Paying Road Tax!

Hoopdriver

Kieran_Burns wrote:

Ignoring the toys being thrown around by the stroppy developer over there :P hasn't it occurred to anyone that all these people have the argument entirely backwards?

These are Public Highways. They are paid for to be used by the public for means of getting around. As such pedestrians, cyclists and horse-riders have a right to use them as they have paid for them.

Drivers of motorised vehicles are allowed on these public highways under sufferance. This is the literal definition of 'under license': you're being allowed to use the public highways. To earn that license (and I'm NOT talking about the piece of paper: that's just a 'certificate' to show you've earned your license to use a motor vehicle on the public highway)

Actually, I think clarifying the definition of license is in order here:
li·cense (lsns)
n.
1.
a. Official or legal permission to do or own a specified thing.
b. A document, plate, or tag that is issued as proof of official or legal permission: a driver's license.
2. Deviation from normal rules, practices, or methods in order to achieve a certain end or effect.
3. Latitude of action, especially in behavior or speech.

I am referring to point 1 in my argument.

Anyone can use the public highways, we have that right as individuals; but to use a motorised vehicle on our highways you need to ask permission and prove you are capable of doing so.

So anyone driving a motor vehicle should have the attitude that they are using someone elses roads, they are there under sufferance. This is why pedestrians have right of way when they have started crossing a junction: the motorised vehicle has to wait for them. (rule 170 highway code), this is why the motorists should look on pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders as the priority on the roads as they have the right to be there, the motorist doesn't.

So you see: the whole argument being proferred by these people bellowing "get off our roads" is backwards. You should respond "They're ours!" If nothing else it'll shut 'em up for long enough to allow you get away.

I might just post a variant of this post up on Scoobynet and see what happens....

I think you should.

You raise a lot of good points.

The issue certainly merits more serious treatment than I gave it in my blog post, which was, as I say, just a light-hearted essay prompted by my getting a fit of the giggles as I rode home, picturing in my mind's eye this clown in the Peugeot and others like him actually paying a non-existent tax to somebody.

The notion of 'road tax' matters because the sense of entitlement it seems to engender in motorists and the idea that cyclists are somehow tax-dodging freeloaders who more or less deserve what they get.

PBo

CiB wrote:

Hoopdriver wrote:

CiB wrote:

PBo wrote:

asquithea wrote:

TL;DR. At least, you didn't get to the point within the first two paragraphs...

Crickey! Tough crowd.

Look, this is just a forum, you aren't examining him.

Fine, don't read it, with your gnat's attention span, but why make such an uncharitable post?

I liked it.....

I posted TLDR on the CS version. It was / is. It takes half a dozen paragraphs of waffle to get to the point and is written in that awful smug condescending language all to get to a point that's been made on here a million times. If he'd been writing about not having a knitting licence most of us would have dismissed it out of hand; just because it's "talking our language" doesn't mean it automatically has to be given a 10/10. That'd only encourage the fellah to do more.

Each to their own. If you like that sort of prose bookmark his blog. If it was submitted for inclusion in a newspaper though I reckon it'd be spiked at first read. YMMV. Personal view only. And I'm sure he's a nice chap.

Hi CIB

You know, for a guy who supposedly hated the post you've spent an awful lot of your valuable time commenting and writing critiques on it - in fact I daresay you've spent more time mulling over it, brooding upon it, resenting it and critiquing it than I spent writing the damn thing. I suppose I should feel flattered to have caught your attention and involved you so deeply in what, frankly, was just a light-hearted essay.

In terms of 'encouraging the fella' to do more, well, chum, you're a bit late on that one. I've been a journalist for nearly thirty years now, magazines mainly - Time, National Geographic, Conde Nast, Nature - and what's more I expect to continue for quite some time yet, both in print and blog form. And although I have won many national and international awards in the course of my career, the encouragement I get to do more comes from the enjoyment I derive from writing and photography - and lately, from the many positive comments I receive about my blog.

If that troubles you, get over it.

Cheers - and have a nice day.

Oh FFS. First off I could happily point a shotgun at anybody who strolls into my office today and blow their stupid skull to smithereens, so excuse me if I'm a bit less than charitable.

I haven't spent any time mulling over it; you got a TLDR over on CS as that's what I thought it was worth; then I noticed on here a snide comment that suggested that if anyone found it too long they must have the attention span of a gnat. That's what triggered me to spend all of 30 seconds knocking out that response above, and now I feel like wasting another 48 seconds to do this.

If you're that good - you clearly are according to errr... you - why churn out 6th form nonsense like that road tax attempt? Give us something exciting, gripping, enticing.

Like I said. I thought it was tosh and said so. Feel free to rip the SC Stats board to shreds as a riposte if you want.

Right. Who's got my gun?

Hope you've put the gun away because I'm coming back at this.
This may be the Interwebz, the home of the opinionated, the pedants, the zealots and the mouthbreathers (hey, that's why I'm here!) but to bother to log on to comment TLDR is not far removed from being a daily mail reader complaining about Ross and brand. If you DR because it's TL then fine, but it is churlish to comment. Just leave it! It's not like you had to do a comprehension exercise on it to be allowed to come on BR. Anyway, my comment was aimed at the other poster - at least you commented on the issue at hand quite lengthily. But my comment was snide, and deliberately so. One might not have liked the style, but if one thinks several paragraphs is too long, then you must have a short attention span! Anyway CiB, to offer the crushing review you did, you must have read it!

Hope you are having a better day and I'm safe from shotgun pellets....

greg66_tri_v2.0

Kieran_Burns wrote:

Ignoring the toys being thrown around by the stroppy developer over there :P hasn't it occurred to anyone that all these people have the argument entirely backwards?

These are Public Highways. They are paid for to be used by the public for means of getting around. As such pedestrians, cyclists and horse-riders have a right to use them as they have paid for them.

Drivers of motorised vehicles are allowed on these public highways under sufferance. This is the literal definition of 'under license': you're being allowed to use the public highways. To earn that license (and I'm NOT talking about the piece of paper: that's just a 'certificate' to show you've earned your license to use a motor vehicle on the public highway)

Actually, I think clarifying the definition of license is in order here:
li·cense (lsns)
n.
1.
a. Official or legal permission to do or own a specified thing.
b. A document, plate, or tag that is issued as proof of official or legal permission: a driver's license.
2. Deviation from normal rules, practices, or methods in order to achieve a certain end or effect.
3. Latitude of action, especially in behavior or speech.

I am referring to point 1 in my argument.

Anyone can use the public highways, we have that right as individuals; but to use a motorised vehicle on our highways you need to ask permission and prove you are capable of doing so.

So anyone driving a motor vehicle should have the attitude that they are using someone elses roads, they are there under sufferance. This is why pedestrians have right of way when they have started crossing a junction: the motorised vehicle has to wait for them. (rule 170 highway code), this is why the motorists should look on pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders as the priority on the roads as they have the right to be there, the motorist doesn't.

So you see: the whole argument being proferred by these people bellowing "get off our roads" is backwards. You should respond "They're ours!" If nothing else it'll shut 'em up for long enough to allow you get away.

I might just post a variant of this post up on Scoobynet and see what happens....

Hmm. Been using an American dictionary again?

In British English, "license" is the verb*, and "licence" is the noun. Eg "I went to the licensing authority to collect my licence".

Same goes for practise/practice. Easy test is to replace with advise/advice to see whether c or s is correct.


*It seems that in British English, "licence" is an accepted variant for the verb. Never seen it used though.

clarkey cat

there is a colonel of truth in what you say

Hoopdriver

clarkey cat wrote:

there is a colonel of truth in what you say

Ther's a kernel of strewth in all of this.

With so many DIY grammarians about perhaps we should start a Girls-who-don't-qualify-their-gerunds-with-a-possessive thread.

It would be the talk of Cake Stop

Kieran_Burns

Greg66 wrote:

Hmm. Been using an American dictionary again?

In British English, "license" is the verb*, and "licence" is the noun. Eg "I went to the licensing authority to collect my licence".

Same goes for practise/practice. Easy test is to replace with advise/advice to see whether c or s is correct.


*It seems that in British English, "licence" is an accepted variant for the verb. Never seen it used though.

Shut up smart arse - bloody auto correct spazzed out..... mutter mutter.....

CiB

PBo wrote:

Hope you've put the gun away because I'm coming back at this.
This may be the Interwebz, the home of the opinionated, the pedants, the zealots and the mouthbreathers (hey, that's why I'm here!) but to bother to log on to comment TLDR is not far removed from being a daily mail reader complaining about Ross and brand. If you DR because it's TL then fine, but it is churlish to comment. Just leave it! It's not like you had to do a comprehension exercise on it to be allowed to come on BR. Anyway, my comment was aimed at the other poster - at least you commented on the issue at hand quite lengthily. But my comment was snide, and deliberately so. One might not have liked the style, but if one thinks several paragraphs is too long, then you must have a short attention span! Anyway CiB, to offer the crushing review you did, you must have read it!

Hope you are having a better day and I'm safe from shotgun pellets....

Ok - I confess to a bit of licence. TLDR implies the meaning of the acronym; reality is [gasp] I did read it, and found it cloyingly smug & verbose hence the TLDR. It was shorthand and I really didn't expect to have to defend it in court. And for the record it wasn't the length per se that did for me, it was the pre-emotive waffle about Nigerian scams. If you must make a tortuous analogy get to the point fairly quickly at least.

As for logging on just to make a 4 letter comment, come on. Who doesn't keep their log in active? Go to BR and post at will. Unlucky if you happen to be Will I suppose.

Anyway, gun is safely away with empty barrels. Don't look under my patio though. X x.

Hoopdriver

What does pre-emotive mean?

CiB

Hoopdriver wrote:

What does pre-emotive mean?

It means pre-emptive adjusted for correctness by iPad's built in auto-fark corrective behaviour gubbins. Pre-empt. Is that a hyphenated word? Wanders off to check...

CRAIGO5000

CiB wrote:

Hoopdriver wrote:

What does pre-emotive mean?

It means pre-emptive

What does pre-emptive mean?

EKE_38BPM

CRAIGO5000 wrote:

CiB wrote:

Hoopdriver wrote:

What does pre-emotive mean?

It means pre-emptive

What does pre-emptive mean?

Acting before the thing that you are reacting to happens. e.g. a pre-emptive strike is me punching you in the chops before you pull your gun to shoot me.

Americanisms/dodgy grammar aside, Kieran's post was brilliant. I rate it at two seals.

asquithea

PBo wrote:

... but to bother to log on to comment TLDR is not far removed from being a daily mail reader complaining about Ross and brand. If you DR because it's TL then fine, but it is churlish to comment. Just leave it! It's not like you had to do a comprehension exercise on it to be allowed to come on BR. Anyway, my comment was aimed at the other poster - at least you commented on the issue at hand quite lengthily.

Since you're singling me out, I don't see why it's unreasonable to leave a review when someone drops in and leaves a link; everyone else did. Personally, I like to know whether a linked article is likely to be worth my time. This one wasn't.

By comparison, see this blog entry on the Guardian website: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/b ... x-confused

Better written, better sourced, and gets to the point without paragraphs of rambling.

Kieran_Burns

edited my original post after explaining which side of the Atlantic we're on to my spill chucker....

veronese68

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Americanisms/dodgy grammar aside, Kieran's post was brilliant. I rate it at two seals.

I cannot tell you how relieved I am that picture was of actual seals.

Cunobelin

Don't argue, just agree fully.....

I had this with a colleague who drives a Ford Focus.

Just asked if I had understood him correctly that as he paid more road tax than a cyclist that he had more rights and they should not get in his way?

Then followed up with the suggestion that in that case as I pay more Road Tax than him (he is in VED BAnd C/D and my Nissan in VED Band K) .... then by his argument I have more rights than him and he should be getting out of my way on the roads.

Somehow that wasn't received well, and apparently how much you pay is irrelevant.

rick_chasey

If they believe in the road tax thing, an argument about 'road tax not exisiting, but it's about emissions etc' between a car window and you isn't going to work.

If people say anything, igonre them, and let them get on their way. They're just not very bright. They probably can't help it. At worst, pity them.

Hoopdriver

Rick Chasey wrote:

If they believe in the road tax thing, an argument about 'road tax not exisiting, but it's about emissions etc' between a car window and you isn't going to work.

If people say anything, igonre them, and let them get on their way. They're just not very bright. They probably can't help it. At worst, pity them.

I think you're right.

It's like they say around the barnyard, there's no point wrestling with a pig - you get covered with s**t and the pig loves it.

Jay dubbleU

Hoopdriver wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

If they believe in the road tax thing, an argument about 'road tax not exisiting, but it's about emissions etc' between a car window and you isn't going to work.

If people say anything, igonre them, and let them get on their way. They're just not very bright. They probably can't help it. At worst, pity them.

I think you're right.

It's like they say around the barnyard, there's no point wrestling with a pig - you get covered with s**t and the pig loves it.

Nicely put

Kieran_Burns

So far so good over on SN... only a couple of trolls, and one genius post which had me laughing like a loon

PBo

well for god's sake share it, man! I feel the need to laugh like a loon too!

Kieran_Burns

http://bbs.scoobynet.com/non-scooby-rel ... roads.html is the thread

and:

I just ride my bike solely to piss car drivers off and get in the way, I love to display my big gay bum in "Spandex" so they get all excited, I spend all the money I save on "Road Tax" and lights on Vaseline and more Spandex. Cycle lanes are a pain as it means if I use them I cant show my buttocks off like an in Season Baboon and really get in the way like I want to, I sometimes get some of my bum chums to come out for a ride and we all ride, 200 abreast like a big gay chorus line, all massive middle aged male saggy arses with a good view of dangly aging scrotum for good measure, jibbing on and off the pavement with impunity and flying through red lights oblivious to the danger, relying on the impeccable reactions of drivers, so highly trained and vigilant they are.

I love to annoy the honest white van man, the upstanding and selfless Q7 driver and the considerate L200 pick up owner.

So nerr nerr ne nerr nerr you sad acts, you have to put up with my antics and there is nothing you can do about it, im off to ride round with no insurance, no tax, no lights and maybe no pants like they do in London sometimes, might start an anti car demo and bring the place to gridlock.

is the post

PBo

asquithea wrote:

PBo wrote:

... but to bother to log on to comment TLDR is not far removed from being a daily mail reader complaining about Ross and brand. If you DR because it's TL then fine, but it is churlish to comment. Just leave it! It's not like you had to do a comprehension exercise on it to be allowed to come on BR. Anyway, my comment was aimed at the other poster - at least you commented on the issue at hand quite lengthily.

Since you're singling me out, I don't see why it's unreasonable to leave a review when someone drops in and leaves a link; everyone else did. Personally, I like to know whether a linked article is likely to be worth my time. This one wasn't.

By comparison, see this blog entry on the Guardian website: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/b ... x-confused

Better written, better sourced, and gets to the point without paragraphs of rambling.

Look, sorry mate, I'm not going to read that piece, because this is a bike site, not LitCrit 101 and the original piece was posted because of the cycling issue, which is familiar to us all. I seriously doubt, given his credentials, that the OP needs affirmation of his work's quality from us, he was just adding to the debate in his own way. I was only an effing blog post anyway, so I'm not going to compare it to something on a national newspaper's website.

I know that everyone else offered their opinion on the piece, and I am in no way saying that everyone had to like it - but everyone else then debated the cycling issue. I still think its a bit churlish to bother posting TLDR....so there you go.

The only other person to not really discuss the road the tax side of things was ......er....me! just too busy defending standards of politeness on the interwebz (now where's my hair shirt.....)

EKE_38BPM

For the stirling work being done behind enemy lines by Kieran on the Scooby site, I award him the Special Forces Seal.

veronese68

Kieran_Burns wrote:

So far so good over on SN... only a couple of trolls, and one genius post which had me laughing like a loon

Well done KB, most of them are quite reasonable. A couple of them really are a complete waste of skin though. True of most places people gather, on t'interweb or in real life I suppose.

sfichele

This guy's post made me laugh.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=51310285#post51310285

rjsterry

He's on here too isn't he?

Kieran_Burns

sfichele wrote:

This guy's post made me laugh.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=51310285#post51310285

I might just copy that into SN.... if anyone else mentions Road Tax.

veronese68

sfichele wrote:

This guy's post made me laugh.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=51310285#post51310285

That post is wonderful, he's (or she's) my hero.

asquithea

Veronese68 wrote:

sfichele wrote:

This guy's post made me laugh.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=51310285#post51310285

That post is wonderful, he's (or she's) my hero.

+1 epic

That's a really nice response. Shame it's a bit long and difficult to describe from a bike - maybe we could get a flyer printed up that cyclists could pass/chuck at a driver through their window?

PBo

Veronese68 wrote:

sfichele wrote:

This guy's post made me laugh.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=51310285#post51310285

That post is wonderful, he's (or she's) my hero.

Nah, TLDR.....

Joke!!!!!
Love it. The picture of "your car" made me laugh. Made me think of Newman and Baddiel's "history today".

"you see that red car, there? The crappy lada"
"you mean with the tacky flame graphic?"
"yes that one"
"I am familiar with it's existence"
"that's your favourite ever car, that is"