NO...Cyclists don't ride on pavements or jump red lights at all.

moneyuser

Thanks for the post OP. I've really started to enjoy watching the Silly Cyclist episodes

Haven't read all the posts on this thread as it got a bit silly.

Harry_Flashman

uk-tyler wrote: »

I drive for a living and cycle for a hobby.

So you're getting in the way for no purpose at all? At least those cycling to get to work etc are doing it for a purpose.

As for 2nd Class? Well, pay road tax (which it is, whatever some say - you pay the tax for the right to put a vehicle on the road) and you can join first class

uk-tyler

Harry_Flashman wrote: »

So you're getting in the way for no purpose at all? At least those cycling to get to work etc are doing it for a purpose.

As for 2nd Class? Well, pay road tax (which it is, whatever some say - you pay the tax for the right to put a vehicle on the road) and you can join first class

Yes, I get in the way just to annoy people. I'm not doing to to get to where I want to be at all.

I pay road tax on two vehicles, plus income tax and council tax which go towards the upkeep of the roads. If I pay more road tax than you does that give me the right to treat you, in your car, as a second class road user?

Cycling on the roads over here is dangerous enough as it is, without drivers just viewing us as second class road users who are just in the way instead of equals.

Harry_Flashman

uk-tyler wrote: »

I drive for a living and cycle for a hobby.

Your words old chap

uk-tyler

Harry_Flashman wrote: »

Your words old chap

Yes I cycle for a hobby. I drive 80,000 miles a year so its nice to be able to use an alternative form of transport.

I use my bike to visit friends, go shopping and for the sheer fun of it.

But in your eyes I'm a second class road user who is just in the way. how come your journey in your car is more important than mine on my bike?

Harry_Flashman

uk-tyler wrote: »

But in your eyes I'm a second class road user who is just in the way. how come your journey in your car is more important than mine on my bike?

Because my motor has a piece of paper stuck to it saying I spent a couple of hundred quid for the right to put it on the road. If I wanted another motor, that would need a similar piece of paper costing a couple of hundred quid more.

There is no such piece of paper on your bike. As you don't pay to put your bike on the road then yes, I see it as a second class nuisance.

I realise that this argument is dismissed out of hand by cyclists, but then it would be wouldn't it? Otherwise they'd have to admit that they should be paying to put their machine on the road the same as the rest of us.

thelawnet

Harry_Flashman wrote: »

Because my motor has a piece of paper stuck to it saying I spent a couple of hundred quid for the right to put it on the road. If I wanted another motor, that would need a similar piece of paper costing a couple of hundred quid more.

Well that's not actually true. You could get a Lexus Ct200h, certain Skoda Fabia estates/hatchbacks, a VW Golf or Audi A3 1.6 tdi,a Volvo S40, V50 or C30 1.6, and quite a few other cars beside - in each case you wouldn't pay a penny, because the emissions are below 100 grams of CO2 per km, a class which bicycles also fall into.

There is no such piece of paper on your bike. As you don't pay to put your bike on the road then yes, I see it as a second class nuisance.

Fair enough, but then I am considerably richer than yow, and therefore I pay a lot more tax than you do, as such it is you who is a second-class nuisance. When I call the police I expect an immediate response, whereas you should have to wait a couple of weeks, when I go to the doctors if you are in front of me in the queue you need to get the hell out of my way, and whereas I would like my bins emptied once a week yours should only be emptied monthly as you don't pay as much in.

I realise that this argument is dismissed out of hand by cyclists, but then it would be wouldn't it? Otherwise they'd have to admit that they should be paying to put their machine on the road the same as the rest of us.

The link between car tax and roads was scrapped in 1936. Even before that, Winston Churchill in 1926 decided to divert a third of the money towards other purposes.

The tax on cigarettes does not directly fund medical treatment for smokers (in fact the amount raised greatly exceeds the cost), the VAT on my new xbox is not directed towards technology research, and the tax paid on my pint of beer in my nice quiet local exceeds that on the chavvy Yates with a regular police presence outside in the town centre.

Cars are taxed because there are too many on the roads, because they cause chronic congestion and indeed chronic lung disease as well as tens of thousands of serious injuries and deaths each year, not to mention blighting communities and being the difference between a nice street where children can play and one blighted by road noise where it's dangerous to even cross the road.

uk-tyler

Harry_Flashman wrote: »

Because my motor has a piece of paper stuck to it saying I spent a couple of hundred quid for the right to put it on the road. If I wanted another motor, that would need a similar piece of paper costing a couple of hundred quid more.

There is no such piece of paper on your bike. As you don't pay to put your bike on the road then yes, I see it as a second class nuisance.

I realise that this argument is dismissed out of hand by cyclists, but then it would be wouldn't it? Otherwise they'd have to admit that they should be paying to put their machine on the road the same as the rest of us.

And how much damage does your two ton car do to the roads? My 12 kilo bike doesn't damage or wear out the road surface.

Cyclists aren't asking for bypasses to get round villages or demanding wider motorways.

We don't need car parks or on road parking spots either.

Tilt

uk-tyler wrote: »

And how much damage does your two ton car do to the roads? My 12 kilo bike doesn't damage or wear out the road surface.

Cyclists aren't asking for bypasses to get round villages or demanding wider motorways.

We don't need car parks or on road parking spots either.

Maybe not, but some of you need to realise that the law applies to you also. Some of (in fact MOST) ride without lights, ride the wrong way down one way streets, ignore traffic lights and ride on pavements when it suits you. I live in a rural area and you wouldn't believe how many near misses I've had with 'shadows on 2 wheels'.

uk-tyler

Tilt wrote: »

Maybe not, but some of you need to realise that the law applies to you also. Some of (in fact MOST) ride without lights, ride the wrong way down one way streets, ignore traffic lights and ride on pavements when it suits you. I live in a rural area and you wouldn't believe how many near misses I've had with 'shadows on 2 wheels'.

Many cyclists do that yes, but many car drivers drive too close, overtake badly, pull out on cyclists and are too busy using their phones to see us.

I would dispute the 'most' because all the cyclists I know do obey the rules of the roads.

I could tell you the near misses and indeed accidents caused by bad drivers, but its not worth it. Some drivers are bad, as are some cyclists.

But I don't tar all car drivers as bad because of the actions of some of them.