The 'cyclists should pay road tax' folks
Discussion
yonex said:
JPJPJP said:
3rd party liability insurance should be compulsory for cyclists (and all other road users)
vehicle excise duty: I already pay the same for each of my bicycles as I do for my Renault Zoe
Most will have it through the CTC or BC I would think?vehicle excise duty: I already pay the same for each of my bicycles as I do for my Renault Zoe
http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/membership/articl...
http://www.ctc.org.uk/member-benefits/%C2%A310m-3r...
It always amuses me how these inputs into a thread are ignored, can't let valid points get in the way of a good rant.
Finlandia said:
In Sweden up until the late 50's every bicycle had to have either a registration number or the owners name visible on the back of the bike.
So they soon gave up on that idea then! Why didn't pedestrians have their names on their backs also? As I say, nobody's manage to achieve anything by this sort of nonsense.
g3org3y said:
I'll add that if we're to take cycling in London seriously we need to invest in it. That means proper cycle lanes not a bit of blue paint which was an obvious short-term solution for the Olympics. I've cycled in Denmark and Holland and it was pleasure, however they have proper infrastructure. To install that kind of set up in London would be very expensive and perhaps not even physically possible given the relatively narrow streets.
Edited by g3org3y on Tuesday 3rd March 20:38
And narrow streets? Oh yes, we just don't have the space like those big countries such as Belgium and Holland.
http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2014/10/our-s...
eddieantifreeze said:
yonex said:
JPJPJP said:
3rd party liability insurance should be compulsory for cyclists (and all other road users)
vehicle excise duty: I already pay the same for each of my bicycles as I do for my Renault Zoe
Most will have it through the CTC or BC I would think?vehicle excise duty: I already pay the same for each of my bicycles as I do for my Renault Zoe
http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/membership/articl...
http://www.ctc.org.uk/member-benefits/%C2%A310m-3r...
It always amuses me how these inputs into a thread are ignored, can't let valid points get in the way of a good rant.
Good rant - apart from that.
Finlandia said:
Seems to be a touchy subject this 
And it wil continue to be, as nobody likes being told things they dont like to hear. I agree with you though, as its going to be a case of WHEN and not IF.
I mentioned this earlier, but could not get a proper answer:
Sooner or later, the fossil fuels will be come too rare and expensive, and if nothing better comes along then people will use bikes, people will get hurt and insurances will become the norm as bikes are viewed as cars are today.
Mave said:
Finlandia said:
yonex said:
Finlandia said:
Seems to be a touchy subject this
What, being a troll, yes it irritates people. Enforcement and possibly more is coming. I remember a few years ago in Bournemouth, police were fining cyclists on the Undercliff drive for speeding in a 10 or 20 zone, can't remember which. It's a particular busy place by the beach, full of kids running around and crossing the drive from the beach huts to the beach.
There was a massive outcry over it at the time, you can't fine us, it's our right and so on.
heebeegeetee said:
Finlandia said:
In Sweden up until the late 50's every bicycle had to have either a registration number or the owners name visible on the back of the bike.
So they soon gave up on that idea then! Why didn't pedestrians have their names on their backs also? WinstonWolf said:
Legalities aside? 
So now you want to prosecute people for obeying the law too? Are you a *portly* gentleman by any chance?
Just because something isn't illegal doesn't mean it's right. Why would you be cycling at high speed on a narrow string of tarmac on a busy beach with hundreds of kids running around? So now you want to prosecute people for obeying the law too? Are you a *portly* gentleman by any chance?Hol said:
eddieantifreeze said:
yonex said:
JPJPJP said:
3rd party liability insurance should be compulsory for cyclists (and all other road users)
vehicle excise duty: I already pay the same for each of my bicycles as I do for my Renault Zoe
Most will have it through the CTC or BC I would think?vehicle excise duty: I already pay the same for each of my bicycles as I do for my Renault Zoe
http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/membership/articl...
http://www.ctc.org.uk/member-benefits/%C2%A310m-3r...
It always amuses me how these inputs into a thread are ignored, can't let valid points get in the way of a good rant.
Good rant - apart from that.
On a side note the bit that made me chuckle is people suggesting cyclists are cheapskates avoiding tax - I dread to think the amount of VAT I have contributed buying my various bikes and kit. In fact no, I do not want to work it out. Either way I can assure you have not saved money by choosing to ride my bike. I need to do a hell of a lot of commuting to work on the bike (which saves approx £5 per day in fuel) to make my money back!
Finlandia said:
WinstonWolf said:
Legalities aside? So now you want to prosecute people for obeying the law too? Are you a *portly* gentleman by any chance?
Just because something isn't illegal doesn't mean it's right. Why would you be cycling at high speed on a narrow string of tarmac on a busy beach with hundreds of kids running around? So now you want to prosecute people for obeying the law too? Are you a *portly* gentleman by any chance?WinstonWolf said:
Finlandia said:
WinstonWolf said:
Legalities aside? So now you want to prosecute people for obeying the law too? Are you a *portly* gentleman by any chance?
Just because something isn't illegal doesn't mean it's right. Why would you be cycling at high speed on a narrow string of tarmac on a busy beach with hundreds of kids running around? So now you want to prosecute people for obeying the law too? Are you a *portly* gentleman by any chance?Hol said:
Sooner or later, the fossil fuels will be come too rare and expensive, and if nothing better comes along then people will use bikes, people will get hurt and insurances will become the norm as bikes are viewed as cars are today.
You've asserted that, but can you show your working? People have been hurt in the past, pedestrians have been killed and cyclists sent to prison - but it's rare, even considering the relative level of use, because bikes are much less inherently dangerous than cars are. That isn't going to change. We don't insure cars because they are the norm, we do it because they kill or seriously injure around 24,000 people a year and cause large amounts of damage to property (mostly other cars). If the norm were less inherently dangerous, we wouldn't require it to be insured.
Tony33 said:
he key issue to me is allowing mandatory traffic control to be determined as optional for a group of road users. We have all sat patiently waiting at a red light at a cross roads with no traffic in sight only for a cyclist to come past, check there is no traffic and cross. With very few exceptions would a car driver do the same regardless of how safe the maneuver may be. I don't believe any road user should have the right to override traffic control based on their own judgment of safety.
You see, I disagree. For me the main thing is to make the roads as safe as possible and frankly to encourage many people to cycle as physically possible (in our cities). The advantage is a reduction of congestion, an increase in air quality and an increase in fitness (and subsequently health- both mental and physical) of the city population.The advantage of riding a bike at the moment is that you can travel much faster through the city streets than in a car. You are essentially a glorified pedestrian- the dangers you present to other road users (excluding yourself) are extremely minimal. Any risk you take is of potentially huge personal consequence to you and not much of a risk to Joe Bloggs in his Ford Mondeo beyond a paint scratch in much the same way as a pedestrian crossing a road not at a pedestrian crossing- the personal risk is far far higher to him than the cars on the road.
In my opinion for the above reason it does not matter if a cyclist goes through a light carefully, a mistake will only cost him and unlikely anyone else. However a car that makes a similar mistake is likely to be much more serious for innocent parties.
It seems your main gripe is not this however... it is about patience and to me (honestly) seems quite strange. Seeing someone else wait does not give me satisfaction, equally seeing someone else make progress does not make me frustrated. It's just a quirk of the nature of transport I have chosen vs the one they have chosen. I could quite easily get out of my car and on a bike to make the same level of progress.
Unfortunately however, most of the time, in London, my balls are not big enough.
Can I ask if you feel the same about Jay Walking? Germany has outlawed it... you must wait at a crossing to cross the road. This is much the same as a cyclist having to wait at a red light. Do you therefore agree that pedestrians should wait their turn to cross the road or should be permitted to cross when they feel it's safe to do so given the risk presented to others is pretty minimal even if they screw up?
Oh, and finally, to address your point about cyclists having to be reovertaken countless times if they jump lights... that may be true in the country but in the city the light jumpers often disappear off in to the distance. I don't get a chance to overtake them... they overtake me! Personally I prefer it that way rather than having them all buzzing around my car each time a light goes green.
Edited by Freddy88FM on Wednesday 4th March 09:49
Tony33 said:
agree the red light jumping by motorists as lights change is infinitely more dangerous than checking everything is clear and setting off. Just that I don't recall ever seeing a motorist do that whereas cyclists frequently do. It is this assumption that the red light is optional that can put cyclists as a collective in a bad light.
The truth of the matter is that a cyclist can pass a red light 100% legally. All they have to do is dismount from the bike, push it across the white line as a pedestrian and then remount.I think motorists mainly hate red-light jumping because they wish they could get away with it too.
(Note - this is distinctly different from the idiots who go flying through crossings and junctions without regard for the safety of themselves or others. Dangerous is dangerous, regardless of the legality.)
Finlandia said:
WinstonWolf said:
Finlandia said:
WinstonWolf said:
Legalities aside? So now you want to prosecute people for obeying the law too? Are you a *portly* gentleman by any chance?
Just because something isn't illegal doesn't mean it's right. Why would you be cycling at high speed on a narrow string of tarmac on a busy beach with hundreds of kids running around? So now you want to prosecute people for obeying the law too? Are you a *portly* gentleman by any chance?So, as always, this type of thread shows that:
a. Some angry people hate cyclists because they don't pay 'road tax'
b. Said people do not understand the concept of VED
c. Said people do not understand the way roads are funded
d. Said people do not understand that there are zero VED cost cars on the roads
e. Said people do not understand that cyclists have a right to use the roads
f. Said people seem to think that all cyclists bugger off it they have an accident and don't seem to realise that vehicle drivers do this too
g. Said people do not understand that cyclists do own cars that they probably pay VED on
h. Said people think that all cyclists ride through red lights
i. Said people think being a cyclist is unfair because they are stuck in traffic in their cars
j. Said people eat more because they are unhappy. They then get fat which makes them more unhappy and they eat even more. Etc.
k. Said people have tiny little penises and cannot satisfy women
Edit to say - oh yes:
l. Said people think any cyclist with a camera on their bike or person is a warrior of the road type idiot. However, said people probably have a dashcam in their car now because you need them nowadays.
a. Some angry people hate cyclists because they don't pay 'road tax'
b. Said people do not understand the concept of VED
c. Said people do not understand the way roads are funded
d. Said people do not understand that there are zero VED cost cars on the roads
e. Said people do not understand that cyclists have a right to use the roads
f. Said people seem to think that all cyclists bugger off it they have an accident and don't seem to realise that vehicle drivers do this too
g. Said people do not understand that cyclists do own cars that they probably pay VED on
h. Said people think that all cyclists ride through red lights
i. Said people think being a cyclist is unfair because they are stuck in traffic in their cars
j. Said people eat more because they are unhappy. They then get fat which makes them more unhappy and they eat even more. Etc.
k. Said people have tiny little penises and cannot satisfy women
Edit to say - oh yes:
l. Said people think any cyclist with a camera on their bike or person is a warrior of the road type idiot. However, said people probably have a dashcam in their car now because you need them nowadays.
Edited by funkyrobot on Wednesday 4th March 10:25
WinstonWolf said:
Finlandia said:
WinstonWolf said:
Finlandia said:
WinstonWolf said:
Legalities aside? So now you want to prosecute people for obeying the law too? Are you a *portly* gentleman by any chance?
Just because something isn't illegal doesn't mean it's right. Why would you be cycling at high speed on a narrow string of tarmac on a busy beach with hundreds of kids running around? So now you want to prosecute people for obeying the law too? Are you a *portly* gentleman by any chance?Finlandia said:
WinstonWolf said:
Finlandia said:
WinstonWolf said:
Finlandia said:
WinstonWolf said:
Legalities aside? So now you want to prosecute people for obeying the law too? Are you a *portly* gentleman by any chance?
Just because something isn't illegal doesn't mean it's right. Why would you be cycling at high speed on a narrow string of tarmac on a busy beach with hundreds of kids running around? So now you want to prosecute people for obeying the law too? Are you a *portly* gentleman by any chance?Finlandia said:
WinstonWolf said:
Finlandia said:
WinstonWolf said:
Finlandia said:
WinstonWolf said:
Legalities aside? So now you want to prosecute people for obeying the law too? Are you a *portly* gentleman by any chance?
Just because something isn't illegal doesn't mean it's right. Why would you be cycling at high speed on a narrow string of tarmac on a busy beach with hundreds of kids running around? So now you want to prosecute people for obeying the law too? Are you a *portly* gentleman by any chance?Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff