Motorists - What annoys you most about cyclists

vikingaero

Strider590 wrote: »

Your arrogantly assuming that cyclists are all poor people who can't afford cars, when most cyclists (except children) have cars and pay the same taxes as you!!

There are plenty of cyclists who don't own a car, especially in cities.

derrick

Strider590 wrote: »

Your arrogantly assuming that cyclists are all poor people who can't afford cars, when most cyclists (except children) have cars and pay the same taxes as you!!

Don't where you got that assumption?

Cyclists will pay various taxes, like motorists, but motorists pay an extra 40 billion pounds in motor related taxes, (cyclists pay very little extra i.e. VAT on the bikes, lights, for those that buy them, etc), less than 10 billion spent on roads, do the maths, it isn't difficult! The roads are more than paid for by taxes on motorists, about time the cyclists contributed as well.

.

newfoundglory

My annoyance with cyclists rears its ugly head every year after the clocks have gone back.

The number of them that cycle around in black hoodies, with the hood covering their head, no helmet, no reflectors or lights.

Its almost unbelievable to me that people do this. Because as a driver, no matter how observant you are - you just can't see 'em on poorly lit roads.

You can always tell the 'professional' cyclist from the average joe - always wearing highly reflective clothing all over, stops at red lights and doesn't pull into the middle of the road in front of other traffic almost causing an accident.

Its so bad in the area that I work in (Central London), that the met police have actually started cracking down on cyclists who commit road traffic offences (mostly failing to stop at lights).

I have seen lots and lots issued with fines (and hopefully prosecution notices too) recently :T

Well done to the met, but its about bloody time.

brat

derrick wrote: »

Doesn't matter what it is called, it was originally brought in to finance/upkeep the roads, and was paid by the motorist, and still is.

I don't know many cyclists who are not motorists, and will pay their proportion of tax. As already said, low emission cars are zero rated for tax, so bikes, if taxed, would be in the same category as them. Your gripe is political, not anti bike, you just can't see it.

derrick wrote: »

Whilst all taxes go into one pot, with very little ring fenced, the motorist pays in excess of 40 BILLION pounds per year in various taxes, (the cyclists next to nothing), and only around 10 billion is spent on roads, so yes the motorist more than pays for the road network, as you say, we all pay taxes, just that the motorist pays 40 billion pounds more!

I've heard that congestion costs a similar figure. Cyclists don't cause congestion, so perhaps you need to factor that in. Cyclists don't wear out the road either. They may well also be a significantly smaller drain on the NHS throughout their lives.

derrick wrote: »

Then the cyclists should damn well pay for them with some form of tax, at the very least they should have some form of compulsory insurance and have to pass a test resulting in a licence that could then be endorsed as with motorists,

Yawn...

They don't have to! Your argument is political, not anti cyclist, yet you come across as someone who would rail against cyclists at every turn. Why?

sheslookinhot

pr0berts wrote: »

Hi,
To give a balance view I thought I'd start covering the other side of the fence.

Cyclists - Get in the way.

An unbelievable statement.

brat

newfoundglory wrote: »

My annoyance with cyclists rears its ugly head every year after the clocks have gone back.

The number of them that cycle around in black hoodies, with the hood covering their head, no helmet, no reflectors or lights.

Its almost unbelievable to me that people do this. Because as a driver, no matter how observant you are - you just can't seem em on poorly lit roads.

It's easy to be one of those cyclists, all you need to do is get hold of a set of bolt croppers. I like to be compared to them about as much as you would like to be compared to an unlicensed joyrider.

Yet those are the 'cyclists' that motorists rage about all the time.

derrick

brat wrote: »

I don't know many cyclists who are not motorists, and will pay their proportion of tax. As already said, low emission cars are zero rated for tax, so bikes, if taxed, would be in the same category as them. Your gripe is political, not anti bike, you just can't see it.


Yawn...

They don't have to! Your argument is political, not anti cyclist, yet you come across as someone who would rail against cyclists at every turn. Why?

Cyclists don't pay the taxes that motorist do, fact. If you have 2 cars you pay 2 lots of motor taxes, (even though one of those may be on a driveway, you can only drive one vehicle at a time), if you have a car and a cycle you only pay 1 lot of motor taxes, all of them on top of all other taxes,(40 billion v 10 billion), and those taxes are paid 24/7 in relation to VED and insurance tax.

OK re the low emission cars, but some form of insurance and test/licence should be compulsory

Nothing political about it from my point of view.



Yes, and we did not have to wear seat belts at one time, but it is now compulsory, things change and move on, it is about time the cyclists paid their share if they want ride along side the motorists who more than pay for the roads!

Not political or anti cyclists, if they did not do the stupid and illegal acts, they would not draw the attention that they are receiving, and maybe they would be left alone, only themselves to blame.

.

brat

Tilt wrote: »

There was a case recently (which was debated on here but I can't find the thread atm) on an unlit max speed limit dual carriageway section of the A10 (I think) at night where a young woman driving a Mini hit what she thought was an animal on a l/h curve (hence her head lights did not illuminate the 'object').

It turned out to be a guy on a bike with no lights and wearing dark clothing and who happened to be twice over the drink drive limit. The young lady was initially arrested on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving and failing to stop but after an investigation by the police, no charges were bought against the lady and quite rightly so. BUT the poor lass will have to live with this for a very long time so the motorist can suffer from such mindless actions of a cyclist as well. Unfortunately the cyclist paid for his stupidity with his life. My hope is that the incident would be a lesson to other suicide cyclists as well but judging what I see nearly every nigh where I live, they either havn't seen or heard about this incident or they think it can't happen to them.

I know quite a few such incidents where drunks have taken to their bikes to get home. We had one recently where a cyclist who should have known better cycled back from a night on the pop, and collided with a car which failed to stop. The cyclist is still rueing that decision. http://www.thewestmorlandgazette.co.uk/news/8803847.Lake_District_hit_and_run_driver_jailed/

Tilt wrote: »

How much does a set of lights for a bike cost these days... more than the value of a life?

It's crazy! I'm better illuminated than some cars, and it hardly costs anything.

custardy

derrick wrote: »

Cyclists don't pay the taxes that motorist do, fact. If you have 2 cars you pay 2 lots of motor taxes, (even though one of those may be on a driveway, you can only drive one vehicle at a time), if you have a car and a cycle you only pay 1 lot of motor taxes, all of them on top of all other taxes,(40 billion v 10 billion), and those taxes are paid 24/7 in relation to VED and insurance tax.

OK re the low emission cars, but some form of insurance and test/licence should be compulsory

Nothing political about it from my point of view.



Yes, and we did not have to wear seat belts at one time, but it is now compulsory, things change and move on, it is about time the cyclists paid their share if they want ride along side the motorists who more than pay for the roads!

Not political or anti cyclists, if they did not do the stupid and illegal acts, they would not draw the attention that they are receiving, and maybe they would be left alone, only themselves to blame.

.

I have 2 cars and cycle
I have 3 (and a frame) bikes
surely that means Im paying way more than those lucky enough to just be paying for 2 cars..........


Who are 'they'?
Are they the same as 'The' drivers who drive drunk,drugged,speed etc etc?
If so they are a terrible lot

brat

derrick wrote: »

Cyclists don't pay the taxes that motorist do, fact. If you have 2 cars you pay 2 lots of motor taxes, (even though one of those may be on a driveway, you can only drive one vehicle at a time), if you have a car and a cycle you only pay 1 lot of motor taxes, all of them on top of all other taxes,(40 billion v 10 billion), and those taxes are paid 24/7 in relation to VED and insurance tax.

OK re the low emission cars...,

Ah, so you accept your VED argument totally and utterly fails at the earliest examination. Good! Let's bin it now.

derrick wrote: »

but some form of insurance and test/licence should be compulsory

Nothing political about it from my point of view.

These are points that need to be made in the political arena. You simply cannot and shouldn't rail against cyclists because they don't do something they either are not required to do, or couldn't do even if they wanted to.
If I had to pay £50 tax per year to ride my bike I would do it. If I wasn't insured, I'd feel uncomfortable, but many won't because they don't have to. I can't get a cycle licence, because there isn't such a thing.

derrick wrote: »

Yes, and we did not have to wear seat belts at one time, but it is now compulsory, things change and move on, it is about time the cyclists paid their share if they want ride along side the motorists who more than pay for the roads!

If you didn't have to pay tax, would you?
If you didn't have to wear your seat belt would you?

Dave Cameron is the man you'll have to shout at to get all these things you feel the need to burden cyclists with. Not cyclists. That's why your rant only has value in the political arena.

derrick wrote: »

Not political or anti cyclists, if they did not do the stupid and illegal acts, they would not draw the attention that they are receiving, and maybe they would be left alone, only themselves to blame.

I'm sure that the 'cyclists' you refer to will stop doing those things you don't like as soon as you 'motorists' stop driving drunk, unlicensed and uninsured.