Cyclists

[5lab]

ya want daft cycle lanes?? brighton is the capital..





http://www.weirdcyclelanes.co.uk/ if those dont work..

i stick to the roads unless there is a cycle path built into the road on the left - if its part of a path theres no point for me, when moving at 25mph (realistic, on the flat, because my sprint to work takes under 10 mins.. ) - some kiddie steps out in front of me (its happened) i've no chance of stopping, he could realistically be killed (not an exageration - the head cannot cope with decellaration of that level). bikes are silent and cars are not, which makes this a lot more likely to happen.

as for cycling 2 abrest - if the road is very narrow (not really enough room to overtake) i'll happily do this as it stops cars pulling stupid overtaking manouvers - they can overtake when there is no traffic coming the other way - i've no vendetta, this is just common sence (i'll also cycle a bit further out if i see fit, when riding by myself on a narrow road).

i tend to cycle alot in buslanes, as they're normally bus-and-cycle, and if not i can keep up with the busses anyways.

as for road tax, there is no such thing. i believe you're talking about a 'vehical licence' which licences you to own a vehical which is used or kept on the public road.

i do think all cyclists should be encouraged to drive, and visa versa. i'm a very swift cyclist, and love cutting through stationary traffic in the city centre - but i've definately become a more considerate rider since starting to drive, and i'm a more considerate driver because i ride.

a bike 'licence' (cycling proficiency test anyone??) is a good idea, but i dont think it'll happen whilst the government are trying hard to encourage people to ride.

[Howard]

if you manage to hit a pedestrian on a bike its unlikely to result in any injury

You must be joking?

[RVF500]

becuase 2 cyclist side by side have a tendancy to wobble about more than when there is just one. Anyone who has done any form of cycling proficiency would know that. Where there may have been room before that a driver has decided to pass the cyclist can inadvertently 'shut the door' whilst blissfully unaware.

You can blame drivers if you wish (rightly or wrongly) but anyone who drives will know the frustration experienced when stuck behind slow moving traffic. Not an excuse. A fact. It's human nature. You can also stand up and say that drivers are wrong, sometimes they are sometime they aren't. Ultimately a cyclist is flesh and bone and that doesn't do too well against metal and tarmac. Regardless of the morals. If you want to be the most righteous corpse in the graveyard carry on. If you want to enjoy a long a healthy life then live (and cycle) in the real world.

The only way to improve general safety is to physically seperate the different types of traffic. And we all know that's not going to happen in a hurry.

[vincent]

tbh- i do both- i cycle on the pavement and the road....

Both r filled with glass- both are hazardous

last week- the wheelie bins were right in the middle of the pavement under a roadsign- i had 2 risk my own life go off the kerb and cycle back on- i caught my ankle of the sign- and i nearly got Mauled by a HGV.....

Also yesterday- this stupid woman driver pulls out on the road - im doin about 15Mp/h - she pulls out she doesnt look both ways -i had 2 emergency brake because of her- if i didnt easily would have flown through the air....

So you see either it doesnt matter you still risk your life....

The Cycling License -i wouldnt b surprised with this government- another Tax "bring us your wages now!" scheme......

oh yhe and the Pedestrian injury- course u can -especialyl if its a scallie- just snap the brakes and swing the back wheel into their stomach

[TeePee]

I'm just waiting for TeePee to spot this thread. Then there'll be trouble...

Oh, I spotted it.. I'm not touching this with an 11-foot pole!

[dangel]

Motorists pay road tax to pay for the upkeep and maintenance of the road that motor vehicles damage. It also pays for the building of things that cyclists do not use such as motorways. Cyclists cause no damage to the road hence no upkeep cost.

Sorry, but most of the tax generated from motorists goes to pay for things completely unrelated to transport - things that you as a cyclist use. Mores the pity, because then some of us might have a real choice about not driving to work.

i do think all cyclists should be encouraged to drive, and visa versa. i'm a very swift cyclist, and love cutting through stationary traffic in the city centre - but i've definately become a more considerate rider since starting to drive, and i'm a more considerate driver because i ride.

a bike 'licence' (cycling proficiency test anyone??) is a good idea, but i dont think it'll happen whilst the government are trying hard to encourage people to ride.

Most motorists did ride a bike - if only when they were kids - so they _should_ have some appreciation of what it's like. People forget though, and some are just terrible drivers anyway (a hazard to cars and bikes). In cities, thesedays, many people who ride bikes can't drive (I work with four of them in my department alone) and, as you say, get no formal training in road safety or the highway code. I really think this should change - not for the benefit of car drivers - but for the safety of cyclists themselves.

[rox0r]

things that you as a cyclist use.

Such as?

[Konan555]

looking in the miror when turning left without indicating

In this country, we overtake on the right. Lorry, car or bike.

[dangel]

Such as?

"Motorists are paying taxes of £38 billion a year - or an average of more than £1,200 each - which adds up to almost a tenth of all government revenues."

"This year, the Department for Transport estimates that spending on all roads in England, since Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are now devolved, will be about £5.4 billion. This figure includes £13 million for road safety publicity."

- Telegraph, 18/01/2003

Care to bet it's gone up or down in the interim years? Thought not, so let's move on.

[rox0r]

What's your point? The fact that you're saying you pay too much road tax by virtue of the fact that the government is spending it on...what, I don't know...sweeties, has nothing to do with the original point that your road tax goes towards offsetting the cost of the damage done to the road by your vehicle. Your argument does hold true when speaking about how much a motorist should pay but not against why cyclists don't pay road tax.

[schmunk]

TBH, the majority of adult cyclists probably DO pay road tax, as they will also own and drive cars...

[5lab]

one reason cyclists may not pay road tax is because the cost of arranging, policing and maintainging such a scheme would be huge compared to the actual possible income - for a start each bike would need a registration identifier of some kind - which would then have to be linked to a database for bikes so that if you sold one the letters wouldnt go to you..it'd just get silly..

another reason that motorists pay high tax and cyclists dont is because (for many reasons) the government is trying to cut down on car use and increase bike use. you may not consider this fair, but a commuter on a bike takes up less room, is probably healthier, polutes a lot less and uses next to no natural resources in comparison to a car. cycling to work IS a valid option for many commuters - its just one they choose to ignore (i would say that the vast majority of people *could* cycle up to 6 miles each way for a commute - yet they choose not to..)

as for getting stuck behind slow moving traffic - yes its very frustrating - i know because on my commute car drivers who are stuck in traffic often block my way in an oblivious mannor, when moving to one side of the lane or t'other would give me plenty of room

[Konan555]

another reason that motorists pay high tax and cyclists dont is because (for many reasons) the government is trying to cut down on car use and increase bike use. you may not consider this fair, but a commuter on a bike takes up less room, is probably healthier, polutes a lot less and uses next to no natural resources in comparison to a car. cycling to work IS a valid option for many commuters - its just one they choose to ignore (i would say that the vast majority of people *could* cycle up to 6 miles each way for a commute - yet they choose not to..)

100% agreement there. Walking or cycling to work is simple for so many people yet they're basicly too idle to bother. And if more people cycled in built up areas, there'd be less cars and cycling would become safer.

Be neatly cutting down on emissions, and nipping a country wide weight issue in the bud really.

[dangel]

What's your point? The fact that you're saying you pay too much road tax by virtue of the fact that the government is spending it on...what, I don't know...sweeties,

..except I never said that

has nothing to do with the original point that your road tax goes towards offsetting the cost of the damage done to the road by your vehicle. Your argument does hold true when speaking about how much a motorist should pay but not against why cyclists don't pay road tax.

..except I never said that either Sigh.
My point, related to your statement:
"Motorists pay road tax to pay for the upkeep and maintenance of the road that motor vehicles damage. It also pays for the building of things that cyclists do not use such as motorways. Cyclists cause no damage to the road hence no upkeep cost."

Which rather implied that you get nothing out of the tax that motorists paid; this is far from true, and as i've showed, motorists contribute rather a lot to the things we _all_ benefit from. I _also_ never said that cyclists _should_ pay road tax now did I? Stop jumping to silly conclusions - i'm neither anti cyclist or motorist (in fact i'm a user of both) but i'm also a realist.

I personally have no choice but to drive 25 miles each way to work each day, as do many others who don't live in cities. If you scroll back, I also said that this is a great shame and that i'd personally welcome them reinvesting tax raised from motorists in transport (and that means not JUST ROADS!)

[Konan555]

I personally have no choice but to drive 25 miles each way to work each day

Yet have to pay all the same duties and licence fees as those that drive 2 miles instead of hopping on a bus or walking. Good init.

[dangel]

Yet have to pay all the same duties and licence fees as those that drive 2 miles instead of hopping on a bus or walking. Good init.

I can feel the dangerous idea of per mile taxation looming again - let's not go there it'd really not favour many (aside from the rich). To be fair, most of those I work with in the city cycle - and they do that because it's basically quicker than driving across the centre (as well as cheaper as they're not paying fuel). Then again, they all have 4-5 times the mortgage debt as me..