Deluded cyclists!!!

[Tallbut Buxomly]

Scenario my argument here is that council tax does not cover the cost of running local councils hence why they get cash from the government who in turn get a large portion of their funds from motorists.

As i have said previously i have no general issue with cyclists however i do take issue with cyclists complaining their bikes have been damaged by driving through potholes which in my opinion they could avoid.
Your swerving argument maybe has merit since i dont cycle in the uk i am unaware of the pothole situation for cyclists.
However i cant see them being such that you have to constantly be swerving out of the cycle lanes to avoid and when you do need to leave the lane you have plenty of notice and to plan do so.


I also think their complaints there bikes are being damaged by salted and gritted roads is a bit of a joke if as you and others have said they all have cars. If your bike is getting damaged use your car or are the roads that bad?


Neither in my opinion gives them a reason to claim compo and a level or higher priority than motorists from councils.

[ClintonB]

I Love Lamp said:

As a driver and cyclist (driving comes first), I can safely say that you have absolutely no idea, thus I'm not even going to respond to your last comment as it's so retarded.

Oh, and I pay 'road tax' for 2 cars, so, does that give me twice as many rights on the road as you?

Edited by I Love Lamp on Saturday 5th February 02:27

If we both earn the same money and spend it & get punished for it in the same way (and thus incur the same other taxes) but you have two cars and a push iron and I have 3 cars, I pay more tax but yet you might (if a more militant cyclist) expect to get preferential treatment, pay nil tax on your bike, ignore lights and the like and then sue for salt damage. In that situation, given I would pay more tax, can I sue for more and expect a higher likelihood of success, or greater compensation?

Hackneyed but, rough and smooth!

[eharding]

Having the local authorities brought to book about the number of potholes in the roads and pavements (most cyclists use the pavement in my neck of the woods anyway) is no bad thing. I think we could all have a pop at them about that.

Cyclists having a pop at the local authorities for using salt and sand to keep the roads ice-free is taking the proverbial though - I'm sure these jokers would be the first in line to sue if an ice-covered road meant they were taken to casualty to have a portion of carbon-fibre-wunda-peddla cycle frame removed from their rectum as a result of a massive ice-induced wipe-out.

Edited by eharding on Saturday 5th February 03:11

[thinfourth2]

Tallbut Buxomly said:

Scenario my argument here is that council tax does not cover the cost of running local councils hence why they get cash from the government who in turn get a large portion of their funds from motorists.

As i have said previously i have no general issue with cyclists however i do take issue with cyclists complaining their bikes have been damaged by driving through potholes which in my opinion they could avoid.
Your swerving argument maybe has merit since i dont cycle in the uk i am unaware of the pothole situation for cyclists.
However i cant see them being such that you have to constantly be swerving out of the cycle lanes to avoid and when you do need to leave the lane you have plenty of notice and to plan do so.


I also think their complaints there bikes are being damaged by salted and gritted roads is a bit of a joke if as you and others have said they all have cars. If your bike is getting damaged use your car or are the roads that bad?


Neither in my opinion gives them a reason to claim compo and a level or higher priority than motorists from councils.

But lorries pay more road tax and more fuel tax then you do.

So I do hope you never complain about them and you get out of their way.

[Funkateer]

Zaxxon said:

Funkateer said:

It's not nice to slip off a bike on ice.

Then don't ride your bike. Same reason I don't take the Blade out in icy conditions.


There is some strange belief amongst some cyclists that they are above the law and more important than other road users.


They need putting back in their boxes

I was referring to the original post.

Tallbut Buxomly said:

Unbelievably just been watching south east today and cyclists are pushing for compo from the local council for damage to their bicycles caused by salt and sand from the roads...

[Mon Ami Mate]

heebeegeetee said:

What are you talking about, you mong? Practically every adult cyclist owns vehicles too, and every single adult in the uk pays tax, there are no exceptions!

When i was a cyclist i was paying £3k a year in VED.

I also thought you were simply a troll with your OP, but surely to god above man, you cannot be serious?

Hang on, I have three motorcycles and two cars and I have to pay tax on all of them, individually. I can't ride around on an untaxed motorcycle and argue that I don't need to tax it because I pay plenty of tax already. Bicycles should be taxed.

[heebeegeetee]

Tallbut Buxomly said:

1. I see so every cyclist owns a car? Interesting. Can you show me where you got this "Fact" from.

2. They pay nothing to use the roads its a service provided to them free of charge by road tax paying motorists the feckless idiots.


3. As to some of the comments on here. Pathetic is the only word i can think of. Rather than simple reasonable discussion all some posters seem capable of is insults. Terribly mature.

1. I think you'll find that outside London (which is in no way typical of the UK) practically every cyclist will own a car too. Many cyclists will own more than one car so possibly more than counter balancing those who don't. When I was a cyclist i had 5 vehicles iirc, inc a lorry which i was paying £2,600 a year in VED and approx £80 a day in fuel tax.

2. That is such a mind-bogglingly stupid statement to make that naturally everyone thought you were trolling. if you're not trolling, then it beggars belief that anyone who has been on PH for more than 5 mins can make such stupid and wholly incorrect statements. Unless you're 8, you MUST know that there is NO-ONE not paying ANYTHING in tax. Even a tramp pays tax on his meths. Even if you had an item on a supermarket shelf labelled 'There is no tax levied on this item in any form' there still would have been tax paid by the workers who got that item from it's origin to the supermarket, and fuel tax at every stage of the journey, and tax on the energy being used by the store at point of sale, and so on and so on.

3. There is no way at all that your posts could be remotely be described as 'reasonable discussion'.

[Mr Will]

Trying to claim for salt damage is stupid, or every Mk1 MX5 owner in the country would be entitled to half a car by now.

But pot-hole damage is pot-hole damage, regardless of what form of transport you are using. If drivers are able to claim when a pot-hole causes a puncture, then cyclists should be able to claim when one buckles a wheel. Unless you think nobody should be able to claim, and won't mind when you hit one and crack an alloy?

p.s. It's Council tax that pays for (most) roads. Non-motorists are effectively subsidising them for those who do drive. Maybe they should have greater rights...

[jmorgan]

Salt damage, no. But....
Would it not be better for both sides to attack the issue together? Cycle lanes on the road are bound to be worse, a bike I would assume does next to no damage. But rather than two camps, get them together. Shirley the council will baulk at the sight of a combined lycra/spanner wielding mob?

[Galsia]

Potholes are more serious for cyclists (and motorcycle riders) than for car drivers. Hitting a pothole in a car could damage your car, hit one while on two wheels and it could kill you.

Cyclists do pay as much for the roads as everybody else, its called council tax. You are fools if you think that VED money goes into maintaining the roads, it goes straight into the Governments pockets.

I have a car and a bicycle and I think more should be done to make the roads safer for cyclists. On the flipside, I also think that more should be done to punish the bad ones too...

[zac510]

By this logic shouldn't pedestrians pay tax to cross the road too?

[rypt]

Galsia said:

Potholes are more serious for cyclists

Cyclists are not going that fast generally, and it is their own fault for not having any suspension

[twazzock]

rypt said:

Cyclists are not going that fast generally, and it is their own fault for not having any suspension

What has speed got to do with it? If you dip the front wheel into a big enough pothole, you'll be launched over the handlebars; if you have to swerve you risk being squished. It's more a matter of safety than potential damage (although cyclists should still be able to seek compensation for damage).

[jmorgan]

rypt said:

Cyclists are not going that fast generally, and it is their own fault for not having any suspension

Don't expect to have any unless I am going off road big time, there should be enough in my tyres for an decent bit of tarmacadam. Why should I have suspension?

[RYH64E]

jmorgan said:

rypt said:

Cyclists are not going that fast generally, and it is their own fault for not having any suspension

Don't expect to have any unless I am going off road big time, there should be enough in my tyres for an decent bit of tarmacadam. Why should I have suspension?

Because you know that many roads are not decent bits of tarmacadam?

[Mr Will]

rypt said:

... it is their own fault for not having any suspension

If you follow that logic through, next time an Audi driver buckles an alloy in a pot hole, its his own fault for not driving a Fiesta on 13" steels...

[groucho]

Galsia said:

Cyclists do pay as much for the roads as everybody else, its called council tax. You are fools if you think that VED money goes into maintaining the roads, it goes straight into the Governments pockets.

We all know where it goes. Is it not meant for the roads though?

[Mr Will]

groucho said:

We all know where it goes. Is it not meant for the roads though?

Nope, if it was it would be called Road tax. It's Vehicle Excise Duty for a reason.

Council tax is what is supposed to (and does) pay for the majority of roads.

[otolith]

I thought proper cyclists didn't want cycle lanes in the first place, so who is moaning about their condition?

(I quite like them, but then I own no Lycra)

[jmorgan]

RYH64E said:

jmorgan said:

rypt said:

Cyclists are not going that fast generally, and it is their own fault for not having any suspension

Don't expect to have any unless I am going off road big time, there should be enough in my tyres for an decent bit of tarmacadam. Why should I have suspension?

Because you know that many roads are not decent bits of tarmacadam?

If the holes were repaired then no need. It will affect cars as well.