Cyclist suffers serious injuries in hit-and-run (From Southend Standard)
Get involved: send your pictures, video, news and views by texting ECHONEWS to 80360, or email us Click here for details »
Cyclist suffers serious injuries in hit-and-run
7:20am Monday 4th March 2013 in Echo News
Cyclist suffers serious injuries in hit-and-run
A CYCLIST was left with serious injuries after a hit-and-run driver left her sprawled in the road.
Shocked residents ran out of their homes in Station Road, Thorpe Bay after hearing a loud bang.
They discovered Jane Hellon-Harris, 43, had been knocked down and immediately called an ambulance.
She was left on crutches because of the bruising and muscle damage to her right-hand side and is facing an MRI scan.
The wing mirror that had struck her was found several yards down the road with the wires hanging out but the driver had left the scene.
Mrs Hellon- Harris, a mother-of-two who lives in Shoebury, said the car had vanished within seconds.
She said: "I just wish they'd come forward and admit what they'd done, even if they'd gone home and thought about it and then reported it. "It's the fact that there's someone out there that knows they've done wrong but are not even worried that they might have killed someone."
It happened at about 6.40pm on February 19. Police recovered the wing mirror which they have now discovered belongs to either a Renault Scenic or Megane. Anyone with information should call the Southern Road Policing Unit on 101.
Comments(74)
Kursaal76
says...
7:46am Mon 4 Mar 13
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:Yawn boring!
Hope Jane recovers from this horrible incident quickly.
This incident highlights the need for motorists to observe the correct safe passing distance when passing cyclists and other vulnerable road users. The safe passing distance is an absolute minimum of 1.5 metres.
supermadmax
says...
8:05am Mon 4 Mar 13
This would appear to certainly be the car drivers fault, as if not its likely that the car driver would have stopped and altercated with Jane for breaking their window.
Bosniavet
says...
8:15am Mon 4 Mar 13
I wish Mrs Hellon-Harris a full & speedy recovery.........
Ivadda Goodhump
says...
9:40am Mon 4 Mar 13
Just a thought.
spragger
says...
10:00am Mon 4 Mar 13
Lets hope for a quick recovery and an indictment of this dangerous driver
Sean4u
says...
10:06am Mon 4 Mar 13
I expect they're consoling themselves with something like "at least I paid my Road Tax!"
I hope you make a speedy full recovery and that the hit-and-runner feels the full force of the law. It's about time we had a Part One and Part Two driving test, with the Part One on a bicycle.
Noteworthy
says...
10:32am Mon 4 Mar 13
Sean4u wrote:If you're provoking - I'm sure you'll have a catch soon...
"there's someone out there that knows they've done wrong but are not even worried that they might have killed someone" I expect they're consoling themselves with something like "at least I paid my Road Tax!" I hope you make a speedy full recovery and that the hit-and-runner feels the full force of the law. It's about time we had a Part One and Part Two driving test, with the Part One on a bicycle.
Wait for it...
smile~like~you~mean~it
says...
10:34am Mon 4 Mar 13
Ivadda Goodhump wrote:Maybe the reason she was cycling in the first place was to lose weight! Just a thought!
She looks a bit of a porker. Perhaps if she'd been slimmer the wing mirror would have missed. Just a thought.
smile~like~you~mean~it
says...
10:34am Mon 4 Mar 13
Ivadda Goodhump wrote:Maybe the reason she was cycling in the first place was to lose weight! Just a thought!
She looks a bit of a porker. Perhaps if she'd been slimmer the wing mirror would have missed. Just a thought.
DogsMessInLeigh
says...
11:15am Mon 4 Mar 13
Kursaal76 wrote:You don't cycle then Kursaal..?
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:Yawn boring!
Hope Jane recovers from this horrible incident quickly.
This incident highlights the need for motorists to observe the correct safe passing distance when passing cyclists and other vulnerable road users. The safe passing distance is an absolute minimum of 1.5 metres.
a few months back a Silver VW golf brushed past me on very wide section London Road leigh in daylight, the door mirror hit my handlebars and knocked the car mirror in so the driver must of known...but didn't stop, my leg brushed his car the driver was doing 25-30 mph,luckily i am a big build chap and controlled the bike and have experienced poor driving in the past i wanted to catch them at the Thames drive junction but missed them
just another experience on the road for riders.
its a serious thing.
stopmoaning1
says...
11:15am Mon 4 Mar 13
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:Not surprising this has already become a story about how bad all car drivers are. This is actually a story about an ‘individual’ who failed to stop after knocking the lady off her bike. This sort of individual is therefore unlikely to observe any suggested safe distance anyway.
Hope Jane recovers from this horrible incident quickly.
This incident highlights the need for motorists to observe the correct safe passing distance when passing cyclists and other vulnerable road users. The safe passing distance is an absolute minimum of 1.5 metres.
Also not surprising to see people talking as if they know what happened. The circumstances have not been reported. Instead, we have been fed the tiniest amount of information that a wing mirror was found nearby and everybody has jumped on the blame car drivers bandwagon. Of course it is LIKELY that the car was passing too close, but why? Ignorant ‘individual’ at the wheel? The accident is reported to have happened at 6.40pm, dark, did she have lights/reflective clothing. Was she actually on the road? Had she stopped or swerved suddenly? I’m sure there are many more questions the police will ask in order to build up an accurate picture of what happened. But, until that accurate picture is known and made public, (maybe the lady can give us her version of events) then as wrong as it is for the driver not to have stopped, WE DON’T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED! So let’s stop the endless, boring, cyclist verses car driver holier than thou posts.
reptile
says...
11:56am Mon 4 Mar 13
Rochford Rob
says...
12:40pm Mon 4 Mar 13
Still no excuse for not stopping though.
r6keith
says...
1:05pm Mon 4 Mar 13
Bosniavet wrote:I afraid the moral code runs very shallow with some people. My son was hit in very similar circumstances and was left in the road with a compound fracture of his leg. I afraid the driver never came forward or was traced . I just hope he has nightmares about it.
Let's hope the driver rsponsible for this has the moral courage to come forward, otherwise I sincerely hope someone who knows them (relative, friend, car mechanic who replaced the mirror) shops them to the Police. I wish Mrs Hellon-Harris a full & speedy recovery.........
Sean4u
says...
1:30pm Mon 4 Mar 13
Rochford Rob wrote:There could be a seat-post rear light in the picture and it appears she's not completely unfamiliar with properly riding a bike in the UK: her bike has mudguards. I realise inferring lights from mudguards (and ... is that a stand?) is a bit of a stretch, but most people I see without lights at night ride bikes which appear to be exercises in frugality.
There don't appear to be any lights fixed to the bike in that picture.
Still no excuse for not stopping though.
Riding without lights is an excuse for the police to stop cyclists, not for judgemental drivers to dish out corporal punishment. If you can't see well enough to ensure you're driving on paved road rather than members of the public, you should pull over and call for assistance. 'Road users' includes pedestrians.
I hate the police
says...
2:02pm Mon 4 Mar 13
smiffy1980
says...
3:56pm Mon 4 Mar 13
Rochford Rob
says...
4:18pm Mon 4 Mar 13
Just a thought.
The driver should have stopped though. If traced my money is on 'No Insurance, no licence etc etc' As appears to be the norm these days.
Shoebury_Cyclist
says...
4:35pm Mon 4 Mar 13
Rochford Rob wrote:Her injuries are on the right-hand side because that's the side that would have been hit by a car passing too close.
I see her injuries appear to be on her right hand side. I'd have thought that any collision would have propelled her to the nearside (left) Unless of course, she was cycling the wrong way. On her bike (that appears) to have no lights.
Just a thought.
The driver should have stopped though. If traced my money is on 'No Insurance, no licence etc etc' As appears to be the norm these days.
saddo99
says...
4:48pm Mon 4 Mar 13
but don't quite go along with knocking them off. Failing to stop after an accident is an offence and you can't not know you have hit something or someone. I hope tha lady makes a full recovery. Hope she wasn't one of thepair going round Priory Crescent Friday night going two miles an hour and holding up 40 cars, the first of whom was too timid to overtake. Lights would have been good too at 9.30 p.m.
I hate the police
says...
5:48pm Mon 4 Mar 13
saddo99 wrote:I wouldnt say I hate cyclists, they are just trying to get from A to B in a more economical friendly way. I cycle every now and again, and I am one of the dangerous ones that go through red lights etc. Why should you stop? Your on a bike. A bike dont have to be licenced or insured, the same as a pedestrian, and pedestrians walk through the red man at a traffic light.
Well I hate cyclists, especially the one from Shoebury,(tedious, boring knowitall)
but don't quite go along with knocking them off. Failing to stop after an accident is an offence and you can't not know you have hit something or someone. I hope tha lady makes a full recovery. Hope she wasn't one of thepair going round Priory Crescent Friday night going two miles an hour and holding up 40 cars, the first of whom was too timid to overtake. Lights would have been good too at 9.30 p.m.
stopmoaning1
says...
6:33pm Mon 4 Mar 13
I hate the police wrote:There is a word or two missing from one of your sentances.
saddo99 wrote:I wouldnt say I hate cyclists, they are just trying to get from A to B in a more economical friendly way. I cycle every now and again, and I am one of the dangerous ones that go through red lights etc. Why should you stop? Your on a bike. A bike dont have to be licenced or insured, the same as a pedestrian, and pedestrians walk through the red man at a traffic light.
Well I hate cyclists, especially the one from Shoebury,(tedious, boring knowitall)
but don't quite go along with knocking them off. Failing to stop after an accident is an offence and you can't not know you have hit something or someone. I hope tha lady makes a full recovery. Hope she wasn't one of thepair going round Priory Crescent Friday night going two miles an hour and holding up 40 cars, the first of whom was too timid to overtake. Lights would have been good too at 9.30 p.m.
"Your on a bike."
Your what on a bike?
saddo99
says...
7:17pm Mon 4 Mar 13
I hate the police wrote:Well clearly you are a moron!
saddo99 wrote: Well I hate cyclists, especially the one from Shoebury,(tedious, boring knowitall) but don't quite go along with knocking them off. Failing to stop after an accident is an offence and you can't not know you have hit something or someone. I hope tha lady makes a full recovery. Hope she wasn't one of thepair going round Priory Crescent Friday night going two miles an hour and holding up 40 cars, the first of whom was too timid to overtake. Lights would have been good too at 9.30 p.m.I wouldnt say I hate cyclists, they are just trying to get from A to B in a more economical friendly way. I cycle every now and again, and I am one of the dangerous ones that go through red lights etc. Why should you stop? Your on a bike. A bike dont have to be licenced or insured, the same as a pedestrian, and pedestrians walk through the red man at a traffic light.
Rochford Rob
says...
7:24pm Mon 4 Mar 13
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:According to the report she was hit by the wing mirror. Either she was on a penny farthing or the car was a dinky toy. Do try and keep up. And, for what it's worth, my comments are pure speculation - along with yours and everyone else's on here.
Rochford Rob wrote:Her injuries are on the right-hand side because that's the side that would have been hit by a car passing too close.
I see her injuries appear to be on her right hand side. I'd have thought that any collision would have propelled her to the nearside (left) Unless of course, she was cycling the wrong way. On her bike (that appears) to have no lights.
Just a thought.
The driver should have stopped though. If traced my money is on 'No Insurance, no licence etc etc' As appears to be the norm these days.
Shoebury_Cyclist
says...
8:34pm Mon 4 Mar 13
Rochford Rob wrote:Most bicycle saddles are the same height or slightly higher than most car door mirrors (unless the car is a 4x4). The mirror would have hit her thigh/knee area.
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:According to the report she was hit by the wing mirror. Either she was on a penny farthing or the car was a dinky toy. Do try and keep up. And, for what it's worth, my comments are pure speculation - along with yours and everyone else's on here.
Rochford Rob wrote:Her injuries are on the right-hand side because that's the side that would have been hit by a car passing too close.
I see her injuries appear to be on her right hand side. I'd have thought that any collision would have propelled her to the nearside (left) Unless of course, she was cycling the wrong way. On her bike (that appears) to have no lights.
Just a thought.
The driver should have stopped though. If traced my money is on 'No Insurance, no licence etc etc' As appears to be the norm these days.
stopmoaning1
says...
10:13pm Mon 4 Mar 13
echoforum
says...
10:20pm Mon 4 Mar 13
Always choose the right tool for the right job
I hate the police
says...
10:45pm Mon 4 Mar 13
stopmoaning1 wrote:Before you correct people yourself, maybe you should learn how to spell SENTENCES. Idiot.
I hate the police wrote:There is a word or two missing from one of your sentances.
saddo99 wrote:I wouldnt say I hate cyclists, they are just trying to get from A to B in a more economical friendly way. I cycle every now and again, and I am one of the dangerous ones that go through red lights etc. Why should you stop? Your on a bike. A bike dont have to be licenced or insured, the same as a pedestrian, and pedestrians walk through the red man at a traffic light.
Well I hate cyclists, especially the one from Shoebury,(tedious, boring knowitall)
but don't quite go along with knocking them off. Failing to stop after an accident is an offence and you can't not know you have hit something or someone. I hope tha lady makes a full recovery. Hope she wasn't one of thepair going round Priory Crescent Friday night going two miles an hour and holding up 40 cars, the first of whom was too timid to overtake. Lights would have been good too at 9.30 p.m.
"Your on a bike."
Your what on a bike?
DogsMessInLeigh
says...
10:47pm Mon 4 Mar 13
echoforum wrote:what surface is it suitable on then...Snow, sand or rice paddy..?
Her bike is unsuitable for road use.
Always choose the right tool for the right job
DogsMessInLeigh
says...
10:58pm Mon 4 Mar 13
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:possibly damaged her leg when she came off her bike and hit the road rather than the mirror hitting her leg...the report said she was left sprawled in the road.
Rochford Rob wrote:Her injuries are on the right-hand side because that's the side that would have been hit by a car passing too close.
I see her injuries appear to be on her right hand side. I'd have thought that any collision would have propelled her to the nearside (left) Unless of course, she was cycling the wrong way. On her bike (that appears) to have no lights.
Just a thought.
The driver should have stopped though. If traced my money is on 'No Insurance, no licence etc etc' As appears to be the norm these days.
if the mirror hit the handle bars and the side of the car brushed her leg then that would have made her wobble and knocked her off, even falling to the right, on her knee.
a scenic mirror will sit higher than a megane also.
all ifs buts and maybes of course.
chef-guss
says...
11:31pm Mon 4 Mar 13
myfriend101
says...
12:57am Tue 5 Mar 13
DogsMessInLeigh
says...
9:39am Tue 5 Mar 13
Get well soon and don't be put off from riding, hope the driver will be found.
Devils Advocate
says...
10:30am Tue 5 Mar 13
Kursaal76 wrote:Really? When my stepsister's twelve-year-old son was in a collision with a car, the driver said "He just fell sideways into the road. there was nothing I could do!"
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:Yawn boring!
Hope Jane recovers from this horrible incident quickly.
This incident highlights the need for motorists to observe the correct safe passing distance when passing cyclists and other vulnerable road users. The safe passing distance is an absolute minimum of 1.5 metres.
That lad was in a coma for a long time. He finally came through suffering only minor problems like a lifetime in a wheelchair, and having to use a keyboard "Speech machine" for the rest of his life.
When I approach a cyclist from the rear, I treat him like he is a car. Right indicator on, wait for a gap in the oncoming traffic and then pull round him with at least a car width between us. If that gets up the noses of the Audi or BMW behind me, so much the better. I would get no pleasure from knowing I had condemned someone to a less than perfect life because of a matter of allowing him some space.
I find it hard to believe how many Englishmen have evolved into under bridge dwelling trolls in this part of Essex!
Devils Advocate
says...
10:38am Tue 5 Mar 13
I hate the police wrote:Er..... You're?
stopmoaning1 wrote:Before you correct people yourself, maybe you should learn how to spell SENTENCES. Idiot.
I hate the police wrote:There is a word or two missing from one of your sentances.
saddo99 wrote:I wouldnt say I hate cyclists, they are just trying to get from A to B in a more economical friendly way. I cycle every now and again, and I am one of the dangerous ones that go through red lights etc. Why should you stop? Your on a bike. A bike dont have to be licenced or insured, the same as a pedestrian, and pedestrians walk through the red man at a traffic light.
Well I hate cyclists, especially the one from Shoebury,(tedious, boring knowitall)
but don't quite go along with knocking them off. Failing to stop after an accident is an offence and you can't not know you have hit something or someone. I hope tha lady makes a full recovery. Hope she wasn't one of thepair going round Priory Crescent Friday night going two miles an hour and holding up 40 cars, the first of whom was too timid to overtake. Lights would have been good too at 9.30 p.m.
"Your on a bike."
Your what on a bike?
Just a thought.
stopmoaning1
says...
1:19pm Tue 5 Mar 13
Devils Advocate wrote:Yes that was my point. Own goal to me though unfortunately. As a result, I sentence myself to more proof reading practice.
I hate the police wrote:Er..... You're?
stopmoaning1 wrote:Before you correct people yourself, maybe you should learn how to spell SENTENCES. Idiot.
I hate the police wrote:There is a word or two missing from one of your sentances.
saddo99 wrote:I wouldnt say I hate cyclists, they are just trying to get from A to B in a more economical friendly way. I cycle every now and again, and I am one of the dangerous ones that go through red lights etc. Why should you stop? Your on a bike. A bike dont have to be licenced or insured, the same as a pedestrian, and pedestrians walk through the red man at a traffic light.
Well I hate cyclists, especially the one from Shoebury,(tedious, boring knowitall)
but don't quite go along with knocking them off. Failing to stop after an accident is an offence and you can't not know you have hit something or someone. I hope tha lady makes a full recovery. Hope she wasn't one of thepair going round Priory Crescent Friday night going two miles an hour and holding up 40 cars, the first of whom was too timid to overtake. Lights would have been good too at 9.30 p.m.
"Your on a bike."
Your what on a bike?
Just a thought.
Hathi67
says...
1:20pm Tue 5 Mar 13
........
I have just sat and read all your comments and the person who insulted the poor lady should be ashamed of themselves.
Does it matter what size she is!!
Everyone is entitled to ride a bike, yes she should have lights on her bike, but whether she did or didn't does that give the car driver the right to knock her off and leave her in the road! NO it does not.
My brother was knocked off his bike and the nice man stopped and picked him up and brought him home, I always pass bikes with consideration incase they have to swerve, not surprising with the state of our roads.
At the end of the day the car driver should have stopped, there is no excuse for hit and run.
I wish the lady well
and I want to say to the car driver "what goes around comes around"
Oh and by the way I drive a car and ride a bike so I am taking neither side.
Thunder64
says...
1:50pm Tue 5 Mar 13
echoforum wrote:Why, in what way? It appears to have all the necessary components to be safe for road use!
Her bike is unsuitable for road use. Always choose the right tool for the right job
Alekhine
says...
3:46pm Tue 5 Mar 13
chef-guss wrote:You pay what?
Im a keen cyclists, and also pay my road tax. Love the way people use these kind of storys to kick of at each other, why not wish her well and end of no one who's commented knows what has happed. I will say when im on my bike I stick by them rules of them road and also have ago at cyclists that break the law. With that I do now have a camra on my helmet to record some segments I ride and also use it on them road, I have no problem letting a driver know that he/she is to close to me ether, rather break somthing on there car (extreme case) than them breaking a bone or killing me.
Better not tell SC, there is no such thing as road tax apparently.
Shoebury_Cyclist
says...
4:15pm Tue 5 Mar 13
Alekhine wrote:Correct, there isn't. 'Road tax' a myth which ignorant drivers cling onto in a desperate effort to infer some kind of 'right' over and above others to use roads.
chef-guss wrote:You pay what?
Im a keen cyclists, and also pay my road tax. Love the way people use these kind of storys to kick of at each other, why not wish her well and end of no one who's commented knows what has happed. I will say when im on my bike I stick by them rules of them road and also have ago at cyclists that break the law. With that I do now have a camra on my helmet to record some segments I ride and also use it on them road, I have no problem letting a driver know that he/she is to close to me ether, rather break somthing on there car (extreme case) than them breaking a bone or killing me.
Better not tell SC, there is no such thing as road tax apparently.
stopmoaning1
says...
4:45pm Tue 5 Mar 13
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:I don’t know if you own a car (though I will guess) but on the V5C form (registration document) the DVLA print the following warning “ If you decide not to tax or insure your vehicle, you must keep the vehicle off the public road and make a Statutory Off Road Notice.
Alekhine wrote:Correct, there isn't. 'Road tax' a myth which ignorant drivers cling onto in a desperate effort to infer some kind of 'right' over and above others to use roads.
chef-guss wrote:You pay what?
Im a keen cyclists, and also pay my road tax. Love the way people use these kind of storys to kick of at each other, why not wish her well and end of no one who's commented knows what has happed. I will say when im on my bike I stick by them rules of them road and also have ago at cyclists that break the law. With that I do now have a camra on my helmet to record some segments I ride and also use it on them road, I have no problem letting a driver know that he/she is to close to me ether, rather break somthing on there car (extreme case) than them breaking a bone or killing me.
Better not tell SC, there is no such thing as road tax apparently.
Note ‘not to tax’ ‘keep the vehicle off the public road’
Alekhine
says...
5:23pm Tue 5 Mar 13
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:and i just could not have your fellow cyclist making the same mistake.
Alekhine wrote:Correct, there isn't. 'Road tax' a myth which ignorant drivers cling onto in a desperate effort to infer some kind of 'right' over and above others to use roads.chef-guss wrote: Im a keen cyclists, and also pay my road tax. Love the way people use these kind of storys to kick of at each other, why not wish her well and end of no one who's commented knows what has happed. I will say when im on my bike I stick by them rules of them road and also have ago at cyclists that break the law. With that I do now have a camra on my helmet to record some segments I ride and also use it on them road, I have no problem letting a driver know that he/she is to close to me ether, rather break somthing on there car (extreme case) than them breaking a bone or killing me.You pay what? Better not tell SC, there is no such thing as road tax apparently.
Devils Advocate
says...
7:14pm Tue 5 Mar 13
stopmoaning1 wrote:Firstly,I think Chef-guss is referring to the fact that, like me, he both rides a bike and drives a car. So, a foot in both camps.
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:I don’t know if you own a car (though I will guess) but on the V5C form (registration document) the DVLA print the following warning “ If you decide not to tax or insure your vehicle, you must keep the vehicle off the public road and make a Statutory Off Road Notice.
Alekhine wrote:Correct, there isn't. 'Road tax' a myth which ignorant drivers cling onto in a desperate effort to infer some kind of 'right' over and above others to use roads.
chef-guss wrote:You pay what?
Im a keen cyclists, and also pay my road tax. Love the way people use these kind of storys to kick of at each other, why not wish her well and end of no one who's commented knows what has happed. I will say when im on my bike I stick by them rules of them road and also have ago at cyclists that break the law. With that I do now have a camra on my helmet to record some segments I ride and also use it on them road, I have no problem letting a driver know that he/she is to close to me ether, rather break somthing on there car (extreme case) than them breaking a bone or killing me.
Better not tell SC, there is no such thing as road tax apparently.
Note ‘not to tax’ ‘keep the vehicle off the public road’
I would also like to point out to Shoebury_cyclist that road tax is most definitely NOT a myth. Back in the days when Englishmen were mostly civil to each other, the correct term was "Road Fund Licence" and was, originally a payment toward the upkeep of our roads. Then the evil ones borrowed from the fund, decided they did not want to pay it back, so we then got the new name of "Vehicle Excise Licence" in simple terms, "Car tax" a tax on cars because they were an indication of wealth and in those days the wealthy were also taxed, instead of being able to miss out by evasion avoidance and "Off shore Companies"
Anyway, I think the lady concerned did have a serious injury, and have every sympathy with her. I hope she has a rapid recovery from this traumatic event.
I also posted what the experience of one of my family was when he was struck by a car, having fallen of his bike, in the hope that some of these stupid miscreants start learning to care for others, instead of being mindless idiots not fit to call themselves Englishmen.
chef-guss
says...
7:16pm Tue 5 Mar 13
Alekhine wrote:I do like the way people jumped onto my ''road tax'' wording
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:and i just could not have your fellow cyclist making the same mistake.
Alekhine wrote:Correct, there isn't. 'Road tax' a myth which ignorant drivers cling onto in a desperate effort to infer some kind of 'right' over and above others to use roads.chef-guss wrote: Im a keen cyclists, and also pay my road tax. Love the way people use these kind of storys to kick of at each other, why not wish her well and end of no one who's commented knows what has happed. I will say when im on my bike I stick by them rules of them road and also have ago at cyclists that break the law. With that I do now have a camra on my helmet to record some segments I ride and also use it on them road, I have no problem letting a driver know that he/she is to close to me ether, rather break somthing on there car (extreme case) than them breaking a bone or killing me.You pay what? Better not tell SC, there is no such thing as road tax apparently.
chef-guss
says...
7:19pm Tue 5 Mar 13
chef-guss wrote:And no I dont drive;-)
Alekhine wrote:I do like the way people jumped onto my ''road tax'' wording
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:and i just could not have your fellow cyclist making the same mistake.
Alekhine wrote:Correct, there isn't. 'Road tax' a myth which ignorant drivers cling onto in a desperate effort to infer some kind of 'right' over and above others to use roads.chef-guss wrote: Im a keen cyclists, and also pay my road tax. Love the way people use these kind of storys to kick of at each other, why not wish her well and end of no one who's commented knows what has happed. I will say when im on my bike I stick by them rules of them road and also have ago at cyclists that break the law. With that I do now have a camra on my helmet to record some segments I ride and also use it on them road, I have no problem letting a driver know that he/she is to close to me ether, rather break somthing on there car (extreme case) than them breaking a bone or killing me.You pay what? Better not tell SC, there is no such thing as road tax apparently.
Rochford Rob
says...
7:22pm Tue 5 Mar 13
Rachie
says...
7:50pm Tue 5 Mar 13
Kursaal76 wrote:Boring? Or sensible advice?
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:Yawn boring!
Hope Jane recovers from this horrible incident quickly.
This incident highlights the need for motorists to observe the correct safe passing distance when passing cyclists and other vulnerable road users. The safe passing distance is an absolute minimum of 1.5 metres.
Shoebury_Cyclist
says...
8:15pm Tue 5 Mar 13
Devils Advocate wrote:The 'Road Fund Licence' was abolished in 1937, seventy-five years ago. By none other than Winston Churchill.
stopmoaning1 wrote:Firstly,I think Chef-guss is referring to the fact that, like me, he both rides a bike and drives a car. So, a foot in both camps.
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:I don’t know if you own a car (though I will guess) but on the V5C form (registration document) the DVLA print the following warning “ If you decide not to tax or insure your vehicle, you must keep the vehicle off the public road and make a Statutory Off Road Notice.
Alekhine wrote:Correct, there isn't. 'Road tax' a myth which ignorant drivers cling onto in a desperate effort to infer some kind of 'right' over and above others to use roads.
chef-guss wrote:You pay what?
Im a keen cyclists, and also pay my road tax. Love the way people use these kind of storys to kick of at each other, why not wish her well and end of no one who's commented knows what has happed. I will say when im on my bike I stick by them rules of them road and also have ago at cyclists that break the law. With that I do now have a camra on my helmet to record some segments I ride and also use it on them road, I have no problem letting a driver know that he/she is to close to me ether, rather break somthing on there car (extreme case) than them breaking a bone or killing me.
Better not tell SC, there is no such thing as road tax apparently.
Note ‘not to tax’ ‘keep the vehicle off the public road’
I would also like to point out to Shoebury_cyclist that road tax is most definitely NOT a myth. Back in the days when Englishmen were mostly civil to each other, the correct term was "Road Fund Licence" and was, originally a payment toward the upkeep of our roads. Then the evil ones borrowed from the fund, decided they did not want to pay it back, so we then got the new name of "Vehicle Excise Licence" in simple terms, "Car tax" a tax on cars because they were an indication of wealth and in those days the wealthy were also taxed, instead of being able to miss out by evasion avoidance and "Off shore Companies"
Anyway, I think the lady concerned did have a serious injury, and have every sympathy with her. I hope she has a rapid recovery from this traumatic event.
I also posted what the experience of one of my family was when he was struck by a car, having fallen of his bike, in the hope that some of these stupid miscreants start learning to care for others, instead of being mindless idiots not fit to call themselves Englishmen.
http://ipayroadtax.c
om
Shoebury_Cyclist
says...
8:23pm Tue 5 Mar 13
stopmoaning1 wrote:I drive for a living, and yes, I own a car.
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:I don’t know if you own a car (though I will guess) but on the V5C form (registration document) the DVLA print the following warning “ If you decide not to tax or insure your vehicle, you must keep the vehicle off the public road and make a Statutory Off Road Notice.
Alekhine wrote:Correct, there isn't. 'Road tax' a myth which ignorant drivers cling onto in a desperate effort to infer some kind of 'right' over and above others to use roads.
chef-guss wrote:You pay what?
Im a keen cyclists, and also pay my road tax. Love the way people use these kind of storys to kick of at each other, why not wish her well and end of no one who's commented knows what has happed. I will say when im on my bike I stick by them rules of them road and also have ago at cyclists that break the law. With that I do now have a camra on my helmet to record some segments I ride and also use it on them road, I have no problem letting a driver know that he/she is to close to me ether, rather break somthing on there car (extreme case) than them breaking a bone or killing me.
Better not tell SC, there is no such thing as road tax apparently.
Note ‘not to tax’ ‘keep the vehicle off the public road’
It's not a road tax because it doesn't pay for roads.
What it really is is a tax on PUBLIC emissions. You can pollute the air around your home as much as you want. It becomes a problem when you want to pollute everyone else's homes and businesses. That's when the government gets involved, just as it did with smoking.
Motor vehicles are becoming obsolete. You can deny it or ignore it all you want, but the days when it made sense to use a 2-ton vehicle to transport a 200lb person are gone. Motorists are the modern equivalent of dinosaurs - and like the dinosaurs, their small brains work slowly, so they haven't yet caught onto the fact that they're extinct yet, so they keep driving even though it's a huge money sink and a public nuisance.
A hundred years from now, cars (if anyone drives them at all) will have evolved to be more like they were 100 years ago - 4-wheeled quadricycles with a small engine because, in a post-peak fossil fuel world, the power to run them will be so expensive that they will have to sacrifice weight and speed to get any reasonable use from them.
stopmoaning1
says...
10:50am Wed 6 Mar 13
I will therefore continue to do so, I’ll park my car wherever I like as long as it is in a legal or dedicated parking space, either on or off the road. I will also continue to drive with respect for all other road users, including horses and bikes even though my OWN view is that neither should be on the road.
Not all car drivers pass bikes and horses too closely, not all car drivers park illegally, not all cyclists take up an entire lane, not all cyclists think they own the road.
And not all cyclists automatically blame car drivers if they have an accident or hear through a third party that another cyclist has had an accident…………
……Except, of course on this site.
Sean4u
says...
11:14am Wed 6 Mar 13
A duty of excise (“vehicle excise duty”) shall be charged in respect of every mechanically propelled vehicle ...
http://www.legislati
on.gov.uk/ukpga/1994
/22/section/1
/*******************
******
* MECHANICALLY PROPELLED VEHICLE
********************
*****/
They are OUR roads, built with OUR money for ALL OF US to use, since before MECHANICALLY PROPELLED VEHICLES existed. Some of us pay a tax to use a MECHANICALLY PROPELLED VEHICLE on them. Those of us who do that present additional hazards to everyone else in terms of injury and death, noise-, air- and run-off pollution, also require additional policing due to enhanced capacity to break laws and also require extra space to operate and store such vehicles. It is right that a tax is levied on MECHANICALLY PROPELLED VEHICLES on OUR roads.
MECHANICALLY PROPELLED VEHICLES should not be on our public highway. You and I pay extra because the privilege the state grants us in allowing us to operate MECHANICALLY PROPELLED VEHICLES on our public highway is awarded at significant loss to the enjoyment of our public highway by everyone else.
If you don't want to pay VED to enjoy our public highway, don't keep or use a MECHANICALLY PROPELLED VEHICLE on it.
stopmoaning1
says...
11:20am Wed 6 Mar 13
Alekhine
says...
11:52am Wed 6 Mar 13
Sean4u
says...
12:13pm Wed 6 Mar 13
Alekhine wrote:Its honest name would be 'car tax'. The emissions incentive implemented through VED is a kludge and one which confuses people over the purpose of Vehicle Excise Duty. As much as I'd like to see the end of combustion engines / heavy vehicles on roads in built-up areas, I think the VED / 'road tax' exemptions for low CO2 emissions send out the wrong message. The same amount of incentive could easily have been hidden in the tax on fossil fuels - perhaps we would even have seen a few wood/coal-fired steamers returning to the roads!
Nobody knows what the future will bring in terms of alternative power. I can see a situation where so many cars are zero emission rated that there will be a serious tax shortfall. But I doubt anything will change, i am sure a new tax will be introduced to cover the use of a car on the road and it might even be given an honest name such as road tax.
People think the 'road tax' (a duty on mechanically propelled vehicles) is a right to use the road and capricious exemptions cause only frustration. On the other hand making it clear that it's a *car tax* - when cars are not essential - rather than a *road tax* - while roads are certainly essential - would probably cause rebellion. People are much readier to pay tax when they believe there's no alternative. Taxing a choice is like having your choices made for you.
Shoebury_Cyclist
says...
12:37pm Wed 6 Mar 13
Sean4u wrote:VED/car tax is a lifestyle tax - in that it is entirely avoidable the same as tobacco or alcohol duty.
Alekhine wrote:Its honest name would be 'car tax'. The emissions incentive implemented through VED is a kludge and one which confuses people over the purpose of Vehicle Excise Duty. As much as I'd like to see the end of combustion engines / heavy vehicles on roads in built-up areas, I think the VED / 'road tax' exemptions for low CO2 emissions send out the wrong message. The same amount of incentive could easily have been hidden in the tax on fossil fuels - perhaps we would even have seen a few wood/coal-fired steamers returning to the roads!
Nobody knows what the future will bring in terms of alternative power. I can see a situation where so many cars are zero emission rated that there will be a serious tax shortfall. But I doubt anything will change, i am sure a new tax will be introduced to cover the use of a car on the road and it might even be given an honest name such as road tax.
People think the 'road tax' (a duty on mechanically propelled vehicles) is a right to use the road and capricious exemptions cause only frustration. On the other hand making it clear that it's a *car tax* - when cars are not essential - rather than a *road tax* - while roads are certainly essential - would probably cause rebellion. People are much readier to pay tax when they believe there's no alternative. Taxing a choice is like having your choices made for you.
If people don't want to pay car tax/VED they don't have to, they can buy a zero or very low emission vehicle, they can walk, they can cycle, they can use public transport.
People getting angry about VED and directing that anger at those who have taken the steps not have to pay it are missing the point: they too could choose to cycle, drive a more efficient vehicle, take the bus or train, or walk. They are not excluded from the choice.
Their arguments are as daft as would be smokers having a go at non-smokers because they have to pay tobacco duty and the non-smokers don't.
Alekhine
says...
1:10pm Wed 6 Mar 13
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:I don't see anybody getting angry at non VED payers. What winds me up is the basic dishonesty of the tax system. If you want to stop smoking you don't tax lighters, if you want to stop drinking you don't tax bottles. If you want to stop pollution you don't tax cars - you tax petrol.
Sean4u wrote:VED/car tax is a lifestyle tax - in that it is entirely avoidable the same as tobacco or alcohol duty. If people don't want to pay car tax/VED they don't have to, they can buy a zero or very low emission vehicle, they can walk, they can cycle, they can use public transport. People getting angry about VED and directing that anger at those who have taken the steps not have to pay it are missing the point: they too could choose to cycle, drive a more efficient vehicle, take the bus or train, or walk. They are not excluded from the choice. Their arguments are as daft as would be smokers having a go at non-smokers because they have to pay tobacco duty and the non-smokers don't.Alekhine wrote: Nobody knows what the future will bring in terms of alternative power. I can see a situation where so many cars are zero emission rated that there will be a serious tax shortfall. But I doubt anything will change, i am sure a new tax will be introduced to cover the use of a car on the road and it might even be given an honest name such as road tax.Its honest name would be 'car tax'. The emissions incentive implemented through VED is a kludge and one which confuses people over the purpose of Vehicle Excise Duty. As much as I'd like to see the end of combustion engines / heavy vehicles on roads in built-up areas, I think the VED / 'road tax' exemptions for low CO2 emissions send out the wrong message. The same amount of incentive could easily have been hidden in the tax on fossil fuels - perhaps we would even have seen a few wood/coal-fired steamers returning to the roads! People think the 'road tax' (a duty on mechanically propelled vehicles) is a right to use the road and capricious exemptions cause only frustration. On the other hand making it clear that it's a *car tax* - when cars are not essential - rather than a *road tax* - while roads are certainly essential - would probably cause rebellion. People are much readier to pay tax when they believe there's no alternative. Taxing a choice is like having your choices made for you.
As you have said above, this is a lifestyle tax and that lifestyle is the use of a car / van / lorry on the road. Lets not forget that this lifestyle is vital to the economy and that you were having a go about companies not paying living wages a few days ago.
Shoebury_Cyclist
says...
1:29pm Wed 6 Mar 13
Alekhine wrote:You're right to stop smoking tobacco products are taxed.
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:I don't see anybody getting angry at non VED payers. What winds me up is the basic dishonesty of the tax system. If you want to stop smoking you don't tax lighters, if you want to stop drinking you don't tax bottles. If you want to stop pollution you don't tax cars - you tax petrol.
Sean4u wrote:VED/car tax is a lifestyle tax - in that it is entirely avoidable the same as tobacco or alcohol duty. If people don't want to pay car tax/VED they don't have to, they can buy a zero or very low emission vehicle, they can walk, they can cycle, they can use public transport. People getting angry about VED and directing that anger at those who have taken the steps not have to pay it are missing the point: they too could choose to cycle, drive a more efficient vehicle, take the bus or train, or walk. They are not excluded from the choice. Their arguments are as daft as would be smokers having a go at non-smokers because they have to pay tobacco duty and the non-smokers don't.Alekhine wrote: Nobody knows what the future will bring in terms of alternative power. I can see a situation where so many cars are zero emission rated that there will be a serious tax shortfall. But I doubt anything will change, i am sure a new tax will be introduced to cover the use of a car on the road and it might even be given an honest name such as road tax.Its honest name would be 'car tax'. The emissions incentive implemented through VED is a kludge and one which confuses people over the purpose of Vehicle Excise Duty. As much as I'd like to see the end of combustion engines / heavy vehicles on roads in built-up areas, I think the VED / 'road tax' exemptions for low CO2 emissions send out the wrong message. The same amount of incentive could easily have been hidden in the tax on fossil fuels - perhaps we would even have seen a few wood/coal-fired steamers returning to the roads! People think the 'road tax' (a duty on mechanically propelled vehicles) is a right to use the road and capricious exemptions cause only frustration. On the other hand making it clear that it's a *car tax* - when cars are not essential - rather than a *road tax* - while roads are certainly essential - would probably cause rebellion. People are much readier to pay tax when they believe there's no alternative. Taxing a choice is like having your choices made for you.
As you have said above, this is a lifestyle tax and that lifestyle is the use of a car / van / lorry on the road. Lets not forget that this lifestyle is vital to the economy and that you were having a go about companies not paying living wages a few days ago.
Likewise to reduce pollution polluting products are taxed. Hence VED does stop pollution, because it taxes pollution.
The more a vehicle pollutes - measured by CO2 g/km - the higher the cost of the VED.
So a Band M vehicle polluting at 255g/km CO2 or more will cost £425 per year VED and a Band A vehicle polluting at 0 to 95g/km CO2 will cost £0.00 per year VED.
VED is avoidable. If people choose not to avoid it that isn't my problem, and neither is it my fault.
stopmoaning1
says...
2:15pm Wed 6 Mar 13
This is a competition to see how far off topic we can go, right?
Eric the Red
says...
2:58pm Wed 6 Mar 13
stopmoaning1 wrote:The most sensible post so far! EVERY time there is a news article regarding cycling, the comments degenerate into the same old slanging match. Let's all get on, OK?
One of my local shops was three minutes late opening its doors a couple of weeks ago.
This is a competition to see how far off topic we can go, right?
Carnabackable
says...
4:17pm Wed 6 Mar 13
Alekhine
says...
4:40pm Wed 6 Mar 13
--
VED treats a car that does 1000 miles a year the same as an identical car that does 30,000 miles a year therefore this tax is not connected to pollution at all.
Cars are not polluting products, petrol is.
Shoebury_Cyclist
says...
4:59pm Wed 6 Mar 13
Alekhine wrote:Petrol doesn't pollute at all until it is burned in an internal combustion engine.
Likewise to reduce pollution polluting products are taxed. Hence VED does stop pollution, because it taxes pollution.
--
VED treats a car that does 1000 miles a year the same as an identical car that does 30,000 miles a year therefore this tax is not connected to pollution at all.
Cars are not polluting products, petrol is.
Alekhine
says...
5:19pm Wed 6 Mar 13
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:An internal combustion engine does not need 4 wheels.
Alekhine wrote: Likewise to reduce pollution polluting products are taxed. Hence VED does stop pollution, because it taxes pollution. -- VED treats a car that does 1000 miles a year the same as an identical car that does 30,000 miles a year therefore this tax is not connected to pollution at all. Cars are not polluting products, petrol is.Petrol doesn't pollute at all until it is burned in an internal combustion engine.
stopmoaning1
says...
5:35pm Wed 6 Mar 13
Thunder64
says...
12:54pm Thu 7 Mar 13
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:Really, what’s that smell then when you fill up then, oh yes petrol vapour, the fumes of which are more damaging than what comes out of the tailpipe.
Alekhine wrote: Likewise to reduce pollution polluting products are taxed. Hence VED does stop pollution, because it taxes pollution. -- VED treats a car that does 1000 miles a year the same as an identical car that does 30,000 miles a year therefore this tax is not connected to pollution at all. Cars are not polluting products, petrol is.Petrol doesn't pollute at all until it is burned in an internal combustion engine.
Sorry a petrol car pollutes while parked overnight on your driveway through evaporative emmisions.
stopmoaning1
says...
1:38pm Thu 7 Mar 13
Thunder64 wrote:I think if you spilt petrol on something, whatever it was would probably be considered to be polluted.
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:Really, what’s that smell then when you fill up then, oh yes petrol vapour, the fumes of which are more damaging than what comes out of the tailpipe.
Alekhine wrote: Likewise to reduce pollution polluting products are taxed. Hence VED does stop pollution, because it taxes pollution. -- VED treats a car that does 1000 miles a year the same as an identical car that does 30,000 miles a year therefore this tax is not connected to pollution at all. Cars are not polluting products, petrol is.Petrol doesn't pollute at all until it is burned in an internal combustion engine.
Sorry a petrol car pollutes while parked overnight on your driveway through evaporative emmisions.
Devils Advocate
says...
1:48pm Thu 7 Mar 13
Only a slight :( carcinogenic problem
Garildo
says...
3:07pm Thu 7 Mar 13
Red Under Your Bed
says...
3:35pm Thu 7 Mar 13
Devils Advocate wrote:Its carbon dioxide.
They have changed it then. I thought the tax was now dependent on the engine's emissions of greenhouse gases. Hence a vehicle with a high weight of Carbon Monoxide in its exhaust pays more than a vehicle with lower CO. hence the reason that some of the small cars with high MPG, fitted with diesel engines, pay no tax at all. And as you all know on here, diesel has no CO emission.
Only a slight :( carcinogenic problem
stopmoaning1
says...
3:43pm Thu 7 Mar 13
Garildo
says...
3:49pm Thu 7 Mar 13
stopmoaning1 wrote:Ahhh was that what this story was about?
Cyclist suffers serious injuries in hit-and-run
I was enjoying my sandwich too much to notice. If it was a hot sandwich would I have to pay pasty tax? Oh sorry, that hasnt got anything to do with the cyclist either. But still.........
Rochford Rob
says...
4:50pm Thu 7 Mar 13
Therefore, two owners of identitcal vehicles pay the same amount of duty because they 'pollute'
One does 1,000 miles a year and the other 100,000. How does that work then?
And why do you need a SORN notice? It's off the road and going no where.
MMGW - more nonsense for the gullible and yet another opportunity for 'green' taxes. WAFLOOB.
Shoebury_Cyclist
says...
6:27pm Fri 8 Mar 13
Rochford Rob wrote:Hahaha! To spout such ignorant and uninformed rubbish you have to be a UKIP voter.
All the rubbish being spouted by the gullible about taxation and pollution. If it were pollution being taxed they'd whack the duty on fuel (but since they are doing that to death already there'd be uproar.)
Therefore, two owners of identitcal vehicles pay the same amount of duty because they 'pollute'
One does 1,000 miles a year and the other 100,000. How does that work then?
And why do you need a SORN notice? It's off the road and going no where.
MMGW - more nonsense for the gullible and yet another opportunity for 'green' taxes. WAFLOOB.
Shoebury_Cyclist says...
7:36am Mon 4 Mar 13
This incident highlights the need for motorists to observe the correct safe passing distance when passing cyclists and other vulnerable road users. The safe passing distance is an absolute minimum of 1.5 metres.