|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Paying Road Fund dues was never a fee for using a road
"The Road Board, created by the Development and Road Improvements Bill, published in August 1909, gave grants from the fund to local authorities to repair roads damaged by motorists. Even in the early days of motoring, roads were mostly paid for by general and local taxation. Paying Road Fund dues was never a fee for using a road, it was a fee to be paid out to local authorities for the damage done to roads by motorists. A Customs memo of 1908 said the “increased taxation of motors…” would “aid in restoring local roads damaged by motors licensed in other areas.” Lloyd George said the Road Fund’s “first charge” was for improvements after damage done by cars; “power to build new roads” was only secondary." (http://ipayroadtax.com/) |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Paying Road Fund dues was never a fee for using a road
On 13/09/2011 09:43, Squashme wrote:
"The Road Board, created by the Development and Road Improvements Bill, published in August 1909, gave grants from the fund to local authorities to repair roads damaged by motorists. Even in the early days of motoring, roads were mostly paid for by general and local taxation. Paying Road Fund dues was never a fee for using a road, ....allegedly. Nevertheless, one was not and still is not allowed to use the roads without paying that fee at whatever level it was or is set. "May I use the roads with my motor vehicle?" "Have you got a valid Road Tax disc on it?" "No." "In that case, the answer is NO." What is said at that URL is a bit like claiming that the entrance fee to a cinema or theatre isn't a charge for being able to watch the film or show. Actually, in some hyper-pedantic sense, that would be more true than claiming that Road Tax isn't a fee for use of the roads, since some might pay for entrance, head straight for the bar and stay there. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Paying Road Fund dues was never a fee for using a road
On Sep 13, 9:50*am, JNugent wrote:
On 13/09/2011 09:43, Squashme wrote: "The Road Board, created by the Development and Road Improvements Bill, published in August 1909, gave grants from the fund to local authorities to repair roads damaged by motorists. Even in the early days of motoring, roads were mostly paid for by general and local taxation. Paying Road Fund dues was never a fee for using a road, ...allegedly. Nevertheless, one was not and still is not allowed to use the roads without paying that fee at whatever level it was or is set. "May I use the roads with my motor vehicle?" "Have you got a valid Road Tax disc on it?" "No." "In that case, the answer is NO." What is said at that URL is a bit like claiming that the entrance fee to a cinema or theatre *isn't a charge for being able to watch the film or show. Actually, in some hyper-pedantic sense, that would be more true than claiming that Road Tax isn't a fee for use of the roads, since some might pay for entrance, head straight for the bar and stay there. And some might jive in the aisles, let off fire extinguishers and throw bottles at the screen, claiming a "right" to do it. They should pay extra for their damage. A party of vicars might well spread an aura of calm and peace amongst the whole audience, and just drop the odd slice of cucumber on the carpet. They might well be let in for free. In case you didn't get it:- Teds = motorists Vicars = cyclists |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Paying Road Fund dues was never a fee for using a road
On 13/09/2011 11:13, Squashme wrote:
On Sep 13, 9:50 am, wrote: On 13/09/2011 09:43, Squashme wrote: "The Road Board, created by the Development and Road Improvements Bill, published in August 1909, gave grants from the fund to local authorities to repair roads damaged by motorists. Even in the early days of motoring, roads were mostly paid for by general and local taxation. Paying Road Fund dues was never a fee for using a road, ...allegedly. Nevertheless, one was not and still is not allowed to use the roads without paying that fee at whatever level it was or is set. "May I use the roads with my motor vehicle?" "Have you got a valid Road Tax disc on it?" "No." "In that case, the answer is NO." What is said at that URL is a bit like claiming that the entrance fee to a cinema or theatre isn't a charge for being able to watch the film or show. Actually, in some hyper-pedantic sense, that would be more true than claiming that Road Tax isn't a fee for use of the roads, since some might pay for entrance, head straight for the bar and stay there. And some might jive in the aisles, let off fire extinguishers and throw bottles at the screen, claiming a "right" to do it. They should pay extra for their damage. A party of vicars might well spread an aura of calm and peace amongst the whole audience, and just drop the odd slice of cucumber on the carpet. They might well be let in for free. But they aren't, are they? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Paying Road Fund dues was never a fee for using a road
On Sep 13, 11:29*am, JNugent wrote:
On 13/09/2011 11:13, Squashme wrote: On Sep 13, 9:50 am, *wrote: On 13/09/2011 09:43, Squashme wrote: "The Road Board, created by the Development and Road Improvements Bill, published in August 1909, gave grants from the fund to local authorities to repair roads damaged by motorists. Even in the early days of motoring, roads were mostly paid for by general and local taxation. Paying Road Fund dues was never a fee for using a road, ...allegedly. Nevertheless, one was not and still is not allowed to use the roads without paying that fee at whatever level it was or is set. "May I use the roads with my motor vehicle?" "Have you got a valid Road Tax disc on it?" "No." "In that case, the answer is NO." What is said at that URL is a bit like claiming that the entrance fee to a cinema or theatre *isn't a charge for being able to watch the film or show. Actually, in some hyper-pedantic sense, that would be more true than claiming that Road Tax isn't a fee for use of the roads, since some might pay for entrance, head straight for the bar and stay there. And some might jive in the aisles, let off fire extinguishers and throw bottles at the screen, claiming a "right" to do it. They should pay extra for their damage. A party of vicars might well spread an aura of calm and peace amongst the whole audience, and just drop the odd slice of cucumber on the carpet. They might well be let in for free. But they aren't, are they? Yes, the gentle vicars do get to use the roads for free, unlike the thuggish motorists. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Paying Road Fund dues was never a fee for using a road
On 13/09/2011 11:33, Squashme wrote:
On Sep 13, 11:29 am, wrote: On 13/09/2011 11:13, Squashme wrote: On Sep 13, 9:50 am, wrote: On 13/09/2011 09:43, Squashme wrote: "The Road Board, created by the Development and Road Improvements Bill, published in August 1909, gave grants from the fund to local authorities to repair roads damaged by motorists. Even in the early days of motoring, roads were mostly paid for by general and local taxation. Paying Road Fund dues was never a fee for using a road, ...allegedly. Nevertheless, one was not and still is not allowed to use the roads without paying that fee at whatever level it was or is set. "May I use the roads with my motor vehicle?" "Have you got a valid Road Tax disc on it?" "No." "In that case, the answer is NO." What is said at that URL is a bit like claiming that the entrance fee to a cinema or theatre isn't a charge for being able to watch the film or show. Actually, in some hyper-pedantic sense, that would be more true than claiming that Road Tax isn't a fee for use of the roads, since some might pay for entrance, head straight for the bar and stay there. And some might jive in the aisles, let off fire extinguishers and throw bottles at the screen, claiming a "right" to do it. They should pay extra for their damage. A party of vicars might well spread an aura of calm and peace amongst the whole audience, and just drop the odd slice of cucumber on the carpet. They might well be let in for free. But they aren't, are they? Yes, the gentle vicars do get to use the roads for free, unlike the thuggish motorists. Don't think so. The local vicar of this parish has to pay his Road Tax like anyone else. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Paying Road Fund dues was never a fee for using a road
On Sep 13, 12:38*pm, JNugent wrote:
On 13/09/2011 11:33, Squashme wrote: On Sep 13, 11:29 am, *wrote: On 13/09/2011 11:13, Squashme wrote: On Sep 13, 9:50 am, * *wrote: On 13/09/2011 09:43, Squashme wrote: "The Road Board, created by the Development and Road Improvements Bill, published in August 1909, gave grants from the fund to local authorities to repair roads damaged by motorists. Even in the early days of motoring, roads were mostly paid for by general and local taxation. Paying Road Fund dues was never a fee for using a road, ...allegedly. Nevertheless, one was not and still is not allowed to use the roads without paying that fee at whatever level it was or is set. "May I use the roads with my motor vehicle?" "Have you got a valid Road Tax disc on it?" "No." "In that case, the answer is NO." What is said at that URL is a bit like claiming that the entrance fee to a cinema or theatre *isn't a charge for being able to watch the film or show. Actually, in some hyper-pedantic sense, that would be more true than claiming that Road Tax isn't a fee for use of the roads, since some might pay for entrance, head straight for the bar and stay there. And some might jive in the aisles, let off fire extinguishers and throw bottles at the screen, claiming a "right" to do it. They should pay extra for their damage. A party of vicars might well spread an aura of calm and peace amongst the whole audience, and just drop the odd slice of cucumber on the carpet. They might well be let in for free. But they aren't, are they? Yes, the gentle vicars do get to use the roads for free, unlike the thuggish motorists. Don't think so. The local vicar of this parish has to pay his Road Tax like anyone else. As a non-motoring cyclist, he should refuse. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Paying Road Fund dues was never a fee for using a road
On 13/09/2011 13:00, Squashme wrote:
On Sep 13, 12:38 pm, wrote: On 13/09/2011 11:33, Squashme wrote: On Sep 13, 11:29 am, wrote: On 13/09/2011 11:13, Squashme wrote: On Sep 13, 9:50 am, wrote: On 13/09/2011 09:43, Squashme wrote: "The Road Board, created by the Development and Road Improvements Bill, published in August 1909, gave grants from the fund to local authorities to repair roads damaged by motorists. Even in the early days of motoring, roads were mostly paid for by general and local taxation. Paying Road Fund dues was never a fee for using a road, ...allegedly. Nevertheless, one was not and still is not allowed to use the roads without paying that fee at whatever level it was or is set. "May I use the roads with my motor vehicle?" "Have you got a valid Road Tax disc on it?" "No." "In that case, the answer is NO." What is said at that URL is a bit like claiming that the entrance fee to a cinema or theatre isn't a charge for being able to watch the film or show. Actually, in some hyper-pedantic sense, that would be more true than claiming that Road Tax isn't a fee for use of the roads, since some might pay for entrance, head straight for the bar and stay there. And some might jive in the aisles, let off fire extinguishers and throw bottles at the screen, claiming a "right" to do it. They should pay extra for their damage. A party of vicars might well spread an aura of calm and peace amongst the whole audience, and just drop the odd slice of cucumber on the carpet. They might well be let in for free. But they aren't, are they? Yes, the gentle vicars do get to use the roads for free, unlike the thuggish motorists. Don't think so. The local vicar of this parish has to pay his Road Tax like anyone else. As a non-motoring cyclist, he should refuse. He might have a bike as well as the car, I suppose. Never seen a bike at the vicarage though. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Paying Road Fund dues was never a fee for using a road
On Sep 13, 1:02*pm, JNugent wrote:
On 13/09/2011 13:00, Squashme wrote: On Sep 13, 12:38 pm, *wrote: On 13/09/2011 11:33, Squashme wrote: On Sep 13, 11:29 am, * *wrote: On 13/09/2011 11:13, Squashme wrote: On Sep 13, 9:50 am, * * *wrote: On 13/09/2011 09:43, Squashme wrote: "The Road Board, created by the Development and Road Improvements Bill, published in August 1909, gave grants from the fund to local authorities to repair roads damaged by motorists. Even in the early days of motoring, roads were mostly paid for by general and local taxation. Paying Road Fund dues was never a fee for using a road, ...allegedly. Nevertheless, one was not and still is not allowed to use the roads without paying that fee at whatever level it was or is set. "May I use the roads with my motor vehicle?" "Have you got a valid Road Tax disc on it?" "No." "In that case, the answer is NO." What is said at that URL is a bit like claiming that the entrance fee to a cinema or theatre *isn't a charge for being able to watch the film or show. Actually, in some hyper-pedantic sense, that would be more true than claiming that Road Tax isn't a fee for use of the roads, since some might pay for entrance, head straight for the bar and stay there. And some might jive in the aisles, let off fire extinguishers and throw bottles at the screen, claiming a "right" to do it. They should pay extra for their damage. A party of vicars might well spread an aura of calm and peace amongst the whole audience, and just drop the odd slice of cucumber on the carpet. They might well be let in for free. But they aren't, are they? Yes, the gentle vicars do get to use the roads for free, unlike the thuggish motorists. Don't think so. The local vicar of this parish has to pay his Road Tax like anyone else. As a non-motoring cyclist, he should refuse. He might have a bike as well as the car, I suppose. Never seen a bike at the vicarage though. Then he should stay away from the cinema, and certainly not rip out the seats. Only cycling vicars should get in free. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Paying Road Fund dues was never a fee for using a road
On 13/09/2011 09:43, Squashme wrote:
(http://ipayroadtax.com/) Oh that's a totally unbiased site that can be relied on to be accurate...... Not. -- Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster University |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Instant Review: eggbeaters on a road bike with road shoes | TimC | Australia | 11 | September 30th 07 11:31 AM |
Bike mag's road test satire of road tests | [email protected][_2_] | Techniques | 0 | May 15th 07 11:06 PM |
Use camera fines to fund more road policing? | ed_o_brain | UK | 9 | March 22nd 07 07:31 AM |
UK - Paying for the road | Vincent Patrick | Australia | 11 | December 10th 06 01:04 AM |
OT-ish: Road Fund License | davek | UK | 228 | November 17th 05 09:04 PM |