A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Enough is enough



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old September 16th 19, 07:36 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Mr Pounder Esquire
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,493
Default Enough is enough

Simon Jester wrote:
On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 6:46:12 PM UTC+1, Mr Pounder Esquire
wrote:
Simon Jester wrote:
On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 1:39:41 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 15/09/2019 20:09, Simon Jester wrote:
On Sunday, September 15, 2019 at 1:59:03 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 15/09/2019 00:39, Simon Jester wrote:

We have a great road network, unfortunately it is infested with
cars.

I suggest we stop issuing any more driving licences. New drivers
can put their name on a waiting list until a current licence
holder dies or surrenders their licence for medical reasons or
gets disqualified for criminal activity such as speeding.

Nice troll attempt.

A much better and fairer system would be a requirement for all
motor vehicles to be kept off the road at night when at or near
their registered keeper's (or other daily user's) addresses.

This would mean that streets would not not filled with nose to
tail parked cars and that all cars were off the road unless in
use away from home (a minimum distance of at least, say, five
miles would have to be used as the arbiter of whether the
vehicle was "at home" or not).

Anyone who could not or would not acquire and/or provide a
private parking (garage) space at their address could not keep a
motor vehicle there. End of story. And they would have to
provide as much space as was necessary for all the vehicles
registered there - or reduce their number, perhaps to zero.

Of course, since the system, like most administrative law, would
have to largely operate on trust, the penalty for breaching that
trust (eg, false declarations of address, etc) would have to be
severe, up to and including confiscation of the vehicle(s) and
disqualification from driving, as well as the more usual
penalties for deception, for anyone making, or being an
accessory to the making of, a false declaration for the purpose
of circumventing the law.

I like this idea in theory. The practical needs thinking about.

Let me slightly re-word the first two sentences of my third
paragraph:

"Anyone who could not or would not acquire and/or provide AND USE a
private parking (garage) space at OR NEAR their address could not
keep a motor vehicle there. End of story."

The important result would be no domestic garaging on the highway
and an end to concepts such as "residents-only parking". And a
market might develop in the renting out of defensible off-street
parking in residential areas where such things were either
non-existent or inadequate in number - garages in blocks, etc.

OK, I'll go along with that.


You are and always will be a ******.


Is there some point you are failing to make?
Nugent suggested this yet you are not calling him a ******.

Feel free to join the discussion.

How do feel about the apes parking their bicycles outside your Little
Dog's circus tent?


Mr Nugent has one more beaten you up. He always beats you up.
You really are a sad little **** all.



Ads
  #12  
Old September 16th 19, 07:55 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Simon Jester
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,463
Default Enough is enough

On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 7:36:36 PM UTC+1, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Simon Jester wrote:
On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 6:46:12 PM UTC+1, Mr Pounder Esquire
wrote:
Simon Jester wrote:
On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 1:39:41 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 15/09/2019 20:09, Simon Jester wrote:
On Sunday, September 15, 2019 at 1:59:03 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 15/09/2019 00:39, Simon Jester wrote:

We have a great road network, unfortunately it is infested with
cars.

I suggest we stop issuing any more driving licences. New drivers
can put their name on a waiting list until a current licence
holder dies or surrenders their licence for medical reasons or
gets disqualified for criminal activity such as speeding.

Nice troll attempt.

A much better and fairer system would be a requirement for all
motor vehicles to be kept off the road at night when at or near
their registered keeper's (or other daily user's) addresses.

This would mean that streets would not not filled with nose to
tail parked cars and that all cars were off the road unless in
use away from home (a minimum distance of at least, say, five
miles would have to be used as the arbiter of whether the
vehicle was "at home" or not).

Anyone who could not or would not acquire and/or provide a
private parking (garage) space at their address could not keep a
motor vehicle there. End of story. And they would have to
provide as much space as was necessary for all the vehicles
registered there - or reduce their number, perhaps to zero.

Of course, since the system, like most administrative law, would
have to largely operate on trust, the penalty for breaching that
trust (eg, false declarations of address, etc) would have to be
severe, up to and including confiscation of the vehicle(s) and
disqualification from driving, as well as the more usual
penalties for deception, for anyone making, or being an
accessory to the making of, a false declaration for the purpose
of circumventing the law.

I like this idea in theory. The practical needs thinking about.

Let me slightly re-word the first two sentences of my third
paragraph:

"Anyone who could not or would not acquire and/or provide AND USE a
private parking (garage) space at OR NEAR their address could not
keep a motor vehicle there. End of story."

The important result would be no domestic garaging on the highway
and an end to concepts such as "residents-only parking". And a
market might develop in the renting out of defensible off-street
parking in residential areas where such things were either
non-existent or inadequate in number - garages in blocks, etc.

OK, I'll go along with that.

You are and always will be a ******.


Is there some point you are failing to make?
Nugent suggested this yet you are not calling him a ******.

Feel free to join the discussion.

How do feel about the apes parking their bicycles outside your Little
Dog's circus tent?


Mr Nugent has one more beaten you up. He always beats you up.
You really are a sad little **** all.


Please translate this into English or at least a Human language.
Maybe the Dog married to the Ape in the next tent can help you.
  #13  
Old September 16th 19, 08:50 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,585
Default Enough is enough

On 16/09/2019 17:44, Simon Jester wrote:
On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 1:39:41 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 15/09/2019 20:09, Simon Jester wrote:
On Sunday, September 15, 2019 at 1:59:03 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 15/09/2019 00:39, Simon Jester wrote:

We have a great road network, unfortunately it is infested with cars.

I suggest we stop issuing any more driving licences. New drivers can put their name on a waiting list until a current licence holder dies or surrenders their licence for medical reasons or gets disqualified for criminal activity such as speeding.

Nice troll attempt.

A much better and fairer system would be a requirement for all motor
vehicles to be kept off the road at night when at or near their
registered keeper's (or other daily user's) addresses.

This would mean that streets would not not filled with nose to tail
parked cars and that all cars were off the road unless in use away from
home (a minimum distance of at least, say, five miles would have to be
used as the arbiter of whether the vehicle was "at home" or not).

Anyone who could not or would not acquire and/or provide a private
parking (garage) space at their address could not keep a motor vehicle
there. End of story. And they would have to provide as much space as was
necessary for all the vehicles registered there - or reduce their
number, perhaps to zero.

Of course, since the system, like most administrative law, would have to
largely operate on trust, the penalty for breaching that trust (eg,
false declarations of address, etc) would have to be severe, up to and
including confiscation of the vehicle(s) and disqualification from
driving, as well as the more usual penalties for deception, for anyone
making, or being an accessory to the making of, a false declaration for
the purpose of circumventing the law.

I like this idea in theory. The practical needs thinking about.


Let me slightly re-word the first two sentences of my third paragraph:

"Anyone who could not or would not acquire and/or provide AND USE a
private parking (garage) space at OR NEAR their address could not keep a
motor vehicle there. End of story."

The important result would be no domestic garaging on the highway and an
end to concepts such as "residents-only parking". And a market might
develop in the renting out of defensible off-street parking in
residential areas where such things were either non-existent or
inadequate in number - garages in blocks, etc.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqS9tS3MpvM

Entitled Liverpool resident thinks he owns the public road.


It's a common misapprehension. And not helped by the proliferation of
so-called residents' parking schemes.
  #14  
Old September 17th 19, 09:57 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Peter Keller[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,313
Default Enough is enough

On 17/09/2019 05:46, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Simon Jester wrote:
On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 1:39:41 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 15/09/2019 20:09, Simon Jester wrote:
On Sunday, September 15, 2019 at 1:59:03 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 15/09/2019 00:39, Simon Jester wrote:

We have a great road network, unfortunately it is infested with
cars.

I suggest we stop issuing any more driving licences. New drivers
can put their name on a waiting list until a current licence
holder dies or surrenders their licence for medical reasons or
gets disqualified for criminal activity such as speeding.

Nice troll attempt.

A much better and fairer system would be a requirement for all
motor vehicles to be kept off the road at night when at or near
their registered keeper's (or other daily user's) addresses.

This would mean that streets would not not filled with nose to tail
parked cars and that all cars were off the road unless in use away
from home (a minimum distance of at least, say, five miles would
have to be used as the arbiter of whether the vehicle was "at
home" or not).

Anyone who could not or would not acquire and/or provide a private
parking (garage) space at their address could not keep a motor
vehicle there. End of story. And they would have to provide as
much space as was necessary for all the vehicles registered there
- or reduce their number, perhaps to zero.

Of course, since the system, like most administrative law, would
have to largely operate on trust, the penalty for breaching that
trust (eg, false declarations of address, etc) would have to be
severe, up to and including confiscation of the vehicle(s) and
disqualification from driving, as well as the more usual penalties
for deception, for anyone making, or being an accessory to the
making of, a false declaration for the purpose of circumventing
the law.

I like this idea in theory. The practical needs thinking about.

Let me slightly re-word the first two sentences of my third
paragraph:

"Anyone who could not or would not acquire and/or provide AND USE a
private parking (garage) space at OR NEAR their address could not
keep a motor vehicle there. End of story."

The important result would be no domestic garaging on the highway
and an end to concepts such as "residents-only parking". And a
market might develop in the renting out of defensible off-street
parking in residential areas where such things were either
non-existent or inadequate in number - garages in blocks, etc.


OK, I'll go along with that.


You are and always will be a ******.


Oh what a compliment comeing from YOU.
Please call me a green-nostriled, crossed eyed, hairy-livered, goisher
kopf, inbred trout-defiler?
  #15  
Old September 17th 19, 09:59 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Peter Keller[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,313
Default Enough is enough

On 17/09/2019 06:36, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Simon Jester wrote:
On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 6:46:12 PM UTC+1, Mr Pounder Esquire
wrote:
Simon Jester wrote:
On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 1:39:41 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 15/09/2019 20:09, Simon Jester wrote:
On Sunday, September 15, 2019 at 1:59:03 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 15/09/2019 00:39, Simon Jester wrote:

We have a great road network, unfortunately it is infested with
cars.

I suggest we stop issuing any more driving licences. New drivers
can put their name on a waiting list until a current licence
holder dies or surrenders their licence for medical reasons or
gets disqualified for criminal activity such as speeding.

Nice troll attempt.

A much better and fairer system would be a requirement for all
motor vehicles to be kept off the road at night when at or near
their registered keeper's (or other daily user's) addresses.

This would mean that streets would not not filled with nose to
tail parked cars and that all cars were off the road unless in
use away from home (a minimum distance of at least, say, five
miles would have to be used as the arbiter of whether the
vehicle was "at home" or not).

Anyone who could not or would not acquire and/or provide a
private parking (garage) space at their address could not keep a
motor vehicle there. End of story. And they would have to
provide as much space as was necessary for all the vehicles
registered there - or reduce their number, perhaps to zero.

Of course, since the system, like most administrative law, would
have to largely operate on trust, the penalty for breaching that
trust (eg, false declarations of address, etc) would have to be
severe, up to and including confiscation of the vehicle(s) and
disqualification from driving, as well as the more usual
penalties for deception, for anyone making, or being an
accessory to the making of, a false declaration for the purpose
of circumventing the law.

I like this idea in theory. The practical needs thinking about.

Let me slightly re-word the first two sentences of my third
paragraph:

"Anyone who could not or would not acquire and/or provide AND USE a
private parking (garage) space at OR NEAR their address could not
keep a motor vehicle there. End of story."

The important result would be no domestic garaging on the highway
and an end to concepts such as "residents-only parking". And a
market might develop in the renting out of defensible off-street
parking in residential areas where such things were either
non-existent or inadequate in number - garages in blocks, etc.

OK, I'll go along with that.

You are and always will be a ******.


Is there some point you are failing to make?
Nugent suggested this yet you are not calling him a ******.

Feel free to join the discussion.

How do feel about the apes parking their bicycles outside your Little
Dog's circus tent?


Mr Nugent has one more beaten you up. He always beats you up.
You really are a sad little **** all.



Oooh! Another great compliment coming from YOU.
Now please ejaculate to me the further honour from YOU of being so
disgusting that even sheep won't have sex with me.
  #16  
Old September 17th 19, 10:01 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Peter Keller[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,313
Default Enough is enough

On 17/09/2019 06:55, Simon Jester wrote:
On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 7:36:36 PM UTC+1, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Simon Jester wrote:
On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 6:46:12 PM UTC+1, Mr Pounder Esquire
wrote:
Simon Jester wrote:
On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 1:39:41 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 15/09/2019 20:09, Simon Jester wrote:
On Sunday, September 15, 2019 at 1:59:03 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 15/09/2019 00:39, Simon Jester wrote:

We have a great road network, unfortunately it is infested with
cars.

I suggest we stop issuing any more driving licences. New drivers
can put their name on a waiting list until a current licence
holder dies or surrenders their licence for medical reasons or
gets disqualified for criminal activity such as speeding.

Nice troll attempt.

A much better and fairer system would be a requirement for all
motor vehicles to be kept off the road at night when at or near
their registered keeper's (or other daily user's) addresses.

This would mean that streets would not not filled with nose to
tail parked cars and that all cars were off the road unless in
use away from home (a minimum distance of at least, say, five
miles would have to be used as the arbiter of whether the
vehicle was "at home" or not).

Anyone who could not or would not acquire and/or provide a
private parking (garage) space at their address could not keep a
motor vehicle there. End of story. And they would have to
provide as much space as was necessary for all the vehicles
registered there - or reduce their number, perhaps to zero.

Of course, since the system, like most administrative law, would
have to largely operate on trust, the penalty for breaching that
trust (eg, false declarations of address, etc) would have to be
severe, up to and including confiscation of the vehicle(s) and
disqualification from driving, as well as the more usual
penalties for deception, for anyone making, or being an
accessory to the making of, a false declaration for the purpose
of circumventing the law.

I like this idea in theory. The practical needs thinking about.

Let me slightly re-word the first two sentences of my third
paragraph:

"Anyone who could not or would not acquire and/or provide AND USE a
private parking (garage) space at OR NEAR their address could not
keep a motor vehicle there. End of story."

The important result would be no domestic garaging on the highway
and an end to concepts such as "residents-only parking". And a
market might develop in the renting out of defensible off-street
parking in residential areas where such things were either
non-existent or inadequate in number - garages in blocks, etc.

OK, I'll go along with that.

You are and always will be a ******.

Is there some point you are failing to make?
Nugent suggested this yet you are not calling him a ******.

Feel free to join the discussion.

How do feel about the apes parking their bicycles outside your Little
Dog's circus tent?


Mr Nugent has one more beaten you up. He always beats you up.
You really are a sad little **** all.


Please translate this into English or at least a Human language.
Maybe the Dog married to the Ape in the next tent can help you.

Maybe not the dog, but a sheep might.
  #17  
Old September 17th 19, 07:48 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Simon Jester
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,463
Default Enough is enough

On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 10:01:02 AM UTC+1, Peter Keller wrote:
On 17/09/2019 06:55, Simon Jester wrote:
On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 7:36:36 PM UTC+1, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Simon Jester wrote:
On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 6:46:12 PM UTC+1, Mr Pounder Esquire
wrote:
Simon Jester wrote:
On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 1:39:41 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 15/09/2019 20:09, Simon Jester wrote:
On Sunday, September 15, 2019 at 1:59:03 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 15/09/2019 00:39, Simon Jester wrote:

We have a great road network, unfortunately it is infested with
cars.

I suggest we stop issuing any more driving licences. New drivers
can put their name on a waiting list until a current licence
holder dies or surrenders their licence for medical reasons or
gets disqualified for criminal activity such as speeding.

Nice troll attempt.

A much better and fairer system would be a requirement for all
motor vehicles to be kept off the road at night when at or near
their registered keeper's (or other daily user's) addresses.

This would mean that streets would not not filled with nose to
tail parked cars and that all cars were off the road unless in
use away from home (a minimum distance of at least, say, five
miles would have to be used as the arbiter of whether the
vehicle was "at home" or not).

Anyone who could not or would not acquire and/or provide a
private parking (garage) space at their address could not keep a
motor vehicle there. End of story. And they would have to
provide as much space as was necessary for all the vehicles
registered there - or reduce their number, perhaps to zero.

Of course, since the system, like most administrative law, would
have to largely operate on trust, the penalty for breaching that
trust (eg, false declarations of address, etc) would have to be
severe, up to and including confiscation of the vehicle(s) and
disqualification from driving, as well as the more usual
penalties for deception, for anyone making, or being an
accessory to the making of, a false declaration for the purpose
of circumventing the law.

I like this idea in theory. The practical needs thinking about.

Let me slightly re-word the first two sentences of my third
paragraph:

"Anyone who could not or would not acquire and/or provide AND USE a
private parking (garage) space at OR NEAR their address could not
keep a motor vehicle there. End of story."

The important result would be no domestic garaging on the highway
and an end to concepts such as "residents-only parking". And a
market might develop in the renting out of defensible off-street
parking in residential areas where such things were either
non-existent or inadequate in number - garages in blocks, etc.

OK, I'll go along with that.

You are and always will be a ******.

Is there some point you are failing to make?
Nugent suggested this yet you are not calling him a ******.

Feel free to join the discussion.

How do feel about the apes parking their bicycles outside your Little
Dog's circus tent?

Mr Nugent has one more beaten you up. He always beats you up.
You really are a sad little **** all.


Please translate this into English or at least a Human language.
Maybe the Dog married to the Ape in the next tent can help you.

Maybe not the dog, but a sheep might.


The point is 'Pounder and His Little Dog' have joined the Circus. According to Pounder they live next to a married couple consisting of a talking dog and a cycling ape.
There is the teeniest tiniest possibility this is all in Pounder's imagination.
  #18  
Old September 18th 19, 10:36 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Peter Keller[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,313
Default Enough is enough

On 18/09/2019 06:48, Simon Jester wrote:
On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 10:01:02 AM UTC+1, Peter Keller wrote:
On 17/09/2019 06:55, Simon Jester wrote:
On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 7:36:36 PM UTC+1, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Simon Jester wrote:
On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 6:46:12 PM UTC+1, Mr Pounder Esquire
wrote:
Simon Jester wrote:
On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 1:39:41 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 15/09/2019 20:09, Simon Jester wrote:
On Sunday, September 15, 2019 at 1:59:03 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 15/09/2019 00:39, Simon Jester wrote:

We have a great road network, unfortunately it is infested with
cars.

I suggest we stop issuing any more driving licences. New drivers
can put their name on a waiting list until a current licence
holder dies or surrenders their licence for medical reasons or
gets disqualified for criminal activity such as speeding.

Nice troll attempt.

A much better and fairer system would be a requirement for all
motor vehicles to be kept off the road at night when at or near
their registered keeper's (or other daily user's) addresses.

This would mean that streets would not not filled with nose to
tail parked cars and that all cars were off the road unless in
use away from home (a minimum distance of at least, say, five
miles would have to be used as the arbiter of whether the
vehicle was "at home" or not).

Anyone who could not or would not acquire and/or provide a
private parking (garage) space at their address could not keep a
motor vehicle there. End of story. And they would have to
provide as much space as was necessary for all the vehicles
registered there - or reduce their number, perhaps to zero.

Of course, since the system, like most administrative law, would
have to largely operate on trust, the penalty for breaching that
trust (eg, false declarations of address, etc) would have to be
severe, up to and including confiscation of the vehicle(s) and
disqualification from driving, as well as the more usual
penalties for deception, for anyone making, or being an
accessory to the making of, a false declaration for the purpose
of circumventing the law.

I like this idea in theory. The practical needs thinking about.

Let me slightly re-word the first two sentences of my third
paragraph:

"Anyone who could not or would not acquire and/or provide AND USE a
private parking (garage) space at OR NEAR their address could not
keep a motor vehicle there. End of story."

The important result would be no domestic garaging on the highway
and an end to concepts such as "residents-only parking". And a
market might develop in the renting out of defensible off-street
parking in residential areas where such things were either
non-existent or inadequate in number - garages in blocks, etc.

OK, I'll go along with that.

You are and always will be a ******.

Is there some point you are failing to make?
Nugent suggested this yet you are not calling him a ******.

Feel free to join the discussion.

How do feel about the apes parking their bicycles outside your Little
Dog's circus tent?

Mr Nugent has one more beaten you up. He always beats you up.
You really are a sad little **** all.

Please translate this into English or at least a Human language.
Maybe the Dog married to the Ape in the next tent can help you.

Maybe not the dog, but a sheep might.


The point is 'Pounder and His Little Dog' have joined the Circus. According to Pounder they live next to a married couple consisting of a talking dog and a cycling ape.
There is the teeniest tiniest possibility this is all in Pounder's imagination.

Yes -- just a teeny poasibility --
  #19  
Old September 19th 19, 05:36 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Bret Cahill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 741
Default Enough is enough

We have a great road network, unfortunately it is infested with cars.

Even places with plenty of cheap flat land for emergency lanes and/or bike lanes look more scenic with fewer motor vehicles.

Any infant knows this. A baby will see a passing cyclist and his head will lock onto the movement with the smoothness of an hydraulic actuator. A baby will rarely do this with a motor vehicle.

This point needs to be emphasized more as the beauty of cycling and cyclists isn't a minor luxury to be occasionally enjoyed by the general public.

It's a basic human right for everyone. Thomas Paine would have included cycling in _Rights of Man_ if bicycles had been invented back then.

I suggest we stop issuing any more driving licences. New drivers can put their name on a waiting list until a current licence holder dies or surrenders their licence for medical reasons or gets disqualified for criminal activity such as speeding.


Start off taxing carbon. Then start taxing footprint area occupied by a vehicle. Then start taxing rubber . . .

Tax ugly.


Bret Cahill


  #20  
Old September 19th 19, 04:31 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Simon Jester
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,463
Default Enough is enough

On Thursday, September 19, 2019 at 5:36:35 AM UTC+1, Bret Cahill wrote:
We have a great road network, unfortunately it is infested with cars.


Even places with plenty of cheap flat land for emergency lanes and/or bike lanes look more scenic with fewer motor vehicles.

Any infant knows this. A baby will see a passing cyclist and his head will lock onto the movement with the smoothness of an hydraulic actuator. A baby will rarely do this with a motor vehicle.

This point needs to be emphasized more as the beauty of cycling and cyclists isn't a minor luxury to be occasionally enjoyed by the general public.

It's a basic human right for everyone. Thomas Paine would have included cycling in _Rights of Man_ if bicycles had been invented back then.

I suggest we stop issuing any more driving licences. New drivers can put their name on a waiting list until a current licence holder dies or surrenders their licence for medical reasons or gets disqualified for criminal activity such as speeding.


Start off taxing carbon. Then start taxing footprint area occupied by a vehicle. Then start taxing rubber . . .


In the UK we do tax carbon, it's called VED. Some, incredibly stupid, people call it Road Tax even though the road fund was abolished in 1936. Their belief in the mythical god Road Tax allows them to assuage their guilt when they put cyclists in danger.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:59 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.