The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
"Road Tax" hasn't existed since the fifties. You pay Vehicle Excise Duty, which is a tax on owning a vehicle, calculated on the basis of it's emissions. The lowest emission bracket is zero-rated. So even if bikes were assessed for VED in exactly the same way as other vehicles, they'd still pay £0. Just like electric cars, super-economical diesels, or Hybrids.
Furthermore, Roads are paid for out of general taxation, not exclusively out of VED, and the amount spent on roads is far greater than the amount of VED collected.
Bikes are stupid.
You best be stayin to your paths.
Dedicated bike paths are almost universally poorly implemented and dangerous (at least in the UK, The Netherlands is better at this). Fortunately, cyclists are under no obligation to use them.
Get off my roads.
Hopefully, you're being sarcastic. If not, they're my roads too.
oh yeah? how much road tax did you pay last year?
does not council tax also pay towards the road? (Also, we paid £110 last year, 'cos we had a car)
Council tax exists solely to keep the poor in their designated areas. They just burn that money for fuel.
"Road Tax" hasn't existed since the fifties. You pay Vehicle Excise Duty, which is a tax on owning a vehicle, calculated on the basis of it's emissions. The lowest emission bracket is zero-rated. So even if bikes were assessed for VED in exactly the same way as other vehicles, they'd still pay £0. Just like electric cars, super-economical diesels, or Hybrids.
Furthermore, Roads are paid for out of general taxation, not exclusively out of VED, and the amount spent on roads is far greater than the amount of VED collected.
I wasn't being 100 percent serious with that. Sorry if it came off that way.
My objections to bikes is far more pragmatic. I don't see why a manifestly slow and dangerous vehicle should be allowed on the road. Even your "oh but we only hold you up for thirty seconds to a minute max" excuse is unbelievably smug and arrogant. Why should every other vehicle on the road be held up for that thirty seconds, and who are you to decide whether or not my time is that valuable? I don't see how you can say "sure I'm inconveniencing everyone else on the roads, but in my defence I don't give a shit" and not realise why there is "kneejerk" bad feeling towards cyclists. Having to cross into incoming traffic to overtake a cyclist is dangerous on the majority of roads due to the nature of British roads making perfect conditions (no turns up ahead, perfect visibility of oncoming traffic) rare. I don't see any reason why a cyclist should be treated any differently than someone simply running in the road is, IE as someone behaving wilfully dangerously and expecting every other road user to take up their slack. Drivers don't hate cyclists because it has been divined as such by the gods, they hate cyclists because they hate taking unnecessary risks on behalf of others.
Also every single cyclist is a smug pederast. Without exception.
You could be held up thirty seconds to a minute by someone hesitantly emerging from a junction, or slowing early for a turning, or a pedestrian hitting the button at a pedestrian crossing, or a JCB, or a Tractor, or an HGV in a built up area, or a bus pulling up to a stop.
That argument boils down to "it would be perfect if nobody else used the road."
You could be held up thirty seconds to a minute by someone hesitantly emerging from a junction, or slowing early for a turning, or a pedestrian hitting the button at a pedestrian crossing, or a JCB, or a Tractor, or an HGV in a built up area, or a bus pulling up to a stop.
That argument boils down to "it would be perfect if nobody else used the road."
Would you be ok with another car doing 20 under the speed limit holding you up?
You could be held up thirty seconds to a minute by someone hesitantly emerging from a junction, or slowing early for a turning, or a pedestrian hitting the button at a pedestrian crossing, or a JCB, or a Tractor, or an HGV in a built up area, or a bus pulling up to a stop.
That argument boils down to "it would be perfect if nobody else used the road."
Right, but that pedestrian is then going to go about their day and not hold anyone else up, likewise the person emerging hesitantly from a junction or the bus. The cyclist is going to hold up every single approaching vehicle. JCBs and tractors obviously hold everyone up and are a colossal pain, but the average person even in rural areas is going to see what, a tenth the amount of tractors on the road as cyclists. If that.
You could be held up thirty seconds to a minute by someone hesitantly emerging from a junction, or slowing early for a turning, or a pedestrian hitting the button at a pedestrian crossing, or a JCB, or a Tractor, or an HGV in a built up area, or a bus pulling up to a stop.
That argument boils down to "it would be perfect if nobody else used the road."
Would you be ok with another car doing 20 under the speed limit holding you up?
Of course not, it'd be a fucking nightmare. In fact I'm pretty certain that said person would get ticketed for that. On two lane roads I don't give a shit because I can pass safely, the problem is single lane roads.
You could be held up thirty seconds to a minute by someone hesitantly emerging from a junction, or slowing early for a turning, or a pedestrian hitting the button at a pedestrian crossing, or a JCB, or a Tractor, or an HGV in a built up area, or a bus pulling up to a stop.
That argument boils down to "it would be perfect if nobody else used the road."
Would you be ok with another car doing 20 under the speed limit holding you up?
Maybe not a car, if they could be going faster but simply aren't for whatever reason. If it's a vehicle that's slower by it's nature (see the JCB, HGV, Bus examples above) then I wouldn't really have a problem with it, because part of using the roads is that sometimes you are going to encounter conditions not necessarily favourable to you completing your journey as efficiently as possible.
Another example: near where I used to live most of the backroads are national speed limit (60mph) but most people don't travel at more than 30mph on them unless they're locals.
It's sort of funny that Alaska has its highways regularly repaved.
Is it?
For a repub governed state, amirite amirite
I don't know, I think it's funnier that for a Republican state recently run by a staunch small government Republican, Alask has one of the most nakedly socialist policies in the western world.
Tube on
0
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Helmets are more useful when there's a chance of your body impacting hard surfaces. This is clearly more likely to happen on a bike than in a car with a seat belt.
In most car meets bike wrecks, helmets are only useful for keeping the rider's face in a recognizable condition.
Most of the landmass on earth is hard and impactable. Buildings are also often made out of solid materials.
Helmets are more useful when there's a chance of your body impacting hard surfaces. This is clearly more likely to happen on a bike than in a car with a seat belt.
In most car meets bike wrecks, helmets are only useful for keeping the rider's face in a recognizable condition.
Most of the landmass on earth is hard and impactable. Buildings are also often made out of solid materials.
True, but most cyclists riding on the road don't fall over or crash very often. I think the one and only time I've fallen over while riding on the road was in a cul-de-sac learning to use clipless pedals.
It's sort of funny that Alaska has its highways regularly repaved.
Is it?
For a repub governed state, amirite amirite
I don't know, I think it's funnier that for a Republican state recently run by a staunch small government Republican, Alask has one of the most nakedly socialist policies in the western world.
It's only Socialism when a Democrat writes the check.
moniker on
0
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
edited July 2009
Is there a way to route specific programs to certain audio outputs (for example games to headphones and everything else to normal speakers)? I fear that it would be entirely dependent on my audio drivers, which are terrible.
Helmets are more useful when there's a chance of your body impacting hard surfaces. This is clearly more likely to happen on a bike than in a car with a seat belt.
In most car meets bike wrecks, helmets are only useful for keeping the rider's face in a recognizable condition.
Most of the landmass on earth is hard and impactable. Buildings are also often made out of solid materials.
Most, perhaps, but there are some buildings made out of water.
Helmets are more useful when there's a chance of your body impacting hard surfaces. This is clearly more likely to happen on a bike than in a car with a seat belt.
In most car meets bike wrecks, helmets are only useful for keeping the rider's face in a recognizable condition.
Most of the landmass on earth is hard and impactable. Buildings are also often made out of solid materials.
True, but most cyclists riding on the road don't fall over or crash very often. I think the one and only time I've fallen over while riding on the road was in a cul-de-sac learning to use clipless pedals.
In states with no helmet laws for motorcycle riders, they're nicknamed organ donors.
matt has a problem on
0
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Helmets are more useful when there's a chance of your body impacting hard surfaces. This is clearly more likely to happen on a bike than in a car with a seat belt.
In most car meets bike wrecks, helmets are only useful for keeping the rider's face in a recognizable condition.
Most of the landmass on earth is hard and impactable. Buildings are also often made out of solid materials.
True, but most cyclists riding on the road don't fall over or crash very often. I think the one and only time I've fallen over while riding on the road was in a cul-de-sac learning to use clipless pedals.
I've fallen several times, but mostly only hurt my knees & hands. But yeah, most of the time accidents in cities only involve the biker going squishy.
Honk on
PSN: Honkalot
0
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Helmets are more useful when there's a chance of your body impacting hard surfaces. This is clearly more likely to happen on a bike than in a car with a seat belt.
In most car meets bike wrecks, helmets are only useful for keeping the rider's face in a recognizable condition.
Most of the landmass on earth is hard and impactable. Buildings are also often made out of solid materials.
Most, perhaps, but there are some buildings made out of water.
Helmets are more useful when there's a chance of your body impacting hard surfaces. This is clearly more likely to happen on a bike than in a car with a seat belt.
In most car meets bike wrecks, helmets are only useful for keeping the rider's face in a recognizable condition.
Most of the landmass on earth is hard and impactable. Buildings are also often made out of solid materials.
Most, perhaps, but there are some buildings made out of water.
Posts
Those are horrifying.
"Road Tax" hasn't existed since the fifties. You pay Vehicle Excise Duty, which is a tax on owning a vehicle, calculated on the basis of it's emissions. The lowest emission bracket is zero-rated. So even if bikes were assessed for VED in exactly the same way as other vehicles, they'd still pay £0. Just like electric cars, super-economical diesels, or Hybrids.
Furthermore, Roads are paid for out of general taxation, not exclusively out of VED, and the amount spent on roads is far greater than the amount of VED collected.
Council tax exists solely to keep the poor in their designated areas. They just burn that money for fuel.
Guess that's why we showed you whats what, so we didn't have to have taxes anymore.
Yep, sure showed you guys.
gay sex gay sex
trialklyated silane-based thioaminated cyclic conjugated schiff-base azides
This has been commented on, yes.
I think that's why most people carry on calling it "Road Tax".
makes sense
remarking that you've payed hundreds of pounds towards your VED could be misheard and make for awkward dates
treating it like a road and letting everyone drive on it
is the same thing really
I wasn't being 100 percent serious with that. Sorry if it came off that way.
My objections to bikes is far more pragmatic. I don't see why a manifestly slow and dangerous vehicle should be allowed on the road. Even your "oh but we only hold you up for thirty seconds to a minute max" excuse is unbelievably smug and arrogant. Why should every other vehicle on the road be held up for that thirty seconds, and who are you to decide whether or not my time is that valuable? I don't see how you can say "sure I'm inconveniencing everyone else on the roads, but in my defence I don't give a shit" and not realise why there is "kneejerk" bad feeling towards cyclists. Having to cross into incoming traffic to overtake a cyclist is dangerous on the majority of roads due to the nature of British roads making perfect conditions (no turns up ahead, perfect visibility of oncoming traffic) rare. I don't see any reason why a cyclist should be treated any differently than someone simply running in the road is, IE as someone behaving wilfully dangerously and expecting every other road user to take up their slack. Drivers don't hate cyclists because it has been divined as such by the gods, they hate cyclists because they hate taking unnecessary risks on behalf of others.
Also every single cyclist is a smug pederast. Without exception.
EDIT: an' gypsies, too!
You mean Chris Hanson?
Yes
That argument boils down to "it would be perfect if nobody else used the road."
Is it?
For a repub governed state, amirite amirite
sure, but if it's anything like here the freeze and thaw cycles probably tear the everloving shit out of those roads
Right, but that pedestrian is then going to go about their day and not hold anyone else up, likewise the person emerging hesitantly from a junction or the bus. The cyclist is going to hold up every single approaching vehicle. JCBs and tractors obviously hold everyone up and are a colossal pain, but the average person even in rural areas is going to see what, a tenth the amount of tractors on the road as cyclists. If that.
Of course not, it'd be a fucking nightmare. In fact I'm pretty certain that said person would get ticketed for that. On two lane roads I don't give a shit because I can pass safely, the problem is single lane roads.
Maybe not a car, if they could be going faster but simply aren't for whatever reason. If it's a vehicle that's slower by it's nature (see the JCB, HGV, Bus examples above) then I wouldn't really have a problem with it, because part of using the roads is that sometimes you are going to encounter conditions not necessarily favourable to you completing your journey as efficiently as possible.
Another example: near where I used to live most of the backroads are national speed limit (60mph) but most people don't travel at more than 30mph on them unless they're locals.
I don't know, I think it's funnier that for a Republican state recently run by a staunch small government Republican, Alask has one of the most nakedly socialist policies in the western world.
Most of the landmass on earth is hard and impactable. Buildings are also often made out of solid materials.
True, but most cyclists riding on the road don't fall over or crash very often. I think the one and only time I've fallen over while riding on the road was in a cul-de-sac learning to use clipless pedals.
It's only Socialism when a Democrat writes the check.
Most, perhaps, but there are some buildings made out of water.
I've fallen several times, but mostly only hurt my knees & hands. But yeah, most of the time accidents in cities only involve the biker going squishy.
WHAT WHERE!?!?
I doubt the risk profile for motorcycles and cyclists is the same.
Riding a bicycle, it's unlikely you'll have a life-threatening accident without the involvement of another vehicle.