njee20

Well, no, that's really daft. It's not a hypothecated tax (until 1st April), I didn't say that it's arbitrarily applied. Bikes, pedestrians and horses are taxed in line with vehicles, by their official CO2 emissions. But yes, we could go for £160 VED on all cars (I'd save quite a bit), bikes, horses and pedestrians. That would be popular, for sure. Fuel duty doesn't pay for roads either, so it's a total irrelevance in this, particularly as it's entirely proportional to the amount you use (unlike VED).

You seem angry. Must be all that tax you pay.

What? I said £5k more (than you). Stop the frothing. You still have no right to use your car.

£5k added to your taxable salary, so someone who just earns £5k more pays the same tax? No one has a right to drive, simple. It's convenient, of course, but one of the big issues we have versus countries like the Netherlands is epitomised in your post.

Not quite as clear cut as that, but yes. So cars bought now have most entitlement then? That menas that a car purchased in the last 11 days which emits more than 255g of CO2 is basically king of the road! Pensioners with electric cars should basically be confined to their houses, they don't pay their way at all!

So your right to drive is proportional to the amount you pay? Roads are paid out of general taxation, so the more you earn the more you deserve to be on the road, yes? And the more CO2 your car emits the more you deserve to be there, because your VED is higher? So electric cars and other zero rated vehicles have no right to be there, whilst large lorries have the most right? The amount you pay in fuel duty is proportional to how much you drive, so that's a moot point.

Well that is sort of the point, like the London congestion charge, the rise in bus lanes, 2+ lanes etc, it's all to deter people driving in private cars. However the alternatives have to be there. The sense of entitlement is very difficult to overcome too.

Pic's, I think yu ment

Again, it's not, "loco" is a word in itself. Just as "photo's" is incorrect.

But loco is an accepted word, so no apostrophe needed. Same as (for example) photo. The only time you would ever use an apostrophe on a plural was if there was ambiguity without: "dotting the i's and crossing the t's" for example. They're not needed after dates, or abbreviations either, which are common: TOCs, 1980s, APTs etc is correct.

You mean Samuel Pepys's diary. Pepys' implies that it was the diary belonging to more than one Pepy. Disinterested/uninterested annoys me, although they're becoming interchangeable. I died a bit inside when "figuratively" became an acceptable definition of "literally", as in "I literally died".

I think the key things with a properly fast car are: - barriers to entry are higher, they cost a lot more, tax is higher, insurance is higher etc - you just can't exploit the performance on the public highway in the same way It's pretty mad that you can buy a bike that'll do 0-60 in under 3 seconds and do 200mph with ease for less than the cost of a Fiesta! I'd love one, but sure I'd end up as a statistic! Driving with your main beam on is ok though if you're dazzled by someone's rear lights, right?

No offence intended, very very few cyclists die in incidents not involving other vehicles, overwhelmingly they're hit by other vehicles. Many motorcyclists die without intervention from other vehicles, and those where another car is involved excessive speed is often a significant contributory factor. Yes SMIDSYs occur far too often, but there's often shared blame. It is by far the riskiest mode of transport on the road, and as Chris says the first sunny day certainly sees a colossal reduction in the average skill level. There's a NSL A-road near me I was on yesterday, dead straight, Roman Road. I was doing about 55, in a queue of traffic. A motorcyclist came from at least 5 cars back, doing (I would guess) 80mph+, over a blind crest, he seemed surprised when the back end twitched slightly, and even more surprised by the oncoming traffic he clearly hadn't anticipated. New sports bikes are far far too capable given the minimal training required to own one. Even if you are the best rider in the world, if you're utilising even 10% of your R1s capability you're asking for trouble.

Absolutely, I've never noticed it quite as acutely as yesterday, some horrendous overtaking going on! I can only assume they get more tempered/remember how to ride/crash as the summer wears on.

The two-wheeled mobile organ donors were out in force too. The main road past me was shut all day because one took himself out of the gene pool.

Well that's getting tenuous, but it's always possible to drop back. You may want to go faster, but of course it's an option to slow down. Imagine it was two lorries passing, rather than a vehicle with curiously bright rear lights. Is your same response to whack your main beam on?

Ta, thought I must be missing something.

91s only have one pantograph...?

1) no one mentioned fog lamps 2) of course it's not double standards, the correct response is to drop back or overtake, not turn your bloody main beams on. Mental.

Some are very bright these days, but mitigating it with your high beams is utterly ridiculous and very dangerous. I can't say I've ever noticed flashing rear lights, although of course LEDs do pulse at a very high frequency.

Love the Boris Bikes, they're superb!

Mexico is in North America officially, not sure how you can dispute that. Also not sure of the relevance of distance, Montreal is about twice as far from Houston as Mexico City, is Montreal not North America either...? As for locating near population I'll eat my hat if it goes to California. How many people actually go to a GP versus watching on TV? California is too 'eco friendly' to build a new circuit, and I'm not sure Laguna Seca would work...

Same, but in the MFD I can (and indeed have) turn off my DRLs, as well as adjusting really useful things like the brightness of the footwell lighting!

You're not allowed to do a u-turn on a mini roundabout IIRC, so it's a bit moot what signalling you use.

But it doesn't have to be a straight on just because it's now a mini roundabout. I would say if it was a right turn (as you are saying), it is still a right turn. If it used to be straight on it is still straight on. The direction doesn't become reclassified simply because they've stuck a mini roundabout in. I can't find any guidance on when it officially becomes a right turn.