The 'cyclists should pay road tax' folks
Discussion
Finlandia said:
Why is it such a bad idea to keep the speed down on a busy beach promenade?
The suggestion that it's a bad idea only exists in your head.All that has been pointed out is that speed limits do not apply to cyclists - perhaps those in Brighton were being stopped for being inconsiderate. Did the Police stop rollerbladers as well? Alternatively perhaps the promenade isn't the highway and is therefore subject to some local by-law which does encompass cyclists. Who knows. In any case the notion that PH cyclists condone charging through a herd of kids flat out is just projection on your part - no one here does.
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:
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?
Since you are loosing your own argument... You cannot be caught for speeding on a bicycle as you are not legally obliged to have a speedometer, however you can be prosecuted for "wanton and furious driving" for any vehicle or carriage which applies to roads, paths and private land! So next time you sprint to complete a Strava segment check for BiB :-)By the way, the DoT reccomend the following-
"Ride at a sensible speed for the situation and ensure you can stop in time. As a general rule, if you want to cycle quickly, say in excess of 18 mph/30 kph, then you should be riding on the road."
As to the suggestion of registering bicycles- you would have to be legally insane to consider it, the numbers involved are mind boggling and impractical beyond comprehension.
IMVHO The only thing that is ever said in these threads which is valid is that all "road users" (ie people who go along but no across roads, thus exempting pedestrians) should have 3rd party insurance, many cyclists do but I do not think it would be difficult to have it made a requirement and as I cyclist I would happily carry a sticker with the details of my insurance on. It would be useful for the odd occasions we (cyclists) hit each other and for the Police as an excuse to remove morons from the road when they are caught cycling home drunk at 2am with 19cans of Stella in ASDA bags hanging off the handlebars.
Edited by scubadude on Wednesday 4th March 10:32
scubadude said:
IMVHO The only thing that is ever said in these threads which is valid is that all "road users" should have 3rd party insurance.
The thing is, my 5 year old really isn't going to cause much damage at the annoying 5-6mph she manages on her bike.And adding even small hurdles such as the c.£20 a year it costs will put people off cycling - thus causing even more fatties (of which I am one), destroying the NHS and adding to congestion... etc.
It's not illegal to pedal at full Tour de France speed, but there are certain places where one shouldn't do it, can we agree on that?
The cyclists were stopped and had words of information and possibly a threat of fines, I can't remember, also some time ago in Bournemouth cyclists without lights were stopped and fined £50.
The cyclists were stopped and had words of information and possibly a threat of fines, I can't remember, also some time ago in Bournemouth cyclists without lights were stopped and fined £50.
I have to say I think it would be more useful to insure myself against the consequences of being knocked off and left for dead in the road by a hit-and-run driver; that's more likely than me scratching someone's P&J with my handlebars in traffic - and the consequences are a little more serious.
k 'road tax' for bicycles.IroningMan said:
I have to say I think it would be more useful to insure myself against the consequences of being knocked off and left for dead in the road by a hit-and-run driver.
You can claim off MIB to a certain extent.https://www.gov.uk/compensation-victim-uninsured-d...
Well, that and some critical illness/life insurance too would probably be a good thing.
Finlandia said:
Lasted nearly 60 years, so it wasn't that short of a time span. Because pedestrians are not in charge of a vehicle.
Fair enough, but 70 years on they don't want to revisit it? I mean, to be a tad unkind, there were some European countries at that time that decided to single out some individual groups by external means of identification, but it didn't happen here and it's not going to. Finlandia said:
It's not illegal to pedal at full Tour de France speed, but there are certain places where one shouldn't do it, can we agree on that?
The cyclists were stopped and had words of information and possibly a threat of fines, I can't remember, also some time ago in Bournemouth cyclists without lights were stopped and fined £50.
Good, but they did it without identifying numbers, eh?The cyclists were stopped and had words of information and possibly a threat of fines, I can't remember, also some time ago in Bournemouth cyclists without lights were stopped and fined £50.
heebeegeetee said:
Finlandia said:
Lasted nearly 60 years, so it wasn't that short of a time span. Because pedestrians are not in charge of a vehicle.
Fair enough, but 70 years on they don't want to revisit it? I mean, to be a tad unkind, there were some European countries at that time that decided to single out some individual groups by external means of identification, but it didn't happen here and it's not going to. Finlandia said:
It's not illegal to pedal at full Tour de France speed, but there are certain places where one shouldn't do it, can we agree on that?
The cyclists were stopped and had words of information and possibly a threat of fines, I can't remember, also some time ago in Bournemouth cyclists without lights were stopped and fined £50.
Good, but they did it without identifying numbers, eh?The cyclists were stopped and had words of information and possibly a threat of fines, I can't remember, also some time ago in Bournemouth cyclists without lights were stopped and fined £50.
They did, but at a much higher cost than if it had been automated, they have continued doing it though.
walm said:
scubadude said:
IMVHO The only thing that is ever said in these threads which is valid is that all "road users" should have 3rd party insurance.
The thing is, my 5 year old really isn't going to cause much damage at the annoying 5-6mph she manages on her bike.And adding even small hurdles such as the c.£20 a year it costs will put people off cycling - thus causing even more fatties (of which I am one), destroying the NHS and adding to congestion... etc.
Your daughter could wobble and cause a car to swerve and mow down a bus stop full of Mumsnet members- she needs 3rd party insurance if she rides on the road- end of.
Freddy88FM said:
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.
My main gripe is about having two sets of road users who appear to have different rulesets even if officially there is only one. We separate pedestrians who move in a very unstructured way and motorists who have a very structured set of rules. Cyclists fall somewhere in between and some seem to choose whether they behave like cars or pedestrians when it suits them. Losing momentum on a bike requires physical effort to regain but the resulting approach tends to be that some cyclists are the least patient of road users, choosing to keep going even if it significantly increases risk.
scubadude said:
I said "road users" if you let your 5yr old cycle on the road that's up to you I guess... but I wouldn't.
Your daughter could wobble and cause a car to swerve and mow down a bus stop full of Mumsnet members- she needs 3rd party insurance if she rides on the road- end of.
http://pediatrics.about.com/od/learningtorideabike...Your daughter could wobble and cause a car to swerve and mow down a bus stop full of Mumsnet members- she needs 3rd party insurance if she rides on the road- end of.
Kids milestone article says: "Children usually learn to ride a bike some time between the ages of 3 and 8, with an average of just over age 5."
Where do you think they go once they learn?
There aren't any pavements where I live.
And I know this isn't a popular opinion on PH but it is the responsibility of drivers to give cyclists plenty of room precisely because they are a bit wobbly.
Your hypothetical mumsnet destroyer's insurance would pay out, not my daughter's.
Finlandia said:
They did, but at a much higher cost than if it had been automated, they have continued doing it though.
How do you work that out? Every system of bicycle registration has ceased because every singe one cost more to operate than it made. Every one operated at a loss, and the achievement any of them made was to reduce the numbers of cyclists, which at every level is worse for society.How do you now that the Bournemouth method would have been cheaper if it incorporated a loss making system of registration?
heebeegeetee said:
Finlandia said:
They did, but at a much higher cost than if it had been automated, they have continued doing it though.
How do you work that out? To be honest though, I kind of lost the interest after your Nazi reference to number plates, no meaning in continuing this anymore.
Finlandia said:
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?
I'm not saying its right, I'm suggesting why there might be an outcry.Don't you think there might be an outcry if the police started issuing speeding fines for people doing 50mph on a wet, busy but still 70mph motorway?
Hol said:
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.
I suspect that eventually cars will all be powered by batteries charged from mains electricity generated from a source other than fossil fuels.
No one will start taxing bikes.
scubadude said:
IMVHO The only thing that is ever said in these threads which is valid is that all "road users" (ie people who go along but no across roads, thus exempting pedestrians) should have 3rd party insurance, many cyclists do but I do not think it would be difficult to have it made a requirement and as I cyclist I would happily carry a sticker with the details of my insurance on. It would be useful for the odd occasions we (cyclists) hit each other and for the Police as an excuse to remove morons from the road when they are caught cycling home drunk at 2am with 19cans of Stella in ASDA bags hanging off the handlebars.
Given that the whole population are likely to be road users at some point (not exempting pedestrians as plenty of people walk or run along roads, especially where pavements do not exist) maybe you could call this "National Insurance"...scubadude said:
I said "road users" if you let your 5yr old cycle on the road that's up to you I guess... but I wouldn't.
Your daughter could wobble and cause a car to swerve and mow down a bus stop full of Mumsnet members- she needs 3rd party insurance if she rides on the road- end of.
A child could run into the road and cause a car to swerve into a group of fluffy kittens, should children and in fact all pedestrians have 3rd party insurance?Your daughter could wobble and cause a car to swerve and mow down a bus stop full of Mumsnet members- she needs 3rd party insurance if she rides on the road- end of.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff