Biggest Threats to Cyclists?

Johno100

AndyBSG wrote: »

But you can't use that excuse if you get caught in one of those yellow 'no stopping' boxes you get at junctions because it's an offence to enter them if your exit is not clear.

Partly right, partly wrong, you can enter and stop in a yellow box junction if you are turning right and are stopped from doing so by oncoming traffic or other vehicles turning right (Rule 174 of the Highway Code). But I think we are moving off the subject of ASL/ASZ's.

AndyBSG wrote: »

The same rule should apply to ASL's.

As I and the Met police pointed out in the previous link provided that would not always be practical or safe.

Anyway, I'll throw this one in. I'd like to see motorcycles allowed into ASZ's.

1. They can accelerate way up the road before the cyclist has made his/her first revolution of their pedals so they will be out the way;
2. If they are filtering they wont, as I have seen, block the ASZ for cyclists trying to reach the ASZ;
3. A motorbike's Tax Disc says 'taxation class bicycle', so they should be allowed anyway:D

Johno100

andrewf75 wrote: »

Depends how you look at it. Pollution costs the government money so the way I see it you are helping to pay for that and in proportion to the damage your vehicle does. Seems completely fair to me.

But if my vehicle only travels 2,000 miles a year it clearly won't cause as much 'damage' as the same vehicle, or even one of a considerably lower tax band, travelling 20,000 miles, so where is the fairness in having a flat fee. I say abolish VED and add it to the cost of fuel, then the polluter truely pays.

Norman_Castle

andrewf75 wrote: »

Depends how you look at it. Pollution costs the government money so the way I see it you are helping to pay for that and in proportion to the damage your vehicle does. Seems completely fair to me.

You can choose to look at it any way you like. Many motorists wrongly choose to think they pay for the roads through motoring taxation. If you buy a table you will pay purchase tax. This tax could be spent on hospitals, highways or overseas aid. There is no link between them. Motoring taxes are the same. The government raises taxes where it chooses and spends taxpayers money where it is needed.
See below for a quote from your government concerning motoring tax.

andrewf75

Johno100 wrote: »

But if my vehicle only travels 2,000 miles a year it clearly won't cause as much 'damage' as the same vehicle, or even one of a considerably lower tax band, travelling 20,000 miles, so where is the fairness in having a flat fee. I say abolish VED and add it to the cost of fuel, then the polluter truely pays.

Wouldn't be against that at all. That would be the fairest way. I'd support more toll motorways as well.

hugheskevi

Another possible cycling fatality in London which I saw as I cycled past about half an hour after it happened this morning.

Seems to have been a Virgin media van turning right from major road into minor road, colliding with cyclist proceding along main road in opposite direction.

Highly likely to have been because van driver didn't see cyclist for whatever reason - possibly view obscured by slow/stationary vehicles (noting this is pure conjecture, based on knowledge of road layout and position of vehicles).

Later edit: Initial reports of life-threatening injuries seem to have been exagerrated, and the cyclist's condition is improving in hospital.

Johno100

andrewf75 wrote: »

Wouldn't be against that at all. That would be the fairest way. I'd support more toll motorways as well.

Unless you mean build more motorways, which I somehow doubt? That is a sure fire way of putting more vehicles, including the devil's spawn:D HGV's on to less suitable roads and in conflict with cyclists.

As someone who lives within spitting distance of one of the busiest section of the M6, which is presently being 'improved' at great expense to allow hard shoulder running, I'm of the view that that money should have been spent taking the M6 Toll road into state ownership.

andrewf75

Johno100 wrote: »

Unless you mean build more motorways, which I somehow doubt? That is a sure fire way of putting more vehicles, including the devil's spawn:D HGV's on to less suitable roads and in conflict with cyclists.

As someone who lives within spitting distance of one of the busiest section of the M6, which is presently being 'improved' at great expense to allow hard shoulder running, I'm of the view that that money should have been spent taking the M6 Toll road into state ownership.

Yeah good point, maybe fuel is the better option.

Tilt

Johno100 wrote: »

Unless you mean build more motorways, which I somehow doubt? That is a sure fire way of putting more vehicles, including the devil's spawn:D HGV's on to less suitable roads and in conflict with cyclists.

As someone who lives within spitting distance of one of the busiest section of the M6, which is presently being 'improved' at great expense to allow hard shoulder running, I'm of the view that that money should have been spent taking the M6 Toll road into state ownership.

Was that originally called the Birmingham Northern Relief Road which John "2 Jags" Prescott said would never be built if Labour came to power?

Johno100

Tilt wrote: »

Was that originally called the Birmingham Northern Relief Road which John "2 Jags" Prescott said would never be built if Labour came to power?

Yes, the contracts were all signed sealed and delivered by the tories by the time Labour came to power in 1997.

It now carries less traffic per day than the A34 does from J7 of the M6 to Birmingham City centre.

WiggyDiggyPoo

I dont see what a toll road motorway which doesn't allow bicycles has to do with threats to cyclists safety.