Ah, I see the old, 'road tax' misconception.

Road Tax was abolished in 1926 by the then Chancellor Winston Churchill. He had noticed that whilst all other forms of taxation went to central govt & was used for all manner of things the tax paid for by the few motorists there were back then was used only for roads. He argued that the tax paid by drinkers was not used just for pubs, therefore motorists should not expect the tax they paid to be spent solely upon them. So Road Tax became VED and is used to pay for all manner of things, including roads & cycle ways.

Yes, cyclist should follow the highway code.

Such is the way of our capitalist democracy works, most people, let alone cyclists, pay tax (admittedly, some more than others). If public health and the environment can be improved and we can get car journeys taken of the road, we all benefit. Whether 90 million is enough is another question.

The idea of charging cyclists is ridiculous and would be counter productive. As for law breaking: there are times I see a cyclists behave inappropriately, but due to the infrequency I see this and because the damage they can do to others is slight, I see it as unimportant. However, it would be a different matter if cycle traffic was heavy.

The way I understand it, there seems to be a perception that even if it's the cyclist's fault in the case of a collision with a car, it will be the car driver penalised under law. I don't know if that's a fair perception or not, but I've heard quite a few car drivers believing this to be the case.

A car driver could be liable for hospital bills and up-front costs, but would only be prosecuted if it was believed the car driver did something illegal. Other countries do have laws as you describe, but that isn't the case here.

Who said anything about road tax?
Anyway whether it goes on the roads or whatever the motorist has to pay for the privilege.
Who said anything about the Highway Code?
Yes they should adhere to it but it goes further than that.
For example, I object to being passed at 25mph when walking peacefully along the canal tow-path!

Fair enough but then don't expect large sums of money to be spent on their benefit.


You must see different to what I do then.



I was knocked down by a cyclist ignoring a red light at a pedestrian crossing. (the one at the Pound Street junction)
The damage was not "slight".

So if I read you right it's ok to rip off the elderly and infirmed if they live in Newbury because it's their own bloody fault.. .
oh and if they don't like it they can sod off to a poor part of the country and leave Newbury to the well abled with money and transport to go where they like..

Sounds reasonable

When cars and motorcyles do too...

No, I don't think you've read me right. You said "many older drivers or invalids do not travel far for their own personal reason", and as I explained, if they're only driving low local mileage then the differential cost of their fuel with respect to some other notional place where the fuel is cheaper, is minimal, and insignificant compared to their motoring costs as a whole. On the other hand, if the elderly and infirmed [sic] are driving far enough abroad to make that differential fuel cost significant enough to worry about then they're also likely to be driving past cheaper petrol stations.

So where's the rip off? Yes, if you drive high mileage and you chose to buy your fuel at Newbury's most expensive garage then you will be paying quite a bit more for your fuel than you might, but that's the point - you're paying more than you might, because you have the option of buying it cheaper elsewhere. If you don't take that choice then fine, but no one is being ripped off here.

Everyone is forgetting you can easily recoup 8p a litre price difference by adjusting your driving style. I get about 35mpg average, a majority of which is around town, in my 2L turbo petrol!

On an unrelated note, BP is bloody out of Ultimate again. GRRR

I disagree. If fuel costs more in Newbury because it costs more to deliverer than elsewhere, then yes, but my understanding is that it doesn't.

35 around town in a 2L petrol turbo is remarkable.

The amount of saving or expenditure either way is a red herring..The principle is robust.

People exchanging car journeys for bicycle journeys would be for everyone's benefit, especially if they could separated from other road or path users.


Because you had a bad moment doesn't prove that this is a big issue - you were unlucky - just like my motorcycling friend who was knocked off his bike by a pedestrian.

Oh!, my situation was unique was it?

Where did I say that?

I'm not saying cyclists are faultless, but it is a fact cars and motorbikes pose a greater danger to cyclists than than it is the other way round. Notwithstanding this point is straying from the point: do you not see the benefit of the government promoting cycling as an alternative form of transport?

I don't agree with your reasoning. I don't know, but I doubt that the cost of delivery is a significant factor in the differential cost of fuel. One significant factor is likely to be that people in Newbury are prepared to pay more, though that is just one of many factors that influence the price of fuel. It's entirely possible that garages in Newbury need to pay a higher rent on their premises than other places because retail space in Newbury is more profitable, or they may need to pay their staff more to attract the right people because employment rates in Newbury are higher than elsewhere. I don't know, I'm just saying - at the end of the day the supplier sets the price to maximise profits - too high and sales will fall, too low and revenue will fall. In a sense it's not even the garage that sets the price, it's the market!

I agree that the saving or expenditure isn't what makes a rip-off, that's a matter of whether the supplier is taking unfair advantage of their market monopoly or the indigence or inexperience of their customers, but my contention is simply that in this situation that's not happening. What you're seeing is the free market, and the price differential is supported by the informed buying habits of a customer with a variety of suppliers to choose from.

FSI innit.

My drive to work is 2 miles on a cold engine in start stop traffic.

What if the market is uncompetitive? What if garages have an agreement? Perhaps it might be because of Newbury having an inferior transportation system and also, being situated on a side of a steep hill thus necessitating more car journeys? If so, they are taking advantage, this 'rip off'.

I have already said, if prices are higher because it cost more to deliver fuel to cars in Newbury (wages, rent, depot location), then that is fine, if not, then it is a rip off, IMO.