The 'cyclists should pay road tax' folks

[WinstonWolf]

Heaveho said:

kiseca said:

To me arrogance is sitting in a car or a truck, in a mile long queue of cars and trucks, unable to overtake a single bicycle because of a constant stream of cars and trucks coming the other way, and thinking that the single bike is the cause of all your delay, not the thousands of cars surrounding you.

No, that's just your own inability to make the distinction between vehicles that are necessary, as opposed to those that are a hindrance to them. Where's the sense in having one idiot feeling it's ok to do something unnecessary in the rush hour, to the detriment of those who have no choice but to travel by van in order to be able to do their job? The speed limit on the road in question is 30mph, not 10.

fking vans, always holding me up...

[Finlandia]

BGarside said:

Finlandia said:

... just pointing out that cyclists have it easy really, and that it will change over time.
.....

Yeah, we're having a ball out here - heavily trafficked roads, ignorant, aggressive drivers, cyclist accident rate increasing, potholed roads, stty weather.

What could be more fun than fighting hordes of speeding vehicles for a tiny piece of tarmac every day?

Doing the same in a motorised vehicle, while being raped on tax and insurance and speed limits and red lights.

[Finlandia]

Mave said:

Finlandia said:

Then we are back to 'don't take the piss and you won't get in trouble'.
It may not be against the law

There's no "may" about it, it's not breaking the law.
So when did it start becoming ok to charge someone with breaking a law that doesn't exist?

But why would you endanger yourself and others, even if it's not breaking any laws?

[WinstonWolf]

Finlandia said:

Mave said:

Finlandia said:

Then we are back to 'don't take the piss and you won't get in trouble'.
It may not be against the law

There's no "may" about it, it's not breaking the law.
So when did it start becoming ok to charge someone with breaking a law that doesn't exist?

But why would you endanger yourself and others, even if it's not breaking any laws?

Why is it any of your business?

Do you also want to ban mountaineering?

[Finlandia]

Kill yourself if you like, but don't put others at danger while doing it.

[WinstonWolf]

Finlandia said:

Kill yourself if you like, but don't put others at danger while doing it.

And not wearing a cycle helmet puts others in danger how???

[Ahimoth]

Don't get your response there Winston, Mave's response to the Swedish cycle baiter is clearer.

No-one with any decency rides overly fast around kids on shared paths, no-one with any decency uses parent and child spaces needlessly, no-one with any decency does gratuitously wear red trousers in public - but until those things are made illegal, no-one should be being penalised/prosecuted for doing those things. A word, appealing to their better nature definitely. Makey-uppy policing, no.

[Finlandia]

WinstonWolf said:

Finlandia said:

Kill yourself if you like, but don't put others at danger while doing it.

And not wearing a cycle helmet puts others in danger how???

Here you go.

Ahimoth said:

No-one with any decency rides overly fast around kids on shared paths

[WinstonWolf]

Finlandia said:

WinstonWolf said:

Finlandia said:

Kill yourself if you like, but don't put others at danger while doing it.

And not wearing a cycle helmet puts others in danger how???

Here you go.

Ahimoth said:

No-one with any decency rides overly fast around kids on shared paths

Err, that is an answer to a completely different question, unless you're completely mental?

[Finlandia]

Finlandia said:

Mave said:

Finlandia said:

It's not the same though, there would be no outcry if drivers got fined for doing double or more the speed limit, well some would, but you get the picture
If you are unable to judge your speed roughly to keep it at the posted 10mph limit, then maybe you should get a GPS speedo or an app for your mobile that shows your speed, or cycle elsewhere.

I think you've missed my point. I suspect there would be an outcry if motorists were given speeding tickets when they weren't speeding. So why be surprised if cyclists get annoyed about being given a speeding ticket when they weren't speeding?

Then we are back to 'don't take the piss and you won't get in trouble'.

It may not be against the law, but it's not big and clever either, and it looks like someone has had enough of it or there wouldn't have been any speed checks.

WinstonWolf said:

Finlandia said:

Mave said:

Finlandia said:

Then we are back to 'don't take the piss and you won't get in trouble'.
It may not be against the law

There's no "may" about it, it's not breaking the law.
So when did it start becoming ok to charge someone with breaking a law that doesn't exist?

But why would you endanger yourself and others, even if it's not breaking any laws?

Why is it any of your business?

Do you also want to ban mountaineering?

WinstonWolf said:

Finlandia said:

WinstonWolf said:

Finlandia said:

Kill yourself if you like, but don't put others at danger while doing it.

And not wearing a cycle helmet puts others in danger how???

Here you go.

Ahimoth said:

No-one with any decency rides overly fast around kids on shared paths

Err, that is an answer to a completely different question, unless you're completely mental?

Why all the insults?

[walm]

WinstonWolf said:

Err, that is an answer to a completely different question, unless you're completely mental?

I can quite confidently say he's mental.
Either that or his multi-thread trolling got confused and he started arguing with himself like that muppet with a Jag.

[Finlandia]

walm said:

WinstonWolf said:

Err, that is an answer to a completely different question, unless you're completely mental?

I can quite confidently say he's mental.
Either that or his multi-thread trolling got confused and he started arguing with himself like that muppet with a Jag.

And again, why the insults?

[WinstonWolf]

Finlandia said:

walm said:

WinstonWolf said:

Err, that is an answer to a completely different question, unless you're completely mental?

I can quite confidently say he's mental.
Either that or his multi-thread trolling got confused and he started arguing with himself like that muppet with a Jag.

And again, why the insults?

If you're gonna troll all the cycling threads with sweeping generalisations don't be surprised if you get a reaction.

I bet you didn't realise quite how many petrol heads also cycle...

[walm]

Finlandia said:

walm said:

WinstonWolf said:

Err, that is an answer to a completely different question, unless you're completely mental?

I can quite confidently say he's mental.
Either that or his multi-thread trolling got confused and he started arguing with himself like that muppet with a Jag.

And again, why the insults?

Because you have gone mad.
You started off perfectly reasonable but now you are just throwing up strawmen left and right and arguing with yourself.

No one suggested cycling fast through a bunch of toddlers.
They objected to fines for not breaking the law - a completely valid point which you failed to address.
You posted a picture of an advisory limit - irrelevant.

Now you have claimed that cycle helmets magically protect heads from all head injuries - completely false.
You completely failed to address the issue that compulsory helmet laws discourage cycling and cost the NHS far more in fatty treatment than they ever lose through putting heads back together.

And lastly you appear to think that no wearing a cycle helmet endangers other people.
Utter madness.

Is English your first language?

[Finlandia]

WinstonWolf said:

Finlandia said:

walm said:

WinstonWolf said:

Err, that is an answer to a completely different question, unless you're completely mental?

I can quite confidently say he's mental.
Either that or his multi-thread trolling got confused and he started arguing with himself like that muppet with a Jag.

And again, why the insults?

If you're gonna troll all the cycling threads with sweeping generalisations don't be surprised if you get a reaction.

I bet you didn't realise quite how many petrol heads also cycle...

Not trolling, and of course I know many drivers and petrol heads also cycle, which just makes the way many cyclists behave even more odd.

Do you agree with: No-one with any decency rides overly fast around kids on shared paths

Still, no reason for insulting people, is there?

[Finlandia]

walm said:

Finlandia said:

walm said:

WinstonWolf said:

Err, that is an answer to a completely different question, unless you're completely mental?

I can quite confidently say he's mental.
Either that or his multi-thread trolling got confused and he started arguing with himself like that muppet with a Jag.

And again, why the insults?

Because you have gone mad.
You started off perfectly reasonable but now you are just throwing up strawmen left and right and arguing with yourself.

No one suggested cycling fast through a bunch of toddlers.
They objected to fines for not breaking the law - a completely valid point which you failed to address.
You posted a picture of an advisory limit - irrelevant.

Now you have claimed that cycle helmets magically protect heads from all head injuries - completely false.
You completely failed to address the issue that compulsory helmet laws discourage cycling and cost the NHS far more in fatty treatment than they ever lose through putting heads back together.

And lastly you appear to think that no wearing a cycle helmet endangers other people.
Utter madness.

Is English your first language?

English is not my first, or even second language.

There have been police at the beach walk to zap speeding cyclists, why are they there when it's not breaking any laws? Obviously there is a problem with fast moving cyclists, and some sort of deterrent has been agreed on.

A helmet protects your head from injury, it will not save your life, but it protects your skull better than your hair does.

Read the quotes, a cyclist going too fast on a busy and narrow beach promenade endangers others.

[WinstonWolf]

Finlandia said:

WinstonWolf said:

Finlandia said:

walm said:

WinstonWolf said:

Err, that is an answer to a completely different question, unless you're completely mental?

I can quite confidently say he's mental.
Either that or his multi-thread trolling got confused and he started arguing with himself like that muppet with a Jag.

And again, why the insults?

If you're gonna troll all the cycling threads with sweeping generalisations don't be surprised if you get a reaction.

I bet you didn't realise quite how many petrol heads also cycle...

Not trolling, and of course I know many drivers and petrol heads also cycle, which just makes the way many cyclists behave even more odd.

Do you agree with: No-one with any decency rides overly fast around kids on shared paths

Still, no reason for insulting people, is there?

And that relates to road tax how??? Or do you accept that argument was lost ages ago so you're just looking for another subject to troll on.

[Finlandia]

WinstonWolf said:

Finlandia said:

WinstonWolf said:

Finlandia said:

walm said:

WinstonWolf said:

Err, that is an answer to a completely different question, unless you're completely mental?

I can quite confidently say he's mental.
Either that or his multi-thread trolling got confused and he started arguing with himself like that muppet with a Jag.

And again, why the insults?

If you're gonna troll all the cycling threads with sweeping generalisations don't be surprised if you get a reaction.

I bet you didn't realise quite how many petrol heads also cycle...

Not trolling, and of course I know many drivers and petrol heads also cycle, which just makes the way many cyclists behave even more odd.

Do you agree with: No-one with any decency rides overly fast around kids on shared paths

Still, no reason for insulting people, is there?

And that relates to road tax how??? Or do you accept that argument was lost ages ago so you're just looking for another subject to troll on.

You don't think there will ever be any sort of licencing/fee/tax for bicycles, I think the opposite, without insulting you.

[funinhounslow]

As roads are paid for out of general taxation (not VED) and motorways are not open to pedestrians, horses, and cyclists I'd say motorists are getting a pretty good deal.

If we have "road tax" for cyclists then surely in the interests of fairness all motorways should be toll roads?

[heebeegeetee]

Finlandia said:

You don't think there will ever be any sort of licencing/fee/tax for bicycles, I think the opposite, without insulting you.

Not in the UK no, nor anywhere in Europe, I don't think.

There does seem to be an issue in English-speaking countries with cycling for some reason, where it is discouraged or remains as unsupported as possible, whilst obesity and poor health goes through the roof.

But leaving that aside, I'd have a wager with you if we can think of how to make it work: I bet you that there will be a repeal of helmet laws before there'll be tax on bicycles.