Bluemarlin

I think you're getting a little carried away here and so are missing my point. I'm not defending law breaking, and am merely pointing out that this particular law isn't necessarily practical. So much so that some cities allow cyclists to run red lights, in the way that cars can on right turns in the US. I also think that cars should be allowed to use empty bus lanes, as that is more efficient too. There should be cameras instead, that only penalise a driver if he obstructs a bus. So no, I'm not saying just ignore them, and was just surprised at such an outcry over something that largely does more good than harm.

I'm not saying it isn't the law, nor am I saying that a cyclist shouldn't be punished for running a red light if caught. I'm simply saying that for the most part it helps the flow of traffic, by getting cyclists out of the way of motorists when lights change. I get what you're saying about how it might anger some motorists, but I'm talking from a logical/practical point of view, and not some snowflakey, feelings over facts perspective.

Yes Linas, rules are rules but, as the saying goes, "rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men" 😀 All road users do dangerous things, and some cyclists can be positively suicidal, but that doesn't detract from the fact that cylists jumping red lights can be safer, and quicker for motorists, as long as it's done with due care and attention. Nor is it riduculous to suggest it's an anger issue, as you sound pretty angry about it 😉

As a cyclist I tend not to jump red lights. However, as a motorist, I prefer that cyclists do. I much prefer it when cyclists clear the lights (if safe to do so), rather than have to wait for them to wobble their way to stability before I can proceed. I cannot understand why that would annoy you Linas, especially in central London, as it makes things much quicker and easier for motorists waiting at the lights. Nor is it dangerous, as long as the cyclist checks it's clear. In fact it's no more dangerous than a "give way" sign. Trials have been done in some cities that show it can be safer to allow cyclists to proceed at a red light, once ensuring it's safe to do so, and in Paris I believe it's now allowed. Drivers sounding their horn at this aren't doing so to alert anyone to danger, they're doing it because they get wound up and have anger issues. They should just chill out and worry about their own behaviour instead of that of others. If they calmed down long enough to apply any logic and commom sense, they'd realise they were better off with the cyclists getting out of the way before the lights changed.

Indeed I did misinterpret, I wrongly assumed it was a dashcam.

No worries Phil. Low earners buy food, clothing, petrol etc. That said, I'm not disgreeing with much of that, and am only curious as to why you think the problem is only at one end of the spectrum. There are two sides to most things; take equal benefits for part time workers as an example. You describe this as a burden to companies, but equally a lack of it can be seen as a burden to part timers, as well as an incentive to reduce the number of full time workers to avoid providing full time benefits. It may also disincentivise people from taking such work, thus pushing them towards state benefits. Tax payers money is also used to give businesses grants, bail out banks, and subsidise failing businesses. Some of this isn't fair, or money well spent, either. When people suggest that big businesses should pay a greater share of the tax burden, it's claimed that it might disincentivise them from growth and employing people. That may be true, but the fact that some people choose to claim benefits over working might be because they're disincentivised by the pay and conditions on offer. It therefore seems somewhat one sided to feel that those with the money and power should be provided with carrots in order to contribute fairly, whilst those without should be given the stick. As I said previously, some level of welfare is necessary in a functioning economy. If it becomes excessive then that represents a failure of the market to either provide or incentivise sufficient employment.

I didn't say the 42% number isn't real Phil, just that it doesn't mean that 42% are a burden, which was the claim. £12.5k is not below minimum wage for a part time worker, so I'm not sure what you mean about low earners paying no other taxes as, regardless of income, they pay vat and duties on many/most things they buy. Not everyone claims benefits, or all that they're allowed to. However yes, welfare expenditure is a burden on the economy, but no more so than healthcare, policing, defence, infrastructure etc. The fact is that we have chosen a society that collects taxes to provide for all these things, and the basic principles are unlikely to be changed by any government. For the most part it's a good thing, but the mechanics of the system are such that people will find ways to exploit it for their own benefit. At the bottom end that means some people might claim benefits unfairly, and at the top end people and businesses may avoid paying taxes unfairly. Both may be acting legally, but both are an unwelcome burden. Mostly though, rich or poor, people try to play the hand they've been dealt fairly. My main point being that the poorest members of society aren't the villains here, as was being implied, any more than corporations are, as others have implied. The system is flawed, but clearly not enough for governments to do anything about it. In fact it's worth noting that welfare expenditure is a deliberate part of the economic system we operate, which requires a certain amount of unemployment in order to function efficiently.

I can't say how many choose to live on benefits rather than work, but I agree that people should be encouraged to work rather than receive benefits. You're also right that at certain levels it makes better financial sense for some not to work That's a flaw in the system though, and thus the poor man's version of tax avoidance, legal but not ideal.

That would be an assumption at best, and a wildly inaccurate one at worst, Linas. Big numbers look great when trying to make a point, but the point doesn't always stand once you look a little closer at those numbers. The fact that 42% pay no income tax doesn't automatically mean that they're a burden and don't contribute. All it means is that 42% of the population earn less than £12.5k a year. They also contribute by paying taxes on the goods and services they buy. To be honest though, the shocking part isn't that 42% are thought to be getting away with something unfairly, but that 42% of the population are living on less than £12.5k a year. Additionally, only a small percentage are unemployed and on the dole, as that 42% percent includes stay at home parents, carers, retirees, and part time workers, as well as the husbands, wives, partners, adult children of business owners, who are "employed" at just below the tax threshold. Yes, working is always a better option than being on the dole, but that doesn't account for why 42% don't pay income tax, and doesn't mean that 42% of people are a burden.

There was nothing wrong with it LInas, he and I both did the right thing. Read the whole post through a filter of sarcasm.😀

A very strange thing happened to me today. I decided to give the car a rest and went out by bike. I was travelling along a main road, in a cycle lane, with a junction ahead. As I approached the junction a car began to come alongside, indicating left. On seeing me, and the proximity of the junction, he slowed, pretty much to a stop as I carried on, and then he made his turn behind me. So far so good I thought. However, the car behind him wasn't playing ball with the rules at all. According to the experts, he should have rear ended the car in front; but instead, with almost superhuman levels of foresight, he chose to travel far enough behind, and at an appropriate speed, to miraculously avoid a collision. Whether pure luck, or some kind of psychic ability, this is clearly outside the spirit of the new rules.😉

I believe they are Phil. I don't think they're happy about having to yield to pedetrians either.😀 So unlike the media to try and stir things up by only giving half the story.

I'm not sure that's entirely true Phil, and possibly a case of the press presenting only one side of the picture in order to wind people up, as that is just the rule for motorists. Having read a little more, there's also a corresponding rule for cyclists, which requires they do just as you suggest: Rule 74 "Turning. When approaching a junction on the left, watch out for vehicles turning in front of you, out of or into the side road. If you intend to turn left, check first for other cyclists or motorcyclists before signalling. Do not ride on the inside of vehicles signalling or slowing down to turn left." So it seems that cyclists don't have an automatic right of way, and are required to not just plow on ahead if it's apparent a driver is about to turn. When reading both sides, I now understand it to mean that, when approaching a junction, a vehicle should not overtake/cut across a bicycle in order to turn left, and a bicycle should remain behind a vehicle appearing to turn left. In other words, giving right of way to whoever happens to be in front on the approach to a junction. So, in its full context, it seems to make sense.

Totally agree Linas. It should be about right vs wrong, not left vs right.

There aren't any true conservatives Phil, at least not in a real world sense, don't think there ever have been. Take the US for example, who are further to the right than us. They largely don't get involved in the lives of the poor, they think single payer healthcare is borderline communism, and believe people should sink or swim based on their own effort and abilties. That may sound like conservatism, but it's only practised in one direction. For the average American, the biggest cause (65%) of personal bankrupcy is healthcare costs. So they, along with other individuals who fail, get to sink. After all, it's not the fault of the wealthy that they got sick or failed, and governments shouldn't interfere in free markets. On the other hand, how many CEO's of banks or large corporations who fail say ""Hey, we got it wrong, guess it's off to the poor house for us." Suddenly the love of small government conservatism disappears, as ordinary people's tax dollars are demanded to bail them out. They fail, and yet continue to pay themselves huge bonuses, with other people's money. So, there are no true conservatives. At best there are those who want conservatism whilstever it works for them, and socialism if and when they fail, and those with enough money and power get it. That said, I'm not especially opposed to the priciples of conservatism and free markets, as long as it's even handed, and I've yet to see that.

The figure was from the commons library Phil, here's the quote: "HM Revenue & Customs publishes annual estimates of the tax gap, the difference between tax that is collected and that which is ‘theoretically due’. In September 2021 HMRC published revised estimates, which put the tax gap at £35 billion for 2019/20, representing 5.3% of total tax liabilities." My point wasn't to try and claim that certain multi nationals were doing anything illegal. However, the context of the conversation was about who (eg cyclists) "should" pay more tax, and I was merely saying that if more taxation was necessary then I'd sooner see that come first from areas where it is morally/ethically considered to be due (even if legally not) before taking it off everyday folk. There's also a subtle difference between my tax free allowance and tax avoidance. The former is something I've been explicitly told I can do, whereas the latter is taking advantage of things I haven't been told I can't do. Bit like a sign that says don't walk on the grass, and so you run instead, thus following the letter of the law, but not the spirit. 😉 I accept that the rights/wrongs, pros and cons of taxation, loopholes, avoidance etc are another story that would take forever to debate, and so am just clarifying what I meant in my post.

I 100% agree Maurice. But two wrongs don't make a right, and so just because motorists are unfairly/double taxed, doesn't mean I think it's fair or appropriate to start spreading the unfairness around. Linas makes a good point about tribalism, and how governments use it to split the majority and play them off against each other. While motorists and cyclists squabble over who should pax tax, and how much, the country loses around £35bn a year in tax avoidance and fraud. Almost as much as they collect in road tax. So, the average citizens bicker amongst themselves over a few hundred quid here and there, while the likes of Google, Amazon, Facebook, and their multi billionaire owners, dodge billions in taxes. Personally, I'd be open to the idea of additional taxes, if really necessary, but only once we've collected what we should be already entitled to.

I agree Phil. There are many things I think that might be appropriate to apply to cyclists, such as third party insurance, speed limits and having to stick to cycle lanes, but taxation isn't one of them. It's no more appropriate than taxing pedestrians for the increasing number of pedestrianised zones. Besides, a cycle tax would be a double taxation, as cyclists are first and foremost citizens, and already pay for roads through council and income tax, and often road tax too, as many are car owners. It would be like additionally taxing people for other things they've already paid for, like schools, parks, libraries, hospitals etc. Enough with the taxes already!

The Highway Code quotes the road traffic act definition of a road as being "‘any highway and any other road to which the public has access and includes bridges over which a road passes". As such, pedestrains are road users too. Would you tax them as well, so that they're not getting away with not paying anything for the privilege? Maybe tax shoes at the point of purchase? You could even charge for an annual inspection, to ensure they had the required tread depth in order to be safe on the pavement. An additional tax on baked beans perhaps, so that those with higher emissions were taxed accordingly. The opportunities are endless. As for bicycle tax, that would only result in an increase in taxes for many/most car drivers as, if road tax was simply based on using a road, then all cars would have to pay the same, regardless of emissions. Roads are infrastructure which, as has been previously pointed out, everyone benefits from and pay taxes towards. The fact that motorists may be unfairly taxed is simply because governments can, and is no justification to levy unfair taxes elsewhere.

Do a search for "RX400h Ever see this before". There's a thread on the US forum about this, which has a picture of the corroded area, and opinions as to its severity.

I find myself hurrying up if a car appears as I'm crossing, not because I feel I'm wrong, but out of a sense of courtesy. I even walk a little quicker than normal on a zebra crossing, for the same reason. Nothing annoys me more than when I stop at a crossing and the person waiting to cross dawdles across, playing with their phone. It's just plain bad manners.

For me it was initially the better spec of the newer/hybrid version over the previous models, I had no real preference either way. That and I wanted an SUV in my price range that was cheap on road tax and ULEZ compliant. I did have concerns about hybrids, but the availabiility of a 15 year warranty on the battery, and the option of an extended warranty to 15 years for the car, put my mind at rest. Things like no starter motor, alternator, fewer belts etc were bonuses too. I guess there are pros and cons to both, as well as personal preferences, but in the end I'm happy with my switch to a hybrid.

Thanks, I've got three years to go, so I'll guess I'll cross that bridge when I get to it.

Thank you both. While we're on the subject of interpreting warranty terms, here's another question. The 10 year plus extended warranty states that an eligibile vehicle is "A Lexus vehicle 15 years old and 150k miles from date of first registration". So, does that mean the warranty can be extended in the last days of its 15th year, thus extending the warranty for its 16th year?

I did John. My question was prompted by the fact that my car has had a couple of years of doing 30k or so, thus running out of battery warranty in those years. However it subsequently still gets a hybrid health check and renewed 1yr/10k warranty. Granted it's under 150k total though. It would be interesting to hear from anyone whose car is under 15 years old and over 150k miles, as to whether they still get the hybrid health check and extended 1yr battery warranty.