ferno Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 No I haven't, are you trying to say there is no such road then, in Sheffield Why don't you just name the road? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meshuga Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Why don't you just name the road? Because WeX, like our anti-cyclist friend Mercurian, when asked direct questions, cannot do so. The thread starter has gone awful quiet since being asked a simple question which required a simple yes or no answer (page 10). I find it laughable that WeX demands sources for stats when they themselves are coming out with statements like "about 50% of cyclists break the law". Sources please WeX. Any proponent of the notion that cyclists should pay a vehicle duty, have a licence, mot their cycle, or get compulsory insurance must also be made aware that their proposals will lead to a reduced uptake of cycling as a whole. Via the "safety in numbers effect" (one source of several studies posted above) this would lead to less safe roads FOR ALL ROAD USERS. No doubt a newcomer to the thread wil be along any minute, as is their want, who will openly make a fool of themselves by not reading any prior posts and claim that "cyclists should pay tax". Purely a matter of time...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perplexed Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Wex. What road was it please? If you tell us (for some reason you don't seem to want to) we may be able to have some further input as to why the rider was doing what he was doing. Second question for you Wex, just wondering what your thoughts are... What percentage of drivers speed? I don't mean what are the stats for prosecutions, because we all know they don't reflect the amount of lawbreaking which happens... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeX Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 So, you're including the entire Welsh population, including the 50% who don't drive, in order to prove only 0.89% of drivers break the law. That's breathtaking dishonesty. You claimed 50% of cyclists break the law and have no evidence for this, and you misuse statistics to excuse law-breaking drivers. That's dishonest. I was actually thinking about this some more and realised I hadn't factored in the numbers of none drivers but your 50% is wrong. 70% of the UK population own a driving license. so if my 0.89% represents 100% of the population can you see the number increasing significantly? or will it nudge over the 1% mark? suffice to say the margin of error is less than 1% here so perfectly acceptable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeX Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Wex. What road was it please? If you tell us (for some reason you don't seem to want to) we may be able to have some further input as to why the rider was doing what he was doing. Second question for you Wex, just wondering what your thoughts are... What percentage of drivers speed? I don't mean what are the stats for prosecutions, because we all know they don't reflect the amount of lawbreaking which happens... I'm not going to tell for my own reasons but if you want to see a road that could have the same condition's, how about looking at the roads coming off Chesterfield road that go up hill. of an evening most of these roads have cars parked on either side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeX Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 I find it laughable that WeX demands sources for stats when they themselves are coming out with statements like "about 50% of cyclists break the law". Sources please WeX. What? are you for real or just skip reading my replied? you want a source, I said it was my experience, I didn't claim my stats were scientific just that of the small number of cyclists compared to car drivers I see on a daily basis I would claim 50% broke some rule or another. on the subject of the road leading up to were I live, I think I am well within my rights to with hold such information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnailyBoy Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 I'm not going to tell for my own reasons but if you want to see a road that could have the same condition's, how about looking at the roads coming off Chesterfield road that go up hill. of an evening most of these roads have cars parked on either side. Snip.... on the subject of the road leading up to were I live, I think I am well within my rights to with hold such information. Why would you mention it's the road where you live, how would anyone possibly know that? Because you've created a scenario to suit your agenda of cyclists holding up traffic. That's brilliant... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foxy lady Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Ok, look at it this way. A car producing C02 emissions of less than 100 g/km pays no " road tax " so using the same taxing bands for bikes as you would for vehicles, a bike would be exempt from been taxed anyway. In fact a vehicle registered from April 1st 2010 and producing less the 130g/km of C02 pays no road tax. Oddly you never hear rants as to why they are not taxed. There are no cars on the road other than the queen's that aren't taxed. They are all required to display a valid tax disk whether it is free or not and require number plates as well. That way you can trace them when they run into you. The other thing that car owners are required to have is insurance so you can get your money back after they run into you. Cyclists would be held in higher regard if they had these things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnailyBoy Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Because WeX, like our anti-cyclist friend Mercurian, when asked direct questions, cannot do so. The thread starter has gone awful quiet since being asked a simple question which required a simple yes or no answer (page 10). I find it laughable that WeX demands sources for stats when they themselves are coming out with statements like "about 50% of cyclists break the law". Sources please WeX. Any proponent of the notion that cyclists should pay a vehicle duty, have a licence, mot their cycle, or get compulsory insurance must also be made aware that their proposals will lead to a reduced uptake of cycling as a whole. Via the "safety in numbers effect" (one source of several studies posted above) this would lead to less safe roads FOR ALL ROAD USERS. No doubt a newcomer to the thread wil be along any minute, as is their want, who will openly make a fool of themselves by not reading any prior posts and claim that "cyclists should pay tax". Purely a matter of time...... There are no cars on the road other than the queen's that aren't taxed. They are all required to display a valid tax disk whether it is free or not and require number plates as well. That way you can trace them when they run into you. The other thing that car owners are required to have is insurance so you can get your money back after they run into you. Cyclists would be held in higher regard if they had these things. And here we have it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 There are no cars on the road other than the queen's that aren't taxed. They are all required to display a valid tax disk whether it is free or not and require number plates as well. That way you can trace them when they run into you. The other thing that car owners are required to have is insurance so you can get your money back after they run into you. Cyclists would be held in higher regard if they had these things. A free tax disc. Why would anyone care if they were all given one, they could be like flyers, you just pick one up if you fancy it. Completely pointless though, nothing but a waste of money. Most cyclists are of course insured, it's a common misconception amongst the anti-cyclist that they aren't. They are of course unlikely to cause significant injury or damage as well, so insurance isn't compulsory for that reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.