Why Don't Cyclists Use Cycle Lanes....

Altarf

pixiehelper wrote: »

I do believe if everyone who used the roads whoever and whatever vehicle they use should pay road tax for the use of this service

I do hope you are paying your shoe tax when you walk on the pavements.

Plus I really think that people who cross the road should have to pay an upgrade fee as they are using a more expensive piece of the highway. If people didn't want to pay the full fee, perhaps we could let them pay only half if they hopped across the road on one foot.

Alternatively, if they want to use an expensive pedestrian crossing, perhaps we could install coin slots on them, so the lights only change if they put 10p in it.

Taking this further, it is only the owner of the car that pays "road tax", so perhaps we need a passenger tax, as they are using the road (plus the shoe tax, when they get out of the car and walk on the pavement). Do we give discounts to children, and where is the age cut off?

But what about people who put things in the boot of their car and use the road to drive them home. Maybe a tax on the size, weight, value of items carried by road? It is not fair that they get to use the road for free.

andrewf75

Isabella_Duke wrote: »

I read somewhere that if cyclists were to pay VED on the basis of the amount of the road that they take up, the wear and tear they cause on the road surface and the mileage they do on the roads in proportion to cars then the VED would be around 2 pence per annum (£0.02).

The cost of collecting VED from cyclists would far outweigh the amount raised.

2p per year would still be grossly unfair because by choosing to cycle they are not using another form of transport - so actually reducing wear and tear of the road.

There is no doubt that if its in proportion to wear and tear, then cyclists should be paid back money.

Add in reduced pollution, boost to the economy of reduced congestion, reduced pressure on NHS due to being healthier...

If you actually worked this out properly I bet you'd come up with a figure of £500 plus that should be PAID to the cyclist!

hugheskevi

I was thinking further about pixiehelper's points as I cycled to work today, and think s/he may have a point.

In urban settings, cyclists will be much quicker than cars over any reasonable distance. Personally, I spend a lot of my 16 mile daily commute filtering past cars sitting in traffic jams as they wait through several rotations of traffic lights to progress. If those cars were not there, I could go a lot faster.

A quick calculation suggests that if there were no cars on the roads, I would save about 2 hours off my weekly commuting time.

In non-urban settings, cyclists may hold up cars, but usually for a matter of seconds. When aggragated across all cars and cyclists in both urban and non-urban areas, I suspect that cyclists are held up by cars far more than car are held by cyclists.

So returning to pixiehelper's point, looking at the bigger picture, presumably a logical suggestion may be that there should be more restictions on folk using their cars in busy urban areas where there will inevitably be traffic and as a result they slow down those using more appropriate and faster moving forms of transport, ie motorcyclists and cyclists.

Altarf

hugheskevi wrote: »

looking at the bigger picture

But people don't.

To take the title to the thread, "Why Don't Cyclists Use Cycle Lanes..." even where there are reasonable facilities, the usual answer is from the cyclist is "won't and you can't make me", followed by some irrational argument.

So if motorists perceive that cyclists are acting selfishly, then motorists will act selfishly, and so cyclists will act selfishly. And round and round we go.

RichardD1970

Altarf wrote: »

But people don't.

To take the title to the thread, "Why Don't Cyclists Use Cycle Lanes..." even where there are reasonable facilities, the usual answer is from the cyclist is "won't and you can't make me", followed by some irrational argument.

So if motorists perceive that cyclists are acting selfishly, then motorists will act selfishly, and so cyclists will act selfishly. And round and round we go.

My arguments (post#17) are perfectly rational, thank you!

Cycrow

Cyclists have to act selfishly on the roads.
They have to look after their own safety, because no one else will

Altarf

RichardD1970 wrote: »

My arguments (post#17) are perfectly rational, thank you!

"on the paths I feel I can just cost along", yes fully rational.

You have decided for your minor reason that cycle paths don't suit you. Fine. But if you are not prepared to give at all, then why expect motorists to?

Cycrow wrote: »

Cyclists have to act selfishly on the roads.
They have to look after their own safety, because no one else will

Which just gives motorists an excuse to act selfishly back.

"Why should I look out for cyclists, when they don't care because they do insert any number of illegal or stupid acts"

Big picture.

esuhl

Altarf wrote: »

You have decided for your minor reason that cycle paths don't suit you. Fine. But if you are not prepared to give at all, then why expect motorists to?

Because they don't own the roads?

Why should motorists be treated as preferential traffic? Why shouldn't other traffic be provided with a safe and suitable surface on which to travel?

If motorists are going to aggressively claim ownership of the roads and aren't prepared to give at all, then why expect differently of cyclists...?

And round we go! :rotfl:

RichardD1970

Altarf wrote: »

"on the paths I feel I can just cost along", yes fully rational.

You have decided for your minor reason that cycle paths don't suit you. Fine. But if you are not prepared to give at all, then why expect motorists to?



Which just gives motorists an excuse to act selfishly back.

"Why should I look out for cyclists, when they don't care because they do insert any number of illegal or stupid acts"

Big picture.

So you pick one point from my post and label it all irrational.

Just to reiterate, I don't use the cycle path for my commute because,

I can go faster on the road.

I don't have to stop/slow down ever 100mtrs to cross side roads.

There are no pedestrians/dog walker/school kids most with headphones on and in their own little worlds.

And yes, from a personal psychological view, I find that if I am on the road I have to make an effort to maintain a decent pace so as not to inconvenience other road users, whereas on the shared cycle way there is no imperative and because I am inherently lazy I will just coast along with minimal effort.

If I used the shared cycle way for my commute it would take twice as long as using the road.

What is irrational about that?

Altarf

RichardD1970 wrote: »

If I used the shared cycle way for my commute it would take twice as long as using the road.

Of course it would.