You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Wow, what a disgusting thought. Well done.
Thanks lifer. I do try.
Carlton Reid really is doing a fantastic job of destroying a lot of the myths, looks like a massive uphill struggle a lot of the time.
https://twitter.com/carltonreid
Right, hands up everyone who thinks countering "You don't pay road tax" with "Actually nobody does it was abolished in year X" is effective in the slightest? I think it just pissed people off more, it makes you look like a smartarse but most importantly it doesn't engage the actual point, it just throws a bit of pedantry at it. .gov website uses the term road tax, and it's perfectly clear what people actually mean. And while you're bleating about VED, you're not talking about "please don't knock us off"
Take it back to the root- if someone says "You don't even pay Vehicle Excise Duty on that bicycle" would you then say "Good point, and factually accurate" or would you still say "why does that matter?"
It's a terrible argument cul-de-sac that people don't just get trapped up, they charge up full speed (through red lights 😉 )
stopped reading it lest I lose my nerve to ride the road at all. When challenged some will back down and apologise citing heat of the moment (hopefully they weren't tweeting whilst still at the wheel) but plenty will argue they were right to heap abuse and threats on cyclists, depressing 🙁People often vent something without meaning it but there are some genuine head cases on there!
Hats off to Toby Hockley.
He certainly had every cause to kick off on a proper rant, but actually his comments on that BBC snippet seemed measured, intelligent without trying to inflame anything...
I don't think the details in the various interweb retellings really matter, more what the police report has in it...
CycleHatred does seem to feature a disproportionate number of young women. Not sure if this reflects which group hate cyclists the most or just the demographics of twitter.
Yeah that's a good point.
I have definitely noticed it on the roads though. On the bike I've had the deliberate close pass and beep horn manouver - both times from female drivers, once from a pair of princesses in a convertible mini with the top down - they regretted that at the traffic lights 100 yards down the road!
In the car I see it too, really bad tailgating (Audi rep mobile bad!) and a just general aggressive and impatient driving.
"You don't even pay Vehicle Excise Duty on that bicycle"
My reply is usually "See that Toyota Prius over there? The driver of that doesn't pay any VED either".
To be fair, it's something that's only ever been said to me in jest.
As a serious point, it's time that driving tuition was changed to include some mandatory cycling/motorcycling element.
Right, hands up everyone who thinks countering "You don't pay road tax" with "Actually nobody does it was abolished in year X" is effective in the slightest? I think it just pissed people off more, it makes you look like a smartarse
My thoughts exactly.
The "typing/smug/smart arse" gif I posted summed up my thoughts without me needing to type. But you have described it better than me anyway.
It's a crap argument that addresses none of the issues and just makes people think the person using it is a dick.
Right, hands up everyone who thinks countering "You don't pay road tax" with "Actually nobody does it was abolished in year X" is effective in the slightest? I think it just pissed people off more, it makes you look like a smartarse
Agreed - but it is hard not to rise when certain people consistently use "road tax" as a justification for their sense of entitlement.
.gov website uses the term road tax,
Does it?? Says "car tax" or "vehicle tax" on any .gov site I've seen.
Right, hands up everyone who thinks countering "You don't pay road tax" with "Actually nobody does it was abolished in year X" is effective in the slightest? I think it just pissed people off more, it makes you look like a smartarse but most importantly it doesn't engage the actual point, it just throws a bit of pedantry at it. .gov website uses the term road tax, and it's perfectly clear what people actually mean. And while you're bleating about VED, you're not talking about "please don't knock us off"
Personally I would tell them I have a band G car parked on my drive so they can **** right off as I pay more tax than they do for their pathetic diesel shitbox.
But that's just me
As before, I think the strongest way to highlight the false arguments put forward by the vehicle duty / road tax right case is to state what happens.
So:
Driver comes round a bend on the wrong side of road and hits another road user. As other road user is not paying a vehicle tax. Lack of payment of such tax is cited as a justification as to why they have no rights on the road.
Therefore:
Cyclists, horse riders, pedestrians have no rights. Since we playing the emotive game how about changing cyclist to children on a Duke of Edinburgy expedition. Or mother with child in push chair walking along a country lane. Neither of these would be paying a transport related tax for what the are doing at the time. Logic of the anti campaign dictates they too are lesser people.
No one is really going to tweet they think they think they've just knocked over a child are they?
Pah, "Road Tax" / VED it seems like barely any bugger has to pay it these days.
[url] https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-exempt-from-car-tax [/url]
Why are there not more people not commuting by Ride on Mower or one of those diddy Renault Leccy efforts then, if the annual polution charge is such a ball ache?
I think I fancy a Traction Engine...
[I]"Go on then Billy big Bollocks in your Q7, Run my great big bastard Steam powered behemoth off the Road, I've not paid any "Road Tax" on it and it slower than costal errosion!!![/I]
Of course if you can get yourself a 40 year old car your laughing, pre '73 is exempt too...
Funnily enough because cyclists, horse riders and pedestrians do have a right to be there there don't need to pay the tax. It's only motor vehicles that need to pay this tax to permit them the use of the road. Even if cyclists did pay road tax it would be £0 as it's zero emission.Lack of payment of such tax is cited as a justification as to why they have no rights on the road.
Perhaps there should be a "Clarksons Law" in forums, similar to Godwins law, but every thread about bikes and cars on the road will eventually descend into "I pay road tax, you don't"?
Clarkson is better viewed as a character he plays, rather than his actual views. A bit like David Cameron plays a buffoon called "Prime Minister".
it's bigotry based on a fallacy, they hate cyclists and use a poor argument to defend that hate. Not sure using logic to dismantle their argument will make a lot of difference TBH. Needs a societal change to fix it.Lack of payment of such tax is cited as a justification as to why they have no rights on the road.
I think clarkson on road cycling is like strava on BW riding, no he/it is not the root of all evil but he/it certainly eggs on the dickheads.
Perhaps there should be a "Clarksons Law" in forums, similar to Godwins law, but every thread about bikes and cars on the road will eventually descend into "I pay road tax, you don't"?
Discussions would be pretty short as IME "road tax" is the opening gambit of the majority.
That or something about "going through red lights"
is anyone else listening to radio norfolk?
it's terrifying/hilarious in equal measure...
fella in my office from down asia pacific way takes great delight in telling me cycling is the preserve of the poor - which it may well be in his home country....ive never been
interesting point is that he views his 500 pound ford ka in a higher "social class" than my bicycle....
he also takes great delight in telling me i pay no road tax nor have any right to be on the road.
We have alot to learn from the netherlands and copenhagen though. It is the cars that should be banned from the city centres - park and ride/busses + bike lanes that would cut congestion a plenty 😉
[i]more on the beeb this morning
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-22602141 [/i]
I just can't get the image of Steve Buscemi out of my head for some reason...
is anyone else listening to radio norfolk?
Listened to Carlton's bit and a couple of callers after him. Then had to switch it off before I started shouting and throwing my laptop across the office. 😳
The law should make her cycle round London for the day - that would change her view on cyclists...
Looks like her facebook profile is still active 😈
'ere, he's got a james martin book on his shelf, thought he was still in the cyclist sin bin from his leccy car review!more on the beeb this morning
trail_rat - Memberfella in my office from down asia pacific way takes great delight in telling me cycling is the preserve of the poor - which it may well be in his home country...
Indian friend of mine was absolutely horrified when her son asked for a bike- she rode and walked everywhere as a child (in India and the UK) because it was the only option, and she busted her ass over here to make sure he didn't have to. Meanwhile he was mortified getting dropped off at school by his mum 
GrahamS - MemberDoes it?? Says "car tax" or "vehicle tax" on any .gov site I've seen.
just for fun, google "road tax"- first hit for me is "Tax discs and road tax" at https://www.gov.uk/browse/driving/car-tax-discs
Clarkson is better viewed as a character he plays, rather than his actual views.
Really?
I think he does believe what he says - at least the basis of it.
Same with Matthew Parris, Nigel Havers and James Martin.
He's in a position of power - looked up to by a hell of a lot of people.
I'd rather view him as a stupid ****, legitimising hatred and ignorance, if it's all the same to you.
fella in my office from down asia pacific way takes great delight in telling me cycling is the preserve of the poor - which it may well be in his home country....ive never been
Sadly this seems to be a commonly held belief too.
Ask him if Alan Sugar or Richard Branson (both keen cyclists) are poor or lower status than him in his Ford Ka.
just for fun, google "road tax"- first hit for me is "Tax discs and road tax" at https://www.gov.uk/browse/driving/car-tax-discs
Bah - They've changed it again recently then, presumably to make sure they get search engine hits on the new gov.uk site, but you will notice that the URL, sub-headings and body text only refers to it as "car tax" or "vehicle tax"
See also:
[url= https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-tax-rate-tables ][b]Vehicle tax[/b] rate tables (gov.uk)[/url]
[url= https://www.gov.uk/tax-disc ][b]Car tax[/b]: get a tax disc for your vehicle (gov.uk)[/url]
[url= https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-exempt-from-car-tax ]Vehicles exempt from [b]vehicle tax[/b] (gov.uk)[/url]
[url= http://www.postoffice.co.uk/vehicle-tax ][b]Vehicle Tax[/b] (Post Office)[/url]
fella in my office from down asia pacific way takes great delight in telling me cycling is the preserve of the poor - which it may well be in his home country....ive never been
Might be a view that took root in recent british culture as well - having a car is seen as having arrived. Those who cycle, recycle or maybe take the bus arent keeping up with Jones.
they clearly dont know how much a Jones costs
Funnily enough because cyclists, horse riders and pedestrians do have a right to be there there don't need to pay the tax. It's only motor vehicles that need to pay this tax to permit them the use of the road.
...and we don't need a license to be on the road either
This Tax/VED thing is all a diversion from the actual issue in this case of course (as those that trot it out each time intend). Any drivers "right" to use a motor vehicle on the road has nothing to do with the taxes or duty paid on their car.
You gain the right to drive on UK roads by passing a test and getting a driving licence. a component of this test being a theory test these days.
The princess in this case will have demonstrated her knowledge of the rules, her ability to observe and avoid vulnerable road users and appropriate judgement of when and where to overtake other vehicles (not on a blind bend for instance).
If she holds a licence gained within the last ~15 years (quite likely) then she cannot plead ignorance, her actions were outside of the law, she was fully aware of this at the time, as evidenced by her holding a UK driving licence... Open and Shut... Right?
Enough of the endless road tax debate.
The only thing I really care about here.... is she locked up yet???
Enough of the endless road tax debate.The only thing I really care about here.... is she locked up yet???
Her Twitter account has been deleted, could there be any greater punishment???
FFS!!! 🙄 - colleague (lady in 30s) has just joined in our conversation re this.
She was banging on re Tax and then launched into how it was illegal for bikes to ride two abreast and, if they did, they deserve everything they get as roads are for cars. I may just take her company car off her at her next review and replace it with a nice carbon fibre road bike.
appropriate judgement of when and where to overtake other vehicles (not on a blind bend for instance).
From the descriptions I've read she wasn't overtaking, she was coming from the opposite direction, at speed round a blind corner, and glanced the cyclist on his side of the road.
She was banging on re Tax and then launched into how it was illegal for bikes to ride two abreast
Send her on a driver education course as she doesn't know her Highway Code ([url= https://www.gov.uk/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82/overview-59-to-71 ]Rule 66[/url] - two-abreast IS legal).
(Not that the Highway Code is exactly brimming with good advice for cyclists)
From the descriptions I've read she wasn't overtaking, she was coming from the opposite direction, at speed round a blind corner, and glanced the cyclist on his side of the road.
Oh that's alright then... 🙄
Rusty Spanner - MemberClarkson is better viewed as a character he plays, rather than his actual views.
Really?
I think he does believe what he says - at least the basis of it.
Same with Matthew Parris, Nigel Havers and James Martin.He's in a position of power - looked up to by a hell of a lot of people.
I'd rather view him as a stupid ****, legitimising hatred and ignorance, if it's all the same to you.
Im surprised at you rusty, its pretty obvious (well it is to me) that he's a comedian who's out to get a reaction on motoring etc.
His piece on cycling in London vs Copenhagen is quite intelligent.
Only the the truly stupid would take his word as truth, and they're likely to be the sort who wont listen to reasoned debate and logic anyway.
Statistically women are safer drivers, that's what I'm always told...
But then again.... Oh FFS!:
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
And yes of course my prejudices are showing...
I just want her absolutely hammered for this!
The rights & wrongs of VED/road tax are for another day. Its the attitude thats present in a person that causes them to have such low regard for another person that concerns me.
Road tax/VED/cyclists is just an excuse for these idiots to vent. If it wasnt cyclists it would be someone else they'd be having a go at..
Those pictures prove nothing as they do not show the driver. There really are some people who can only see stero types, those cars could all have been driven by persons on their way to a now legal wedding. 🙂
Do you think the driver of the Nova(?) that hit the Aston Martin read the garage sign and did one?
Road tax/VED/cyclists is just an excuse for these idiots to vent
Yes, get rid of that one and they'll spout the lack of insurance gem next...
Only the the truly stupid would take his word as truth, and they're likely to be the sort who wont listen to reasoned debate and logic anyway.
shall we start with the statement that half the population are of below average intellegence.
As IQ is a normal distribution the way it is defined 2.5% have an IQ below 70...
There are a lot of very stupid people about!
Yes, get rid of that one and they'll spout the lack of insurance gem next...
..or the license plates one.
(because we all know that having visible license plates means that drivers [i]never[/i] dare to break [i]any[/i] traffic laws)
I predict that very soon we will have the witch-hunt "look how mean cyclists are" damage limitation story.
Im surprised at you rusty, its pretty obvious (well it is to me) that he's a comedian who's out to get a reaction on motoring etc.
His piece on cycling in London vs Copenhagen is quite intelligent.
Really? You think he's actually a fluffy liberal who just 'happened' to pick the persona of a bigoted, ignorant, intolerant ****?
Don't be daft.
Well, from what I've read I completely disagree - his persona is an exaggeration of his own views, not some ironic commentary on middle class tosspottery.
Those who mock the views of others for comic effect are pretty much always at pains to point out that they are being ironic - even, when they are acting the role of a completely fictional character (Warren Mitchell/Alf Garnett springs to mind).
Not with Clarkson - he actually appears delighted to be in a position where he can say what he likes, when he likes.
He's not THAT good an actor.
Only the the truly stupid would take his word as truth, and they're likely to be the sort who wont listen to reasoned debate and logic anyway.
In that case, it doesn't matter whether he means it or not, does it?
The fact that he urges motorists to treat other road users with contempt must have an effect on the impressionable, mustn't it?
GrahamS - MemberYes, get rid of that one and they'll spout the lack of insurance gem next...
..or the license plates one.
(because we all know that having visible license plates means that drivers never dare to break any traffic laws)
The best response to that is
"You know who made cyclists have liscense plates? The [i]Nazis[/i] Timmy, that's who. You agree with the Nazis? DO YOU?!"
Given that it is the standard rhetoric from a Daily Mail reader I'm afraid their answer would be "Well, I think Hitler had some good ideas, I just disagree with some of his methods.."
Perhaps more concerning is that the Victim in this case wasn't initially planning to report the incident before the tweet gained such attention.
Mr Hockley said he was planning to keep the incident to himself so as not to worry his girlfriend but changed his mind after reading Twitter.
That suggests cyclists in the UK have become so acustomed to being victims on the road that some legitimate RTAs where a conviction could be pursued simply don't get reported...
But for her tweet, this girl would have gotten away with a hit and run... She may yet as the incident wasn't reported imediately...
Have some cyclists started to almost accept the perceived reduction in "Road status" that comes with not having an engine as a fact.
And if this is the case, then why precisely is that?
The media portrayal of cyclists/motorists?
Police reaction (or lack thereof) to reported incidents?
Our increasingly [I]"Car-centric"[/I] culture?
The comments on The Guardian coverage are depressingly familiar:
you don't pay road tax, you have no right to be on the road, getting in the way of [i]proper[/i] traffic, dangerous, running red lights, cycling on pavements, cycling on the roads, too fast, too slow, riding two abreast, riding single file, helmets, insurance, no test blah blah tedious misinformed blah
It's amazing that cyclists are such an evil societal menace yet they don't actually seem to be responsible for any deaths, whereas cars and other motor vehicles kill between 2,000 and 3,000 odd a year without anyone ever really mentioning it.
'thegrimsqueaker' posts a link:
[url= http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm090126/text/90126w0003.htm#09012627000041 ]http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm090126/text/90126w0003.htm#09012627000041[/url]
which suggests that 29 (his/her maths, not mine) people were killed by bikes between 1998 and 2007.
really?
That 'Hello Kitty' car is awesome.
I'm pretty sure it just means "killed in collision with" not "killed by". There could have been a car involved as well with those collisions, and even then, the statistics don't say who was at fault (if anyone).
'thegrimsqueaker' posts a link:which suggests that 29 (his/her maths, not mine) people were killed by bikes between 1998 and 2007.
really?
that's still ~3 per year, on a par with the number killed by 'contact with bees or wasps'
ie: vanishingly small
In most of the cases it was either due to head injury when falling as a result of being hit, or an associated medical condition. I'll try and dig the stats out but I'm sure more people are killed in simple punch-ups/drunken falls by basically the same thing, falling in an unfortunate manner as a a result of X.
Most cycle/ped collisions will happen at well under 20mh (if not < 10mph), which is generally considered a speed at which you still have a good chance of surviving when hit by a car.
I guess my point is that the pedestrian hit by cyclist deaths are generally the freak circumstances style accidents.
29 is pretty bad but almost pales into insignificance when compared to the thousands killed by motor vehicles. Wonder how that number compares to "freak" accidents, trampoline falls or slipping on a wet pavement or household trips/slips and all sorts of activities* that don't seem to warrant spleen venting and cries for more controls. Pretty sure we haven't earned this demonisation.
*such as picnicing thank you amedias.
Easy to imagine stuff like this happening on a semi-regular basis. IT could lead to a bashed head which leads to a death, especially if the ped is elderly/frail
As said though, the numbers are vanishingly small when you consider the things that are likely to kill you.
I wonder how much the obsession with "building" cycle facilities by turning pavements into shared use paths has contributed to the collisions?
awhiles: yeah sounds about right. It is normally between 0 and 3 per year. Just checked the [url= https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-annual-report-2011 ]2011 complete report[/url] and Table RAS10012 lists 2 pedestrian fatalities in Single Vehicle Accidents with Pedal Cycles (out of 385 fatalities with any single vehicle, and 453 total pedestrian fatalities).
If you take the cyclist out of the equation here and replace it with a car or bigger vehicle - her coming round that blind bend at speed and out of control would have probably killed her and the oncoming driver - She's basically a shite driver.
She should be hanged! or only be allowed to drive an electric car with a 20mph max speed. Then we can laugh at her while she is over taken by my mum on a brompton!
Loving the logic here. This guy understands that it is VED not "road tax" but still thinks cyclists should pay it otherwise we lack "moral authority":
Yes, drivers do not pay road tax. This is true. However they do pay VED, which is a tax, so they directly contribute to the upkeep of the roads. Cyclists are not subject to this tax. At the very least the moral authority about tax is with the drivers as they have to make a contribution on their vehicles. Paying something is better than paying nothing.
I can think of [i]lots[/i] of taxes that I am exempt from. A many more that I pay that others don't. If tax is the basis for "moral authority" on the roads then why do we let pensioners and unemployed people drive?
I liked this guys response:
Do I have twice the moral authority by having two cars? Or do I get minus one for riding a bike?Or lose all moral
Do you have a specific calculation that allows us to know the impact on road condition of your average bike relative to a car?
So many questions, so many obvious answers...
Yep it is a whole world of logic that takes you to the point everyone not paying VED is banned from the road. Infact in VEDworld VED could actually be reduced by not putting in cycle lanes or providing pedestrian crossings as these people have no right to the road.
Thing I want to know is where do the people of VEDworld think the shortfall comes from as there does seem to be one. Even allowing for quick and dirty wikki sourced stats - UK public sector roads spending £10,000million aka £10billion in 2011. VED raised £5.63billion in 2009. Yes not the best comparison so either:
1)I dont know my billions, it's all dodgy maths
2)there has been an explosion in car and lorry numbers between 2009 and 2011, the country only spends what it raises in tax and is never in debt
3)there's a flipping huge hole covered by other taxes and grants, some of these might even come from the EU
4 there are still flipping huge holes in our riads
VED raised £5.63billion in 2009.
Does that figure consider the costs of collecting VED? (e.g. running the DVLA, forms, websites, helplines, databases, police time, legal enforcement and prosecution?)
So a local hack has raised the road tax debate on facebook. I just sent him this message.
Dear Nick,
I am amazed that you are trotting out the old road tax argument in response to someone's life being endangered by dangerous driving. As I'm sure you know, vehicle excise duty is based on CO2 emissions and related to engine size, a number of small cars have £0 VED and so would a bike, so collecting VED on bikes would generate negative tax for the Government as it would cost more to administer than it would raise.
Yours
I just pulled it of wikipeadia hence the dodgy maths health warning. Hopefully somewhere outhere a journalist is doing proper research and maths. My take is there are two ways to take the debate forward. Use the facts or more fun and less helpful following the logic to its extreme finding even more emotive examples who it's ok to run over.
As I'm sure you know, vehicle excise duty is based on CO2 emissions and related to engine size, a number of small cars have £0 VED and so would a bike, so collecting VED on bikes would generate negative tax for the Government as it would cost more to administer than it would raise.
Don't go down the emissions route, you'll just look silly. It's a red herring. The tax is for using roads.
Proof? Buy two cars, run one on the road, use the other only for closed course rallying and racing. They both produce the same emissions, yet only one has to pay [s]emissions[/s] road tax.
So, bikes don't pay road tax. So what? Ignorant or stupid car drivers don't pay an ignorance or stupidity tax. Anyone have an issue with either talk to the government.
there are still flipping huge holes in our riads
There are, I believe, almost always holes in riads. Helps with air flow in the warm climate in Morocco.
[img] 
[/img]
Don't go down the emissions route, you'll just look silly. It's a red herring. The tax is for using roads.Proof? Buy two cars, run one on the road, use the other only for closed course rallying and racing. They both produce the same emissions, yet only one has to pay emissions road tax.
In exactly the same way that Alcohol Duty is actually a tax on using pubs because I can brew my own alcohol on private land drink it and not pay "pub tax" 😀
Also Tobacco Tax is [i]actually[/i] a tax on using newsagents and Import Duty is [i]actually[/i] a tax on using the postal system. 😆
It'd be much easier if the government just taxed every person.
If the tax is for using the roads, then you'd only need to pay for one car anyway right? You couldn't drive both at once and besides, you've already paid for road use once.......
If the tax is for using the roads, then you'd only need to pay for one car anyway right? You couldn't drive both at once and besides, you've already paid for road use once.......
If it was for using the roads then wouldn't it also reflect the cost of building and maintaining the roads per vehicle.
So 40 tonne lorries would be charged a lot more (as they use more space and cause more damage) than small cars (which use less space and cause much less damage). In turn, bikes would be charged even less - when was the last time a bike cause braking bumps in tarmac?
I'm not quite sure what my point is because my children are hassling me, but I'm pretty sure that car drivers are in the wrong.
Don't go down the emissions route, you'll just look silly. It's a red herring. The tax is for using roads.Proof? Buy two cars, run one on the road, use the other only for closed course rallying and racing. They both produce the same emissions, yet only one has to pay emissions road tax.
Okay, I'll buy two VW Golf Bluemotions. Oh dear, that's your point kind of ruined.
I love crack cocaine/daily mail comments
lycra louts ride all over the road, ignoring road rules and being very mouthy to anyone who dares to get in their way. Not condoning what this lady did, but it`s fairly understandable
Okay, I'll buy two VW Golf Bluemotions. Oh dear, that's your point kind of ruined.
Not really.
They are still liable for the Tax, and have to display a Tax Disk that proves the Tax has been paid and is up to date.
It's just that the rate of Tax due to be paid is £0/year.
Try driving one of them without displaying a Valid Tax Disk for a year and see what it costs 😉
I despair of these selfish young drivers.
Very rarely do I venture onto the roads (mainly mtbing now), however on the odd 'off the road' ride there are sections where I have to ride on the road.
This week alone I was passed by 3 young drivers all female and all driving Fiat 500's, not one of them made any attempt to pass me safely, they don't see you and if they do, don't care.
My Golf Bluemotion costs me £20 a year in 'tax'.
Just saying, like. 😆
IT DOESNT ****ING MATTER WHO PAYS FOR WHAT. PAYING FOR SOMETHING NEVER GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO HURT PEOPLE WHO HAVENT PAID FOR IT.
IS THAT ****ING CLEAR?
RIGHT THEN
Does anyone have a constructive message for her employer?
http://www.larking-gowen.co.uk/contact#enquiry
IT DOESNT * MATTER WHO PAYS FOR WHAT. PAYING FOR SOMETHING NEVER GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO HURT PEOPLE WHO HAVENT PAID FOR IT.IS THAT
* CLEAR?RIGHT THEN
^
That´s a t-shirt I´ll wear.
Does anyone have a constructive message for her employer?
http://www.larking-gowen.co.uk/contact#enquiry
Been done. Her employer has made a public statement about it.
Leave them out of it now.