Suicidal Cyclist

peter_the_piper

Norman_Castle wrote: »

Ever read the Highway Code?.

167

DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example

• approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road
• where the road narrows
• when approaching a school crossing patrol
• between the kerb and a bus or tram when it is at a stop
• where traffic is queuing at junctions or road works
• when you would force another road user to swerve or slow down
• at a level crossing
• when a road user is indicating right, even if you believe the signal should have been cancelled. Do not take a risk; wait for the signal to be cancelled
• stay behind if you are following a cyclist approaching a roundabout or junction, and you intend to turn left
• when a tram is standing at a kerbside tram stop and there is no clearly marked passing lane for other traffic.

Whats this all about? I was congratulating him on avoiding an accident, why go on at me?
And yes I have read it, quite a few times as its changed since I started driving 50 yrs ago.

Norman_Castle

peter_the_piper wrote: »

Whats this all about? I was congratulating him on avoiding an accident, why go on at me?
And yes I have read it, quite a few times as its changed since I started driving 50 yrs ago.

From memory you seemed keen to berate cyclist and I read your post as sarcastic. Sorry if i'm wrong. Happy to remove it.

peter_the_piper

No intention to be sarcastic, sorry. I'm not keen on berating cyclists per seh its just that, from some of the posts on here, they do not seem to accept that they should obey any rules, use cycle lanes that they have campaigned for, only use visible clothing if it suits them. I know there are a lot of prattish drivers but equally there are cyclists which seem to not take responsibility for the way they ride, all motorists must be mind readers etc. Considering that they are very vulnerable I would have thought self preservation would be paramount.
(ps I can see how you thought it sarcastic)

brat

peter_the_piper wrote: »

No intention to be sarcastic, sorry. I'm not keen on berating cyclists per seh its just that, from some of the posts on here, they do not seem to accept that they should obey any rules, use cycle lanes that they have campaigned for, only use visible clothing if it suits them. I know there are a lot of prattish drivers but equally there are cyclists which seem to not take responsibility for the way they ride, all motorists must be mind readers etc. Considering that they are very vulnerable I would have thought self preservation would be paramount.
(ps I can see how you thought it sarcastic)

I think you're reading a different thread.

Nick_C

Just on the issue of cyclists not contributing to the cost of roads.

Drivers pay around £48 billion a year in Fuel Duty, Vehicle Excise Duty, and associated taxes. The Government spends around £19 Billion a year on building and maintaining roads.

Although taxes on motorists are not ring fenced, it is clearly the motorist that is paying for the roads.

The idea that Council Tax pays for anything is a joke. Have a look at your local Council's budget. Typically, around 20% of local authority spending is covered by Council Tax receipts. The rest comes from central government funding (Revenue Support Grants) and business rates.

Retrogamer

Nick_C wrote: »

Just on the issue of cyclists not contributing to the cost of roads.

Drivers pay around £48 billion a year in Fuel Duty, Vehicle Excise Duty, and associated taxes. The Government spends around £19 Billion a year on building and maintaining roads.

Although taxes on motorists are not ring fenced, it is clearly the motorist that is paying for the roads.

What percentage of revenue from motorists, goes into maintaining the roads? As far as i'm aware all revenue generated from taxes goes into a big pot (i.e the budget) then it's broken down to what it's spent on.
Most cyclists contribute to road maintenance and repair through other taxes.

Nick_C wrote: »

The idea that Council Tax pays for anything is a joke. Have a look at your local Council's budget. Typically, around 20% of local authority spending is covered by Council Tax receipts. The rest comes from central government funding (Revenue Support Grants) and business rates.

What percentage of council's fixing roads comes from revenue support grants? You just mentioned generic spending there.

It's also worth pointing out that motorists and their vehicles tend to cause the road to deteriorate much faster than cyclists do :j

brat

Nick_C wrote: »

Just on the issue of cyclists not contributing to the cost of roads.

Drivers pay around £48 billion a year in Fuel Duty, Vehicle Excise Duty, and associated taxes. The Government spends around £19 Billion a year on building and maintaining roads.

Although taxes on motorists are not ring fenced, it is clearly the motorist that is paying for the roads.

£48 billion is the top end of the figures, Others would put it nearer £40billion, perhaps less with the recent drop in fuel prices.

There are other costs too such as air and noise pollution, congestion etc. Congestion is set to cost £300 billion over the next 15 years.
Car pollution is reported to be killing 2.5 times as many people as die in car accidents these days, (5,000 per year in UK). Additionally, the costs of air, noise and climate change effect could very quickly turn the motoring tax surplus into a significant shortfall.

So the story is a little more complex.

Cloudydaze

Retrogamer wrote: »

It's also worth pointing out that motorists and their vehicles tend to cause the road to deteriorate much faster than cyclists do :j

And what about us cyclists who pay "road tax" because we also own cars? Any objections to us using the roads for cycling?

Altarf

Nasqueron wrote: »

I have a car and pay council tax and have every right to use a road to ride to work

Absolutely.

Just like the cyclists that I pass on my way to the station every morning at 7am, who choose not to cycle on the cycle path marked on the wide pavement immediately to their left (on a long road, no junctions or drives, well maintained, and at 7am, no pedestrians).

Instead they would sooner ride in the road, dressed in black, mostly with inadequate lights.

But they have an absolute right to be there. Just like the cyclist who was taken to A&E in an ambulance when they were hit by a car at the roundabout at the end of the road had the right to cycle on the road.

There is just the small question of, just because you can do something, should you do it if there is a safer alternative.

custardy

Altarf wrote: »

Absolutely.

Just like the cyclists that I pass on my way to the station every morning at 7am, who choose not to cycle on the cycle path marked on the wide pavement immediately to their left (on a long road, no junctions or drives, well maintained, and at 7am, no pedestrians).

Instead they would sooner ride in the road, dressed in black, mostly with inadequate lights.

But they have an absolute right to be there. Just like the cyclist who was taken to A&E in an ambulance when they were hit by a car at the roundabout at the end of the road had the right to cycle on the road.

There is just the small question of, just because you can do something, should you do it if there is a safer alternative.

Okay. Why do you choose to drive to the station with such good cycling facilities available?