Jump to content

Active Travel


Stu Peters

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Meoir Shee said:

No, cycling benefits society through reduced expenditure on healthcare.  Cycling generates positive externalities, people who don’t cycle benefit from people who do through reduced health spending.  Cyclists should therefore be subsidized to increase those positive externalities.  Car transport generates negative externalities, people who don’t drive suffer costs through increased congestion, pollution, accidents, health care spending etc.  Car transport therefore should be taxed more to bring the private cost (incurred by drivers) closer to the social cost.  These facts are totally indisputable and widely accepted.

Not by me.

Smokers are net contributors to the economy  by the horrendous rates of duty on tobacco and dying earlier.

Others say not

Lies, damned lies and statistics.

Re this whole “road tax” debate surrounding cyclists. In all honesty if they had kept themselves under the radar like they used to do by not acting like knobheads and being responsible like they used to be it wouldn’t be an issue.

Instead they became militant, being an irritant and danger to other road users so it is no surprise that their status has come under scrutiny.

They have only themselves to blame.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Not by me.

Smokers are net contributors to the economy  by the horrendous rates of duty on tobacco and dying earlier.

Others say not

Lies, damned lies and statistics.

Re this whole “road tax” debate surrounding cyclists. In all honesty if they had kept themselves under the radar like they used to do by not acting like knobheads and being responsible like they used to be it wouldn’t be an issue.

Instead they became militant, being an irritant and danger to other road users so it is no surprise that their status has come under scrutiny.

They have only themselves to blame.

OK, fair enough, your anecdotes versus the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you win.

 

 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, The Voice of Reason said:

I know you are right. But I just find this level of selfishness so irritating.

Quite.

You can see how TVOR feels.  It's bad enough that he has to share the roads with other people (even cyclists!), when they should clearly be devoted to his exclusive use, but expecting him to make a financial contribution is obviously going too far.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

Quite.

You can see how TVOR feels.  It's bad enough that he has to share the roads with other people (even cyclists!), when they should clearly be devoted to his exclusive use, but expecting him to make a financial contribution is obviously going too far.

Come on man. Do you know a single cyclist who has no car?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Meoir Shee said:

OK, fair enough, your anecdotes versus the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you win.

 

 

Well you say anecdotes but their are plenty of studies by respectable scientific/ economic organizations which say that smokers make a net contribution to the economy, all things considered.

Equally there are other studies ( again by reputable bodies ) which support your point of view.

The evidence in either case is not overwhelming.

I guess you ( not you but people in general) tend to veer towards those that support their own pro smoking/ anti smoking point of view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

Quite.

You can see how TVOR feels.  It's bad enough that he has to share the roads with other people (even cyclists!), when they should clearly be devoted to his exclusive use, but expecting him to make a financial contribution is obviously going too far.

Far from expecting me to make a financial contribution I actually do. £358 per annum for a sub 2 litre family saloon if you please. Will be touching £400 next year if this 10 % increase goes ahead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

VOR. You are not living up to your name. 

Au contraire. I am making considered points. They may not be to your liking but there you go. It’s  a forum.

To be honest I really wish I hadn’t chosen this nom de plume. I have lost count of the number of times that other contributors have used the same or near “ witticism” that you have. 
Still I am stuck with it and as always will live up to it.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

£358 per annum for a sub 2 litre family saloon if you please. Will be touching £400 next year if this 10 % increase goes ahead.

What on earth are you driving? I've got a 2-tonne SUV that'll only be £200 or so.

The tax for my Fiesta pisses me off though, it'd be zero across but £65 here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

I’m driving a Ford Mondeo ( diesel)

Edited to add

Its a 2010 model so won’t be long before it’s resale value is outstripped by the annual car tax. Not that anyone would buy it being so.

So a perfectly decent car will end up being scrapped because it is uneconomic to own. How bloody eco friendly is that then?

Think I’ll just get me one of those bicycle thingymyjiggis.

Edited by The Voice of Reason
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...