LardyBoy Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 and make the roads safer. Are you sure ? you obviously havnt seen the cyclists who jump red lights . you obviously havnt seen the cyclists who jump zebra crossing you obviously havnt see the cyclists who ride on the pavements as a way of avoiding red lights . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 Are you sure ? . It's been proven: International research reveals that as cycling participation increases, a cyclist is far less likely to collide with a motor vehicle or suffer injury and death - and what's true for cyclists is true for pedestrians. And it's not simply because there are fewer cars on the roads, but because motorists seem to change their behaviour and drive more safely when they see more cyclists and pedestrians around. Studies in many countries have shown consistently that the number of motorists colliding with walkers or cyclists doesn't increase equally with the number of people walking or bicycling. For example, a community that doubles its cycling numbers can expect a one-third drop in the per-cyclist frequency of a crash with a motor vehicle. "It's a virtuous cycle," says Dr Julie Hatfield, an injury expert from UNSW who address a cycling safety seminar in Sydney, Australia, on September 5. "The likelihood that an individual cyclist will be struck by a motorist falls with increasing rate of bicycling in a community. And the safer cycling is perceived to be, the more people are prepared to cycle." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080903112034.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 No less space than motorcyles , who HAVE to pay VED. Based on your theory , should motorcycles be exempt from VED .? Personally , again based on your theory , push cycles should have to pay the same as motorcyles, as they take up the same amount of space as them . Motorbikes have an engine so the tax, which as you know is emissions based, applies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LardyBoy Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 This is why bicycles don't pay road tax and nor should they have to. So you admit cyclists are freeloaders on our roads , when yesterday you claimed motorists were the freeloaders . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 So you admit cyclists are freeloaders on our roads , when yesterday you claimed motorists were the freeloaders . No, because bicycles don't have engines. No engines= no emissions=no emissions tax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LardyBoy Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 Road tolls rather than increased fuel costs would mean the money would go back to the taxpayer rather than the oil and car companies. Would you be calling for cyclists to be exempt from road toll charges ? Would you be happy for us motorists to pay your share ,so you cyclists can have yet another free ride on the back of motorists ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hots on Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 Would you be calling for cyclists to be exempt from road toll charges ? Arent road toll charges designed to curtail congestion? cyclists don't cause congestion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LardyBoy Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 Arent road toll charges designed to curtail congestion? cyclists don't cause congestion. Neither do motorcycles , but they WOULD NOT be exempt from road toll charges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 Would you be calling for cyclists to be exempt from road toll charges ? Would you be happy for us motorists to pay your share ,so you cyclists can have yet another free ride on the back of motorists ? It's the other way round. Take a cyclist who owns a car as many do. If they choose to cycle, should they get a refund of the VED and a refund from the other drivers whose journey is less congested? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 ... Yes there are benefits to motoring and motor transport but only with the world economy as it is currently set up with motoring, motorways and the extensive road network facilitating road haulage on a massive scale with massive logistics centres near motorways etc and the construction of massive out of town shopping centres and supermarkets with acres of parking. If these can be considered benefits. The reason our national economy functions as it does is largely down to cheap fuel and motoring. If all subsidisation of motoring was removed and motorists were left to free market economics (as rail travel is almost forced to) then the economy would change and most likely become more locally based with food and goods supplied from local producers. Or we would see a return to transport of goods and people to rail and public transport which the government would be forced to adderss properly, rather than pretending to do so as it does now. This would also massively reduce emmissions, pollution and environmental damage... If you want to encourage (or even force) people onto public transport, then provide the public transport first. There's not a lot of point in pricing private motoring (or road freight) off the road if you've no alternative in place. I suspect it would take a while to change the world economy. During that time, production and transportation of food would be reduced significantly. That would probably do quite a bit to reduce emisions, pollution and over-population. Yes, food could be produced locally. Those who live in rural areas already produce food locally but if their costs are going to increase, then the amount they produce will probably decrease. That won't be a problem for them, because they will increase the price to cover the costs of production and the increased cost of transportation. They will still demand (and get) enough money to cover their costs and to allow them a decent standard of living. That standard of living does include 'social amenities' and if the cost of those amneities (particularly the cost of getting to them) increases, then the amount of money they will need will also increase. If you don't like the prices they charge for food, you can always shop elsewhere ... or grow your own. Those who have large gardens will be able to produce some of the food they eat from their own land. (You need a surprisingly large amount of land if you're going to be 'self sufficient'.) Those who don't have gardens would, persumably, go without. The previous government's contingency plan for food shortages said that in the event of food shortages, they would rely on the supermarkets. (If we run out of food, it will be OK, 'cos we can get it from Tesco.) Think agan. In the event of a food shortage, supermarkets are the last place to look. They don't carry back stocks; most of them have enough stock to last 24 hours. Supermarkets are 'just in time' organisations. They rely on a fast and efficient road transport network. If you slow down that network or increase the cost of operating it, that will have a direct (and rapid) effect on supermarkets. How long did it take from the onset of the recent spell of (predicted and predictable) winter weather for people to start complaining about bare shelves in supermarkets? Were there any stories about shops putting their prices up dramatically? Close down the road transport system (by making it too expensive to operate) and see what happens then. It's all very well to talk about moving goods and people by rail ... but don't you need railway lines to be able to do that? How many farms have rail heads? The railway system in the UK is very poor (thanks, Dr Beeching) and putting that in order would take billions of pounds and a very long time. How are people going to get around until the railway system provided the service they need? If you want to take the (alleged) subsidies off motorists, then are you prepared to take the political risk involved in removing ALL transport subsidies? - Subsidies including (but not limited to) bus passes (all of them), council subsidised bus routes, school bus routes (the school buses would still run, but the fares would cover the costs.) I don't thnk that would be much of a winner, somehow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.