Cyclists should have to pay road taxes... blah blah blah

Porgy

What the correspondent probably doesn't realise is that it is most likely that cyclists that have had proper training that are the ones cycling in "the middle of the road" as she puts it.

I'd be happy to be forced to have compulsory training if we had a decent regime for drivers too - wherby they have to undergo compulsory training everytime there is a change in the Highway Code or legislation - that those who have been driving from before the written test was introduced should sit this test too. And that drivers are informed and tested on the cyclists' test - so that they are aware of what a cyclist is likely to do on the road, including the fact that we do not have to use cycle lanes, and we can ride in the middle of the road perfectly legitimitely.

And as someone who regularly pi.sses drivers off just by riding defensively and guarding my right of way when it applies, I have been trained by a government approved scheme, I have insurance, and I pay vehicle tax - for my car. I'm sure none of this addresses the correspondent's real problem - that she is a selfish, stupid, arrogant twunt.

cee

Headhuunter wrote:

That's actually a very good point. I only need to take out insurance on things that I can't afford to replace if lost or damaged. I have buildings insurance in case my home burns down (I can't afford to have it re-built) and health insurance through work in case, for some reason, I need expensive medical care. If I crashed into a car and it was my fault, as Eau Rouge points out, it's unlikely to cause more than a few hundred pounds worth of damage which I can cover myself

Depends on what damage you do i guess.....

even cosmetic damage (Scratched paint and a little dent for example) can cost a fair bit to fix even on relatively inexpensive cars....

depends on the definition of fixed too....scratch my car and i would call it quits for £50 and fill it in with one of those pens, scratch a concourse standard car to the metal and a respray of the various panels could potentially hit several hundred pounds to put right, even forgetting about the unlckiness of hitting something classic with great fluctuation in paint batches and you could be talking a few thousand for a good respray job.

edit...wait that sounds a bit much...absolutely...i agree that this is by far the least likely scenario, but then thats what insurance is for......as someone else says it is for the worst case scenario when you house burns down!

il_principe

Porgy wrote:

What the correspondent probably doesn't realise is that it is most likely that cyclists that have had proper training that are the ones cycling in "the middle of the road" as she puts it.

I'd be happy to be forced to have compulsory training if we had a decent regime for drivers too - wherby they have to undergo compulsory training everytime there is a change in the Highway Code or legislation - that those who have been driving from before the written test was introduced should sit this test too. And that drivers are informed and tested on the cyclists' test - so that they are aware of what a cyclist is likely to do on the road, including the fact that we do not have to use cycle lanes, and we can ride in the middle of the road perfectly legitimitely.

But drivers learn the rules etc when they take their tests, point is most ignore/forget most of it. More testing/legislation is never gonna solve this. Compulsory training for cyclists would do far more harm than good and would do nothing to ensure that cyclists rode better. For example, we all now that RLJ'ing is illegal, doesn't stop plenty of posters in here from doing it.

What's needed is a bit more mutual respect, that or a critical mass of cyclists on the roads, sadly neither are likely to happen any time soon.

Porgy

Il Principe wrote:

Porgy wrote:

What the correspondent probably doesn't realise is that it is most likely that cyclists that have had proper training that are the ones cycling in "the middle of the road" as she puts it.

I'd be happy to be forced to have compulsory training if we had a decent regime for drivers too - wherby they have to undergo compulsory training everytime there is a change in the Highway Code or legislation - that those who have been driving from before the written test was introduced should sit this test too. And that drivers are informed and tested on the cyclists' test - so that they are aware of what a cyclist is likely to do on the road, including the fact that we do not have to use cycle lanes, and we can ride in the middle of the road perfectly legitimitely.

But drivers learn the rules etc when they take their tests, point is most ignore/forget most of it. More testing/legislation is never gonna solve this. Compulsory training for cyclists would do far more harm than good and would do nothing to ensure that cyclists rode better. For example, we all now that RLJ'ing is illegal, doesn't stop plenty of posters in here from doing it.

What's needed is a bit more mutual respect, that or a critical mass of cyclists on the roads, sadly neither are likely to happen any time soon.

If you read my post carefully - you 'll see that I was speaking against compulsory cycle training - I said I'd be happy to accept compulsory training if somehting that is never going to happen happens, therefore I am not happy to accept compulsory training.

And as I said at the end - the correspondent is deluded is she thinks that her "problems" will be solved by her demands. Unless she is hoping to stamp out cycling altogether. More likely cyclists will just take to the pavements and become even more lawless than she thinks they are now.

I'd be hoping that increasing training for motorists to the levels I demanded would stamp out driving altogether.

I'm only puzzled why she didn;t mention helmets.

nwallace

I did a test years ago, it was called cycling proficiency. I passed.

Band A insurance, aye fine where do you want me to stick the disc?

Porgy

Il Principe wrote:

[
But drivers learn the rules etc when they take their tests, point is most ignore/forget most of it. More testing/legislation is never gonna solve this. Compulsory training for cyclists would do far more harm than good and would do nothing to ensure that cyclists rode better. For example, we all now that RLJ'ing is illegal, doesn't stop plenty of posters in here from doing it.

What's needed is a bit more mutual respect, that or a critical mass of cyclists on the roads, sadly neither are likely to happen any time soon.

To come back to your comments about drivers learning the rules. I wonder what rules they do actually learn. I took my test 21 years ago - can't remember anything about cyclists being mentioned either in the lessons or during the test.

This week I had a learner driver - stopped at a give way on a major roundabout - I was on the roundabout just about to pass ahead of the learner - when it looked to me as if the instructor gestured for her to pull out - which she did, forcing me to stop in a very dangerous place. I went along behind expecting an apology - acknowledgement - something - I saw the instructor look at me - I couldn't see him saying anything to the driver - so I shouted "oi" - I got another look and then they accelerated off.

Two days later another learner cut me up in Woolwich - and I failed to get an apology again.

So what are driving instructors teaching wrt cycling?

biondino

Guys, all this "oh it only costs a few hundred quid max to respray a car" handily ignores what happens if you cause a car accident, or hit a ped or fellow cyclist, in which the victim is killed or seriously injured? THEN you're screwed.

Aidy

biondino wrote:

Guys, all this "oh it only costs a few hundred quid max to respray a car" handily ignores what happens if you cause a car accident, or hit a ped or fellow cyclist, in which the victim is killed or seriously injured? THEN you're screwed.

But of course, these scenarios could equally apply to pedestrians.

Aidy

biondino wrote:

Guys, all this "oh it only costs a few hundred quid max to respray a car" handily ignores what happens if you cause a car accident, or hit a ped or fellow cyclist, in which the victim is killed or seriously injured? THEN you're screwed.

But of course, these scenarios could equally apply to pedestrians.

biondino

Yes, they could, but it's a lot harder to hit someone at 25mph if you're a ped (I guess you could argue if a ped steps in front of you when you're doing 25mph then that's what they're effectively doing!), and as a ped you're unlikely to be wieldling a 7-30kg piece of hardened metal.

AndyManc

The Manchester Evening News is full of wan**** that spout the usual s***.

I'm sick of showing them the error of their ways.

Cycling is a desirable form of transport that governments around the world wish to promote and is therefore not cluttered with red tape and is a mode of transport that is accessible to (nearly) all.

Anti bike motorists come out with the same moronic b/s every time because they have nothing else to argue.


.

Aidy

biondino wrote:

Yes, they could, but it's a lot harder to hit someone at 25mph if you're a ped (I guess you could argue if a ped steps in front of you when you're doing 25mph then that's what they're effectively doing!), and as a ped you're unlikely to be wieldling a 7-30kg piece of hardened metal.

Pretty easy to cause an accident as a pedestrian though (some girls really make me lose my concentration sometimes! ), or tripping and catching someone nearby, thus causing them to fall awkwardly?

It's about risk and relative damage caused, I'd've said cyclists and pedestrians were at reasonably level pegging for the danger they pose.
I'm sure there are stats somewhere for the number of accidents and injuries caused by different road users. Anyone have them to hand?

jimmypippa

jinnan_tonnix wrote:

Have you read the replies to the letter? Most of them are well written and comprehensively destroy the letter's argument. I couldn't have put it any better myself....

What, like this one, for example?

What a stupid letter Tricia, your prejudice is overwhelming.

May I ask (if you are travelling into Belfast) why you are driving when you have a Bus serving Carryduff every 10-15 minutes? You don't have an excuse do you? Just laziness.

I find it hard to believe cyclists cause the same ware and tear to road infrastructure as cars and lorries. I would like to add that I would be prepared to pay a 'cycle tax' if there was anything resembling a joined-up cycle infrastructure or program dedicated to providing it. There most definitely is not, what does exist is pathetic, so no I am not prepared to pay for something that does not exist.

I studied in the Netherlands for a period, a nation with superb cycle infrastructure which has in turn encouraged more to cycle. It is called a positive feedback loop.

Honesty Tricia I just don't think you are very bright. I hate to break it to you

Eau Rouge

biondino wrote:

Guys, all this "oh it only costs a few hundred quid max to respray a car" handily ignores what happens if you cause a car accident, or hit a ped or fellow cyclist, in which the victim is killed or seriously injured? THEN you're screwed.

That happens so infrequently on a national basis that it simply isn't significant enough to warrant having national legislation to deal with it. On a personal level it makes sense to be covered, indeed most people will be though house insurance. The government isn't (and shouldn't be wasting it's time/money being) interested in making sure the rest get cover too, the way they have to with cars.

jerry3571

Not sure whether a BCF Licence would give some kind of Insurance ("Get a Licence and get Racing!!" - sorry that was me trying to get myself motivated to get off my fat butt and actually do a race or two; hmmm...).
My Cycling Club used to give out 3rd Party Insurance with membership but the Premiums went through the roof so no more Insurance.
Also Road Tax enables road users to choose whether to use a tiny moped or tiny motorbike as a form of transport or a light goods vehicle or a Car or a....BICYCLE. It's a choice thing. We pay Tax to use the roads in whatever form we legally choose. Nice.
A little known thing is that a bike is supposed to damage a road a thousand times less than a Car so my Bike Tax would be £ 0.13 if it was and "wear and tear" issue. Seems to be a fair price to me.
Oh it's also non poluting (band A vehicle) so it's Tax free anyway.
Does that wrap it up or not?
-Jerry

PS- About Cycle Training there is this- Car driver makes a mistake and comes out with a few bruises (sometimes not unfortunately) but a Cyclists makes a mistake and gets killed. It's a motivation that work s for me. "Cyclists don't have bumpers!"

Aidy

jerry3571 wrote:

Also Road Tax enables road users to choose whether to use a tiny moped or tiny motorbike as a form of transport or a light goods vehicle or a Car or a....BICYCLE. It's a choice thing. We pay Tax to use the roads in whatever form we legally choose. Nice.
A little known thing is that a bike is supposed to damage a road a thousand times less than a Car so my Bike Tax would be £ 0.13 if it was and "wear and tear" issue. Seems to be a fair price to me.
Oh it's also non poluting (band A vehicle) so it's Tax free anyway.
Does that wrap it up or not?

Again.

You don't pay road tax. You pay council tax. Roads are maintained by the council.

For a motor vehicle you pay excise duty (which is based upon emissions). This does not go towards road maintenance. You pay this per vehicle, paying it for one vehicle does not grant you the legal right to choose any other vehicle to use without paying the duty due on that vehicle also.

Cyclists pay to use the roads as part of their council tax.

White Line

Pfft, what an idiot. :roll:

I pay my share of VED, and I am all for insurance and tests and licence plates. Would have to be mounted on the rear brake like a race number though. Mounting on the saddle rails just won't do.

Headhuunter

Il Principe wrote:

Headhunter - as one of the more pro RLJ forumgers, can you see how your behaviour is viewed by the typical moronic motorist? Granted this woman is a twunt, but for as long as cyclists insist on ignoring the rules of the road we will be giving the likes of her - and the pro licence/tax.test board plenty of ammo...

Just a thought.

I see your point but I think this woman is just one of life's whingers. If every cyclist behaved in an absolutely exemplary fashion, never putting a foot wrong (unlike most motorists who speed, park illegally and dangerously, turn without indicating etc etc), she would still probably see cyclists as invaders of the road, which are paid for and rightly dominated by motorists. Sorry but I ain't changing my ways simply to give some silly old bat in the Belfast Telegraph (or whatever it is) some sort of peace of mind.

prawny

On the minor damage front.

A headlight assembly for a maybach cost over £3000 each side. I know you'd be unlucky to hit one of the but it wouldn't be hard to clip one with a brake lever and smash the glass.

I wouldn't fancy paying for that out of my pocket money :shock:

Headhuunter

prawny wrote:

On the minor damage front.

A headlight assembly for a maybach cost over £3000 each side. I know you'd be unlucky to hit one of the but it wouldn't be hard to clip one with a brake lever and smash the glass.

I wouldn't fancy paying for that out of my pocket money :shock:

I live in SE London, people drive beaten up Vauxhalls and Fords, not Maybachs so I'm probably safe from that. In fact if anyone drove a Maybach down near New Cross they'd probably find it carjacked and sold on in a heartbeat.

clanton

Headhuunter wrote:

Il Principe wrote:

Headhunter - as one of the more pro RLJ forumgers, can you see how your behaviour is viewed by the typical moronic motorist? Granted this woman is a twunt, but for as long as cyclists insist on ignoring the rules of the road we will be giving the likes of her - and the pro licence/tax.test board plenty of ammo...

Just a thought.

I see your point but I think this woman is just one of life's whingers. If every cyclist behaved in an absolutely exemplary fashion, never putting a foot wrong (unlike most motorists who speed, park illegally and dangerously, turn without indicating etc etc), she would still probably see cyclists as invaders of the road, which are paid for and rightly dominated by motorists. Sorry but I ain't changing my ways simply to give some silly old bat in the Belfast Telegraph (or whatever it is) some sort of peace of mind.

The trouble is that your behaviour (RLJing) is used by motorists as an excuse to tar and feather all cyclists as reckless and lawless road users. If cyclists are to argue for more rights (eg under law, in accidents ect) and better access (eg similar to the rights of access laws in Scotland MTBing) then we need to show respect for the laws as they stand. It is impossible to take a moral high ground against the "whingeing old bats" or whatever if we are breaking the law.

prawny

Headhuunter wrote:

prawny wrote:

On the minor damage front.

A headlight assembly for a maybach cost over £3000 each side. I know you'd be unlucky to hit one of the but it wouldn't be hard to clip one with a brake lever and smash the glass.

I wouldn't fancy paying for that out of my pocket money :shock:

I live in SE London, people drive beaten up Vauxhalls and Fords, not Maybachs so I'm probably safe from that. In fact if anyone drove a Maybach down near New Cross they'd probably find it carjacked and sold on in a heartbeat.

Really? They're common as muck round my way :P

You'll have to excuse me, in my mind any one that commuting into london is in the posh bits.

Headhuunter

prawny wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

prawny wrote:

On the minor damage front.

A headlight assembly for a maybach cost over £3000 each side. I know you'd be unlucky to hit one of the but it wouldn't be hard to clip one with a brake lever and smash the glass.

I wouldn't fancy paying for that out of my pocket money :shock:

I live in SE London, people drive beaten up Vauxhalls and Fords, not Maybachs so I'm probably safe from that. In fact if anyone drove a Maybach down near New Cross they'd probably find it carjacked and sold on in a heartbeat.

Really? They're common as muck round my way :P

You'll have to excuse me, in my mind any one that commuting into london is in the posh bits.

The little section of SE London I live in is quite nice actually and in fact there are some posh bits like Greenwich and Dulwich, but I've certainly never seen a Maybach there and I'm unlikely to. I commute either along the Old Kent Road passing by Peckham and New Cross or through Bermondsey then New Cross, depending on which route I feel like taking. Believe me, those areas are a long way from posh! Let me put it this way, when you hear of shootings in London, they've usually taken place in Peckham or New Cross!

Clever Pun

biondino wrote:

mudcovered wrote:

Training. CBT gets you permission to ride low cc 2 wheeled vehicles. I would be astonished if any cyclist couldn't make it through that

Haha - when I did mine the instructed was obliged to remind me that it was actually possible to fail

I've seen 2 people fail it.. one couldn't control the bike at all and kept dropping it

prawny

Ooh I've heard of Peckham, I know that's not posh. Apart from that you could be talking about suburbs of Des Moines for all I know.

I've heard of Greenwich too obviously. It's the centre of the earth, if you look at ot from the right angle.

chuckcork

clanton wrote:

The trouble is that your behaviour (RLJing) is used by motorists as an excuse to tar and feather all cyclists as reckless and lawless road users. If cyclists are to argue for more rights (eg under law, in accidents ect) and better access (eg similar to the rights of access laws in Scotland MTBing) then we need to show respect for the laws as they stand. It is impossible to take a moral high ground against the "whingeing old bats" or whatever if we are breaking the law.

While unlicenced, uninsured drivers are exceptions to rule, as are those who gain penalty points (or more likely, not) for speeding, running red lights, driving while using a mobile etc?

I'd buy that except I've seen rather too much of it, not only while cycling but driving myself.

spen666

White Line wrote:

Pfft, what an idiot. :roll:

I pay my share of VED, and I am all for insurance and tests and licence plates. Would have to be mounted on the rear brake like a race number though. Mounting on the saddle rails just won't do.

i ride fixed and have no rear brake to mount it on

spen666

chuckcork wrote:

...

While unlicenced, uninsured drivers are exceptions to rule, ....

Its estimated that in London, some 30% of drivers are uninsured

Kieran_Burns

spen666 wrote:

White Line wrote:

Pfft, what an idiot. :roll:

I pay my share of VED, and I am all for insurance and tests and licence plates. Would have to be mounted on the rear brake like a race number though. Mounting on the saddle rails just won't do.

i ride fixed and have no rear brake to mount it on

You could strap it to the back of the compulsory helmet. :roll:

fungus_the_muffin_man

If it meant that by paying a "road tax" I could then ride in the middle of the lane as is my right and not have to hog the dangerous road edge then I'm all for it. That'd really pi$$ of the motorists then. " you shouldn't be on the road you don't pay road tax........."

As for insurance I don't think there is any problem there. I'd have insurance if it was compulsary. It would encourage more choice from the big providers and probably reduce the amounts I've been quoted up to now. which are a bit of a rip off compared to what I pay for car insurance