What cyclists have to put up with..

[meshuga]

Cyclist's should have compulsory insurance, just like the mobility scooters that use the road should too

 

Just adding a rant smiley at the end of a repeated point of view is just like shouting at someone who disagrees with you. I've tried to explain why compulsory insurance is unlikely to ever happen. By reducing cycling uptake it will lead to a loss of life for some road users, and not just cyclists. Are we to take it then that you are in favour of increasing the injury and death rate on our roads?

[splodgeyAl]

Interesting thread.

 

I don't think cyclists should pay any additional tax to use the road.

I *do* think that cyclists should have compulsory third party insurance, and some form of registration scheme.

 

I personally loathe the rubbish cyclists I see every day on the way to work (but applaud the decent ones). Unfortunately on the way in to work every morning I *very* rarely see a cyclist who doesnt do one of the following:

 

Jump a light

Hop onto the pavement to avoid a light, then hop back down once clear

Ride two abreast

Cycle on the pavement

 

I posted previously how when waiting for my missus outside a hairdressers near matalan on chesterfield road in the morning i saw 10 out of 13 cyclists jump the reds there; that's not a minority...

 

I love threads like this - there is no logical conclusion

 

What's wrong with riding two abreast?

[kungfugerbil]

I've tried to explain why compulsory insurance is unlikely to ever happen. By reducing cycling uptake it will lead to a loss of life for some road users, and not just cyclists. Are we to take it then that you are in favour of increasing the injury and death rate on our roads?

 

There's a great number of leaps of reasoning there. I agree that compulsory insurance isn't likely to happen, but the rest of it is fairly flawed. Why do you assume less people will cycle if they have to pay 27 quid a year? Do you think people cycle as they are too poor to afford 50p a week? None of the cyclists I know cite that as a reason.

 

The next jump - less cyclists = more death. You are assuming that every person who cycles would stop doing so at the *massive* 50p a week levy, and drive instead. That's a heck of an assumption. Could it be that people would walk instead? Get the bus? Car share?

 

By throwing in emotive statements like "I guess you support more death" you've made your argument look like nothing more than a rant I'm afraid.

[kungfugerbil]

What's wrong with riding two abreast?

 

Nothing, if the riders are keeping up with traffic and paying attention. Again, in my experience, the riders do neither when chatting to each other.

[splodgeyAl]

There's a great number of leaps of reasoning there. I agree that compulsory insurance isn't likely to happen, but the rest of it is fairly flawed. Why do you assume less people will cycle if they have to pay 27 quid a year? Do you think people cycle as they are too poor to afford 50p a week? None of the cyclists I know cite that as a reason.

 

The next jump - less cyclists = more death. You are assuming that every person who cycles would stop doing so at the *massive* 50p a week levy, and drive instead. That's a heck of an assumption. Could it be that people would walk instead? Get the bus? Car share?

 

By throwing in emotive statements like "I guess you support more death" you've made your argument look like nothing more than a rant I'm afraid.

 

It has been shown by many studies that more cyclists = safer roads. The point of the "just 50p" issue is that at the point it would come into force, assuming you dont want to tax kids, is that it would be a pretty high proportion of income. Or would you like to see 5 year-olds pay too?

[splodgeyAl]

Nothing, if the riders are keeping up with traffic and paying attention. Again, in my experience, the riders do neither when chatting to each other.

 

At least you don't use emotive non-arguments to back your case

[kungfugerbil]

At least you don't use emotive non-arguments to back your case

 

That's not emotive - I made clear that it was in my experience only. Others may see it differently. What's the purpose of riding two abreast? To chat? As I stated, no issue whatsoever if the cyclists are maintaining a decent speed.

 

PS emotive = "Characterized by, expressing, or exciting emotion". A statement that says 'You want more people dead' is emotive, one that says 'in my experience, xyz happens' isn't.

[kungfugerbil]

It has been shown by many studies that more cyclists = safer roads.

 

It's also been shown by the National Audit Office that more cyclists = more dead cyclists. Studies can unfortunately be manipulated to show anything depending on the bias and agenda of the researchers.

 

Or would you like to see 5 year-olds pay too?

 

If they are commuting to work on the road, yes

[Squiggs]

Out of interest for the "register and insure cyclists" lobby; what do you suppose would stop those who choose to ignore the rules of the road from continuing to do so?

 

Bearing in mind a clearly identifiable registration number didn't stop a silly woman from reversing out across Wolstenhom Road and then meandering around, travelling slower than a bicycle would, trying to change gears with the left hand whilst holding a household coffee mug in the right.

 

Identifiable registration didn't stop her, so why would it stop her if she were on a bicycle being equally as stupid?

[splodgeyAl]

That's not emotive - I made clear that it was in my experience only. Others may see it differently. What's the purpose of riding two abreast? To chat? As I stated, no issue whatsoever if the cyclists are maintaining a decent speed.

 

PS emotive = "Characterized by, expressing, or exciting emotion". A statement that says 'You want more people dead' is emotive, one that says 'in my experience, xyz happens' isn't.

 

Generally, to help a less experienced cyclist feel safer by being further from the traffic. I'd say that claiming that say a concerned parent who wants to teach their kid cycling roadskills as merely chatting, for the purposes of making a point, is emotive. But still.