The 'cyclists should pay road tax' folks

[otolith]

Perhaps pedestrians in general (or in particular, I assume, angry ex-girlfriends) need to be registered, licenced and number-plated;

[anonymous-user]

Gandahar said:

Roads are built for certain traffic. Hence why they are slightly wider than the width of a bicylce ... funny that eh? It would be cheaper to make a lane only 3 foot across

'The definition of a road in England and Wales is ‘any highway and any other road to which the public has access and includes bridges over which a road passes’ (RTA 1988 sect 192(1)). In Scotland, there is a similar definition which is extended to include any way over which the public have a right of passage (R(S)A 1984 sect 151(1)It is important to note that references to ‘road’ therefore generally include footpaths, bridleways and cycle tracks, and many roadways and driveways on private land (including many car parks). In most cases, the law will apply to them and there may be additional rules for particular paths or ways. Some serious driving offences, including drink-driving offences, also apply to all public places, for example public car parks'

https://www.gov.uk/using-the-road-159-to-203/the-r...

Weren't the earlist roads built by the Romans, I wonder how many Astra estates they had amongst the legions?

[FredClogs]

Freddy88FM said:

Ok, so I was just listening to Jeremy Vine

Renders anything else you've said little more than white noise.

Now stop it.

[Hol]

otolith said:

Finlandia said:

I didn't say discourage cycling, I said licence it in someway, and that time will come when more and more people take to the roads on bicycles.

There can be no doubt that licensing would discourage cycling by increasing bureaucracy and cost. You would need a very good argument to justify it.

We live in a state where blame culture rules.

It just needs one well publicised freak accident where a cyclist seriously cripples a pedestrian or another cyclist, and they get cleaned out by the lawyers.



Also, thinking longer term, what happens when fossil fuels run out, cars become costed out of the general and the people who cannot work from home suddenly DO start cycling?

THAT is when your heralded new age of cyclism will truly start (when people have little remaining choice).

The insurance and legal industries have to make a living too.

[555 Paul]

Freddy88FM said:

'BUT THEY DON'T PAY ROAD TAX!'.

Sorry to end the argument there but I own and pay road fund license on 5 vehicles and I'm helping save congestion by using my bike and leaving the cars and motorbikes at home There's also no such thing as road tax anymore so your colleague is being a fool.

[TurboHatchback]

Freddy88FM said:

TurboHatchback said:

No it shouldn't.

By that logic every human being in the land should have insurance as at some point they will cross a road or walk down a pavement. Do you seriously believe that a 7yr old toodling round on his pushbike in the road outside his house should be legally obliged to possess 3rd party liability insurance? How would you punish him for failing to comply, no pocket money for a week or life in prison?

Ah, but it's all about risk. the risk of a pedestrian following too closely and locking up under braking thus hitting the back of a car is fairly minimal. Having had a guy on a bike take a chunk out of my boot lid with his brake lever and the cycling off, I personally do agree that some sort of registration and insurance would be a good idea. Government funded maybe? Discouraging cycling is a terrible idea so we'd need to make it super easy and free.

Exactly, in a car there is a risk of massive damage, injury and loss of life, hence why we need insurance to cover eventualities that we could not afford ourselves. On a bike the most damage you could cause is a dented panel or broken window, hardly life altering stuff.

This whole idea of 'cyclists' as some dedicated minority of angry, lycra-clad, red-light-jumping commuters is rather misleading too. I bet more than 90% of the population has a bike somewhere that they use at least occasionally on a road, from toddlers to geriatrics. Introducing licensing and mandatory insurance for 'cyclists' (everyone) would create a mind-boggling amount of bureaucracy, would be totally unenforceable and give no benefit at all. Do you really think the person that hit you and rode off would have bothered to get insurance and then stopped to give you his details were it mandatory? Of course not. The sort of person that would stop then would stop now and offer to pay for your dented boot lid.

[WinstonWolf]

Gandahar said:

WinstonWolf said:

Gandahar said:

dooosuk said:

Gandahar said:

Please post where I have said it was. Have you read any of my posts?

Yes and you keep stating that cyclists do not pay their way and do not pay for the upkeep of roads.

Those statements are simply not true.

No, I am saying that the roads are not built for cyclists, they are getting them as free way of exercise rather than going down the gym

No they're not as roads are paid for out of general taxation. We all pay for them

Read it again. Roads are not built for cyclists in general is what I am saying, they get the a benefit as a by product.

So, the question is, should they pay something towards using that facility given it was not made for them? Even cars and vans are being threatened with toll roads, and they have had the road made for them !

No, not that VED funds roads, but when I cycle three vehicles sit idle in my garage not using the roads. So when I'm cycling I actually have *more* right to use the road than you if we base entitlement on VED paid...

[anonymous-user]

TurboHatchback said:

Do you really think the person that hit you and rode off would have bothered to get insurance and then stopped to give you his details were it mandatory? Of course not. The sort of person that would stop then would stop now and offer to pay for your dented boot lid.

Great point. I mean it's not as if despite ANPR checks etc that people still drive cars uninsured, taxed, etc.

[Mave]

Freddy88FM said:

Ah, but it's all about risk. the risk of a pedestrian following too closely and locking up under braking thus hitting the back of a car is fairly minimal. Having had a guy on a bike take a chunk out of my boot lid with his brake lever 5 years ago and then cycle off (paint still missing to this day), I personally do agree that some sort of registration and insurance would be a good idea. Government funded maybe? Discouraging cycling must be avoided so we'd need to make it super easy and free.

I've had 4 separate incindents where a motorist has damaged my car and they've driven off leaving me out of pocket. There are also more uninsured drivers than uninsured cyclists on the road. I'd rather the effort went into enforcing existing regulation of high risk road users than introducing new legislation for lower risk users.

[otolith]

Hol said:

otolith said:

Finlandia said:

I didn't say discourage cycling, I said licence it in someway, and that time will come when more and more people take to the roads on bicycles.

There can be no doubt that licensing would discourage cycling by increasing bureaucracy and cost. You would need a very good argument to justify it.

We live in a state where blame culture rules.

It just needs one well publicised freak accident where a cyclist seriously cripples a pedestrian or another cyclist, and they get cleaned out by the lawyers.



Also, thinking longer term, what happens when fossil fuels run out, cars become costed out of the general and the people who cannot work from home suddenly DO start cycling?

THAT is when your heralded new age of cyclism will truly start (when people have little remaining choice).

The insurance and legal industries have to make a living too.

There have already been incidents where cyclists have seriously injured or killed pedestrians without that happening - and there are countries with much higher use of cycling than ours where it has not happened. The third party risk just isn't high enough to justify it. In terms of private activities needing third party insurance, motoring is the risky exception, not the rule.

The biggest beneficiary from mandatory insurance would be the CTC, which would use the money from the boost in membership to lobby for greater restrictions on motoring - people should be careful what they wish for.

[mygoldfishbowl]

yonex said:

Great point. I mean it's not as if despite ANPR checks etc that people still drive cars uninsured, taxed, etc.

34?

[J4CKO]

Imagine if the government tried, people would be up in arms, moaning about how it costs more to gather than it raises.

[SuperchargedVR6]

Gandahar said:

otolith said:

kambites said:

Since bikes are so light, they also cause an order of magnitude less wear to the roads.

As I understand it, wear to the roads is roughly proportional to the fourth power of the weight acting on the axle. So several orders of magnitude is probably closer to the truth.

You miss the point, the point is that if it was just bikes on the road repairs would not be done at all, neither would roads be built. Roads are built and maintained to keep ££ flowing in the economy.

Using that logic, should pedestrians pay extra tax from the wear & tear they cause crossing the road?

[Gandahar]

I cannot believe on the first day of Geneva I am being ripped apart by a load of cyclists ! To quote George Orwell " Two wheels bad, 4 wheels good, 6 offroad wheels best "

I'm going to reply later, sadly I've got a lactic acid build up in my fingers from all this typing.

Meanwhile here's a youtube video of when a bicyclist used the roads and actually made money rather than being a sponger

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgjLJSuGPt8

Notice how he had to push the bike up the hill? Cos his legs were not filled with EPO ..

In the meantime I'm going to construct the worlds biggest analogy why you are all wrong that will stand up to at least 13 seconds of scrutiny.

[WinstonWolf]

Gandahar said:

I cannot believe on the first day of Geneva I am being ripped apart by a load of cyclists ! To quote George Orwell " Two wheels bad, 4 wheels good, 6 offroad wheels best "

I'm going to reply later, sadly I've got a lactic acid build up in my fingers from all this typing.

Meanwhile here's a youtube video of when a bicyclist used the roads and actually made money rather than being a sponger

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgjLJSuGPt8

Notice how he had to push the bike up the hill? Cos his legs were not filled with EPO ..

In the meantime I'm going to construct the worlds biggest analogy why you are all wrong that will stand up to at least 13 seconds of scrutiny.

Cyclists who pay more road tax than you...

[Freddy88FM]

Mave said:

I've had 4 separate incindents where a motorist has damaged my car and they've driven off leaving me out of pocket. There are also more uninsured drivers than uninsured cyclists on the road. I'd rather the effort went into enforcing existing regulation of high risk road users than introducing new legislation for lower risk users.

Agreed, another good point. Though I suggest you get a dash cam asap!

Regarding effort: clearly there is a fairly serious problem with attitude towards cyclists. So either we spend money on a system to register them, or we spend money a program to educate other road users.

[Gandahar]

WinstonWolf said:

Gandahar said:

I cannot believe on the first day of Geneva I am being ripped apart by a load of cyclists ! To quote George Orwell " Two wheels bad, 4 wheels good, 6 offroad wheels best "

I'm going to reply later, sadly I've got a lactic acid build up in my fingers from all this typing.

Meanwhile here's a youtube video of when a bicyclist used the roads and actually made money rather than being a sponger

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgjLJSuGPt8

Notice how he had to push the bike up the hill? Cos his legs were not filled with EPO ..

In the meantime I'm going to construct the worlds biggest analogy why you are all wrong that will stand up to at least 13 seconds of scrutiny.

Cyclists who pay more road tax than you...

No such thing as road tax

[Freddy88FM]

TurboHatchback said:

This whole idea of 'cyclists' as some dedicated minority of angry, lycra-clad, red-light-jumping commuters is rather misleading too. I bet more than 90% of the population has a bike somewhere that they use at least occasionally on a road, from toddlers to geriatrics. Introducing licensing and mandatory insurance for 'cyclists' (everyone) would create a mind-boggling amount of bureaucracy, would be totally unenforceable and give no benefit at all. Do you really think the person that hit you and rode off would have bothered to get insurance and then stopped to give you his details were it mandatory? Of course not. The sort of person that would stop then would stop now and offer to pay for your dented boot lid.

I agree that cars are far more dangerous. However I think the system I'm speaking about is just a way to identify a bicycle and therefore a rider. So in the case of someone riding off most have dash cams there days. It was pretty annoying to have my car damaged. I don't mind much now because it's a 2003 106 GTi that I use to drive around London but at the time it was very clean and I would have liked the guy to sort it to a reasonable level- it's a big ding.

As much as I support cycling and as much as I will defend cyclists' rights, it does make me nervous when I'm in a nice car with four or five bikes each side at the lights at rush hour.

I will agree though, are the costs worth it to please someone with a concern as relatively mild as mine.

[Devil2575]

Finlandia said:

Same with bicycles, you can buy a racing bicycle and pedal away in the traffic without any training or licencing.
Enjoy while it lasts, because it will not last forever.

I think you're wrong.

Aside from anything else, the difference between how fast a person can go on a full on racing bike compared to a cheap entry level road bike isn't anywhere near the performance difference of a person on a 1000cc bike compared to a Honda 50.

[Devil2575]

Finlandia said:

Licencing for bicycles is coming, and probably VED too just as it will for electric and now tax exempt cars, when the state wallet needs filling.

No it isn't.