New Rules For Cyclists?

[altus]

12 hours ago, bassett one said:

why is road tax bad,they even have there own roads car free ,it should be more than cars according to that,should it not?

Cars wear out roads at about 10,000 times the rate bicycles do. For every £1 of the council tax people pay that goes to the highway department and is spent on road maintenance, motorists should pay an extra £9,999 compared to cyclists to match the additional wear and tear their vehicles cause to the roads.

 

Or maybe you could accept the reality which is that VED is not a road fund tax and that cyclists do contribute to road building/maintenance though other taxes.

[Planner1]

13 minutes ago, altus said:

 For every £1 of the council tax people pay that goes to the highway department and is spent on road maintenance, motorists should pay an extra £9,999 compared to cyclists to match the additional wear and tear their vehicles cause to the roads.

 

Or maybe you could accept the reality which is that VED is not a road fund tax and that cyclists do contribute to road building/maintenance though other taxes.

Funding for highway maintenance normally comes from the government ( ie through general taxation), not from council tax.

[altus]

7 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

Funding for highway maintenance normally comes from the government ( ie through general taxation), not from council tax.

So motorists should pay 10,000 times as much for the portion those taxes that get spent on road maintenance as cyclist do.

 

The point of my post was to highlight the ridiculousness of arguing that cyclists don't contribute to road maintainance when it's quite obvious to anyone who thinks about it that they do.[1]

 

 

[1] I know you realise this and are just being pedantic about where the funding comes from.

[Guest busdriver1]

................

Edited August 20, 2022 by busdriver1

[Guest busdriver1]

I think that we are getting bogged down here.

Yes pedestrians CROSS roads - they do not USE them in the way vehicles (including cycles) and animals (horses etc) do.

The current system of emissions related VED was nothing more than a bribe to drivers to get lower emission cars. It is not well thought out and will lead to a loss of revenue in that area so I suspect may not last much longer. As has been stated most road building comes from central government but cyclists want more than is currently provided so maybe a SMALL contribution should not be ruled out.

All road users should be traceable so they can be held to account for any wrongdoings. Currently, cars have registration plates to facilitate this, as do buses trucks and motorcycles. There seems to be a strong resistance from the cycling fraternity to them being identifiable. This raises good grounds for suspicion as to their motives, ANY road user not committing offences has nothing to fear from being traceable.

Insurance? That is a hard one. Yes a cyclist has the potential to cause injury even at slower speeds so since it has been stated that insurance can be obtained for around £25 per annum maybe it should be made compulsory.

Lights on bikes at night? Is there any sane argument against this? High viz clothing? Not sure on that. High viz is so common nowadays it has lost its effect and meaning.

Yes there are car etc drivers who are driving without insurance, they are a tiny minority and some do get caught.

 

There are car drivers who still use mobile phones when driving, as do some cyclists. No real difference there except one of them is traceable and the other is not.

 

There are car drivers who drive under the influence of substances, the same applies to cyclists. As above , one of them is traceable.

 

One last point, I do drive a car, but I also ride a cycle. 

[Bargepole23]

2 hours ago, busdriver1 said:

I think that we are getting bogged down here.

Yes pedestrians CROSS roads - they do not USE them in the way vehicles (including cycles) and animals (horses etc) do.

The current system of emissions related VED was nothing more than a bribe to drivers to get lower emission cars. It is not well thought out and will lead to a loss of revenue in that area so I suspect may not last much longer. As has been stated most road building comes from central government but cyclists want more than is currently provided so maybe a SMALL contribution should not be ruled out.

All road users should be traceable so they can be held to account for any wrongdoings. Currently, cars have registration plates to facilitate this, as do buses trucks and motorcycles. There seems to be a strong resistance from the cycling fraternity to them being identifiable. This raises good grounds for suspicion as to their motives, ANY road user not committing offences has nothing to fear from being traceable.

Insurance? That is a hard one. Yes a cyclist has the potential to cause injury even at slower speeds so since it has been stated that insurance can be obtained for around £25 per annum maybe it should be made compulsory.

Lights on bikes at night? Is there any sane argument against this? High viz clothing? Not sure on that. High viz is so common nowadays it has lost its effect and meaning.

Yes there are car etc drivers who are driving without insurance, they are a tiny minority and some do get caught.

 

There are car drivers who still use mobile phones when driving, as do some cyclists. No real difference there except one of them is traceable and the other is not.

 

There are car drivers who drive under the influence of substances, the same applies to cyclists. As above , one of them is traceable.

 

One last point, I do drive a car, but I also ride a cycle. 

Ref your point about more cycling infrastructure. If that infrastructure was fit for purpose, meaning segregated, and couldn't be parked in, was maintained then there is a better argument for some sort of levy.

 

If its the usual painted lines with cars parked in, then it's worse than useless and no tax levy is justifiable.

 

I've ridden extensively in Belgium and Netherlands. Cycling infrastructure done properly and well used.

 

No argument here about lights at night, and reflective clothing for me too. Hi vis is pointless.

 

Estimates say 1 million uninsured drivers on UK roads, approx 3%. 1 in 35 cars going past a point on motorway feels like quite a lot.

Edited August 20, 2022 by Bargepole23

[Resident]

1 hour ago, Bargepole23 said:

Ref your point about more cycling infrastructure. If that infrastructure was fit for purpose, meaning segregated, and couldn't be parked in, was maintained then there is a better argument for some sort of levy.

 

If its the usual painted lines with cars parked in, then it's worse than useless and no tax levy is justifiable.

 

I've ridden extensively in Belgium and Netherlands. Cycling infrastructure done properly and well used.

 

No argument here about lights at night, and reflective clothing for me too. Hi vis is pointless.

 

Estimates say 1 million uninsured drivers on UK roads, approx 3%. 1 in 35 cars going past a point on motorway feels like quite a lot.

Sheffield Road. 
Dearne Valley 

2 areas I drive regularly, both have segragated cycle roads, both frequently swept & maintained, both installed at great cost for the safety of cyclists due to heavy HGV traffic, both routinely ignored by cyclists sticking to the main carriageway, putting themselves at greater risk and causing congestion leading to higher emissions in the area. 

[Findlay]

13 hours ago, mattsin30 said:

What a bizare comment.  Do you have proof hitting someone at 8 mph won't cause a injury?  You can easily knock someone to the ground hitting them 8 mph on a bike.  So I'm not sure what your talking about now about stopping but by the sounds of it neither do you. The cycling lobby on the internet certainly has a chip on its shoulder and are a embarrassment to the rest of cyclists. 

So you have gone from being seriously injured to cause an injury! Thanks for proving you don't know what you are talking about.  If someone steps in front of a properly maintained road bike 6ft away they would be able to stop in time causing no injury to anyone.

The idiot in London who hit that poor woman who stepped into the road was using a track bike which is illegal on the road with a  fixed wheel and no brakes. He was rightly found guilty of wanton and furious driving at 18 mph and punished with an 18 month sentence.

Copied from the folllowing link "A bike would have to be traveling more than 60mph to have same kinetic energy as car traveling less than 20mph. A person hit by car traveling 20mph has less than 10% chance of dying".  https://twitter.com/midweekcycling/status/1378128087083315200/photo/1

 

The cycle gutter lanes across Sheffield are not marked to DfT standard where cyclist should be given 1.5 metres of passing distance under 30mh and 2m passing distance on roads over 30mph. https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/using-the-road-overtaking.html

This means that the 1m white painted lines cycle lanes are a danger to cyclists and should not be used. They should miantain an arms length from the kerb and parked cars. If this put the cyclist in the  first lane of the carriagway the second lane represents enough space for cars and lorries to overtake properly and safely. Several cars, lorries and taxis are now waiting for their speed awareness course for close passing cyclists.

Edited August 20, 2022 by Findlay

[Bargepole23]

4 hours ago, Resident said:

Sheffield Road. 
Dearne Valley 

2 areas I drive regularly, both have segragated cycle roads, both frequently swept & maintained, both installed at great cost for the safety of cyclists due to heavy HGV traffic, both routinely ignored by cyclists sticking to the main carriageway, putting themselves at greater risk and causing congestion leading to higher emissions in the area. 

And why do you think they are ignored by cyclists? If they were fit for purpose they would be used, rather than riding with HGV's.

 

What was the great cost by the way?

[bassett one]

they pay nowt and still moan these bike folk,never happy,even when they get there own cycle paths/routes ect.