£7million revamp for Southend's Tesco roundabout

7:30am Wednesday 13th March 2013 in News

How the new junction might look How the new junction might look

A BOTTLENECK roundabout on the A127 will be bulldozed and replaced with traffic lights under new proposals.

The Echo can reveal Southend Council wants to axe the current format of the Tesco’s roundabout, one of the major junctions on the main route into the town.

The authority is planning to spend £7million adding five extra lanes and using lights to control the traffic - and the work could happen within 18 months.

Paul Mathieson, the council’s group manager for strategic transport, said: “The proposed improvement is part of a package of measures that must be delivered to ensure the A127, which is a vital artery for the economic well-being of Southend, is able to cater for the demands placed on it as a driver for economic growth.

“The expected outcome of the scheme will be to support the creation of 7,000 new jobs and the construction of 1,785 new houses by 2021.

“This will be achieved by removing the pinch point of the Tesco roundabout, which results in delays and therefore unreliable journey times during the peak hours.”

Council chiefs outlined their intention to rework the Tesco’s roundabout and two other bottleneck A127 junctions - Kent Elms and the Bell - late last year.

However, no details had been released about the scheme until now.

The new-look junction will double the number of lanes for traffic coming into Southend from two to four, with extra lanes also added for motorists leaving Tesco or arriving from Nestuda Way.

Traffic light controls will stop one flow of traffic dominating another, with sensors used to detect the size of queues in each direction and prioritise certain lanes accordingly.

Bosses estimate the changes will shave at least two minutes off drivers’ commutes during the morning and evening rush hours, as well as helping to stop shoppers becoming trapped in the supermarket’s car park.

However, motorists do face at least six months of roadworks misery if the project goes ahead.

They hope to secure at least two-thirds of the costs of the scheme - about £5million - from the Government.

If the bid is successful, work would get under way in April next year and finish by the end of January 2015.

Similar revamps of Kent Elms and the Bell will follow at some point between April 2015 and March 2019.

Comments (140)

7:48am Wed 13 Mar 13

apapa palm says...

Oh dear ! brown envelopes and back hand brigade will be out in force for this white elephant. Hospitals and schools are more needy, not polluting car drivers.(Get a bus or train). Government and council meant to be skint ???
Oh dear ! brown envelopes and back hand brigade will be out in force for this white elephant. Hospitals and schools are more needy, not polluting car drivers.(Get a bus or train). Government and council meant to be skint ??? apapa palm

7:55am Wed 13 Mar 13

Muttles says...

More jobs for the boys: more waste of money: more unnecessary comgjestion: the Council Employees must have so much of our money to fritter away and so much time on their hands to come up with yet another unwanted change. If it works don't leave it alone: it does.
More jobs for the boys: more waste of money: more unnecessary comgjestion: the Council Employees must have so much of our money to fritter away and so much time on their hands to come up with yet another unwanted change. If it works don't leave it alone: it does. Muttles

7:57am Wed 13 Mar 13

Muttles says...

More jobs for the boys: more waste of money: more unnecessary comgjestion: the Council Employees must have so much of our money to fritter away and so much time on their hands to come up with yet another unwanted change. If it works don't leave it alone: it does.
More jobs for the boys: more waste of money: more unnecessary comgjestion: the Council Employees must have so much of our money to fritter away and so much time on their hands to come up with yet another unwanted change. If it works don't leave it alone: it does. Muttles

8:06am Wed 13 Mar 13

Devilish82 says...

£7 million to save 2 minutes. Isn't that a little it extreme?

If they are going to acquire £5 - 7 million to spend on roads, surely they could put it to better use by filling in pot hole, fixing pavements and making what is already in place better for people to use.
£7 million to save 2 minutes. Isn't that a little it extreme? If they are going to acquire £5 - 7 million to spend on roads, surely they could put it to better use by filling in pot hole, fixing pavements and making what is already in place better for people to use. Devilish82

8:31am Wed 13 Mar 13

Russ13 says...

Devilish82 wrote:
£7 million to save 2 minutes. Isn't that a little it extreme? If they are going to acquire £5 - 7 million to spend on roads, surely they could put it to better use by filling in pot hole, fixing pavements and making what is already in place better for people to use.
Are you really that short-sighted.......
.. 2 minutes multiplied by the hundreds of thousands who use the routed everyday over the course of months/years.

Having said that, this will be a useless piece of work until they do something with the Bell and/or Kent Elms as they will become the new bottlenecks.
[quote][p][bold]Devilish82[/bold] wrote: £7 million to save 2 minutes. Isn't that a little it extreme? If they are going to acquire £5 - 7 million to spend on roads, surely they could put it to better use by filling in pot hole, fixing pavements and making what is already in place better for people to use.[/p][/quote]Are you really that short-sighted....... .. 2 minutes multiplied by the hundreds of thousands who use the routed everyday over the course of months/years. Having said that, this will be a useless piece of work until they do something with the Bell and/or Kent Elms as they will become the new bottlenecks. Russ13

8:32am Wed 13 Mar 13

Realworld says...

Update the junction SBC if you feel the need to waste £7m however PLEASE do NOT install traffic lights!!!! These have been an unmitigated disater at Cuckoo Corner and Victoria Plaza where the traffic either gets clogged up all day or avoids the area completely. Roundabouts are designed to allow the free flow of traffic and are usually installed to REPLACE lights!! Only the brain dead at SBC would think this was a good idea. No doubt SBC will "consult" residents..... and then ignore them and **** up the whole area further.....
Update the junction SBC if you feel the need to waste £7m however PLEASE do NOT install traffic lights!!!! These have been an unmitigated disater at Cuckoo Corner and Victoria Plaza where the traffic either gets clogged up all day or avoids the area completely. Roundabouts are designed to allow the free flow of traffic and are usually installed to REPLACE lights!! Only the brain dead at SBC would think this was a good idea. No doubt SBC will "consult" residents..... and then ignore them and **** up the whole area further..... Realworld

8:41am Wed 13 Mar 13

smiffy1980 says...

I for one think its a good idea. Something needs to happen at Strawberry fields during peak hours and for when the summer months come.

Where are all these houses going to go tho ?? Eastwoodbury lane up for sale perhaps ??
I for one think its a good idea. Something needs to happen at Strawberry fields during peak hours and for when the summer months come. Where are all these houses going to go tho ?? Eastwoodbury lane up for sale perhaps ?? smiffy1980

8:54am Wed 13 Mar 13

uncle_jarvis says...

smiffy1980 wrote:
I for one think its a good idea. Something needs to happen at Strawberry fields during peak hours and for when the summer months come.

Where are all these houses going to go tho ?? Eastwoodbury lane up for sale perhaps ??
Agree.

This roundabout often gridlocks (summer days when people are heading to beach, Christmas when Tesco is busy) as the roundabout can't manage the flow properly.

I can't comment on the cost of the work but I seem to recall plenty of people on this very site complaining how bad this roundabout is.
[quote][p][bold]smiffy1980[/bold] wrote: I for one think its a good idea. Something needs to happen at Strawberry fields during peak hours and for when the summer months come. Where are all these houses going to go tho ?? Eastwoodbury lane up for sale perhaps ??[/p][/quote]Agree. This roundabout often gridlocks (summer days when people are heading to beach, Christmas when Tesco is busy) as the roundabout can't manage the flow properly. I can't comment on the cost of the work but I seem to recall plenty of people on this very site complaining how bad this roundabout is. uncle_jarvis

8:57am Wed 13 Mar 13

wagger says...

I hope Tesco will be made to pay for all of this. If not close it down ! We have far to many Tesco stores in the area, and it was recently voted the worst supermarket in the country ! They seem to build wherever they like without councils objecting.
I hope Tesco will be made to pay for all of this. If not close it down ! We have far to many Tesco stores in the area, and it was recently voted the worst supermarket in the country ! They seem to build wherever they like without councils objecting. wagger

9:02am Wed 13 Mar 13

hothead says...

7 million to move some mud and lay tarmac - ridiculous!

Russ13 I think you meen thousands rather than hundreds of thousands who use the route every day.
7 million to move some mud and lay tarmac - ridiculous! Russ13 I think you meen thousands rather than hundreds of thousands who use the route every day. hothead

9:13am Wed 13 Mar 13

smiffy1980 says...

wagger wrote:
I hope Tesco will be made to pay for all of this. If not close it down ! We have far to many Tesco stores in the area, and it was recently voted the worst supermarket in the country ! They seem to build wherever they like without councils objecting.
In the immediate area, there is actually not that many Supermarkets to fullfill the needs of Rochford, Eastwood, parts of westcliff.

The problem is the roundabout and the extra traffic that has built up over the years it simply cannot cope. Airport expansion has not helped matters either.
[quote][p][bold]wagger[/bold] wrote: I hope Tesco will be made to pay for all of this. If not close it down ! We have far to many Tesco stores in the area, and it was recently voted the worst supermarket in the country ! They seem to build wherever they like without councils objecting.[/p][/quote]In the immediate area, there is actually not that many Supermarkets to fullfill the needs of Rochford, Eastwood, parts of westcliff. The problem is the roundabout and the extra traffic that has built up over the years it simply cannot cope. Airport expansion has not helped matters either. smiffy1980

9:23am Wed 13 Mar 13

Ed in says...

Nooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooo
Nooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooo Ed in

9:37am Wed 13 Mar 13

BASILBRUSH says...

Realworld wrote:
Update the junction SBC if you feel the need to waste £7m however PLEASE do NOT install traffic lights!!!! These have been an unmitigated disater at Cuckoo Corner and Victoria Plaza where the traffic either gets clogged up all day or avoids the area completely. Roundabouts are designed to allow the free flow of traffic and are usually installed to REPLACE lights!! Only the brain dead at SBC would think this was a good idea. No doubt SBC will "consult" residents..... and then ignore them and **** up the whole area further.....
I'm sorry, but while I might agree with you about traffic flow at Victoria Circus.
Cuckoo Corner is fantastic now!
I use it everyday and various times of the day. It is a vast, vast improvement now compared to the old roundabout.

The junctions need improving (including The Bell), let the qualified designers get on with it.

Those talking of allocating funds to pot holes, relieving other cut backs in the Council funding.. I understand it doesnt work like that. The money would come from Central government and granted for specific infrastructure projects.
[quote][p][bold]Realworld[/bold] wrote: Update the junction SBC if you feel the need to waste £7m however PLEASE do NOT install traffic lights!!!! These have been an unmitigated disater at Cuckoo Corner and Victoria Plaza where the traffic either gets clogged up all day or avoids the area completely. Roundabouts are designed to allow the free flow of traffic and are usually installed to REPLACE lights!! Only the brain dead at SBC would think this was a good idea. No doubt SBC will "consult" residents..... and then ignore them and **** up the whole area further.....[/p][/quote]I'm sorry, but while I might agree with you about traffic flow at Victoria Circus. Cuckoo Corner is fantastic now! I use it everyday and various times of the day. It is a vast, vast improvement now compared to the old roundabout. The junctions need improving (including The Bell), let the qualified designers get on with it. Those talking of allocating funds to pot holes, relieving other cut backs in the Council funding.. I understand it doesnt work like that. The money would come from Central government and granted for specific infrastructure projects. BASILBRUSH

9:41am Wed 13 Mar 13

DogsMessInLeigh says...

its only a serious bottle neck when the RBS crew escape....other times its acceptable.
its only a serious bottle neck when the RBS crew escape....other times its acceptable. DogsMessInLeigh

9:47am Wed 13 Mar 13

andyh says...

I'm trying to make sense of that image.
First, there seem to be far more lanes into the junction than out of it.
Secondly it is totally unlear as to its orientation relative to the current junction.
Third, it is not clear whether it solves the problem that the present road setup appears to have been deliberately designed to to make access between Tescos and Southbourne/Westbour
ne Groves as difficult* as possible.

* read: round the houses and only if you know the area.

I also hope that any change will not adversely affect Shalynn cattery.
I'm trying to make sense of that image. First, there seem to be far more lanes into the junction than out of it. Secondly it is totally unlear as to its orientation relative to the current junction. Third, it is not clear whether it solves the problem that the present road setup appears to have been deliberately designed to to make access between Tescos and Southbourne/Westbour ne Groves as difficult* as possible. * read: round the houses and only if you know the area. I also hope that any change will not adversely affect Shalynn cattery. andyh

9:48am Wed 13 Mar 13

sjreynolds143 says...

I'm all for improving the Tesco roundabout, which is a nightmare at times, but give some thought to access to the Arterial from the south. The whole road system is designed to make it easy for residents from the west to leave Southend, but not to go into town.

From Leigh, I can turn right at Bellhouse Lane - four cars at a time out if you are lucky. Next is Kent Elms, where I have to use the rat runs through Sandhurst Crescent or Trecot Drive, none of which are designed for it, to access Bridgewater Drive. And then you get four cars out at a time if you are lucky as well! Or I can go across at Progress Road onto Rayleigh Road and come at it from the other side - the less said about that the better!

Other than that it's all the way down Blenheim/Kenilworth Gdns/Prittlewell Chase past the congested schools and hospital to Hobleythick and the Bell. At least there the lights are sensibly organised and let a whole stream of traffic out.

If the Arterial is the lifeblood of Southend, make it so that we can use it!
I'm all for improving the Tesco roundabout, which is a nightmare at times, but give some thought to access to the Arterial from the south. The whole road system is designed to make it easy for residents from the west to leave Southend, but not to go into town. From Leigh, I can turn right at Bellhouse Lane - four cars at a time out if you are lucky. Next is Kent Elms, where I have to use the rat runs through Sandhurst Crescent or Trecot Drive, none of which are designed for it, to access Bridgewater Drive. And then you get four cars out at a time if you are lucky as well! Or I can go across at Progress Road onto Rayleigh Road and come at it from the other side - the less said about that the better! Other than that it's all the way down Blenheim/Kenilworth Gdns/Prittlewell Chase past the congested schools and hospital to Hobleythick and the Bell. At least there the lights are sensibly organised and let a whole stream of traffic out. If the Arterial is the lifeblood of Southend, make it so that we can use it! sjreynolds143

9:48am Wed 13 Mar 13

jayman says...

by my calculations that's now 32 million that Southend council have spent or going to spend on junctions and street furniture...

I will just say that again.

thirty two million pounds...£32,000,00
0.00...
by my calculations that's now 32 million that Southend council have spent or going to spend on junctions and street furniture... I will just say that again. thirty two million pounds...£32,000,00 0.00... jayman

9:51am Wed 13 Mar 13

andyh says...

(also) Has any thought gone into just how they can plan the phasing of the lights for such a junction? Looks a very tricky problem.
(also) Has any thought gone into just how they can plan the phasing of the lights for such a junction? Looks a very tricky problem. andyh

10:05am Wed 13 Mar 13

dhd says...

BASILBRUSH wrote:
Realworld wrote:
Update the junction SBC if you feel the need to waste £7m however PLEASE do NOT install traffic lights!!!! These have been an unmitigated disater at Cuckoo Corner and Victoria Plaza where the traffic either gets clogged up all day or avoids the area completely. Roundabouts are designed to allow the free flow of traffic and are usually installed to REPLACE lights!! Only the brain dead at SBC would think this was a good idea. No doubt SBC will "consult" residents..... and then ignore them and **** up the whole area further.....
I'm sorry, but while I might agree with you about traffic flow at Victoria Circus.
Cuckoo Corner is fantastic now!
I use it everyday and various times of the day. It is a vast, vast improvement now compared to the old roundabout.

The junctions need improving (including The Bell), let the qualified designers get on with it.

Those talking of allocating funds to pot holes, relieving other cut backs in the Council funding.. I understand it doesnt work like that. The money would come from Central government and granted for specific infrastructure projects.
Yes but who would be responsible for repairs. The same people who can't look after t he roads now.
[quote][p][bold]BASILBRUSH[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Realworld[/bold] wrote: Update the junction SBC if you feel the need to waste £7m however PLEASE do NOT install traffic lights!!!! These have been an unmitigated disater at Cuckoo Corner and Victoria Plaza where the traffic either gets clogged up all day or avoids the area completely. Roundabouts are designed to allow the free flow of traffic and are usually installed to REPLACE lights!! Only the brain dead at SBC would think this was a good idea. No doubt SBC will "consult" residents..... and then ignore them and **** up the whole area further.....[/p][/quote]I'm sorry, but while I might agree with you about traffic flow at Victoria Circus. Cuckoo Corner is fantastic now! I use it everyday and various times of the day. It is a vast, vast improvement now compared to the old roundabout. The junctions need improving (including The Bell), let the qualified designers get on with it. Those talking of allocating funds to pot holes, relieving other cut backs in the Council funding.. I understand it doesnt work like that. The money would come from Central government and granted for specific infrastructure projects.[/p][/quote]Yes but who would be responsible for repairs. The same people who can't look after t he roads now. dhd

10:06am Wed 13 Mar 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

Another £7million of our taxes set to be wasted on motorists.
Another £7million of our taxes set to be wasted on motorists. Shoebury_Cyclist

10:20am Wed 13 Mar 13

Cosmo Spring says...

make Tesco pay for it, after all the junction there now was created for their benefit in the first place
make Tesco pay for it, after all the junction there now was created for their benefit in the first place Cosmo Spring

10:37am Wed 13 Mar 13

uncle_jarvis says...

andyh wrote:
(also) Has any thought gone into just how they can plan the phasing of the lights for such a junction? Looks a very tricky problem.
I think the point is that lights will regulate the flow to prevent issues at peak times. For example, people trying to get out of Tesco when it's really busy and can't because of people driving into Southend.

I suspect the airport expansion is heavily linked to this; improved and expanded local roads will facilitate the growth.
[quote][p][bold]andyh[/bold] wrote: (also) Has any thought gone into just how they can plan the phasing of the lights for such a junction? Looks a very tricky problem.[/p][/quote]I think the point is that lights will regulate the flow to prevent issues at peak times. For example, people trying to get out of Tesco when it's really busy and can't because of people driving into Southend. I suspect the airport expansion is heavily linked to this; improved and expanded local roads will facilitate the growth. uncle_jarvis

11:04am Wed 13 Mar 13

Joe Wildman-Clark says...

jayman wrote:
by my calculations that's now 32 million that Southend council have spent or going to spend on junctions and street furniture...

I will just say that again.

thirty two million pounds...£32,000,00

0.00...
Do you make use of any of the roads that have seen improvements, on either a bike in a car or on a bus?

If so your happy to use them but not happy about the money it costs to get the work done.

These large scale civil engineering projects are not cheap you can not just slap down a bit of tarmac and be done with it.

There are all the utilities to move, equipment and men, laying the materials that have to meet exacting specifications for the type of road, etc:

Thing is with certain people they will bleat, winge moan and go.on and on but will still use the changes.

Any who claims Cuckoo Corner and Victoria Gateway run worse now than before is mental.
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: by my calculations that's now 32 million that Southend council have spent or going to spend on junctions and street furniture... I will just say that again. thirty two million pounds...£32,000,00 0.00...[/p][/quote]Do you make use of any of the roads that have seen improvements, on either a bike in a car or on a bus? If so your happy to use them but not happy about the money it costs to get the work done. These large scale civil engineering projects are not cheap you can not just slap down a bit of tarmac and be done with it. There are all the utilities to move, equipment and men, laying the materials that have to meet exacting specifications for the type of road, etc: Thing is with certain people they will bleat, winge moan and go.on and on but will still use the changes. Any who claims Cuckoo Corner and Victoria Gateway run worse now than before is mental. Joe Wildman-Clark

11:11am Wed 13 Mar 13

Joe Wildman-Clark says...

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Another £7million of our taxes set to be wasted on motorists.
Better than wasting it on the Lycra Looneys. They think they rule the road and can see no fault with their crazy cycling, one hit my PARKED car and blamed me! for parking in a designed parking bay.
[quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: Another £7million of our taxes set to be wasted on motorists.[/p][/quote]Better than wasting it on the Lycra Looneys. They think they rule the road and can see no fault with their crazy cycling, one hit my PARKED car and blamed me! for parking in a designed parking bay. Joe Wildman-Clark

11:12am Wed 13 Mar 13

perini says...

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Another £7million of our taxes set to be wasted on motorists.
So cyclists don't use the roads then? Oh...sorry, I forgot - you are SO responsible you cycle on the pavements!
[quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: Another £7million of our taxes set to be wasted on motorists.[/p][/quote]So cyclists don't use the roads then? Oh...sorry, I forgot - you are SO responsible you cycle on the pavements! perini

11:26am Wed 13 Mar 13

Noteworthy says...

perini wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote: Another £7million of our taxes set to be wasted on motorists.
So cyclists don't use the roads then? Oh...sorry, I forgot - you are SO responsible you cycle on the pavements!
I'd have thought it would make it much better for cyclists - after all, red lights don't apply to them!
[quote][p][bold]perini[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: Another £7million of our taxes set to be wasted on motorists.[/p][/quote]So cyclists don't use the roads then? Oh...sorry, I forgot - you are SO responsible you cycle on the pavements![/p][/quote]I'd have thought it would make it much better for cyclists - after all, red lights don't apply to them! Noteworthy

11:27am Wed 13 Mar 13

Sir Peter Pantsless the 3rd says...

Joe Wildman Clarke, you are soo wrong, are you a certin (ex)tory closed cabinet member in disguise?

Cuckoo Corner causes conjestion where previously there was no conjestion!

I drive through this at all times of the day and many times a day.
It is a complete failure, you still get tailbacks all the way to Jones Memorial during rush-hour, you now have tailbacks back to Priory Park traffic lights due to the removal of the slip road, and at times it is a complete gridlock standstill from Cuckoo Corner all the way to Tesco's, you certainly didnt get that before!

Dont even get me started of the biggest c0ck-up of them all Victoria Gateway!.
Joe Wildman Clarke, you are soo wrong, are you a certin (ex)tory closed cabinet member in disguise? Cuckoo Corner causes conjestion where previously there was no conjestion! I drive through this at all times of the day and many times a day. It is a complete failure, you still get tailbacks all the way to Jones Memorial during rush-hour, you now have tailbacks back to Priory Park traffic lights due to the removal of the slip road, and at times it is a complete gridlock standstill from Cuckoo Corner all the way to Tesco's, you certainly didnt get that before! Dont even get me started of the biggest c0ck-up of them all Victoria Gateway!. Sir Peter Pantsless the 3rd

11:27am Wed 13 Mar 13

Noteworthy says...

I'd like to know where the diagram at the top has come from - is it an official SBC planning diagram, or something knocked up for the paper?
I'd like to know where the diagram at the top has come from - is it an official SBC planning diagram, or something knocked up for the paper? Noteworthy

11:37am Wed 13 Mar 13

Sir Peter Pantsless the 3rd says...

The rest of the world (even America) have embraced roundabouts as a way of easing conjestion, lowering polution, and keeping traffic flowing, and then we have Southend Council who doing the exact opposite!
Do they know something the rest of the world doesnt???
The rest of the world (even America) have embraced roundabouts as a way of easing conjestion, lowering polution, and keeping traffic flowing, and then we have Southend Council who doing the exact opposite! Do they know something the rest of the world doesnt??? Sir Peter Pantsless the 3rd

11:40am Wed 13 Mar 13

smiffy1980 says...

In real terms, Cookoo corner is no better or worse than before. Tailbacks always went back to Jones memorial at weekends at all times of the day.

The removal of the slip road was a bad idea tho.

Either way the whole area from the Bell to strawberry fields needs sorting out and also extending onto Kent Elms. Its complete pot luck what traffic you will get at the roundabout from 5pm each evening.

Does anyone know where all these proposed houses will go ??
In real terms, Cookoo corner is no better or worse than before. Tailbacks always went back to Jones memorial at weekends at all times of the day. The removal of the slip road was a bad idea tho. Either way the whole area from the Bell to strawberry fields needs sorting out and also extending onto Kent Elms. Its complete pot luck what traffic you will get at the roundabout from 5pm each evening. Does anyone know where all these proposed houses will go ?? smiffy1980

12:15pm Wed 13 Mar 13

Joe Wildman-Clark says...

Sir Peter Pantsless the 3rd wrote:
Joe Wildman Clarke, you are soo wrong, are you a certin (ex)tory closed cabinet member in disguise?

Cuckoo Corner causes conjestion where previously there was no conjestion!

I drive through this at all times of the day and many times a day.
It is a complete failure, you still get tailbacks all the way to Jones Memorial during rush-hour, you now have tailbacks back to Priory Park traffic lights due to the removal of the slip road, and at times it is a complete gridlock standstill from Cuckoo Corner all the way to Tesco's, you certainly didnt get that before!

Dont even get me started of the biggest c0ck-up of them all Victoria Gateway!.
Never voted Tory, at least I don't vote for the union controled Labour party with that a nal voiced puppet!

Cuckoo Corner is better now than how it was, before if one lane begun flowing it could take forever and a day for other lanes to get moving, at least with traffic lights everyone get a fair shot at getting moving.

Victoria Gateway works better people moan but still use it, if you don't like it don't use it find another way round but idiots won't do that will they.
[quote][p][bold]Sir Peter Pantsless the 3rd[/bold] wrote: Joe Wildman Clarke, you are soo wrong, are you a certin (ex)tory closed cabinet member in disguise? Cuckoo Corner causes conjestion where previously there was no conjestion! I drive through this at all times of the day and many times a day. It is a complete failure, you still get tailbacks all the way to Jones Memorial during rush-hour, you now have tailbacks back to Priory Park traffic lights due to the removal of the slip road, and at times it is a complete gridlock standstill from Cuckoo Corner all the way to Tesco's, you certainly didnt get that before! Dont even get me started of the biggest c0ck-up of them all Victoria Gateway!.[/p][/quote]Never voted Tory, at least I don't vote for the union controled Labour party with that a nal voiced puppet! Cuckoo Corner is better now than how it was, before if one lane begun flowing it could take forever and a day for other lanes to get moving, at least with traffic lights everyone get a fair shot at getting moving. Victoria Gateway works better people moan but still use it, if you don't like it don't use it find another way round but idiots won't do that will they. Joe Wildman-Clark

12:21pm Wed 13 Mar 13

j-w says...

Cuckoo corner is greatly improved! Vic circus not so much! The trouble is traffic coming out of Queensway is held up by the pedestrian crossing which always turns red just as the main lights turn green so only 3 or 4 cars can get out and up Vic Ave or London Road, whats that about?
Cuckoo corner is greatly improved! Vic circus not so much! The trouble is traffic coming out of Queensway is held up by the pedestrian crossing which always turns red just as the main lights turn green so only 3 or 4 cars can get out and up Vic Ave or London Road, whats that about? j-w

12:27pm Wed 13 Mar 13

j-w says...

Better Southend are asking for ideas on improving the junctions between the Bell and Kent Elms so email them with your ideas.
I can't think of any way of improving the shambles that is the Tescos roundabout apart from adding traffic lights to what is already there(with sensors and maybe on a part time basis) and allowing traffic to turn right out of the old Prince avenue so traffic from the south of the A127 can access Nestuda Way, Tescos and A127 towards Southend etc.
Better Southend are asking for ideas on improving the junctions between the Bell and Kent Elms so email them with your ideas. I can't think of any way of improving the shambles that is the Tescos roundabout apart from adding traffic lights to what is already there(with sensors and maybe on a part time basis) and allowing traffic to turn right out of the old Prince avenue so traffic from the south of the A127 can access Nestuda Way, Tescos and A127 towards Southend etc. j-w

12:36pm Wed 13 Mar 13

Danman565 says...

Add another exit out of Tesco for motorists to join the road somewhere other than the roundabout, and stick in a couple of flyovers on the roundabout. Job done... But £7,000,000 to lay some tarmac and wire in some traffic lights? whoever provides these estimates must be laughing their way to their bank (in the cayman islands).
Add another exit out of Tesco for motorists to join the road somewhere other than the roundabout, and stick in a couple of flyovers on the roundabout. Job done... But £7,000,000 to lay some tarmac and wire in some traffic lights? whoever provides these estimates must be laughing their way to their bank (in the cayman islands). Danman565

12:52pm Wed 13 Mar 13

Realworld says...

BASILBRUSH wrote:
Realworld wrote:
Update the junction SBC if you feel the need to waste £7m however PLEASE do NOT install traffic lights!!!! These have been an unmitigated disater at Cuckoo Corner and Victoria Plaza where the traffic either gets clogged up all day or avoids the area completely. Roundabouts are designed to allow the free flow of traffic and are usually installed to REPLACE lights!! Only the brain dead at SBC would think this was a good idea. No doubt SBC will "consult" residents..... and then ignore them and **** up the whole area further.....
I'm sorry, but while I might agree with you about traffic flow at Victoria Circus.
Cuckoo Corner is fantastic now!
I use it everyday and various times of the day. It is a vast, vast improvement now compared to the old roundabout.

The junctions need improving (including The Bell), let the qualified designers get on with it.

Those talking of allocating funds to pot holes, relieving other cut backs in the Council funding.. I understand it doesnt work like that. The money would come from Central government and granted for specific infrastructure projects.
I use the junction every day at least 3 or 4 times every day and at various times and can assure you I now queue for far longer than when there used to be just a roundabout. Even at 5:00am I often sit at red lights waiting for the lights to change with absolutley no other vehicles at the junction. This is progress eh?
[quote][p][bold]BASILBRUSH[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Realworld[/bold] wrote: Update the junction SBC if you feel the need to waste £7m however PLEASE do NOT install traffic lights!!!! These have been an unmitigated disater at Cuckoo Corner and Victoria Plaza where the traffic either gets clogged up all day or avoids the area completely. Roundabouts are designed to allow the free flow of traffic and are usually installed to REPLACE lights!! Only the brain dead at SBC would think this was a good idea. No doubt SBC will "consult" residents..... and then ignore them and **** up the whole area further.....[/p][/quote]I'm sorry, but while I might agree with you about traffic flow at Victoria Circus. Cuckoo Corner is fantastic now! I use it everyday and various times of the day. It is a vast, vast improvement now compared to the old roundabout. The junctions need improving (including The Bell), let the qualified designers get on with it. Those talking of allocating funds to pot holes, relieving other cut backs in the Council funding.. I understand it doesnt work like that. The money would come from Central government and granted for specific infrastructure projects.[/p][/quote]I use the junction every day at least 3 or 4 times every day and at various times and can assure you I now queue for far longer than when there used to be just a roundabout. Even at 5:00am I often sit at red lights waiting for the lights to change with absolutley no other vehicles at the junction. This is progress eh? Realworld

12:54pm Wed 13 Mar 13

Realworld says...

Sir Peter Pantsless the 3rd wrote:
Joe Wildman Clarke, you are soo wrong, are you a certin (ex)tory closed cabinet member in disguise?

Cuckoo Corner causes conjestion where previously there was no conjestion!

I drive through this at all times of the day and many times a day.
It is a complete failure, you still get tailbacks all the way to Jones Memorial during rush-hour, you now have tailbacks back to Priory Park traffic lights due to the removal of the slip road, and at times it is a complete gridlock standstill from Cuckoo Corner all the way to Tesco's, you certainly didnt get that before!

Dont even get me started of the biggest c0ck-up of them all Victoria Gateway!.
Well said....... agree 100%
[quote][p][bold]Sir Peter Pantsless the 3rd[/bold] wrote: Joe Wildman Clarke, you are soo wrong, are you a certin (ex)tory closed cabinet member in disguise? Cuckoo Corner causes conjestion where previously there was no conjestion! I drive through this at all times of the day and many times a day. It is a complete failure, you still get tailbacks all the way to Jones Memorial during rush-hour, you now have tailbacks back to Priory Park traffic lights due to the removal of the slip road, and at times it is a complete gridlock standstill from Cuckoo Corner all the way to Tesco's, you certainly didnt get that before! Dont even get me started of the biggest c0ck-up of them all Victoria Gateway!.[/p][/quote]Well said....... agree 100% Realworld

1:06pm Wed 13 Mar 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

Twelve lanes entering the junction and only five lanes exiting it. That's going to work well.
Twelve lanes entering the junction and only five lanes exiting it. That's going to work well. Shoebury_Cyclist

1:25pm Wed 13 Mar 13

emcee says...

Firstly, I agree that £7 million is a ridiculous amount to spend on a scheme like this. Where do SBC get their quotes from and do they come in brown envelopes exchanged on a park bench?
Secondly, I also think that Tesco should be made to stump up at least 20% of any costs.
Thirdly, if there are bottle necks, they should all be done at the same time. I am sure most motorists would rather suffer six months of bad misery than several years of just misery. Get it all out of the way in one go.
Lastly, the council MUST impose large fines for every single day the contractor overruns any agreed time for completion.
Having said all that, there always seems to be extreme amounts of money available for "traffic flow" schemes but never any to substantially improve the local public transport systems. A massive (and I mean MASSIVE) investment in local public transport would be money better spent.
Firstly, I agree that £7 million is a ridiculous amount to spend on a scheme like this. Where do SBC get their quotes from and do they come in brown envelopes exchanged on a park bench? Secondly, I also think that Tesco should be made to stump up at least 20% of any costs. Thirdly, if there are bottle necks, they should all be done at the same time. I am sure most motorists would rather suffer six months of bad misery than several years of just misery. Get it all out of the way in one go. Lastly, the council MUST impose large fines for every single day the contractor overruns any agreed time for completion. Having said all that, there always seems to be extreme amounts of money available for "traffic flow" schemes but never any to substantially improve the local public transport systems. A massive (and I mean MASSIVE) investment in local public transport would be money better spent. emcee

1:33pm Wed 13 Mar 13

perini says...

j-w wrote:
Better Southend are asking for ideas on improving the junctions between the Bell and Kent Elms so email them with your ideas. I can't think of any way of improving the shambles that is the Tescos roundabout apart from adding traffic lights to what is already there(with sensors and maybe on a part time basis) and allowing traffic to turn right out of the old Prince avenue so traffic from the south of the A127 can access Nestuda Way, Tescos and A127 towards Southend etc.
They may be asking for the opinions but if they play true to form they'll just ignore them anyway!
[quote][p][bold]j-w[/bold] wrote: Better Southend are asking for ideas on improving the junctions between the Bell and Kent Elms so email them with your ideas. I can't think of any way of improving the shambles that is the Tescos roundabout apart from adding traffic lights to what is already there(with sensors and maybe on a part time basis) and allowing traffic to turn right out of the old Prince avenue so traffic from the south of the A127 can access Nestuda Way, Tescos and A127 towards Southend etc.[/p][/quote]They may be asking for the opinions but if they play true to form they'll just ignore them anyway! perini

2:02pm Wed 13 Mar 13

emcee says...

Also, why start in April and run through to January (which is longer than the six months quoted). Surely it would be better to start January and finish October so there is no congestion from Tesco during Christmas.
Also, why start in April and run through to January (which is longer than the six months quoted). Surely it would be better to start January and finish October so there is no congestion from Tesco during Christmas. emcee

2:56pm Wed 13 Mar 13

Noteworthy says...

Is £7 million too much?

- Cost of workers and pay
- Cost of equipment hire / use per day
- Cost of materials
- Cost of signage
- Cost of contractors
- Cost of systems to be installed
- Cost of removing old tarmac and roundabout
- Cost of surveys before work starts
- cost of fuel for all the vehicles being used

And so on....

Say for example, you have 50 workers, each earning £1,500 before tax (which I think borders on minimum), for the nine months of the project (Apr - Jan), that's £270,000 right there.

Various diggers, dozers, trucks, stripping machines, rollers etc. all going to cost.
Is £7 million too much? - Cost of workers and pay - Cost of equipment hire / use per day - Cost of materials - Cost of signage - Cost of contractors - Cost of systems to be installed - Cost of removing old tarmac and roundabout - Cost of surveys before work starts - cost of fuel for all the vehicles being used And so on.... Say for example, you have 50 workers, each earning £1,500 before tax (which I think borders on minimum), for the nine months of the project (Apr - Jan), that's £270,000 right there. Various diggers, dozers, trucks, stripping machines, rollers etc. all going to cost. Noteworthy

2:57pm Wed 13 Mar 13

smiffy1980 says...

emcee wrote:
Firstly, I agree that £7 million is a ridiculous amount to spend on a scheme like this. Where do SBC get their quotes from and do they come in brown envelopes exchanged on a park bench? Secondly, I also think that Tesco should be made to stump up at least 20% of any costs. Thirdly, if there are bottle necks, they should all be done at the same time. I am sure most motorists would rather suffer six months of bad misery than several years of just misery. Get it all out of the way in one go. Lastly, the council MUST impose large fines for every single day the contractor overruns any agreed time for completion. Having said all that, there always seems to be extreme amounts of money available for "traffic flow" schemes but never any to substantially improve the local public transport systems. A massive (and I mean MASSIVE) investment in local public transport would be money better spent.
Why should Tesco have to pay anything towards it ? When this was built in 1994 there was no such traffic problem there. Less cars on the road and southend airport wasnt as it is now.

Things have changed and this is not Tescos fault. If thats your argument, then id suggest that Stobart Group, RBS, Premier inn etc etc all would have to pay a contribution.

I agree with 6 months of misery as aposed to a lifetime of misery. If nothing is done then it would only get worse.
[quote][p][bold]emcee[/bold] wrote: Firstly, I agree that £7 million is a ridiculous amount to spend on a scheme like this. Where do SBC get their quotes from and do they come in brown envelopes exchanged on a park bench? Secondly, I also think that Tesco should be made to stump up at least 20% of any costs. Thirdly, if there are bottle necks, they should all be done at the same time. I am sure most motorists would rather suffer six months of bad misery than several years of just misery. Get it all out of the way in one go. Lastly, the council MUST impose large fines for every single day the contractor overruns any agreed time for completion. Having said all that, there always seems to be extreme amounts of money available for "traffic flow" schemes but never any to substantially improve the local public transport systems. A massive (and I mean MASSIVE) investment in local public transport would be money better spent.[/p][/quote]Why should Tesco have to pay anything towards it ? When this was built in 1994 there was no such traffic problem there. Less cars on the road and southend airport wasnt as it is now. Things have changed and this is not Tescos fault. If thats your argument, then id suggest that Stobart Group, RBS, Premier inn etc etc all would have to pay a contribution. I agree with 6 months of misery as aposed to a lifetime of misery. If nothing is done then it would only get worse. smiffy1980

3:52pm Wed 13 Mar 13

maxell says...

I hope they dont use the same contractors that is responsible for the saddlers balls upp, saddlers all over again with the added problems that the shoppers will bring , how comes southend has gone t light crazy when other councils are ripping them out
I hope they dont use the same contractors that is responsible for the saddlers balls upp, saddlers all over again with the added problems that the shoppers will bring , how comes southend has gone t light crazy when other councils are ripping them out maxell

4:03pm Wed 13 Mar 13

Southend65 says...

Noteworthy wrote:
I'd like to know where the diagram at the top has come from - is it an official SBC planning diagram, or something knocked up for the paper?
On the basis of past events, their the detailed and final plans by SBC :-3)
[quote][p][bold]Noteworthy[/bold] wrote: I'd like to know where the diagram at the top has come from - is it an official SBC planning diagram, or something knocked up for the paper?[/p][/quote]On the basis of past events, their the detailed and final plans by SBC :-3) Southend65

4:05pm Wed 13 Mar 13

Southend65 says...

DogsMessInLeigh wrote:
its only a serious bottle neck when the RBS crew escape....other times its acceptable.
Why don't SBC just get RBS to release their members of staff over a longer time period?

The problem seems to be call centre staff at RBS all piling out of work at the same time when their shifts finish.
[quote][p][bold]DogsMessInLeigh[/bold] wrote: its only a serious bottle neck when the RBS crew escape....other times its acceptable.[/p][/quote]Why don't SBC just get RBS to release their members of staff over a longer time period? The problem seems to be call centre staff at RBS all piling out of work at the same time when their shifts finish. Southend65

4:07pm Wed 13 Mar 13

Southend65 says...

I've cottoned on now.

It just HAS to be an April Fool.
I've cottoned on now. It just HAS to be an April Fool. Southend65

4:21pm Wed 13 Mar 13

The Cowboy says...

The 4-lane road coming in from the bottom-left - what's that about? Is that meant to be the A127? Where's the opposing lanes then? If you take one of the arrows away, it should work ok as a two-way road, and the junction should be ok.

I know its only a basic sketch of the junction, but these minor details will immediately generate negativity towards the project before its even approved.
The 4-lane road coming in from the bottom-left - what's that about? Is that meant to be the A127? Where's the opposing lanes then? If you take one of the arrows away, it should work ok as a two-way road, and the junction should be ok. I know its only a basic sketch of the junction, but these minor details will immediately generate negativity towards the project before its even approved. The Cowboy

4:54pm Wed 13 Mar 13

Bigmama1 says...

Danman565 wrote:
Add another exit out of Tesco for motorists to join the road somewhere other than the roundabout, and stick in a couple of flyovers on the roundabout. Job done... But £7,000,000 to lay some tarmac and wire in some traffic lights? whoever provides these estimates must be laughing their way to their bank (in the cayman islands).
A flyover would be a good idea. It works Chelmsford.
[quote][p][bold]Danman565[/bold] wrote: Add another exit out of Tesco for motorists to join the road somewhere other than the roundabout, and stick in a couple of flyovers on the roundabout. Job done... But £7,000,000 to lay some tarmac and wire in some traffic lights? whoever provides these estimates must be laughing their way to their bank (in the cayman islands).[/p][/quote]A flyover would be a good idea. It works Chelmsford. Bigmama1

5:34pm Wed 13 Mar 13

jolllyboy says...

This is one of the most lethal roundabouts I have come across. Badly signed, badly white lined and was only built to favour Tesco. So Tesco should pay.Stobart should contribute too as it is used also for the airport and they were born in mind too when it was first built. the amount of traffic along the 127 is greater than it can cope with. We need anoth road.
This is one of the most lethal roundabouts I have come across. Badly signed, badly white lined and was only built to favour Tesco. So Tesco should pay.Stobart should contribute too as it is used also for the airport and they were born in mind too when it was first built. the amount of traffic along the 127 is greater than it can cope with. We need anoth road. jolllyboy

5:43pm Wed 13 Mar 13

the citizen says...

It's true that traffic lights provide a more measured distribution of traffic. However if they set the timings anything like the ones at the top of Vic Avenue then we are in real trouble. The pedestrian lights are out of sync with the road lights so you have traffic going west and north being held up not by a red light at the junction but by a red pedestrian light 50m away whilst the main traffic light is green. This means that hardly any traffic gets through the town efficiently. I wish they would programme the pedestrian lights to turn red at the same time as the main lights and not on demand.
Back to the tesco roundabout.....if the pedestrian lights east of the junction are not programmed right we will have the same problem. They will probably introduce pedestrian lights on other of the access roads at this junction. Nightmare scenario !!
It's true that traffic lights provide a more measured distribution of traffic. However if they set the timings anything like the ones at the top of Vic Avenue then we are in real trouble. The pedestrian lights are out of sync with the road lights so you have traffic going west and north being held up not by a red light at the junction but by a red pedestrian light 50m away whilst the main traffic light is green. This means that hardly any traffic gets through the town efficiently. I wish they would programme the pedestrian lights to turn red at the same time as the main lights and not on demand. Back to the tesco roundabout.....if the pedestrian lights east of the junction are not programmed right we will have the same problem. They will probably introduce pedestrian lights on other of the access roads at this junction. Nightmare scenario !! the citizen

6:05pm Wed 13 Mar 13

stopmoaning1 says...

Agreed, they MUST get the phasing of the lights right. The lights at Cuckoo Corner and ‘Victoria Gateway’ are supposed to be INTELLIGENT LIGHTS. I remember the big deal they made of them when they were introduced. Well unfortunately it seems they are only as intelligent as the planners and council officers at SBC.
Agreed, they MUST get the phasing of the lights right. The lights at Cuckoo Corner and ‘Victoria Gateway’ are supposed to be INTELLIGENT LIGHTS. I remember the big deal they made of them when they were introduced. Well unfortunately it seems they are only as intelligent as the planners and council officers at SBC. stopmoaning1

6:14pm Wed 13 Mar 13

Carnabackable says...

Ah await the traffic carnage, though won't start until Sadlers is done, as it's the same crew, doing this.
Ah await the traffic carnage, though won't start until Sadlers is done, as it's the same crew, doing this. Carnabackable

6:35pm Wed 13 Mar 13

Joe Wildman-Clark says...

jolllyboy wrote:
This is one of the most lethal roundabouts I have come across. Badly signed, badly white lined and was only built to favour Tesco. So Tesco should pay.Stobart should contribute too as it is used also for the airport and they were born in mind too when it was first built. the amount of traffic along the 127 is greater than it can cope with. We need anoth road.
You say Stobarts & Tesco should pay because traffic using the two sites use the roundabout, so by your logic any company in Southend should pay for the upkeep of the roads they are on as they use them, what about members of the public should they pay for the roads they use as well...

An outer Southend bypass through Rochford is needed,

Improve the A127/A129 Rayleigh Road junction, widen the road from here up to Hambro Hill then spur off across the open fields junction off at the B1013 Hall Road for Rochford the road continues into a tunnel under Rochford reemerging the other side bridge across the river and on to Eastern Avenue, spurs could take people to Barling etc: Yes very very costly but think of the jobs and takign a lot of trafic out of the way.

or ban anyone who has a car worth less than £25,000.
[quote][p][bold]jolllyboy[/bold] wrote: This is one of the most lethal roundabouts I have come across. Badly signed, badly white lined and was only built to favour Tesco. So Tesco should pay.Stobart should contribute too as it is used also for the airport and they were born in mind too when it was first built. the amount of traffic along the 127 is greater than it can cope with. We need anoth road.[/p][/quote]You say Stobarts & Tesco should pay because traffic using the two sites use the roundabout, so by your logic any company in Southend should pay for the upkeep of the roads they are on as they use them, what about members of the public should they pay for the roads they use as well... An outer Southend bypass through Rochford is needed, Improve the A127/A129 Rayleigh Road junction, widen the road from here up to Hambro Hill then spur off across the open fields junction off at the B1013 Hall Road for Rochford the road continues into a tunnel under Rochford reemerging the other side bridge across the river and on to Eastern Avenue, spurs could take people to Barling etc: Yes very very costly but think of the jobs and takign a lot of trafic out of the way. or ban anyone who has a car worth less than £25,000. Joe Wildman-Clark

7:07pm Wed 13 Mar 13

Sir Peter Pantsless the 3rd says...

Joe Wildman-Clark "or ban anyone who has a car worth less than £25,000"

So Joe, I'll be OK in my Range Rover Vogue then?
Joe Wildman-Clark "or ban anyone who has a car worth less than £25,000" So Joe, I'll be OK in my Range Rover Vogue then? Sir Peter Pantsless the 3rd

7:40pm Wed 13 Mar 13

EssexPerson says...

:o It'll save just 2 minutes!!! £7m going to be well spent there. Won't take long before it gets congested again once they add 1,785 new houses and 7,000 workers descend on the area.
:o It'll save just 2 minutes!!! £7m going to be well spent there. Won't take long before it gets congested again once they add 1,785 new houses and 7,000 workers descend on the area. EssexPerson

7:48pm Wed 13 Mar 13

whateverhappened says...

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Another £7million of our taxes set to be wasted on motorists.
Are you not a professional driver, or was that irony
[quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: Another £7million of our taxes set to be wasted on motorists.[/p][/quote]Are you not a professional driver, or was that irony whateverhappened

8:03pm Wed 13 Mar 13

Joe Wildman-Clark says...

whateverhappened wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Another £7million of our taxes set to be wasted on motorists.
Are you not a professional driver, or was that irony
Look at his name...

he is one of the lycra "we own the road" lot.

Saw one cycling in the middle of the Southend bound lane of Victoria Avenue this morning, it was not best pleased as cars were passing him either side.

Cyclist should pay a tax as they use the road as well as cars, prehaps £50 per year, all money go's to a fund to pay for cycle safety schemes.
[quote][p][bold]whateverhappened[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: Another £7million of our taxes set to be wasted on motorists.[/p][/quote]Are you not a professional driver, or was that irony[/p][/quote]Look at his name... he is one of the lycra "we own the road" lot. Saw one cycling in the middle of the Southend bound lane of Victoria Avenue this morning, it was not best pleased as cars were passing him either side. Cyclist should pay a tax as they use the road as well as cars, prehaps £50 per year, all money go's to a fund to pay for cycle safety schemes. Joe Wildman-Clark

9:14pm Wed 13 Mar 13

ORACUS says...

Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:
whateverhappened wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Another £7million of our taxes set to be wasted on motorists.
Are you not a professional driver, or was that irony
Look at his name...

he is one of the lycra "we own the road" lot.

Saw one cycling in the middle of the Southend bound lane of Victoria Avenue this morning, it was not best pleased as cars were passing him either side.

Cyclist should pay a tax as they use the road as well as cars, prehaps £50 per year, all money go's to a fund to pay for cycle safety schemes.
There should be a licence for cyclists something that can be taken away it would promote responsible riding.
[quote][p][bold]Joe Wildman-Clark[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whateverhappened[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: Another £7million of our taxes set to be wasted on motorists.[/p][/quote]Are you not a professional driver, or was that irony[/p][/quote]Look at his name... he is one of the lycra "we own the road" lot. Saw one cycling in the middle of the Southend bound lane of Victoria Avenue this morning, it was not best pleased as cars were passing him either side. Cyclist should pay a tax as they use the road as well as cars, prehaps £50 per year, all money go's to a fund to pay for cycle safety schemes.[/p][/quote]There should be a licence for cyclists something that can be taken away it would promote responsible riding. ORACUS

9:28pm Wed 13 Mar 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:
whateverhappened wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Another £7million of our taxes set to be wasted on motorists.
Are you not a professional driver, or was that irony
Look at his name...

he is one of the lycra "we own the road" lot.

Saw one cycling in the middle of the Southend bound lane of Victoria Avenue this morning, it was not best pleased as cars were passing him either side.

Cyclist should pay a tax as they use the road as well as cars, prehaps £50 per year, all money go's to a fund to pay for cycle safety schemes.
Are you really so dim that you think a username defines someone, or are you just pretending?

I have stated many times on this forum I am a driver by profession. That is how I earn a living.

Are you also so dim as to raise the tax issue again? Have I not explained this to you enough times?

THERE. IS. NO. SUCH. THING. AS. ROAD. TAX.

ROADS. ARE. PAID. FOR. THROUGH. GENERAL. TAXATION.

I even wrote that slowly so your lonely little brain cell had time to read it.
[quote][p][bold]Joe Wildman-Clark[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whateverhappened[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: Another £7million of our taxes set to be wasted on motorists.[/p][/quote]Are you not a professional driver, or was that irony[/p][/quote]Look at his name... he is one of the lycra "we own the road" lot. Saw one cycling in the middle of the Southend bound lane of Victoria Avenue this morning, it was not best pleased as cars were passing him either side. Cyclist should pay a tax as they use the road as well as cars, prehaps £50 per year, all money go's to a fund to pay for cycle safety schemes.[/p][/quote]Are you really so dim that you think a username defines someone, or are you just pretending? I have stated many times on this forum I am a driver by profession. That is how I earn a living. Are you also so dim as to raise the tax issue again? Have I not explained this to you enough times? THERE. IS. NO. SUCH. THING. AS. ROAD. TAX. ROADS. ARE. PAID. FOR. THROUGH. GENERAL. TAXATION. I even wrote that slowly so your lonely little brain cell had time to read it. Shoebury_Cyclist

9:49pm Wed 13 Mar 13

shoeburyboy says...

any idea which road company will be used
any idea which road company will be used shoeburyboy

10:27pm Wed 13 Mar 13

stopmoaning1 says...

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:
whateverhappened wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Another £7million of our taxes set to be wasted on motorists.
Are you not a professional driver, or was that irony
Look at his name...

he is one of the lycra "we own the road" lot.

Saw one cycling in the middle of the Southend bound lane of Victoria Avenue this morning, it was not best pleased as cars were passing him either side.

Cyclist should pay a tax as they use the road as well as cars, prehaps £50 per year, all money go's to a fund to pay for cycle safety schemes.
Are you really so dim that you think a username defines someone, or are you just pretending?

I have stated many times on this forum I am a driver by profession. That is how I earn a living.

Are you also so dim as to raise the tax issue again? Have I not explained this to you enough times?

THERE. IS. NO. SUCH. THING. AS. ROAD. TAX.

ROADS. ARE. PAID. FOR. THROUGH. GENERAL. TAXATION.

I even wrote that slowly so your lonely little brain cell had time to read it.
Yeah, but on my DVLA documentation they ask me to pay TAX so I can use my car on the ROAD. Mmm, tax road!
[quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joe Wildman-Clark[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whateverhappened[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: Another £7million of our taxes set to be wasted on motorists.[/p][/quote]Are you not a professional driver, or was that irony[/p][/quote]Look at his name... he is one of the lycra "we own the road" lot. Saw one cycling in the middle of the Southend bound lane of Victoria Avenue this morning, it was not best pleased as cars were passing him either side. Cyclist should pay a tax as they use the road as well as cars, prehaps £50 per year, all money go's to a fund to pay for cycle safety schemes.[/p][/quote]Are you really so dim that you think a username defines someone, or are you just pretending? I have stated many times on this forum I am a driver by profession. That is how I earn a living. Are you also so dim as to raise the tax issue again? Have I not explained this to you enough times? THERE. IS. NO. SUCH. THING. AS. ROAD. TAX. ROADS. ARE. PAID. FOR. THROUGH. GENERAL. TAXATION. I even wrote that slowly so your lonely little brain cell had time to read it.[/p][/quote]Yeah, but on my DVLA documentation they ask me to pay TAX so I can use my car on the ROAD. Mmm, tax road! stopmoaning1

11:16pm Wed 13 Mar 13

Joe Wildman-Clark says...

stopmoaning1 wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:
whateverhappened wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Another £7million of our taxes set to be wasted on motorists.
Are you not a professional driver, or was that irony
Look at his name...

he is one of the lycra "we own the road" lot.

Saw one cycling in the middle of the Southend bound lane of Victoria Avenue this morning, it was not best pleased as cars were passing him either side.

Cyclist should pay a tax as they use the road as well as cars, prehaps £50 per year, all money go's to a fund to pay for cycle safety schemes.
Are you really so dim that you think a username defines someone, or are you just pretending?

I have stated many times on this forum I am a driver by profession. That is how I earn a living.

Are you also so dim as to raise the tax issue again? Have I not explained this to you enough times?

THERE. IS. NO. SUCH. THING. AS. ROAD. TAX.

ROADS. ARE. PAID. FOR. THROUGH. GENERAL. TAXATION.

I even wrote that slowly so your lonely little brain cell had time to read it.
Yeah, but on my DVLA documentation they ask me to pay TAX so I can use my car on the ROAD. Mmm, tax road!
ROAD TAX as it is more commonly - generally - usually - ordinarily - normally called is also know as... Vehicle Tax... Car Tax or in shoebury_pedantic__c
yclists case
Vehicle Excise Duty.

Whatever we want to call it is a tax to drive on the road, which MUST be applied to cyclists as they use the road and pavements as well, so prehaps they should pay more to cover the cost of cyclepaths as well...
[quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joe Wildman-Clark[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whateverhappened[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: Another £7million of our taxes set to be wasted on motorists.[/p][/quote]Are you not a professional driver, or was that irony[/p][/quote]Look at his name... he is one of the lycra "we own the road" lot. Saw one cycling in the middle of the Southend bound lane of Victoria Avenue this morning, it was not best pleased as cars were passing him either side. Cyclist should pay a tax as they use the road as well as cars, prehaps £50 per year, all money go's to a fund to pay for cycle safety schemes.[/p][/quote]Are you really so dim that you think a username defines someone, or are you just pretending? I have stated many times on this forum I am a driver by profession. That is how I earn a living. Are you also so dim as to raise the tax issue again? Have I not explained this to you enough times? THERE. IS. NO. SUCH. THING. AS. ROAD. TAX. ROADS. ARE. PAID. FOR. THROUGH. GENERAL. TAXATION. I even wrote that slowly so your lonely little brain cell had time to read it.[/p][/quote]Yeah, but on my DVLA documentation they ask me to pay TAX so I can use my car on the ROAD. Mmm, tax road![/p][/quote]ROAD TAX as it is more commonly - generally - usually - ordinarily - normally called is also know as... Vehicle Tax... Car Tax or in shoebury_pedantic__c yclists case Vehicle Excise Duty. Whatever we want to call it is a tax to drive on the road, which MUST be applied to cyclists as they use the road and pavements as well, so prehaps they should pay more to cover the cost of cyclepaths as well... Joe Wildman-Clark

11:23pm Wed 13 Mar 13

pendulum says...

"THERE. IS. NO. SUCH. THING. AS. ROAD. TAX.

I'm getting rather sick of hearing this. Yes, road tax was abolished, but the fee brought in to replace it has now, in this current day and age, also become known as "road tax". Even the Government website calls it Road Tax. Language evolves.
"THERE. IS. NO. SUCH. THING. AS. ROAD. TAX. I'm getting rather sick of hearing this. Yes, road tax was abolished, but the fee brought in to replace it has now, in this current day and age, also become known as "road tax". Even the Government website calls it Road Tax. Language evolves. pendulum

12:38am Thu 14 Mar 13

ORACUS says...

pendulum wrote:
"THERE. IS. NO. SUCH. THING. AS. ROAD. TAX.

I'm getting rather sick of hearing this. Yes, road tax was abolished, but the fee brought in to replace it has now, in this current day and age, also become known as "road tax". Even the Government website calls it Road Tax. Language evolves.
If it is in the dictionary it is officially part of the language.
http://dictionary.ca
mbridge.org/dictiona
ry/british/road-tax
[quote][p][bold]pendulum[/bold] wrote: "THERE. IS. NO. SUCH. THING. AS. ROAD. TAX. I'm getting rather sick of hearing this. Yes, road tax was abolished, but the fee brought in to replace it has now, in this current day and age, also become known as "road tax". Even the Government website calls it Road Tax. Language evolves.[/p][/quote]If it is in the dictionary it is officially part of the language. http://dictionary.ca mbridge.org/dictiona ry/british/road-tax ORACUS

7:52am Thu 14 Mar 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:
stopmoaning1 wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:
whateverhappened wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Another £7million of our taxes set to be wasted on motorists.
Are you not a professional driver, or was that irony
Look at his name...

he is one of the lycra "we own the road" lot.

Saw one cycling in the middle of the Southend bound lane of Victoria Avenue this morning, it was not best pleased as cars were passing him either side.

Cyclist should pay a tax as they use the road as well as cars, prehaps £50 per year, all money go's to a fund to pay for cycle safety schemes.
Are you really so dim that you think a username defines someone, or are you just pretending?

I have stated many times on this forum I am a driver by profession. That is how I earn a living.

Are you also so dim as to raise the tax issue again? Have I not explained this to you enough times?

THERE. IS. NO. SUCH. THING. AS. ROAD. TAX.

ROADS. ARE. PAID. FOR. THROUGH. GENERAL. TAXATION.

I even wrote that slowly so your lonely little brain cell had time to read it.
Yeah, but on my DVLA documentation they ask me to pay TAX so I can use my car on the ROAD. Mmm, tax road!
ROAD TAX as it is more commonly - generally - usually - ordinarily - normally called is also know as... Vehicle Tax... Car Tax or in shoebury_pedantic__c

yclists case
Vehicle Excise Duty.

Whatever we want to call it is a tax to drive on the road, which MUST be applied to cyclists as they use the road and pavements as well, so prehaps they should pay more to cover the cost of cyclepaths as well...
No, it is a tax to pollute, it is not a tax to use roads.

If it was a tax to use roads then pedestrians, cyclists, horseriders, the many thousands of zero/low emission vehicles, milk floats, police cars, ambulances, would have to pay it too. They don't.

Educate your brain cell here:

http://ipayroadtax.c
om/no-such-thing-as-
road-tax/who-pays-ro
ad-tax/


Drivers do NOT 'pay for roads', SOCIETY as a whole pays for roads.
[quote][p][bold]Joe Wildman-Clark[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joe Wildman-Clark[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whateverhappened[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: Another £7million of our taxes set to be wasted on motorists.[/p][/quote]Are you not a professional driver, or was that irony[/p][/quote]Look at his name... he is one of the lycra "we own the road" lot. Saw one cycling in the middle of the Southend bound lane of Victoria Avenue this morning, it was not best pleased as cars were passing him either side. Cyclist should pay a tax as they use the road as well as cars, prehaps £50 per year, all money go's to a fund to pay for cycle safety schemes.[/p][/quote]Are you really so dim that you think a username defines someone, or are you just pretending? I have stated many times on this forum I am a driver by profession. That is how I earn a living. Are you also so dim as to raise the tax issue again? Have I not explained this to you enough times? THERE. IS. NO. SUCH. THING. AS. ROAD. TAX. ROADS. ARE. PAID. FOR. THROUGH. GENERAL. TAXATION. I even wrote that slowly so your lonely little brain cell had time to read it.[/p][/quote]Yeah, but on my DVLA documentation they ask me to pay TAX so I can use my car on the ROAD. Mmm, tax road![/p][/quote]ROAD TAX as it is more commonly - generally - usually - ordinarily - normally called is also know as... Vehicle Tax... Car Tax or in shoebury_pedantic__c yclists case Vehicle Excise Duty. Whatever we want to call it is a tax to drive on the road, which MUST be applied to cyclists as they use the road and pavements as well, so prehaps they should pay more to cover the cost of cyclepaths as well...[/p][/quote]No, it is a tax to pollute, it is not a tax to use roads. If it was a tax to use roads then pedestrians, cyclists, horseriders, the many thousands of zero/low emission vehicles, milk floats, police cars, ambulances, would have to pay it too. They don't. Educate your brain cell here: http://ipayroadtax.c om/no-such-thing-as- road-tax/who-pays-ro ad-tax/ Drivers do NOT 'pay for roads', SOCIETY as a whole pays for roads. Shoebury_Cyclist

8:00am Thu 14 Mar 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

pendulum wrote:
"THERE. IS. NO. SUCH. THING. AS. ROAD. TAX.

I'm getting rather sick of hearing this. Yes, road tax was abolished, but the fee brought in to replace it has now, in this current day and age, also become known as "road tax". Even the Government website calls it Road Tax. Language evolves.
No it doesn't. The Government website refers to CAR tax discs and VEHICLE tax:

https://www.gov.uk/b
rowse/driving/car-ta
x-discs
[quote][p][bold]pendulum[/bold] wrote: "THERE. IS. NO. SUCH. THING. AS. ROAD. TAX. I'm getting rather sick of hearing this. Yes, road tax was abolished, but the fee brought in to replace it has now, in this current day and age, also become known as "road tax". Even the Government website calls it Road Tax. Language evolves.[/p][/quote]No it doesn't. The Government website refers to CAR tax discs and VEHICLE tax: https://www.gov.uk/b rowse/driving/car-ta x-discs Shoebury_Cyclist

9:04am Thu 14 Mar 13

stopmoaning1 says...

Well I’ve just taxed my car a few days ago and the DVLA form states quite clearly that if I do not pay this TAX, I am not allowed to keep or use my car on the road. So it doesn’t really matter where the funding comes from to actually pay for and maintain the roads, I pay a tax in order to USE my car on the road.
It would be a completely impossible task to administer the scheme on cyclists, horses and any other road USER that is not registered with the DVLA, but it doesn’t stop it being a sound idea in theory. We all USE the road in one way or another, so why only the motorist who has to pay a TAX in order to do so?
Well I’ve just taxed my car a few days ago and the DVLA form states quite clearly that if I do not pay this TAX, I am not allowed to keep or use my car on the road. So it doesn’t really matter where the funding comes from to actually pay for and maintain the roads, I pay a tax in order to USE my car on the road. It would be a completely impossible task to administer the scheme on cyclists, horses and any other road USER that is not registered with the DVLA, but it doesn’t stop it being a sound idea in theory. We all USE the road in one way or another, so why only the motorist who has to pay a TAX in order to do so? stopmoaning1

9:52am Thu 14 Mar 13

Noteworthy says...

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:
stopmoaning1 wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:
whateverhappened wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote: Another £7million of our taxes set to be wasted on motorists.
Are you not a professional driver, or was that irony
Look at his name... he is one of the lycra "we own the road" lot. Saw one cycling in the middle of the Southend bound lane of Victoria Avenue this morning, it was not best pleased as cars were passing him either side. Cyclist should pay a tax as they use the road as well as cars, prehaps £50 per year, all money go's to a fund to pay for cycle safety schemes.
Are you really so dim that you think a username defines someone, or are you just pretending? I have stated many times on this forum I am a driver by profession. That is how I earn a living. Are you also so dim as to raise the tax issue again? Have I not explained this to you enough times? THERE. IS. NO. SUCH. THING. AS. ROAD. TAX. ROADS. ARE. PAID. FOR. THROUGH. GENERAL. TAXATION. I even wrote that slowly so your lonely little brain cell had time to read it.
Yeah, but on my DVLA documentation they ask me to pay TAX so I can use my car on the ROAD. Mmm, tax road!
ROAD TAX as it is more commonly - generally - usually - ordinarily - normally called is also know as... Vehicle Tax... Car Tax or in shoebury_pedantic__c yclists case Vehicle Excise Duty. Whatever we want to call it is a tax to drive on the road, which MUST be applied to cyclists as they use the road and pavements as well, so prehaps they should pay more to cover the cost of cyclepaths as well...
No, it is a tax to pollute, it is not a tax to use roads. If it was a tax to use roads then pedestrians, cyclists, horseriders, the many thousands of zero/low emission vehicles, milk floats, police cars, ambulances, would have to pay it too. They don't. Educate your brain cell here: http://ipayroadtax.c om/no-such-thing-as- road-tax/who-pays-ro ad-tax/ Drivers do NOT 'pay for roads', SOCIETY as a whole pays for roads.
I'm sorry but it cannot be a tax to pollute. My car s currently declared SORN, off the road, sitting on my driveway. Yet I can still go out, turn the key and pump fumes and pollution into the air.

If it's a tax to pollute, why am I not paying it?

I'm sorry but I've had enough. VED is a VEHICLE ROAD USE TAX - certain vehicles are exempt because they are greener, and the government, trying to ensure people by more environmentally friendly cars, have banded them as such that the more pollution you produce, the more you pay.

But the fact remains, no disc, no road use. Yes, it's called Vehicle Excise Duty officially, but don't you think people can call it whatever the hell they want?
[quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joe Wildman-Clark[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joe Wildman-Clark[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whateverhappened[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: Another £7million of our taxes set to be wasted on motorists.[/p][/quote]Are you not a professional driver, or was that irony[/p][/quote]Look at his name... he is one of the lycra "we own the road" lot. Saw one cycling in the middle of the Southend bound lane of Victoria Avenue this morning, it was not best pleased as cars were passing him either side. Cyclist should pay a tax as they use the road as well as cars, prehaps £50 per year, all money go's to a fund to pay for cycle safety schemes.[/p][/quote]Are you really so dim that you think a username defines someone, or are you just pretending? I have stated many times on this forum I am a driver by profession. That is how I earn a living. Are you also so dim as to raise the tax issue again? Have I not explained this to you enough times? THERE. IS. NO. SUCH. THING. AS. ROAD. TAX. ROADS. ARE. PAID. FOR. THROUGH. GENERAL. TAXATION. I even wrote that slowly so your lonely little brain cell had time to read it.[/p][/quote]Yeah, but on my DVLA documentation they ask me to pay TAX so I can use my car on the ROAD. Mmm, tax road![/p][/quote]ROAD TAX as it is more commonly - generally - usually - ordinarily - normally called is also know as... Vehicle Tax... Car Tax or in shoebury_pedantic__c yclists case Vehicle Excise Duty. Whatever we want to call it is a tax to drive on the road, which MUST be applied to cyclists as they use the road and pavements as well, so prehaps they should pay more to cover the cost of cyclepaths as well...[/p][/quote]No, it is a tax to pollute, it is not a tax to use roads. If it was a tax to use roads then pedestrians, cyclists, horseriders, the many thousands of zero/low emission vehicles, milk floats, police cars, ambulances, would have to pay it too. They don't. Educate your brain cell here: http://ipayroadtax.c om/no-such-thing-as- road-tax/who-pays-ro ad-tax/ Drivers do NOT 'pay for roads', SOCIETY as a whole pays for roads.[/p][/quote]I'm sorry but it cannot be a tax to pollute. My car s currently declared SORN, off the road, sitting on my driveway. Yet I can still go out, turn the key and pump fumes and pollution into the air. If it's a tax to pollute, why am I not paying it? I'm sorry but I've had enough. VED is a VEHICLE ROAD USE TAX - certain vehicles are exempt because they are greener, and the government, trying to ensure people by more environmentally friendly cars, have banded them as such that the more pollution you produce, the more you pay. But the fact remains, no disc, no road use. Yes, it's called Vehicle Excise Duty officially, but don't you think people can call it whatever the hell they want? Noteworthy

11:02am Thu 14 Mar 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

Noteworthy wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:
stopmoaning1 wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:
whateverhappened wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote: Another £7million of our taxes set to be wasted on motorists.
Are you not a professional driver, or was that irony
Look at his name... he is one of the lycra "we own the road" lot. Saw one cycling in the middle of the Southend bound lane of Victoria Avenue this morning, it was not best pleased as cars were passing him either side. Cyclist should pay a tax as they use the road as well as cars, prehaps £50 per year, all money go's to a fund to pay for cycle safety schemes.
Are you really so dim that you think a username defines someone, or are you just pretending? I have stated many times on this forum I am a driver by profession. That is how I earn a living. Are you also so dim as to raise the tax issue again? Have I not explained this to you enough times? THERE. IS. NO. SUCH. THING. AS. ROAD. TAX. ROADS. ARE. PAID. FOR. THROUGH. GENERAL. TAXATION. I even wrote that slowly so your lonely little brain cell had time to read it.
Yeah, but on my DVLA documentation they ask me to pay TAX so I can use my car on the ROAD. Mmm, tax road!
ROAD TAX as it is more commonly - generally - usually - ordinarily - normally called is also know as... Vehicle Tax... Car Tax or in shoebury_pedantic__c yclists case Vehicle Excise Duty. Whatever we want to call it is a tax to drive on the road, which MUST be applied to cyclists as they use the road and pavements as well, so prehaps they should pay more to cover the cost of cyclepaths as well...
No, it is a tax to pollute, it is not a tax to use roads. If it was a tax to use roads then pedestrians, cyclists, horseriders, the many thousands of zero/low emission vehicles, milk floats, police cars, ambulances, would have to pay it too. They don't. Educate your brain cell here: http://ipayroadtax.c om/no-such-thing-as- road-tax/who-pays-ro ad-tax/ Drivers do NOT 'pay for roads', SOCIETY as a whole pays for roads.
I'm sorry but it cannot be a tax to pollute. My car s currently declared SORN, off the road, sitting on my driveway. Yet I can still go out, turn the key and pump fumes and pollution into the air.

If it's a tax to pollute, why am I not paying it?

I'm sorry but I've had enough. VED is a VEHICLE ROAD USE TAX - certain vehicles are exempt because they are greener, and the government, trying to ensure people by more environmentally friendly cars, have banded them as such that the more pollution you produce, the more you pay.

But the fact remains, no disc, no road use. Yes, it's called Vehicle Excise Duty officially, but don't you think people can call it whatever the hell they want?
You ave answered your own question. Without VED you cannot go out and pollute public areas, but you can pollute on your own property.


"but don't you think people can call it whatever the hell they want?"


Not when they follow up that misnomer with thinking it infers a right to use roads over and above those who do not qualify to pay VED, and not when they think it means they 'pay for the roads'. They don't.
[quote][p][bold]Noteworthy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joe Wildman-Clark[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joe Wildman-Clark[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whateverhappened[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: Another £7million of our taxes set to be wasted on motorists.[/p][/quote]Are you not a professional driver, or was that irony[/p][/quote]Look at his name... he is one of the lycra "we own the road" lot. Saw one cycling in the middle of the Southend bound lane of Victoria Avenue this morning, it was not best pleased as cars were passing him either side. Cyclist should pay a tax as they use the road as well as cars, prehaps £50 per year, all money go's to a fund to pay for cycle safety schemes.[/p][/quote]Are you really so dim that you think a username defines someone, or are you just pretending? I have stated many times on this forum I am a driver by profession. That is how I earn a living. Are you also so dim as to raise the tax issue again? Have I not explained this to you enough times? THERE. IS. NO. SUCH. THING. AS. ROAD. TAX. ROADS. ARE. PAID. FOR. THROUGH. GENERAL. TAXATION. I even wrote that slowly so your lonely little brain cell had time to read it.[/p][/quote]Yeah, but on my DVLA documentation they ask me to pay TAX so I can use my car on the ROAD. Mmm, tax road![/p][/quote]ROAD TAX as it is more commonly - generally - usually - ordinarily - normally called is also know as... Vehicle Tax... Car Tax or in shoebury_pedantic__c yclists case Vehicle Excise Duty. Whatever we want to call it is a tax to drive on the road, which MUST be applied to cyclists as they use the road and pavements as well, so prehaps they should pay more to cover the cost of cyclepaths as well...[/p][/quote]No, it is a tax to pollute, it is not a tax to use roads. If it was a tax to use roads then pedestrians, cyclists, horseriders, the many thousands of zero/low emission vehicles, milk floats, police cars, ambulances, would have to pay it too. They don't. Educate your brain cell here: http://ipayroadtax.c om/no-such-thing-as- road-tax/who-pays-ro ad-tax/ Drivers do NOT 'pay for roads', SOCIETY as a whole pays for roads.[/p][/quote]I'm sorry but it cannot be a tax to pollute. My car s currently declared SORN, off the road, sitting on my driveway. Yet I can still go out, turn the key and pump fumes and pollution into the air. If it's a tax to pollute, why am I not paying it? I'm sorry but I've had enough. VED is a VEHICLE ROAD USE TAX - certain vehicles are exempt because they are greener, and the government, trying to ensure people by more environmentally friendly cars, have banded them as such that the more pollution you produce, the more you pay. But the fact remains, no disc, no road use. Yes, it's called Vehicle Excise Duty officially, but don't you think people can call it whatever the hell they want?[/p][/quote]You ave answered your own question. Without VED you cannot go out and pollute public areas, but you can pollute on your own property. "but don't you think people can call it whatever the hell they want?" Not when they follow up that misnomer with thinking it infers a right to use roads over and above those who do not qualify to pay VED, and not when they think it means they 'pay for the roads'. They don't. Shoebury_Cyclist

11:09am Thu 14 Mar 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

stopmoaning1 wrote:
Well I’ve just taxed my car a few days ago and the DVLA form states quite clearly that if I do not pay this TAX, I am not allowed to keep or use my car on the road. So it doesn’t really matter where the funding comes from to actually pay for and maintain the roads, I pay a tax in order to USE my car on the road.
It would be a completely impossible task to administer the scheme on cyclists, horses and any other road USER that is not registered with the DVLA, but it doesn’t stop it being a sound idea in theory. We all USE the road in one way or another, so why only the motorist who has to pay a TAX in order to do so?
Again. Because it is NOT a tax to USE ROADS. It is a tax to use a car that pollutes on roads.

You could buy a zero emission vehicle and pay ZERO VED.

If it was a tax to use roads ALL vehicles would have to pay - regardless of their emissions - when in reality millions of vehicles are completely exempt from VED because they don't pollute.

It's a very simple fact. Why can't your poor little brain cell grasp it?
[quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: Well I’ve just taxed my car a few days ago and the DVLA form states quite clearly that if I do not pay this TAX, I am not allowed to keep or use my car on the road. So it doesn’t really matter where the funding comes from to actually pay for and maintain the roads, I pay a tax in order to USE my car on the road. It would be a completely impossible task to administer the scheme on cyclists, horses and any other road USER that is not registered with the DVLA, but it doesn’t stop it being a sound idea in theory. We all USE the road in one way or another, so why only the motorist who has to pay a TAX in order to do so?[/p][/quote]Again. Because it is NOT a tax to USE ROADS. It is a tax to use a car that pollutes on roads. You could buy a zero emission vehicle and pay ZERO VED. If it was a tax to use roads ALL vehicles would have to pay - regardless of their emissions - when in reality millions of vehicles are completely exempt from VED because they don't pollute. It's a very simple fact. Why can't your poor little brain cell grasp it? Shoebury_Cyclist

11:37am Thu 14 Mar 13

Noteworthy says...

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Noteworthy wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:
stopmoaning1 wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:
whateverhappened wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote: Another £7million of our taxes set to be wasted on motorists.
Are you not a professional driver, or was that irony
Look at his name... he is one of the lycra "we own the road" lot. Saw one cycling in the middle of the Southend bound lane of Victoria Avenue this morning, it was not best pleased as cars were passing him either side. Cyclist should pay a tax as they use the road as well as cars, prehaps £50 per year, all money go's to a fund to pay for cycle safety schemes.
Are you really so dim that you think a username defines someone, or are you just pretending? I have stated many times on this forum I am a driver by profession. That is how I earn a living. Are you also so dim as to raise the tax issue again? Have I not explained this to you enough times? THERE. IS. NO. SUCH. THING. AS. ROAD. TAX. ROADS. ARE. PAID. FOR. THROUGH. GENERAL. TAXATION. I even wrote that slowly so your lonely little brain cell had time to read it.
Yeah, but on my DVLA documentation they ask me to pay TAX so I can use my car on the ROAD. Mmm, tax road!
ROAD TAX as it is more commonly - generally - usually - ordinarily - normally called is also know as... Vehicle Tax... Car Tax or in shoebury_pedantic__c yclists case Vehicle Excise Duty. Whatever we want to call it is a tax to drive on the road, which MUST be applied to cyclists as they use the road and pavements as well, so prehaps they should pay more to cover the cost of cyclepaths as well...
No, it is a tax to pollute, it is not a tax to use roads. If it was a tax to use roads then pedestrians, cyclists, horseriders, the many thousands of zero/low emission vehicles, milk floats, police cars, ambulances, would have to pay it too. They don't. Educate your brain cell here: http://ipayroadtax.c om/no-such-thing-as- road-tax/who-pays-ro ad-tax/ Drivers do NOT 'pay for roads', SOCIETY as a whole pays for roads.
I'm sorry but it cannot be a tax to pollute. My car s currently declared SORN, off the road, sitting on my driveway. Yet I can still go out, turn the key and pump fumes and pollution into the air. If it's a tax to pollute, why am I not paying it? I'm sorry but I've had enough. VED is a VEHICLE ROAD USE TAX - certain vehicles are exempt because they are greener, and the government, trying to ensure people by more environmentally friendly cars, have banded them as such that the more pollution you produce, the more you pay. But the fact remains, no disc, no road use. Yes, it's called Vehicle Excise Duty officially, but don't you think people can call it whatever the hell they want?
You ave answered your own question. Without VED you cannot go out and pollute public areas, but you can pollute on your own property. "but don't you think people can call it whatever the hell they want?" Not when they follow up that misnomer with thinking it infers a right to use roads over and above those who do not qualify to pay VED, and not when they think it means they 'pay for the roads'. They don't.
I cannot use the roads without it - ergo, I can use the roads with it.

And yes, I can pollute my own property. Wow, amazing, you've just solved the question of global warming! If you only pollute where you are at an exact moment in time it doesn't matter!

Seriously? Pollution is not about what you pump out at your property, it's what you pump out INTO THE ATMOSPHERE - no matter where you are. At home, in a traffic jam, my car will be pumping out the same fumes into the atmosphere.

So how exactly did I answer my own question?

And there you go, people can call it what they want so long as they don't mistake it for meaning other road users should pay.

So as long as I don't say 'cyclists should pay it' I can call it road tax all day long.
[quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Noteworthy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joe Wildman-Clark[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joe Wildman-Clark[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whateverhappened[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: Another £7million of our taxes set to be wasted on motorists.[/p][/quote]Are you not a professional driver, or was that irony[/p][/quote]Look at his name... he is one of the lycra "we own the road" lot. Saw one cycling in the middle of the Southend bound lane of Victoria Avenue this morning, it was not best pleased as cars were passing him either side. Cyclist should pay a tax as they use the road as well as cars, prehaps £50 per year, all money go's to a fund to pay for cycle safety schemes.[/p][/quote]Are you really so dim that you think a username defines someone, or are you just pretending? I have stated many times on this forum I am a driver by profession. That is how I earn a living. Are you also so dim as to raise the tax issue again? Have I not explained this to you enough times? THERE. IS. NO. SUCH. THING. AS. ROAD. TAX. ROADS. ARE. PAID. FOR. THROUGH. GENERAL. TAXATION. I even wrote that slowly so your lonely little brain cell had time to read it.[/p][/quote]Yeah, but on my DVLA documentation they ask me to pay TAX so I can use my car on the ROAD. Mmm, tax road![/p][/quote]ROAD TAX as it is more commonly - generally - usually - ordinarily - normally called is also know as... Vehicle Tax... Car Tax or in shoebury_pedantic__c yclists case Vehicle Excise Duty. Whatever we want to call it is a tax to drive on the road, which MUST be applied to cyclists as they use the road and pavements as well, so prehaps they should pay more to cover the cost of cyclepaths as well...[/p][/quote]No, it is a tax to pollute, it is not a tax to use roads. If it was a tax to use roads then pedestrians, cyclists, horseriders, the many thousands of zero/low emission vehicles, milk floats, police cars, ambulances, would have to pay it too. They don't. Educate your brain cell here: http://ipayroadtax.c om/no-such-thing-as- road-tax/who-pays-ro ad-tax/ Drivers do NOT 'pay for roads', SOCIETY as a whole pays for roads.[/p][/quote]I'm sorry but it cannot be a tax to pollute. My car s currently declared SORN, off the road, sitting on my driveway. Yet I can still go out, turn the key and pump fumes and pollution into the air. If it's a tax to pollute, why am I not paying it? I'm sorry but I've had enough. VED is a VEHICLE ROAD USE TAX - certain vehicles are exempt because they are greener, and the government, trying to ensure people by more environmentally friendly cars, have banded them as such that the more pollution you produce, the more you pay. But the fact remains, no disc, no road use. Yes, it's called Vehicle Excise Duty officially, but don't you think people can call it whatever the hell they want?[/p][/quote]You ave answered your own question. Without VED you cannot go out and pollute public areas, but you can pollute on your own property. "but don't you think people can call it whatever the hell they want?" Not when they follow up that misnomer with thinking it infers a right to use roads over and above those who do not qualify to pay VED, and not when they think it means they 'pay for the roads'. They don't.[/p][/quote]I cannot use the roads without it - ergo, I can use the roads with it. And yes, I can pollute my own property. Wow, amazing, you've just solved the question of global warming! If you only pollute where you are at an exact moment in time it doesn't matter! Seriously? Pollution is not about what you pump out at your property, it's what you pump out INTO THE ATMOSPHERE - no matter where you are. At home, in a traffic jam, my car will be pumping out the same fumes into the atmosphere. So how exactly did I answer my own question? And there you go, people can call it what they want so long as they don't mistake it for meaning other road users should pay. So as long as I don't say 'cyclists should pay it' I can call it road tax all day long. Noteworthy

11:47am Thu 14 Mar 13

Russ13 says...

hothead wrote:
7 million to move some mud and lay tarmac - ridiculous! Russ13 I think you meen thousands rather than hundreds of thousands who use the route every day.
No.... I meant what I said if you'd care to read it again and note I said hundreds or thousands over months/years.
[quote][p][bold]hothead[/bold] wrote: 7 million to move some mud and lay tarmac - ridiculous! Russ13 I think you meen thousands rather than hundreds of thousands who use the route every day.[/p][/quote]No.... I meant what I said if you'd care to read it again and note I said hundreds or thousands over months/years. Russ13

11:49am Thu 14 Mar 13

Dan-Hockley says...

why don't RBS and Tesco pay for it - after all, the roundabout is actually for them and they are the ones that cause the congestion

Even if £5m is coming from the government, surely the money being spent is going to go to national firms and not into the local economy.

The £2m that the council are going to spend, could keep the airshow running for nigh on 10 years and that *will* bring money in to local retailers...and with the change left over, perhaps the council could buy some grit for the roads!
why don't RBS and Tesco pay for it - after all, the roundabout is actually for them and they are the ones that cause the congestion Even if £5m is coming from the government, surely the money being spent is going to go to national firms and not into the local economy. The £2m that the council are going to spend, could keep the airshow running for nigh on 10 years and that *will* bring money in to local retailers...and with the change left over, perhaps the council could buy some grit for the roads! Dan-Hockley

11:59am Thu 14 Mar 13

stopmoaning1 says...

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
stopmoaning1 wrote:
Well I’ve just taxed my car a few days ago and the DVLA form states quite clearly that if I do not pay this TAX, I am not allowed to keep or use my car on the road. So it doesn’t really matter where the funding comes from to actually pay for and maintain the roads, I pay a tax in order to USE my car on the road.
It would be a completely impossible task to administer the scheme on cyclists, horses and any other road USER that is not registered with the DVLA, but it doesn’t stop it being a sound idea in theory. We all USE the road in one way or another, so why only the motorist who has to pay a TAX in order to do so?
Again. Because it is NOT a tax to USE ROADS. It is a tax to use a car that pollutes on roads.

You could buy a zero emission vehicle and pay ZERO VED.

If it was a tax to use roads ALL vehicles would have to pay - regardless of their emissions - when in reality millions of vehicles are completely exempt from VED because they don't pollute.

It's a very simple fact. Why can't your poor little brain cell grasp it?
You seem to have got yourself so worked up about this, that you missed what I said and have become abusive. Not nice.

Let me just quote again what I said – “So it doesn’t really matter where the funding comes from to actually pay for and maintain the roads, I pay a tax in order to USE my car on the road.” –

Now let’s look at your angry comment – “Again. Because it is NOT a tax to USE ROADS. It is a tax to use a car that pollutes on roads.”

So the only difference is that you have added the word pollute. I have chosen not to use a low/no emission vehicle and therefore know that if I want to use my car on a road, I have to pay the tax at the appropriate rate. If I don’t pay that tax, I can’t use my car on the road.

Have a chill pill and a lay down for a while.
[quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: Well I’ve just taxed my car a few days ago and the DVLA form states quite clearly that if I do not pay this TAX, I am not allowed to keep or use my car on the road. So it doesn’t really matter where the funding comes from to actually pay for and maintain the roads, I pay a tax in order to USE my car on the road. It would be a completely impossible task to administer the scheme on cyclists, horses and any other road USER that is not registered with the DVLA, but it doesn’t stop it being a sound idea in theory. We all USE the road in one way or another, so why only the motorist who has to pay a TAX in order to do so?[/p][/quote]Again. Because it is NOT a tax to USE ROADS. It is a tax to use a car that pollutes on roads. You could buy a zero emission vehicle and pay ZERO VED. If it was a tax to use roads ALL vehicles would have to pay - regardless of their emissions - when in reality millions of vehicles are completely exempt from VED because they don't pollute. It's a very simple fact. Why can't your poor little brain cell grasp it?[/p][/quote]You seem to have got yourself so worked up about this, that you missed what I said and have become abusive. Not nice. Let me just quote again what I said – “So it doesn’t really matter where the funding comes from to actually pay for and maintain the roads, I pay a tax in order to USE my car on the road.” – Now let’s look at your angry comment – “Again. Because it is NOT a tax to USE ROADS. It is a tax to use a car that pollutes on roads.” So the only difference is that you have added the word pollute. I have chosen not to use a low/no emission vehicle and therefore know that if I want to use my car on a road, I have to pay the tax at the appropriate rate. If I don’t pay that tax, I can’t use my car on the road. Have a chill pill and a lay down for a while. stopmoaning1

12:14pm Thu 14 Mar 13

ORACUS says...

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
stopmoaning1 wrote:
Well I’ve just taxed my car a few days ago and the DVLA form states quite clearly that if I do not pay this TAX, I am not allowed to keep or use my car on the road. So it doesn’t really matter where the funding comes from to actually pay for and maintain the roads, I pay a tax in order to USE my car on the road.
It would be a completely impossible task to administer the scheme on cyclists, horses and any other road USER that is not registered with the DVLA, but it doesn’t stop it being a sound idea in theory. We all USE the road in one way or another, so why only the motorist who has to pay a TAX in order to do so?
Again. Because it is NOT a tax to USE ROADS. It is a tax to use a car that pollutes on roads.

You could buy a zero emission vehicle and pay ZERO VED.

If it was a tax to use roads ALL vehicles would have to pay - regardless of their emissions - when in reality millions of vehicles are completely exempt from VED because they don't pollute.

It's a very simple fact. Why can't your poor little brain cell grasp it?
Vehicle excise duty is a tax to use a vehicle that pollutes at the point of use.
It has nothing to do with polluting or producing little or no CO2.
If all vehicles were taxed based on the carbon footprint of the fuel they use cyclist would be paying more than everyone else.
Its time to get these planet killing cyclists of the road.
[quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: Well I’ve just taxed my car a few days ago and the DVLA form states quite clearly that if I do not pay this TAX, I am not allowed to keep or use my car on the road. So it doesn’t really matter where the funding comes from to actually pay for and maintain the roads, I pay a tax in order to USE my car on the road. It would be a completely impossible task to administer the scheme on cyclists, horses and any other road USER that is not registered with the DVLA, but it doesn’t stop it being a sound idea in theory. We all USE the road in one way or another, so why only the motorist who has to pay a TAX in order to do so?[/p][/quote]Again. Because it is NOT a tax to USE ROADS. It is a tax to use a car that pollutes on roads. You could buy a zero emission vehicle and pay ZERO VED. If it was a tax to use roads ALL vehicles would have to pay - regardless of their emissions - when in reality millions of vehicles are completely exempt from VED because they don't pollute. It's a very simple fact. Why can't your poor little brain cell grasp it?[/p][/quote]Vehicle excise duty is a tax to use a vehicle that pollutes at the point of use. It has nothing to do with polluting or producing little or no CO2. If all vehicles were taxed based on the carbon footprint of the fuel they use cyclist would be paying more than everyone else. Its time to get these planet killing cyclists of the road. ORACUS

12:15pm Thu 14 Mar 13

ORACUS says...

ORACUS wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
stopmoaning1 wrote:
Well I’ve just taxed my car a few days ago and the DVLA form states quite clearly that if I do not pay this TAX, I am not allowed to keep or use my car on the road. So it doesn’t really matter where the funding comes from to actually pay for and maintain the roads, I pay a tax in order to USE my car on the road.
It would be a completely impossible task to administer the scheme on cyclists, horses and any other road USER that is not registered with the DVLA, but it doesn’t stop it being a sound idea in theory. We all USE the road in one way or another, so why only the motorist who has to pay a TAX in order to do so?
Again. Because it is NOT a tax to USE ROADS. It is a tax to use a car that pollutes on roads.

You could buy a zero emission vehicle and pay ZERO VED.

If it was a tax to use roads ALL vehicles would have to pay - regardless of their emissions - when in reality millions of vehicles are completely exempt from VED because they don't pollute.

It's a very simple fact. Why can't your poor little brain cell grasp it?
Vehicle excise duty is a tax to use a vehicle that pollutes at the point of use.
It has nothing to do with polluting or producing little or no CO2.
If all vehicles were taxed based on the carbon footprint of the fuel they use cyclist would be paying more than everyone else.
Its time to get these planet killing cyclists of the road.
Vehicle excise duty is a tax to use a vehicle that pollutes at the point of use.
It has nothing to do with polluting or producing little or no CO2.
If all vehicles were taxed based on the carbon footprint of the fuel they use cyclist would be paying more than everyone else.
Its time to get these planet killing cyclists off the road.
[quote][p][bold]ORACUS[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: Well I’ve just taxed my car a few days ago and the DVLA form states quite clearly that if I do not pay this TAX, I am not allowed to keep or use my car on the road. So it doesn’t really matter where the funding comes from to actually pay for and maintain the roads, I pay a tax in order to USE my car on the road. It would be a completely impossible task to administer the scheme on cyclists, horses and any other road USER that is not registered with the DVLA, but it doesn’t stop it being a sound idea in theory. We all USE the road in one way or another, so why only the motorist who has to pay a TAX in order to do so?[/p][/quote]Again. Because it is NOT a tax to USE ROADS. It is a tax to use a car that pollutes on roads. You could buy a zero emission vehicle and pay ZERO VED. If it was a tax to use roads ALL vehicles would have to pay - regardless of their emissions - when in reality millions of vehicles are completely exempt from VED because they don't pollute. It's a very simple fact. Why can't your poor little brain cell grasp it?[/p][/quote]Vehicle excise duty is a tax to use a vehicle that pollutes at the point of use. It has nothing to do with polluting or producing little or no CO2. If all vehicles were taxed based on the carbon footprint of the fuel they use cyclist would be paying more than everyone else. Its time to get these planet killing cyclists of the road.[/p][/quote]Vehicle excise duty is a tax to use a vehicle that pollutes at the point of use. It has nothing to do with polluting or producing little or no CO2. If all vehicles were taxed based on the carbon footprint of the fuel they use cyclist would be paying more than everyone else. Its time to get these planet killing cyclists off the road. ORACUS

12:15pm Thu 14 Mar 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

Noteworthy wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Noteworthy wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:
stopmoaning1 wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:
whateverhappened wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote: Another £7million of our taxes set to be wasted on motorists.
Are you not a professional driver, or was that irony
Look at his name... he is one of the lycra "we own the road" lot. Saw one cycling in the middle of the Southend bound lane of Victoria Avenue this morning, it was not best pleased as cars were passing him either side. Cyclist should pay a tax as they use the road as well as cars, prehaps £50 per year, all money go's to a fund to pay for cycle safety schemes.
Are you really so dim that you think a username defines someone, or are you just pretending? I have stated many times on this forum I am a driver by profession. That is how I earn a living. Are you also so dim as to raise the tax issue again? Have I not explained this to you enough times? THERE. IS. NO. SUCH. THING. AS. ROAD. TAX. ROADS. ARE. PAID. FOR. THROUGH. GENERAL. TAXATION. I even wrote that slowly so your lonely little brain cell had time to read it.
Yeah, but on my DVLA documentation they ask me to pay TAX so I can use my car on the ROAD. Mmm, tax road!
ROAD TAX as it is more commonly - generally - usually - ordinarily - normally called is also know as... Vehicle Tax... Car Tax or in shoebury_pedantic__c yclists case Vehicle Excise Duty. Whatever we want to call it is a tax to drive on the road, which MUST be applied to cyclists as they use the road and pavements as well, so prehaps they should pay more to cover the cost of cyclepaths as well...
No, it is a tax to pollute, it is not a tax to use roads. If it was a tax to use roads then pedestrians, cyclists, horseriders, the many thousands of zero/low emission vehicles, milk floats, police cars, ambulances, would have to pay it too. They don't. Educate your brain cell here: http://ipayroadtax.c om/no-such-thing-as- road-tax/who-pays-ro ad-tax/ Drivers do NOT 'pay for roads', SOCIETY as a whole pays for roads.
I'm sorry but it cannot be a tax to pollute. My car s currently declared SORN, off the road, sitting on my driveway. Yet I can still go out, turn the key and pump fumes and pollution into the air. If it's a tax to pollute, why am I not paying it? I'm sorry but I've had enough. VED is a VEHICLE ROAD USE TAX - certain vehicles are exempt because they are greener, and the government, trying to ensure people by more environmentally friendly cars, have banded them as such that the more pollution you produce, the more you pay. But the fact remains, no disc, no road use. Yes, it's called Vehicle Excise Duty officially, but don't you think people can call it whatever the hell they want?
You ave answered your own question. Without VED you cannot go out and pollute public areas, but you can pollute on your own property. "but don't you think people can call it whatever the hell they want?" Not when they follow up that misnomer with thinking it infers a right to use roads over and above those who do not qualify to pay VED, and not when they think it means they 'pay for the roads'. They don't.
I cannot use the roads without it - ergo, I can use the roads with it.

And yes, I can pollute my own property. Wow, amazing, you've just solved the question of global warming! If you only pollute where you are at an exact moment in time it doesn't matter!

Seriously? Pollution is not about what you pump out at your property, it's what you pump out INTO THE ATMOSPHERE - no matter where you are. At home, in a traffic jam, my car will be pumping out the same fumes into the atmosphere.

So how exactly did I answer my own question?

And there you go, people can call it what they want so long as they don't mistake it for meaning other road users should pay.

So as long as I don't say 'cyclists should pay it' I can call it road tax all day long.
"I cannot use the roads without it "

But you CAN use the roads without it: you could cycle, or walk, or use an electric vehicle.
[quote][p][bold]Noteworthy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Noteworthy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joe Wildman-Clark[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joe Wildman-Clark[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whateverhappened[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: Another £7million of our taxes set to be wasted on motorists.[/p][/quote]Are you not a professional driver, or was that irony[/p][/quote]Look at his name... he is one of the lycra "we own the road" lot. Saw one cycling in the middle of the Southend bound lane of Victoria Avenue this morning, it was not best pleased as cars were passing him either side. Cyclist should pay a tax as they use the road as well as cars, prehaps £50 per year, all money go's to a fund to pay for cycle safety schemes.[/p][/quote]Are you really so dim that you think a username defines someone, or are you just pretending? I have stated many times on this forum I am a driver by profession. That is how I earn a living. Are you also so dim as to raise the tax issue again? Have I not explained this to you enough times? THERE. IS. NO. SUCH. THING. AS. ROAD. TAX. ROADS. ARE. PAID. FOR. THROUGH. GENERAL. TAXATION. I even wrote that slowly so your lonely little brain cell had time to read it.[/p][/quote]Yeah, but on my DVLA documentation they ask me to pay TAX so I can use my car on the ROAD. Mmm, tax road![/p][/quote]ROAD TAX as it is more commonly - generally - usually - ordinarily - normally called is also know as... Vehicle Tax... Car Tax or in shoebury_pedantic__c yclists case Vehicle Excise Duty. Whatever we want to call it is a tax to drive on the road, which MUST be applied to cyclists as they use the road and pavements as well, so prehaps they should pay more to cover the cost of cyclepaths as well...[/p][/quote]No, it is a tax to pollute, it is not a tax to use roads. If it was a tax to use roads then pedestrians, cyclists, horseriders, the many thousands of zero/low emission vehicles, milk floats, police cars, ambulances, would have to pay it too. They don't. Educate your brain cell here: http://ipayroadtax.c om/no-such-thing-as- road-tax/who-pays-ro ad-tax/ Drivers do NOT 'pay for roads', SOCIETY as a whole pays for roads.[/p][/quote]I'm sorry but it cannot be a tax to pollute. My car s currently declared SORN, off the road, sitting on my driveway. Yet I can still go out, turn the key and pump fumes and pollution into the air. If it's a tax to pollute, why am I not paying it? I'm sorry but I've had enough. VED is a VEHICLE ROAD USE TAX - certain vehicles are exempt because they are greener, and the government, trying to ensure people by more environmentally friendly cars, have banded them as such that the more pollution you produce, the more you pay. But the fact remains, no disc, no road use. Yes, it's called Vehicle Excise Duty officially, but don't you think people can call it whatever the hell they want?[/p][/quote]You ave answered your own question. Without VED you cannot go out and pollute public areas, but you can pollute on your own property. "but don't you think people can call it whatever the hell they want?" Not when they follow up that misnomer with thinking it infers a right to use roads over and above those who do not qualify to pay VED, and not when they think it means they 'pay for the roads'. They don't.[/p][/quote]I cannot use the roads without it - ergo, I can use the roads with it. And yes, I can pollute my own property. Wow, amazing, you've just solved the question of global warming! If you only pollute where you are at an exact moment in time it doesn't matter! Seriously? Pollution is not about what you pump out at your property, it's what you pump out INTO THE ATMOSPHERE - no matter where you are. At home, in a traffic jam, my car will be pumping out the same fumes into the atmosphere. So how exactly did I answer my own question? And there you go, people can call it what they want so long as they don't mistake it for meaning other road users should pay. So as long as I don't say 'cyclists should pay it' I can call it road tax all day long.[/p][/quote]"I cannot use the roads without it " But you CAN use the roads without it: you could cycle, or walk, or use an electric vehicle. Shoebury_Cyclist

12:19pm Thu 14 Mar 13

southendmike says...

Is there not the potential for a slip road to be constructed for Southend-bound traffic from the eastern end of the Tesco Car Park onto Prince Avenue? This should at least relieve some of the bottlenecks currently suffered by drivers exiting from Tesco/RBS. Just a thought!
Is there not the potential for a slip road to be constructed for Southend-bound traffic from the eastern end of the Tesco Car Park onto Prince Avenue? This should at least relieve some of the bottlenecks currently suffered by drivers exiting from Tesco/RBS. Just a thought! southendmike

12:23pm Thu 14 Mar 13

A Pedant says...

Shoogly cyclist

You stated:

"Not when they follow up that misnomer with thinking it infers a right to use roads over and above those who do not qualify to pay VED, and not when they think it means they 'pay for the roads'. They don't."

As you seem to be on a one-man semantics crusade, could I just point out that you should have used 'implies' rather than 'infers' as they are not the same thing. As an inferrence is an understanding gleaned, while an implication suggests an outcome, you can infer from an implication but they are not one and the same.
Shoogly cyclist You stated: "Not when they follow up that misnomer with thinking it infers a right to use roads over and above those who do not qualify to pay VED, and not when they think it means they 'pay for the roads'. They don't." As you seem to be on a one-man semantics crusade, could I just point out that you should have used 'implies' rather than 'infers' as they are not the same thing. As an inferrence is an understanding gleaned, while an implication suggests an outcome, you can infer from an implication but they are not one and the same. A Pedant

12:25pm Thu 14 Mar 13

ORACUS says...

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Noteworthy wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Noteworthy wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:
stopmoaning1 wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:
whateverhappened wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote: Another £7million of our taxes set to be wasted on motorists.
Are you not a professional driver, or was that irony
Look at his name... he is one of the lycra "we own the road" lot. Saw one cycling in the middle of the Southend bound lane of Victoria Avenue this morning, it was not best pleased as cars were passing him either side. Cyclist should pay a tax as they use the road as well as cars, prehaps £50 per year, all money go's to a fund to pay for cycle safety schemes.
Are you really so dim that you think a username defines someone, or are you just pretending? I have stated many times on this forum I am a driver by profession. That is how I earn a living. Are you also so dim as to raise the tax issue again? Have I not explained this to you enough times? THERE. IS. NO. SUCH. THING. AS. ROAD. TAX. ROADS. ARE. PAID. FOR. THROUGH. GENERAL. TAXATION. I even wrote that slowly so your lonely little brain cell had time to read it.
Yeah, but on my DVLA documentation they ask me to pay TAX so I can use my car on the ROAD. Mmm, tax road!
ROAD TAX as it is more commonly - generally - usually - ordinarily - normally called is also know as... Vehicle Tax... Car Tax or in shoebury_pedantic__c yclists case Vehicle Excise Duty. Whatever we want to call it is a tax to drive on the road, which MUST be applied to cyclists as they use the road and pavements as well, so prehaps they should pay more to cover the cost of cyclepaths as well...
No, it is a tax to pollute, it is not a tax to use roads. If it was a tax to use roads then pedestrians, cyclists, horseriders, the many thousands of zero/low emission vehicles, milk floats, police cars, ambulances, would have to pay it too. They don't. Educate your brain cell here: http://ipayroadtax.c om/no-such-thing-as- road-tax/who-pays-ro ad-tax/ Drivers do NOT 'pay for roads', SOCIETY as a whole pays for roads.
I'm sorry but it cannot be a tax to pollute. My car s currently declared SORN, off the road, sitting on my driveway. Yet I can still go out, turn the key and pump fumes and pollution into the air. If it's a tax to pollute, why am I not paying it? I'm sorry but I've had enough. VED is a VEHICLE ROAD USE TAX - certain vehicles are exempt because they are greener, and the government, trying to ensure people by more environmentally friendly cars, have banded them as such that the more pollution you produce, the more you pay. But the fact remains, no disc, no road use. Yes, it's called Vehicle Excise Duty officially, but don't you think people can call it whatever the hell they want?
You ave answered your own question. Without VED you cannot go out and pollute public areas, but you can pollute on your own property. "but don't you think people can call it whatever the hell they want?" Not when they follow up that misnomer with thinking it infers a right to use roads over and above those who do not qualify to pay VED, and not when they think it means they 'pay for the roads'. They don't.
I cannot use the roads without it - ergo, I can use the roads with it.

And yes, I can pollute my own property. Wow, amazing, you've just solved the question of global warming! If you only pollute where you are at an exact moment in time it doesn't matter!

Seriously? Pollution is not about what you pump out at your property, it's what you pump out INTO THE ATMOSPHERE - no matter where you are. At home, in a traffic jam, my car will be pumping out the same fumes into the atmosphere.

So how exactly did I answer my own question?

And there you go, people can call it what they want so long as they don't mistake it for meaning other road users should pay.

So as long as I don't say 'cyclists should pay it' I can call it road tax all day long.
"I cannot use the roads without it "

But you CAN use the roads without it: you could cycle, or walk, or use an electric vehicle.
Save the planet bin the cycle.
[quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Noteworthy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Noteworthy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joe Wildman-Clark[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joe Wildman-Clark[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whateverhappened[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: Another £7million of our taxes set to be wasted on motorists.[/p][/quote]Are you not a professional driver, or was that irony[/p][/quote]Look at his name... he is one of the lycra "we own the road" lot. Saw one cycling in the middle of the Southend bound lane of Victoria Avenue this morning, it was not best pleased as cars were passing him either side. Cyclist should pay a tax as they use the road as well as cars, prehaps £50 per year, all money go's to a fund to pay for cycle safety schemes.[/p][/quote]Are you really so dim that you think a username defines someone, or are you just pretending? I have stated many times on this forum I am a driver by profession. That is how I earn a living. Are you also so dim as to raise the tax issue again? Have I not explained this to you enough times? THERE. IS. NO. SUCH. THING. AS. ROAD. TAX. ROADS. ARE. PAID. FOR. THROUGH. GENERAL. TAXATION. I even wrote that slowly so your lonely little brain cell had time to read it.[/p][/quote]Yeah, but on my DVLA documentation they ask me to pay TAX so I can use my car on the ROAD. Mmm, tax road![/p][/quote]ROAD TAX as it is more commonly - generally - usually - ordinarily - normally called is also know as... Vehicle Tax... Car Tax or in shoebury_pedantic__c yclists case Vehicle Excise Duty. Whatever we want to call it is a tax to drive on the road, which MUST be applied to cyclists as they use the road and pavements as well, so prehaps they should pay more to cover the cost of cyclepaths as well...[/p][/quote]No, it is a tax to pollute, it is not a tax to use roads. If it was a tax to use roads then pedestrians, cyclists, horseriders, the many thousands of zero/low emission vehicles, milk floats, police cars, ambulances, would have to pay it too. They don't. Educate your brain cell here: http://ipayroadtax.c om/no-such-thing-as- road-tax/who-pays-ro ad-tax/ Drivers do NOT 'pay for roads', SOCIETY as a whole pays for roads.[/p][/quote]I'm sorry but it cannot be a tax to pollute. My car s currently declared SORN, off the road, sitting on my driveway. Yet I can still go out, turn the key and pump fumes and pollution into the air. If it's a tax to pollute, why am I not paying it? I'm sorry but I've had enough. VED is a VEHICLE ROAD USE TAX - certain vehicles are exempt because they are greener, and the government, trying to ensure people by more environmentally friendly cars, have banded them as such that the more pollution you produce, the more you pay. But the fact remains, no disc, no road use. Yes, it's called Vehicle Excise Duty officially, but don't you think people can call it whatever the hell they want?[/p][/quote]You ave answered your own question. Without VED you cannot go out and pollute public areas, but you can pollute on your own property. "but don't you think people can call it whatever the hell they want?" Not when they follow up that misnomer with thinking it infers a right to use roads over and above those who do not qualify to pay VED, and not when they think it means they 'pay for the roads'. They don't.[/p][/quote]I cannot use the roads without it - ergo, I can use the roads with it. And yes, I can pollute my own property. Wow, amazing, you've just solved the question of global warming! If you only pollute where you are at an exact moment in time it doesn't matter! Seriously? Pollution is not about what you pump out at your property, it's what you pump out INTO THE ATMOSPHERE - no matter where you are. At home, in a traffic jam, my car will be pumping out the same fumes into the atmosphere. So how exactly did I answer my own question? And there you go, people can call it what they want so long as they don't mistake it for meaning other road users should pay. So as long as I don't say 'cyclists should pay it' I can call it road tax all day long.[/p][/quote]"I cannot use the roads without it " But you CAN use the roads without it: you could cycle, or walk, or use an electric vehicle.[/p][/quote]Save the planet bin the cycle. ORACUS

12:30pm Thu 14 Mar 13

ORACUS says...

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Noteworthy wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Noteworthy wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:
stopmoaning1 wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:
whateverhappened wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote: Another £7million of our taxes set to be wasted on motorists.
Are you not a professional driver, or was that irony
Look at his name... he is one of the lycra "we own the road" lot. Saw one cycling in the middle of the Southend bound lane of Victoria Avenue this morning, it was not best pleased as cars were passing him either side. Cyclist should pay a tax as they use the road as well as cars, prehaps £50 per year, all money go's to a fund to pay for cycle safety schemes.
Are you really so dim that you think a username defines someone, or are you just pretending? I have stated many times on this forum I am a driver by profession. That is how I earn a living. Are you also so dim as to raise the tax issue again? Have I not explained this to you enough times? THERE. IS. NO. SUCH. THING. AS. ROAD. TAX. ROADS. ARE. PAID. FOR. THROUGH. GENERAL. TAXATION. I even wrote that slowly so your lonely little brain cell had time to read it.
Yeah, but on my DVLA documentation they ask me to pay TAX so I can use my car on the ROAD. Mmm, tax road!
ROAD TAX as it is more commonly - generally - usually - ordinarily - normally called is also know as... Vehicle Tax... Car Tax or in shoebury_pedantic__c yclists case Vehicle Excise Duty. Whatever we want to call it is a tax to drive on the road, which MUST be applied to cyclists as they use the road and pavements as well, so prehaps they should pay more to cover the cost of cyclepaths as well...
No, it is a tax to pollute, it is not a tax to use roads. If it was a tax to use roads then pedestrians, cyclists, horseriders, the many thousands of zero/low emission vehicles, milk floats, police cars, ambulances, would have to pay it too. They don't. Educate your brain cell here: http://ipayroadtax.c om/no-such-thing-as- road-tax/who-pays-ro ad-tax/ Drivers do NOT 'pay for roads', SOCIETY as a whole pays for roads.
I'm sorry but it cannot be a tax to pollute. My car s currently declared SORN, off the road, sitting on my driveway. Yet I can still go out, turn the key and pump fumes and pollution into the air. If it's a tax to pollute, why am I not paying it? I'm sorry but I've had enough. VED is a VEHICLE ROAD USE TAX - certain vehicles are exempt because they are greener, and the government, trying to ensure people by more environmentally friendly cars, have banded them as such that the more pollution you produce, the more you pay. But the fact remains, no disc, no road use. Yes, it's called Vehicle Excise Duty officially, but don't you think people can call it whatever the hell they want?
You ave answered your own question. Without VED you cannot go out and pollute public areas, but you can pollute on your own property. "but don't you think people can call it whatever the hell they want?" Not when they follow up that misnomer with thinking it infers a right to use roads over and above those who do not qualify to pay VED, and not when they think it means they 'pay for the roads'. They don't.
I cannot use the roads without it - ergo, I can use the roads with it.

And yes, I can pollute my own property. Wow, amazing, you've just solved the question of global warming! If you only pollute where you are at an exact moment in time it doesn't matter!

Seriously? Pollution is not about what you pump out at your property, it's what you pump out INTO THE ATMOSPHERE - no matter where you are. At home, in a traffic jam, my car will be pumping out the same fumes into the atmosphere.

So how exactly did I answer my own question?

And there you go, people can call it what they want so long as they don't mistake it for meaning other road users should pay.

So as long as I don't say 'cyclists should pay it' I can call it road tax all day long.
"I cannot use the roads without it "

But you CAN use the roads without it: you could cycle, or walk, or use an electric vehicle.
Save the planet bin the cycle.
[quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Noteworthy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Noteworthy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joe Wildman-Clark[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joe Wildman-Clark[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whateverhappened[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: Another £7million of our taxes set to be wasted on motorists.[/p][/quote]Are you not a professional driver, or was that irony[/p][/quote]Look at his name... he is one of the lycra "we own the road" lot. Saw one cycling in the middle of the Southend bound lane of Victoria Avenue this morning, it was not best pleased as cars were passing him either side. Cyclist should pay a tax as they use the road as well as cars, prehaps £50 per year, all money go's to a fund to pay for cycle safety schemes.[/p][/quote]Are you really so dim that you think a username defines someone, or are you just pretending? I have stated many times on this forum I am a driver by profession. That is how I earn a living. Are you also so dim as to raise the tax issue again? Have I not explained this to you enough times? THERE. IS. NO. SUCH. THING. AS. ROAD. TAX. ROADS. ARE. PAID. FOR. THROUGH. GENERAL. TAXATION. I even wrote that slowly so your lonely little brain cell had time to read it.[/p][/quote]Yeah, but on my DVLA documentation they ask me to pay TAX so I can use my car on the ROAD. Mmm, tax road![/p][/quote]ROAD TAX as it is more commonly - generally - usually - ordinarily - normally called is also know as... Vehicle Tax... Car Tax or in shoebury_pedantic__c yclists case Vehicle Excise Duty. Whatever we want to call it is a tax to drive on the road, which MUST be applied to cyclists as they use the road and pavements as well, so prehaps they should pay more to cover the cost of cyclepaths as well...[/p][/quote]No, it is a tax to pollute, it is not a tax to use roads. If it was a tax to use roads then pedestrians, cyclists, horseriders, the many thousands of zero/low emission vehicles, milk floats, police cars, ambulances, would have to pay it too. They don't. Educate your brain cell here: http://ipayroadtax.c om/no-such-thing-as- road-tax/who-pays-ro ad-tax/ Drivers do NOT 'pay for roads', SOCIETY as a whole pays for roads.[/p][/quote]I'm sorry but it cannot be a tax to pollute. My car s currently declared SORN, off the road, sitting on my driveway. Yet I can still go out, turn the key and pump fumes and pollution into the air. If it's a tax to pollute, why am I not paying it? I'm sorry but I've had enough. VED is a VEHICLE ROAD USE TAX - certain vehicles are exempt because they are greener, and the government, trying to ensure people by more environmentally friendly cars, have banded them as such that the more pollution you produce, the more you pay. But the fact remains, no disc, no road use. Yes, it's called Vehicle Excise Duty officially, but don't you think people can call it whatever the hell they want?[/p][/quote]You ave answered your own question. Without VED you cannot go out and pollute public areas, but you can pollute on your own property. "but don't you think people can call it whatever the hell they want?" Not when they follow up that misnomer with thinking it infers a right to use roads over and above those who do not qualify to pay VED, and not when they think it means they 'pay for the roads'. They don't.[/p][/quote]I cannot use the roads without it - ergo, I can use the roads with it. And yes, I can pollute my own property. Wow, amazing, you've just solved the question of global warming! If you only pollute where you are at an exact moment in time it doesn't matter! Seriously? Pollution is not about what you pump out at your property, it's what you pump out INTO THE ATMOSPHERE - no matter where you are. At home, in a traffic jam, my car will be pumping out the same fumes into the atmosphere. So how exactly did I answer my own question? And there you go, people can call it what they want so long as they don't mistake it for meaning other road users should pay. So as long as I don't say 'cyclists should pay it' I can call it road tax all day long.[/p][/quote]"I cannot use the roads without it " But you CAN use the roads without it: you could cycle, or walk, or use an electric vehicle.[/p][/quote]Save the planet bin the cycle. ORACUS

12:31pm Thu 14 Mar 13

ORACUS says...

Save the planet bin the cycle.
Save the planet bin the cycle. ORACUS

1:51pm Thu 14 Mar 13

Noteworthy says...

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Noteworthy wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Noteworthy wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:
stopmoaning1 wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:
whateverhappened wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote: Another £7million of our taxes set to be wasted on motorists.
Are you not a professional driver, or was that irony
Look at his name... he is one of the lycra "we own the road" lot. Saw one cycling in the middle of the Southend bound lane of Victoria Avenue this morning, it was not best pleased as cars were passing him either side. Cyclist should pay a tax as they use the road as well as cars, prehaps £50 per year, all money go's to a fund to pay for cycle safety schemes.
Are you really so dim that you think a username defines someone, or are you just pretending? I have stated many times on this forum I am a driver by profession. That is how I earn a living. Are you also so dim as to raise the tax issue again? Have I not explained this to you enough times? THERE. IS. NO. SUCH. THING. AS. ROAD. TAX. ROADS. ARE. PAID. FOR. THROUGH. GENERAL. TAXATION. I even wrote that slowly so your lonely little brain cell had time to read it.
Yeah, but on my DVLA documentation they ask me to pay TAX so I can use my car on the ROAD. Mmm, tax road!
ROAD TAX as it is more commonly - generally - usually - ordinarily - normally called is also know as... Vehicle Tax... Car Tax or in shoebury_pedantic__c yclists case Vehicle Excise Duty. Whatever we want to call it is a tax to drive on the road, which MUST be applied to cyclists as they use the road and pavements as well, so prehaps they should pay more to cover the cost of cyclepaths as well...
No, it is a tax to pollute, it is not a tax to use roads. If it was a tax to use roads then pedestrians, cyclists, horseriders, the many thousands of zero/low emission vehicles, milk floats, police cars, ambulances, would have to pay it too. They don't. Educate your brain cell here: http://ipayroadtax.c om/no-such-thing-as- road-tax/who-pays-ro ad-tax/ Drivers do NOT 'pay for roads', SOCIETY as a whole pays for roads.
I'm sorry but it cannot be a tax to pollute. My car s currently declared SORN, off the road, sitting on my driveway. Yet I can still go out, turn the key and pump fumes and pollution into the air. If it's a tax to pollute, why am I not paying it? I'm sorry but I've had enough. VED is a VEHICLE ROAD USE TAX - certain vehicles are exempt because they are greener, and the government, trying to ensure people by more environmentally friendly cars, have banded them as such that the more pollution you produce, the more you pay. But the fact remains, no disc, no road use. Yes, it's called Vehicle Excise Duty officially, but don't you think people can call it whatever the hell they want?
You ave answered your own question. Without VED you cannot go out and pollute public areas, but you can pollute on your own property. "but don't you think people can call it whatever the hell they want?" Not when they follow up that misnomer with thinking it infers a right to use roads over and above those who do not qualify to pay VED, and not when they think it means they 'pay for the roads'. They don't.
I cannot use the roads without it - ergo, I can use the roads with it. And yes, I can pollute my own property. Wow, amazing, you've just solved the question of global warming! If you only pollute where you are at an exact moment in time it doesn't matter! Seriously? Pollution is not about what you pump out at your property, it's what you pump out INTO THE ATMOSPHERE - no matter where you are. At home, in a traffic jam, my car will be pumping out the same fumes into the atmosphere. So how exactly did I answer my own question? And there you go, people can call it what they want so long as they don't mistake it for meaning other road users should pay. So as long as I don't say 'cyclists should pay it' I can call it road tax all day long.
"I cannot use the roads without it " But you CAN use the roads without it: you could cycle, or walk, or use an electric vehicle.
Ok I'll conceed that - I cannot use my car on the roads without it

But before you say it's therefore a car tax...

I can use my car on private land without it.
[quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Noteworthy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Noteworthy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joe Wildman-Clark[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joe Wildman-Clark[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whateverhappened[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: Another £7million of our taxes set to be wasted on motorists.[/p][/quote]Are you not a professional driver, or was that irony[/p][/quote]Look at his name... he is one of the lycra "we own the road" lot. Saw one cycling in the middle of the Southend bound lane of Victoria Avenue this morning, it was not best pleased as cars were passing him either side. Cyclist should pay a tax as they use the road as well as cars, prehaps £50 per year, all money go's to a fund to pay for cycle safety schemes.[/p][/quote]Are you really so dim that you think a username defines someone, or are you just pretending? I have stated many times on this forum I am a driver by profession. That is how I earn a living. Are you also so dim as to raise the tax issue again? Have I not explained this to you enough times? THERE. IS. NO. SUCH. THING. AS. ROAD. TAX. ROADS. ARE. PAID. FOR. THROUGH. GENERAL. TAXATION. I even wrote that slowly so your lonely little brain cell had time to read it.[/p][/quote]Yeah, but on my DVLA documentation they ask me to pay TAX so I can use my car on the ROAD. Mmm, tax road![/p][/quote]ROAD TAX as it is more commonly - generally - usually - ordinarily - normally called is also know as... Vehicle Tax... Car Tax or in shoebury_pedantic__c yclists case Vehicle Excise Duty. Whatever we want to call it is a tax to drive on the road, which MUST be applied to cyclists as they use the road and pavements as well, so prehaps they should pay more to cover the cost of cyclepaths as well...[/p][/quote]No, it is a tax to pollute, it is not a tax to use roads. If it was a tax to use roads then pedestrians, cyclists, horseriders, the many thousands of zero/low emission vehicles, milk floats, police cars, ambulances, would have to pay it too. They don't. Educate your brain cell here: http://ipayroadtax.c om/no-such-thing-as- road-tax/who-pays-ro ad-tax/ Drivers do NOT 'pay for roads', SOCIETY as a whole pays for roads.[/p][/quote]I'm sorry but it cannot be a tax to pollute. My car s currently declared SORN, off the road, sitting on my driveway. Yet I can still go out, turn the key and pump fumes and pollution into the air. If it's a tax to pollute, why am I not paying it? I'm sorry but I've had enough. VED is a VEHICLE ROAD USE TAX - certain vehicles are exempt because they are greener, and the government, trying to ensure people by more environmentally friendly cars, have banded them as such that the more pollution you produce, the more you pay. But the fact remains, no disc, no road use. Yes, it's called Vehicle Excise Duty officially, but don't you think people can call it whatever the hell they want?[/p][/quote]You ave answered your own question. Without VED you cannot go out and pollute public areas, but you can pollute on your own property. "but don't you think people can call it whatever the hell they want?" Not when they follow up that misnomer with thinking it infers a right to use roads over and above those who do not qualify to pay VED, and not when they think it means they 'pay for the roads'. They don't.[/p][/quote]I cannot use the roads without it - ergo, I can use the roads with it. And yes, I can pollute my own property. Wow, amazing, you've just solved the question of global warming! If you only pollute where you are at an exact moment in time it doesn't matter! Seriously? Pollution is not about what you pump out at your property, it's what you pump out INTO THE ATMOSPHERE - no matter where you are. At home, in a traffic jam, my car will be pumping out the same fumes into the atmosphere. So how exactly did I answer my own question? And there you go, people can call it what they want so long as they don't mistake it for meaning other road users should pay. So as long as I don't say 'cyclists should pay it' I can call it road tax all day long.[/p][/quote]"I cannot use the roads without it " But you CAN use the roads without it: you could cycle, or walk, or use an electric vehicle.[/p][/quote]Ok I'll conceed that - I cannot use my car on the roads without it But before you say it's therefore a car tax... I can use my car on private land without it. Noteworthy

1:53pm Thu 14 Mar 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

Noteworthy wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Noteworthy wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Noteworthy wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:
stopmoaning1 wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:
whateverhappened wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote: Another £7million of our taxes set to be wasted on motorists.
Are you not a professional driver, or was that irony
Look at his name... he is one of the lycra "we own the road" lot. Saw one cycling in the middle of the Southend bound lane of Victoria Avenue this morning, it was not best pleased as cars were passing him either side. Cyclist should pay a tax as they use the road as well as cars, prehaps £50 per year, all money go's to a fund to pay for cycle safety schemes.
Are you really so dim that you think a username defines someone, or are you just pretending? I have stated many times on this forum I am a driver by profession. That is how I earn a living. Are you also so dim as to raise the tax issue again? Have I not explained this to you enough times? THERE. IS. NO. SUCH. THING. AS. ROAD. TAX. ROADS. ARE. PAID. FOR. THROUGH. GENERAL. TAXATION. I even wrote that slowly so your lonely little brain cell had time to read it.
Yeah, but on my DVLA documentation they ask me to pay TAX so I can use my car on the ROAD. Mmm, tax road!
ROAD TAX as it is more commonly - generally - usually - ordinarily - normally called is also know as... Vehicle Tax... Car Tax or in shoebury_pedantic__c yclists case Vehicle Excise Duty. Whatever we want to call it is a tax to drive on the road, which MUST be applied to cyclists as they use the road and pavements as well, so prehaps they should pay more to cover the cost of cyclepaths as well...
No, it is a tax to pollute, it is not a tax to use roads. If it was a tax to use roads then pedestrians, cyclists, horseriders, the many thousands of zero/low emission vehicles, milk floats, police cars, ambulances, would have to pay it too. They don't. Educate your brain cell here: http://ipayroadtax.c om/no-such-thing-as- road-tax/who-pays-ro ad-tax/ Drivers do NOT 'pay for roads', SOCIETY as a whole pays for roads.
I'm sorry but it cannot be a tax to pollute. My car s currently declared SORN, off the road, sitting on my driveway. Yet I can still go out, turn the key and pump fumes and pollution into the air. If it's a tax to pollute, why am I not paying it? I'm sorry but I've had enough. VED is a VEHICLE ROAD USE TAX - certain vehicles are exempt because they are greener, and the government, trying to ensure people by more environmentally friendly cars, have banded them as such that the more pollution you produce, the more you pay. But the fact remains, no disc, no road use. Yes, it's called Vehicle Excise Duty officially, but don't you think people can call it whatever the hell they want?
You ave answered your own question. Without VED you cannot go out and pollute public areas, but you can pollute on your own property. "but don't you think people can call it whatever the hell they want?" Not when they follow up that misnomer with thinking it infers a right to use roads over and above those who do not qualify to pay VED, and not when they think it means they 'pay for the roads'. They don't.
I cannot use the roads without it - ergo, I can use the roads with it. And yes, I can pollute my own property. Wow, amazing, you've just solved the question of global warming! If you only pollute where you are at an exact moment in time it doesn't matter! Seriously? Pollution is not about what you pump out at your property, it's what you pump out INTO THE ATMOSPHERE - no matter where you are. At home, in a traffic jam, my car will be pumping out the same fumes into the atmosphere. So how exactly did I answer my own question? And there you go, people can call it what they want so long as they don't mistake it for meaning other road users should pay. So as long as I don't say 'cyclists should pay it' I can call it road tax all day long.
"I cannot use the roads without it " But you CAN use the roads without it: you could cycle, or walk, or use an electric vehicle.
Ok I'll conceed that - I cannot use my car on the roads without it

But before you say it's therefore a car tax...

I can use my car on private land without it.
As I said previously, the tax permits you to use a car that pollutes on public roads. You are free to use a car to pollute on your own, or others, private property to your heart's content.
[quote][p][bold]Noteworthy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Noteworthy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Noteworthy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joe Wildman-Clark[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joe Wildman-Clark[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whateverhappened[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: Another £7million of our taxes set to be wasted on motorists.[/p][/quote]Are you not a professional driver, or was that irony[/p][/quote]Look at his name... he is one of the lycra "we own the road" lot. Saw one cycling in the middle of the Southend bound lane of Victoria Avenue this morning, it was not best pleased as cars were passing him either side. Cyclist should pay a tax as they use the road as well as cars, prehaps £50 per year, all money go's to a fund to pay for cycle safety schemes.[/p][/quote]Are you really so dim that you think a username defines someone, or are you just pretending? I have stated many times on this forum I am a driver by profession. That is how I earn a living. Are you also so dim as to raise the tax issue again? Have I not explained this to you enough times? THERE. IS. NO. SUCH. THING. AS. ROAD. TAX. ROADS. ARE. PAID. FOR. THROUGH. GENERAL. TAXATION. I even wrote that slowly so your lonely little brain cell had time to read it.[/p][/quote]Yeah, but on my DVLA documentation they ask me to pay TAX so I can use my car on the ROAD. Mmm, tax road![/p][/quote]ROAD TAX as it is more commonly - generally - usually - ordinarily - normally called is also know as... Vehicle Tax... Car Tax or in shoebury_pedantic__c yclists case Vehicle Excise Duty. Whatever we want to call it is a tax to drive on the road, which MUST be applied to cyclists as they use the road and pavements as well, so prehaps they should pay more to cover the cost of cyclepaths as well...[/p][/quote]No, it is a tax to pollute, it is not a tax to use roads. If it was a tax to use roads then pedestrians, cyclists, horseriders, the many thousands of zero/low emission vehicles, milk floats, police cars, ambulances, would have to pay it too. They don't. Educate your brain cell here: http://ipayroadtax.c om/no-such-thing-as- road-tax/who-pays-ro ad-tax/ Drivers do NOT 'pay for roads', SOCIETY as a whole pays for roads.[/p][/quote]I'm sorry but it cannot be a tax to pollute. My car s currently declared SORN, off the road, sitting on my driveway. Yet I can still go out, turn the key and pump fumes and pollution into the air. If it's a tax to pollute, why am I not paying it? I'm sorry but I've had enough. VED is a VEHICLE ROAD USE TAX - certain vehicles are exempt because they are greener, and the government, trying to ensure people by more environmentally friendly cars, have banded them as such that the more pollution you produce, the more you pay. But the fact remains, no disc, no road use. Yes, it's called Vehicle Excise Duty officially, but don't you think people can call it whatever the hell they want?[/p][/quote]You ave answered your own question. Without VED you cannot go out and pollute public areas, but you can pollute on your own property. "but don't you think people can call it whatever the hell they want?" Not when they follow up that misnomer with thinking it infers a right to use roads over and above those who do not qualify to pay VED, and not when they think it means they 'pay for the roads'. They don't.[/p][/quote]I cannot use the roads without it - ergo, I can use the roads with it. And yes, I can pollute my own property. Wow, amazing, you've just solved the question of global warming! If you only pollute where you are at an exact moment in time it doesn't matter! Seriously? Pollution is not about what you pump out at your property, it's what you pump out INTO THE ATMOSPHERE - no matter where you are. At home, in a traffic jam, my car will be pumping out the same fumes into the atmosphere. So how exactly did I answer my own question? And there you go, people can call it what they want so long as they don't mistake it for meaning other road users should pay. So as long as I don't say 'cyclists should pay it' I can call it road tax all day long.[/p][/quote]"I cannot use the roads without it " But you CAN use the roads without it: you could cycle, or walk, or use an electric vehicle.[/p][/quote]Ok I'll conceed that - I cannot use my car on the roads without it But before you say it's therefore a car tax... I can use my car on private land without it.[/p][/quote]As I said previously, the tax permits you to use a car that pollutes on public roads. You are free to use a car to pollute on your own, or others, private property to your heart's content. Shoebury_Cyclist

2:39pm Thu 14 Mar 13

Nebs says...

Russ13 wrote:
Devilish82 wrote:
£7 million to save 2 minutes. Isn't that a little it extreme? If they are going to acquire £5 - 7 million to spend on roads, surely they could put it to better use by filling in pot hole, fixing pavements and making what is already in place better for people to use.
Are you really that short-sighted.......

.. 2 minutes multiplied by the hundreds of thousands who use the routed everyday over the course of months/years.

Having said that, this will be a useless piece of work until they do something with the Bell and/or Kent Elms as they will become the new bottlenecks.
But to earn that two minutes a day, the same hundreds and thousands who use the route every day will have to suffer massive delays for the 6 months that it takes to build it. And they will also have to suffer delays at the traffic lights every time they use it outside peak hours, when they will be stopped at traffic lights compared to the current position where you you simply drive round an empty roundabout.
I haven't done all the maths, but overall looks like a loser for motorists. The only winners will be the shareholders of the company that gets the contract, and the foreign labour that actually does the work.
[quote][p][bold]Russ13[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Devilish82[/bold] wrote: £7 million to save 2 minutes. Isn't that a little it extreme? If they are going to acquire £5 - 7 million to spend on roads, surely they could put it to better use by filling in pot hole, fixing pavements and making what is already in place better for people to use.[/p][/quote]Are you really that short-sighted....... .. 2 minutes multiplied by the hundreds of thousands who use the routed everyday over the course of months/years. Having said that, this will be a useless piece of work until they do something with the Bell and/or Kent Elms as they will become the new bottlenecks.[/p][/quote]But to earn that two minutes a day, the same hundreds and thousands who use the route every day will have to suffer massive delays for the 6 months that it takes to build it. And they will also have to suffer delays at the traffic lights every time they use it outside peak hours, when they will be stopped at traffic lights compared to the current position where you you simply drive round an empty roundabout. I haven't done all the maths, but overall looks like a loser for motorists. The only winners will be the shareholders of the company that gets the contract, and the foreign labour that actually does the work. Nebs

3:18pm Thu 14 Mar 13

A Pedant says...

Traffic lights at peak times only? Wouldn't be a bad idea on Rayleigh Weir either as traffic always sems to flow better when the lights are out!
Traffic lights at peak times only? Wouldn't be a bad idea on Rayleigh Weir either as traffic always sems to flow better when the lights are out! A Pedant

3:59pm Thu 14 Mar 13

andyh says...

southendmike wrote:
Is there not the potential for a slip road to be constructed for Southend-bound traffic from the eastern end of the Tesco Car Park onto Prince Avenue? This should at least relieve some of the bottlenecks currently suffered by drivers exiting from Tesco/RBS. Just a thought!
Don't think that is an option - there is too great a difference in levels so would need a slarge slope. I did consider the idea of a second exit from the car park in the NE corner linking through to Eastwoodbury lane - there is the land there but it wouldn't lead in the direction that most customers are likely to require.
[quote][p][bold]southendmike[/bold] wrote: Is there not the potential for a slip road to be constructed for Southend-bound traffic from the eastern end of the Tesco Car Park onto Prince Avenue? This should at least relieve some of the bottlenecks currently suffered by drivers exiting from Tesco/RBS. Just a thought![/p][/quote]Don't think that is an option - there is too great a difference in levels so would need a slarge slope. I did consider the idea of a second exit from the car park in the NE corner linking through to Eastwoodbury lane - there is the land there but it wouldn't lead in the direction that most customers are likely to require. andyh

4:01pm Thu 14 Mar 13

zipster31 says...

Nooooooooooooooooooo
ooooooo! Not more traffic lights and congestion! It will be another Vic Circus **** up with tailbacks and non flowing traffic. Nightmare.
Nooooooooooooooooooo ooooooo! Not more traffic lights and congestion! It will be another Vic Circus **** up with tailbacks and non flowing traffic. Nightmare. zipster31

5:08pm Thu 14 Mar 13

Joe Wildman-Clark says...

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Noteworthy wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Noteworthy wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Noteworthy wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:
stopmoaning1 wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:
whateverhappened wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote: Another £7million of our taxes set to be wasted on motorists.
Are you not a professional driver, or was that irony
Look at his name... he is one of the lycra "we own the road" lot. Saw one cycling in the middle of the Southend bound lane of Victoria Avenue this morning, it was not best pleased as cars were passing him either side. Cyclist should pay a tax as they use the road as well as cars, prehaps £50 per year, all money go's to a fund to pay for cycle safety schemes.
Are you really so dim that you think a username defines someone, or are you just pretending? I have stated many times on this forum I am a driver by profession. That is how I earn a living. Are you also so dim as to raise the tax issue again? Have I not explained this to you enough times? THERE. IS. NO. SUCH. THING. AS. ROAD. TAX. ROADS. ARE. PAID. FOR. THROUGH. GENERAL. TAXATION. I even wrote that slowly so your lonely little brain cell had time to read it.
Yeah, but on my DVLA documentation they ask me to pay TAX so I can use my car on the ROAD. Mmm, tax road!
ROAD TAX as it is more commonly - generally - usually - ordinarily - normally called is also know as... Vehicle Tax... Car Tax or in shoebury_pedantic__c yclists case Vehicle Excise Duty. Whatever we want to call it is a tax to drive on the road, which MUST be applied to cyclists as they use the road and pavements as well, so prehaps they should pay more to cover the cost of cyclepaths as well...
No, it is a tax to pollute, it is not a tax to use roads. If it was a tax to use roads then pedestrians, cyclists, horseriders, the many thousands of zero/low emission vehicles, milk floats, police cars, ambulances, would have to pay it too. They don't. Educate your brain cell here: http://ipayroadtax.c om/no-such-thing-as- road-tax/who-pays-ro ad-tax/ Drivers do NOT 'pay for roads', SOCIETY as a whole pays for roads.
I'm sorry but it cannot be a tax to pollute. My car s currently declared SORN, off the road, sitting on my driveway. Yet I can still go out, turn the key and pump fumes and pollution into the air. If it's a tax to pollute, why am I not paying it? I'm sorry but I've had enough. VED is a VEHICLE ROAD USE TAX - certain vehicles are exempt because they are greener, and the government, trying to ensure people by more environmentally friendly cars, have banded them as such that the more pollution you produce, the more you pay. But the fact remains, no disc, no road use. Yes, it's called Vehicle Excise Duty officially, but don't you think people can call it whatever the hell they want?
You ave answered your own question. Without VED you cannot go out and pollute public areas, but you can pollute on your own property. "but don't you think people can call it whatever the hell they want?" Not when they follow up that misnomer with thinking it infers a right to use roads over and above those who do not qualify to pay VED, and not when they think it means they 'pay for the roads'. They don't.
I cannot use the roads without it - ergo, I can use the roads with it. And yes, I can pollute my own property. Wow, amazing, you've just solved the question of global warming! If you only pollute where you are at an exact moment in time it doesn't matter! Seriously? Pollution is not about what you pump out at your property, it's what you pump out INTO THE ATMOSPHERE - no matter where you are. At home, in a traffic jam, my car will be pumping out the same fumes into the atmosphere. So how exactly did I answer my own question? And there you go, people can call it what they want so long as they don't mistake it for meaning other road users should pay. So as long as I don't say 'cyclists should pay it' I can call it road tax all day long.
"I cannot use the roads without it " But you CAN use the roads without it: you could cycle, or walk, or use an electric vehicle.
Ok I'll conceed that - I cannot use my car on the roads without it

But before you say it's therefore a car tax...

I can use my car on private land without it.
As I said previously, the tax permits you to use a car that pollutes on public roads. You are free to use a car to pollute on your own, or others, private property to your heart's content.
Whatever you want to call it if you do not pay you can not legally drive on the road, so whilst is not not offically called Road Tax it is what most people call it, its a name use by the public (apart from shoebury-cyclist)

He moans about poluting cars but has said he drives for a living... Smacks of "Do as I say, Not as I do"
[quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Noteworthy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Noteworthy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Noteworthy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joe Wildman-Clark[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joe Wildman-Clark[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whateverhappened[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: Another £7million of our taxes set to be wasted on motorists.[/p][/quote]Are you not a professional driver, or was that irony[/p][/quote]Look at his name... he is one of the lycra "we own the road" lot. Saw one cycling in the middle of the Southend bound lane of Victoria Avenue this morning, it was not best pleased as cars were passing him either side. Cyclist should pay a tax as they use the road as well as cars, prehaps £50 per year, all money go's to a fund to pay for cycle safety schemes.[/p][/quote]Are you really so dim that you think a username defines someone, or are you just pretending? I have stated many times on this forum I am a driver by profession. That is how I earn a living. Are you also so dim as to raise the tax issue again? Have I not explained this to you enough times? THERE. IS. NO. SUCH. THING. AS. ROAD. TAX. ROADS. ARE. PAID. FOR. THROUGH. GENERAL. TAXATION. I even wrote that slowly so your lonely little brain cell had time to read it.[/p][/quote]Yeah, but on my DVLA documentation they ask me to pay TAX so I can use my car on the ROAD. Mmm, tax road![/p][/quote]ROAD TAX as it is more commonly - generally - usually - ordinarily - normally called is also know as... Vehicle Tax... Car Tax or in shoebury_pedantic__c yclists case Vehicle Excise Duty. Whatever we want to call it is a tax to drive on the road, which MUST be applied to cyclists as they use the road and pavements as well, so prehaps they should pay more to cover the cost of cyclepaths as well...[/p][/quote]No, it is a tax to pollute, it is not a tax to use roads. If it was a tax to use roads then pedestrians, cyclists, horseriders, the many thousands of zero/low emission vehicles, milk floats, police cars, ambulances, would have to pay it too. They don't. Educate your brain cell here: http://ipayroadtax.c om/no-such-thing-as- road-tax/who-pays-ro ad-tax/ Drivers do NOT 'pay for roads', SOCIETY as a whole pays for roads.[/p][/quote]I'm sorry but it cannot be a tax to pollute. My car s currently declared SORN, off the road, sitting on my driveway. Yet I can still go out, turn the key and pump fumes and pollution into the air. If it's a tax to pollute, why am I not paying it? I'm sorry but I've had enough. VED is a VEHICLE ROAD USE TAX - certain vehicles are exempt because they are greener, and the government, trying to ensure people by more environmentally friendly cars, have banded them as such that the more pollution you produce, the more you pay. But the fact remains, no disc, no road use. Yes, it's called Vehicle Excise Duty officially, but don't you think people can call it whatever the hell they want?[/p][/quote]You ave answered your own question. Without VED you cannot go out and pollute public areas, but you can pollute on your own property. "but don't you think people can call it whatever the hell they want?" Not when they follow up that misnomer with thinking it infers a right to use roads over and above those who do not qualify to pay VED, and not when they think it means they 'pay for the roads'. They don't.[/p][/quote]I cannot use the roads without it - ergo, I can use the roads with it. And yes, I can pollute my own property. Wow, amazing, you've just solved the question of global warming! If you only pollute where you are at an exact moment in time it doesn't matter! Seriously? Pollution is not about what you pump out at your property, it's what you pump out INTO THE ATMOSPHERE - no matter where you are. At home, in a traffic jam, my car will be pumping out the same fumes into the atmosphere. So how exactly did I answer my own question? And there you go, people can call it what they want so long as they don't mistake it for meaning other road users should pay. So as long as I don't say 'cyclists should pay it' I can call it road tax all day long.[/p][/quote]"I cannot use the roads without it " But you CAN use the roads without it: you could cycle, or walk, or use an electric vehicle.[/p][/quote]Ok I'll conceed that - I cannot use my car on the roads without it But before you say it's therefore a car tax... I can use my car on private land without it.[/p][/quote]As I said previously, the tax permits you to use a car that pollutes on public roads. You are free to use a car to pollute on your own, or others, private property to your heart's content.[/p][/quote]Whatever you want to call it if you do not pay you can not legally drive on the road, so whilst is not not offically called Road Tax it is what most people call it, its a name use by the public (apart from shoebury-cyclist) He moans about poluting cars but has said he drives for a living... Smacks of "Do as I say, Not as I do" Joe Wildman-Clark

5:22pm Thu 14 Mar 13

stopmoaning1 says...

Ahhh, pots and kettles
Ahhh, pots and kettles stopmoaning1

6:08pm Thu 14 Mar 13

Noteworthy says...

Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Noteworthy wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Noteworthy wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Noteworthy wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:
stopmoaning1 wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:
whateverhappened wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote: Another £7million of our taxes set to be wasted on motorists.
Are you not a professional driver, or was that irony
Look at his name... he is one of the lycra "we own the road" lot. Saw one cycling in the middle of the Southend bound lane of Victoria Avenue this morning, it was not best pleased as cars were passing him either side. Cyclist should pay a tax as they use the road as well as cars, prehaps £50 per year, all money go's to a fund to pay for cycle safety schemes.
Are you really so dim that you think a username defines someone, or are you just pretending? I have stated many times on this forum I am a driver by profession. That is how I earn a living. Are you also so dim as to raise the tax issue again? Have I not explained this to you enough times? THERE. IS. NO. SUCH. THING. AS. ROAD. TAX. ROADS. ARE. PAID. FOR. THROUGH. GENERAL. TAXATION. I even wrote that slowly so your lonely little brain cell had time to read it.
Yeah, but on my DVLA documentation they ask me to pay TAX so I can use my car on the ROAD. Mmm, tax road!
ROAD TAX as it is more commonly - generally - usually - ordinarily - normally called is also know as... Vehicle Tax... Car Tax or in shoebury_pedantic__c yclists case Vehicle Excise Duty. Whatever we want to call it is a tax to drive on the road, which MUST be applied to cyclists as they use the road and pavements as well, so prehaps they should pay more to cover the cost of cyclepaths as well...
No, it is a tax to pollute, it is not a tax to use roads. If it was a tax to use roads then pedestrians, cyclists, horseriders, the many thousands of zero/low emission vehicles, milk floats, police cars, ambulances, would have to pay it too. They don't. Educate your brain cell here: http://ipayroadtax.c om/no-such-thing-as- road-tax/who-pays-ro ad-tax/ Drivers do NOT 'pay for roads', SOCIETY as a whole pays for roads.
I'm sorry but it cannot be a tax to pollute. My car s currently declared SORN, off the road, sitting on my driveway. Yet I can still go out, turn the key and pump fumes and pollution into the air. If it's a tax to pollute, why am I not paying it? I'm sorry but I've had enough. VED is a VEHICLE ROAD USE TAX - certain vehicles are exempt because they are greener, and the government, trying to ensure people by more environmentally friendly cars, have banded them as such that the more pollution you produce, the more you pay. But the fact remains, no disc, no road use. Yes, it's called Vehicle Excise Duty officially, but don't you think people can call it whatever the hell they want?
You ave answered your own question. Without VED you cannot go out and pollute public areas, but you can pollute on your own property. "but don't you think people can call it whatever the hell they want?" Not when they follow up that misnomer with thinking it infers a right to use roads over and above those who do not qualify to pay VED, and not when they think it means they 'pay for the roads'. They don't.
I cannot use the roads without it - ergo, I can use the roads with it. And yes, I can pollute my own property. Wow, amazing, you've just solved the question of global warming! If you only pollute where you are at an exact moment in time it doesn't matter! Seriously? Pollution is not about what you pump out at your property, it's what you pump out INTO THE ATMOSPHERE - no matter where you are. At home, in a traffic jam, my car will be pumping out the same fumes into the atmosphere. So how exactly did I answer my own question? And there you go, people can call it what they want so long as they don't mistake it for meaning other road users should pay. So as long as I don't say 'cyclists should pay it' I can call it road tax all day long.
"I cannot use the roads without it " But you CAN use the roads without it: you could cycle, or walk, or use an electric vehicle.
Ok I'll conceed that - I cannot use my car on the roads without it But before you say it's therefore a car tax... I can use my car on private land without it.
As I said previously, the tax permits you to use a car that pollutes on public roads. You are free to use a car to pollute on your own, or others, private property to your heart's content.
Whatever you want to call it if you do not pay you can not legally drive on the road, so whilst is not not offically called Road Tax it is what most people call it, its a name use by the public (apart from shoebury-cyclist) He moans about poluting cars but has said he drives for a living... Smacks of "Do as I say, Not as I do"
I will add - quite ironically - IT IS NOT A POLLUTION TAX!

The government bands vehicles in different classes based on their emmissions to try and convince motorists to buy more economical cars. This is the only thing linking it to the environment.

The vehicle excise duty is a vehicle tax, that allows you to use a vehicle on the road. you don't pay it because your vehicle pollutes, you are rewarded with a discount because it doesn't.

Otherwise, all cars, on road or not, would have to pay it. After all, pollution at home or on the roads - it all ends up in the same place, it all does the same damage...
[quote][p][bold]Joe Wildman-Clark[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Noteworthy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Noteworthy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Noteworthy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joe Wildman-Clark[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joe Wildman-Clark[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whateverhappened[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: Another £7million of our taxes set to be wasted on motorists.[/p][/quote]Are you not a professional driver, or was that irony[/p][/quote]Look at his name... he is one of the lycra "we own the road" lot. Saw one cycling in the middle of the Southend bound lane of Victoria Avenue this morning, it was not best pleased as cars were passing him either side. Cyclist should pay a tax as they use the road as well as cars, prehaps £50 per year, all money go's to a fund to pay for cycle safety schemes.[/p][/quote]Are you really so dim that you think a username defines someone, or are you just pretending? I have stated many times on this forum I am a driver by profession. That is how I earn a living. Are you also so dim as to raise the tax issue again? Have I not explained this to you enough times? THERE. IS. NO. SUCH. THING. AS. ROAD. TAX. ROADS. ARE. PAID. FOR. THROUGH. GENERAL. TAXATION. I even wrote that slowly so your lonely little brain cell had time to read it.[/p][/quote]Yeah, but on my DVLA documentation they ask me to pay TAX so I can use my car on the ROAD. Mmm, tax road![/p][/quote]ROAD TAX as it is more commonly - generally - usually - ordinarily - normally called is also know as... Vehicle Tax... Car Tax or in shoebury_pedantic__c yclists case Vehicle Excise Duty. Whatever we want to call it is a tax to drive on the road, which MUST be applied to cyclists as they use the road and pavements as well, so prehaps they should pay more to cover the cost of cyclepaths as well...[/p][/quote]No, it is a tax to pollute, it is not a tax to use roads. If it was a tax to use roads then pedestrians, cyclists, horseriders, the many thousands of zero/low emission vehicles, milk floats, police cars, ambulances, would have to pay it too. They don't. Educate your brain cell here: http://ipayroadtax.c om/no-such-thing-as- road-tax/who-pays-ro ad-tax/ Drivers do NOT 'pay for roads', SOCIETY as a whole pays for roads.[/p][/quote]I'm sorry but it cannot be a tax to pollute. My car s currently declared SORN, off the road, sitting on my driveway. Yet I can still go out, turn the key and pump fumes and pollution into the air. If it's a tax to pollute, why am I not paying it? I'm sorry but I've had enough. VED is a VEHICLE ROAD USE TAX - certain vehicles are exempt because they are greener, and the government, trying to ensure people by more environmentally friendly cars, have banded them as such that the more pollution you produce, the more you pay. But the fact remains, no disc, no road use. Yes, it's called Vehicle Excise Duty officially, but don't you think people can call it whatever the hell they want?[/p][/quote]You ave answered your own question. Without VED you cannot go out and pollute public areas, but you can pollute on your own property. "but don't you think people can call it whatever the hell they want?" Not when they follow up that misnomer with thinking it infers a right to use roads over and above those who do not qualify to pay VED, and not when they think it means they 'pay for the roads'. They don't.[/p][/quote]I cannot use the roads without it - ergo, I can use the roads with it. And yes, I can pollute my own property. Wow, amazing, you've just solved the question of global warming! If you only pollute where you are at an exact moment in time it doesn't matter! Seriously? Pollution is not about what you pump out at your property, it's what you pump out INTO THE ATMOSPHERE - no matter where you are. At home, in a traffic jam, my car will be pumping out the same fumes into the atmosphere. So how exactly did I answer my own question? And there you go, people can call it what they want so long as they don't mistake it for meaning other road users should pay. So as long as I don't say 'cyclists should pay it' I can call it road tax all day long.[/p][/quote]"I cannot use the roads without it " But you CAN use the roads without it: you could cycle, or walk, or use an electric vehicle.[/p][/quote]Ok I'll conceed that - I cannot use my car on the roads without it But before you say it's therefore a car tax... I can use my car on private land without it.[/p][/quote]As I said previously, the tax permits you to use a car that pollutes on public roads. You are free to use a car to pollute on your own, or others, private property to your heart's content.[/p][/quote]Whatever you want to call it if you do not pay you can not legally drive on the road, so whilst is not not offically called Road Tax it is what most people call it, its a name use by the public (apart from shoebury-cyclist) He moans about poluting cars but has said he drives for a living... Smacks of "Do as I say, Not as I do"[/p][/quote]I will add - quite ironically - IT IS NOT A POLLUTION TAX! The government bands vehicles in different classes based on their emmissions to try and convince motorists to buy more economical cars. This is the only thing linking it to the environment. The vehicle excise duty is a vehicle tax, that allows you to use a vehicle on the road. you don't pay it because your vehicle pollutes, you are rewarded with a discount because it doesn't. Otherwise, all cars, on road or not, would have to pay it. After all, pollution at home or on the roads - it all ends up in the same place, it all does the same damage... Noteworthy

7:16pm Thu 14 Mar 13

Joe Wildman-Clark says...

Don't tell the greeies but I have a Hilux 3 litre D-4D manual, got chunky tyres fitted, winch, land anchor, Roof Console with CB radio, air compressor, snorkel, four way camera (insurance reducer it films whenever the key is in front, rear left and right) there is also cabcam films the inside should it get nicked they will be on camera, it has live stream to a computer over the 3G soon to be 4G network. most of the mods I have done.
Don't tell the greeies but I have a Hilux 3 litre D-4D manual, got chunky tyres fitted, winch, land anchor, Roof Console with CB radio, air compressor, snorkel, four way camera (insurance reducer it films whenever the key is in front, rear left and right) there is also cabcam films the inside should it get nicked they will be on camera, it has live stream to a computer over the 3G soon to be 4G network. most of the mods I have done. Joe Wildman-Clark

9:25pm Thu 14 Mar 13

stopmoaning1 says...

Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:
Don't tell the greeies but I have a Hilux 3 litre D-4D manual, got chunky tyres fitted, winch, land anchor, Roof Console with CB radio, air compressor, snorkel, four way camera (insurance reducer it films whenever the key is in front, rear left and right) there is also cabcam films the inside should it get nicked they will be on camera, it has live stream to a computer over the 3G soon to be 4G network. most of the mods I have done.
That was going so well until you mentioned the CB radio breaker breaker one nine.
[quote][p][bold]Joe Wildman-Clark[/bold] wrote: Don't tell the greeies but I have a Hilux 3 litre D-4D manual, got chunky tyres fitted, winch, land anchor, Roof Console with CB radio, air compressor, snorkel, four way camera (insurance reducer it films whenever the key is in front, rear left and right) there is also cabcam films the inside should it get nicked they will be on camera, it has live stream to a computer over the 3G soon to be 4G network. most of the mods I have done.[/p][/quote]That was going so well until you mentioned the CB radio breaker breaker one nine. stopmoaning1

9:49pm Thu 14 Mar 13

Joe Wildman-Clark says...

stopmoaning1 wrote:
Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:
Don't tell the greeies but I have a Hilux 3 litre D-4D manual, got chunky tyres fitted, winch, land anchor, Roof Console with CB radio, air compressor, snorkel, four way camera (insurance reducer it films whenever the key is in front, rear left and right) there is also cabcam films the inside should it get nicked they will be on camera, it has live stream to a computer over the 3G soon to be 4G network. most of the mods I have done.
That was going so well until you mentioned the CB radio breaker breaker one nine.
It's work related for when on site's, one of the girl's I work with has the call sign swallow69 ;-)
[quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joe Wildman-Clark[/bold] wrote: Don't tell the greeies but I have a Hilux 3 litre D-4D manual, got chunky tyres fitted, winch, land anchor, Roof Console with CB radio, air compressor, snorkel, four way camera (insurance reducer it films whenever the key is in front, rear left and right) there is also cabcam films the inside should it get nicked they will be on camera, it has live stream to a computer over the 3G soon to be 4G network. most of the mods I have done.[/p][/quote]That was going so well until you mentioned the CB radio breaker breaker one nine.[/p][/quote]It's work related for when on site's, one of the girl's I work with has the call sign swallow69 ;-) Joe Wildman-Clark

7:52am Fri 15 Mar 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

Noteworthy wrote:
Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Noteworthy wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Noteworthy wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Noteworthy wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:
stopmoaning1 wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:
whateverhappened wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote: Another £7million of our taxes set to be wasted on motorists.
Are you not a professional driver, or was that irony
Look at his name... he is one of the lycra "we own the road" lot. Saw one cycling in the middle of the Southend bound lane of Victoria Avenue this morning, it was not best pleased as cars were passing him either side. Cyclist should pay a tax as they use the road as well as cars, prehaps £50 per year, all money go's to a fund to pay for cycle safety schemes.
Are you really so dim that you think a username defines someone, or are you just pretending? I have stated many times on this forum I am a driver by profession. That is how I earn a living. Are you also so dim as to raise the tax issue again? Have I not explained this to you enough times? THERE. IS. NO. SUCH. THING. AS. ROAD. TAX. ROADS. ARE. PAID. FOR. THROUGH. GENERAL. TAXATION. I even wrote that slowly so your lonely little brain cell had time to read it.
Yeah, but on my DVLA documentation they ask me to pay TAX so I can use my car on the ROAD. Mmm, tax road!
ROAD TAX as it is more commonly - generally - usually - ordinarily - normally called is also know as... Vehicle Tax... Car Tax or in shoebury_pedantic__c yclists case Vehicle Excise Duty. Whatever we want to call it is a tax to drive on the road, which MUST be applied to cyclists as they use the road and pavements as well, so prehaps they should pay more to cover the cost of cyclepaths as well...
No, it is a tax to pollute, it is not a tax to use roads. If it was a tax to use roads then pedestrians, cyclists, horseriders, the many thousands of zero/low emission vehicles, milk floats, police cars, ambulances, would have to pay it too. They don't. Educate your brain cell here: http://ipayroadtax.c om/no-such-thing-as- road-tax/who-pays-ro ad-tax/ Drivers do NOT 'pay for roads', SOCIETY as a whole pays for roads.
I'm sorry but it cannot be a tax to pollute. My car s currently declared SORN, off the road, sitting on my driveway. Yet I can still go out, turn the key and pump fumes and pollution into the air. If it's a tax to pollute, why am I not paying it? I'm sorry but I've had enough. VED is a VEHICLE ROAD USE TAX - certain vehicles are exempt because they are greener, and the government, trying to ensure people by more environmentally friendly cars, have banded them as such that the more pollution you produce, the more you pay. But the fact remains, no disc, no road use. Yes, it's called Vehicle Excise Duty officially, but don't you think people can call it whatever the hell they want?
You ave answered your own question. Without VED you cannot go out and pollute public areas, but you can pollute on your own property. "but don't you think people can call it whatever the hell they want?" Not when they follow up that misnomer with thinking it infers a right to use roads over and above those who do not qualify to pay VED, and not when they think it means they 'pay for the roads'. They don't.
I cannot use the roads without it - ergo, I can use the roads with it. And yes, I can pollute my own property. Wow, amazing, you've just solved the question of global warming! If you only pollute where you are at an exact moment in time it doesn't matter! Seriously? Pollution is not about what you pump out at your property, it's what you pump out INTO THE ATMOSPHERE - no matter where you are. At home, in a traffic jam, my car will be pumping out the same fumes into the atmosphere. So how exactly did I answer my own question? And there you go, people can call it what they want so long as they don't mistake it for meaning other road users should pay. So as long as I don't say 'cyclists should pay it' I can call it road tax all day long.
"I cannot use the roads without it " But you CAN use the roads without it: you could cycle, or walk, or use an electric vehicle.
Ok I'll conceed that - I cannot use my car on the roads without it But before you say it's therefore a car tax... I can use my car on private land without it.
As I said previously, the tax permits you to use a car that pollutes on public roads. You are free to use a car to pollute on your own, or others, private property to your heart's content.
Whatever you want to call it if you do not pay you can not legally drive on the road, so whilst is not not offically called Road Tax it is what most people call it, its a name use by the public (apart from shoebury-cyclist) He moans about poluting cars but has said he drives for a living... Smacks of "Do as I say, Not as I do"
I will add - quite ironically - IT IS NOT A POLLUTION TAX!

The government bands vehicles in different classes based on their emmissions to try and convince motorists to buy more economical cars. This is the only thing linking it to the environment.

The vehicle excise duty is a vehicle tax, that allows you to use a vehicle on the road. you don't pay it because your vehicle pollutes, you are rewarded with a discount because it doesn't.

Otherwise, all cars, on road or not, would have to pay it. After all, pollution at home or on the roads - it all ends up in the same place, it all does the same damage...
If your vehicle pollutes you have to pay VED. If your vehicle does not pollute you don't have to pay VED.

It's a pollution tax.

Go on, tell us alcohol duty is a pub tax, or tobacco duty is a hospital tax.
[quote][p][bold]Noteworthy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joe Wildman-Clark[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Noteworthy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Noteworthy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Noteworthy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joe Wildman-Clark[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joe Wildman-Clark[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whateverhappened[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: Another £7million of our taxes set to be wasted on motorists.[/p][/quote]Are you not a professional driver, or was that irony[/p][/quote]Look at his name... he is one of the lycra "we own the road" lot. Saw one cycling in the middle of the Southend bound lane of Victoria Avenue this morning, it was not best pleased as cars were passing him either side. Cyclist should pay a tax as they use the road as well as cars, prehaps £50 per year, all money go's to a fund to pay for cycle safety schemes.[/p][/quote]Are you really so dim that you think a username defines someone, or are you just pretending? I have stated many times on this forum I am a driver by profession. That is how I earn a living. Are you also so dim as to raise the tax issue again? Have I not explained this to you enough times? THERE. IS. NO. SUCH. THING. AS. ROAD. TAX. ROADS. ARE. PAID. FOR. THROUGH. GENERAL. TAXATION. I even wrote that slowly so your lonely little brain cell had time to read it.[/p][/quote]Yeah, but on my DVLA documentation they ask me to pay TAX so I can use my car on the ROAD. Mmm, tax road![/p][/quote]ROAD TAX as it is more commonly - generally - usually - ordinarily - normally called is also know as... Vehicle Tax... Car Tax or in shoebury_pedantic__c yclists case Vehicle Excise Duty. Whatever we want to call it is a tax to drive on the road, which MUST be applied to cyclists as they use the road and pavements as well, so prehaps they should pay more to cover the cost of cyclepaths as well...[/p][/quote]No, it is a tax to pollute, it is not a tax to use roads. If it was a tax to use roads then pedestrians, cyclists, horseriders, the many thousands of zero/low emission vehicles, milk floats, police cars, ambulances, would have to pay it too. They don't. Educate your brain cell here: http://ipayroadtax.c om/no-such-thing-as- road-tax/who-pays-ro ad-tax/ Drivers do NOT 'pay for roads', SOCIETY as a whole pays for roads.[/p][/quote]I'm sorry but it cannot be a tax to pollute. My car s currently declared SORN, off the road, sitting on my driveway. Yet I can still go out, turn the key and pump fumes and pollution into the air. If it's a tax to pollute, why am I not paying it? I'm sorry but I've had enough. VED is a VEHICLE ROAD USE TAX - certain vehicles are exempt because they are greener, and the government, trying to ensure people by more environmentally friendly cars, have banded them as such that the more pollution you produce, the more you pay. But the fact remains, no disc, no road use. Yes, it's called Vehicle Excise Duty officially, but don't you think people can call it whatever the hell they want?[/p][/quote]You ave answered your own question. Without VED you cannot go out and pollute public areas, but you can pollute on your own property. "but don't you think people can call it whatever the hell they want?" Not when they follow up that misnomer with thinking it infers a right to use roads over and above those who do not qualify to pay VED, and not when they think it means they 'pay for the roads'. They don't.[/p][/quote]I cannot use the roads without it - ergo, I can use the roads with it. And yes, I can pollute my own property. Wow, amazing, you've just solved the question of global warming! If you only pollute where you are at an exact moment in time it doesn't matter! Seriously? Pollution is not about what you pump out at your property, it's what you pump out INTO THE ATMOSPHERE - no matter where you are. At home, in a traffic jam, my car will be pumping out the same fumes into the atmosphere. So how exactly did I answer my own question? And there you go, people can call it what they want so long as they don't mistake it for meaning other road users should pay. So as long as I don't say 'cyclists should pay it' I can call it road tax all day long.[/p][/quote]"I cannot use the roads without it " But you CAN use the roads without it: you could cycle, or walk, or use an electric vehicle.[/p][/quote]Ok I'll conceed that - I cannot use my car on the roads without it But before you say it's therefore a car tax... I can use my car on private land without it.[/p][/quote]As I said previously, the tax permits you to use a car that pollutes on public roads. You are free to use a car to pollute on your own, or others, private property to your heart's content.[/p][/quote]Whatever you want to call it if you do not pay you can not legally drive on the road, so whilst is not not offically called Road Tax it is what most people call it, its a name use by the public (apart from shoebury-cyclist) He moans about poluting cars but has said he drives for a living... Smacks of "Do as I say, Not as I do"[/p][/quote]I will add - quite ironically - IT IS NOT A POLLUTION TAX! The government bands vehicles in different classes based on their emmissions to try and convince motorists to buy more economical cars. This is the only thing linking it to the environment. The vehicle excise duty is a vehicle tax, that allows you to use a vehicle on the road. you don't pay it because your vehicle pollutes, you are rewarded with a discount because it doesn't. Otherwise, all cars, on road or not, would have to pay it. After all, pollution at home or on the roads - it all ends up in the same place, it all does the same damage...[/p][/quote]If your vehicle pollutes you have to pay VED. If your vehicle does not pollute you don't have to pay VED. It's a pollution tax. Go on, tell us alcohol duty is a pub tax, or tobacco duty is a hospital tax. Shoebury_Cyclist

7:53am Fri 15 Mar 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Noteworthy wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Noteworthy wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Noteworthy wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:
stopmoaning1 wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:
whateverhappened wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote: Another £7million of our taxes set to be wasted on motorists.
Are you not a professional driver, or was that irony
Look at his name... he is one of the lycra "we own the road" lot. Saw one cycling in the middle of the Southend bound lane of Victoria Avenue this morning, it was not best pleased as cars were passing him either side. Cyclist should pay a tax as they use the road as well as cars, prehaps £50 per year, all money go's to a fund to pay for cycle safety schemes.
Are you really so dim that you think a username defines someone, or are you just pretending? I have stated many times on this forum I am a driver by profession. That is how I earn a living. Are you also so dim as to raise the tax issue again? Have I not explained this to you enough times? THERE. IS. NO. SUCH. THING. AS. ROAD. TAX. ROADS. ARE. PAID. FOR. THROUGH. GENERAL. TAXATION. I even wrote that slowly so your lonely little brain cell had time to read it.
Yeah, but on my DVLA documentation they ask me to pay TAX so I can use my car on the ROAD. Mmm, tax road!
ROAD TAX as it is more commonly - generally - usually - ordinarily - normally called is also know as... Vehicle Tax... Car Tax or in shoebury_pedantic__c yclists case Vehicle Excise Duty. Whatever we want to call it is a tax to drive on the road, which MUST be applied to cyclists as they use the road and pavements as well, so prehaps they should pay more to cover the cost of cyclepaths as well...
No, it is a tax to pollute, it is not a tax to use roads. If it was a tax to use roads then pedestrians, cyclists, horseriders, the many thousands of zero/low emission vehicles, milk floats, police cars, ambulances, would have to pay it too. They don't. Educate your brain cell here: http://ipayroadtax.c om/no-such-thing-as- road-tax/who-pays-ro ad-tax/ Drivers do NOT 'pay for roads', SOCIETY as a whole pays for roads.
I'm sorry but it cannot be a tax to pollute. My car s currently declared SORN, off the road, sitting on my driveway. Yet I can still go out, turn the key and pump fumes and pollution into the air. If it's a tax to pollute, why am I not paying it? I'm sorry but I've had enough. VED is a VEHICLE ROAD USE TAX - certain vehicles are exempt because they are greener, and the government, trying to ensure people by more environmentally friendly cars, have banded them as such that the more pollution you produce, the more you pay. But the fact remains, no disc, no road use. Yes, it's called Vehicle Excise Duty officially, but don't you think people can call it whatever the hell they want?
You ave answered your own question. Without VED you cannot go out and pollute public areas, but you can pollute on your own property. "but don't you think people can call it whatever the hell they want?" Not when they follow up that misnomer with thinking it infers a right to use roads over and above those who do not qualify to pay VED, and not when they think it means they 'pay for the roads'. They don't.
I cannot use the roads without it - ergo, I can use the roads with it. And yes, I can pollute my own property. Wow, amazing, you've just solved the question of global warming! If you only pollute where you are at an exact moment in time it doesn't matter! Seriously? Pollution is not about what you pump out at your property, it's what you pump out INTO THE ATMOSPHERE - no matter where you are. At home, in a traffic jam, my car will be pumping out the same fumes into the atmosphere. So how exactly did I answer my own question? And there you go, people can call it what they want so long as they don't mistake it for meaning other road users should pay. So as long as I don't say 'cyclists should pay it' I can call it road tax all day long.
"I cannot use the roads without it " But you CAN use the roads without it: you could cycle, or walk, or use an electric vehicle.
Ok I'll conceed that - I cannot use my car on the roads without it

But before you say it's therefore a car tax...

I can use my car on private land without it.
As I said previously, the tax permits you to use a car that pollutes on public roads. You are free to use a car to pollute on your own, or others, private property to your heart's content.
Whatever you want to call it if you do not pay you can not legally drive on the road, so whilst is not not offically called Road Tax it is what most people call it, its a name use by the public (apart from shoebury-cyclist)

He moans about poluting cars but has said he drives for a living... Smacks of "Do as I say, Not as I do"
When have I moaned about polluting cars? I have corrected you many times on the fact that roads are not taxed but polluting with a car is taxed.
[quote][p][bold]Joe Wildman-Clark[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Noteworthy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Noteworthy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Noteworthy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joe Wildman-Clark[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joe Wildman-Clark[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whateverhappened[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: Another £7million of our taxes set to be wasted on motorists.[/p][/quote]Are you not a professional driver, or was that irony[/p][/quote]Look at his name... he is one of the lycra "we own the road" lot. Saw one cycling in the middle of the Southend bound lane of Victoria Avenue this morning, it was not best pleased as cars were passing him either side. Cyclist should pay a tax as they use the road as well as cars, prehaps £50 per year, all money go's to a fund to pay for cycle safety schemes.[/p][/quote]Are you really so dim that you think a username defines someone, or are you just pretending? I have stated many times on this forum I am a driver by profession. That is how I earn a living. Are you also so dim as to raise the tax issue again? Have I not explained this to you enough times? THERE. IS. NO. SUCH. THING. AS. ROAD. TAX. ROADS. ARE. PAID. FOR. THROUGH. GENERAL. TAXATION. I even wrote that slowly so your lonely little brain cell had time to read it.[/p][/quote]Yeah, but on my DVLA documentation they ask me to pay TAX so I can use my car on the ROAD. Mmm, tax road![/p][/quote]ROAD TAX as it is more commonly - generally - usually - ordinarily - normally called is also know as... Vehicle Tax... Car Tax or in shoebury_pedantic__c yclists case Vehicle Excise Duty. Whatever we want to call it is a tax to drive on the road, which MUST be applied to cyclists as they use the road and pavements as well, so prehaps they should pay more to cover the cost of cyclepaths as well...[/p][/quote]No, it is a tax to pollute, it is not a tax to use roads. If it was a tax to use roads then pedestrians, cyclists, horseriders, the many thousands of zero/low emission vehicles, milk floats, police cars, ambulances, would have to pay it too. They don't. Educate your brain cell here: http://ipayroadtax.c om/no-such-thing-as- road-tax/who-pays-ro ad-tax/ Drivers do NOT 'pay for roads', SOCIETY as a whole pays for roads.[/p][/quote]I'm sorry but it cannot be a tax to pollute. My car s currently declared SORN, off the road, sitting on my driveway. Yet I can still go out, turn the key and pump fumes and pollution into the air. If it's a tax to pollute, why am I not paying it? I'm sorry but I've had enough. VED is a VEHICLE ROAD USE TAX - certain vehicles are exempt because they are greener, and the government, trying to ensure people by more environmentally friendly cars, have banded them as such that the more pollution you produce, the more you pay. But the fact remains, no disc, no road use. Yes, it's called Vehicle Excise Duty officially, but don't you think people can call it whatever the hell they want?[/p][/quote]You ave answered your own question. Without VED you cannot go out and pollute public areas, but you can pollute on your own property. "but don't you think people can call it whatever the hell they want?" Not when they follow up that misnomer with thinking it infers a right to use roads over and above those who do not qualify to pay VED, and not when they think it means they 'pay for the roads'. They don't.[/p][/quote]I cannot use the roads without it - ergo, I can use the roads with it. And yes, I can pollute my own property. Wow, amazing, you've just solved the question of global warming! If you only pollute where you are at an exact moment in time it doesn't matter! Seriously? Pollution is not about what you pump out at your property, it's what you pump out INTO THE ATMOSPHERE - no matter where you are. At home, in a traffic jam, my car will be pumping out the same fumes into the atmosphere. So how exactly did I answer my own question? And there you go, people can call it what they want so long as they don't mistake it for meaning other road users should pay. So as long as I don't say 'cyclists should pay it' I can call it road tax all day long.[/p][/quote]"I cannot use the roads without it " But you CAN use the roads without it: you could cycle, or walk, or use an electric vehicle.[/p][/quote]Ok I'll conceed that - I cannot use my car on the roads without it But before you say it's therefore a car tax... I can use my car on private land without it.[/p][/quote]As I said previously, the tax permits you to use a car that pollutes on public roads. You are free to use a car to pollute on your own, or others, private property to your heart's content.[/p][/quote]Whatever you want to call it if you do not pay you can not legally drive on the road, so whilst is not not offically called Road Tax it is what most people call it, its a name use by the public (apart from shoebury-cyclist) He moans about poluting cars but has said he drives for a living... Smacks of "Do as I say, Not as I do"[/p][/quote]When have I moaned about polluting cars? I have corrected you many times on the fact that roads are not taxed but polluting with a car is taxed. Shoebury_Cyclist

9:06am Fri 15 Mar 13

Noteworthy says...

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Noteworthy wrote:
Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Noteworthy wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Noteworthy wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Noteworthy wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:
stopmoaning1 wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:
whateverhappened wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote: Another £7million of our taxes set to be wasted on motorists.
Are you not a professional driver, or was that irony
Look at his name... he is one of the lycra "we own the road" lot. Saw one cycling in the middle of the Southend bound lane of Victoria Avenue this morning, it was not best pleased as cars were passing him either side. Cyclist should pay a tax as they use the road as well as cars, prehaps £50 per year, all money go's to a fund to pay for cycle safety schemes.
Are you really so dim that you think a username defines someone, or are you just pretending? I have stated many times on this forum I am a driver by profession. That is how I earn a living. Are you also so dim as to raise the tax issue again? Have I not explained this to you enough times? THERE. IS. NO. SUCH. THING. AS. ROAD. TAX. ROADS. ARE. PAID. FOR. THROUGH. GENERAL. TAXATION. I even wrote that slowly so your lonely little brain cell had time to read it.
Yeah, but on my DVLA documentation they ask me to pay TAX so I can use my car on the ROAD. Mmm, tax road!
ROAD TAX as it is more commonly - generally - usually - ordinarily - normally called is also know as... Vehicle Tax... Car Tax or in shoebury_pedantic__c yclists case Vehicle Excise Duty. Whatever we want to call it is a tax to drive on the road, which MUST be applied to cyclists as they use the road and pavements as well, so prehaps they should pay more to cover the cost of cyclepaths as well...
No, it is a tax to pollute, it is not a tax to use roads. If it was a tax to use roads then pedestrians, cyclists, horseriders, the many thousands of zero/low emission vehicles, milk floats, police cars, ambulances, would have to pay it too. They don't. Educate your brain cell here: http://ipayroadtax.c om/no-such-thing-as- road-tax/who-pays-ro ad-tax/ Drivers do NOT 'pay for roads', SOCIETY as a whole pays for roads.
I'm sorry but it cannot be a tax to pollute. My car s currently declared SORN, off the road, sitting on my driveway. Yet I can still go out, turn the key and pump fumes and pollution into the air. If it's a tax to pollute, why am I not paying it? I'm sorry but I've had enough. VED is a VEHICLE ROAD USE TAX - certain vehicles are exempt because they are greener, and the government, trying to ensure people by more environmentally friendly cars, have banded them as such that the more pollution you produce, the more you pay. But the fact remains, no disc, no road use. Yes, it's called Vehicle Excise Duty officially, but don't you think people can call it whatever the hell they want?
You ave answered your own question. Without VED you cannot go out and pollute public areas, but you can pollute on your own property. "but don't you think people can call it whatever the hell they want?" Not when they follow up that misnomer with thinking it infers a right to use roads over and above those who do not qualify to pay VED, and not when they think it means they 'pay for the roads'. They don't.
I cannot use the roads without it - ergo, I can use the roads with it. And yes, I can pollute my own property. Wow, amazing, you've just solved the question of global warming! If you only pollute where you are at an exact moment in time it doesn't matter! Seriously? Pollution is not about what you pump out at your property, it's what you pump out INTO THE ATMOSPHERE - no matter where you are. At home, in a traffic jam, my car will be pumping out the same fumes into the atmosphere. So how exactly did I answer my own question? And there you go, people can call it what they want so long as they don't mistake it for meaning other road users should pay. So as long as I don't say 'cyclists should pay it' I can call it road tax all day long.
"I cannot use the roads without it " But you CAN use the roads without it: you could cycle, or walk, or use an electric vehicle.
Ok I'll conceed that - I cannot use my car on the roads without it But before you say it's therefore a car tax... I can use my car on private land without it.
As I said previously, the tax permits you to use a car that pollutes on public roads. You are free to use a car to pollute on your own, or others, private property to your heart's content.
Whatever you want to call it if you do not pay you can not legally drive on the road, so whilst is not not offically called Road Tax it is what most people call it, its a name use by the public (apart from shoebury-cyclist) He moans about poluting cars but has said he drives for a living... Smacks of "Do as I say, Not as I do"
I will add - quite ironically - IT IS NOT A POLLUTION TAX! The government bands vehicles in different classes based on their emmissions to try and convince motorists to buy more economical cars. This is the only thing linking it to the environment. The vehicle excise duty is a vehicle tax, that allows you to use a vehicle on the road. you don't pay it because your vehicle pollutes, you are rewarded with a discount because it doesn't. Otherwise, all cars, on road or not, would have to pay it. After all, pollution at home or on the roads - it all ends up in the same place, it all does the same damage...
If your vehicle pollutes you have to pay VED. If your vehicle does not pollute you don't have to pay VED. It's a pollution tax. Go on, tell us alcohol duty is a pub tax, or tobacco duty is a hospital tax.
I'm sorry but I think you're rantings are confusing even you.

I've called it a vehicle tax. The government decrees that the fewer emmissions your car produces, the more benefits you get. It's a tax on vehicles.

If it's a pollution tax, why do I not have to pay it when I have my car off the road? Pollution occurs everywhere and ends up in the same place.

I did laugh when you said it's ok if it pollutes your own property so it is ok. You do understand what pollution is yes? Greenhouse gases and all that? I leave my car runnng on a driveway, or on the M25 in traffic, my car still contributes the same amount to pollution.

Now this is where I think you're confused.

If I were to call alcohol tax a pub tax, and tobacco tax a hospital tax, I would be calling them a tax on the effects. But I call them acohol and tobacco taxes because they are taxes on the PRODUCTS

A vehicle tax is a tax on a PRODUCT. A pollution tax is a tax on the effect - therefore, you should be the one calling them a pub and hospital tax.

Also, if it is a tax on pollution - why are old classic cars exempt? They are some of the most polluting vehicles imaginable!

It's a vehicle tax, allowing you to use your car on the road. The amount of emmissions only decrees the level of award you are offered by the government. They could abolish it tomorrow and return to the old system based on engine size if they liked.

As you seem to be confusing your argument with your own points, may I suggest a lie down?
[quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Noteworthy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joe Wildman-Clark[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Noteworthy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Noteworthy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Noteworthy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joe Wildman-Clark[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joe Wildman-Clark[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whateverhappened[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: Another £7million of our taxes set to be wasted on motorists.[/p][/quote]Are you not a professional driver, or was that irony[/p][/quote]Look at his name... he is one of the lycra "we own the road" lot. Saw one cycling in the middle of the Southend bound lane of Victoria Avenue this morning, it was not best pleased as cars were passing him either side. Cyclist should pay a tax as they use the road as well as cars, prehaps £50 per year, all money go's to a fund to pay for cycle safety schemes.[/p][/quote]Are you really so dim that you think a username defines someone, or are you just pretending? I have stated many times on this forum I am a driver by profession. That is how I earn a living. Are you also so dim as to raise the tax issue again? Have I not explained this to you enough times? THERE. IS. NO. SUCH. THING. AS. ROAD. TAX. ROADS. ARE. PAID. FOR. THROUGH. GENERAL. TAXATION. I even wrote that slowly so your lonely little brain cell had time to read it.[/p][/quote]Yeah, but on my DVLA documentation they ask me to pay TAX so I can use my car on the ROAD. Mmm, tax road![/p][/quote]ROAD TAX as it is more commonly - generally - usually - ordinarily - normally called is also know as... Vehicle Tax... Car Tax or in shoebury_pedantic__c yclists case Vehicle Excise Duty. Whatever we want to call it is a tax to drive on the road, which MUST be applied to cyclists as they use the road and pavements as well, so prehaps they should pay more to cover the cost of cyclepaths as well...[/p][/quote]No, it is a tax to pollute, it is not a tax to use roads. If it was a tax to use roads then pedestrians, cyclists, horseriders, the many thousands of zero/low emission vehicles, milk floats, police cars, ambulances, would have to pay it too. They don't. Educate your brain cell here: http://ipayroadtax.c om/no-such-thing-as- road-tax/who-pays-ro ad-tax/ Drivers do NOT 'pay for roads', SOCIETY as a whole pays for roads.[/p][/quote]I'm sorry but it cannot be a tax to pollute. My car s currently declared SORN, off the road, sitting on my driveway. Yet I can still go out, turn the key and pump fumes and pollution into the air. If it's a tax to pollute, why am I not paying it? I'm sorry but I've had enough. VED is a VEHICLE ROAD USE TAX - certain vehicles are exempt because they are greener, and the government, trying to ensure people by more environmentally friendly cars, have banded them as such that the more pollution you produce, the more you pay. But the fact remains, no disc, no road use. Yes, it's called Vehicle Excise Duty officially, but don't you think people can call it whatever the hell they want?[/p][/quote]You ave answered your own question. Without VED you cannot go out and pollute public areas, but you can pollute on your own property. "but don't you think people can call it whatever the hell they want?" Not when they follow up that misnomer with thinking it infers a right to use roads over and above those who do not qualify to pay VED, and not when they think it means they 'pay for the roads'. They don't.[/p][/quote]I cannot use the roads without it - ergo, I can use the roads with it. And yes, I can pollute my own property. Wow, amazing, you've just solved the question of global warming! If you only pollute where you are at an exact moment in time it doesn't matter! Seriously? Pollution is not about what you pump out at your property, it's what you pump out INTO THE ATMOSPHERE - no matter where you are. At home, in a traffic jam, my car will be pumping out the same fumes into the atmosphere. So how exactly did I answer my own question? And there you go, people can call it what they want so long as they don't mistake it for meaning other road users should pay. So as long as I don't say 'cyclists should pay it' I can call it road tax all day long.[/p][/quote]"I cannot use the roads without it " But you CAN use the roads without it: you could cycle, or walk, or use an electric vehicle.[/p][/quote]Ok I'll conceed that - I cannot use my car on the roads without it But before you say it's therefore a car tax... I can use my car on private land without it.[/p][/quote]As I said previously, the tax permits you to use a car that pollutes on public roads. You are free to use a car to pollute on your own, or others, private property to your heart's content.[/p][/quote]Whatever you want to call it if you do not pay you can not legally drive on the road, so whilst is not not offically called Road Tax it is what most people call it, its a name use by the public (apart from shoebury-cyclist) He moans about poluting cars but has said he drives for a living... Smacks of "Do as I say, Not as I do"[/p][/quote]I will add - quite ironically - IT IS NOT A POLLUTION TAX! The government bands vehicles in different classes based on their emmissions to try and convince motorists to buy more economical cars. This is the only thing linking it to the environment. The vehicle excise duty is a vehicle tax, that allows you to use a vehicle on the road. you don't pay it because your vehicle pollutes, you are rewarded with a discount because it doesn't. Otherwise, all cars, on road or not, would have to pay it. After all, pollution at home or on the roads - it all ends up in the same place, it all does the same damage...[/p][/quote]If your vehicle pollutes you have to pay VED. If your vehicle does not pollute you don't have to pay VED. It's a pollution tax. Go on, tell us alcohol duty is a pub tax, or tobacco duty is a hospital tax.[/p][/quote]I'm sorry but I think you're rantings are confusing even you. I've called it a vehicle tax. The government decrees that the fewer emmissions your car produces, the more benefits you get. It's a tax on vehicles. If it's a pollution tax, why do I not have to pay it when I have my car off the road? Pollution occurs everywhere and ends up in the same place. I did laugh when you said it's ok if it pollutes your own property so it is ok. You do understand what pollution is yes? Greenhouse gases and all that? I leave my car runnng on a driveway, or on the M25 in traffic, my car still contributes the same amount to pollution. Now this is where I think you're confused. If I were to call alcohol tax a pub tax, and tobacco tax a hospital tax, I would be calling them a tax on the effects. But I call them acohol and tobacco taxes because they are taxes on the PRODUCTS A vehicle tax is a tax on a PRODUCT. A pollution tax is a tax on the effect - therefore, you should be the one calling them a pub and hospital tax. Also, if it is a tax on pollution - why are old classic cars exempt? They are some of the most polluting vehicles imaginable! It's a vehicle tax, allowing you to use your car on the road. The amount of emmissions only decrees the level of award you are offered by the government. They could abolish it tomorrow and return to the old system based on engine size if they liked. As you seem to be confusing your argument with your own points, may I suggest a lie down? Noteworthy

9:10am Fri 15 Mar 13

stopmoaning1 says...

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Noteworthy wrote:
Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Noteworthy wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Noteworthy wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Noteworthy wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:
stopmoaning1 wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:
whateverhappened wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote: Another £7million of our taxes set to be wasted on motorists.
Are you not a professional driver, or was that irony
Look at his name... he is one of the lycra "we own the road" lot. Saw one cycling in the middle of the Southend bound lane of Victoria Avenue this morning, it was not best pleased as cars were passing him either side. Cyclist should pay a tax as they use the road as well as cars, prehaps £50 per year, all money go's to a fund to pay for cycle safety schemes.
Are you really so dim that you think a username defines someone, or are you just pretending? I have stated many times on this forum I am a driver by profession. That is how I earn a living. Are you also so dim as to raise the tax issue again? Have I not explained this to you enough times? THERE. IS. NO. SUCH. THING. AS. ROAD. TAX. ROADS. ARE. PAID. FOR. THROUGH. GENERAL. TAXATION. I even wrote that slowly so your lonely little brain cell had time to read it.
Yeah, but on my DVLA documentation they ask me to pay TAX so I can use my car on the ROAD. Mmm, tax road!
ROAD TAX as it is more commonly - generally - usually - ordinarily - normally called is also know as... Vehicle Tax... Car Tax or in shoebury_pedantic__c yclists case Vehicle Excise Duty. Whatever we want to call it is a tax to drive on the road, which MUST be applied to cyclists as they use the road and pavements as well, so prehaps they should pay more to cover the cost of cyclepaths as well...
No, it is a tax to pollute, it is not a tax to use roads. If it was a tax to use roads then pedestrians, cyclists, horseriders, the many thousands of zero/low emission vehicles, milk floats, police cars, ambulances, would have to pay it too. They don't. Educate your brain cell here: http://ipayroadtax.c om/no-such-thing-as- road-tax/who-pays-ro ad-tax/ Drivers do NOT 'pay for roads', SOCIETY as a whole pays for roads.
I'm sorry but it cannot be a tax to pollute. My car s currently declared SORN, off the road, sitting on my driveway. Yet I can still go out, turn the key and pump fumes and pollution into the air. If it's a tax to pollute, why am I not paying it? I'm sorry but I've had enough. VED is a VEHICLE ROAD USE TAX - certain vehicles are exempt because they are greener, and the government, trying to ensure people by more environmentally friendly cars, have banded them as such that the more pollution you produce, the more you pay. But the fact remains, no disc, no road use. Yes, it's called Vehicle Excise Duty officially, but don't you think people can call it whatever the hell they want?
You ave answered your own question. Without VED you cannot go out and pollute public areas, but you can pollute on your own property. "but don't you think people can call it whatever the hell they want?" Not when they follow up that misnomer with thinking it infers a right to use roads over and above those who do not qualify to pay VED, and not when they think it means they 'pay for the roads'. They don't.
I cannot use the roads without it - ergo, I can use the roads with it. And yes, I can pollute my own property. Wow, amazing, you've just solved the question of global warming! If you only pollute where you are at an exact moment in time it doesn't matter! Seriously? Pollution is not about what you pump out at your property, it's what you pump out INTO THE ATMOSPHERE - no matter where you are. At home, in a traffic jam, my car will be pumping out the same fumes into the atmosphere. So how exactly did I answer my own question? And there you go, people can call it what they want so long as they don't mistake it for meaning other road users should pay. So as long as I don't say 'cyclists should pay it' I can call it road tax all day long.
"I cannot use the roads without it " But you CAN use the roads without it: you could cycle, or walk, or use an electric vehicle.
Ok I'll conceed that - I cannot use my car on the roads without it But before you say it's therefore a car tax... I can use my car on private land without it.
As I said previously, the tax permits you to use a car that pollutes on public roads. You are free to use a car to pollute on your own, or others, private property to your heart's content.
Whatever you want to call it if you do not pay you can not legally drive on the road, so whilst is not not offically called Road Tax it is what most people call it, its a name use by the public (apart from shoebury-cyclist) He moans about poluting cars but has said he drives for a living... Smacks of "Do as I say, Not as I do"
I will add - quite ironically - IT IS NOT A POLLUTION TAX!

The government bands vehicles in different classes based on their emmissions to try and convince motorists to buy more economical cars. This is the only thing linking it to the environment.

The vehicle excise duty is a vehicle tax, that allows you to use a vehicle on the road. you don't pay it because your vehicle pollutes, you are rewarded with a discount because it doesn't.

Otherwise, all cars, on road or not, would have to pay it. After all, pollution at home or on the roads - it all ends up in the same place, it all does the same damage...
If your vehicle pollutes you have to pay VED. If your vehicle does not pollute you don't have to pay VED.

It's a pollution tax.

Go on, tell us alcohol duty is a pub tax, or tobacco duty is a hospital tax.
Well that’s not quite the whole truth is it.

You don’t have to pay vehicle tax on following types of vehicle.

Vehicles used by a disabled person –That’s any vehicle including those in the top band for the rest of us. POLLUTANT.!

Disabled passenger vehicles
Vehicles (apart from ambulances) used by organisations providing transport for the disabled. – Usually mini bus type vehicle, often quite old as they are provided by charities. POLLUTANT!

Historic vehicles
You don’t have to pay vehicle tax on vehicles made before 1 January 1973 – That’s any vehicle used before 1st Jan 1973. How many of those would you say were clean? Probably the dirtiest group of all. POLLUTANT!

Vehicles used just for agriculture, horticulture and forestry
This includes tractors, agricultural engines and light agricultural vehicles used off-road.- Doesn’t matter what type of engine or how dirty it is. POLLUTANT!

So if it were a pollution tax, there’s a lot of money to be made here. But it’s not is it. It is a tax that I have to pay in order to be able to use and keep my car (that doesn’t fall in to one of the above categories) on a road. It is that simple. As a motorist I don’t like paying it but I have to, in order to use my car on the road.
[quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Noteworthy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joe Wildman-Clark[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Noteworthy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Noteworthy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Noteworthy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joe Wildman-Clark[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joe Wildman-Clark[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whateverhappened[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: Another £7million of our taxes set to be wasted on motorists.[/p][/quote]Are you not a professional driver, or was that irony[/p][/quote]Look at his name... he is one of the lycra "we own the road" lot. Saw one cycling in the middle of the Southend bound lane of Victoria Avenue this morning, it was not best pleased as cars were passing him either side. Cyclist should pay a tax as they use the road as well as cars, prehaps £50 per year, all money go's to a fund to pay for cycle safety schemes.[/p][/quote]Are you really so dim that you think a username defines someone, or are you just pretending? I have stated many times on this forum I am a driver by profession. That is how I earn a living. Are you also so dim as to raise the tax issue again? Have I not explained this to you enough times? THERE. IS. NO. SUCH. THING. AS. ROAD. TAX. ROADS. ARE. PAID. FOR. THROUGH. GENERAL. TAXATION. I even wrote that slowly so your lonely little brain cell had time to read it.[/p][/quote]Yeah, but on my DVLA documentation they ask me to pay TAX so I can use my car on the ROAD. Mmm, tax road![/p][/quote]ROAD TAX as it is more commonly - generally - usually - ordinarily - normally called is also know as... Vehicle Tax... Car Tax or in shoebury_pedantic__c yclists case Vehicle Excise Duty. Whatever we want to call it is a tax to drive on the road, which MUST be applied to cyclists as they use the road and pavements as well, so prehaps they should pay more to cover the cost of cyclepaths as well...[/p][/quote]No, it is a tax to pollute, it is not a tax to use roads. If it was a tax to use roads then pedestrians, cyclists, horseriders, the many thousands of zero/low emission vehicles, milk floats, police cars, ambulances, would have to pay it too. They don't. Educate your brain cell here: http://ipayroadtax.c om/no-such-thing-as- road-tax/who-pays-ro ad-tax/ Drivers do NOT 'pay for roads', SOCIETY as a whole pays for roads.[/p][/quote]I'm sorry but it cannot be a tax to pollute. My car s currently declared SORN, off the road, sitting on my driveway. Yet I can still go out, turn the key and pump fumes and pollution into the air. If it's a tax to pollute, why am I not paying it? I'm sorry but I've had enough. VED is a VEHICLE ROAD USE TAX - certain vehicles are exempt because they are greener, and the government, trying to ensure people by more environmentally friendly cars, have banded them as such that the more pollution you produce, the more you pay. But the fact remains, no disc, no road use. Yes, it's called Vehicle Excise Duty officially, but don't you think people can call it whatever the hell they want?[/p][/quote]You ave answered your own question. Without VED you cannot go out and pollute public areas, but you can pollute on your own property. "but don't you think people can call it whatever the hell they want?" Not when they follow up that misnomer with thinking it infers a right to use roads over and above those who do not qualify to pay VED, and not when they think it means they 'pay for the roads'. They don't.[/p][/quote]I cannot use the roads without it - ergo, I can use the roads with it. And yes, I can pollute my own property. Wow, amazing, you've just solved the question of global warming! If you only pollute where you are at an exact moment in time it doesn't matter! Seriously? Pollution is not about what you pump out at your property, it's what you pump out INTO THE ATMOSPHERE - no matter where you are. At home, in a traffic jam, my car will be pumping out the same fumes into the atmosphere. So how exactly did I answer my own question? And there you go, people can call it what they want so long as they don't mistake it for meaning other road users should pay. So as long as I don't say 'cyclists should pay it' I can call it road tax all day long.[/p][/quote]"I cannot use the roads without it " But you CAN use the roads without it: you could cycle, or walk, or use an electric vehicle.[/p][/quote]Ok I'll conceed that - I cannot use my car on the roads without it But before you say it's therefore a car tax... I can use my car on private land without it.[/p][/quote]As I said previously, the tax permits you to use a car that pollutes on public roads. You are free to use a car to pollute on your own, or others, private property to your heart's content.[/p][/quote]Whatever you want to call it if you do not pay you can not legally drive on the road, so whilst is not not offically called Road Tax it is what most people call it, its a name use by the public (apart from shoebury-cyclist) He moans about poluting cars but has said he drives for a living... Smacks of "Do as I say, Not as I do"[/p][/quote]I will add - quite ironically - IT IS NOT A POLLUTION TAX! The government bands vehicles in different classes based on their emmissions to try and convince motorists to buy more economical cars. This is the only thing linking it to the environment. The vehicle excise duty is a vehicle tax, that allows you to use a vehicle on the road. you don't pay it because your vehicle pollutes, you are rewarded with a discount because it doesn't. Otherwise, all cars, on road or not, would have to pay it. After all, pollution at home or on the roads - it all ends up in the same place, it all does the same damage...[/p][/quote]If your vehicle pollutes you have to pay VED. If your vehicle does not pollute you don't have to pay VED. It's a pollution tax. Go on, tell us alcohol duty is a pub tax, or tobacco duty is a hospital tax.[/p][/quote]Well that’s not quite the whole truth is it. You don’t have to pay vehicle tax on following types of vehicle. Vehicles used by a disabled person –That’s any vehicle including those in the top band for the rest of us. POLLUTANT.! Disabled passenger vehicles Vehicles (apart from ambulances) used by organisations providing transport for the disabled. – Usually mini bus type vehicle, often quite old as they are provided by charities. POLLUTANT! Historic vehicles You don’t have to pay vehicle tax on vehicles made before 1 January 1973 – That’s any vehicle used before 1st Jan 1973. How many of those would you say were clean? Probably the dirtiest group of all. POLLUTANT! Vehicles used just for agriculture, horticulture and forestry This includes tractors, agricultural engines and light agricultural vehicles used off-road.- Doesn’t matter what type of engine or how dirty it is. POLLUTANT! So if it were a pollution tax, there’s a lot of money to be made here. But it’s not is it. It is a tax that I have to pay in order to be able to use and keep my car (that doesn’t fall in to one of the above categories) on a road. It is that simple. As a motorist I don’t like paying it but I have to, in order to use my car on the road. stopmoaning1

9:30am Fri 15 Mar 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

stopmoaning1 wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Noteworthy wrote:
Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Noteworthy wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Noteworthy wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Noteworthy wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:
stopmoaning1 wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:
whateverhappened wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote: Another £7million of our taxes set to be wasted on motorists.
Are you not a professional driver, or was that irony
Look at his name... he is one of the lycra "we own the road" lot. Saw one cycling in the middle of the Southend bound lane of Victoria Avenue this morning, it was not best pleased as cars were passing him either side. Cyclist should pay a tax as they use the road as well as cars, prehaps £50 per year, all money go's to a fund to pay for cycle safety schemes.
Are you really so dim that you think a username defines someone, or are you just pretending? I have stated many times on this forum I am a driver by profession. That is how I earn a living. Are you also so dim as to raise the tax issue again? Have I not explained this to you enough times? THERE. IS. NO. SUCH. THING. AS. ROAD. TAX. ROADS. ARE. PAID. FOR. THROUGH. GENERAL. TAXATION. I even wrote that slowly so your lonely little brain cell had time to read it.
Yeah, but on my DVLA documentation they ask me to pay TAX so I can use my car on the ROAD. Mmm, tax road!
ROAD TAX as it is more commonly - generally - usually - ordinarily - normally called is also know as... Vehicle Tax... Car Tax or in shoebury_pedantic__c yclists case Vehicle Excise Duty. Whatever we want to call it is a tax to drive on the road, which MUST be applied to cyclists as they use the road and pavements as well, so prehaps they should pay more to cover the cost of cyclepaths as well...
No, it is a tax to pollute, it is not a tax to use roads. If it was a tax to use roads then pedestrians, cyclists, horseriders, the many thousands of zero/low emission vehicles, milk floats, police cars, ambulances, would have to pay it too. They don't. Educate your brain cell here: http://ipayroadtax.c om/no-such-thing-as- road-tax/who-pays-ro ad-tax/ Drivers do NOT 'pay for roads', SOCIETY as a whole pays for roads.
I'm sorry but it cannot be a tax to pollute. My car s currently declared SORN, off the road, sitting on my driveway. Yet I can still go out, turn the key and pump fumes and pollution into the air. If it's a tax to pollute, why am I not paying it? I'm sorry but I've had enough. VED is a VEHICLE ROAD USE TAX - certain vehicles are exempt because they are greener, and the government, trying to ensure people by more environmentally friendly cars, have banded them as such that the more pollution you produce, the more you pay. But the fact remains, no disc, no road use. Yes, it's called Vehicle Excise Duty officially, but don't you think people can call it whatever the hell they want?
You ave answered your own question. Without VED you cannot go out and pollute public areas, but you can pollute on your own property. "but don't you think people can call it whatever the hell they want?" Not when they follow up that misnomer with thinking it infers a right to use roads over and above those who do not qualify to pay VED, and not when they think it means they 'pay for the roads'. They don't.
I cannot use the roads without it - ergo, I can use the roads with it. And yes, I can pollute my own property. Wow, amazing, you've just solved the question of global warming! If you only pollute where you are at an exact moment in time it doesn't matter! Seriously? Pollution is not about what you pump out at your property, it's what you pump out INTO THE ATMOSPHERE - no matter where you are. At home, in a traffic jam, my car will be pumping out the same fumes into the atmosphere. So how exactly did I answer my own question? And there you go, people can call it what they want so long as they don't mistake it for meaning other road users should pay. So as long as I don't say 'cyclists should pay it' I can call it road tax all day long.
"I cannot use the roads without it " But you CAN use the roads without it: you could cycle, or walk, or use an electric vehicle.
Ok I'll conceed that - I cannot use my car on the roads without it But before you say it's therefore a car tax... I can use my car on private land without it.
As I said previously, the tax permits you to use a car that pollutes on public roads. You are free to use a car to pollute on your own, or others, private property to your heart's content.
Whatever you want to call it if you do not pay you can not legally drive on the road, so whilst is not not offically called Road Tax it is what most people call it, its a name use by the public (apart from shoebury-cyclist) He moans about poluting cars but has said he drives for a living... Smacks of "Do as I say, Not as I do"
I will add - quite ironically - IT IS NOT A POLLUTION TAX!

The government bands vehicles in different classes based on their emmissions to try and convince motorists to buy more economical cars. This is the only thing linking it to the environment.

The vehicle excise duty is a vehicle tax, that allows you to use a vehicle on the road. you don't pay it because your vehicle pollutes, you are rewarded with a discount because it doesn't.

Otherwise, all cars, on road or not, would have to pay it. After all, pollution at home or on the roads - it all ends up in the same place, it all does the same damage...
If your vehicle pollutes you have to pay VED. If your vehicle does not pollute you don't have to pay VED.

It's a pollution tax.

Go on, tell us alcohol duty is a pub tax, or tobacco duty is a hospital tax.
Well that’s not quite the whole truth is it.

You don’t have to pay vehicle tax on following types of vehicle.

Vehicles used by a disabled person –That’s any vehicle including those in the top band for the rest of us. POLLUTANT.!

Disabled passenger vehicles
Vehicles (apart from ambulances) used by organisations providing transport for the disabled. – Usually mini bus type vehicle, often quite old as they are provided by charities. POLLUTANT!

Historic vehicles
You don’t have to pay vehicle tax on vehicles made before 1 January 1973 – That’s any vehicle used before 1st Jan 1973. How many of those would you say were clean? Probably the dirtiest group of all. POLLUTANT!

Vehicles used just for agriculture, horticulture and forestry
This includes tractors, agricultural engines and light agricultural vehicles used off-road.- Doesn’t matter what type of engine or how dirty it is. POLLUTANT!

So if it were a pollution tax, there’s a lot of money to be made here. But it’s not is it. It is a tax that I have to pay in order to be able to use and keep my car (that doesn’t fall in to one of the above categories) on a road. It is that simple. As a motorist I don’t like paying it but I have to, in order to use my car on the road.
No. You have to pay it in order to be able to use a car that pollutes on the road. If you have an electric car, you don't have to pay it. If you walk, you don't have to pay it. If you cycle you don't have to pay it.
[quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Noteworthy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joe Wildman-Clark[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Noteworthy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Noteworthy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Noteworthy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joe Wildman-Clark[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joe Wildman-Clark[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whateverhappened[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: Another £7million of our taxes set to be wasted on motorists.[/p][/quote]Are you not a professional driver, or was that irony[/p][/quote]Look at his name... he is one of the lycra "we own the road" lot. Saw one cycling in the middle of the Southend bound lane of Victoria Avenue this morning, it was not best pleased as cars were passing him either side. Cyclist should pay a tax as they use the road as well as cars, prehaps £50 per year, all money go's to a fund to pay for cycle safety schemes.[/p][/quote]Are you really so dim that you think a username defines someone, or are you just pretending? I have stated many times on this forum I am a driver by profession. That is how I earn a living. Are you also so dim as to raise the tax issue again? Have I not explained this to you enough times? THERE. IS. NO. SUCH. THING. AS. ROAD. TAX. ROADS. ARE. PAID. FOR. THROUGH. GENERAL. TAXATION. I even wrote that slowly so your lonely little brain cell had time to read it.[/p][/quote]Yeah, but on my DVLA documentation they ask me to pay TAX so I can use my car on the ROAD. Mmm, tax road![/p][/quote]ROAD TAX as it is more commonly - generally - usually - ordinarily - normally called is also know as... Vehicle Tax... Car Tax or in shoebury_pedantic__c yclists case Vehicle Excise Duty. Whatever we want to call it is a tax to drive on the road, which MUST be applied to cyclists as they use the road and pavements as well, so prehaps they should pay more to cover the cost of cyclepaths as well...[/p][/quote]No, it is a tax to pollute, it is not a tax to use roads. If it was a tax to use roads then pedestrians, cyclists, horseriders, the many thousands of zero/low emission vehicles, milk floats, police cars, ambulances, would have to pay it too. They don't. Educate your brain cell here: http://ipayroadtax.c om/no-such-thing-as- road-tax/who-pays-ro ad-tax/ Drivers do NOT 'pay for roads', SOCIETY as a whole pays for roads.[/p][/quote]I'm sorry but it cannot be a tax to pollute. My car s currently declared SORN, off the road, sitting on my driveway. Yet I can still go out, turn the key and pump fumes and pollution into the air. If it's a tax to pollute, why am I not paying it? I'm sorry but I've had enough. VED is a VEHICLE ROAD USE TAX - certain vehicles are exempt because they are greener, and the government, trying to ensure people by more environmentally friendly cars, have banded them as such that the more pollution you produce, the more you pay. But the fact remains, no disc, no road use. Yes, it's called Vehicle Excise Duty officially, but don't you think people can call it whatever the hell they want?[/p][/quote]You ave answered your own question. Without VED you cannot go out and pollute public areas, but you can pollute on your own property. "but don't you think people can call it whatever the hell they want?" Not when they follow up that misnomer with thinking it infers a right to use roads over and above those who do not qualify to pay VED, and not when they think it means they 'pay for the roads'. They don't.[/p][/quote]I cannot use the roads without it - ergo, I can use the roads with it. And yes, I can pollute my own property. Wow, amazing, you've just solved the question of global warming! If you only pollute where you are at an exact moment in time it doesn't matter! Seriously? Pollution is not about what you pump out at your property, it's what you pump out INTO THE ATMOSPHERE - no matter where you are. At home, in a traffic jam, my car will be pumping out the same fumes into the atmosphere. So how exactly did I answer my own question? And there you go, people can call it what they want so long as they don't mistake it for meaning other road users should pay. So as long as I don't say 'cyclists should pay it' I can call it road tax all day long.[/p][/quote]"I cannot use the roads without it " But you CAN use the roads without it: you could cycle, or walk, or use an electric vehicle.[/p][/quote]Ok I'll conceed that - I cannot use my car on the roads without it But before you say it's therefore a car tax... I can use my car on private land without it.[/p][/quote]As I said previously, the tax permits you to use a car that pollutes on public roads. You are free to use a car to pollute on your own, or others, private property to your heart's content.[/p][/quote]Whatever you want to call it if you do not pay you can not legally drive on the road, so whilst is not not offically called Road Tax it is what most people call it, its a name use by the public (apart from shoebury-cyclist) He moans about poluting cars but has said he drives for a living... Smacks of "Do as I say, Not as I do"[/p][/quote]I will add - quite ironically - IT IS NOT A POLLUTION TAX! The government bands vehicles in different classes based on their emmissions to try and convince motorists to buy more economical cars. This is the only thing linking it to the environment. The vehicle excise duty is a vehicle tax, that allows you to use a vehicle on the road. you don't pay it because your vehicle pollutes, you are rewarded with a discount because it doesn't. Otherwise, all cars, on road or not, would have to pay it. After all, pollution at home or on the roads - it all ends up in the same place, it all does the same damage...[/p][/quote]If your vehicle pollutes you have to pay VED. If your vehicle does not pollute you don't have to pay VED. It's a pollution tax. Go on, tell us alcohol duty is a pub tax, or tobacco duty is a hospital tax.[/p][/quote]Well that’s not quite the whole truth is it. You don’t have to pay vehicle tax on following types of vehicle. Vehicles used by a disabled person –That’s any vehicle including those in the top band for the rest of us. POLLUTANT.! Disabled passenger vehicles Vehicles (apart from ambulances) used by organisations providing transport for the disabled. – Usually mini bus type vehicle, often quite old as they are provided by charities. POLLUTANT! Historic vehicles You don’t have to pay vehicle tax on vehicles made before 1 January 1973 – That’s any vehicle used before 1st Jan 1973. How many of those would you say were clean? Probably the dirtiest group of all. POLLUTANT! Vehicles used just for agriculture, horticulture and forestry This includes tractors, agricultural engines and light agricultural vehicles used off-road.- Doesn’t matter what type of engine or how dirty it is. POLLUTANT! So if it were a pollution tax, there’s a lot of money to be made here. But it’s not is it. It is a tax that I have to pay in order to be able to use and keep my car (that doesn’t fall in to one of the above categories) on a road. It is that simple. As a motorist I don’t like paying it but I have to, in order to use my car on the road.[/p][/quote]No. You have to pay it in order to be able to use a car that pollutes on the road. If you have an electric car, you don't have to pay it. If you walk, you don't have to pay it. If you cycle you don't have to pay it. Shoebury_Cyclist

9:46am Fri 15 Mar 13

stopmoaning1 says...

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
stopmoaning1 wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Noteworthy wrote:
Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Noteworthy wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Noteworthy wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Noteworthy wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:
stopmoaning1 wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:
whateverhappened wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote: Another £7million of our taxes set to be wasted on motorists.
Are you not a professional driver, or was that irony
Look at his name... he is one of the lycra "we own the road" lot. Saw one cycling in the middle of the Southend bound lane of Victoria Avenue this morning, it was not best pleased as cars were passing him either side. Cyclist should pay a tax as they use the road as well as cars, prehaps £50 per year, all money go's to a fund to pay for cycle safety schemes.
Are you really so dim that you think a username defines someone, or are you just pretending? I have stated many times on this forum I am a driver by profession. That is how I earn a living. Are you also so dim as to raise the tax issue again? Have I not explained this to you enough times? THERE. IS. NO. SUCH. THING. AS. ROAD. TAX. ROADS. ARE. PAID. FOR. THROUGH. GENERAL. TAXATION. I even wrote that slowly so your lonely little brain cell had time to read it.
Yeah, but on my DVLA documentation they ask me to pay TAX so I can use my car on the ROAD. Mmm, tax road!
ROAD TAX as it is more commonly - generally - usually - ordinarily - normally called is also know as... Vehicle Tax... Car Tax or in shoebury_pedantic__c yclists case Vehicle Excise Duty. Whatever we want to call it is a tax to drive on the road, which MUST be applied to cyclists as they use the road and pavements as well, so prehaps they should pay more to cover the cost of cyclepaths as well...
No, it is a tax to pollute, it is not a tax to use roads. If it was a tax to use roads then pedestrians, cyclists, horseriders, the many thousands of zero/low emission vehicles, milk floats, police cars, ambulances, would have to pay it too. They don't. Educate your brain cell here: http://ipayroadtax.c om/no-such-thing-as- road-tax/who-pays-ro ad-tax/ Drivers do NOT 'pay for roads', SOCIETY as a whole pays for roads.
I'm sorry but it cannot be a tax to pollute. My car s currently declared SORN, off the road, sitting on my driveway. Yet I can still go out, turn the key and pump fumes and pollution into the air. If it's a tax to pollute, why am I not paying it? I'm sorry but I've had enough. VED is a VEHICLE ROAD USE TAX - certain vehicles are exempt because they are greener, and the government, trying to ensure people by more environmentally friendly cars, have banded them as such that the more pollution you produce, the more you pay. But the fact remains, no disc, no road use. Yes, it's called Vehicle Excise Duty officially, but don't you think people can call it whatever the hell they want?
You ave answered your own question. Without VED you cannot go out and pollute public areas, but you can pollute on your own property. "but don't you think people can call it whatever the hell they want?" Not when they follow up that misnomer with thinking it infers a right to use roads over and above those who do not qualify to pay VED, and not when they think it means they 'pay for the roads'. They don't.
I cannot use the roads without it - ergo, I can use the roads with it. And yes, I can pollute my own property. Wow, amazing, you've just solved the question of global warming! If you only pollute where you are at an exact moment in time it doesn't matter! Seriously? Pollution is not about what you pump out at your property, it's what you pump out INTO THE ATMOSPHERE - no matter where you are. At home, in a traffic jam, my car will be pumping out the same fumes into the atmosphere. So how exactly did I answer my own question? And there you go, people can call it what they want so long as they don't mistake it for meaning other road users should pay. So as long as I don't say 'cyclists should pay it' I can call it road tax all day long.
"I cannot use the roads without it " But you CAN use the roads without it: you could cycle, or walk, or use an electric vehicle.
Ok I'll conceed that - I cannot use my car on the roads without it But before you say it's therefore a car tax... I can use my car on private land without it.
As I said previously, the tax permits you to use a car that pollutes on public roads. You are free to use a car to pollute on your own, or others, private property to your heart's content.
Whatever you want to call it if you do not pay you can not legally drive on the road, so whilst is not not offically called Road Tax it is what most people call it, its a name use by the public (apart from shoebury-cyclist) He moans about poluting cars but has said he drives for a living... Smacks of "Do as I say, Not as I do"
I will add - quite ironically - IT IS NOT A POLLUTION TAX!

The government bands vehicles in different classes based on their emmissions to try and convince motorists to buy more economical cars. This is the only thing linking it to the environment.

The vehicle excise duty is a vehicle tax, that allows you to use a vehicle on the road. you don't pay it because your vehicle pollutes, you are rewarded with a discount because it doesn't.

Otherwise, all cars, on road or not, would have to pay it. After all, pollution at home or on the roads - it all ends up in the same place, it all does the same damage...
If your vehicle pollutes you have to pay VED. If your vehicle does not pollute you don't have to pay VED.

It's a pollution tax.

Go on, tell us alcohol duty is a pub tax, or tobacco duty is a hospital tax.
Well that’s not quite the whole truth is it.

You don’t have to pay vehicle tax on following types of vehicle.

Vehicles used by a disabled person –That’s any vehicle including those in the top band for the rest of us. POLLUTANT.!

Disabled passenger vehicles
Vehicles (apart from ambulances) used by organisations providing transport for the disabled. – Usually mini bus type vehicle, often quite old as they are provided by charities. POLLUTANT!

Historic vehicles
You don’t have to pay vehicle tax on vehicles made before 1 January 1973 – That’s any vehicle used before 1st Jan 1973. How many of those would you say were clean? Probably the dirtiest group of all. POLLUTANT!

Vehicles used just for agriculture, horticulture and forestry
This includes tractors, agricultural engines and light agricultural vehicles used off-road.- Doesn’t matter what type of engine or how dirty it is. POLLUTANT!

So if it were a pollution tax, there’s a lot of money to be made here. But it’s not is it. It is a tax that I have to pay in order to be able to use and keep my car (that doesn’t fall in to one of the above categories) on a road. It is that simple. As a motorist I don’t like paying it but I have to, in order to use my car on the road.
No. You have to pay it in order to be able to use a car that pollutes on the road. If you have an electric car, you don't have to pay it. If you walk, you don't have to pay it. If you cycle you don't have to pay it.
I’m sorry but I wonder if you read my post. If you have a car/vehicle that falls into one of the below categories, you DON’T have to pay:
Let me post it again.

Vehicles used by a disabled person –That’s any vehicle including those in the top band for the rest of us. POLLUTANT.!

Disabled passenger vehicles
Vehicles (apart from ambulances) used by organisations providing transport for the disabled. – Usually mini bus type vehicle, often quite old as they are provided by charities. POLLUTANT!

Historic vehicles
You don’t have to pay vehicle tax on vehicles made before 1 January 1973 – That’s any vehicle used before 1st Jan 1973. How many of those would you say were clean? Probably the dirtiest group of all. POLLUTANT!

Vehicles used just for agriculture, horticulture and forestry
This includes tractors, agricultural engines and light agricultural vehicles used off-road.- Doesn’t matter what type of engine or how dirty it is. POLLUTANT!

So if it were a pollution tax, there’s a lot of money to be made here. But it’s not is it. It is a tax that I have to pay in order to be able to use and keep my car (that doesn’t fall in to one of the above categories) on a road. It is that simple. As a motorist I don’t like paying it but I have to, in order to use my car on the road.
[quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Noteworthy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joe Wildman-Clark[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Noteworthy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Noteworthy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Noteworthy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joe Wildman-Clark[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joe Wildman-Clark[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whateverhappened[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: Another £7million of our taxes set to be wasted on motorists.[/p][/quote]Are you not a professional driver, or was that irony[/p][/quote]Look at his name... he is one of the lycra "we own the road" lot. Saw one cycling in the middle of the Southend bound lane of Victoria Avenue this morning, it was not best pleased as cars were passing him either side. Cyclist should pay a tax as they use the road as well as cars, prehaps £50 per year, all money go's to a fund to pay for cycle safety schemes.[/p][/quote]Are you really so dim that you think a username defines someone, or are you just pretending? I have stated many times on this forum I am a driver by profession. That is how I earn a living. Are you also so dim as to raise the tax issue again? Have I not explained this to you enough times? THERE. IS. NO. SUCH. THING. AS. ROAD. TAX. ROADS. ARE. PAID. FOR. THROUGH. GENERAL. TAXATION. I even wrote that slowly so your lonely little brain cell had time to read it.[/p][/quote]Yeah, but on my DVLA documentation they ask me to pay TAX so I can use my car on the ROAD. Mmm, tax road![/p][/quote]ROAD TAX as it is more commonly - generally - usually - ordinarily - normally called is also know as... Vehicle Tax... Car Tax or in shoebury_pedantic__c yclists case Vehicle Excise Duty. Whatever we want to call it is a tax to drive on the road, which MUST be applied to cyclists as they use the road and pavements as well, so prehaps they should pay more to cover the cost of cyclepaths as well...[/p][/quote]No, it is a tax to pollute, it is not a tax to use roads. If it was a tax to use roads then pedestrians, cyclists, horseriders, the many thousands of zero/low emission vehicles, milk floats, police cars, ambulances, would have to pay it too. They don't. Educate your brain cell here: http://ipayroadtax.c om/no-such-thing-as- road-tax/who-pays-ro ad-tax/ Drivers do NOT 'pay for roads', SOCIETY as a whole pays for roads.[/p][/quote]I'm sorry but it cannot be a tax to pollute. My car s currently declared SORN, off the road, sitting on my driveway. Yet I can still go out, turn the key and pump fumes and pollution into the air. If it's a tax to pollute, why am I not paying it? I'm sorry but I've had enough. VED is a VEHICLE ROAD USE TAX - certain vehicles are exempt because they are greener, and the government, trying to ensure people by more environmentally friendly cars, have banded them as such that the more pollution you produce, the more you pay. But the fact remains, no disc, no road use. Yes, it's called Vehicle Excise Duty officially, but don't you think people can call it whatever the hell they want?[/p][/quote]You ave answered your own question. Without VED you cannot go out and pollute public areas, but you can pollute on your own property. "but don't you think people can call it whatever the hell they want?" Not when they follow up that misnomer with thinking it infers a right to use roads over and above those who do not qualify to pay VED, and not when they think it means they 'pay for the roads'. They don't.[/p][/quote]I cannot use the roads without it - ergo, I can use the roads with it. And yes, I can pollute my own property. Wow, amazing, you've just solved the question of global warming! If you only pollute where you are at an exact moment in time it doesn't matter! Seriously? Pollution is not about what you pump out at your property, it's what you pump out INTO THE ATMOSPHERE - no matter where you are. At home, in a traffic jam, my car will be pumping out the same fumes into the atmosphere. So how exactly did I answer my own question? And there you go, people can call it what they want so long as they don't mistake it for meaning other road users should pay. So as long as I don't say 'cyclists should pay it' I can call it road tax all day long.[/p][/quote]"I cannot use the roads without it " But you CAN use the roads without it: you could cycle, or walk, or use an electric vehicle.[/p][/quote]Ok I'll conceed that - I cannot use my car on the roads without it But before you say it's therefore a car tax... I can use my car on private land without it.[/p][/quote]As I said previously, the tax permits you to use a car that pollutes on public roads. You are free to use a car to pollute on your own, or others, private property to your heart's content.[/p][/quote]Whatever you want to call it if you do not pay you can not legally drive on the road, so whilst is not not offically called Road Tax it is what most people call it, its a name use by the public (apart from shoebury-cyclist) He moans about poluting cars but has said he drives for a living... Smacks of "Do as I say, Not as I do"[/p][/quote]I will add - quite ironically - IT IS NOT A POLLUTION TAX! The government bands vehicles in different classes based on their emmissions to try and convince motorists to buy more economical cars. This is the only thing linking it to the environment. The vehicle excise duty is a vehicle tax, that allows you to use a vehicle on the road. you don't pay it because your vehicle pollutes, you are rewarded with a discount because it doesn't. Otherwise, all cars, on road or not, would have to pay it. After all, pollution at home or on the roads - it all ends up in the same place, it all does the same damage...[/p][/quote]If your vehicle pollutes you have to pay VED. If your vehicle does not pollute you don't have to pay VED. It's a pollution tax. Go on, tell us alcohol duty is a pub tax, or tobacco duty is a hospital tax.[/p][/quote]Well that’s not quite the whole truth is it. You don’t have to pay vehicle tax on following types of vehicle. Vehicles used by a disabled person –That’s any vehicle including those in the top band for the rest of us. POLLUTANT.! Disabled passenger vehicles Vehicles (apart from ambulances) used by organisations providing transport for the disabled. – Usually mini bus type vehicle, often quite old as they are provided by charities. POLLUTANT! Historic vehicles You don’t have to pay vehicle tax on vehicles made before 1 January 1973 – That’s any vehicle used before 1st Jan 1973. How many of those would you say were clean? Probably the dirtiest group of all. POLLUTANT! Vehicles used just for agriculture, horticulture and forestry This includes tractors, agricultural engines and light agricultural vehicles used off-road.- Doesn’t matter what type of engine or how dirty it is. POLLUTANT! So if it were a pollution tax, there’s a lot of money to be made here. But it’s not is it. It is a tax that I have to pay in order to be able to use and keep my car (that doesn’t fall in to one of the above categories) on a road. It is that simple. As a motorist I don’t like paying it but I have to, in order to use my car on the road.[/p][/quote]No. You have to pay it in order to be able to use a car that pollutes on the road. If you have an electric car, you don't have to pay it. If you walk, you don't have to pay it. If you cycle you don't have to pay it.[/p][/quote]I’m sorry but I wonder if you read my post. If you have a car/vehicle that falls into one of the below categories, you DON’T have to pay: Let me post it again. Vehicles used by a disabled person –That’s any vehicle including those in the top band for the rest of us. POLLUTANT.! Disabled passenger vehicles Vehicles (apart from ambulances) used by organisations providing transport for the disabled. – Usually mini bus type vehicle, often quite old as they are provided by charities. POLLUTANT! Historic vehicles You don’t have to pay vehicle tax on vehicles made before 1 January 1973 – That’s any vehicle used before 1st Jan 1973. How many of those would you say were clean? Probably the dirtiest group of all. POLLUTANT! Vehicles used just for agriculture, horticulture and forestry This includes tractors, agricultural engines and light agricultural vehicles used off-road.- Doesn’t matter what type of engine or how dirty it is. POLLUTANT! So if it were a pollution tax, there’s a lot of money to be made here. But it’s not is it. It is a tax that I have to pay in order to be able to use and keep my car (that doesn’t fall in to one of the above categories) on a road. It is that simple. As a motorist I don’t like paying it but I have to, in order to use my car on the road. stopmoaning1

9:48am Fri 15 Mar 13

stopmoaning1 says...

By the way, I didn’t add electric car because you already said that and that’s not in dispute
By the way, I didn’t add electric car because you already said that and that’s not in dispute stopmoaning1

10:38am Fri 15 Mar 13

Noteworthy says...

stopmoaning1 wrote:
By the way, I didn’t add electric car because you already said that and that’s not in dispute
Shoebury Cyclist said "You have to pay it in order to be able to use a car that pollutes on the road"

So it's a tax to use a car on the road then, hence, a vehicle tax.

Pollution occurs at home or on the road so that's irrelavent, and the whole 'alcohol/pub tax thingy you tried to argue with has rather backfired too.
[quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: By the way, I didn’t add electric car because you already said that and that’s not in dispute[/p][/quote]Shoebury Cyclist said "You have to pay it in order to be able to use a car that pollutes on the road" So it's a tax to use a car on the road then, hence, a vehicle tax. Pollution occurs at home or on the road so that's irrelavent, and the whole 'alcohol/pub tax thingy you tried to argue with has rather backfired too. Noteworthy

11:22am Fri 15 Mar 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

Noteworthy wrote:
stopmoaning1 wrote:
By the way, I didn’t add electric car because you already said that and that’s not in dispute
Shoebury Cyclist said "You have to pay it in order to be able to use a car that pollutes on the road"

So it's a tax to use a car on the road then, hence, a vehicle tax.

Pollution occurs at home or on the road so that's irrelavent, and the whole 'alcohol/pub tax thingy you tried to argue with has rather backfired too.
It's very relevant. The tax is only applicable if you are going to pollute in public places. If your car is kept off road and only used on private property you don't have to pay the tax, but you can still use the car, run its engine etc.

That is why you can use an electric vehicle in public places without having to pay the tax. Because electric cars/vehicle do not POLLUTE those public places.

Regarding vehicles belonging to disabled people: they don't have to pay the tax because they have limited choices to get around, and many have no choice as to their form of transport. So the tax is waived for their vehicles.

Regarding agricultural vehicles, they can only be tax exempt if they are driven in public places for less than 1.5km when moving to different parts of the farm during agricultural use. If they are to be driven further than that - and therefore pollute more public space than permitted when moving from one part of a farm to another - then they have to pay the tax.


'Historic vehicles' don't have to pay the duty because their numbers are dwindling and very few are used as a daily driver. Also they tend to be maintained to a higher standard than newer vehicles.

So as you can see, it is plainly NOT a tax to use roads. If it was then electric vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders, milk floats, ultra-low emission vehicles would have to pay it. They DON'T have to pay it because they DON'T POLLUTE in public places.

It is a pollution tax. It is NOT a tax to use roads.
[quote][p][bold]Noteworthy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: By the way, I didn’t add electric car because you already said that and that’s not in dispute[/p][/quote]Shoebury Cyclist said "You have to pay it in order to be able to use a car that pollutes on the road" So it's a tax to use a car on the road then, hence, a vehicle tax. Pollution occurs at home or on the road so that's irrelavent, and the whole 'alcohol/pub tax thingy you tried to argue with has rather backfired too.[/p][/quote]It's very relevant. The tax is only applicable if you are going to pollute in public places. If your car is kept off road and only used on private property you don't have to pay the tax, but you can still use the car, run its engine etc. That is why you can use an electric vehicle in public places without having to pay the tax. Because electric cars/vehicle do not POLLUTE those public places. Regarding vehicles belonging to disabled people: they don't have to pay the tax because they have limited choices to get around, and many have no choice as to their form of transport. So the tax is waived for their vehicles. Regarding agricultural vehicles, they can only be tax exempt if they are driven in public places for less than 1.5km when moving to different parts of the farm during agricultural use. If they are to be driven further than that - and therefore pollute more public space than permitted when moving from one part of a farm to another - then they have to pay the tax. 'Historic vehicles' don't have to pay the duty because their numbers are dwindling and very few are used as a daily driver. Also they tend to be maintained to a higher standard than newer vehicles. So as you can see, it is plainly NOT a tax to use roads. If it was then electric vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders, milk floats, ultra-low emission vehicles would have to pay it. They DON'T have to pay it because they DON'T POLLUTE in public places. It is a pollution tax. It is NOT a tax to use roads. Shoebury_Cyclist

12:13pm Fri 15 Mar 13

stopmoaning1 says...

OK, please indulge us all and answer the following question with a simple A or B. No if’s, but’s what about’s and maybe’s, just a simple A or B

My partner and I have two cars. I have a Fiat 500 for example, the lowest tax banding above an electric car. My partner has say a 1970 Rover 3500, a monster of a gas guzzler and a filthy pollution machine that kills trees as it drives past them
.
Which one do we have to pay TAX on in order to USE it on the ROAD.
A/ The Fiat 500
B/ The Rover 3500
OK, please indulge us all and answer the following question with a simple A or B. No if’s, but’s what about’s and maybe’s, just a simple A or B My partner and I have two cars. I have a Fiat 500 for example, the lowest tax banding above an electric car. My partner has say a 1970 Rover 3500, a monster of a gas guzzler and a filthy pollution machine that kills trees as it drives past them . Which one do we have to pay TAX on in order to USE it on the ROAD. A/ The Fiat 500 B/ The Rover 3500 stopmoaning1

12:19pm Fri 15 Mar 13

stopmoaning1 says...

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Noteworthy wrote:
stopmoaning1 wrote:
By the way, I didn’t add electric car because you already said that and that’s not in dispute
Shoebury Cyclist said "You have to pay it in order to be able to use a car that pollutes on the road"

So it's a tax to use a car on the road then, hence, a vehicle tax.

Pollution occurs at home or on the road so that's irrelavent, and the whole 'alcohol/pub tax thingy you tried to argue with has rather backfired too.
It's very relevant. The tax is only applicable if you are going to pollute in public places. If your car is kept off road and only used on private property you don't have to pay the tax, but you can still use the car, run its engine etc.

That is why you can use an electric vehicle in public places without having to pay the tax. Because electric cars/vehicle do not POLLUTE those public places.

Regarding vehicles belonging to disabled people: they don't have to pay the tax because they have limited choices to get around, and many have no choice as to their form of transport. So the tax is waived for their vehicles.

Regarding agricultural vehicles, they can only be tax exempt if they are driven in public places for less than 1.5km when moving to different parts of the farm during agricultural use. If they are to be driven further than that - and therefore pollute more public space than permitted when moving from one part of a farm to another - then they have to pay the tax.


'Historic vehicles' don't have to pay the duty because their numbers are dwindling and very few are used as a daily driver. Also they tend to be maintained to a higher standard than newer vehicles.

So as you can see, it is plainly NOT a tax to use roads. If it was then electric vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders, milk floats, ultra-low emission vehicles would have to pay it. They DON'T have to pay it because they DON'T POLLUTE in public places.

It is a pollution tax. It is NOT a tax to use roads.
By the way, you have misunderstood some of the definitions regarding exemptions.

My disabled neighbour has a motorbility vehicle for which he would pay towards the top end of the Tax if he were not exempt

Vehicles used just for agriculture, horticulture and forestry
This includes tractors, agricultural engines and light agricultural vehicles used off-road. It ***‘ALSO’*** includes ‘limited use’ vehicles used for short journeys (not more than 1.5 kilometres) on the public road between land that’s occupied by the same person.
[quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Noteworthy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: By the way, I didn’t add electric car because you already said that and that’s not in dispute[/p][/quote]Shoebury Cyclist said "You have to pay it in order to be able to use a car that pollutes on the road" So it's a tax to use a car on the road then, hence, a vehicle tax. Pollution occurs at home or on the road so that's irrelavent, and the whole 'alcohol/pub tax thingy you tried to argue with has rather backfired too.[/p][/quote]It's very relevant. The tax is only applicable if you are going to pollute in public places. If your car is kept off road and only used on private property you don't have to pay the tax, but you can still use the car, run its engine etc. That is why you can use an electric vehicle in public places without having to pay the tax. Because electric cars/vehicle do not POLLUTE those public places. Regarding vehicles belonging to disabled people: they don't have to pay the tax because they have limited choices to get around, and many have no choice as to their form of transport. So the tax is waived for their vehicles. Regarding agricultural vehicles, they can only be tax exempt if they are driven in public places for less than 1.5km when moving to different parts of the farm during agricultural use. If they are to be driven further than that - and therefore pollute more public space than permitted when moving from one part of a farm to another - then they have to pay the tax. 'Historic vehicles' don't have to pay the duty because their numbers are dwindling and very few are used as a daily driver. Also they tend to be maintained to a higher standard than newer vehicles. So as you can see, it is plainly NOT a tax to use roads. If it was then electric vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders, milk floats, ultra-low emission vehicles would have to pay it. They DON'T have to pay it because they DON'T POLLUTE in public places. It is a pollution tax. It is NOT a tax to use roads.[/p][/quote]By the way, you have misunderstood some of the definitions regarding exemptions. My disabled neighbour has a motorbility vehicle for which he would pay towards the top end of the Tax if he were not exempt Vehicles used just for agriculture, horticulture and forestry This includes tractors, agricultural engines and light agricultural vehicles used off-road. It ***‘ALSO’*** includes ‘limited use’ vehicles used for short journeys (not more than 1.5 kilometres) on the public road between land that’s occupied by the same person. stopmoaning1

12:54pm Fri 15 Mar 13

Noteworthy says...

stopmoaning1 wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Noteworthy wrote:
stopmoaning1 wrote: By the way, I didn’t add electric car because you already said that and that’s not in dispute
Shoebury Cyclist said "You have to pay it in order to be able to use a car that pollutes on the road" So it's a tax to use a car on the road then, hence, a vehicle tax. Pollution occurs at home or on the road so that's irrelavent, and the whole 'alcohol/pub tax thingy you tried to argue with has rather backfired too.
It's very relevant. The tax is only applicable if you are going to pollute in public places. If your car is kept off road and only used on private property you don't have to pay the tax, but you can still use the car, run its engine etc. That is why you can use an electric vehicle in public places without having to pay the tax. Because electric cars/vehicle do not POLLUTE those public places. Regarding vehicles belonging to disabled people: they don't have to pay the tax because they have limited choices to get around, and many have no choice as to their form of transport. So the tax is waived for their vehicles. Regarding agricultural vehicles, they can only be tax exempt if they are driven in public places for less than 1.5km when moving to different parts of the farm during agricultural use. If they are to be driven further than that - and therefore pollute more public space than permitted when moving from one part of a farm to another - then they have to pay the tax. 'Historic vehicles' don't have to pay the duty because their numbers are dwindling and very few are used as a daily driver. Also they tend to be maintained to a higher standard than newer vehicles. So as you can see, it is plainly NOT a tax to use roads. If it was then electric vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders, milk floats, ultra-low emission vehicles would have to pay it. They DON'T have to pay it because they DON'T POLLUTE in public places. It is a pollution tax. It is NOT a tax to use roads.
By the way, you have misunderstood some of the definitions regarding exemptions. My disabled neighbour has a motorbility vehicle for which he would pay towards the top end of the Tax if he were not exempt Vehicles used just for agriculture, horticulture and forestry This includes tractors, agricultural engines and light agricultural vehicles used off-road. It ***‘ALSO’*** includes ‘limited use’ vehicles used for short journeys (not more than 1.5 kilometres) on the public road between land that’s occupied by the same person.
"It's very relevant. The tax is only applicable if you are going to pollute in public places. If your car is kept off road and only used on private property you don't have to pay the tax, but you can still use the car, run its engine etc."

So I still cause pollution when I run my engine at home, or drive on private land. If I'm contributing to pollution, by your reasoning, shouldn't I be paying tax rather than having the car SORN?

Also, electric cars - not really the most pollution friendly vehicles in the world after all - it's just they don't directly spew out gasses.

Again, it's a vehicle tax (I'm so tempted at this point to email the government for a proper clarification it's unreal), not a tax on pollution. The fact it's cheaper if your car pollutes less is a reward, that is all.
[quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Noteworthy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: By the way, I didn’t add electric car because you already said that and that’s not in dispute[/p][/quote]Shoebury Cyclist said "You have to pay it in order to be able to use a car that pollutes on the road" So it's a tax to use a car on the road then, hence, a vehicle tax. Pollution occurs at home or on the road so that's irrelavent, and the whole 'alcohol/pub tax thingy you tried to argue with has rather backfired too.[/p][/quote]It's very relevant. The tax is only applicable if you are going to pollute in public places. If your car is kept off road and only used on private property you don't have to pay the tax, but you can still use the car, run its engine etc. That is why you can use an electric vehicle in public places without having to pay the tax. Because electric cars/vehicle do not POLLUTE those public places. Regarding vehicles belonging to disabled people: they don't have to pay the tax because they have limited choices to get around, and many have no choice as to their form of transport. So the tax is waived for their vehicles. Regarding agricultural vehicles, they can only be tax exempt if they are driven in public places for less than 1.5km when moving to different parts of the farm during agricultural use. If they are to be driven further than that - and therefore pollute more public space than permitted when moving from one part of a farm to another - then they have to pay the tax. 'Historic vehicles' don't have to pay the duty because their numbers are dwindling and very few are used as a daily driver. Also they tend to be maintained to a higher standard than newer vehicles. So as you can see, it is plainly NOT a tax to use roads. If it was then electric vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders, milk floats, ultra-low emission vehicles would have to pay it. They DON'T have to pay it because they DON'T POLLUTE in public places. It is a pollution tax. It is NOT a tax to use roads.[/p][/quote]By the way, you have misunderstood some of the definitions regarding exemptions. My disabled neighbour has a motorbility vehicle for which he would pay towards the top end of the Tax if he were not exempt Vehicles used just for agriculture, horticulture and forestry This includes tractors, agricultural engines and light agricultural vehicles used off-road. It ***‘ALSO’*** includes ‘limited use’ vehicles used for short journeys (not more than 1.5 kilometres) on the public road between land that’s occupied by the same person.[/p][/quote]"It's very relevant. The tax is only applicable if you are going to pollute in public places. If your car is kept off road and only used on private property you don't have to pay the tax, but you can still use the car, run its engine etc." So I still cause pollution when I run my engine at home, or drive on private land. If I'm contributing to pollution, by your reasoning, shouldn't I be paying tax rather than having the car SORN? Also, electric cars - not really the most pollution friendly vehicles in the world after all - it's just they don't directly spew out gasses. Again, it's a vehicle tax (I'm so tempted at this point to email the government for a proper clarification it's unreal), not a tax on pollution. The fact it's cheaper if your car pollutes less is a reward, that is all. Noteworthy

1:23pm Fri 15 Mar 13

ORACUS says...

Save the planet ban the bicycle.
leave the roundabout as it is.
Save the planet ban the bicycle. leave the roundabout as it is. ORACUS

5:53pm Fri 15 Mar 13

Broadwaywatch says...

stopmoaning1 wrote:
Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:
Don't tell the greeies but I have a Hilux 3 litre D-4D manual, got chunky tyres fitted, winch, land anchor, Roof Console with CB radio, air compressor, snorkel, four way camera (insurance reducer it films whenever the key is in front, rear left and right) there is also cabcam films the inside should it get nicked they will be on camera, it has live stream to a computer over the 3G soon to be 4G network. most of the mods I have done.
That was going so well until you mentioned the CB radio breaker breaker one nine.
You write very much Max Impact did
[quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joe Wildman-Clark[/bold] wrote: Don't tell the greeies but I have a Hilux 3 litre D-4D manual, got chunky tyres fitted, winch, land anchor, Roof Console with CB radio, air compressor, snorkel, four way camera (insurance reducer it films whenever the key is in front, rear left and right) there is also cabcam films the inside should it get nicked they will be on camera, it has live stream to a computer over the 3G soon to be 4G network. most of the mods I have done.[/p][/quote]That was going so well until you mentioned the CB radio breaker breaker one nine.[/p][/quote]You write very much Max Impact did Broadwaywatch

6:54pm Fri 15 Mar 13

stopmoaning1 says...

Broadwaywatch wrote:
stopmoaning1 wrote:
Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:
Don't tell the greeies but I have a Hilux 3 litre D-4D manual, got chunky tyres fitted, winch, land anchor, Roof Console with CB radio, air compressor, snorkel, four way camera (insurance reducer it films whenever the key is in front, rear left and right) there is also cabcam films the inside should it get nicked they will be on camera, it has live stream to a computer over the 3G soon to be 4G network. most of the mods I have done.
That was going so well until you mentioned the CB radio breaker breaker one nine.
You write very much Max Impact did
??
[quote][p][bold]Broadwaywatch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joe Wildman-Clark[/bold] wrote: Don't tell the greeies but I have a Hilux 3 litre D-4D manual, got chunky tyres fitted, winch, land anchor, Roof Console with CB radio, air compressor, snorkel, four way camera (insurance reducer it films whenever the key is in front, rear left and right) there is also cabcam films the inside should it get nicked they will be on camera, it has live stream to a computer over the 3G soon to be 4G network. most of the mods I have done.[/p][/quote]That was going so well until you mentioned the CB radio breaker breaker one nine.[/p][/quote]You write very much Max Impact did[/p][/quote]?? stopmoaning1

7:30pm Fri 15 Mar 13

Joe Wildman-Clark says...

stopmoaning1 wrote:
Broadwaywatch wrote:
stopmoaning1 wrote:
Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:
Don't tell the greeies but I have a Hilux 3 litre D-4D manual, got chunky tyres fitted, winch, land anchor, Roof Console with CB radio, air compressor, snorkel, four way camera (insurance reducer it films whenever the key is in front, rear left and right) there is also cabcam films the inside should it get nicked they will be on camera, it has live stream to a computer over the 3G soon to be 4G network. most of the mods I have done.
That was going so well until you mentioned the CB radio breaker breaker one nine.
You write very much Max Impact did
??
Seconded!

A better finger point is needed, is it pointing at me or is it pointing at you, is
broadwaywatch picking his nose or scratching his bum?
[quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Broadwaywatch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joe Wildman-Clark[/bold] wrote: Don't tell the greeies but I have a Hilux 3 litre D-4D manual, got chunky tyres fitted, winch, land anchor, Roof Console with CB radio, air compressor, snorkel, four way camera (insurance reducer it films whenever the key is in front, rear left and right) there is also cabcam films the inside should it get nicked they will be on camera, it has live stream to a computer over the 3G soon to be 4G network. most of the mods I have done.[/p][/quote]That was going so well until you mentioned the CB radio breaker breaker one nine.[/p][/quote]You write very much Max Impact did[/p][/quote]??[/p][/quote]Seconded! A better finger point is needed, is it pointing at me or is it pointing at you, is broadwaywatch picking his nose or scratching his bum? Joe Wildman-Clark

8:05pm Fri 15 Mar 13

stopmoaning1 says...

Ok, Waaaay past me. I’ve no idea what you’re both on about. Anybody else?
Ok, Waaaay past me. I’ve no idea what you’re both on about. Anybody else? stopmoaning1

11:17pm Fri 15 Mar 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

Noteworthy wrote:
stopmoaning1 wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Noteworthy wrote:
stopmoaning1 wrote: By the way, I didn’t add electric car because you already said that and that’s not in dispute
Shoebury Cyclist said "You have to pay it in order to be able to use a car that pollutes on the road" So it's a tax to use a car on the road then, hence, a vehicle tax. Pollution occurs at home or on the road so that's irrelavent, and the whole 'alcohol/pub tax thingy you tried to argue with has rather backfired too.
It's very relevant. The tax is only applicable if you are going to pollute in public places. If your car is kept off road and only used on private property you don't have to pay the tax, but you can still use the car, run its engine etc. That is why you can use an electric vehicle in public places without having to pay the tax. Because electric cars/vehicle do not POLLUTE those public places. Regarding vehicles belonging to disabled people: they don't have to pay the tax because they have limited choices to get around, and many have no choice as to their form of transport. So the tax is waived for their vehicles. Regarding agricultural vehicles, they can only be tax exempt if they are driven in public places for less than 1.5km when moving to different parts of the farm during agricultural use. If they are to be driven further than that - and therefore pollute more public space than permitted when moving from one part of a farm to another - then they have to pay the tax. 'Historic vehicles' don't have to pay the duty because their numbers are dwindling and very few are used as a daily driver. Also they tend to be maintained to a higher standard than newer vehicles. So as you can see, it is plainly NOT a tax to use roads. If it was then electric vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders, milk floats, ultra-low emission vehicles would have to pay it. They DON'T have to pay it because they DON'T POLLUTE in public places. It is a pollution tax. It is NOT a tax to use roads.
By the way, you have misunderstood some of the definitions regarding exemptions. My disabled neighbour has a motorbility vehicle for which he would pay towards the top end of the Tax if he were not exempt Vehicles used just for agriculture, horticulture and forestry This includes tractors, agricultural engines and light agricultural vehicles used off-road. It ***‘ALSO’*** includes ‘limited use’ vehicles used for short journeys (not more than 1.5 kilometres) on the public road between land that’s occupied by the same person.
"It's very relevant. The tax is only applicable if you are going to pollute in public places. If your car is kept off road and only used on private property you don't have to pay the tax, but you can still use the car, run its engine etc."

So I still cause pollution when I run my engine at home, or drive on private land. If I'm contributing to pollution, by your reasoning, shouldn't I be paying tax rather than having the car SORN?

Also, electric cars - not really the most pollution friendly vehicles in the world after all - it's just they don't directly spew out gasses.

Again, it's a vehicle tax (I'm so tempted at this point to email the government for a proper clarification it's unreal), not a tax on pollution. The fact it's cheaper if your car pollutes less is a reward, that is all.
No. You have to pay MORE if your vehicle pollutes MORE,

It's a pollution tax.
[quote][p][bold]Noteworthy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Noteworthy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: By the way, I didn’t add electric car because you already said that and that’s not in dispute[/p][/quote]Shoebury Cyclist said "You have to pay it in order to be able to use a car that pollutes on the road" So it's a tax to use a car on the road then, hence, a vehicle tax. Pollution occurs at home or on the road so that's irrelavent, and the whole 'alcohol/pub tax thingy you tried to argue with has rather backfired too.[/p][/quote]It's very relevant. The tax is only applicable if you are going to pollute in public places. If your car is kept off road and only used on private property you don't have to pay the tax, but you can still use the car, run its engine etc. That is why you can use an electric vehicle in public places without having to pay the tax. Because electric cars/vehicle do not POLLUTE those public places. Regarding vehicles belonging to disabled people: they don't have to pay the tax because they have limited choices to get around, and many have no choice as to their form of transport. So the tax is waived for their vehicles. Regarding agricultural vehicles, they can only be tax exempt if they are driven in public places for less than 1.5km when moving to different parts of the farm during agricultural use. If they are to be driven further than that - and therefore pollute more public space than permitted when moving from one part of a farm to another - then they have to pay the tax. 'Historic vehicles' don't have to pay the duty because their numbers are dwindling and very few are used as a daily driver. Also they tend to be maintained to a higher standard than newer vehicles. So as you can see, it is plainly NOT a tax to use roads. If it was then electric vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders, milk floats, ultra-low emission vehicles would have to pay it. They DON'T have to pay it because they DON'T POLLUTE in public places. It is a pollution tax. It is NOT a tax to use roads.[/p][/quote]By the way, you have misunderstood some of the definitions regarding exemptions. My disabled neighbour has a motorbility vehicle for which he would pay towards the top end of the Tax if he were not exempt Vehicles used just for agriculture, horticulture and forestry This includes tractors, agricultural engines and light agricultural vehicles used off-road. It ***‘ALSO’*** includes ‘limited use’ vehicles used for short journeys (not more than 1.5 kilometres) on the public road between land that’s occupied by the same person.[/p][/quote]"It's very relevant. The tax is only applicable if you are going to pollute in public places. If your car is kept off road and only used on private property you don't have to pay the tax, but you can still use the car, run its engine etc." So I still cause pollution when I run my engine at home, or drive on private land. If I'm contributing to pollution, by your reasoning, shouldn't I be paying tax rather than having the car SORN? Also, electric cars - not really the most pollution friendly vehicles in the world after all - it's just they don't directly spew out gasses. Again, it's a vehicle tax (I'm so tempted at this point to email the government for a proper clarification it's unreal), not a tax on pollution. The fact it's cheaper if your car pollutes less is a reward, that is all.[/p][/quote]No. You have to pay MORE if your vehicle pollutes MORE, It's a pollution tax. Shoebury_Cyclist

11:26pm Fri 15 Mar 13

BASILBRUSH says...

It pains me to say Shoebury_cyclist is correct. The tax you pay on your car is just that, a tax, just another means to raise revenue for the central pot.
The money to build, mend or whatever to Roads comes out of Central funds but is not directly connected to the above in any shape or form.
Jolllyboy again talking nonsense. Why should any individual business have to pay for this? By that reasoning why not charge the tourist attractions.. How day they encourage visitors or extra employees congest our roads!
Now can we move on?
It pains me to say Shoebury_cyclist is correct. The tax you pay on your car is just that, a tax, just another means to raise revenue for the central pot. The money to build, mend or whatever to Roads comes out of Central funds but is not directly connected to the above in any shape or form. Jolllyboy again talking nonsense. Why should any individual business have to pay for this? By that reasoning why not charge the tourist attractions.. How day they encourage visitors or extra employees congest our roads! Now can we move on? BASILBRUSH

9:34am Sat 16 Mar 13

stopmoaning1 says...

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Noteworthy wrote:
stopmoaning1 wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Noteworthy wrote:
stopmoaning1 wrote: By the way, I didn’t add electric car because you already said that and that’s not in dispute
Shoebury Cyclist said "You have to pay it in order to be able to use a car that pollutes on the road" So it's a tax to use a car on the road then, hence, a vehicle tax. Pollution occurs at home or on the road so that's irrelavent, and the whole 'alcohol/pub tax thingy you tried to argue with has rather backfired too.
It's very relevant. The tax is only applicable if you are going to pollute in public places. If your car is kept off road and only used on private property you don't have to pay the tax, but you can still use the car, run its engine etc. That is why you can use an electric vehicle in public places without having to pay the tax. Because electric cars/vehicle do not POLLUTE those public places. Regarding vehicles belonging to disabled people: they don't have to pay the tax because they have limited choices to get around, and many have no choice as to their form of transport. So the tax is waived for their vehicles. Regarding agricultural vehicles, they can only be tax exempt if they are driven in public places for less than 1.5km when moving to different parts of the farm during agricultural use. If they are to be driven further than that - and therefore pollute more public space than permitted when moving from one part of a farm to another - then they have to pay the tax. 'Historic vehicles' don't have to pay the duty because their numbers are dwindling and very few are used as a daily driver. Also they tend to be maintained to a higher standard than newer vehicles. So as you can see, it is plainly NOT a tax to use roads. If it was then electric vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders, milk floats, ultra-low emission vehicles would have to pay it. They DON'T have to pay it because they DON'T POLLUTE in public places. It is a pollution tax. It is NOT a tax to use roads.
By the way, you have misunderstood some of the definitions regarding exemptions. My disabled neighbour has a motorbility vehicle for which he would pay towards the top end of the Tax if he were not exempt Vehicles used just for agriculture, horticulture and forestry This includes tractors, agricultural engines and light agricultural vehicles used off-road. It ***‘ALSO’*** includes ‘limited use’ vehicles used for short journeys (not more than 1.5 kilometres) on the public road between land that’s occupied by the same person.
"It's very relevant. The tax is only applicable if you are going to pollute in public places. If your car is kept off road and only used on private property you don't have to pay the tax, but you can still use the car, run its engine etc."

So I still cause pollution when I run my engine at home, or drive on private land. If I'm contributing to pollution, by your reasoning, shouldn't I be paying tax rather than having the car SORN?

Also, electric cars - not really the most pollution friendly vehicles in the world after all - it's just they don't directly spew out gasses.

Again, it's a vehicle tax (I'm so tempted at this point to email the government for a proper clarification it's unreal), not a tax on pollution. The fact it's cheaper if your car pollutes less is a reward, that is all.
No. You have to pay MORE if your vehicle pollutes MORE,

It's a pollution tax.
OK, please indulge us all and answer the following question with a simple A or B. No if’s, but’s what about’s and maybe’s, just a simple A or B

My partner and I have two cars. I have a Fiat 500 for example, the lowest tax banding above an electric car. My partner has say a 1970 Rover 3500, a monster of a gas guzzler and a filthy pollution machine that kills trees as it drives past them
.
Which one do we have to pay TAX on in order to USE it on the ROAD.
A/ The Fiat 500
B/ The Rover 3500”
[quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Noteworthy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Noteworthy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: By the way, I didn’t add electric car because you already said that and that’s not in dispute[/p][/quote]Shoebury Cyclist said "You have to pay it in order to be able to use a car that pollutes on the road" So it's a tax to use a car on the road then, hence, a vehicle tax. Pollution occurs at home or on the road so that's irrelavent, and the whole 'alcohol/pub tax thingy you tried to argue with has rather backfired too.[/p][/quote]It's very relevant. The tax is only applicable if you are going to pollute in public places. If your car is kept off road and only used on private property you don't have to pay the tax, but you can still use the car, run its engine etc. That is why you can use an electric vehicle in public places without having to pay the tax. Because electric cars/vehicle do not POLLUTE those public places. Regarding vehicles belonging to disabled people: they don't have to pay the tax because they have limited choices to get around, and many have no choice as to their form of transport. So the tax is waived for their vehicles. Regarding agricultural vehicles, they can only be tax exempt if they are driven in public places for less than 1.5km when moving to different parts of the farm during agricultural use. If they are to be driven further than that - and therefore pollute more public space than permitted when moving from one part of a farm to another - then they have to pay the tax. 'Historic vehicles' don't have to pay the duty because their numbers are dwindling and very few are used as a daily driver. Also they tend to be maintained to a higher standard than newer vehicles. So as you can see, it is plainly NOT a tax to use roads. If it was then electric vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders, milk floats, ultra-low emission vehicles would have to pay it. They DON'T have to pay it because they DON'T POLLUTE in public places. It is a pollution tax. It is NOT a tax to use roads.[/p][/quote]By the way, you have misunderstood some of the definitions regarding exemptions. My disabled neighbour has a motorbility vehicle for which he would pay towards the top end of the Tax if he were not exempt Vehicles used just for agriculture, horticulture and forestry This includes tractors, agricultural engines and light agricultural vehicles used off-road. It ***‘ALSO’*** includes ‘limited use’ vehicles used for short journeys (not more than 1.5 kilometres) on the public road between land that’s occupied by the same person.[/p][/quote]"It's very relevant. The tax is only applicable if you are going to pollute in public places. If your car is kept off road and only used on private property you don't have to pay the tax, but you can still use the car, run its engine etc." So I still cause pollution when I run my engine at home, or drive on private land. If I'm contributing to pollution, by your reasoning, shouldn't I be paying tax rather than having the car SORN? Also, electric cars - not really the most pollution friendly vehicles in the world after all - it's just they don't directly spew out gasses. Again, it's a vehicle tax (I'm so tempted at this point to email the government for a proper clarification it's unreal), not a tax on pollution. The fact it's cheaper if your car pollutes less is a reward, that is all.[/p][/quote]No. You have to pay MORE if your vehicle pollutes MORE, It's a pollution tax.[/p][/quote]OK, please indulge us all and answer the following question with a simple A or B. No if’s, but’s what about’s and maybe’s, just a simple A or B My partner and I have two cars. I have a Fiat 500 for example, the lowest tax banding above an electric car. My partner has say a 1970 Rover 3500, a monster of a gas guzzler and a filthy pollution machine that kills trees as it drives past them . Which one do we have to pay TAX on in order to USE it on the ROAD. A/ The Fiat 500 B/ The Rover 3500” stopmoaning1

12:13pm Sat 16 Mar 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

stopmoaning1 wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Noteworthy wrote:
stopmoaning1 wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Noteworthy wrote:
stopmoaning1 wrote: By the way, I didn’t add electric car because you already said that and that’s not in dispute
Shoebury Cyclist said "You have to pay it in order to be able to use a car that pollutes on the road" So it's a tax to use a car on the road then, hence, a vehicle tax. Pollution occurs at home or on the road so that's irrelavent, and the whole 'alcohol/pub tax thingy you tried to argue with has rather backfired too.
It's very relevant. The tax is only applicable if you are going to pollute in public places. If your car is kept off road and only used on private property you don't have to pay the tax, but you can still use the car, run its engine etc. That is why you can use an electric vehicle in public places without having to pay the tax. Because electric cars/vehicle do not POLLUTE those public places. Regarding vehicles belonging to disabled people: they don't have to pay the tax because they have limited choices to get around, and many have no choice as to their form of transport. So the tax is waived for their vehicles. Regarding agricultural vehicles, they can only be tax exempt if they are driven in public places for less than 1.5km when moving to different parts of the farm during agricultural use. If they are to be driven further than that - and therefore pollute more public space than permitted when moving from one part of a farm to another - then they have to pay the tax. 'Historic vehicles' don't have to pay the duty because their numbers are dwindling and very few are used as a daily driver. Also they tend to be maintained to a higher standard than newer vehicles. So as you can see, it is plainly NOT a tax to use roads. If it was then electric vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders, milk floats, ultra-low emission vehicles would have to pay it. They DON'T have to pay it because they DON'T POLLUTE in public places. It is a pollution tax. It is NOT a tax to use roads.
By the way, you have misunderstood some of the definitions regarding exemptions. My disabled neighbour has a motorbility vehicle for which he would pay towards the top end of the Tax if he were not exempt Vehicles used just for agriculture, horticulture and forestry This includes tractors, agricultural engines and light agricultural vehicles used off-road. It ***‘ALSO’*** includes ‘limited use’ vehicles used for short journeys (not more than 1.5 kilometres) on the public road between land that’s occupied by the same person.
"It's very relevant. The tax is only applicable if you are going to pollute in public places. If your car is kept off road and only used on private property you don't have to pay the tax, but you can still use the car, run its engine etc."

So I still cause pollution when I run my engine at home, or drive on private land. If I'm contributing to pollution, by your reasoning, shouldn't I be paying tax rather than having the car SORN?

Also, electric cars - not really the most pollution friendly vehicles in the world after all - it's just they don't directly spew out gasses.

Again, it's a vehicle tax (I'm so tempted at this point to email the government for a proper clarification it's unreal), not a tax on pollution. The fact it's cheaper if your car pollutes less is a reward, that is all.
No. You have to pay MORE if your vehicle pollutes MORE,

It's a pollution tax.
OK, please indulge us all and answer the following question with a simple A or B. No if’s, but’s what about’s and maybe’s, just a simple A or B

My partner and I have two cars. I have a Fiat 500 for example, the lowest tax banding above an electric car. My partner has say a 1970 Rover 3500, a monster of a gas guzzler and a filthy pollution machine that kills trees as it drives past them
.
Which one do we have to pay TAX on in order to USE it on the ROAD.
A/ The Fiat 500
B/ The Rover 3500”
Neither. We don't pay tax to use roads in the UK.
[quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Noteworthy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Noteworthy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: By the way, I didn’t add electric car because you already said that and that’s not in dispute[/p][/quote]Shoebury Cyclist said "You have to pay it in order to be able to use a car that pollutes on the road" So it's a tax to use a car on the road then, hence, a vehicle tax. Pollution occurs at home or on the road so that's irrelavent, and the whole 'alcohol/pub tax thingy you tried to argue with has rather backfired too.[/p][/quote]It's very relevant. The tax is only applicable if you are going to pollute in public places. If your car is kept off road and only used on private property you don't have to pay the tax, but you can still use the car, run its engine etc. That is why you can use an electric vehicle in public places without having to pay the tax. Because electric cars/vehicle do not POLLUTE those public places. Regarding vehicles belonging to disabled people: they don't have to pay the tax because they have limited choices to get around, and many have no choice as to their form of transport. So the tax is waived for their vehicles. Regarding agricultural vehicles, they can only be tax exempt if they are driven in public places for less than 1.5km when moving to different parts of the farm during agricultural use. If they are to be driven further than that - and therefore pollute more public space than permitted when moving from one part of a farm to another - then they have to pay the tax. 'Historic vehicles' don't have to pay the duty because their numbers are dwindling and very few are used as a daily driver. Also they tend to be maintained to a higher standard than newer vehicles. So as you can see, it is plainly NOT a tax to use roads. If it was then electric vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders, milk floats, ultra-low emission vehicles would have to pay it. They DON'T have to pay it because they DON'T POLLUTE in public places. It is a pollution tax. It is NOT a tax to use roads.[/p][/quote]By the way, you have misunderstood some of the definitions regarding exemptions. My disabled neighbour has a motorbility vehicle for which he would pay towards the top end of the Tax if he were not exempt Vehicles used just for agriculture, horticulture and forestry This includes tractors, agricultural engines and light agricultural vehicles used off-road. It ***‘ALSO’*** includes ‘limited use’ vehicles used for short journeys (not more than 1.5 kilometres) on the public road between land that’s occupied by the same person.[/p][/quote]"It's very relevant. The tax is only applicable if you are going to pollute in public places. If your car is kept off road and only used on private property you don't have to pay the tax, but you can still use the car, run its engine etc." So I still cause pollution when I run my engine at home, or drive on private land. If I'm contributing to pollution, by your reasoning, shouldn't I be paying tax rather than having the car SORN? Also, electric cars - not really the most pollution friendly vehicles in the world after all - it's just they don't directly spew out gasses. Again, it's a vehicle tax (I'm so tempted at this point to email the government for a proper clarification it's unreal), not a tax on pollution. The fact it's cheaper if your car pollutes less is a reward, that is all.[/p][/quote]No. You have to pay MORE if your vehicle pollutes MORE, It's a pollution tax.[/p][/quote]OK, please indulge us all and answer the following question with a simple A or B. No if’s, but’s what about’s and maybe’s, just a simple A or B My partner and I have two cars. I have a Fiat 500 for example, the lowest tax banding above an electric car. My partner has say a 1970 Rover 3500, a monster of a gas guzzler and a filthy pollution machine that kills trees as it drives past them . Which one do we have to pay TAX on in order to USE it on the ROAD. A/ The Fiat 500 B/ The Rover 3500”[/p][/quote]Neither. We don't pay tax to use roads in the UK. Shoebury_Cyclist

12:30pm Sat 16 Mar 13

stopmoaning1 says...

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
stopmoaning1 wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Noteworthy wrote:
stopmoaning1 wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Noteworthy wrote:
stopmoaning1 wrote: By the way, I didn’t add electric car because you already said that and that’s not in dispute
Shoebury Cyclist said "You have to pay it in order to be able to use a car that pollutes on the road" So it's a tax to use a car on the road then, hence, a vehicle tax. Pollution occurs at home or on the road so that's irrelavent, and the whole 'alcohol/pub tax thingy you tried to argue with has rather backfired too.
It's very relevant. The tax is only applicable if you are going to pollute in public places. If your car is kept off road and only used on private property you don't have to pay the tax, but you can still use the car, run its engine etc. That is why you can use an electric vehicle in public places without having to pay the tax. Because electric cars/vehicle do not POLLUTE those public places. Regarding vehicles belonging to disabled people: they don't have to pay the tax because they have limited choices to get around, and many have no choice as to their form of transport. So the tax is waived for their vehicles. Regarding agricultural vehicles, they can only be tax exempt if they are driven in public places for less than 1.5km when moving to different parts of the farm during agricultural use. If they are to be driven further than that - and therefore pollute more public space than permitted when moving from one part of a farm to another - then they have to pay the tax. 'Historic vehicles' don't have to pay the duty because their numbers are dwindling and very few are used as a daily driver. Also they tend to be maintained to a higher standard than newer vehicles. So as you can see, it is plainly NOT a tax to use roads. If it was then electric vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders, milk floats, ultra-low emission vehicles would have to pay it. They DON'T have to pay it because they DON'T POLLUTE in public places. It is a pollution tax. It is NOT a tax to use roads.
By the way, you have misunderstood some of the definitions regarding exemptions. My disabled neighbour has a motorbility vehicle for which he would pay towards the top end of the Tax if he were not exempt Vehicles used just for agriculture, horticulture and forestry This includes tractors, agricultural engines and light agricultural vehicles used off-road. It ***‘ALSO’*** includes ‘limited use’ vehicles used for short journeys (not more than 1.5 kilometres) on the public road between land that’s occupied by the same person.
"It's very relevant. The tax is only applicable if you are going to pollute in public places. If your car is kept off road and only used on private property you don't have to pay the tax, but you can still use the car, run its engine etc."

So I still cause pollution when I run my engine at home, or drive on private land. If I'm contributing to pollution, by your reasoning, shouldn't I be paying tax rather than having the car SORN?

Also, electric cars - not really the most pollution friendly vehicles in the world after all - it's just they don't directly spew out gasses.

Again, it's a vehicle tax (I'm so tempted at this point to email the government for a proper clarification it's unreal), not a tax on pollution. The fact it's cheaper if your car pollutes less is a reward, that is all.
No. You have to pay MORE if your vehicle pollutes MORE,

It's a pollution tax.
OK, please indulge us all and answer the following question with a simple A or B. No if’s, but’s what about’s and maybe’s, just a simple A or B

My partner and I have two cars. I have a Fiat 500 for example, the lowest tax banding above an electric car. My partner has say a 1970 Rover 3500, a monster of a gas guzzler and a filthy pollution machine that kills trees as it drives past them
.
Which one do we have to pay TAX on in order to USE it on the ROAD.
A/ The Fiat 500
B/ The Rover 3500”
Neither. We don't pay tax to use roads in the UK.
No no no, READ THE QUESTION.

My partner and I have two cars. I have a Fiat 500 for example, the lowest tax banding above an electric car. My partner has say a 1970 Rover 3500, a monster of a gas guzzler and a filthy pollution machine that kills trees as it drives past them
.
Which one do we have to pay TAX on in order to USE it on the ROAD.
A/ The Fiat 500
B/ The Rover 3500”
[quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Noteworthy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Noteworthy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: By the way, I didn’t add electric car because you already said that and that’s not in dispute[/p][/quote]Shoebury Cyclist said "You have to pay it in order to be able to use a car that pollutes on the road" So it's a tax to use a car on the road then, hence, a vehicle tax. Pollution occurs at home or on the road so that's irrelavent, and the whole 'alcohol/pub tax thingy you tried to argue with has rather backfired too.[/p][/quote]It's very relevant. The tax is only applicable if you are going to pollute in public places. If your car is kept off road and only used on private property you don't have to pay the tax, but you can still use the car, run its engine etc. That is why you can use an electric vehicle in public places without having to pay the tax. Because electric cars/vehicle do not POLLUTE those public places. Regarding vehicles belonging to disabled people: they don't have to pay the tax because they have limited choices to get around, and many have no choice as to their form of transport. So the tax is waived for their vehicles. Regarding agricultural vehicles, they can only be tax exempt if they are driven in public places for less than 1.5km when moving to different parts of the farm during agricultural use. If they are to be driven further than that - and therefore pollute more public space than permitted when moving from one part of a farm to another - then they have to pay the tax. 'Historic vehicles' don't have to pay the duty because their numbers are dwindling and very few are used as a daily driver. Also they tend to be maintained to a higher standard than newer vehicles. So as you can see, it is plainly NOT a tax to use roads. If it was then electric vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders, milk floats, ultra-low emission vehicles would have to pay it. They DON'T have to pay it because they DON'T POLLUTE in public places. It is a pollution tax. It is NOT a tax to use roads.[/p][/quote]By the way, you have misunderstood some of the definitions regarding exemptions. My disabled neighbour has a motorbility vehicle for which he would pay towards the top end of the Tax if he were not exempt Vehicles used just for agriculture, horticulture and forestry This includes tractors, agricultural engines and light agricultural vehicles used off-road. It ***‘ALSO’*** includes ‘limited use’ vehicles used for short journeys (not more than 1.5 kilometres) on the public road between land that’s occupied by the same person.[/p][/quote]"It's very relevant. The tax is only applicable if you are going to pollute in public places. If your car is kept off road and only used on private property you don't have to pay the tax, but you can still use the car, run its engine etc." So I still cause pollution when I run my engine at home, or drive on private land. If I'm contributing to pollution, by your reasoning, shouldn't I be paying tax rather than having the car SORN? Also, electric cars - not really the most pollution friendly vehicles in the world after all - it's just they don't directly spew out gasses. Again, it's a vehicle tax (I'm so tempted at this point to email the government for a proper clarification it's unreal), not a tax on pollution. The fact it's cheaper if your car pollutes less is a reward, that is all.[/p][/quote]No. You have to pay MORE if your vehicle pollutes MORE, It's a pollution tax.[/p][/quote]OK, please indulge us all and answer the following question with a simple A or B. No if’s, but’s what about’s and maybe’s, just a simple A or B My partner and I have two cars. I have a Fiat 500 for example, the lowest tax banding above an electric car. My partner has say a 1970 Rover 3500, a monster of a gas guzzler and a filthy pollution machine that kills trees as it drives past them . Which one do we have to pay TAX on in order to USE it on the ROAD. A/ The Fiat 500 B/ The Rover 3500”[/p][/quote]Neither. We don't pay tax to use roads in the UK.[/p][/quote]No no no, READ THE QUESTION. My partner and I have two cars. I have a Fiat 500 for example, the lowest tax banding above an electric car. My partner has say a 1970 Rover 3500, a monster of a gas guzzler and a filthy pollution machine that kills trees as it drives past them . Which one do we have to pay TAX on in order to USE it on the ROAD. A/ The Fiat 500 B/ The Rover 3500” stopmoaning1

2:25pm Sat 16 Mar 13

Nebs says...

stopmoaning1 wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
stopmoaning1 wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Noteworthy wrote:
stopmoaning1 wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Noteworthy wrote:
stopmoaning1 wrote: By the way, I didn’t add electric car because you already said that and that’s not in dispute
Shoebury Cyclist said "You have to pay it in order to be able to use a car that pollutes on the road" So it's a tax to use a car on the road then, hence, a vehicle tax. Pollution occurs at home or on the road so that's irrelavent, and the whole 'alcohol/pub tax thingy you tried to argue with has rather backfired too.
It's very relevant. The tax is only applicable if you are going to pollute in public places. If your car is kept off road and only used on private property you don't have to pay the tax, but you can still use the car, run its engine etc. That is why you can use an electric vehicle in public places without having to pay the tax. Because electric cars/vehicle do not POLLUTE those public places. Regarding vehicles belonging to disabled people: they don't have to pay the tax because they have limited choices to get around, and many have no choice as to their form of transport. So the tax is waived for their vehicles. Regarding agricultural vehicles, they can only be tax exempt if they are driven in public places for less than 1.5km when moving to different parts of the farm during agricultural use. If they are to be driven further than that - and therefore pollute more public space than permitted when moving from one part of a farm to another - then they have to pay the tax. 'Historic vehicles' don't have to pay the duty because their numbers are dwindling and very few are used as a daily driver. Also they tend to be maintained to a higher standard than newer vehicles. So as you can see, it is plainly NOT a tax to use roads. If it was then electric vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders, milk floats, ultra-low emission vehicles would have to pay it. They DON'T have to pay it because they DON'T POLLUTE in public places. It is a pollution tax. It is NOT a tax to use roads.
By the way, you have misunderstood some of the definitions regarding exemptions. My disabled neighbour has a motorbility vehicle for which he would pay towards the top end of the Tax if he were not exempt Vehicles used just for agriculture, horticulture and forestry This includes tractors, agricultural engines and light agricultural vehicles used off-road. It ***‘ALSO’*** includes ‘limited use’ vehicles used for short journeys (not more than 1.5 kilometres) on the public road between land that’s occupied by the same person.
"It's very relevant. The tax is only applicable if you are going to pollute in public places. If your car is kept off road and only used on private property you don't have to pay the tax, but you can still use the car, run its engine etc."

So I still cause pollution when I run my engine at home, or drive on private land. If I'm contributing to pollution, by your reasoning, shouldn't I be paying tax rather than having the car SORN?

Also, electric cars - not really the most pollution friendly vehicles in the world after all - it's just they don't directly spew out gasses.

Again, it's a vehicle tax (I'm so tempted at this point to email the government for a proper clarification it's unreal), not a tax on pollution. The fact it's cheaper if your car pollutes less is a reward, that is all.
No. You have to pay MORE if your vehicle pollutes MORE,

It's a pollution tax.
OK, please indulge us all and answer the following question with a simple A or B. No if’s, but’s what about’s and maybe’s, just a simple A or B

My partner and I have two cars. I have a Fiat 500 for example, the lowest tax banding above an electric car. My partner has say a 1970 Rover 3500, a monster of a gas guzzler and a filthy pollution machine that kills trees as it drives past them
.
Which one do we have to pay TAX on in order to USE it on the ROAD.
A/ The Fiat 500
B/ The Rover 3500”
Neither. We don't pay tax to use roads in the UK.
No no no, READ THE QUESTION.

My partner and I have two cars. I have a Fiat 500 for example, the lowest tax banding above an electric car. My partner has say a 1970 Rover 3500, a monster of a gas guzzler and a filthy pollution machine that kills trees as it drives past them
.
Which one do we have to pay TAX on in order to USE it on the ROAD.
A/ The Fiat 500
B/ The Rover 3500”
It should all be put on petrol, the more you pollute the more you pay. Display the MOT in the window rather than a tax disc.
[quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Noteworthy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Noteworthy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: By the way, I didn’t add electric car because you already said that and that’s not in dispute[/p][/quote]Shoebury Cyclist said "You have to pay it in order to be able to use a car that pollutes on the road" So it's a tax to use a car on the road then, hence, a vehicle tax. Pollution occurs at home or on the road so that's irrelavent, and the whole 'alcohol/pub tax thingy you tried to argue with has rather backfired too.[/p][/quote]It's very relevant. The tax is only applicable if you are going to pollute in public places. If your car is kept off road and only used on private property you don't have to pay the tax, but you can still use the car, run its engine etc. That is why you can use an electric vehicle in public places without having to pay the tax. Because electric cars/vehicle do not POLLUTE those public places. Regarding vehicles belonging to disabled people: they don't have to pay the tax because they have limited choices to get around, and many have no choice as to their form of transport. So the tax is waived for their vehicles. Regarding agricultural vehicles, they can only be tax exempt if they are driven in public places for less than 1.5km when moving to different parts of the farm during agricultural use. If they are to be driven further than that - and therefore pollute more public space than permitted when moving from one part of a farm to another - then they have to pay the tax. 'Historic vehicles' don't have to pay the duty because their numbers are dwindling and very few are used as a daily driver. Also they tend to be maintained to a higher standard than newer vehicles. So as you can see, it is plainly NOT a tax to use roads. If it was then electric vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders, milk floats, ultra-low emission vehicles would have to pay it. They DON'T have to pay it because they DON'T POLLUTE in public places. It is a pollution tax. It is NOT a tax to use roads.[/p][/quote]By the way, you have misunderstood some of the definitions regarding exemptions. My disabled neighbour has a motorbility vehicle for which he would pay towards the top end of the Tax if he were not exempt Vehicles used just for agriculture, horticulture and forestry This includes tractors, agricultural engines and light agricultural vehicles used off-road. It ***‘ALSO’*** includes ‘limited use’ vehicles used for short journeys (not more than 1.5 kilometres) on the public road between land that’s occupied by the same person.[/p][/quote]"It's very relevant. The tax is only applicable if you are going to pollute in public places. If your car is kept off road and only used on private property you don't have to pay the tax, but you can still use the car, run its engine etc." So I still cause pollution when I run my engine at home, or drive on private land. If I'm contributing to pollution, by your reasoning, shouldn't I be paying tax rather than having the car SORN? Also, electric cars - not really the most pollution friendly vehicles in the world after all - it's just they don't directly spew out gasses. Again, it's a vehicle tax (I'm so tempted at this point to email the government for a proper clarification it's unreal), not a tax on pollution. The fact it's cheaper if your car pollutes less is a reward, that is all.[/p][/quote]No. You have to pay MORE if your vehicle pollutes MORE, It's a pollution tax.[/p][/quote]OK, please indulge us all and answer the following question with a simple A or B. No if’s, but’s what about’s and maybe’s, just a simple A or B My partner and I have two cars. I have a Fiat 500 for example, the lowest tax banding above an electric car. My partner has say a 1970 Rover 3500, a monster of a gas guzzler and a filthy pollution machine that kills trees as it drives past them . Which one do we have to pay TAX on in order to USE it on the ROAD. A/ The Fiat 500 B/ The Rover 3500”[/p][/quote]Neither. We don't pay tax to use roads in the UK.[/p][/quote]No no no, READ THE QUESTION. My partner and I have two cars. I have a Fiat 500 for example, the lowest tax banding above an electric car. My partner has say a 1970 Rover 3500, a monster of a gas guzzler and a filthy pollution machine that kills trees as it drives past them . Which one do we have to pay TAX on in order to USE it on the ROAD. A/ The Fiat 500 B/ The Rover 3500”[/p][/quote]It should all be put on petrol, the more you pollute the more you pay. Display the MOT in the window rather than a tax disc. Nebs

2:53pm Sat 16 Mar 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

stopmoaning1 wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
stopmoaning1 wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Noteworthy wrote:
stopmoaning1 wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Noteworthy wrote:
stopmoaning1 wrote: By the way, I didn’t add electric car because you already said that and that’s not in dispute
Shoebury Cyclist said "You have to pay it in order to be able to use a car that pollutes on the road" So it's a tax to use a car on the road then, hence, a vehicle tax. Pollution occurs at home or on the road so that's irrelavent, and the whole 'alcohol/pub tax thingy you tried to argue with has rather backfired too.
It's very relevant. The tax is only applicable if you are going to pollute in public places. If your car is kept off road and only used on private property you don't have to pay the tax, but you can still use the car, run its engine etc. That is why you can use an electric vehicle in public places without having to pay the tax. Because electric cars/vehicle do not POLLUTE those public places. Regarding vehicles belonging to disabled people: they don't have to pay the tax because they have limited choices to get around, and many have no choice as to their form of transport. So the tax is waived for their vehicles. Regarding agricultural vehicles, they can only be tax exempt if they are driven in public places for less than 1.5km when moving to different parts of the farm during agricultural use. If they are to be driven further than that - and therefore pollute more public space than permitted when moving from one part of a farm to another - then they have to pay the tax. 'Historic vehicles' don't have to pay the duty because their numbers are dwindling and very few are used as a daily driver. Also they tend to be maintained to a higher standard than newer vehicles. So as you can see, it is plainly NOT a tax to use roads. If it was then electric vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders, milk floats, ultra-low emission vehicles would have to pay it. They DON'T have to pay it because they DON'T POLLUTE in public places. It is a pollution tax. It is NOT a tax to use roads.
By the way, you have misunderstood some of the definitions regarding exemptions. My disabled neighbour has a motorbility vehicle for which he would pay towards the top end of the Tax if he were not exempt Vehicles used just for agriculture, horticulture and forestry This includes tractors, agricultural engines and light agricultural vehicles used off-road. It ***‘ALSO’*** includes ‘limited use’ vehicles used for short journeys (not more than 1.5 kilometres) on the public road between land that’s occupied by the same person.
"It's very relevant. The tax is only applicable if you are going to pollute in public places. If your car is kept off road and only used on private property you don't have to pay the tax, but you can still use the car, run its engine etc."

So I still cause pollution when I run my engine at home, or drive on private land. If I'm contributing to pollution, by your reasoning, shouldn't I be paying tax rather than having the car SORN?

Also, electric cars - not really the most pollution friendly vehicles in the world after all - it's just they don't directly spew out gasses.

Again, it's a vehicle tax (I'm so tempted at this point to email the government for a proper clarification it's unreal), not a tax on pollution. The fact it's cheaper if your car pollutes less is a reward, that is all.
No. You have to pay MORE if your vehicle pollutes MORE,

It's a pollution tax.
OK, please indulge us all and answer the following question with a simple A or B. No if’s, but’s what about’s and maybe’s, just a simple A or B

My partner and I have two cars. I have a Fiat 500 for example, the lowest tax banding above an electric car. My partner has say a 1970 Rover 3500, a monster of a gas guzzler and a filthy pollution machine that kills trees as it drives past them
.
Which one do we have to pay TAX on in order to USE it on the ROAD.
A/ The Fiat 500
B/ The Rover 3500”
Neither. We don't pay tax to use roads in the UK.
No no no, READ THE QUESTION.

My partner and I have two cars. I have a Fiat 500 for example, the lowest tax banding above an electric car. My partner has say a 1970 Rover 3500, a monster of a gas guzzler and a filthy pollution machine that kills trees as it drives past them
.
Which one do we have to pay TAX on in order to USE it on the ROAD.
A/ The Fiat 500
B/ The Rover 3500”
I did read the question. You asked:

"Which one do we have to pay TAX on in order to USE it on the ROAD."


And I answered that question with the correct answer which is:

Neither, because NO-ONE in the UK is TAXED to USE roads.
[quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Noteworthy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Noteworthy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: By the way, I didn’t add electric car because you already said that and that’s not in dispute[/p][/quote]Shoebury Cyclist said "You have to pay it in order to be able to use a car that pollutes on the road" So it's a tax to use a car on the road then, hence, a vehicle tax. Pollution occurs at home or on the road so that's irrelavent, and the whole 'alcohol/pub tax thingy you tried to argue with has rather backfired too.[/p][/quote]It's very relevant. The tax is only applicable if you are going to pollute in public places. If your car is kept off road and only used on private property you don't have to pay the tax, but you can still use the car, run its engine etc. That is why you can use an electric vehicle in public places without having to pay the tax. Because electric cars/vehicle do not POLLUTE those public places. Regarding vehicles belonging to disabled people: they don't have to pay the tax because they have limited choices to get around, and many have no choice as to their form of transport. So the tax is waived for their vehicles. Regarding agricultural vehicles, they can only be tax exempt if they are driven in public places for less than 1.5km when moving to different parts of the farm during agricultural use. If they are to be driven further than that - and therefore pollute more public space than permitted when moving from one part of a farm to another - then they have to pay the tax. 'Historic vehicles' don't have to pay the duty because their numbers are dwindling and very few are used as a daily driver. Also they tend to be maintained to a higher standard than newer vehicles. So as you can see, it is plainly NOT a tax to use roads. If it was then electric vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders, milk floats, ultra-low emission vehicles would have to pay it. They DON'T have to pay it because they DON'T POLLUTE in public places. It is a pollution tax. It is NOT a tax to use roads.[/p][/quote]By the way, you have misunderstood some of the definitions regarding exemptions. My disabled neighbour has a motorbility vehicle for which he would pay towards the top end of the Tax if he were not exempt Vehicles used just for agriculture, horticulture and forestry This includes tractors, agricultural engines and light agricultural vehicles used off-road. It ***‘ALSO’*** includes ‘limited use’ vehicles used for short journeys (not more than 1.5 kilometres) on the public road between land that’s occupied by the same person.[/p][/quote]"It's very relevant. The tax is only applicable if you are going to pollute in public places. If your car is kept off road and only used on private property you don't have to pay the tax, but you can still use the car, run its engine etc." So I still cause pollution when I run my engine at home, or drive on private land. If I'm contributing to pollution, by your reasoning, shouldn't I be paying tax rather than having the car SORN? Also, electric cars - not really the most pollution friendly vehicles in the world after all - it's just they don't directly spew out gasses. Again, it's a vehicle tax (I'm so tempted at this point to email the government for a proper clarification it's unreal), not a tax on pollution. The fact it's cheaper if your car pollutes less is a reward, that is all.[/p][/quote]No. You have to pay MORE if your vehicle pollutes MORE, It's a pollution tax.[/p][/quote]OK, please indulge us all and answer the following question with a simple A or B. No if’s, but’s what about’s and maybe’s, just a simple A or B My partner and I have two cars. I have a Fiat 500 for example, the lowest tax banding above an electric car. My partner has say a 1970 Rover 3500, a monster of a gas guzzler and a filthy pollution machine that kills trees as it drives past them . Which one do we have to pay TAX on in order to USE it on the ROAD. A/ The Fiat 500 B/ The Rover 3500”[/p][/quote]Neither. We don't pay tax to use roads in the UK.[/p][/quote]No no no, READ THE QUESTION. My partner and I have two cars. I have a Fiat 500 for example, the lowest tax banding above an electric car. My partner has say a 1970 Rover 3500, a monster of a gas guzzler and a filthy pollution machine that kills trees as it drives past them . Which one do we have to pay TAX on in order to USE it on the ROAD. A/ The Fiat 500 B/ The Rover 3500”[/p][/quote]I did read the question. You asked: "Which one do we have to pay TAX on in order to USE it on the ROAD." And I answered that question with the correct answer which is: Neither, because NO-ONE in the UK is TAXED to USE roads. Shoebury_Cyclist

8:45pm Sat 16 Mar 13

Joe Wildman-Clark says...

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
stopmoaning1 wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
stopmoaning1 wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Noteworthy wrote:
stopmoaning1 wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Noteworthy wrote:
stopmoaning1 wrote: By the way, I didn’t add electric car because you already said that and that’s not in dispute
Shoebury Cyclist said "You have to pay it in order to be able to use a car that pollutes on the road" So it's a tax to use a car on the road then, hence, a vehicle tax. Pollution occurs at home or on the road so that's irrelavent, and the whole 'alcohol/pub tax thingy you tried to argue with has rather backfired too.
It's very relevant. The tax is only applicable if you are going to pollute in public places. If your car is kept off road and only used on private property you don't have to pay the tax, but you can still use the car, run its engine etc. That is why you can use an electric vehicle in public places without having to pay the tax. Because electric cars/vehicle do not POLLUTE those public places. Regarding vehicles belonging to disabled people: they don't have to pay the tax because they have limited choices to get around, and many have no choice as to their form of transport. So the tax is waived for their vehicles. Regarding agricultural vehicles, they can only be tax exempt if they are driven in public places for less than 1.5km when moving to different parts of the farm during agricultural use. If they are to be driven further than that - and therefore pollute more public space than permitted when moving from one part of a farm to another - then they have to pay the tax. 'Historic vehicles' don't have to pay the duty because their numbers are dwindling and very few are used as a daily driver. Also they tend to be maintained to a higher standard than newer vehicles. So as you can see, it is plainly NOT a tax to use roads. If it was then electric vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders, milk floats, ultra-low emission vehicles would have to pay it. They DON'T have to pay it because they DON'T POLLUTE in public places. It is a pollution tax. It is NOT a tax to use roads.
By the way, you have misunderstood some of the definitions regarding exemptions. My disabled neighbour has a motorbility vehicle for which he would pay towards the top end of the Tax if he were not exempt Vehicles used just for agriculture, horticulture and forestry This includes tractors, agricultural engines and light agricultural vehicles used off-road. It ***‘ALSO’*** includes ‘limited use’ vehicles used for short journeys (not more than 1.5 kilometres) on the public road between land that’s occupied by the same person.
"It's very relevant. The tax is only applicable if you are going to pollute in public places. If your car is kept off road and only used on private property you don't have to pay the tax, but you can still use the car, run its engine etc."

So I still cause pollution when I run my engine at home, or drive on private land. If I'm contributing to pollution, by your reasoning, shouldn't I be paying tax rather than having the car SORN?

Also, electric cars - not really the most pollution friendly vehicles in the world after all - it's just they don't directly spew out gasses.

Again, it's a vehicle tax (I'm so tempted at this point to email the government for a proper clarification it's unreal), not a tax on pollution. The fact it's cheaper if your car pollutes less is a reward, that is all.
No. You have to pay MORE if your vehicle pollutes MORE,

It's a pollution tax.
OK, please indulge us all and answer the following question with a simple A or B. No if’s, but’s what about’s and maybe’s, just a simple A or B

My partner and I have two cars. I have a Fiat 500 for example, the lowest tax banding above an electric car. My partner has say a 1970 Rover 3500, a monster of a gas guzzler and a filthy pollution machine that kills trees as it drives past them
.
Which one do we have to pay TAX on in order to USE it on the ROAD.
A/ The Fiat 500
B/ The Rover 3500”
Neither. We don't pay tax to use roads in the UK.
No no no, READ THE QUESTION.

My partner and I have two cars. I have a Fiat 500 for example, the lowest tax banding above an electric car. My partner has say a 1970 Rover 3500, a monster of a gas guzzler and a filthy pollution machine that kills trees as it drives past them
.
Which one do we have to pay TAX on in order to USE it on the ROAD.
A/ The Fiat 500
B/ The Rover 3500”
I did read the question. You asked:

"Which one do we have to pay TAX on in order to USE it on the ROAD."


And I answered that question with the correct answer which is:

Neither, because NO-ONE in the UK is TAXED to USE roads.
Road Tax is the popular commonly use name for Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) which is what is OFFICALLY called.


Thing is with the lycra looneys wanting evermore space and causing more problems than they solve its time that they too were charged a flat fee of say £50 a year, to help cover the cost of cycle paths why should general taxation pay for something a large majority of the population will not use.


Cyclist should also have tags with registration numbers showing, this would help identify any that cause accidents and cycle off, those that jump red lights and those that ride on footpaths thinking they have the right of way and expecting those on foot to get out the way.


All cyclists should also have insurance as if they are the root cause of an accident than any and all damages can be claimed from them instead of the innocent party having to pay either rout of their own pocket or claim on their insurance.


Whilst Shoebury_cyclist will not agree I’m more than sure all the other motorists will.
Some of these cyclists are a menace, lost count of the number that have drawn up level with me at traffic lights and actually use my car to prop themselves up whilst waiting for lights to change, a blast of the horn seems to upset them... But boy is it fun watching them jump out their lycra!
[quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Noteworthy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Noteworthy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: By the way, I didn’t add electric car because you already said that and that’s not in dispute[/p][/quote]Shoebury Cyclist said "You have to pay it in order to be able to use a car that pollutes on the road" So it's a tax to use a car on the road then, hence, a vehicle tax. Pollution occurs at home or on the road so that's irrelavent, and the whole 'alcohol/pub tax thingy you tried to argue with has rather backfired too.[/p][/quote]It's very relevant. The tax is only applicable if you are going to pollute in public places. If your car is kept off road and only used on private property you don't have to pay the tax, but you can still use the car, run its engine etc. That is why you can use an electric vehicle in public places without having to pay the tax. Because electric cars/vehicle do not POLLUTE those public places. Regarding vehicles belonging to disabled people: they don't have to pay the tax because they have limited choices to get around, and many have no choice as to their form of transport. So the tax is waived for their vehicles. Regarding agricultural vehicles, they can only be tax exempt if they are driven in public places for less than 1.5km when moving to different parts of the farm during agricultural use. If they are to be driven further than that - and therefore pollute more public space than permitted when moving from one part of a farm to another - then they have to pay the tax. 'Historic vehicles' don't have to pay the duty because their numbers are dwindling and very few are used as a daily driver. Also they tend to be maintained to a higher standard than newer vehicles. So as you can see, it is plainly NOT a tax to use roads. If it was then electric vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders, milk floats, ultra-low emission vehicles would have to pay it. They DON'T have to pay it because they DON'T POLLUTE in public places. It is a pollution tax. It is NOT a tax to use roads.[/p][/quote]By the way, you have misunderstood some of the definitions regarding exemptions. My disabled neighbour has a motorbility vehicle for which he would pay towards the top end of the Tax if he were not exempt Vehicles used just for agriculture, horticulture and forestry This includes tractors, agricultural engines and light agricultural vehicles used off-road. It ***‘ALSO’*** includes ‘limited use’ vehicles used for short journeys (not more than 1.5 kilometres) on the public road between land that’s occupied by the same person.[/p][/quote]"It's very relevant. The tax is only applicable if you are going to pollute in public places. If your car is kept off road and only used on private property you don't have to pay the tax, but you can still use the car, run its engine etc." So I still cause pollution when I run my engine at home, or drive on private land. If I'm contributing to pollution, by your reasoning, shouldn't I be paying tax rather than having the car SORN? Also, electric cars - not really the most pollution friendly vehicles in the world after all - it's just they don't directly spew out gasses. Again, it's a vehicle tax (I'm so tempted at this point to email the government for a proper clarification it's unreal), not a tax on pollution. The fact it's cheaper if your car pollutes less is a reward, that is all.[/p][/quote]No. You have to pay MORE if your vehicle pollutes MORE, It's a pollution tax.[/p][/quote]OK, please indulge us all and answer the following question with a simple A or B. No if’s, but’s what about’s and maybe’s, just a simple A or B My partner and I have two cars. I have a Fiat 500 for example, the lowest tax banding above an electric car. My partner has say a 1970 Rover 3500, a monster of a gas guzzler and a filthy pollution machine that kills trees as it drives past them . Which one do we have to pay TAX on in order to USE it on the ROAD. A/ The Fiat 500 B/ The Rover 3500”[/p][/quote]Neither. We don't pay tax to use roads in the UK.[/p][/quote]No no no, READ THE QUESTION. My partner and I have two cars. I have a Fiat 500 for example, the lowest tax banding above an electric car. My partner has say a 1970 Rover 3500, a monster of a gas guzzler and a filthy pollution machine that kills trees as it drives past them . Which one do we have to pay TAX on in order to USE it on the ROAD. A/ The Fiat 500 B/ The Rover 3500”[/p][/quote]I did read the question. You asked: "Which one do we have to pay TAX on in order to USE it on the ROAD." And I answered that question with the correct answer which is: Neither, because NO-ONE in the UK is TAXED to USE roads.[/p][/quote]Road Tax is the popular commonly use name for Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) which is what is OFFICALLY called. Thing is with the lycra looneys wanting evermore space and causing more problems than they solve its time that they too were charged a flat fee of say £50 a year, to help cover the cost of cycle paths why should general taxation pay for something a large majority of the population will not use. Cyclist should also have tags with registration numbers showing, this would help identify any that cause accidents and cycle off, those that jump red lights and those that ride on footpaths thinking they have the right of way and expecting those on foot to get out the way. All cyclists should also have insurance as if they are the root cause of an accident than any and all damages can be claimed from them instead of the innocent party having to pay either rout of their own pocket or claim on their insurance. Whilst Shoebury_cyclist will not agree I’m more than sure all the other motorists will. Some of these cyclists are a menace, lost count of the number that have drawn up level with me at traffic lights and actually use my car to prop themselves up whilst waiting for lights to change, a blast of the horn seems to upset them... But boy is it fun watching them jump out their lycra! Joe Wildman-Clark

9:30am Sun 17 Mar 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

I see. You completely lost the argument on VED, so now you spout the usual cyclist hatred of the uneducated, peppered with insults.

Here are some facts for you to consider:

Pedestrians killed by cyclists 2001-2009: 18
Pedestrians killed by motor vehicle 2001-2009: 3,495
Pedestrians seriously injured by cyclists 2001-2009: 434
Pedestrians seriously injured by motor vehicle 2001-2009: 46,245

Roads, cycle lanes, and pavements are paid for through council tax, income tax and every other tax that goes into the central government pot, all of which are also paid by cyclists. Plus 88% of cyclists also drive, so they pay all the same taxes as everyone else. There is only ONE hypothecated tax in the UK: the television licence. Every other tax goes into the central pot and is distributed as the exchequer sees fit.
Cyclists have been paying for decades yet the proportionate investment has not been made in cycle infrastructure.
If anything the government should be giving cyclists rebates.

Likewise drivers should be fined for:
using phones while driving,
speeding,
parking illegally and dangerously,
not indicating,
dangerous overtaking,
dangerous undertaking,
drink driving,
drug driving,
driving uninsured,
driving without MOTs,
texting while driving,
eating while driving,
tailgating,
jumping red lights,
driving on pavements (how do you think all those cars parked on pavements got there?)
driving the wrong way up one-way streets,
parking in cycle lanes,
driving in cycle lanes,
stopping in ASLs for cyclists,
stopping in box junctions,
etc.

Oh, and 90% of cyclists also hold drivers licences and drive, know the Highway Code, and are usually a hell of lot more knowledgable on it than drivers who do not cycle.
I see. You completely lost the argument on VED, so now you spout the usual cyclist hatred of the uneducated, peppered with insults. Here are some facts for you to consider: Pedestrians killed by cyclists 2001-2009: 18 Pedestrians killed by motor vehicle 2001-2009: 3,495 Pedestrians seriously injured by cyclists 2001-2009: 434 Pedestrians seriously injured by motor vehicle 2001-2009: 46,245 Roads, cycle lanes, and pavements are paid for through council tax, income tax and every other tax that goes into the central government pot, all of which are also paid by cyclists. Plus 88% of cyclists also drive, so they pay all the same taxes as everyone else. There is only ONE hypothecated tax in the UK: the television licence. Every other tax goes into the central pot and is distributed as the exchequer sees fit. Cyclists have been paying for decades yet the proportionate investment has not been made in cycle infrastructure. If anything the government should be giving cyclists rebates. Likewise drivers should be fined for: using phones while driving, speeding, parking illegally and dangerously, not indicating, dangerous overtaking, dangerous undertaking, drink driving, drug driving, driving uninsured, driving without MOTs, texting while driving, eating while driving, tailgating, jumping red lights, driving on pavements (how do you think all those cars parked on pavements got there?) driving the wrong way up one-way streets, parking in cycle lanes, driving in cycle lanes, stopping in ASLs for cyclists, stopping in box junctions, etc. Oh, and 90% of cyclists also hold drivers licences and drive, know the Highway Code, and are usually a hell of lot more knowledgable on it than drivers who do not cycle. Shoebury_Cyclist

11:25am Sun 17 Mar 13

stopmoaning1 says...

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
stopmoaning1 wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
stopmoaning1 wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Noteworthy wrote:
stopmoaning1 wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Noteworthy wrote:
stopmoaning1 wrote: By the way, I didn’t add electric car because you already said that and that’s not in dispute
Shoebury Cyclist said "You have to pay it in order to be able to use a car that pollutes on the road" So it's a tax to use a car on the road then, hence, a vehicle tax. Pollution occurs at home or on the road so that's irrelavent, and the whole 'alcohol/pub tax thingy you tried to argue with has rather backfired too.
It's very relevant. The tax is only applicable if you are going to pollute in public places. If your car is kept off road and only used on private property you don't have to pay the tax, but you can still use the car, run its engine etc. That is why you can use an electric vehicle in public places without having to pay the tax. Because electric cars/vehicle do not POLLUTE those public places. Regarding vehicles belonging to disabled people: they don't have to pay the tax because they have limited choices to get around, and many have no choice as to their form of transport. So the tax is waived for their vehicles. Regarding agricultural vehicles, they can only be tax exempt if they are driven in public places for less than 1.5km when moving to different parts of the farm during agricultural use. If they are to be driven further than that - and therefore pollute more public space than permitted when moving from one part of a farm to another - then they have to pay the tax. 'Historic vehicles' don't have to pay the duty because their numbers are dwindling and very few are used as a daily driver. Also they tend to be maintained to a higher standard than newer vehicles. So as you can see, it is plainly NOT a tax to use roads. If it was then electric vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders, milk floats, ultra-low emission vehicles would have to pay it. They DON'T have to pay it because they DON'T POLLUTE in public places. It is a pollution tax. It is NOT a tax to use roads.
By the way, you have misunderstood some of the definitions regarding exemptions. My disabled neighbour has a motorbility vehicle for which he would pay towards the top end of the Tax if he were not exempt Vehicles used just for agriculture, horticulture and forestry This includes tractors, agricultural engines and light agricultural vehicles used off-road. It ***‘ALSO’*** includes ‘limited use’ vehicles used for short journeys (not more than 1.5 kilometres) on the public road between land that’s occupied by the same person.
"It's very relevant. The tax is only applicable if you are going to pollute in public places. If your car is kept off road and only used on private property you don't have to pay the tax, but you can still use the car, run its engine etc."

So I still cause pollution when I run my engine at home, or drive on private land. If I'm contributing to pollution, by your reasoning, shouldn't I be paying tax rather than having the car SORN?

Also, electric cars - not really the most pollution friendly vehicles in the world after all - it's just they don't directly spew out gasses.

Again, it's a vehicle tax (I'm so tempted at this point to email the government for a proper clarification it's unreal), not a tax on pollution. The fact it's cheaper if your car pollutes less is a reward, that is all.
No. You have to pay MORE if your vehicle pollutes MORE,

It's a pollution tax.
OK, please indulge us all and answer the following question with a simple A or B. No if’s, but’s what about’s and maybe’s, just a simple A or B

My partner and I have two cars. I have a Fiat 500 for example, the lowest tax banding above an electric car. My partner has say a 1970 Rover 3500, a monster of a gas guzzler and a filthy pollution machine that kills trees as it drives past them
.
Which one do we have to pay TAX on in order to USE it on the ROAD.
A/ The Fiat 500
B/ The Rover 3500”
Neither. We don't pay tax to use roads in the UK.
No no no, READ THE QUESTION.

My partner and I have two cars. I have a Fiat 500 for example, the lowest tax banding above an electric car. My partner has say a 1970 Rover 3500, a monster of a gas guzzler and a filthy pollution machine that kills trees as it drives past them
.
Which one do we have to pay TAX on in order to USE it on the ROAD.
A/ The Fiat 500
B/ The Rover 3500”
I did read the question. You asked:

"Which one do we have to pay TAX on in order to USE it on the ROAD."


And I answered that question with the correct answer which is:

Neither, because NO-ONE in the UK is TAXED to USE roads.
I don’t think you are a professional driver at all. I think you are a politician. You are an expert at looking at a question and then interpreting it in such a way that you can recycle your old message in your answer. The question is very clear, all you have to do is look at all of the words. Your argument is that we do not pay tax to use the roads, but to use the car. (on the road) The question is about paying a tax, to use a car. You also state VED is a pollution tax.
So now read the question again. Every word and see if you can give a straight A or B.
My partner and I have two cars. I have a Fiat 500 for example, the lowest tax banding above an electric car. My partner has say a 1970 Rover 3500, a monster of a gas guzzler and a filthy pollution machine that kills trees as it drives past them
.
Which one do we have to pay TAX **on** in order to **USE** **it** on the ROAD.
A/ The Fiat 500
B/ The Rover 3500
[quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Noteworthy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Noteworthy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: By the way, I didn’t add electric car because you already said that and that’s not in dispute[/p][/quote]Shoebury Cyclist said "You have to pay it in order to be able to use a car that pollutes on the road" So it's a tax to use a car on the road then, hence, a vehicle tax. Pollution occurs at home or on the road so that's irrelavent, and the whole 'alcohol/pub tax thingy you tried to argue with has rather backfired too.[/p][/quote]It's very relevant. The tax is only applicable if you are going to pollute in public places. If your car is kept off road and only used on private property you don't have to pay the tax, but you can still use the car, run its engine etc. That is why you can use an electric vehicle in public places without having to pay the tax. Because electric cars/vehicle do not POLLUTE those public places. Regarding vehicles belonging to disabled people: they don't have to pay the tax because they have limited choices to get around, and many have no choice as to their form of transport. So the tax is waived for their vehicles. Regarding agricultural vehicles, they can only be tax exempt if they are driven in public places for less than 1.5km when moving to different parts of the farm during agricultural use. If they are to be driven further than that - and therefore pollute more public space than permitted when moving from one part of a farm to another - then they have to pay the tax. 'Historic vehicles' don't have to pay the duty because their numbers are dwindling and very few are used as a daily driver. Also they tend to be maintained to a higher standard than newer vehicles. So as you can see, it is plainly NOT a tax to use roads. If it was then electric vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders, milk floats, ultra-low emission vehicles would have to pay it. They DON'T have to pay it because they DON'T POLLUTE in public places. It is a pollution tax. It is NOT a tax to use roads.[/p][/quote]By the way, you have misunderstood some of the definitions regarding exemptions. My disabled neighbour has a motorbility vehicle for which he would pay towards the top end of the Tax if he were not exempt Vehicles used just for agriculture, horticulture and forestry This includes tractors, agricultural engines and light agricultural vehicles used off-road. It ***‘ALSO’*** includes ‘limited use’ vehicles used for short journeys (not more than 1.5 kilometres) on the public road between land that’s occupied by the same person.[/p][/quote]"It's very relevant. The tax is only applicable if you are going to pollute in public places. If your car is kept off road and only used on private property you don't have to pay the tax, but you can still use the car, run its engine etc." So I still cause pollution when I run my engine at home, or drive on private land. If I'm contributing to pollution, by your reasoning, shouldn't I be paying tax rather than having the car SORN? Also, electric cars - not really the most pollution friendly vehicles in the world after all - it's just they don't directly spew out gasses. Again, it's a vehicle tax (I'm so tempted at this point to email the government for a proper clarification it's unreal), not a tax on pollution. The fact it's cheaper if your car pollutes less is a reward, that is all.[/p][/quote]No. You have to pay MORE if your vehicle pollutes MORE, It's a pollution tax.[/p][/quote]OK, please indulge us all and answer the following question with a simple A or B. No if’s, but’s what about’s and maybe’s, just a simple A or B My partner and I have two cars. I have a Fiat 500 for example, the lowest tax banding above an electric car. My partner has say a 1970 Rover 3500, a monster of a gas guzzler and a filthy pollution machine that kills trees as it drives past them . Which one do we have to pay TAX on in order to USE it on the ROAD. A/ The Fiat 500 B/ The Rover 3500”[/p][/quote]Neither. We don't pay tax to use roads in the UK.[/p][/quote]No no no, READ THE QUESTION. My partner and I have two cars. I have a Fiat 500 for example, the lowest tax banding above an electric car. My partner has say a 1970 Rover 3500, a monster of a gas guzzler and a filthy pollution machine that kills trees as it drives past them . Which one do we have to pay TAX on in order to USE it on the ROAD. A/ The Fiat 500 B/ The Rover 3500”[/p][/quote]I did read the question. You asked: "Which one do we have to pay TAX on in order to USE it on the ROAD." And I answered that question with the correct answer which is: Neither, because NO-ONE in the UK is TAXED to USE roads.[/p][/quote]I don’t think you are a professional driver at all. I think you are a politician. You are an expert at looking at a question and then interpreting it in such a way that you can recycle your old message in your answer. The question is very clear, all you have to do is look at all of the words. Your argument is that we do not pay tax to use the roads, but to use the car. (on the road) The question is about paying a tax, to use a car. You also state VED is a pollution tax. So now read the question again. Every word and see if you can give a straight A or B. My partner and I have two cars. I have a Fiat 500 for example, the lowest tax banding above an electric car. My partner has say a 1970 Rover 3500, a monster of a gas guzzler and a filthy pollution machine that kills trees as it drives past them . Which one do we have to pay TAX **on** in order to **USE** **it** on the ROAD. A/ The Fiat 500 B/ The Rover 3500 stopmoaning1

11:32am Sun 17 Mar 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

Your question was:

Which one do we have to pay TAX **on** in order to **USE** **it** on the ROAD?

The only way to answer that question is:

Neither, because NO-ONE in the UK is taxed to USE roads.

You need to comprehend your own question before criticising the answer.
Your question was: Which one do we have to pay TAX **on** in order to **USE** **it** on the ROAD? The only way to answer that question is: Neither, because NO-ONE in the UK is taxed to USE roads. You need to comprehend your own question before criticising the answer. Shoebury_Cyclist

1:10pm Sun 17 Mar 13

stopmoaning1 says...

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Your question was:

Which one do we have to pay TAX **on** in order to **USE** **it** on the ROAD?

The only way to answer that question is:

Neither, because NO-ONE in the UK is taxed to USE roads.

You need to comprehend your own question before criticising the answer.
I know they’re not. They have to pay tax in order to USE THE CAR on the road. Hence the question, which car do you have to pay tax on.
[quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: Your question was: Which one do we have to pay TAX **on** in order to **USE** **it** on the ROAD? The only way to answer that question is: Neither, because NO-ONE in the UK is taxed to USE roads. You need to comprehend your own question before criticising the answer.[/p][/quote]I know they’re not. They have to pay tax in order to USE THE CAR on the road. Hence the question, which car do you have to pay tax on. stopmoaning1

1:15pm Sun 17 Mar 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

Again, we are not taxed to use cars on roads. We are taxed to pollute.
Again, we are not taxed to use cars on roads. We are taxed to pollute. Shoebury_Cyclist

2:17pm Sun 17 Mar 13

stopmoaning1 says...

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Again, we are not taxed to use cars on roads. We are taxed to pollute.
Nicely dodged again.

If you are not prepared to concede a point you simply duck the question.

The point of course is the answer is A. We pay tax on the smiley little environmentally friendly Fiat while the killer Rover is TAX EXEMPT.

But of course you continually avoided that because actual FACTS do not fit in with your ideas.
[quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: Again, we are not taxed to use cars on roads. We are taxed to pollute.[/p][/quote]Nicely dodged again. If you are not prepared to concede a point you simply duck the question. The point of course is the answer is A. We pay tax on the smiley little environmentally friendly Fiat while the killer Rover is TAX EXEMPT. But of course you continually avoided that because actual FACTS do not fit in with your ideas. stopmoaning1

2:29pm Sun 17 Mar 13

shoeburyboy says...

a
a shoeburyboy

2:34pm Sun 17 Mar 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

stopmoaning1 wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Again, we are not taxed to use cars on roads. We are taxed to pollute.
Nicely dodged again.

If you are not prepared to concede a point you simply duck the question.

The point of course is the answer is A. We pay tax on the smiley little environmentally friendly Fiat while the killer Rover is TAX EXEMPT.

But of course you continually avoided that because actual FACTS do not fit in with your ideas.
I'm not dodging anything.

You asked "which car is taxed to use on the road?"

I answered that question.

Neither, because no-one pays tax to use the road.

I can't make that any simpler for you.
[quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: Again, we are not taxed to use cars on roads. We are taxed to pollute.[/p][/quote]Nicely dodged again. If you are not prepared to concede a point you simply duck the question. The point of course is the answer is A. We pay tax on the smiley little environmentally friendly Fiat while the killer Rover is TAX EXEMPT. But of course you continually avoided that because actual FACTS do not fit in with your ideas.[/p][/quote]I'm not dodging anything. You asked "which car is taxed to use on the road?" I answered that question. Neither, because no-one pays tax to use the road. I can't make that any simpler for you. Shoebury_Cyclist

3:19pm Sun 17 Mar 13

stopmoaning1 says...

Oh you are funny. You have to tax the CAR. FACT. You can’t use it on a road unless it’s taxed.FACT. Even you agree with that. My question was which CAR needs to be taxed.
Oh you are funny. You have to tax the CAR. FACT. You can’t use it on a road unless it’s taxed.FACT. Even you agree with that. My question was which CAR needs to be taxed. stopmoaning1

3:30pm Sun 17 Mar 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

stopmoaning1 wrote:
Oh you are funny. You have to tax the CAR. FACT. You can’t use it on a road unless it’s taxed.FACT. Even you agree with that. My question was which CAR needs to be taxed.
Buy a Nissan Leaf, zero tax, but you can use it on the road. Buy a bicycle, zero VED but you can use it on the road. Buy a VW Polo Blue Motion, zero VED but you can use it on the road. Buy a Fiat 500 Twin Air, zero VED but you can use it on the road. Or a Fiat Panda twin air, zero VED but you can use it on the road.

Like I said, we are not taxed to use roads in the UK.
[quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: Oh you are funny. You have to tax the CAR. FACT. You can’t use it on a road unless it’s taxed.FACT. Even you agree with that. My question was which CAR needs to be taxed.[/p][/quote]Buy a Nissan Leaf, zero tax, but you can use it on the road. Buy a bicycle, zero VED but you can use it on the road. Buy a VW Polo Blue Motion, zero VED but you can use it on the road. Buy a Fiat 500 Twin Air, zero VED but you can use it on the road. Or a Fiat Panda twin air, zero VED but you can use it on the road. Like I said, we are not taxed to use roads in the UK. Shoebury_Cyclist

3:45pm Sun 17 Mar 13

Nebs says...

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
I see. You completely lost the argument on VED, so now you spout the usual cyclist hatred of the uneducated, peppered with insults.

Here are some facts for you to consider:

Pedestrians killed by cyclists 2001-2009: 18
Pedestrians killed by motor vehicle 2001-2009: 3,495
Pedestrians seriously injured by cyclists 2001-2009: 434
Pedestrians seriously injured by motor vehicle 2001-2009: 46,245

Roads, cycle lanes, and pavements are paid for through council tax, income tax and every other tax that goes into the central government pot, all of which are also paid by cyclists. Plus 88% of cyclists also drive, so they pay all the same taxes as everyone else. There is only ONE hypothecated tax in the UK: the television licence. Every other tax goes into the central pot and is distributed as the exchequer sees fit.
Cyclists have been paying for decades yet the proportionate investment has not been made in cycle infrastructure.
If anything the government should be giving cyclists rebates.

Likewise drivers should be fined for:
using phones while driving,
speeding,
parking illegally and dangerously,
not indicating,
dangerous overtaking,
dangerous undertaking,
drink driving,
drug driving,
driving uninsured,
driving without MOTs,
texting while driving,
eating while driving,
tailgating,
jumping red lights,
driving on pavements (how do you think all those cars parked on pavements got there?)
driving the wrong way up one-way streets,
parking in cycle lanes,
driving in cycle lanes,
stopping in ASLs for cyclists,
stopping in box junctions,
etc.

Oh, and 90% of cyclists also hold drivers licences and drive, know the Highway Code, and are usually a hell of lot more knowledgable on it than drivers who do not cycle.
To enable me to fairly compare your accident statistics, and find out which is safer, do you have details of the total miles travelled in a year by all motor vehicles and by cyclists?
[quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: I see. You completely lost the argument on VED, so now you spout the usual cyclist hatred of the uneducated, peppered with insults. Here are some facts for you to consider: Pedestrians killed by cyclists 2001-2009: 18 Pedestrians killed by motor vehicle 2001-2009: 3,495 Pedestrians seriously injured by cyclists 2001-2009: 434 Pedestrians seriously injured by motor vehicle 2001-2009: 46,245 Roads, cycle lanes, and pavements are paid for through council tax, income tax and every other tax that goes into the central government pot, all of which are also paid by cyclists. Plus 88% of cyclists also drive, so they pay all the same taxes as everyone else. There is only ONE hypothecated tax in the UK: the television licence. Every other tax goes into the central pot and is distributed as the exchequer sees fit. Cyclists have been paying for decades yet the proportionate investment has not been made in cycle infrastructure. If anything the government should be giving cyclists rebates. Likewise drivers should be fined for: using phones while driving, speeding, parking illegally and dangerously, not indicating, dangerous overtaking, dangerous undertaking, drink driving, drug driving, driving uninsured, driving without MOTs, texting while driving, eating while driving, tailgating, jumping red lights, driving on pavements (how do you think all those cars parked on pavements got there?) driving the wrong way up one-way streets, parking in cycle lanes, driving in cycle lanes, stopping in ASLs for cyclists, stopping in box junctions, etc. Oh, and 90% of cyclists also hold drivers licences and drive, know the Highway Code, and are usually a hell of lot more knowledgable on it than drivers who do not cycle.[/p][/quote]To enable me to fairly compare your accident statistics, and find out which is safer, do you have details of the total miles travelled in a year by all motor vehicles and by cyclists? Nebs

6:57pm Sun 17 Mar 13

stopmoaning1 says...

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
stopmoaning1 wrote:
Oh you are funny. You have to tax the CAR. FACT. You can’t use it on a road unless it’s taxed.FACT. Even you agree with that. My question was which CAR needs to be taxed.
Buy a Nissan Leaf, zero tax, but you can use it on the road. Buy a bicycle, zero VED but you can use it on the road. Buy a VW Polo Blue Motion, zero VED but you can use it on the road. Buy a Fiat 500 Twin Air, zero VED but you can use it on the road. Or a Fiat Panda twin air, zero VED but you can use it on the road.

Like I said, we are not taxed to use roads in the UK.
And if you buy a tree killing 1970 Rover 3500, zero VED but you can use it on the road
Which comes right back to my post questioning your’ It’s a pollution tax’ comment.

And by the way, please change the record about not paying tax to use the road. We all know that and it’s not in question. The point people make it that you have to pay tax, VED call it what you will, as you have used both in your comment, on (most) cars in order to be able to use them on the road.
[quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: Oh you are funny. You have to tax the CAR. FACT. You can’t use it on a road unless it’s taxed.FACT. Even you agree with that. My question was which CAR needs to be taxed.[/p][/quote]Buy a Nissan Leaf, zero tax, but you can use it on the road. Buy a bicycle, zero VED but you can use it on the road. Buy a VW Polo Blue Motion, zero VED but you can use it on the road. Buy a Fiat 500 Twin Air, zero VED but you can use it on the road. Or a Fiat Panda twin air, zero VED but you can use it on the road. Like I said, we are not taxed to use roads in the UK.[/p][/quote]And if you buy a tree killing 1970 Rover 3500, zero VED but you can use it on the road Which comes right back to my post questioning your’ It’s a pollution tax’ comment. And by the way, please change the record about not paying tax to use the road. We all know that and it’s not in question. The point people make it that you have to pay tax, VED call it what you will, as you have used both in your comment, on (most) cars in order to be able to use them on the road. stopmoaning1

11:15pm Sun 17 Mar 13

hoppie says...

WHAT A BiG RED HERRING.
Shoebury_Cyclist is good at this.
Comments were for the Tesco Roundabout.
WHAT A BiG RED HERRING. Shoebury_Cyclist is good at this. Comments were for the Tesco Roundabout. hoppie

11:39pm Sun 17 Mar 13

beppo1 says...

Still won't be able to get to Tescos without a car!! Where are the buses? We aren't all lucky enough to drive.
Still won't be able to get to Tescos without a car!! Where are the buses? We aren't all lucky enough to drive. beppo1

1:24am Mon 18 Mar 13

2shedsjackson says...

Just got my V11 road tax renewal form from the DVLA. On the form the word TAX appears 33 times and the word Duty once.
.
As it would be illegal to use my car without a valid TAX disc on the Public Highway, I'd say I'm paying a TAX to use my car on the public highway.
.
I hereby declare this a Pedant free zone and the Echo should levy a Pedant tax on any pedantic comments.
Just got my V11 road tax renewal form from the DVLA. On the form the word TAX appears 33 times and the word Duty once. . As it would be illegal to use my car without a valid TAX disc on the Public Highway, I'd say I'm paying a TAX to use my car on the public highway. . I hereby declare this a Pedant free zone and the Echo should levy a Pedant tax on any pedantic comments. 2shedsjackson

7:18am Mon 18 Mar 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

If your vehicle does not pollute, you can use it on the public highway without paying any Vehicle Excise Duty at all. None. Zero. Nada. Sweet F A.

Therefore it is a pollution tax and is NOT a tax for using the public highway.


Duty means tax.

Vehicle Excise Duty.

VEHICLE

ve·hi·cle (v-kl)
n.
1.
a. A device or structure for transporting persons or things; a conveyance: a space vehicle.
b. A self-propelled conveyance that runs on tires; a motor vehicle.

EXCISE

ex·cise 1 (ksz)
n.
1. An internal tax imposed on the production, sale, or consumption of a commodity or the use of a service within a country: excises on tobacco, liquor, and long-distance telephone calls.
2. A licensing charge or a fee levied for certain privileges.
tr.v. ex·cised, ex·cis·ing, ex·cis·es
To levy an excise on.

DUTY

du·ty (dt, dy-)
n. pl. du·ties
1. An act or a course of action that is required of one by position, social custom, law, or religion: Do your duty to your country.
2.
a. Moral obligation: acting out of duty.
b. The compulsion felt to meet such obligation.
3. A service, function, or task assigned to one, especially in the armed forces: hazardous duty.
4. Function or work; service: jury duty. See Synonyms at function.
5. A TAX CHARGED BY A GOVERNMENT, especially on imports.
If your vehicle does not pollute, you can use it on the public highway without paying any Vehicle Excise Duty at all. None. Zero. Nada. Sweet F A. Therefore it is a pollution tax and is NOT a tax for using the public highway. Duty means tax. Vehicle Excise Duty. VEHICLE ve·hi·cle (v-kl) n. 1. a. A device or structure for transporting persons or things; a conveyance: a space vehicle. b. A self-propelled conveyance that runs on tires; a motor vehicle. EXCISE ex·cise 1 (ksz) n. 1. An internal tax imposed on the production, sale, or consumption of a commodity or the use of a service within a country: excises on tobacco, liquor, and long-distance telephone calls. 2. A licensing charge or a fee levied for certain privileges. tr.v. ex·cised, ex·cis·ing, ex·cis·es To levy an excise on. DUTY du·ty (dt, dy-) n. pl. du·ties 1. An act or a course of action that is required of one by position, social custom, law, or religion: Do your duty to your country. 2. a. Moral obligation: acting out of duty. b. The compulsion felt to meet such obligation. 3. A service, function, or task assigned to one, especially in the armed forces: hazardous duty. 4. Function or work; service: jury duty. See Synonyms at function. 5. A TAX CHARGED BY A GOVERNMENT, especially on imports. Shoebury_Cyclist

9:58am Mon 18 Mar 13

A Pedant says...

Boring, boring, boring
Boring, boring, boring A Pedant

4:05pm Mon 18 Mar 13

Alekhine says...

Did someone mention road tax?
Did someone mention road tax? Alekhine

5:14pm Mon 18 Mar 13

Noteworthy says...

Oh Shoebury.... Sorry but it's not pollution tax

For a start you haven't answered my question - why do I not have to pay if I keep my car off the road but start it up? Pollution goes in the same place after all, causes the same problems...

Secondly, Why do 'exempt' cars still have to display a tax disc? If they don't have to pay because they are efficient, why is it that if they don't display a disc they are still hauled off the road?

Third - it's vehicle tax. For a start, lorries are taxed according to weight, axles and size rather than co2 emmissions. Buses achieve a lower rate for more efficient engines, but as with cars, it is a reward, an incentive. After all, Electric cars polute as much as petrol - just not as directly. I dont' think I've seen a windmill yet that can charge a car...

You'll find this document from the DVLA and hosted by the DfT interesting - and surprisingly, it calls it a vehicle tax...

www.dft.gov.uk/dvla/
~/media/pdf/leaflets
/v149.ashx

Then tehre's this story, about VED possibly going to fund the roads - what's great is that it actually says in teh article (by the BBC) - often reffered to as ROAD TAX (bet you're seething and wanting to write and complain to auntie now - but wait, often reffered to doen't mean it is)

http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/uk-politics-20
122355

Also I will ask, if it's a pollution tax - why are older cars registered before 2001 with big thirsty engines required to pay a fixed amount?

Because prices for lower emmissions are treated as a reward only

So, I think you'll now agree - it's a vehicle tax - the money spent on it could go on roads in future, and it is Alcohol and Tobbacco tax...
Oh Shoebury.... Sorry but it's not pollution tax For a start you haven't answered my question - why do I not have to pay if I keep my car off the road but start it up? Pollution goes in the same place after all, causes the same problems... Secondly, Why do 'exempt' cars still have to display a tax disc? If they don't have to pay because they are efficient, why is it that if they don't display a disc they are still hauled off the road? Third - it's vehicle tax. For a start, lorries are taxed according to weight, axles and size rather than co2 emmissions. Buses achieve a lower rate for more efficient engines, but as with cars, it is a reward, an incentive. After all, Electric cars polute as much as petrol - just not as directly. I dont' think I've seen a windmill yet that can charge a car... You'll find this document from the DVLA and hosted by the DfT interesting - and surprisingly, it calls it a vehicle tax... www.dft.gov.uk/dvla/ ~/media/pdf/leaflets /v149.ashx Then tehre's this story, about VED possibly going to fund the roads - what's great is that it actually says in teh article (by the BBC) - often reffered to as ROAD TAX (bet you're seething and wanting to write and complain to auntie now - but wait, often reffered to doen't mean it is) http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/uk-politics-20 122355 Also I will ask, if it's a pollution tax - why are older cars registered before 2001 with big thirsty engines required to pay a fixed amount? Because prices for lower emmissions are treated as a reward only So, I think you'll now agree - it's a vehicle tax - the money spent on it could go on roads in future, and it is Alcohol and Tobbacco tax... Noteworthy

5:21pm Mon 18 Mar 13

SpeekinMyBranes says...

Duty and tax are the same thing you muppets. go get a dictionary, morons.
Duty and tax are the same thing you muppets. go get a dictionary, morons. SpeekinMyBranes

7:23pm Sun 24 Mar 13

saarfender says...

Oh do let's forget this petty arguing over VED, it's just a tax on vehicle ownership, with rates based on a number of criteria (which is why I have to pay it on a vehicle I hardly use and other people don't pay anything for a vehicle they use daily). All cars need a valid sticker, be it VED or SORN, with appropriately paid fees and benefits it gives (e.g. proof of validity of MOT & Insurance for use on the road).

The real question is who pays for the roads, and the answer is that everybody does through general taxation. In fact when you look at the figures, it works out that even though the motorist pays through the nose on VAT on their vehicle, annual VED, and additional taxes on fuel... the actual payments they make into the general pot do not cover the cost to the UK government that motoring causes (road building/NHS care to the injured/emergency services costs to sort out collisions/etc),.

i.e. non-motorists are subsidising motorists. cyclists don't need to pay additional taxes as some contributors to this are saying, they are already paying enough towards subsiding the motorist's roads through their own taxation... especially as 90% of cyclists are motorists too!



The real question is how on earth can Southend Council get away with squandering £7million of public money on a scheme that is not needed?
Oh do let's forget this petty arguing over VED, it's just a tax on vehicle ownership, with rates based on a number of criteria (which is why I have to pay it on a vehicle I hardly use and other people don't pay anything for a vehicle they use daily). All cars need a valid sticker, be it VED or SORN, with appropriately paid fees and benefits it gives (e.g. proof of validity of MOT & Insurance for use on the road). The real question is who pays for the roads, and the answer is that everybody does through general taxation. In fact when you look at the figures, it works out that even though the motorist pays through the nose on VAT on their vehicle, annual VED, and additional taxes on fuel... the actual payments they make into the general pot do not cover the cost to the UK government that motoring causes (road building/NHS care to the injured/emergency services costs to sort out collisions/etc),. i.e. non-motorists are subsidising motorists. cyclists don't need to pay additional taxes as some contributors to this are saying, they are already paying enough towards subsiding the motorist's roads through their own taxation... especially as 90% of cyclists are motorists too! The real question is how on earth can Southend Council get away with squandering £7million of public money on a scheme that is not needed? saarfender

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree