Cyclist threatened by driver, cops do nothing.

[franglais]

As 'road tax' has been used as vernacular for 74 years after it was abolished the campaign won't convert common-or-garden militant motorists. Nothing will.

 

However, a lot of the 'road tax' argument is unthinking. Blissful ignorance, in the main. My main target is to get motoring organisations, police forces, HMRC, DirectGov, MPs and others to call the duty by its proper name. There's no excuse for official bodies to call VED 'road tax' yet all of those mentioned have done so.

 

DVLA used to run TV ads with the phrase 'road tax'. It now doesn't.

 

When people hear 'car tax' over and over again, from official organisations, it will start to become as normal as 'road tax'.

 

Now, this won't stop some drivers from being aggressive towards cyclists but it removes part of the anti-cyclist argument.

 

 

Hmmm.....it does not matter what the name for the tax is.

It could be called Humprey tax for all I care. However, if I need to pay a huge tax bill to use the road whilst others do not I shall always feel that I am subsidising them to the extent where I have right of way.

[Space]

I've no idea

 

At least we agree on something..

[Swan_Vesta]

I've no idea, but you did use it to describe Martin Porter QC, and you've since admitted you have no evidence to back up your allegations.

 

>Right, risk assess the nearest wall. Sturdy? Well built? Good. Apply repeated head banging in line with accepted risk assessments<

 

If it's the accepted definition by me and my profession then how is it an allegation? You're a very silly person spinny if you can't see this.

[spindrift]

That's insurance companies for you, since they are the ones who fought the case and forced the costs.

 

There is nothing there to say Mr Porter acted unethically, as you claimed.

 

The judge agreed and awarded the costs, so it's not just me thinking you're talking out of your hat.

 

It's quite common for large organisations to launch futile and costly battles against relatively trivial claims.

 

Mr Porter won the case, the costs were caused by the actions of the insurance company.

 

 

So, claiming that Mr Porter is unethical is false and untrue, you appear to have an irrational prejudice against any lawyer because of your own experience, which is very sad, but doesn't justify making bogus claims about a person's professional standing.

[retep]

Hang on a second: "But Sir Anthony said it was "a gloomy feature" of the case that Mrs Slevin's lawyers' bills come to £120,000 - more than 40 times the value of her award."

 

You think that's ethical? What planet are you on?

 

Not the same one as her QC, otherwise i'd be very wealthy,

 

 

"Mr Martin Porter QC, for Mrs Slevin, said it was "unfortunate" there had been no pre-trial offer by the defendants to settle her case. He added that she had had to take her claim to court in order to win any compensation at all for her injuries."

[spindrift]

if I need to pay a huge tax bill to use the road whilst others do not .

 

 

Once again, why do you think cyclists pay no tax?

 

Judging from your inability to follow a straightforward argument I'm pretty confident my tax bill is considerably higher than yours, does that give me MORE right to use the roads?

 

Of course not.

 

The roads were there before cars and cyclists, we don't have a "beer tax" for pubs or a "hospital tax" for hospitals, we just have direct and indirect taxation that goes into the pot, and an Emissions Tax for cars, gradated.

[Swan_Vesta]

That's insurance companies for you, since they are the ones who fought the case and forced the costs.

 

There is nothing there to say Mr Porter acted unethically, as you claimed.

 

The judge agreed and awarded the costs, so it's not just me thinking you're talking out of your hat.

 

It's quite common for large organisations to launch futile and costly battles against relatively trivial claims.

 

Mr Porter won the case, the costs were caused by the actions of the insurance company.

 

 

So, claiming that Mr Porter is unethical is false and untrue, you appear to have an irrational prejudice against any lawyer because of your own experience, which is very sad, but doesn't justify making bogus claims about a person's professional standing.

 

Have I said that spinny? I asked if you thought that was ethical. Accept that your argument is nonsensical and your continued attempts to muddy the waters are just the thrashings of a beaten man.

[franglais]

Once again, why do you think cyclists pay no tax?

 

Judging from your inability to follow a straightforward argument I'm pretty confident my tax bill is considerably higher than yours, does that give me MORE right to use the roads?

 

Of course not.

 

The roads were there before cars and cyclists, we don't have a "beer tax" for pubs or a "hospital tax" for hospitals, we just have direct and indirect taxation that goes into the pot, and an Emissions Tax for cars, gradated.

 

 

I see. Your argument is that people who drive cars should not pay a tax to use the roads. I agree with you. When this becomes law I promise that I shall treat cyclists on my roads with respect.

[Swan_Vesta]

Not the same one as her QC, otherwise i'd be very wealthy,

 

 

"Mr Martin Porter QC, for Mrs Slevin, said it was "unfortunate" there had been no pre-trial offer by the defendants to settle her case. He added that she had had to take her claim to court in order to win any compensation at all for her injuries."

 

Apologies retep, that remark was meant for our dearly deluded spinny

[spindrift]

Do you think people with higher tax bills should have special lanes cleared for them on motorways?

 

Paved with gold, perhaps?