Cyclists! Why do they ride in the middle of the road?

[PAUL RUN]

my bosses here both cover over 40,000 per year in there company cars...
both cars are £30 road tax...
.
i ride 2000 miles per year on my push bike...and drive 6000 miles in my SAAB...
my car tax is £290....
.
i can imagine 99% of bike users also own cars and may road tax...

.
FIX THE POT HOLES.... and i'll ride closer to the kerb...
(last year 2 written off wheels due to pot holes...on the bike)
.
and getting cars to stick to there part of the road would be nice....
this guy i pictured last week cutting the corner whilst on the phone...
.
anyway back in the car tomorrow...so i can moan about cylist then...hahah...
.

[Mr Will]

73mark said:

This is life everything is taxed,cyclist get away with it is my point

So how much "road tax" should they pay, in your opinion? The same as a small car - say a Kia Picanto or similar?

[Mr Gear]

Actually, I utterly demand that all three of my bikes are taxed at exactly the same rate as cars are. It's only fair isn't it?

Since my bike produces 0g of CO2 per km, where do I send my cheque for £0?

[73mark]

Engineer1 said:

If everything is taxed then cycling is taxed, and actually a lot of it is the bike and all the cycling gear will have had VAT paid on it. Aslo if you do tax on emmissions cycling would be in the £0 band anyway
Pedestrians aren't liable for VED either should they be taxed?

But you use the roads.

[will_]

73mark said:

This is life everything is taxed,cyclist get away with it is my point

You keep saying this - so where do I go for my tax rebate if, as a cyclist, I shouldn't have paid all that tax?

[anonymous-user]

will_ said:

OpulentBob said:

will_ said:

Mr SFJ said:

I know that not many riders do this but it fks me off when cyclists run red lights, yet complain when they get hit off?

When has that happened?

A study in London showed that only 5% of cycling fatalities involved a cyclist running a red light.

Thanks to the quick reaction and chilled-out attitudes of car drivers, no thanks to the angry lycramen.

Of course it is.

If they were better drivers, maybe it would be 0%?

Massive, unsupported presumption on your part.

FFS get over yourself, and get a sense of humour.

Angry lycraman, indeed.

[Fugazi]

73mark said:

I pay my tax,IN,road tax,fishing rod tax.Why do cyclist get away with not paying tax.That's bullst!

You buy a rod licence to legally fish in freshwater. You could go salt water fishing and pay nothing. Can you imagine a salt-water angling cyclist, I bet your head would explode.

[73mark]

Mr Will said:

So how much "road tax" should they pay, in your opinion? The same as a small car - say a Kia Picanto or similar?

I think a small amount but pay something.
Then you can have a say.

[Engineer1]

73mark said:

Engineer1 said:

If everything is taxed then cycling is taxed, and actually a lot of it is the bike and all the cycling gear will have had VAT paid on it. Aslo if you do tax on emmissions cycling would be in the £0 band anyway
Pedestrians aren't liable for VED either should they be taxed?

But you use the roads.

So do pedestrians in the absence of a suitable footpath.

[73mark]

Fugazi said:

73mark said:

I pay my tax,IN,road tax,fishing rod tax.Why do cyclist get away with not paying tax.That's bullst!

You buy a rod licence to legally fish in freshwater. You could go salt water fishing and pay nothing. Can you imagine a salt-water angling cyclist, I bet your head would explode.

Yes they should pay too.
Salt water fishing cyclist

[will_]

Marvib said:

PS I love how you only partially quote me to try to skew my comments.

I've only partially quoted you as I'm interested to understand that you meant by that particular phrase. That's not skewing your comments.

When I see someone complaining about cyclists not allowing them to easily overtake, I generally assume that what they actually mean is that the cyclist didn't allow the to dangerously overtake by squeezing past and not leaving sufficient room. Obviously a proper, safe overtake requires more thought, consideration and planning and is therefore less "easy" - and deliberately so, for the cyclists' safety.

Those who can only overtake cyclists when it's easy (i.e. dangerous) are probably very poor drivers generally.

[73mark]

Engineer1 said:

So do pedestrians in the absence of a suitable footpath.

WTF?

[will_]

OpulentBob said:

will_ said:

OpulentBob said:

will_ said:

Mr SFJ said:

I know that not many riders do this but it fks me off when cyclists run red lights, yet complain when they get hit off?

When has that happened?

A study in London showed that only 5% of cycling fatalities involved a cyclist running a red light.

Thanks to the quick reaction and chilled-out attitudes of car drivers, no thanks to the angry lycramen.

Of course it is.

If they were better drivers, maybe it would be 0%?

Massive, unsupported presumption on your part.

FFS get over yourself, and get a sense of humour.

Angry lycraman, indeed.

Yet you're the one swearing?

Irony.

[Engineer1]

73mark said:

Engineer1 said:

So do pedestrians in the absence of a suitable footpath.

WTF?

they use the road as well.

I know this may shock you but some roads don't have pavements so pedestrians walk on the road.

[Mr Will]

73mark said:

Mr Will said:

So how much "road tax" should they pay, in your opinion? The same as a small car - say a Kia Picanto or similar?

I think a small amount but pay something.
Then you can have a say.

So cyclists should pay MORE than a small car then? Because that's what you are suggesting. Seems illogical to me.

Still, I don't mind if it means that you'll move out of the way of anyone in a sportscar or 4x4. After all, they pay more so have more right to the road than your rep-mobile.

Or perhaps we should base it on total tax take and have special lanes for higher rate tax payers (regardless of what form of transport they are using at that moment).

[will_]

73mark said:

I think a small amount but pay something.
Then you can have a say.

Other than Income tax, council tax, NI, VED and VAT you mean?

So if I pay more tax than you, do I have a bigger "say"?

In which case, how much in overall taxes did you pay last year for example?

[TheGreatSoprendo]

73mark said:

But you use the roads.

Fella, give up while you're miiiiiles behind, this is getting embarrassing!

[mikeveal]

Engineer1 said:

73mark said:

Engineer1 said:

So do pedestrians in the absence of a suitable footpath.

WTF?

they use the road as well.

I know this may shock you but some roads don't have pavements so pedestrians walk on the road.

Hmpf. You're right.
And when they do, babies in push chairs should clearly pay twice as much tax as cyclists. After all they're twice as wide and have twice as many wheels.

[73mark]

Engineer1 said:

73mark said:

Engineer1 said:

So do pedestrians in the absence of a suitable footpath.

WTF?

they use the road as well.

I know this may shock you but some roads don't have pavements so pedestrians walk on the road.

Why walk on the road is it the only way to get from A to B,then more fool pedestrian.

[Marvib]

will_ said:

Do you need to go into the oposing lane when passing a car?

If the answer is yes, that's what you ought to do when passing a bicycle.

The HC even has a picture to clarify what this rule means. The car is well over the line into the oposing lane.

In any event, there aren't that many roads where you can have a bike 1-2ft from the kerb, and you giving him or her 3ft of clearence, where you don't have to cross into the oposing lane (at least in part). And if you're already having to do that, theres no detriment to you moving right over - right?

This picture you mean?

Where the car ISN'T in the opposing lane, only partially?
Look I'm not disagreeing with you, if you can't overtake safely slow down and wait, my point is some argue you should only overtake a bike if there is enough room to overtake a car, this to me is nonsensical.