Roundabouts

On 05/02/2012 16:58, charles wrote:
The number will grow if
electric vehicles catch on, but the Government will miss the money, so will
have to start charging.


Was that pun intentional?

We were about to embark at Dover, when (Dave -
Cyclists VOR) came up to me and whispered:

it needs Road Tax.

Doubt it - that hasn't existed since the 1930's

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
IF you think this http://bit.ly/u5EP3p is cruel
please sign this http://bit.ly/sKkzEx

---- If it's below this line, I didn't write it ----

On 05/02/2012 15:06, steve robinson wrote:
JNugent wrote:

On 05/02/2012 14:13, steve robinson wrote:
JNugent wrote:

On 05/02/2012 11:44, Martin D. Pay wrote:

[ ... ]

Driving is a privilege, not a right,

That is often said, and is patently untrue.

Once one has passed the test of competence to drive and paid the
appropriate fee for the licence, and as long as one complies
with the various legal requirements involved, driving is a
right which no-one can suspend, remove or rescind.

If that is wrong, please demonstrate wherein lies its
incorrectness.

The police , courts dvla medical and optical experts may
disagree with you

Which bit of "as long as one complies with the various legal
requirements involved" did you fail to read and/or understand?

You can meet the legal requirements to drive but still be unfit to do
so or prevented from doing so by the law .

If one is unfit (I take it you mean ill), that is hardly a denial of one's
rights by the state (though you might be a health conspiracy theorist, which
is something I obviously cannot rule out).

How can one be prevented by law from driving in compliance with the legal
requirements?

That's a new one. You'll no doubt want to explain it, if you can.

The police can prevent you from driving if they feel you are unfit
through drink or drugs (they arrest you) and take you to either the
police station or medical facilities to get an expert opinion, the
dvla recind your licience at 70 until you can prove fitness.

Which bit of "...complies with the various legal requirements involved..."
was too complicated for you?

Just a couple of simple examples for the simple minded , there are of
course many more but i neither have the time or inclination to
enlighten you

I'd really LOVE to hear an example of how you "think" that the law can
prevent one from driving in compliance with the requisite legal requirements.

But somehow, I don't believe we're going to get such an example from you.

On 05/02/2012 15:14, charles wrote:
In ,
wrote:
On 05/02/2012 14:24, charles wrote:

[Snip]

I do not need anyone's permission to drive my car. Not even yours.

You do on the "public highway". What you do on private property is
entirely up to you. And, the vehicle needs a "licence," too.

I think you're suffering from "not having read the thread" syndrome.

On 05/02/2012 15:46, steve robinson wrote:
Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:

On 05/02/2012 15:06, steve robinson wrote:
JNugent wrote:

On 05/02/2012 14:13, steve robinson wrote:
JNugent wrote:

On 05/02/2012 11:44, Martin D. Pay wrote:

[ ... ]

Driving is a privilege, not a right,

That is often said, and is patently untrue.

Once one has passed the test of competence to drive and
paid the appropriate fee for the licence, and as long as
one complies with the various legal requirements involved,
driving is a right which no-one can suspend, remove or
rescind.

If that is wrong, please demonstrate wherein lies its
incorrectness.

The police , courts dvla medical and optical experts may
disagree with you

Which bit of "as long as one complies with the various legal
requirements involved" did you fail to read and/or understand?

You can meet the legal requirements to drive but still be unfit
to do so or prevented from doing so by the law .

The police can prevent you from driving if they feel you are unfit
through drink or drugs (they arrest you) and take you to either
the police station or medical facilities to get an expert
opinion, the dvla recind your licience at 70 until you can prove
fitness.

Just a couple of simple examples for the simple minded , there
are of course many more but i neither have the time or
inclination to enlighten you

What a ****wit. They are perfect examples of "the various legal
requirements involved" that Mr Nugent was talking about.

Being drunk makes it illegal to drive or even attempt to drive you
retard.

The only ****wit here is you you do not seem to comprehend that the
police can act on suspicion of and prevent you driving something
completly different from being ilegal to drive because your drunk
/drugged , no licience insurance etc and if you bothered to read
fully what i wrote you would understand that.

If you, OTOH, had bothered to read (and more importantly, understand) what
had already been covered in the thread, you could and wouild not have tried,
so unsuccessfully, to make the very "point" you have failed to make.

Legal requirements met (remember that bit?), no-one can stop me from driving,
much as you obviously think you ought to be able to.

JNugent wrote:

On 05/02/2012 15:06, steve robinson wrote:
JNugent wrote:

On 05/02/2012 14:13, steve robinson wrote:
JNugent wrote:

On 05/02/2012 11:44, Martin D. Pay wrote:

[ ... ]

Driving is a privilege, not a right,

That is often said, and is patently untrue.

Once one has passed the test of competence to drive and
paid the appropriate fee for the licence, and as long as
one complies with the various legal requirements involved,
driving is a right which no-one can suspend, remove or
rescind.

If that is wrong, please demonstrate wherein lies its
incorrectness.

The police , courts dvla medical and optical experts may
disagree with you

Which bit of "as long as one complies with the various legal
requirements involved" did you fail to read and/or understand?

You can meet the legal requirements to drive but still be unfit
to do so or prevented from doing so by the law .

If one is unfit (I take it you mean ill), that is hardly a denial
of one's rights by the state (though you might be a health
conspiracy theorist, which is something I obviously cannot rule
out).

How can one be prevented by law from driving in compliance with the
legal requirements?

That's a new one. You'll no doubt want to explain it, if you can.



The police can prevent you from driving if they feel you are unfit
through drink or drugs (they arrest you) and take you to either
the police station or medical facilities to get an expert
opinion, the dvla recind your licience at 70 until you can prove
fitness.

Which bit of "...complies with the various legal requirements
involved..." was too complicated for you?

You obvously have a very poor understanding , you can be arrested on
suspicion which prevents you from driving although you may well have
been all legal and above board and not broken the law

Just a couple of simple examples for the simple minded , there
are of course many more but i neither have the time or
inclination to enlighten you

I'd really LOVE to hear an example of how you "think" that the law
can prevent one from driving in compliance with the requisite legal
requirements.

But somehow, I don't believe we're going to get such an example
from you.

I think i already have

On Feb 5, 6:53*pm, (Paul Cummins)
wrote:
We were about to embark at Dover, when (Dave -
Cyclists VOR) came up to me and whispered:

it needs Road Tax.

Doubt it - that hasn't existed since the 1930's

Slightly pedantic in that something similar exists, albeit into
general taxation and instead called Vehicle Excise Duty.

Neil

JNugent wrote:

On 05/02/2012 15:46, steve robinson wrote:
Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:

On 05/02/2012 15:06, steve robinson wrote:
JNugent wrote:

On 05/02/2012 14:13, steve robinson wrote:
JNugent wrote:

On 05/02/2012 11:44, Martin D. Pay wrote:

[ ... ]

Driving is a privilege, not a right,

That is often said, and is patently untrue.

Once one has passed the test of competence to drive and
paid the appropriate fee for the licence, and as long as
one complies with the various legal requirements
involved, driving is a right which no-one can suspend,
remove or rescind.

If that is wrong, please demonstrate wherein lies its
incorrectness.

The police , courts dvla medical and optical experts may
disagree with you

Which bit of "as long as one complies with the various legal
requirements involved" did you fail to read and/or
understand?

You can meet the legal requirements to drive but still be
unfit to do so or prevented from doing so by the law .

The police can prevent you from driving if they feel you are
unfit through drink or drugs (they arrest you) and take you
to either the police station or medical facilities to get an
expert opinion, the dvla recind your licience at 70 until you
can prove fitness.

Just a couple of simple examples for the simple minded , there
are of course many more but i neither have the time or
inclination to enlighten you

What a ****wit. They are perfect examples of "the various legal
requirements involved" that Mr Nugent was talking about.

Being drunk makes it illegal to drive or even attempt to drive
you retard.

The only ****wit here is you you do not seem to comprehend that
the police can act on suspicion of and prevent you driving
something completly different from being ilegal to drive because
your drunk /drugged , no licience insurance etc and if you
bothered to read fully what i wrote you would understand that.

If you, OTOH, had bothered to read (and more importantly,
understand) what had already been covered in the thread, you could
and wouild not have tried, so unsuccessfully, to make the very
"point" you have failed to make.

Legal requirements met (remember that bit?), no-one can stop me
from driving, much as you obviously think you ought to be able to.

Yes they can, the police can stop you on suspicion and detain you for
several motoring offences even if after further investigation you are
shown to be acting within the law (as you put it legal requirements
met)

simples really

charles wrote:

Its doesn't need a license - it needs Road Tax.

and if you don't pay, it's illegal to take then vehicle on teh
road.

No it is not. It is not. Free tax discs are available, it is
however, illegal to not display a current tax disc.

And you drive a vehicle qualifying for one? I suspect that 99% of
vehicles need payment for them to be legal on the road. The number
will grow if electric vehicles catch on, but the Government will miss
the money, so will have to start charging.

Me? no I do not drive a vehicle exempt from tax. What you suspect is
not relevant, but the answer to statement was.

--

Martin D. Pay wrote:
Bruce wrote:
What *would* make sense is for older drivers, including you, to drive
in the same way that has been taught to learners for some years, is
expected in driving tests (and indeed any alternative approach may
contribute towards a failure) and is clearly indicated in the figure
above Clause 186 in the Highway Code. To do otherwise introduces
additional, unnecessary risk of a collision.

Remember that ignorance of the current rules of the road (because they
have changed since you passed your test) is no excuse.

Which is why I have maintained for many years that all drivers
should be subject to retaking a driving test, say every 10 years,
to ensure (as best as can reasonably be done, anyway) that their
driving skills haven't deteriorated into routine bad habits and
that their knowledge of the relevant laws and codes remains
up-to-date.

Driving is a privilege, not a right, and should only be granted
to those able to demonstrate on a regular basis that they have
the necessary skillset, mental acuity and physical ability to
safely operate a ton or thereabouts of metal travelling at
anything up to (legally!) 70mph in the immediate vicinity of very
many other similar lumps of fast-moving metal.

And no, I don't drive


You don't say. ;-)