Відео

From a large truck. You do know when you are allowed to use the horn, don't you? This use was not covered by any of the appropriate circumstances. Nobody pays road tax, it was abolished in 1937. I do pay two lots of VED. Was that what you meant? I do hold a full UK licence for several categories of vehicle and have done for more than 30 years, never had any points on it. I do have insurance for riding a bike. No matter what you may believe you are wrong on that. Cyclists, pedestrians and equestrians use the road as a right. People in motor vehicles have no right to use the road. They are tolerated under licence but that is not a right.

Aedan McGhie pavements are designed and made for motor vehicles. Not pedestrians, not horses and not cyclist. I believe they are tolerated. Not motor vehicles! Sorry, your right. There is no such thing as Road Tax. However, VED is paid by motorist so that that can park and drive on the pavement. I do not believe that you pay VED or vehicle insurance for your bicycle. Yes, he used his horn inappropriately, but you sir are a nuisance and a hazard on the pavement

Mr Fleming you will find that roads predate motor vehicles by some considerable measure. Pedestrians, equestrians and cyclists all predate motor vehicles. Roads were not built for cars. You can believe all you like but it remains the case in Scotland that motor vehicles do not use the road as a right. Your belief is irrelevant. VED is a pollution tax. It is not paid by all motorists. I have had a zero rated car myself in the past and yet it was used on the road legally. You have still someway to go in your understanding of this. It would be a mistake to drive on the pavement. It's impossible to pay VED on a bike in Scotland. If it was levied it would be zero rated as it is on many cars. Bicycle tax or registration has been tried before and abandoned. You call me a liar on the insurance, what makes you think I am a liar? Nonetheless as a member of the UK's biggest cycling organisation I am insured when using a bike. Many people are also covered under their home insurance. Another of your mistaken beliefs. You agree with my original point. He did use his horn inappropriately. That's what I said at the beginning and you agree that I was correct. Then an unsupported assertion. Can you back up the accusation of nuisance and hazard on the pavement, particularly when I'm not on the pavement?

Aedan McGhie I happen to work in the highways sector, I the pavement design and testing side of things. I know first hand that when designing a pavement, we test it solely for the use of motor vehicles and the impact of weather. You may be surprised to hear that it’s not tested for the use of horse or bicycles (shock face). Maybe in medieval times your comment would be correct (I understand that Scotland is a bit behind England). However, in this day and age, pavements are designed for motor vehicles. By the way, you do drive on pavements. Maybe your getting confused with footpaths. Now I understand that your obviously going to keep replying with smart ass comments, so I’m going to leave you to it. Bye

Sadly predictable but somewhat undermined by the use of a definite article in an earlier comment. It's also not a common usage outwith with some states in the USA. Furthermore where that truck is footpath would incorrect, it's footway and there isn't one on that side of the road. Might I suggest you check Highway Code Rule 244. While you're at it you could read the whole thing as you appear to need a refresher. If you test these materials then you know the impact of speed and mass and how much less damage is caused by cyclists. We save the community money as we do orders of magnitude less damage to the surface. Way to go on insulting more than 5 million people and inaccurate on that one too, you misunderstand the relative stages of development. Cyclists, pedestrians and equestrians still use the road as of right and motor vehicles continue to not do so. It might challenge your world view but nonetheless, and not withstanding your beliefs, it is still the case. Are smart ass comments worse than stupid ass comments coming from the guy who looked up a 1:26 min video of a truck and got upset about it?