When are you too old to drive?

The date being 6 Apr 2007, "Jim Warren" decided to write:

That's very true, but the ones that pull out and get a move on don't inconvenience you so you don't remember them.

Huge has shown that he has totally the wrong attitude to be allowed anywhere near a motor vehicle on a public road. He won't think that when he's 75 and there are no bus services and no local shops so using a car to go to Tesco's is the only way to get food. Remember the CAT acronym - Concentrate, Anticipate, Tolerate.

I think drivers should be retested every five years regardless of age. It's no good having "30 years of driving experience" if what that really amounts to is one year of experience and 29 years of repetition. We have to keep our driving skills and knowledge up to date, and a regular test would be a good way of doing that. It's rediculous that I should have to have my car maintenance skills tested every year but my driving skills were tested mandatorily only once when I was 17. 95% of accidents are caused by road user error rather than by mechanical failure or unroadworthy vehicles.

Incidentally has anyone seen the 2006 edition of the Highway Code (with the green cover)? The bookshops around here are still selling the obsolete 2004 revision of the 1999 edition.

I drive well over one thousand five hundred miles per week, this country is full of sanctimonious wankers scared shitless of getting a speeding ticket just like you, its been drummed into your tiny little brain 'till the point that 24 mph has become the 'norm'

Bus drivers also deserve no special treatment now its a privatised business.They'll get none from me Its infuriating that some 'bus lanes' also are 'taxi' lanes, wheres my own personal lane?

Its also infuriating when I queue, just to see some hypocritical f*ck-face like 'Richard' come hairing down the inside of bus lane not giving a f*ck!

Sheer luxury! Round my way they usually ride on the pavement and expect the pedestrians to get out of their way. The few who do use the road all seem to be totally incapable of understanding what a red traffic light means.

Jim

How does that follow?

An owner of two cars would be just as much a VED payer as an owner of one - the amount is immaterial; it seems to be your claim that only those who have paid VED can "have a say".

So, again, I ask, what would you say to an owner of a motorcar (and VED payer) who decides to ride a cycle? It cannot be that because they have not paid (for they have) that they should "have no say"?

For that matter, there are some motorcars for which the VED is zero - should they also "have no say"?

Please explain yourself further.

The date being 10 Apr 2007, _ decided to write:

We could have a system like they have in Switzerland. There, the registration plate belongs to the driver, not the vehicle. It is clipped into a holder on the car that the driver is using.

We have laws and taxes, not because they are fair or sensible, but because they are enforceable at not much cost. We ban the use of hand-held mobile phones whilst driving, but not iPods.

We should get rid of VED altogether. We should be taxing the use of vehicles, not the ownership or parking of them. It is unfair that a family which needs a large MPV but which also has a small car to use when the MPV isn't needed pays a lot more than somebody who drives around in a large MPV all the time. This also applies to the new parking charges in Richmond, Surrey.

The truth is that the use of vehicles is taxed, in the only way that makes sense, in direct proportion to the use of fuel by fuel taxation. The taxation is enormous and it's clear that the government has severe issues over raising that taxation further when it already charges taxation at the highest rate in Europe, possibly in the world.

Current move to increase taxation on vehicles has nothing to do with "green" issues nor indeed with any deep seatd need to reduce the use of personal transportation. It has everything to do with raising more revenue for a spendthrift government.

To that end charges do not need to be fair, not indeed related in any way to the reason given for the imposition of the tax.

Unfair, but no one in government (national or local) gives a damn. All they want is the money.

_ ( snipped-for-privacy@NOSPAMeastlink.ca) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

Simple.

You claim somebody who pays VED on one vehicle can expect that VED to cover their use of another vehicle.

I maintain it does not.

Not my claim.

They have not paid for the use of that vehicle on the road.

If the vehicle is not covered by a current tax disc, then yes. They have gone through the process required by law to cover their use of that vehicle on the road, proved that they have MOT and insurance and that the vehicle is correctly registered.

Richard Porter ( snipped-for-privacy@address.uk.invalid) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

Presumably, vehicles parked on the road are required to have plates on display?

The law already bans people driving without paying sufficient attention to the task in hand - no matter what the cause. The mobile phone ban merely duplicates one offence with a second specific, less serious, offence.

Wrong, They'd pay twice.

Correct.

VED is non- transferable, period, end of. When you pay, you can have a say.

What VED is payable for the bicycle?

In either case, they have paid VED. Are you saying that their status should be different, merly because they pay different amounts?

So owners of motorcars for which the VED is zero should have no say?

_ ( snipped-for-privacy@NOSPAMeastlink.ca) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

Precisely.

_ ( snipped-for-privacy@NOSPAMeastlink.ca) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

VED has been paid for those vehicles, yes.

No, because those vehicles have valid tax discs.

No, they have a valid tax disc.

The tax disc proves compliance of the vehicle with other regulations, too - it proves a certain degree of compliance with roadworthiness, insurance and registration regulations which are deemed essential for safe, tracable road use of most classes of vehicles.

Richard Polhill ( snipped-for-privacy@polhill.vispa.invalid) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

They'd have to, since a bicycle (and, by extension, the rider) is untracable.

yes, ideally. But in practice, what is the procedure for police constables stopping a cyclist for riding an unroadworthy bicycle? I suspect they are supposed to fill in loads of paperwork and eventually the cyclist will be taken to court and fined something like £250, at a cost to the taxpayer of thousands.

In this incentivized society, where is the incentive for the Police to bother? Especially when they're more likely to be hauled over the coals for wasting resources and "not catching the real criminals" (as if lawbreakers aren't real criminals).

All they have time to do is catch VED-evaders, speeders and illegal parkers as these are all easy to issue fines for with minimal paperwork and can be proven indisputably.

It's the same with inconsiderate driving (too slow, in the middle lane, etc.) they're not interested as when it does eventually drag them all to court, there is no evidence apart from the officer's word. You can't measure arrogance, inconsiderateness or aggressiveness so it largely goes unpunished.

Germany seem to have a better view of this; there a policeman can pull you over for aggressive or inconsiderate driving and issue a fine. No questions.

Anyway, I digress, I'm not sticking up for the police's failure to GAF, but policy and society has led us to a society where there is no real authority, just legislation.

Richard Polhill ( snipped-for-privacy@polhill.vispa.invalid) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

Amazing how you can sit behind the desk and make these judgments. I'd like to see you in the same situation and see exactly how you'd react. Perhaps you could get his license number and have the driver tracked down so you could mail him a note voicing your displeasure at how close he came to you. Yeah, send a note on nice stationery.

The date being 10 Apr 2007, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) decided to write:

Agreed.

The problem is that you can't have big price differences across borders or you get "fuel tourists" and hauliers on one side are at a disadvantage to those on the other side of the border. Therefore taxation has to be Europe-wide (not just EU) and in co-operation with neighbouring states.

That may be true but it also applies to punitive taxation for the purpose of discouraging use.

The government doesn't really give a damn about the planet. It just thinks that it might be a good idea electorally to appear "green".