'Organised' cycle racing on the roads ...

[zakelwe]

Balmoral Green said:

carbonjunkie said:

Balmoral Green, you wanted to know why cyclists think some drivers are selfish? see above.

The best bit is, there is no such thing as road tax, it was scrapped in 1961. VED has nothing to do with the roads. The roads are the responsibility of the local authority and are paid for by the Council tax.

So if you have a bike, and pay Council tax, the road is yours. If you have a car, but don't pay Council tax, then get off the cyclists road!

OK I'll call it a vehicle tax instead, sorry for my old fashioned ways! Is a bicycle a vehicle?

As for councils, if only bicycles used for a hobby were the only reason for paying for roads pray tell me how quickly they would stop paying for them in the current economic climate?? I'll tell you, RIGHT NOW.

Lets face it, you are using something not designed for you to do your hobby. It's like me using the local playing fields to do kite buggying for free because "it is there" even though it isn't meant for me. Of course I try not and upset the proper users, something it seems the bicyclists have forgotten it seems.


Regards

Andy

[Balmoral Green]

Parrot of Doom said:

cyclists don't need a licence to use the roads, having an inherent right to do so. Which isn't the case for motorists

I think the same thing applies to pedestrians too.

Can we do pedestrians 'v' cyclists next?

[Parrot of Doom]

Don't forget horses....

[interloper]

I hate to point this out I (like a fair few other people) have used my bike for commuting and my car for blasting around country lanes enjoying myself. How dare I have fun on roads, when they are only there to get you to and from a place of work!

[Parrot of Doom]

zakelwe said:

OK I'll call it a vehicle tax instead, sorry for my old fashioned ways! Is a bicycle a vehicle?

It isn't a mechanically propelled vehicle, no, so it doesn't require taxation. In any effect, cyclists have an inherent right to use the roads, motorists do not.

zakelwe said:

Lets face it, you are using something not designed for you to do your hobby. It's like me using the local playing fields to do kite buggying for free because "it is there" even though it isn't meant for me. Of course I try not and upset the proper users, something it seems the bicyclists have forgotten it seems.

Oh dear. Most major roads started life as turnpike roads owned by trusts, used primarily for the transport of goods, and public transport (in the form of horse-drawn carriages). Pedestrians didn't have to pay.

Which means that on the whole, just about any time you drive your car on an A-road means you're using the road for a different purpose than that originally envisioned. Oh, and by the way - the motorway network was built primarily for the convenience of freight, so you can't really lay claim to that either.

[zakelwe]

Parrot of Doom said:

Oh dear. Most major roads started life as turnpike roads owned by trusts, used primarily for the transport of goods, and public transport (in the form of horse-drawn carriages). Pedestrians didn't have to pay.

Most roads were created since then and nothing to do with turnpikes. Most roads have been created since the car, van and lorry was the primary road transport. Let's talk about those.

As I said, most of the roads in Britain today were built for cars, lorry's and vans. So you do your hobby on those. They are not resurfaced for bicycles nor are they kept in good repair for bicycles. You use them as a free resource to do your hobby on rather than paying for a dedicated racing venue. If only bicycles used roads they would not be considered worthy of keeping and would be decommissioned like a lot of the rail network was.


Regards

Andy

Edited by zakelwe on Saturday 28th March 13:29

[carbonjunkie]

zakelwe said:

Parrot of Doom said:

Oh dear. Most major roads started life as turnpike roads owned by trusts, used primarily for the transport of goods, and public transport (in the form of horse-drawn carriages). Pedestrians didn't have to pay.

Most roads were created since then and nothing to do with turnpikes. Most roads have been created since the car, van and lorry was the primary road transport. Let's talk about those.

As I said, most of the roads in Britain today were built for cars, lorry's and vans. So you do your hobby on those. They are not resurfaced for bicycles nor are they kept in good repair for bicycles. You use them as a free resource to do your hobby on rather than paying for a dedicated racing venue. If only bicycles used roads they would not be considered worthy of keeping and would be decommissioned like a lot of the rail network was.


Regards

Andy

Edited by zakelwe on Saturday 28th March 13:29

Nonsense, they aren't free at all. I pay for them with my council tax.

Edit - you're also talking bks about the road network. this map was made in 1844, before the advent of the car...

http://www.old-maps.com/ma/ma_CoWorc_Worc_1844Bord...

Edited by carbonjunkie on Saturday 28th March 13:34

[zakelwe]

carbonjunkie said:

zakelwe said:

Parrot of Doom said:

Oh dear. Most major roads started life as turnpike roads owned by trusts, used primarily for the transport of goods, and public transport (in the form of horse-drawn carriages). Pedestrians didn't have to pay.

Most roads were created since then and nothing to do with turnpikes. Most roads have been created since the car, van and lorry was the primary road transport. Let's talk about those.

As I said, most of the roads in Britain today were built for cars, lorry's and vans. So you do your hobby on those. They are not resurfaced for bicycles nor are they kept in good repair for bicycles. You use them as a free resource to do your hobby on rather than paying for a dedicated racing venue. If only bicycles used roads they would not be considered worthy of keeping and would be decommissioned like a lot of the rail network was.


Regards

Andy

Edited by zakelwe on Saturday 28th March 13:29

Nonsense, they aren't free at all. I pay for them with my council tax.

You miss the point, your council does not pay for them to be used for your hobby as I mentioned above, I ( and you!) pay for them to get me to work and goods to be moved. Like I said, if it was just for your hobby then the councils would be scrapping that before you could say "lets put our money in an Icelandic bank".

Regards

Andy

Edited by zakelwe on Saturday 28th March 13:41

[interloper]

zakelwe said:

If only bicycles used roads they would not be considered worthy of keeping and would be decommissioned like a lot of the rail network was.


Regards

Andy

In that case can explain the miles of empty bus lanes and cycle paths that are unloved often empty. By your reckoning this stuff should all have been decommissioned yet they are still there.

[carbonjunkie]

zakelwe said:

carbonjunkie said:

zakelwe said:

Parrot of Doom said:

Oh dear. Most major roads started life as turnpike roads owned by trusts, used primarily for the transport of goods, and public transport (in the form of horse-drawn carriages). Pedestrians didn't have to pay.

Most roads were created since then and nothing to do with turnpikes. Most roads have been created since the car, van and lorry was the primary road transport. Let's talk about those.

As I said, most of the roads in Britain today were built for cars, lorry's and vans. So you do your hobby on those. They are not resurfaced for bicycles nor are they kept in good repair for bicycles. You use them as a free resource to do your hobby on rather than paying for a dedicated racing venue. If only bicycles used roads they would not be considered worthy of keeping and would be decommissioned like a lot of the rail network was.


Regards

Andy

Edited by zakelwe on Saturday 28th March 13:29

Nonsense, they aren't free at all. I pay for them with my council tax.

You miss the point, you council does not pay for them to be used for your hobby as I mentioned above, I ( and you!) pay for them to get me to work and goods to be moved. Like I said, if it was just for your hobby then the councils would be scrapping that before you could say "lets put our money in an Icelandic bank".

Regards

Andy

I pay for them. I am entitled to use them for all the purposes that i do. Your argument is about as strong as a Bulgarian pensioner.

are you seriously saying that despite claiming to be a keen mountain biker you have never ridden on the road? if so, you're lying about something.

[zakelwe]

interloper said:

zakelwe said:

If only bicycles used roads they would not be considered worthy of keeping and would be decommissioned like a lot of the rail network was.


Regards

Andy

In that case can explain the miles of empty bus lanes and cycle paths that are unloved often empty. By your reckoning this stuff should all have been decommissioned yet they are still there.

Because it costs more to remove them than let them go to seed ( decommisioning does not mean removal unless it is the cheapest option). You say they are unloved, probably they are spending most of their money on paths and pavements and trying to avoild paying out on being sued by people who have tripped up. As well as the normal roads. I expect this to get worse actually considering how tight their budgets are and the rate capping that is going on soon. Which is a shame as I use cycle paths as I mentioned before.

Regards

Andy

[zakelwe]

carbonjunkie said:

I pay for them. I am entitled to use them for all the purposes that i do. Your argument is about as strong as a Bulgarian pensioner.

are you seriously saying that despite claiming to be a keen mountain biker you have never ridden on the road? if so, you're lying about something.

Yes but you are being heavily subsidised by car drivers. If it was only cyclcists, as I keep saying, your community would vote someone in who would not pay for them and they would have reduced council tax and you would be stuck. It would be seen as a waste of money just to give someone a nice hobby.

I'm not a keen mountain biker, I'm a trail path rider along with my family. I do ride on the road sometimes though and always move over to the side when a car passes. If I caused a tailback I would stop and let it pass as per the highway code. I would not ride two or more abreast not being able to hear because my ipod was playing though.


Regards

Andy

[zakelwe]

I'm off to the off licence now. My fingers are tired!



I think I'll drive. If I went on my bike I'd probably get knocked off knowing my luck and then have to eat all my words and have to have a go at inconsiderate car drivers cooped up in their tin boxes oblivious to the outside world.

Regards
Andy

[Parrot of Doom]

zakelwe said:

Parrot of Doom said:

Oh dear. Most major roads started life as turnpike roads owned by trusts, used primarily for the transport of goods, and public transport (in the form of horse-drawn carriages). Pedestrians didn't have to pay.

Most roads were created since then and nothing to do with turnpikes. Most roads have been created since the car, van and lorry was the primary road transport. Let's talk about those.

As I said, most of the roads in Britain today were built for cars, lorry's and vans. So you do your hobby on those. They are not resurfaced for bicycles nor are they kept in good repair for bicycles. You use them as a free resource to do your hobby on rather than paying for a dedicated racing venue. If only bicycles used roads they would not be considered worthy of keeping and would be decommissioned like a lot of the rail network was.


Regards

Andy

Edited by zakelwe on Saturday 28th March 13:29

Er no you're wrong. Most major A-roads into towns and cities were formerly owned by turnpike trusts, and when disturnpiked (usually in the late 19th century) were transferred to the control of municipal councils who would then pay for their upkeep from general taxation.

Secondly, I pay for the roads in my council tax payments so they most certainly are not free, and your last point about only bicycles using the roads is irrelevant.

[Parrot of Doom]

zakelwe said:

Yes but you are being heavily subsidised by car drivers. If it was only cyclcists, as I keep saying, your community would vote someone in who would not pay for them and they would have reduced council tax and you would be stuck. It would be seen as a waste of money just to give someone a nice hobby.

I'm not a keen mountain biker, I'm a trail path rider along with my family. I do ride on the road sometimes though and always move over to the side when a car passes. If I caused a tailback I would stop and let it pass as per the highway code. I would not ride two or more abreast not being able to hear because my ipod was playing though.


Regards

Andy

Cyclists don't need subsidising by car drivers. If roads were built purely for cyclists, they'd be a third as wide as they are now, traffic lights would be irrelevant, only the minimum of paint and signage would be required, and the road surface would be much thinner than it is now as cyclists weigh but a fraction the weight of a car. All that would be perfectly affordable through council tax payments.

[Poledriver]

23 pages and still going strong wrong!
Why shouldn't cyclists pay tax to use the roads? The argument that most of them pay road tax on their cars doesn't hold, I've got 3 cars and have to tax them all, but can only use one at a time! And the argument that cyclists don't need to be licenced so shouldn't pay tax is stupid, maybe it would be a lot better if they did have to pass a test and gain a licence, they could then preach about road use and safety!

[Alfanatic]

Is this thread stuck on Groundhog Day...?

[heebeegeetee]

Diderot said:

heebeegeetee said:

Alfanatic said:

Others have expressed an alternative view that the race should be either banned outright or banned in principle, because either a) they have / might slow someone in a car down, b) they are perceived as unsafe, or c) apparently noone else is allowed to race on the road. Most of the argument on the thread has been centred around the alternative view.

People should be aware that motorsport is allowed to take place on the road, and bloody good fun it is too. I ain't saying no more though 'cos they'll be looking to ban it. And if the cycling safety rate ever gets within say, 1% of the cars casualty rate, shall we start discussing safety then but not before?

People moan because this country goes shopping en masse on a Sunday, they moan because people watch too much tv, they moan because people are too fat, they moan because people are too lazy, but the moment they find a group of people doing none of these things, they moan. Perhaps that's what it's all about really.

But the roads are closed for motorsport; we're not talking about a major A road open to all traffic at busy times.

No they're not. I believe only one set of roads are closed on mainland Britain, for the Jim Clark Rally. Apart from that they're all on open roads, but i guarantee that despite a fantastic safety record, you'll think it dangerous.

[Parrot of Doom]

Poledriver said:

23 pages and still going strong wrong!
Why shouldn't cyclists pay tax to use the roads? The argument that most of them pay road tax on their cars doesn't hold, I've got 3 cars and have to tax them all, but can only use one at a time! And the argument that cyclists don't need to be licenced so shouldn't pay tax is stupid, maybe it would be a lot better if they did have to pass a test and gain a licence, they could then preach about road use and safety!

You obviously haven't read the last couple of pages. Go and stand in the corner and face the wall.

[heebeegeetee]

zakelwe said:

I'm sorry but cyclists pay no road tax.

When i was a cyclist, i was paying £3,000 in VED, but nothing in "road tax", that i was aware of.