‘It’s not called road tax!’; Autumn Statement reaction; Anti-LTN activists make video game where cyclists “transform streets”, and it’s fun; Le Col-Wahoo in danger after sponsor pulls out; Wiggins Jr aims high; Nairo’s coming home? + more on the live blog
SUMMARY
Anti-LTN activists make video game where cyclists “transform streets” – and it’s actually pretty fun
If you’re the type of person who, after a tough commute home from work, likes to spend the long winter nights huddled around the Sega Mega Drive (or whatever the kids are playing these days), I have just the game for you.
‘Brighton & Hove City Council’s Local Traffic Nightmare’ (snappy title, I know) combines two things dear to the heart of every road.cc reader: riding bikes and helping to make our roads a safer, more pleasant experience for everyone.
In the game, says the helpful (and hilarious, but we’ll get to that in a minute) instructions page, “your mission is to make using cars an extremely unpleasant experience so the residents give up – they can either walk or cycle.” Sounds brilliant.
Once you click ‘Play’, you will enter the game’s Farfisa organ-soundtracked 2D world, where you can ride around, installing cycle lanes, bike hangars, and planters for Low Traffic Neighbourhoods as you go.
Admittedly, the gameplay isn’t exactly Pro Cycling Manager, the graphics belong in a 1980s arcade, and your computer feels on the verge of a catastrophic meltdown the whole time you’re playing it…
But hey, a game where you can simply ride your bike around and make streets safer at the same time – what’s not to love?
What’s that? The game is actually the brainchild of a bunch of anti-LTN activists in Brighton?
Well, you could knock me down with a Volkswagen Polo.
According to the Argus, the game was invented by campaigners opposed to Brighton & Hove City Council’s plans to install a ‘Liveable Neighbourhood’ in the Hanover and Tarner area of the city, to parody the “absurd idea”.
Anti-LTN campaigner Chris Beaumont told the Argus: “It’s a lot of fun and a very tongue-in-cheek look at the way these things have developed.
Chris says the game, based on a similar arcade-themed satire of Southern Rail, “does get the message across and highlights the absurdity of what’s going on. It’s a great idea and some people will find it funny.”
> Anti-cycle lane councillor now furious that HGVs are putting schoolchildren in danger
Ah, of course – now all that stuff in the instructions about the “collateral damage” of LTNs, “extending the misery”, and “knowingly and intentionally making residents’ lives painful” makes sense now. Well, it doesn’t, but you know what I mean.
Interestingly – and I’m not claiming that this says anything about the perspectives of those involved in the making of the game – when your mini cyclist rides on the pavement, you’re reprimanded for “hitting an elderly person”.
But… when a motorist strikes you, knocking you from your bike, the car also explodes into pieces, and you’re pointedly told: “You have been caught being bad at cycling”.
Hmmm…
Brighton & Hove City Council told the Argus they are aware of the game, and criticised it for its “inflammatory and disappointing language”.
A spokesperson for the council said: “The Liveable Neighbourhood trial aims to reduce the ongoing creep of traffic into residential streets.
“This would make our streets safer and our air cleaner for residents, and discourage unnecessary car journeys.
“All properties will still be accessible by vehicle. We’re also working to ensure the needs of people with disabilities are considered.”
As for the game? I think I’ll stick to PCM, thanks.
Classic Twitter Bantz
Ronnie Pickering 🙃
— Gary Tate (@Garytate01) November 16, 2022
Who?
— Paul Wilson (@paulywil192625) November 16, 2022
This is the kind of top-notch banter we’ll miss when Elon Musk finally ruins Twitter for good (not to mention the live blog will be a much shorter affair).
It’s that time of the year again, folks…
Cycling Out of Context Highlights | 2022 Season
Thank you all for the memories. Enjoy. pic.twitter.com/OaRTkdcbb5
— Cycling out of context (@OutOfCycling) November 16, 2022
I’d completely forgotten all about the giant, paper mache Stefan Küng statue. It’s been a long year…
Nairo’s coming home: Could a third-tier Colombian squad save Quintana’s career?
While most of the cycling world focuses intently on the ongoing ‘Saga of Cav and the precarious French team’, former Giro and Vuelta winner Nairo Quintana’s future in the sport remains up in the air.
The 32-year-old Colombian is currently without a home for 2023 after Arkéa-Samsic – the French squad he joined in 2020 – distanced themselves from Quintana and pulled out of a planned three-year contract extension after he tested positive for the painkiller tramadol at this summer’s Tour de France.
While Quintana has continued to deny taking the drug (which won’t be on WADA’s banned list until 2024 but is currently prohibited in-competition by the UCI), at the start of November the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) upheld the former Movistar man’s disqualification from the Tour, and loss of his sixth place on GC.
With Quintana’s professional career teetering on the precipice of drug-related ignominy (don’t forget, the diminutive climber was also the subject of a criminal investigation into alleged doping following a raid at the 2020 Tour), several WorldTour squads have already moved to distance themselves from the Colombian’s signature.
However, a small window of opportunity may have finally opened for Quintana – in the shape of third-tier Colombian squad, Team Medellín EPM.
Nairo es nuestro gran representante del ciclismo colombiano ante el mundo. Por eso, desde el Team Medellín EPM le ofrecemos continuar su carrera deportiva con nosotros con un amplio calendario nacional e internacional.
Qué orgullo sería para Medellín que nos representes. pic.twitter.com/4WwEjAmjLC
— Team Medellín EPM (@team_medellin) November 17, 2022
The Continental outfit, which this year won the Vuelta a Colombia and boasts old-timers such as Fabio Duarte and – remarkably – 46-year-old Operación Puerto alumnus Óscar Sevilla, issued a ‘come and sign for us’ appeal on Twitter this morning, promising Quintana both a return to his roots and a full diet of top-level racing.
“Nairo is our great representative of Colombian cycling to the world,” the team tweeted. “For this reason, from Team Medellín EPM, we offer you to continue your sports career with us with a wide national and international calendar.
“How proud it would be for Medellín for you to represent us.”
While the three-time Tour de France podium finisher is yet to respond to Medellín’s rather ambitious plea, VeloNews reports that he is continuing to train in preparation for 2023 and will host his Gran Fondo Nairo in, funnily enough, Medellín this weekend.
Retired pro Víctor Hugo Peña, the first Colombian to wear the yellow jersey at the Tour de France, told the country’s media this week that he expects Nairoman to continue racing next year and beyond.
The former US Postal rider and teammate of Lance Armstrong (so he knows a thing or two about emerging unscathed from sticky situations) said: “This is proving hard for him, but that’s when the great ones are forged.
“I confide in him, and he’s a strong guy, who’ll cry, wipe away the tears, and he will continue. I am positive he will not give up. What he has to do is speak with his legs, and do what he’s always done, this guy with a hard and strong face. Now is the time that he has to go forward, and that would be one of his most important victories.”
Le Col-Wahoo in danger after sponsor pulls out, with riders told to find new teams
The precarious nature of pro cycling sponsorship appears to be on ongoing theme this winter, as Le Col-Wahoo revealed today that it is scrambling to secure the squad’s survival after one of its sponsors pulled out, almost halving the UK-based women’s team’s budget.
While it’s not yet clear which of the squad’s main backers has pulled out, sports director Tom Varney told VeloNews this morning that it will leave a hole of around €400,000 in the budget for 2023.
Le Col and Wahoo came on board to sponsor the second-tier team, formerly known as Drops, in 2021 and 2022 respectively, and oversaw a boost in the outfit’s finances and stature. The British team took part in the first edition of the revamped Tour de France Femmes this year, with their highest overall placing coming courtesy of Manx rider Lizzie Holden (on her way to UAE Team ADQ for next season), who finished 36th on GC.
However, the last-minute withdrawal has left the team’s management scrambling – both to fill the sudden funding gap but also to help their riders find new teams for 2023.
Zac Williams/SWPix.com
“One of our main partners has said that they can’t fulfil their agreement with us so as of last night I made all of the riders and staff aware that they should find another deal,” Varney told VeloNews.
“I’m also speaking with other managers that I know to try and help them with that as one of our priorities. As of this morning, I think three or four of them have something, which is helpful.
“If we can move on some of our highest-paid riders it gives us more of a chance of continuing. We have some other conversations ongoing to fill the gap but as things evolve in the next hours and days, I think what we can do next year will become clearer. It is a particularly unfair situation to be put in, especially at this stage.”
While Varney is rushing to secure contracts for his riders elsewhere, he remains optimistic that the team will be able to continue in some fashion, perhaps at a lower level, next year.
He added: “As things stand, we have our second highest budget for next year, so it’s still a positive situation based on what we’re used to. It’s not near what we had last season.
“I think the most likely situation is that we’ll continue on at a lower level, but I don’t know what that will look like and what structure and race program we can provide.
“I’m not shying away from it, and I’m trying to help riders and speaking to managers. We have a lot of good people who have taken it quite well considering. Let’s see how it evolves.”
Autumn Statement reaction: Import duty on aluminium bike frames reduced
We’ll have more on Jeremy Hunt’s Autumn Statement later, but here’s some of the reaction to the announcement that one of the Chancellor’s measures “will remove tariffs as high as 18 percent on goods ranging from aluminium frames used by UK bicycle manufacturers to ingredients used by UK food producers”:
Good cycling news – the Autumn Statement reduces the import duty paid on aluminium bike frames – hopefully will help UK bike manufacturers to keep new bikes affordable. pic.twitter.com/2mhmQOjB9B
— Conservative Friends of Cycling (@ToryCycling) November 17, 2022
Budget summary.
Taxes going up but at least bikes are getting cheaper…#cycling #ukcyclechat #budget pic.twitter.com/BUVBowbW62
— Graeme 🚴🏼♂️🏌️♂️ (@gdhutchison) November 17, 2022
Now, we just have to wait and see whether the dreaded cuts to the government’s active travel budget – which, if true, will be revealed later in the Treasury’s detailed spending plans – will actually come to fruition…
Autumn Statement reaction, part two: VED expansion “too soon” and “could discourage people from switching” to electric vehicles, says charging app founder
More from Jezza Hunt’s much-anticipated Autumn Statement today, as the Chancellor’s announcement (reported over the weekend by road.cc) that electric car owners will have to pay vehicle excise duty (VED) from April 2025 has been roundly criticised by those within the EV industry.
> ‘Road tax’ is coming… but not for cyclists
“At this critical time for our environment it is infuriating that the UK government would throw up a new barrier for people looking to change from a polluting car to electric power,” says Patrick Reich, the co-founder and CEO of EV charging app Bonnet.
“We should be speeding up the transition to zero emission transport, not slowing it down. While it’s accepted that as millions more people climb into electric cars that they would eventually have to pay some form of road pricing, the proposed 2025 timetable is too soon and could discourage people from switching earlier.”
Come on Ineos, you know you want to…
Hey @INEOSGrenadiers here’s a great opportunity to step into the women’s road peloton with a pre-made UK based team *wink wink nudge nudge* https://t.co/E09oBukjrd
— Sophie Hamer (@Sophie_Hamer_) November 17, 2022
Could add a couple more top level riders who may come available if B&B doesn’t happen, and suddenly this would be a very solid looking team. 👀
— Sophie Hamer (@Sophie_Hamer_) November 17, 2022
Do this and bring Cav into the men’s team for the Tour. They’ve got the money and it’s bang on-brand. Brilliant idea. Do it @INEOSGrenadiers!
— 𝔅𝔞𝔡𝔤𝔢𝔯 RPR 🔱 🄹🄰🄼🄴🅂 (@badgercyclist) November 17, 2022
Sounds like a plan. Will they do it? Probably not.
Gotta spend all that oil money on another Ganna hour record attempt…
‘Imagine when he gets Zwift’: Eliud Kipchoge hits the turbo trainer
Just think, the next time you’re in the shed struggling to turn the pedals on Zwift, marathon world record holder Eliud Kipchoge could be in charge of the avatar blowing past you.
38-year-old Kipchoge has joined the millions of cyclists around the world dedicated – or confined – to the turbo trainer this winter, and posted a video of himself trying out his new indoor set-up, sent to him by L39ION of Los Angeles pro (and son of Olympic-winning middle distance runner Steve) Freddy Ovett.
“When Eliud Kipchoge, the GOAT, sends you a video rocking the kit you sent out,” Ovett, who has raced for Israel Cycling Academy and briefly as a stagiaire for BMC, and currently excels in the world of eSports, wrote on Instagram.
“Inspiring to see this legend using the bike as a tool to help redefine marathon running – epic. Zwift next?”
Kipchoge, an Ineos-sponsored runner who holds four of the five fastest marathon times in history, replied: “It’s wonderful to be on the bike, especially for my recovery! Freddy, you are inspiration to me my brother! We will go far on inspiration and empowerment of sport.”
Reminder – never enter a Zwift race with Kipchoge…
“My dream is to win Flanders, Roubaix, the world championships, and wear the yellow jersey”: Ben Wiggins has big ambitions
It will come as no surprise to most that 2012 Tour de France winner and self-styled Mod icon Bradley Wiggins’ son, Ben, is not lacking in confidence.
The 17-year-old, who is currently racing in the ‘future’ field at the famous Gent Six Day, has set his sights on winning big as soon as possible.
“My goal next year is to be junior world champ on the road and track,” he told Belgian media at t’Kuipke velodrome earlier this week. “It’s big, but you have to have big ambitions otherwise there’s no point really. I have a lot of confidence in myself and my ability.”
Clearly. But young Ben won’t be just content with a pair of junior rainbow jerseys.
“In an ideal world I’d be the best ever, but it’s not always an ideal world,” Wiggins Jr said.
“My dream is to win Flanders and Roubaix, become world champion, and wear the yellow jersey in the Tour de France.
“Hopefully go higher than that as well, even bigger. I feel like I’ve got the work ethic and ambition to do that. So yeah, keep watching me.”
[Will Palmer/SWpix.com]
Ben’s early appearance at t’Kuipke means that three generations of the Wiggins family have now raced on the boards of the venerable old velodrome in Gent, after dad Brad and grandfather Gary, an Australian six-day specialist in the 1980s.
“This was my father’s favourite place to race. His dad raced here as well, so three generations of Wiggins have raced on that track now,” Wiggins noted.
“It’s a special place. It’s the Mecca of cycling for hardcore cycling fans. I came here when he [Bradley] won with Cav in 2016.
“I hear stories all the time, my dad loves this place. It’s hard to put into words. I got goosebumps just walking in. There’s an atmosphere about the place you don’t get anywhere else. It’s special.”
When asked to compare himself to his Olympic gold medal-winning father, Wiggins added: “I’m quite similar to my dad, maybe, but there are a lot of similarities with my grandad, Gary, as well.
“My dad was quite skinny and I’m a bit bigger. I don’t want to put a label on what I am yet because I’m still young. People said my dad would never be able to climb when he was younger.
“I want to win everything, so we’ll have a go.”
What are the odds for the 2030 Tour de France?
Meanwhile, over at GB News and Fair Fuel UK…
Snuck away in the @OBR_UK #autumnstatement2022 report is a bombshell. Needless to say, I’m loading both barrels to fight this tooth & nail
A sneaky 23% rise in Fuel Duty is planned from March 2023@pritipatel @cmackinlay @johnredwood @TheABD @jkyleofficial @Iromg @TiceRichard pic.twitter.com/ND0F4tk4fG
— Howard Cox (@HowardCCox) November 17, 2022
WTAF!? Disgraceful.
Please explain @Jeremy_Hunt https://t.co/2jQO07Iq6k— Dan Wootton (@danwootton) November 17, 2022
Head on over to our sister site ebiketips for the full story:
> Electric car owners may have to pay VED – but there are plans to raise fuel duty by 23%
‘Stop saying Road Tax!’
On the subject of vehicle excise duty applying to electric vehicles from 2025, or as Auntie Beeb calls it, the mythical ‘road tax’:
What a surprise. @BBCNews getting it wrong again! It’s not called Road Tax!!! pic.twitter.com/mKmPfXv0MR
— Töby Édwãrds (@IsSaddleThereIs) November 17, 2022
Remarkably, it’s not just the BBC referring to ‘road tax’ like they’re your favourite anti-cycling bingo caller down the pub.
Even the government itself is failing to keep up with the times (which in this case means anything after 1937, so par for the course for the Conservatives then)…
to be fair… https://t.co/2F0VfcdSJW
— Katy (@TheBlueUlysses) November 17, 2022
Toby also makes another interesting point about the BBC’s rather casual use of language, which – as the corporation itself told us a few weeks ago – isn’t that important after all:
Also weird that drivers exist in headlines when it comes to paying for stuff but they disappear from headlines when they run people over and kill them. https://t.co/Z7XwXnL8vT
— Töby Édwãrds (@IsSaddleThereIs) November 17, 2022
“By putting ‘Road Tax’ into the headline, the BBC is pushing (yet again) an anti-cycling agenda”: Reaction to BBC’s VEDisaster as cyclists blast broadcaster for referring to ‘road tax’
After the BBC (as well as the Treasury, and the Guardian) took on the role of the classic anti-cycling punter by referring to ‘road tax’ in a headline about the Autumn Statement, road.cc reader hawkinspeter decided to complain to the broadcaster.
Here’s the complaint:
The article has a headline ‘Electric car drivers to pay road tax from April 2025’ and this is completely inaccurate. The article refers to VED and not ‘Road Tax’ as that hasn’t existed since 1937.
What is particularly annoying about this is that a certain segment of the population refers to ‘Road Tax’ when complaining specifically about cyclists and so by putting ‘Road Tax’ into the headline, the BBC is pushing (yet again) an anti-cycling agenda and prompting yet more abuse against cyclists out on the road.
There is literally no sensible reason to use the incorrect and out-of-date ‘Road Tax’ except to try to hurt people who cycle.
Meanwhile, IanMK was confused about something missing from the instructions of Brighton’s latest cycling video game sensation.
“How do you know when you’ve won?” he asked. “Is it the point at which climate catastrophe is averted?”
Great point…
17 November 2022, 09:31
17 November 2022, 09:31
Help us to bring you the best cycling content
If you’ve enjoyed this article, then please consider subscribing to road.cc from as little as £1.99. Our mission is to bring you all the news that’s relevant to you as a cyclist, independent reviews, impartial buying advice and more. Your subscription will help us to do more.
114 Comments
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Latest Comments
A sprinters' festival makes for low TV ratings until 15 minutes before the end of the race. Unless crosswinds blow, then everything can happen.
I had a dream - the UCI asked Evenepoel, Swenson, Vinegegaard and other pros who got injured while out training to take part in a global campaign to promote safe cycling and raise all road users' (including pedestrians) awareness about the vulnerability of people who travel and commute on two wheels. It's about time to make cycling really SafeR, isn't it?
The impact went down into the frame and snapped the top and down tubes I'm assuming that's a carbon frame?
If Emily thinks that a migraine is instantly triggered by a bright light, and if she thinks that people with migraines are capable of continuing to drive whilst in the grip of one, then Emily doesn't really know what a migraine is.
I got car doored a couple of years ago. The left hand handkebar hit the edge of the opening door. The impact went down into the frame and snapped the top and down tubes. I went down, knocked out, but escaped with bad bruising.
I don't mind the no pockets but wish that Road.CC would show these jackets rolled up so we can gauge how packable they are.
Well I'm pretty sure I'm not on the right… I know the point you're making and indeed have often pointed out to people that they should look at their take-home pay and if they're happy with that stop worrying about what their employer gives to the government. However when I'm paying for my shopping it's not anybody else's money going on the VAT and duty, is it? If you frame Government expenditure as not taxpayers' money then you run into another problem which is if it's not our money then why should we have a right to have an input in telling the government how it should be spent?
That's a great heuristic. Game changer.
114 thoughts on “‘It’s not called road tax!’; Autumn Statement reaction; Anti-LTN activists make video game where cyclists “transform streets”, and it’s fun; Le Col-Wahoo in danger after sponsor pulls out; Wiggins Jr aims high; Nairo’s coming home? + more on the live blog”
Presumably “GFA” (Grote Fiets
Presumably “GFA” (Grote Fiets Amsterdam) wasn’t as popular because the soundtrack was really understated and quiet and no-one got run over?
A GTA (Grand Trolling
A GTA (Grand Trolling Automobilist) clone!
Hopefully they’ve kept the famed controversial parts from the original where you
run down a line of Hare Krisnas and it says “Gouranga“run over a cyclist and a lawyer pops up and says “That was Careless (driving)!” and the little character in the car shouts “The sun was in my eyes!”Does it have the feature where you can help set up a traffic jam on the edges of the LTN and points increase as pollution from the motor vehicles rises?
chrisonatrike wrote:
The original Grand Theft Auto, and the best soundtrack.
How do you know when you’ve
How do you know when you’ve won? Is it the point at which climate catastrophe is averted?
Apparently there is a new
Apparently there is a new “cyclist vs car” Tweet by Jeremy Vile, covered in the Daily Mail at https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11438633/Jeremy-Vine-sparks-row-posting-footage-cyclist-hit-car-zebra-crossing.html.
I wonder if it’s clicked with anyone else here yet that these Mikey/Vile clickbait clicks might just be making the roads more dangerous for us cyclists?
Rakia wrote:
I wonder if it’s clicked with anyone else here yet that these Daily Mail clickbait clicks might just be making the roads more dangerous for us cyclists?
EddyBerckx wrote:
I completely agree, but the Daily Mail are simply amplifying the original Mikey/Vine clickbait clicks for their own ends. No original content, and the Daily Mail wouldn’t have anything to publish, would they?
The Daily Mail and Vine/Mikey are simply two sides of the same coin. I’ve recognised the Mail for what they are, and I now invite you to do the same for Mikey and Vine, who for some reason are feted in certain quarters, and who add a lashing of self-righteousness and false piety to their clickbait.
As your mum stopped sending
As your mum stopped sending the links through then?
I could add, no driving the wrong side of a pedestrian refuge or driving whilst using a mobile phone means no content for Mikey which means no content for the DM. Once you start that chain, that is the natural conclusion.
“The Daily Mail and Vine
“The Daily Mail and Vine/Mikey are simply two sides of the same coin.” You really are trying to have your cake and eat it too, or are you really saying that everyone is wrong apart from yourself?
EddyBerckx wrote:
Mhmm. The Mail and the Telegraph (among others) are constantly stirring up anti-cyclist sentiment, and if you count traditional print media, websites, apps, and aggregate news services, they’re going to be reaching tens of millions of people with this shite. Yet Mikey with his 90k subs, who 99.9% of the British public will have never heard of, is the one putting us all at risk? Okay…
Of course, it’s all those
Of course, it’s all those Mikey videos and all the vigilante videos that I don’t post (not running a camera) that mean that random people in cars who have never met me before * have thrown stuff at me and on other occasions tried to barge me off the road…
* Coming from the opposite direction so I could see them and also be pretty sure they weren’t “stuck behind me”.
EddyBerckx wrote:
Have to admit, I haven’t watched this video for precisely the reason that the link is to a Mail page.
Thinking of you
Thinking of you
He does look incredibly like
He does look incredibly like Ra…I mean TTD… I mean Nig… oh you know who I mean!
Amazing how trolls expect
Amazing how trolls expect people to be respectful when they themselves are here merely to troll the shit out of any thread despite being booted out numerous times.
I don’t care on a personal level, but I’m surprised the road.cc mods of which there are surely plenty, hasn’t booted the twat again.
I’ve already stated that is
I’ve already stated that is cyberbullying. From where I’m sitting in my 30″ waist jeans I don’t care on a personal level, but I’m surprised no one in the road.cc overweight community (of which there are plenty) has pulled you up on it.
Rakia wrote:
So it’s cyberbullying to imply that an individual is fat, but it’s OK to (without the slightest evidence) say that a whole section of a community is fat. Right.
Before you start on your usual “touched a nerve there” nonsense, I’m wearing my 32″ waist 501s as I type…
Rendel Harris wrote:
So it’s cyberbullying to imply that an individual is fat, but it’s OK to (without the slightest evidence) say that a whole section of a community is fat. Right.
Before you start on your usual “touched a nerve there” nonsense, I’m wearing my 32″ waist 501s as I type…— Rakia
32″ waist??? I haven’t had a 32″ waist since the Millennium…
The reason I chose that
The reason I chose that picture of you is:
1) You chose to model yourself on DiCaprio, so you believe image is important.
2) You have a long history of “weightist” posting in your Nigel persona, making snide comments about fat cyclists hiding smaller ones and so on, so I would assume some projection going on there.
3) How many years of trolling consitutes cyber-bullying in the first place – especially when that has been focused on one member of the community especially and when the bully does not abide by the bans imposed on them?
And there it is, the trolling abuse in the supposed complaint.
I shall however retire that picture as it is rather unpleasant for others to look at, even though it shall for ever remain my image of you.
Here is the replacement, a bit easiuer on the eye for the rest of the forum.
Thanks, I accept your
Thanks, I accept your explanation, although do be careful posting copyrighted works.
It’s funny you claim that the image you originally posted is how you imagine me to look, because apparently some other people did a reverse image search on your posting and couldn’t find a trace of the man in the photo. I therefore assumed that you’d taken a selfie as you browsed road.cc!
Rakia wrote:
Who are these ‘other people’ Rakia? Alternate personas and voices in your head don’t count.
Rakia wrote:
Maybe they didn’t do it right?
Funnily enough I said this in
Funnily enough I said this in the online abuse thread.
Rakia wrote:
Classic Nige-ism.
Rakia wrote:
Its interesting to see the ways the car people find to justify things like this. The driver failed to see an approaching obstacle or failed to react to it, hitting a human being with their car. Our roads are full of things that should not be there, seeing them and reacting to them is our responsibility as drivers that we are tested and licensed to uphold.
The cyclist having been cycling in the wrong place doesn’t really have an impact on whether the driver should have hit them. There was clear sightlines, broad daylight and an obvious negative outcome to continuing with their speed and approach. The driver should have stopped.
It does have an impact in the
It does have an impact in the eyes of some motorists who feel paying ‘Road Tax’ gives them the right to act as judge, jury and, if they get a little too carried away, executioner as well.
On twitter that is used all
On twitter that is used all the time
“Cyclists are a menace to the roads if they want to be on the road then pay tax and insurance like everyone else does they think they own the road a total menace to the road networks”
Who knew Nige could code
Who knew Nige could code games & lives in Brighton…
I don’t think this was Nige’s
I don’t think this was Nige’s work. If he’d have coded the game, the cyclist would have been wearing a tabard.
Nige lives firmly in Middle
Nige lives firmly in Middle England
lesterama wrote:
Can I check if you actually mean “Middle Earth”? 😉
Under the bridge in Khazad
Under the bridge in Khazad Dum?
Security minister Tom
Security minister Tom Tugendhat given six-month driving ban
Conservative MP for Tonbridge and Malling sentenced for driving with mobile phone in his hand
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/nov/17/security-minister-tom-tugendhat-given-six-month-driving-ban
Odd things.
Odd things.
He claimed to not be doing anything on his phone (lit up?), so why be holding it, Tom?
Judged to be low risk, after course. That would be when not holding the phone, pointlessly?
I think I just heard the
I think I just heard the chancellor announce that import tariffs are to be dropped on bicycle frames.
Yep!
Yep!
Wahey!
Wahey!
How much cheaper does that make a Colnago C68?
/s
Cheaper bikes?
Cheaper bikes?
Bloody Brexit…
Rich_cb wrote:
Ha ha, nothing has been cheaper because of Brexit. Independent analysis has calculated that staple foods have risen by 16%, energy and oil rather more. According to OBR Brexit has cut productivity by 4%, there’s been a 15% drop in trade, a 14% loss in investment, 6% increase in food prices, lower wages, workforce shortages and the highest inflation in the G7.
Living in denial when the facts are so blindingly obvious will do you no good.
I didn’t realise that
I didn’t realise that inflation only occurred after Brexit…
I was under the, obviously mistaken, impression that high inflation was currently affecting countries all over the world.
Is dishonesty better than denial?
Rich_cb wrote:
That does appear to be so but Brexit has had a huge negative effect on the UK economy. I know this is something about which you seem to be in denial but that doesn’t alter the fact that Brexit has been a huge fuck-up.
We’re obviously never going
We’re obviously never going to change each others minds on this but you don’t seem to understand the figures you quote.
4% drop in productivity is a long term OBR prediction. It hasn’t actually happened yet.
Likewise the 15% drop in trade.
If you familiarise yourself with the OBR’s track record on economic predictions you might not have quite as much faith in those figures.
Either way you are wrong to say Brexit “has” caused those things. It might do so. It might not.
The inflation of gas, oil and the vast majority of the food price inflation have absolutely nothing to do with Brexit and are affecting countries worldwide.
I will concede that the 6% figure does appear to be accurate.
The cut in import duties on bicycle frames will have a significant benefit to UK consumers and UK companies. The other import duty cuts will have similar benefits.
The UK would not be able to implement those reductions if we were in the EU.
You can thank me next time you buy a new bike…
BBC headline – Electric cars
BBC headline – Electric cars to pay Road tax in 2025!!1
First line of story – Electric cars to pay vehicle excise duty from 2025!!!
But they don’t have an anti-cycling agenda do they?
kinderje wrote:
I just raised a complaint with them, so maybe they’ll correct the headline in a few months time when there’s zero chance that anyone will read it.
Here’s my complaint:
What is particularly annoying about this is that a certain segment of the population refers to “Road Tax” when complaining specifically about cyclists and so by putting “Road Tax” into the headline, the BBC is pushing (yet again) an anti-cycling agenda and prompting yet more abuse against cyclists out on the road.
There is literally no sensible reason to use the incorrect and out-of-date “Road Tax” except to try to hurt people who cycle
I presume that they’ll just
I presume that they’ll just charge EV “a fixed amount” of VED. VED is based on emissions (hence why bicycles would be zero-rated), and EV don’t produce emissions at point of use.
(Apparently the EV owners are already being hammered by the increase in the price of electricity making them not a lot cheaper to run then ICE vehicles).
brooksby wrote:
Hopefully we’ll reach a point where cars have low enough emissions that we can move over to taxing them based on weight instead.
That’s what they do here in
That’s what they do here in NL. Weight, and petrol vs diesel.
brooksby wrote:
Annual VED has not been based on emissions for new registered vehicles since March 2017. Year 1 is a one-off amount based on CO2, Then £165 a year after that (this is £520 for first 5 years if list price was over £40k). Therefore I suspect EVs will attract a flat rate.
new zero emission cars
new zero emission cars registered on or after 1 April 2025 will be liable to pay the lowest first year rate of VED (which applies to vehicles with CO2 emissions 1 to 50g/km) currently £10 a year. From the second year of registration onwards, they will move to the standard rate, currently £165 a year
zero emission cars first registered between 1 April 2017 and 31 March 2025 will also pay the standard rate
zero and low emission cars first registered between 1 March 2001 and 30 March 2017 currently in Band A will move to the Band B rate, currently £20 a year
BBC has now corrected the
BBC has now corrected the headline: Electric car drivers must pay tax from 2025
Guardian has not.
I don’t know why it has to wait until 2025.
Simon E wrote:
Non cynical: waiting for electric vehicles to be cheaper to buy and run than ICE
Cynical: after the GE
JustTryingToGetFromAtoB wrote
BBC has now corrected the headline: Electric car drivers must pay tax from 2025
Guardian has not.
I don’t know why it has to wait until 2025.
— JustTryingToGetFromAtoB Non cynical: waiting for electric vehicles to be cheaper to buy and run than ICE Cynical: after the GE— Simon E
It does seem that a lot of the announcements made in this budget will not actually take effect until after the next general election. Coincidence, I’m sure…
Simon E wrote:
Maybe they just mis-spelled it…
Think I heard ‘car tax’ on
Think I heard ‘car tax’ on Today prog this morning.
CyclingGardener wrote:
I heard road tax, but they may have used both.
I saw this earlier and was
I saw this earlier and was going to complain, when I had a minute, but they’ve already changed it. Now “Electric car drivers must pay tax from 2025”.
I suspect that even that headline is misleading. If the VED is applied the same way as it is to petrol and diesel cars then it will only apply to new cars from 2025 so there’ll still be a lot of EV drivers not paying tax “for using the road” .
Still got the concept that it
Still got the concept that it pays for the roads though
“RAC head of policy Nicholas Lyes said: “After many years of paying no car tax at all, it’s probably fair the government gets owners of electric vehicles to start contributing to the upkeep of major roads from 2025.”
This tax is not hypothecated except for the Nation Roads Fund for the strategic road network (28.8BN over 2020 to 2025).
hirsute wrote:
The BBC article quotes Edmund King of the AA:
“This may delay the environmental benefits and stall the introduction of EVs onto the second-hand car market. Unfortunately the chancellor’s EV taxation actions will dim the incentive to switch to electric vehicles”
The article continues: anyone buying a new car – electric or otherwise – priced at more than £40,000 will face having to pay £165 in tax plus a £355 expensive car supplement every year from the second to sixth year of registration.
So people will refuse to buy an EV because they will have to pay £3/week for VED? (or £10/week with the supplement, perhaps that means they’ll have to cut back on the Moet & Chandon, the poor things)
nearly every single quote in
nearly every single quote in that article, even the LGA mentions its to pay for upkeep and wear & tear on roads
Some decent infra at last !
Some decent infra at last !
https://twitter.com/CompaiB/status/1593238878751961089
Although the contractors haven’t got the memo yet about putting up a pole in the middle of the lane.
The slippery drain cover will
The slippery drain cover will eb a suitable interim measure.
I see the lady got the cycle
I see the lady got the cycle hangar blocked from being by her house.
https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/23130743.woman-wins-battle-block-cycle-hangar-st-leonards-road-hove/
2 very strange comments about the scheme being illegal.
And yet that hangar appears
And yet that hangar appears to be smaller than any of the nearby parked cars…
Smaller and less ugly than
Smaller and less ugly than the parked cars in my opinion.
I wonder if non-car-owning
I wonder if non-car-owning residents will start campaigning to have parking spaces removed from outside their houses. And what reasons will be given for not doing so!
The article says “At least
The article says “At least one resident had said that they would welcome a hangar outside their home – and he offered to pass on their details.”
I hope it’s a cyclist who gets to enjoy their new bike hangar!
“Most homes in the street had
“Most homes in the street had front and back gardens where residents could store their bikes safely, he told the committee”
Ha ha – yes good one.
https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/19820554.900-bicycles-stolen-brighton-hove-2021/
Even following the “hike” in
Even following the “hike” in fuel duty, I bet fuel will still be cheaper than if fuel duty hadn’t been frozen since the noughties…
Maybe some should park a 7.5
Maybe some should park a 7.5 tonne lorry outside her house permenantly.
Re: ‘sneaky’ fuel duty hikes,
Re: ‘sneaky’ fuel duty hikes, I’m pleased to see a conservative government doing something I agree with (even though I wish it were a bigger increase).
It is sad that they’ve done it when the cost of living is already high, but I’m glad that hasn’t stopped them. I hope that giving support to the people that are struggling the most will help mitigate.
Credit where credit is due.
No, “credit” was the last
No, “credit” was the last government that we’re not mentioning now. We are only funding things that are really really important and will make or save us money, like
cycling infrastructureroads. And HS2.Don’t get me wrong, it’s
Don’t get me wrong, it’s nowhere near enough for me to vote conservative at the next general election, but I’d rather a government with policies I mostly disagree with than a government with policies I completely disagree with.
well wait till its
well wait till its implemented before congratulating them too much, I think duty hikes have been announced several times in previous years statements, and then postponed at the last moment, as a sop to the tabloids and campaign groups moaning about it.
in theory the higher price of fuel recently has a bigger effect on the tax take the government get,which means theyve been receiving more than they planned to get, so if fuel prices stay high they could carry on with the take away with one hand, give back in the other mode.
Yep, it just the current
Yep, it just the current policy which when it has come to it, has not been enacted but frozen.
That’s a good point, but I
That’s a good point, but I think it’s important to speak up when someone does something you agree with and provide some positive reinforcement. It makes it more likely that people will follow through. I used to do that when I had a conservative MP.
This is a very good point and
This is a very good point and “positive constituent feedback” can cut through where complaints just get filed in the “more moaners” pile. As Awavey said always worth checking what actually comes to pass. This is also not always the fault of the person / authority which made the announcement of course.
So absolutely – show some love – but follow up and verify if possible.
How does a continental level
How does a continental level team end up with a 400,000 euro, thats half their total budget, hole in their finances ?
WWT level teams are only supposedly operating on 1.7-2.5million euros budgets, and thats with a minimum wage of 27.5k per rider, and wages are supposed to be 80% of teams budgets thesedays.
Awavey wrote:
They haven’t ended up with one; there would be one in the budget for next year if they carried on due to the sponsor saying they can’t meet their commitment. Sounds as though the team are pretty blameless.
no you misunderstand me, why
no you misunderstand me, why do they need a near 1million Euro budget to compete as a conti level team to begin with ?
I’m surprised it’s that low
I’m surprised it’s that low to be honest, even though they apparently weren’t paying rider salaries transport, accommodation, mechanic/soigneur/management staff salaries, bikes and parts would come to more than that, one would imagine?
womens teams are run on an
womens teams are run on an absolutele shoestring compared to the mens equivalent levels though, it feels on the high side to me for the level they are at, even the largest WWT team probably only have a budget of 2.5million, and are paying wages out of that.
FWIW a few years back the mens pro conti level teams budgets were around 700-800k. But theres no tv coverage of womens conti level races, its barely guaranteed at WWT, and no guaranteed invite to WWT events, so a sponsor paying 400k is spending alot and not getting alot of exposure for it.
I can only think theyre counting bikes in the budget as a cost rather than simply donated by the bike maker, maybe couple of bikes each for the riders + spares, that could easily rack up 400k, and then their actual budget to go racing is really more like 500k, which makes far more sense.
Awavey wrote:
I was thinking that might be it, they were riding Ribbles, weren’t they, so given that Ribble-Weldite has gone bust I don’t suppose they’ll have the finances to supply free bikes to another team either, so that could easily be the £400k they’d need to find.
They’re probably just waiting
They’re probably just waiting for the delayed Ribble bikes to arrive…
They said ‘road tax’ again on
They said ‘road tax’ again on the Today programme this morning.
People say road tax because
People say road tax because that’s what it is. They might obfuscate it by calling it “VED” or some other term, but it’s still road tax.
Just like National insurance is an income tax.
I’m what respect is VED a
In what respect is VED a ‘road tax’? Roads are paid from general taxation. Income Tax is more of a ‘road tax’ than VED.
Good job proving the point though. When they talk about increasing National Insurance, they call it ‘National Insurance’ and not ‘income tax’ even though NI is a tax on income. E.g. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-62998661
You call it trolling but that
You call it trolling but that’s misdirection! It’s clearly healthy debate about issues that are important to me; it’s not defending the indefensible – it can’t be, because I’m defending it! Thankfully lots of – constructive – points have been made by several (1) people…
Rakia wrote:
It’s not Road Tax, it’s a tax on the vehicle. There’s no obfuscation.
The rate depends on the vehicle and nothing else. Many people call it Road Tax because media outlets and even manufacturers (incorrectly) use that term. Its continued use serves to perpetuate a widespread misconception that VED pays for road maintenance when that is patently not true, just like fuel duty, the duty on alcohol, VAT, insurance tax and a myriad others.
Next you’ll be telling us that Brexit doesn’t really mean Brexit at all, that’s an obfuscation and it is in fact a magic money pot because it was written in big letters on a bus (one of many barefaced lies told by the Tories over the last 12 years).
Simon E wrote:
Wrong, it isn’t a tax on the vehicle. If you don’t drive or keep the vehicle on the road, you don’t have to pay the tax. This is different to, say council tax, where even if your don’t live in the house you still pay the tax. Hence “road tax” is the most appropriate name.
As for the other bloke who said it isn’t road tax because it isn’t spent on the roads, taxes are named according to what they tax rather than what they are spent on. For example, cigarette tax doesn’t enable people to buy more cigarettes does it?
Sheesh, you remainers really are easy to hoodwink, aren’t you?
Rakia wrote:
I love how you assume we’re remainers because we show a modicum of intelligence. Says it all really.
So road taxes roads?
So road tax taxes roads?
Wow, you brexiters really are easy to hoodwink.
In the words of Le Clerque,
In the words of Le Clerque, this matter is outside the true province of the conscientious commentator in as much as being unable to say aught that is charitable or useful, he must preserve silence
Is that this one? I have to
Is that this one? I have to ask because he’s a master of disguise.
Rakia wrote:
F..k me, you are either supremely dense or you do this solely to get a response.
The vehicle is what is taxed, the condition is that it is intended for use on public highways. If I want to use it on the road I also need insurance, which includes insurance tax, but this is not a ‘road tax’ either.
If I am not the registered keeper of a car or I have a tax-exempt vehicle (e.g. a ‘historic vehicle’) I pay no VED but I can still use the roads.
Simon E wrote:
Most likely both
Rakia wrote:
Which is why it’s called vehicle excise duty, not road excise duty, because it taxes the vehicle, not the use of the road; it doesn’t matter whether you drive 100,000 miles a year or 10, your vehicle is taxed the same.
If anyone sees somebody limping around leafy Essex, stop and give Nigel a lift with you, he appears to have just shot himself in the foot. No wonder he’s so keen on using so many aliases, an accountant who showed himself unable to differentiate between different forms of taxation wouldn’t be getting much business.
If you have a problem with it not being called road tax I suggest you take it up with that notorious woke lefty libtard Winston Churchill, who made the decision not to have a road tax.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Are you a parrot? You’ve just repeated the false information Simon E spewed out a couple of hours ago. This road tax isn’t a vehicle tax, because if you don’t use your vehicle on the road, you don’t pay the tax. It is therefore a road tax.
Surely even you, devoid of logic, wit and plain common sense, can see that. To make this really really really easy, IQ 70 easy for you, I will compare the tax to Zwift.
If you don’t use Zwift, you do not pay for Zwift.
If, however, you go on Zwift once a month and do a minute session, you pay for Zwift. If you go on Zwift a hundred times a month and do the Alpe de Zwift 400 times, you pay for Zwift. You are paying to use Zwift.
The same is true for roads. If you use the roads, you have to pay a tax to use the roads. If you don’t use the roads, you don’t have to pay a tax to use the roads. And this is the reason when the misnomer “vehicle tax” is in fact a road tax.
Business is good by the way. Very good. After leftist chancellor Hunt brought in these anti-work measures yesterday people are diving to find out how they can be avoided. Much better to avoid paying tax than simply give up work altogether, which appears to be the modus operandi of both the leftist Tory and Liebour parties.
Rakia wrote:
FTFY
[EDIT: if we’re being pernickety (and I think we are), I should in each case have said “use or keep” the vehicle on the road.]
Dreary me, this logic is
Dreary me, this logic is getting worse and worse. It’s like debating about Mr Tumble with a bunch of two year olds.
Just because some vehicles don’t pay the tax doesn’t mean the tax isn’t a road tax. I might buy cigarettes in duty free, to use a previous example.
This doesn’t stop the fact that for those people who are paying the tax, it is a road tax.
I’ll have a think about some other even more simple examples later, maybe involving dinosaurs, Minecraft or Ryan’s World. Ta ta for now.
Rakia wrote:
If you pay VED you have to use the public road? So if you pay the tax and for some reason don’t drive or park on the road that year you get sanctioned?
Love watching stupid people trying to be clever.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Debating with stupid trolls is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.
This is going to really brass
This is going to really brass you off, but do you know the reason why so many people debate with me?
Because they love it!
And who wouldn’t? Yes, Rendel had a “gotcha” moment there when he pored over my words and spotted an erroneous transposition. I’m a busy person and I’ll own the mistake. I’m pleased to give him a morale boost, a spring in his step. It’s Friday evening after all!
Yes, it is a necessary
Yes, it is a necessary condition of paying the tax that a vehicle is used on the road. But the tax is paid only by those using vehicles. It is not paid by all who use the road. To my mind the tax is therefore defined more by vehicle use than road use – there are more road users who are not liable to the tax than there are vehicle users. I’d be happy to compromise on “Vehicle on Road Excise Duty”, but since it’s been called Vehicle Excise Duty since 1889, let’s just stick with that.
Yes you are dreary. Who’s Mr
Yes you are dreary. Who’s Mr Tumble?
Rakia wrote:
By the same token you could say “just because some vehicles don’t pay Air Passenger Tax doesn’t mean it isn’t a travel tax. For airline passengers, it’s a travel tax.” That wouldn’t be a senisble classification – it is use of an aeroplane that is being taxed, not all travel. The fact that an individual has chosen a method of travel which attracts a tax does not mean that travel as a whole is taxed.
The beauty of reading a post
The beauty of reading a post of yours is that it leads one inescapably to the happy conviction that one is not, of all nincompoops, the greatest
Rakia wrote:
Except … you don’t. You can bike, or run, or skateboard, or horse-ride as much as you like on the roads and no need to pay any tax for using them.
But …. if you have two motor vehicles then you have to pay VED twice in order to use the same roads.
Huh … almost like it wasn’t actually a road tax, but a vehicle tax? Weird, isn’t it?
You know that situation where
You know that situation where your offspring / pet / partner / boss complains that they can smell poo, and you spot some poo and clean it up, then you realise it was their poo, but now it’s got on you, and now they’re saying / looking at you like “you smell of poo”?
Obviously people who listen
Obviously people who listen to radio 4 and Today are a bit thick and can’t understand anything more than simple concepts.
At least that was their defence over previous criticism of language.
hirsute wrote:
Guilty as charged.
Maybe it’s time to agree that
Maybe it’s time to agree that it is road tax, gleefully revel in the continuing road tax free status of the bicycle and then rub it in with;
“Chancellor removes import duties on over 100 products. This measure will remove tariffs as high as 18% on goods ranging from aluminium frames used by UK bicycle manufacturers, to ingredients used by UK food producers…”
If that gets them all frothed up you can add the rest;
“…and components used in automotive manufacturing.”
It’s Ghent. Not Gent.
It’s Ghent. Not Gent.
joe9090 wrote:
Gent is the Dutch/Flemish spelling and the one the inhabitants themselves use, so it’s perfectly acceptable, as is the English (and only English) Ghent.
Rendel Harris wrote:
My late mother was from Geraardsbergen and proud of being Flemish, she would immediately correct any Frenchification of Flemish names.
God help anyone who referred to her home town as ‘Grammont’.