altus Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 I respect altus' arguments, although believe they are very wrong. (1) Road tax was initially introduced to build and maintain the road network. Now so much revenue is collected from motorists that there is a huge surplus over what is spent on roads. This goes into the general "pot". The cash used to build and maintain roads is distributed, by the central government, to councils and the Highways Agency to perform the work. How do cyclists contibute to that? I would also guess that most council tax payers are not cyclists but are motorists, and would object to their taxes being spent on facilities for non-contributory adults (ie: cycle lanes). The roads were originally built before cars were around. Whilst there was a road tax on cars a long time ago to help pay for the extra damage they do to road surfaces it was abolished because car drivers saw it as giving them more claim to the roads than others - which has never been the case. How ever much you want it to be VED is not a road tax. I doubt all the money from VED covers the cost of maintaining the motorway network - which cyclists aren't allowed to use. Cyclists contribute to the general taxation pot though income tax, VAT, etc the same as everyone else. They don't pay fuel duty when riding their bikes but that's because they don't use any. However - over 80% of cyclists are also motorists and pay the same taxes as other motorists (maybe a bit less on fuel duty as they'll use a bit less) they also use their road damaging cars less too which means taxes will go further. (2) The highway code clearly states that cyclists should ride in single file. It doesn't. Rule 66 says "You should ... never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends". The LAW certainly doesn't say you should ride in single file which is what you claimed. If you drive according to the highway code/law regarding overtaking, two cyclists riding side by side will not affect you in the slightest. Whenever a motorist claims cyclists should ride in single file what they are really saying is "I want to overtake when it is unsafe to do so". (3) Having earphones stuck in your ears blocks out other noise (including traffic noise) - very different from listening to a car radio, when you can still hear road noise. This is another one you claimed as illegal when it's not. Car manufacturers go to great lengths to make the insides of cars as quiet as they can - it's an important selling feature. Complaining about cyclists having a bit of plastic over their ears whilst denying the effects of soundproofing in cars is ridiculous. (4) No - I do not mean those advanced stop lines. I mean when cars are already stopped at traffic lights and cyclists come up on the inside of them and wait in front, taking absolutely no notice of any signals or indication the waiting cars may be giving.Why do you think they started introducing advanced stop lines for cyclists? It's because directly in front of the car is the place they are most visible. (5) I haven't looked at the post but do know that cycling on the pavement is as legal as driving a car on it, although the law doesn't, I do make an exception for children, but adults should use the road.It contained this quote: "The guidance, which was first issued by Home Office Paul Boateng 15 years ago, states: “The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of the traffic, and who show consideration to other pavement users." (6) I agree - there are some selfish drivers, but that doesn't excuse selfish, careless cyclists. They need to realise they have a responsibility to look after their own, and others, safety, and stop expecting everyone else to do it for them. Nobody's saying it does. That's not the same thing as doing unsafe things, such as riding near the kerb, because some impatient motorist who has poor knowledge of what the law requires of them thinks cyclist should just get out of their way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 We can easily kill the argument that cyclists do not pay road tax so shouldn't be allowed on the road. Quite simply, if there are cars in VED tax band A (£0) and in that band based on environmental performance then why should a cycle with zero emissions pay any tax? Is anybody going to use the no tax argument to put a case for band A cars not being allowed on the road? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gimp27 Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 I always thought that the rules on British roads included to saying "Always give priority to vehicles to your right". I may be incorrect, but im sure that is the law. If it is, surely any claim from an undertaking cyclist would be incoherent? Thats not a snipe at riders, but is it the law? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tzijlstra Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 What a load of c**p the above two posts are! - Typical of the "if you don't agree with me you are wrong" brigade (6) I agree - there are some selfish drivers, but that doesn't excuse selfish, careless cyclists. They need to realise they have a responsibility to look after their own, and others, safety, and stop expecting everyone else to do it for them. Really, your failure to tolerate other forms of road-use are rather disconcerting. I am fairly convinced that there isn't a single cyclist in the UK that gets on a bike with the aim of harming themselves or others - just as there isn't a single motorist with that agenda. However in both categories you get people that aren't paying full respect to their respective modes of transport - that doesn't negate the fact that one category is using a machine that weighs over 1000 kgs and can go at speeds not imaginable to Victorians whereas the other category uses a machine that can quite easily be crushed by many of the other road-users. You tell me which category is more likely to pay heed to safety? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANGELFIRE1 Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 Cyclist wrong - motorist right. Angel1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dutch Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 This is not holland tzijlstra. UK you can turn and indicate same second and argue to be right. In holland they may call that an idiot but to drive like that here is what they want to be. ---------- Post added 23-03-2014 at 12:13 ---------- When I was still driving I was told off and called an idiot by a dutch person driving a dutch car at robbin hood airport yelling at me "rechts heeft voorang klootzak". That means all traffick comming from right side has right of way (that's a dutch rule, don't work in England) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 I always thought that the rules on British roads included to saying "Always give priority to vehicles to your right". I may be incorrect, but im sure that is the law. If it is, surely any claim from an undertaking cyclist would be incoherent? Thats not a snipe at riders, but is it the law? No, never heard that and it wouldn't make any sense either. ---------- Post added 23-03-2014 at 21:54 ---------- And do you sing when its raining on your way to work on your bike. Bet youre single and a right tight wad. :hihi :Moaning about having to pay to park your car. Brilliant Bet if you take a girl out you chardge her petrol money :hihi: No, if it's raining I either put on my waterproofs, take the car or take the tram. Depends on how I feel. you're wrong with the rest of your speculation as well and my wife would probably be annoyed if I started taking girls out. ---------- Post added 23-03-2014 at 21:57 ---------- What a load of c**p the above two posts are! - Typical of the "if you don't agree with me you are wrong" brigade Bonjon demonstrates his intelligence by being unable to formulate an argument and merely resorting to insult. Enough said. I respect altus' arguments, although believe they are very wrong. (1) Road tax was initially introduced to build and maintain the road network. Now so much revenue is collected from motorists that there is a huge surplus over what is spent on roads. This goes into the general "pot". The cash used to build and maintain roads is distributed, by the central government, to councils and the Highways Agency to perform the work. How do cyclists contibute to that? I would also guess that most council tax payers are not cyclists but are motorists, and would object to their taxes being spent on facilities for non-contributory adults (ie: cycle lanes). (2) The highway code clearly states that cyclists should ride in single file. Go on then, quote it or give us a link, I'm looking forward to that one. (4) No - I do not mean those advanced stop lines. I mean when cars are already stopped at traffic lights and cyclists come up on the inside of them and wait in front, taking absolutely no notice of any signals or indication the waiting cars may be giving. If they filter through and are then in front, what difference does the signal the car is making make? It's no longer at the front is it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gimp27 Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 No, never heard that and it wouldn't make any sense either. ---------- Post added 23-03-2014 at 21:54 ---------- No, if it's raining I either put on my waterproofs, take the car or take the tram. Depends on how I feel. you're wrong with the rest of your speculation as well and my wife would probably be annoyed if I started taking girls out. ---------- Post added 23-03-2014 at 21:57 ---------- Go on then, quote it or give us a link, I'm looking forward to that one. If they filter through and are then in front, what difference does the signal the car is making make? It's no longer at the front is it! I think it makes a lot of sense, seeing as we drive on the left here in the UK. I think that people who join motorways havent ever heard of this either, as they usually just join into the motorway flow at whatever speed they like. Also undertaking is illegal for vehicles, unless you stay in lane, and not filtering, yet cyclists can undertake and filter. It does seem a pretty senseless thing to do, especially as most cyclists are motorists, apparently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dutch Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 I have never heard the give way to traffic on right rule in UK and it wouldn't make sense because people drive on the left. On the continent where they drive right side this is THE RULE they keep repeating in their head, it has been pumped in their brains because it has so many stupid amendments to it nobody knows what it really means any longer and comedy shows have been about this rightside has right of way rule. ( it is an oldfashioned stupid confusing and childish rule) It is easier to doze and drive a car than cycle. As a pedestrian I cross side roads without lights and car's come racing angry you are in the way even when you started crossing before they came racing on. End of day, car has insurance and without a camera there is a lot more chance for the cyclist to make a claim than the drive, no matter the rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 The numerous long threads on this forum full of people moaning about parking charges aren't full of cyclists. If 80% of cyclists are also drivers then some of them may be the moaners... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.