cyclists

[corydoras]

It's bad enough having to buy a rod Licence never mind Taxing Pushbikes !!!

Hi Tigger

I must admit I agree. It really gets my goat up when people start suggesting new taxes, we are already taxed enough.

 

For what its worth here is my tuppeny worth.

 

Taxes on the whole are not hypothecated in this country. The exception that comes to mind is the TV Licence, which at the moment is used to pay the BBC. The monies collected from Income Tax, Corporation Tax, Vehicle Excise Duty, Fuel Duty, National Insurance (yes this is a tax, NOT an insurance premium) etc, etc, ad infinitum all go into the Exchequer. Road tax is there to make people consider other means of transport than cars, fuel duty is there to reduce the amount people use their cars, speed cameras are there to reduce the amount of speeding, and therefore accidents, that people have. The idea of taxing cyclists to use the roads is as daft as the idea of taxing pedestrians to use the pavements.

 

Cycling in this country is a nightmare on two accounts, but I did not really realise this until last summer when I was in France 'sans bagnole' and decided to borrow a push-bike to get me round the local villages. Most of the time I was able to use the many cycle routes (which also double up as pedestrian routes too) and these were fine, a real pleasure to use and we should have more of them. Where there are no cycle paths one has to use the road in France, but hey French drivers are MUCH more considerate about passing cycles on the road than the vast majority of UK drivers. The last time I tried to cycle around Southampton I took to the pavement pronto because most drivers did not even seem to know that I was there, In France even big red Norbert Dentressangle trucks treated me like another vehicle. I suspect that many of the car drivers who have posted so negatively in this topic so far also have no patience for, horses, ponies and traps, motorcycles or any other forms of transport that does not have an internal combustion engine and at least four wheels.

 

Cyclists are not blameless however. ALL cyclists should follow the Highway Code and that means having a white light in the front and a red light at the back. Personally I could not give a flying fokker wulf if your lights flash, pulsate or play Yankee fcuking Doodle Dandy as long as we can see them. You should also fit some kind of horn or bell. Don't tell me there is no place on your bike to fit one I used to be a dedicated cyclist, between the ages of 14 and 21 me and my bike went almost everywhere together. It was a real road racing machine, the kind that has tubeless tyres held on by cement and I managed to find space for lights and an electric horn, so so can you. Cyclists should also be stopping at red lights, pedestrian crossings etc. Cycle past me at a zebra crossing and I'll do my best to kick you off your bike.

 

Snakey

I don't know where you get your stastistics from but these statistics that you spout are just plain wrong.

As for "sorting out" those safe to ride on the road, well thats worked really well with the car licences considering last time i checked over 10,000 people died on the roads each year due to RTA's involving cars.

The last time I checked (here, 5 seconds ago) There were slightly over 3,000 total RTA deaths in the last year that there are published figures for. In general I am on your side in this debate, but you don't do us any favours by picking figures out of thin air.

 

Sportsman

I guess the big groups of Lycra clad cyclists that you see are from some local road racing club. In France you see these as well, difference is that in France they would have a Gendarme in a BMW ride a few kilometres in front of them effectively closing the road for them, and another bringing up the rear.

 

It does seem to me that there are a lot of selfish motorised vehicle drivers in general who forget that as soon as they goet out of there car or get down from there cab are instantly transformed into lowly pedestrians.

Edited April 14, 2007 by corydoras

[kleinboet]

THANK YOU corydoras!!! At long last someone who will admit that cyclists AND motorists need to get their act together!!

I was being accused of using the phone in the car and all sorts! What I was trying to get over was that if a motorist is driving like a Richard, he can easily be reported. You can't with a cyclist. There was a case publicised in Cheltenham recently , where a Youth on a cycle knocked down an elderly lady. He came off his bike himself, but picked himself up and, probably unharmed, scarpered, leaving the pensioner on the pavement with a broken leg, hip and pelvis.

 

It was winessed by pedestrians on the other side of the road, but by the time they got to the pennsioners side the cyclist was long gone and untraceable!!

[Guest Rabbit]

Rabbit - SIT DOWN! Do you know how stupid you sound? I'll tell you what, let's ban all vehicles except bikes! I am disabled and would be quite happy to sit at home and let you cyclists fech my shopping, pay my bills etc.

Motorists (who pay ROAD TAX - who have INSURANCE - who have a LICENCE - who OBEY THE LAW or are punished) must treat cyclists like pedestrians - WHY!!!!!!!!!! You bang on about dangerous drivers, but when someone mentions the idiotic, suicidal cyclists that are out there, you come up with an IDIOTIC statement "motorists should treat all cyclists like pedestrians EVEN IF THEY ARE DOING WRONG"!!!!!!

The answer to this problem is not to blame the motorist, the answer is that all the good cyclists (there are a lot of them out there, and they are treated with RESPECT on the road!) should get together and get the idiots to get their act together or ban them from the roads.

You are asking a motorist to sit behind a youngster who has both hands off the handlebars and is busy texting! Never mind the fact that he is all over the road he must be "treated like a pedestrian"!!!

 

There you go again ASSUMING I cycle I DONT. I do DRIVE however and I do understand that a driver of a vehicle has to give way to a pedesterian or cyclist. Why? because a vehicle can do damage or even KILL a pedestrian or cyclist. And yes even if they are doing WRONG. Its a bit of an unfair advantage a car has over a cyclist, no matter how you may feel even if you feel you as a driver are in the right Assuming that you understand that simple fact, just WHAT do you find to argue about is a mystery.

It is a no brainer it really is.

CHECK THE HIGHWAY CODE.

And stop SHOUTING its giving me a HEADACHE

Edited April 14, 2007 by Rabbit

[Guest Rabbit]

THANK YOU corydoras!!! At long last someone who will admit that cyclists AND motorists need to get their act together!!

I was being accused of using the phone in the car and all sorts! What I was trying to get over was that if a motorist is driving like a Richard, he can easily be reported. You can't with a cyclist. There was a case publicised in Cheltenham recently , where a Youth on a cycle knocked down an elderly lady. He came off his bike himself, but picked himself up and, probably unharmed, scarpered, leaving the pensioner on the pavement with a broken leg, hip and pelvis.

 

It was winessed by pedestrians on the other side of the road, but by the time they got to the pennsioners side the cyclist was long gone and untraceable!!

 

Its really quite a feature of your STORIES is an old age pensioner thats the victim. Why dont yot tell the story of the old age pensioner who drove over and reversed at least three time over motorcyclist at a traffic light. Killed the motor cyclist, and did not stand trial because it was feared that it would shorten his life. He was 85!! Tell that to his widow, just an example of what a car can do to the innocent, you can see the point I am making, cant you?

[kleinboet]

No Rabbit - I can't.

You are suggesting that whatever cyclists do, motorists must make allowances because it is a bicycle and, according to you, less dangerous than a car. So that makes it alright!!

 

You don't like pensioners getting hurt - what about kids playing on the pavement because the have been taught it is dangerous in the road!

 

So you tell me - must we set a whole new set of laws applicable only to cyclists? Because they won't listen to laws of the road that doesn't mention them!

 

Must we keep the roads and pavements clear in case a cyclist decides to come down that way?

 

This sounds like the argument about whether the toilet seat must be kept up or down (and before anyone starts saying that it has nothing to do with cyclists - it is a simile!)

Edited April 14, 2007 by kleinboet

[Guest Rabbit]

No Rabbit - I can't.

You are suggesting that whatever cyclists do, motorists must make allowances because it is a bicycle and, according to you, less dangerous than a car. So that makes it alright!!

Yes to a point because as I have said a car can be a lethal weapon.

You don't like pensioners getting hurt - what about kids playing on the pavement because the have been taught it is dangerous in the road! Yes I dont like pensioners getting hurt, and yes kids shouldn't play in the road.

 

So you tell me - must we set a whole new set of laws applicable only to cyclists? Because they won't listen to laws of the road that doesn't mention them!

No, but even if they (cyclists) do break the laws of the road, we have to give way to them.

Must we keep the roads and pavements clear in case a cyclist decides to come down that way?

No that would be daft.

This sounds like the argument about whether the toilet seat must be kept up or down (and before anyone starts saying that it has nothing to do with cyclists - it is a simile!)

Always keep the toilet seat down, its good English manners.

[Guest tigger]

Always keep the toilet seat down, its good English manners.

 

 

Problem is ..........there's not many English left !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Their all foreign muck !

[Guest Ferret1959]

I went to Swidon today and on the way down tha A raods came across a cycle 'road race'.

 

They were crap, I beat every one of them. :lol:

 

 

They just can't keep up the pace.

 

 

 

 

 

Mind you I did have one trying to pass me at 70mph !!!!

 

He kept banging the window, I just put my foot down harder, still he kept up banging like mad on my bloody window.

 

Anyhow I got fed up and pulled into a layby to see what he was trying to do.

 

 

 

Only then I realised I got my mirror caught on his lycra shorts. :lol:

[Andy_1984]

Andy never mind the cyclists i was sitting at a set of traffic lights yesterday after pulling out to pass a 4 wheeled electric invalid buggy.

it then pulled out to pass me stopped for 1 or 2 seconds then drove off through the red light what a tosser , the old guy on it would have been wiped out

if the arctic coming from the left of the cross roads had not done an emergency stop ,

unfortunately no reg plate on it but it did have indicators and brake lights.

 

thats nothing i once seen one of em going up the M8

 

yeah i think all forms of vehicle that use roads that are made for (drivers) we pay hundreds of pounds each year for our right and privledge why should anyone else be any different. feels like the big nasty car doesnt have any say in it because bikes and such are greener

[Steve Walker]

Taxes on the whole are not hypothecated in this country. The exception that comes to mind is the TV Licence, which at the moment is used to pay the BBC.

 

Don't forget the other hypothecated tax; the English and Welsh fishing tax.

 

The argument about hypothecation always amuses me, because it gets used only when convenient and is otherwise conveniently forgotten. Motorist will complain that the cost of motoring taxes far outweighs the cost of building and maintaining road infrastructure. Cyclist will counter that motoring taxes are not hypothecated, should beer tax be spent building pubs, &c. Motorist will complain that he pays handsomely for his use of the roads yet cyclist pays nothing. Cyclist will argue that he does no damage to roads and therefore should not pay anything to use them. But if the tax is arbitrary, unhypothecated, unrelated to running costs, why shouldn't he pay? Access to the cinema is not charged in proportion to wear and tear on the seats.

 

The arguments go round and round.

 

Personally, I don't like indirect taxes. I don't like government using the tax system to control my choices, and I prefer the transparency of direct taxes. So I wouldn't tax either. If, however, there is to be an attempt to impose market forces on the roads through road charging systems, don't fanny about, go the whole hog and privatise them. That will mean that nobody gets free access. I wouldn't advocate that myself, but those who want to impose market based solutions on public infrastructure ought to have the courage of their convictions and do it properly.