Cyclists not using hand signals

custardy

quite clearly you took quite a blow to the head. now not go over old ground.shall we start with road tax.what exactly does that pay for? how is your logic on VED exempt cars?

Harry_Flashman

Road tax is what you pay to give you the right to use a vehicle on the road - cyclists don't pay this, so therefore (in my opinion) are guests on the road of those who pay.

As for exempt vehicles? Well I don't subscribe to the environmentalists arguments so disagree with that too.

Dave_C_2

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

What planet are you on?

Cyclists are on the same planet as you, but causing much less pollution.

What does any cyclist pay?, insurance...........................No

As a car driving cyclist, apart from my car insurance, I am insured on my household policy. Membership of several cycling organisations give free insurance. Paying insurance or not has no impact on the cost of building and maintaining roads

Road tax?...................................................................No

But there again motorists have not paid road tax since 1936. VED is charged on emissions - so cyclists would pay zero VED anyway.

Not enough VED revenue is generated to pay for roads, so they are paid for from general taxation and local government. As a car owning cyclist I am subject to the same taxes you, only I don't pay as much fuel tax
Even then cyclists without cars are paying tax to pay for building and repairing motorways that they cannot use! Also bicycles cause an insignificant amount of road damage compared with motor vehicles yet cyclists pay the same amount of council and income tax as a motorists. Or doesn't that make sense to you either?

Compliance with any legislation ...................................No

The highway code and associated legislation. Again compliance with legislation has no impact on the cost of roads.

So as a common motorist I am footing the bill for the risk cyclists pose and paying for them to enjoy our roads.

No, as a common motorist you are footing the bill to drive on the roads. You are not paying for the insignificant risk cyclists pose, quite the reverse. The biggest danger to cyclists on the road is motorists, yet the biggest danger to motorists on the road is other motorists

Don't forget that for every cyclist on the road and cycle path there is one less car. Do you really want all of the commuting cyclists to drive to work instead and jam the roads?

Dave

Mids_Costcutter

Harry_Flashman wrote: »

Road tax is what you pay to give you the right to use a vehicle on the road - cyclists don't pay this, so therefore (in my opinion) are guests on the road of those who pay.

As for exempt vehicles? Well I don't subscribe to the environmentalists arguments so disagree with that too.

Once again, there is no such thing as road tax in the UK: it was abolished in 1937. Any Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) you may pay does not go directly to pay for highway maintenance / construction. If you see cyclists and any other VED exempt vehicles as guests perhaps you might treat them with the respect and courtesy all road users deserve? Under UK law all road users have equal priority on the highway.

Tilt

I didn't want to continue with this because I've aired my views and nobody on here has or will change them about cyclists.

It is a fact everywhere I have lived in the UK (and I have moved around a bit), that there are more cyclist who ride without lights at night than those with. The main culprits are youngsters who should be the responsibility of their parents. But which ever way you look at it, there is absolutely no excuse for this. a set of lights from Halfords I believe cost around £10. Now if that price is too high to pay to be seen by us 'bad and dangerous' motorists, then there is something seriously wrong somewhere.

I don not have a problem with responsible and law abiding cyclists at all. According to Custardy, he is one of them. But the ones who do put themselves in un-necessary danger by riding down one-way streets, through red lights, across pavements, the wrong way around traffic islands AND without lights at night, deserve to have the book thrown at them, just like us 'bad motorists' do.

Johnmcl7

Tilt wrote: »

I didn't want to continue with this because I've aired my views and nobody on here has or will change them about cyclists.

It is a fact everywhere I have lived in the UK (and I have moved around a bit), that there are more cyclist who ride without lights at night than those with. The main culprits are youngsters who should be the responsibility of their parents. But which ever way you look at it, there is absolutely no excuse for this. a set of lights from Halfords I believe cost around £10. Now if that price is too high to pay to be seen by us 'bad and dangerous' motorists, then there is something seriously wrong somewhere.

I don not have a problem with responsible and law abiding cyclists at all. According to Custardy, he is one of them. But the ones who do put themselves in un-necessary danger by riding down one-way streets, through red lights, across pavements, the wrong way around traffic islands AND without lights at night, deserve to have the book thrown at them, just like us 'bad motorists' do.

All fair points I'd say, even putting the legal aspect aside I can't understand cyclists who don't use lights at night because ultimately the purpose of the lights is so everyone can see them which given their vulnerability is pretty important for the cyclist. If one of my lights runs out of power unexpectedly I walk the bike home instead as I don't want to risk getting hit by a motorist which I would blame myself for as it's much more difficult to see a bike without lights. It is handy being a car driver and going back to cycling as you can really see what a difference a decent set of lights and reflective gear makes, you can see those bikes in plenty of time whereas those with nothing are considerably more difficult to spot. One time I was cycling home at lunchtime and despite it being daylight there was a very heavy fog so I used my lights on their full setting as wear as putting a hi-vis jacket on to give myself the best chance of being seen. I was gob smacked to see a cyclist near the end of my run on the main road, no lights and nothing reflective so you'd only see him at the very last moment.

I also agree about the ones putting themselves in danger (particularly teenagers coming home from school around here) by unpredictably shooting through red lights, nipping across junctions and going on and off the pavement unexpectedly. I can certainly see why it annoys motorists as it certainly annoys me, at times I find it extremely worrying when I've had one of them shoot right across the front of the car without even looking. I take it slowly in that sort of area and my car has superb brakes but there's plenty others that don't take it slow nor have as good brakes.

I remember years ago when I was at school the police supposedly had a campaign to pull cyclists over and fine them if didn't have lights. It was made quite public but I don't know if it was anything more than that, I think it would be difficult to police cyclists effectively without setting up road stops.

I had a good laugh about cyclists being uninvited guests on the road because they don't pay VED. I certainly pay VED on both my car and motorbike and while it's not for the pedal bike, if I wasn't on my bike I'd be driving the car and for other road users I think it's better when I take the bike. It means rather than adding to the traffic jam, I'm somewhere else entirely as I can take cycle paths and be out of the way entirely.

John

Dave_C_2

Harry_Flashman wrote: »

Road tax is what you pay to give you the right to use a vehicle on the road - cyclists don't pay this, so therefore (in my opinion) are guests on the road of those who pay.

You don't own the roads, so you cannot have a say on who are "guests" or otherwise on the roads.

As for exempt vehicles? Well I don't subscribe to the environmentalists arguments so disagree with that too.

The law of the land will disagree with this! Whether you agree or disagree has got nothing to do with it. VED is based on emissions, so cyclists would pay nothing.

All you can say is that you have paid for a license to use the road.

Dave

custardy

Dont argue (or quote) Harry
simply add him to the ignore list
as I did some time ago

Rupert_Bear

passatrider wrote: »

I've lost count the times I've followed some cyclists that refuse to give hand signals when turning.

Why the heck do you not follow the highway code and let me know where you intend to go??

NB: I'm a cyclist too so I know what I'm talking about here. It seems to be the lycra brigade who are the worst offenders.

Well I do use hand signals. The other day I had signalled to turn right in plenty of time but this stupid, stupid, stupid motorist just ignored my indication and thought it was still ok to over take me.

This motorist nearly knocked me of my byke. However there were some traffic lights just before my turning and noticed the said motorist had to stop. i had great pleasure in banging on the windscreen and gave her a few choice words. She looked petrified.

Hopefully this will be a lesson for her in the future.

thelawnet

Harry_Flashman wrote: »

Road tax is what you pay to give you the right to use a vehicle on the road - cyclists don't pay this, so therefore (in my opinion) are guests on the road of those who pay.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=51310285&postcount=27