTM]

Perhaps all cyclists should swap to a buggy - not taxable, not just for registered disabled, or perhaps get a C5, or a road roller, or steam engine or one of the many other vehicles not requiring tax, military, or rescue etc. It's a fair list.

Oh, and my campervan does not need VED either.

John