Cylists without lights - disproportionately annoys me!!

Harry_Flashman

esuhl wrote: »

Morally, the damage caused to society by drivers is far higher than that caused by cyclists, so it's drivers that are the parasites here.

That's a fact is it? Or, like my post, merely an opinion?

Motorists pay to put their vehicles on the road, cyclists don't. In my book, someone who has paid for a right is far more entitled than someone who gets it as a 'bye'.

Harry_Flashman

TheMiner wrote: »

Agreed - this is lifted from http://www.bikeforall.net/content/cycling_and_the_law.php

"Road tax doesn't pay for the roads anyway, general and local taxation does that so even those cyclists without cars still pay for roads. The Road Fund (1910-37) only ever paid for the maintenance of a few 'national' roads, never local ones. Paying VED gives no "right to the road" for motorists (or car-owning cyclists"

Hmm lifted from a cyclists site? Can't beat a balanced view can you?

The fact remains, a motorist can't legally use the road without paying road tax (whatever may be the correct PC term for it) - that sounds like paying to use the road to me?

esuhl

Harry_Flashman wrote: »

That's a fact is it? Or, like my post, merely an opinion?

Think about it. The exchange in momentum (the product of mass and velocity) during a collision is what causes the damage/injury: if I am hit by a tennis ball travelling at 30mph, I will be likely to suffer less-serious injuries than if I am hit by a 10-tonne lorry travelling at 30mph. If that lorry were travelling at 50mph, my risk of injury would increase further. Cyclist travel at low speeds and have a low mass, compared to cars, therefore in a collision, a driver is likely to cause more damage/injury. Also, the speeds at which cars travel mean that more distance is covered by a driver (compared to a cyclist) between identifying a reason to brake and actually applying the brake, so cyclists have more time to react to obstacles, and are less likely to be involved in a collision in the first place.

Not only that, but drivers contribute to the tens- or hundreds-of-thousands of premature deaths each year in the UK caused by air pollution.

Stretching to more tenuous links, one has to ask whether the UK would have wasted BILLIONS of pounds in the wars against Iraq and Afghanistan if the nation wasn't hooked on cheap oil.

I hope you realise that I'm being a bit flippant here. It's ridiculous to suggest that motorists have more right to use the roads because they pay more tax than cyclists... just as it's a little bit harsh to suggest that drivers should have less rights than cyclists because they kill more people. Or is it...?

Harry_Flashman wrote: »

Motorists pay to put their vehicles on the road, cyclists don't. In my book, someone who has paid for a right is far more entitled than someone who gets it as a 'bye'.

Motorists don't pay tax; polluters pay tax! You could drive an emission-free vehicle if you wanted and be exempt from vehicle tax. Is it fair that someone who has spent more on an ecologically sound vehicle has fewer rights and should expect to be treated like a second-class citizen by arrogant drivers such as yourself?

Of course, the more expensive the car, the more VAT has been paid to put the vehicle on the road. And the bigger the engine, the more fuel that will be required per mile of travel, so the more VAT and duty will be paid.

So... I presume that you think that rich bankers in expensive, inefficient sports cars have MUCH more right to use the road than you do, as they spend much more in tax to use their vehicles. What do you do when you see an expensive Rolls Royce waiting to pull out at a junction? Do you slam on the brakes and give way to the "more important" vehicle? Do you study vehicle costs and efficiencies to ensure that you know your place in the moral hierarchy of road entitlements?

Harry_Flashman

Actually (equally flippantly), if I see a car that I like waiting to pull out, I'll generally slow to let it (so I can spend more time looking at it ).

It seems the majority of your argument is based on a possible accident that may never happen and very dubious 'eco-warrior' evidence (I don't believe in global warming either - as you may have guessed ). I would hate to drive an emission free car - without exception, they are poxy little boxes which don't compare to the enjoyment of 'proper' motors.

parkmalco

Harry_Flashman wrote: »

Actually (equally flippantly), if I see a car that I like waiting to pull out, I'll generally slow to let it (so I can spend more time looking at it ).

It seems the majority of your argument is based on a possible accident that may never happen and very dubious 'eco-warrior' evidence (I don't believe in global warming either - as you may have guessed ). I would hate to drive an emission free car - without exception, they are poxy little boxes which don't compare to the enjoyment of 'proper' motors.

don't get me started on global warming,i can see another thread starting here.
it's the biggest con of all time.:mad:

Harry_Flashman

parkmalco wrote: »

don't get me started on global warming,i can see another thread starting here.
it's the biggest con of all time.:mad:

It might even be possible to believe that it was all genuine if it wasn't for the mountains of money that everyone from the scientists to the governments are making from it.

Amazes me that anyone is gullible enough to actually support such an obvious huge scale con.

parkmalco

the second biggest con is europe!

Harry_Flashman

With you on that mate

rev_henry

parkmalco wrote: »

the second biggest con is europe!

They could be said to be one and the same. Most of the global warming propaganda is funded by the EU. When they're not too busy giving themselves payrises for filling out forms...

Bowling_4_Gold

Harry_Flashman wrote: »

It seems the majority of your argument is based on a possible accident that may never happen and very dubious 'eco-warrior' evidence (I don't believe in global warming either - as you may have guessed ).

What a load of rubbish. Maybe if you understood all the money you pay to plonk your car on the road is to deter you from using it, to help decrease the huge volume of emissions it generates, you would give cyclists a bit more respect (or do you think Carbon Dioxide is a lie too?).

What do you do when you see a G-Whizz or Prius on the road? Overtake it leaving millimetres, in a sudden fit of rage you have?