Car vandalism

Posted by: Dungassin on 02 May 2013

Well, some evil little moron decided to 'key' my new car while it was parked outside my daughter's house this afternoon.  Can't imagine why (jealousy?), but I'd love to know who it was so that I could inflict some damage to something he/she values.

Posted on: 18 May 2013 by winkyincanada

 

This traffic jam is because they removed a section of car lane to make bike lane (which was paid for by motorists).

Posted on: 18 May 2013 by naim_nymph

That jam is caused by them all driving on the wrong side of the road!

 

Unless the photo slide is in back to front?

 

Debs

Posted on: 18 May 2013 by Huwge
From Wikipedia, so probably not true
"Since 1937 roads have been funded from general taxation with all motoring duties, including VAT, being paid directly to the Treasury.[18]"
 
A bicyclist pays VAT when he buys stuff so surely he / she is contributing to the general pot?
 
Wear and tear on highway: cyclist + bike ca. 100 kg vs. family car 1500 kg
 
On a pro rata basis? Cyclist VAT for constant upgrades and bling and motorist with associated health care costs (accidents, pollution)
 
Just to throw some petrol on the flames
 
Huw
 
Just back from a nice 40 km ride on my bike
 
 
Originally Posted by Don Atkinson:
 

 

As a two-car owner, I also pay twice for the road-fund licence which is designed to cover the capital cost and maintenance cost of our roads.

 

Posted on: 18 May 2013 by Don Atkinson
Originally Posted by totemphile:
 

 

May I remind you, that as a two car owner, you are also polluting the environment more than a single car owner, let alone a bicyclist. But who cares right? Global warming? An illusion on planet moon?

 

Totally wrong totemphile. I don;t drive any further as a reslt of having two cars, I just pay more RFL.

 

Neither car causes any significant wear on our roads. 

Ah, I see, not your cars, just all the other cars, and HGV's of course....

Cars don't damage roads. The roads are over-designed for cars. HGVs cause the damage. And HGVs pay proportionately more towards the cost.

 

Cyclists don't cause any wear or tear either but they do occupy the road network and cause congestion that would otherwise not exist. 

That's right, it's those bastard bicyclists causing all those traffic jams the world over! 

Spot on. At least you do seem to have grasped it after all.


Cyclists per-se, do not pay for the use of space on our roads. They should pay (just as I have to for my second car). Because they don't, I classify them as parasites. No offense chaps (and chapesses), simply factual.

I completely agree mate, bloody hell, about time somebody said so! 

Glad i was of assistance in bringing you to your senses !!

  

Cheerio!!

TTFN
 

Cheers

 

Don

Posted on: 18 May 2013 by Don Atkinson
Originally Posted by winkyincanada:

Try this. Take a little notebook with you in your car. Mark down each time a bicycle impedes your forward progress, and each time another car impedes your forward progress. Perhps try to estimate on any given trip, how much of your time is spent going slower than you'd like because of bikes, and how much is spent going slower because of cars. I'd be interested in the results.

 

As another exerciose, now imagine those pesky, parasitic cyclists in cars instead, adding to the car traffic.

 

Don't forget, you're not "stuck in traffic" you ARE the traffic.

 

It was on that sort of basis that I made my comments above.

 

I tend to travel along country roads and lanes, and its cyclists that cause the slow-downs.

 

Cheers

 

Don

 

Cheers

 

Don

Posted on: 18 May 2013 by Don Atkinson
Originally Posted by winkyincanada:
Originally Posted by Don Atkinson:
....Cyclists per-se, do not pay for the use of space on our roads....

That must be the reason that so many motorists try to physically and violently remove me from the road with their 2-tonne metal battle-cages.

I am very aware of and considerate towards cyclists and would never put any cyclist at risk. If i'm late, i'm late, and they don't irritate me at all.

 

But as described above, they are parasites when it comes to road usage.

 

Cheers

 

Don

 


 

Posted on: 18 May 2013 by Don Atkinson
Originally Posted by winkyincanada:
Originally Posted by mista h:
 

 

 

Great photo Winky.now thats what i call a PROPA traffic jam. I promise never to moan about London traffic ever again.

 

Mista H

I should come clean and admit that this traffic jam is actually being caused by two cyclists a bit further up the road riding two abreast. If those free-loading parasites would just get out of the damn way, the cars would flow freely.

Come on winky, you know full well that its really the Lion Gate bridge that you cross each day and the tidal flow system has been set in the wrong direction. You are being far too polite to say so.

 

Cheers

 

Don

Posted on: 18 May 2013 by Don Atkinson
Originally Posted by Huwge:
From Wikipedia, so probably not true
"Since 1937 roads have been funded from general taxation with all motoring duties, including VAT, being paid directly to the Treasury.[18]"
 
A bicyclist pays VAT when he buys stuff so surely he / she is contributing to the general pot?
 Yes we know. But motorists pay VAT on everything they buy as well, so that's a quid-pro-quo. Motorists pay about £40bn pa in motor-related taxes and the government spen on roads is only £10bn pa. Cyclist pay bugger all, but use the roads.
 
Wear and tear on highway: cyclist + bike ca. 100 kg vs. family car 1500 kg
Cars don't damage roads. HGVs cause the damage, together with the weather.
 
Just back from a nice 40 km ride on my bike
 Well done!
 

 

Cheers

 

Don

Posted on: 18 May 2013 by Agricola

The parasitic accusation is quite funny!

 

All cyclists, Don? Really?

 

Surely some must be making a contribution, such as those, including myself who make a monthly voluntary gift to the CTC [Cycle Touring Club of GB] to maintain and improve cycle paths, thus alleviating the congestion of the vehicular roads, by creating and maintaining satisfactory pedestrian and cycle paths?

 

Quite apart from the point about general taxation.

 

But your stated disapproval of cyclists is held by a significant proportion of motorists, and unfortunately road rage is something that one does see.

 

I ride a cycle assuming every motorist is a careless idiot, or worse, a potential manslaughter-ist. Thus I stay alive. Okay this approach is actually far too defensive with 99 % of motoriists

 

But it is a learned response after two accidents caused by incompetent and careless drivers in eighteen months.

 

My view of cars is not a kindly one now, is widely shared among both cyclists. I think this divide is likely to grow till we get the kind of legislation that is found in countries like Holland, where the driver is far more seen as being responsible in the event of a cycle-motor collision. As the outcome of this sort of legislation is to propagate far better standards of driving - which is where the problem lies in the main - it follows that the alienation of cyclists and motorists falls!

 

That is called a win-win situation.

 

Farmer

Posted on: 18 May 2013 by fatcat

I'm in total agreement with you Don.

 

I'm surprised you've limited your criticism to cyclists. What about pedestrians. I'm pretty sure given their large number compared to cyclists they actually clock up more miles per day on the roads than cyclist.

 

Most of them won't be paying road tax, if they had a car they obviously wouldn't be wasting there time walking about. 

 

And as for zebra and pelican crossings, what a ballache.

 

I nearly got out of my car the other day to punch a lollipop man. He'd stopped the traffic, not to let children cross as he's supposed to, but a bloke in his seventies. REDICULOUS.

Posted on: 18 May 2013 by winkyincanada
Originally Posted by winkyincanada:

 

This traffic jam is because they removed a section of car lane to make bike lane (which was paid for by motorists).

Oh, and the smog is caused by flatulent cyclists.

Posted on: 18 May 2013 by DrMark

A guy tells us that someone vandalized his car, and a cry out for some empathy degenerates into one of the most inane back and forth exchanges ever seen on this forum.

Posted on: 18 May 2013 by Tony2011

Mark,

 

Should not have left the back door open.... they are all over the place. Run for your life!

Fun for a while and then  it gets reaaaaaaaaaally boring!

I feel your pain...

 

Tony

Posted on: 18 May 2013 by winkyincanada
Originally Posted by DrMark:

A guy tells us that someone vandalized his car, and a cry out for some empathy degenerates into one of the most inane back and forth exchanges ever seen on this forum.

Posted on: 18 May 2013 by TomK
Originally Posted by winkyincanada:
Originally Posted by DrMark:

A guy tells us that someone vandalized his car, and a cry out for some empathy degenerates into one of the most inane back and forth exchanges ever seen on this forum.

Don't get it.

Posted on: 18 May 2013 by winkyincanada
Originally Posted by TomK:
Originally Posted by winkyincanada:
Originally Posted by DrMark:

A guy tells us that someone vandalized his car, and a cry out for some empathy degenerates into one of the most inane back and forth exchanges ever seen on this forum.

Don't get it.

Nobody is forced to read it. Commenting on the "quality" of a thread is inane by definition. I was laughing at the irony.

 

As for "empathy", the OP has received plenty.

Posted on: 19 May 2013 by Don Atkinson
Originally Posted by Agricola:

All cyclists, Don? Really?

 

Surely some must be making a contribution, such as those, including myself who make a monthly voluntary gift to the CTC [Cycle Touring Club of GB] to maintain and improve cycle paths, thus alleviating the congestion of the vehicular roads, by creating and maintaining satisfactory pedestrian and cycle paths?

 

We all make a contribution, but motorists contribute £40 bn pa through motoring taxes whilst the government use only £10 bn for new roads and maintenance. Cyclists should pay whaterver is needed to fund an independent cycle network where they would be safe. The CTC funding is a (small) step in the right direction but nowhere near enough.

 

But your stated disapproval of cyclists is held by a significant proportion of motorists, and unfortunately road rage is something that one does see.

My dissaproval extends only so far as their disproprtionately large occupancy factor and disproportionately low contribution towards costs, plus their somwhat beligerant demands for motorist to shoulder all the consequential blame for accidents. 

 

I am very aware of cyclists and their exposure to risk and consequential harm. I take great care to ensure I do not put them at risk.

 

I ride a cycle assuming every motorist is a careless idiot, or worse, a potential manslaughter-ist. Thus I stay alive. Okay this approach is actually far too defensive with 99 % of motoriists

I would do the same.

 

My view of cars is not a kindly one now, is widely shared among both cyclists. I think this divide is likely to grow till we get the kind of legislation that is found in countries like Holland, where the driver is far more seen as being responsible in the event of a cycle-motor collision. As the outcome of this sort of legislation is to propagate far better standards of driving - which is where the problem lies in the main - it follows that the alienation of cyclists and motorists falls!

 

Separate cycle-highways for cyclists, funded by cyclists. Simple and fair.

 

Cheers

 

Don

Posted on: 19 May 2013 by Don Atkinson
Originally Posted by fatcat:

I'm in total agreement with you Don.

 

I'm surprised you've limited your criticism to cyclists. What about pedestrians. I'm pretty sure given their large number compared to cyclists they actually clock up more miles per day on the roads than cyclist.

 

Most of them won't be paying road tax, if they had a car they obviously wouldn't be wasting there time walking about. 

 

And as for zebra and pelican crossings, what a ballache.

 

I nearly got out of my car the other day to punch a lollipop man. He'd stopped the traffic, not to let children cross as he's supposed to, but a bloke in his seventies. REDICULOUS.

I don't think we actually are in agreement !

 

I think zebra crossings are a good thing and I would never consider punching a lollipop man whether he was helping children or OAPs.

 

But 99% (that is a figure of speech) of society is paying general taxes which fund our pavements and crossings. If 99% of society were cycling, then I would agree that it would be fair to provide cycle highways etc out of central taxation. Of course, the government would then raise tax on cycle purchase and cycle use - (of course they would !!!!!.)

 

Cheers

 

Don

Posted on: 19 May 2013 by Agricola

The Government would then raise taxation of cycle purchases.

 

Dear Don,

 

What is VAT then? Do cycles and cycles spares have a VAT exemption? Nobody seems to have informed my cycle shop!

 

The saving to the public purse resulting from the activity of cycling, on or off the highway, are so significant that the balance is thought to be that nothing at all should be done to discourage cycling, such a beneficial activity it is. Think of all the non-obese cyclist not costing the public funded NHS to treat heart disease and diabetes. Even my cycling saved the NHS having to provide physiotherapy after a careless motorist collided with me by driving in an inattentive fashion, because I started to ride the cycle the same day I was allowed to weight bear on my leg, just six weeks after eight inch vertical fracture in my tibia running right into the knee joint. Cycling did everything that specialists could have done for me as a couch potato!

 

The issue is certainly more nuanced than your understanding of it.

 

And what about those pesky high efficiency cars that are zero road fund tax rated, surely they are just as bad as cyclist, free-loading their way onto the highway!

 

ATB from Farmer

 

Posted on: 19 May 2013 by Don Atkinson
Originally Posted by Agricola:

The Government would then raise taxation of cycle purchases.

 

Dear Don,

 

What is VAT then? Do cycles and cycles spares have a VAT exemption? Nobody seems to have informed my cycle shop!

 

If that covers the cost of a safe, independent cycle highway system, fine. (but it doesn't)

 

The saving to the public purse resulting from the activity of cycling, on or off the highway, are so significant that the balance is thought to be that nothing at all should be done to discourage cycling, such a beneficial activity it is. Think of all the non-obese cyclist not costing the public funded NHS to treat heart disease and diabetes. Even my cycling saved the NHS having to provide physiotherapy after a careless motorist collided with me by driving in an inattentive fashion, because I started to ride the cycle the same day I was allowed to weight bear on my leg. Cycling did everything that specialists could have done for me as a couch potato!

 

The issue is certainly more nuanced than your understanding of it.

No it isn't,  the basic fact is that cyclists don't pay for their proportionate occupancy of roads. They expect mostorists to shoulder the blame when they come to grief.

 

And what about those pesky high efficiency cars that are zero road fund tax rated, surely they are just as bad as cyclist, free-loading their way onto the highway!

Agreed.

 

 

Cheers

 

Don

Posted on: 19 May 2013 by Agricola

Dear Don,

 

I simply refute your notion that the highway should be the exclusive preserve of motorised transport.

 

I do not accept that as notion for the future, and will not in the future. If I want to continue to use the highway as and when I choose as a working, above averagely healthy [because of cycling] person, then I will fight tooth and claw to retain the status quo with respects to the granted privilege to use the Queen's Highway.

 

It is a myopic position to take to want to ban cyclist from the highway, simply because you don't think they pay enough taxes! And those bright enough to buy zero road fund tax vehicles are to be applauded for helping preserve the environment. If you are so daft as to continue running a vehicle that pays high road fund duty then the more fool, you!

 

ATB from Farmer

Posted on: 19 May 2013 by Steve J

You're giving yourself away George. I trust you are keeping well.

 

ATB

 

Steve

Posted on: 19 May 2013 by Agricola

Plus you ignored my point about the benefits of cycling so I assume you agree with me that every thing should be done to encourage even more cyclists, presumably also on the road, as there will never be a complete doubling of roads with dedicated cycle and foot paths.

 

ATB from Farmer

Posted on: 19 May 2013 by Agricola

Dear Doctor Steve,

 

I am fine and dandy, thank you for asking, but I am not who you think! I expect George will show his hand again when he is entirely ready!

 

It may be in a surprising way. And I hope that you are also keeping well!

 

Best wishes from Farmer   

Posted on: 19 May 2013 by Steve J

Say no more Farmer.