Moral Tax Payments ?

Jason,

I do appreciate the inspirational nature of his intemtions., hence this thread.

I also regocnise that if we ALL  eliminate our use of oil, or significantly reduce our use of it in cars, society (the governmnet) will need to turn elsewhere to raise revenue for collective projects.

He has basically identified a very high tax/product revenue stream and feels morally obliged to contribute even though he isn't participating in the limited benefits. Very altruistic.

But I still think he is somewhat mad to be doing it

Cheers

Don

Wow, how thoughtful and generous.

By the way, I found the UK to be a delightful place to cycle. Courteous drivers and excellent facilities. The quiet country roads and lanes are narrow, but perfect for cycling. The busier roads, whilst less pleasant tend to have good shoulders giving plenty of room. As far as the cities go, I cycled through Bristol every day for two years. No problems with traffic or drivers.

For me the health benefits of cycling far outweigh any accident risk. Cycling keeps me at a healthy weight. I have never been a gym guy. It bores me senseless.  I used to run quite a lot, but advancing age means that my body tolerates fewer miles of high-impact exercise. Walking as exercise is great, and do quite bit with the dogs, but can't fit enough in for such a low-intensity activity to keep me really fit. Cycling is the best thing as it is both a way of getting around and exercise. I commute every day by bike - about a 45km round-trip. This keeps me in a good-enough shape to ride with a fast club on Saturdays and to participate in many events and cycling based trips (I don't actually race very often). I don't have to do much other exercise, but I can if I want.

The benefit of commuting by bike is that "dead" commuting time is spent exercising and having fun. I feel so sorry (not!) for the rats trapped in their planet-f^%$ing steel cages, queuing in traffic every day. If I commuted to the city in a car, the complete and utter waste of time and money, and the frustration of traffic would just slowly kill my will to live.

Yes, you can get exercise in any number of ways; but for me, something that I can do from my front door, at relatively low cost (if you so desire - I personally sometimes spend a stupid amount on a bike) and that has a useful component (it gets you to places you need/want to go to) is the only thing that works. It keeps me somewhat sane.

As our society spirals downwards into ever-increasing sloth and obesity, I just wish more people would wake up to the benefits of getting around under their own steam.

Don

I admire your neighbour's sense of social responsibility but I think he will find his efforts to pay tax that isn't legally due will be unsuccessful because the tax authorities simply have no basis on which to accept it. And quite right too - 'inventing' a fictitious tax debt for 'convenience' would be slippery slope at the bottom of which lies practices common-place in corruption-ridden states that we would not want to live in. Your neighbour would do better to make a charitable contribution.

I think he probably will, but not until he's pushed HMRC and plagued our local MP. He seems to want to make a point and raise issues about far-reaching government funding and the use of taxation to influence behaviour.

He has certainly got me thinking.

Cheers

Don 

My thoughts exactly !

Most people around here use the canal towpath plus a few bridleways for recreational cycling.

The A4 between Newbury and Reading is no longer safe (IMHO) for commuter cycling and is typical of many of our roads.

As Bruce says above, the NHS treats people according to need and this (quite rightly IMHO) includes cyclists, smokers and drug addicts alike - although I am not suggesting there is any similarity or connectivity between these three arbitrary groups.

Cheers

Don

Maybe and additional "cyclists' funeral" tax should be levied on the motorists who use the A4 if they insist on doing so in a manner that kills other people, so as not to overly burden the NHS. It is not the cyclists who are at fault here if the road is unsafe.

Bruce:  Yes, very clearly put.  Here in the U.S., the law governing recovery for loss in an accident--either property damage, medical costs, loss of earnings, or the oft-abused "pain, suffering, and mental anguish" is almost completely under the auspices of the laws of the individual states.  And until recently, almost all the states have allowed massive claims for pain and suffering--which naturally drives up the cost of insurance and places the trial lawyers (read "barrister" here) in a position of immense political power.  That is one of my pet peeves--but that aside:

Let's restrict ourselves to the subject of who pays for the medical care someone recieves in an accident.

Let's say someone has been drinking, is speeding, and in front of witnesses, runs a red light, striking my car and severly injuring me.  I am in the hospital for weeks and run up medical and surgical bills amounting to (let us say) a quarter of a million dollars.  Also, let us assume that I have excellent health insurance--the equivalent of what is provided to members of our Congress.  That will pay the lions share of my medical expenses. 

Now, at some point, I find an attorney (solicitor and barrister meld together here).  They sue the drunk, speeding driver who ran into me.  And assume further that he or she is insured.  My attorney reaches a settlement with the drunk's insurance company for the entire amount of the medical damages, the damage to my car, payment for any unpaid time off from work, and some figure (usually some multiple of lost time and medical damages) for "pain and suffering". 

I get to keep all the money for pain and suffering, and the Federal government doesn't force me to pay taxes on that.  I do have to count the compensation for lost employment as income.  The medical payments are a wash.  (If I were not insured and paid them all myself, then I would get to keep whatever I recovered.)

But, to the extent my medical insurance picked up the tab for my bills, they are able to take advantage of what is called a "subrogation clause" in my policy, which entitles them to recover from me any medical payments made to me by a third party.  This is standard language in all insurance policies.

My assumption was that the NHC in UK (or in fact, in any country) would require the same advantage by law that U.S. companies do by contract.  It may seem crass to try to quantify costs where all-important medical care is involved--but costs there are--and one way or another, the "free" health care provided by the UK, certainly is NOT free--to those who pay the taxes.  Therefore, I would think the UK NHC would want to recover from one at fault.  I agree that fault increases litigious behavior (God knows, the U.S. is the prime example) but there is something to be said for the guilty party's at least participating in the care of the party not at fault.  A fine line.

Bicycles versus Trucks and Autos--the Final Word from the Russ Meister :

In an ideal world, a cyclist (I am one) would have absolute equal right of way and no one should say a damned thing about whether they should or should not be able to travel the roads in safety.

In an ideal world, a woman (I do not happen to be one) should be able to dress however she wishes and to walk about in perfect safety, under no threat from any deranged rapist.

In an ideal world, our children should be able to play unattended in their neighborhood, without the threat of some scum who does not deserve to live, abducting, raping, and burying them alive.

But it is not an ideal world: We correctly warn our children and keep them close to hearth and home.  Any sane woman realizes that, in spite of how the world should be, it is not--and she must be vigilant about her own safety--because no laws, no police officer--in short nothing, can protect her before the fact.  And a cyclist has to venture out onto the roads--especially the crowded or narrow ones, armed with an understanding almost amounting to functional paranoia--that the average motorist looks upon them with impatience--sometimes amounting to thinly-veiled homicidal rage.

Best regards,

Russ

I have little issue with an argument that draws an analogy between rapists, child molesters and motorists who drive without due care and regard for the consequences of their actions. Without those type of motorists, and rapists and child molesters, we would all be better off.

As I have said before, most motorists don't fall into that category.

winky: I could not agree more.  I recently retired from Austin, a very bike-friendly city and moved to a small town of a little over 16,000.  Mostly rednecks here (a term I THINK everyone worldwide is familiar wtih--mostly good people, but somewhat unenlightened in certain respects).  We have very wide roads and good shoulders--none of it having been built in the Eleventh Century .  However, some SOB s will go out of their way to get close to a cyclist and blow the horn.  Once, years ago, in Houston, a friend of mine was in a triathlon and during the bike stage, an old scumbag, driving an ancient truck with no insurance, swerved far enough over, blowing his horn, to hit my friend with the large exterior mirror, wiping out his expensive bike, but worse, giving him a very painful, broken collarbone.  The road was nearly as wide as Times or Trafalgar Squares--ok not really, but wide.  The old fool told the cop my friend had no right to be on that road on a f____ing bicycle.  He went free with no consequence.

Russ

Actually, the world is closer to ideal in this regard than many realize. "Stranger Danger" is wildly over-represented in the media, and accordingly, people have a fear of this that is out of all proportion to the actual risk.

We'd be better off if we feared the right things and acted accordingly. We keep our kids indoors, entertained by video screens to shield them from the statistically negligible stranger-danger risk We drive them everywhere, out of similar fears. In reality we are exposing them to the risk of a future filled with health issues and premature death associated with obesity and a sedentary lifestyle.

winky: Again, I have to agree with you--especially with regard to (like so many other things) overexposure in the press.  Very few children are, in fact abducted, molested, and killed.  I checked statistics (on several websites which all seemed to agree)--strictly for the U.S. mind you, and I suspect Canada is still more sane overall than we are.  800,000 kids under 18 were reported missing last year.  About 99 percent were recovered quickly through normal law enforcement activitiy.  A few thousand remained missing long-term, and no doubt most of these were not abducted--although one never knows how many might have been.  Approximately a hundred were proved to be the result of traditional kidnapping--including ransom and sexual-related crimes.

So yes, you are correct, and I agree with your assessment.  Obviously, anyone who keeps the kids in, playing video games and slobbering down snacks is more likely to end up like winky and Russ, growing fat while sitting at their keyboards until all hours and listening to Naim Hi Fi systems. 

That having been said, I do think the danger is greater than say, when I was growing up in the 'fifties.  I am sure that some of the percieved increase in incidence of these dangers is due to increased reporting, but nonetheless, who would not provide the children with some warning that strangers are not necessarily your friend--and you should be alert for your own safety?  It is a fine line to walk between terrorizing the kids, on the one hand, and preparing them for life, on the other.

Russ

Your neighbour is a total fruitcake. Does he talk to plants? or walk down the High st in dressing gown and slippers.

About 10 years ago i saw a guy walking out of a hospital near West Wickham in Kent. He appeared not to have a care in the world..........one slight problem he was starkers not even a pair of shoes.

Mista H

You're right. Its basically an automatic reaction to Winky's predictable harrasment of motorists (who pay for the roads that cyclists enjoy in the UK).

Most motorists IMHO,including myself, take great care to spot cyc;ists and to ensure we pose no danger to them at all, especially when it means slowing down, holding back etc etc

OTOH, reality is a fact of life, and the A4 between Newbury and Reading is a fast road, with little room for cyclists. Many other places are similar so IMHO Winky is being unrealistic in promoting commuter cycling in much of the UK. I would  also be reluctant to cycle on the Transcanada

Fortunately, I haven't experienced to "cycle-rage" that Russ is decribing,

Cheers

Don

He seems quite normal in all other respects

 He is a builder who always does a high quality job. He recently researched and published a book about Samual Owens (artist and sea captain). He used to ride a Norton F2 (?) and has restored a Triumph TR4 and an MGB. His most recent cars have all been BMWs.

Cheers

Don

Yes, the vast majority of kidnap cases are when children are abducted by their non-custodial parent. Another big chunk of missing children stats is attributable to runaways, not abductions.

I'm not sure that it is a fine line with respect to how much we coach kids on this stuff. A child that receives little coaching on stranger danger is highly likely to be absolutely fine, as is a kid that gets scared out of their wits by an hysterical mother who watches too much (i.e. any) Nancy Grace. We just worry too much in general.

I don't think Don's neighbor is daft for wanting to cycle to work - as already mentioned, the pollution reduction for everyone and the health benefits for him personally are self-evident.  I think he is daft for handing over money more than is required to a group of parasites (politicians) whose ONLY interest is their own benefit and self-preservation.  This has been proven in any country, irrespective of political affiliation, for as far back in time as you would care to go.  And I dare say today's lot is worse than ever.  I'm sure God has an extra hot place in hell for all of them.

I pay all my taxes for sure, but only because they have men with guns who will extort it from me if I don't.  I have a friend who thought he could challenge the government legally on income taxes - I told him he would end up in jail, and he thought he could win.  In the end, I was right, and he did a few months time plus all back taxes, penalties, & interest.  Just pay the bastards.

On the other hand, my father (in his 80's) has friends who were living in NJ in the houses they have been in for 40+ years, raised their kids, and have paid the house off.  All they want to do is be allowed to die in their own home.  They will all be gone in less than 10 years in most cases.  But the property tax in the area on some of these homes (NOT huge houses, BTW) are $15,000 per year; add insurance to that, and you have a $1,400+ per month payment on a house that is paid off free & clear. 

In Amerika, you think you own your house because you have paid off the note?  Try not paying the perpetual rent imposed by the tax man & see how long you "own" your house.  These old people are having to sell and move because of the avarice of government.  This is criminal...like I said, they (the political & bureaucratic class) are parasites.

I do get annoyed when driving when the speed limit is say 35-45 on a road, and a cyclist uses it in the same manner as a car and I am forced to go 15 or less; some of us actually need to go the limit in order to get to work on time, and I can't afford the time or inconvenience to leave 20 minutes early just because a cyclist might be using the road that day...nor can I afford to be late for work. 

That said, my annoyance would never translate into something that would endanger said cyclist(s) - it is their right to use the road, and mine to be peeved at them for delaying me.

Well said, DrMark.  I am in a hurry so I can hold forth with my usual wisdom in the verbose manner that people have no doubt come to expect from me--but I just had to drop a quick note to say you are right on in every word of that post.  No doubt I will have more to add later. 

Best regards,

Russ

http://www.copenhagenize.com/2...y-in-five-parts.html

A decent read on the psychology of why people fear cycling.

We huddle in our cars because our cities and roads have become scary places. Our cities and roads are scary places because everyone is huddled in their cars.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b018xs8t

A good listen. BBC Radio 4 on shared spaces and traffic engineering.

Shared space is fine in our towns and parts of our cities.

In Newbury, the main street is car -free from 10:00 until about 18:00. The rest of the time it is a shared space. It seems to work reasonably well. However, far more effective is the provision of ample parking around the perimeter of the town and safe walking routes from these car parks to the town centre.

OTOH, on the outskirts of the town is a roundabout full of white lines to guide traffic, and over-endowed with green cycle lanes. Any cyclist who thinks he is safe in one of these green lanes is an accident waiting to happen.

The main roads leading out of towm N,S,E or W are simply not bike friendly at the moment. Perhaps a "cycle-tax" could be introduced so that cyclists could collectively fund cycle-friendly improvements. My friend could then happily pay his £3k per year into this fund - just a thought !

Cheers

Don

Yeah, roundabouts are a bit of a challenge, especially for inexperienced motorists. The crossing of cars and bike lanes is always a bit of a stuff-up. The most hazardous situations are often created by cycle lanes and the way that they don't integrate very well with the car flows.

My preference is generally to ride with the motorised traffic. I cautiously use cycle lanes and shared paths (actually just footpaths with painted pictures of bikes on them) where they make sense, or where I am forced to, but most of the time I just ride on the road.

I find cars to be generally predictable; much more so than pedestrians and un-leashed dogs that often congest the cycle paths. Cars never stop at stop signs, the use of indicators is optional at best, they can be expected to to overtake and turn across your path where they can, exceed the speed limit at all times unless held up by other vehicles, etc... I find I can pretty much rely on them to do this, and this makes life easier.

My neighbour and myself don't share your intense dislike of politicians, or rather we understand and are happy to fund collective infrastructure projects through government and their agencies. OK, they may syphon off a larger share of these funds to line their own pockets than we would like, but the alternative funding routes simply line the pockets of global directors in private industry.

Pete (my neighbour) and I, both consider that collective investment is an essential part of our survival system and are therefore happy to fund it despite the current drawbacks.

I am sorry that your life-experiences have led you to the conclusion that taxes only fund parasitic politicians. Over here its not quite so bad.

Cheers

Don

Just an aside.....

I got back from Vernon last week. During my time out there I drove from/to Calgary airport,  Osoyoos, Grand Forks, Nelson and back to Vernon plus numerous other bits of driving around Canmore and Kelowna. I am absolutely certain that I positively stopped at each and every junction with a stop sign. Several people have commented that the RCMP  have a zero tollerance policy on non-stopping offenders. It seems I can now overcome this paranoid issue ?

Cheers

Don

Absolutely you can. On my commute that I have been doing now for over 3 years, I pass through about 12 4-way stop signs each way. I have NEVER seen a car or a bike stop, unless absolutely necessary to avoid a collision (when that happens, much confusion and hilarity often ensues, as no-one quite knows what to do once more than one car has come to full stop. Who goes next? Is it my turn? No, after you? A series of false starts and kangaroo hops later, the intersection finally clears).

When I say NEVER, I mean it. Not one car or bike. In over three years passing 5x12x2x4 = 480 stop signs per week.  Nobody stops. Ever. Nill, nicht, nada, the null-set.

RCMP - zero tolerance? Don't make me laugh. The wouldn't know what to do if anyone actually stopped.