Cylists without lights - disproportionately annoys me!!

Mids_Costcutter

Harry_Flashman wrote: »

Then they should move over and create the space for those who actually pay to use the roads to get around them.

All taxpayers pay for the road network.

Harry_Flashman

But only motorists have to pay a tax to put vehicles on the road - cyclists don't.

esuhl

Harry_Flashman wrote: »

But only motorists have to pay a tax to put vehicles on the road - cyclists don't.

So? That doesn't give them any additional rights. Cyclists don't need tarmac anyway.

If anything, motorists are more of a nuisance because they cause pollution and are much more likely to kill someone. Cycling is good for your health, so is cyclists are less of a burnden on the NHS too.

DCFC79

I rarely see cyclists with no lights(but i also dont see them as an issue but then ive not come across ones who can be a pain in the backside), its the car drivers(from safety pov) who dont use they're lights when clearly its dark, the drivers who only have theyre lights on the first notch so they look dim and the drivers who only have 1 headlight working

Harry_Flashman

esuhl wrote: »

So? That doesn't give them any additional rights. Cyclists don't need tarmac anyway.

Not legally it doesn't, but morally it does (in my opinion anyway), it just makes them irritating parasites on roads that others pay to use. If cyclists don't need tarmac, why do they insist on being in the way on roads?

boliston

Harry_Flashman wrote: »

Not legally it doesn't, but morally it does (in my opinion anyway), it just makes them irritating parasites on roads that others pay to use. If cyclists don't need tarmac, why do they insist on being in the way on roads?

Most adult cyclists probably still pay road tax as the chances are they have some sort of car.

In a car i'm often stuck behind other slow cars for miles on some roads, but it's rare to be stuck behind a cyclist for so long, usually seconds rather than miles.

esuhl

Harry_Flashman wrote: »

Not legally it doesn't, but morally it does (in my opinion anyway), it just makes them irritating parasites on roads that others pay to use. If cyclists don't need tarmac, why do they insist on being in the way on roads?

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.

Cyclists don't "get in the way" unless you're hellbent on driving in a reckless manner with no regard for others.

Of course, we could just agree that some motorists are tw*ts and some cyclists are tw*ts, but that wouldn't make for a fun discussion.

GemJar_2

I saw a man the other day with his helmit COVERED in red flashing lights, it looked brilliant, could see him a mile off haha

rev_henry

parkmalco wrote: »

they create more congestion as they are holding up the traffic as cars are coming the other way.you can't always pass them at the same time although some car drivers try and nearly ram the oncoming traffic off the road.
a good friend of mine was killed the day before his 21st birthday riding a bike on the same road where i encounter these idiots risking their lives every day,when there is a perfectly good cycle path built especially for them with tax payers money.
thats why it is so important to use cycle lanes when provided,to not use them is idiotic especially on a busy "a" roads near lincoln.
cyclists get on the path for everyones sake.

Have you ever heard of primary road position? This is to prevent dangerous, inappropriate overtakes and helps them be seen more. You are supposed to give a cyclist the same space as a car when overtaking anyway.

And as for the road tax issue, it doesn't exist anymore, its Vehicle Excise Duty. Roads are funded out of the general taxation of everyone, including cyclists.

TheMiner

rev_henry wrote: »

And as for the road tax issue, it doesn't exist anymore, its Vehicle Excise Duty. Roads are funded out of the general taxation of everyone, including cyclists.

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"