Suicidal Cyclist

Avoriaz

Nick_C wrote: »

Not just contributing to the cost of the roads; taxes on motoring raise more than double the amount spent on road building and maintenance. Motorists are paying for the roads, and making a huge additional contribution to government income.

A lot of which is required by the NHS to treat victims of road accidents and those suffering from illness and disease caused by pollution from cars and other vehicles. The costs of motoring are not confined to road building and maintenance.

I am both a motorist and a cyclist and I don't think motorists are unfairly or unreasonably taxed.

Altarf

Idiophreak wrote: »

I don't use cycle paths because
1) They often require you to give way to join and/or leave the cycle path.

Not the case on the cycle path that I pass on the way to the station every day, that no cyclists use.

Idiophreak wrote: »

2) They're often poorly maintained, overgrown and crumpled with tree roots. Dog mess is also an issue (as above)

Not the case on the cycle path that I pass on the way to the station every day, that no cyclists use. It is perfectly maintained.

Idiophreak wrote: »

3) They often require you to give way at roundabouts/side roads etc

Not the case on the cycle path that I pass on the way to the station every day, that no cyclists use. There are no side roads.

Idiophreak wrote: »

4) More often than not, you have to cross roads or take different routes around roundabouts etc to stay on the cycle path. This is annoying and confuses the hell out of your sat nav.

Not the case on the cycle path that I pass on the way to the station every day, that no cyclists use. It actually means that you can avoid roundabouts.

Idiophreak wrote: »

5) They're often short, token paths.

Not the case on the cycle path that I pass on the way to the station every day, that no cyclists use. It is a long 1/4 -1/2 mile length.

Idiophreak wrote: »

6) You're often at risk of people stepping out, car doors opening, car's reversing out of driveways, etc etc

Not the case on the cycle path that I pass on the way to the station every day, that no cyclists use. There are no driveways or cars parked.

hugheskevi

Not the case on the cycle path that I pass on the way to the station every day, that no cyclists use. It is a long 1/4 -1/2 mile length.

Presumably it would be no problem to cycle at 20mph (a typical cruising speed, some will be faster, around 30mph) on such a fine and deserted piece of infrastructure?

So that is about 45 or so seconds of the journey taken care of then...

brat

Altarf wrote: »

Not the case on the cycle path that I pass on the way to the station every day, that no cyclists use.

Not the case on the cycle path that I pass on the way to the station every day, that no cyclists use. It is perfectly maintained.

Not the case on the cycle path that I pass on the way to the station every day, that no cyclists use. There are no side roads.

Not the case on the cycle path that I pass on the way to the station every day, that no cyclists use. It actually means that you can avoid roundabouts.

Not the case on the cycle path that I pass on the way to the station every day, that no cyclists use. It is a long 1/4 -1/2 mile length.

Not the case on the cycle path that I pass on the way to the station every day, that no cyclists use. There are no driveways or cars parked.

You're obviously happy to dismiss them as thoughtless fools without asking them their reasons.

Many cyclists on here have explained the circumstances when they would and wouldn't use a cycle path. I'm sure these commuters will be perfectly capable of doing the same.

Perhaps their reasons may stack up as inadequate in your eyes, but without asking them, your argument is hollow.

[Deleted User]

Cycle paths need to be scrapped, they just cultivate the idea that cyclists have no right being on the road.

Johno100

jack_pott wrote: »

Cycle paths need to be scrapped, they just cultivate the idea that cyclists have no right being on the road.

What? You can't say that! What would the cycling activists have to campaign for then? It's all about good 'infra' and #spaceforcycling, the second of which translates to redistribute road space and hand it over to the non-existent hordes waiting to mount their Bromptons and with the hope the consequential increase in traffic congestion will get the rest of us out of our cars.

Idiophreak

Altarf wrote: »

Not the case on the cycle path that I pass on the way to the station every day, that no cyclists use.
...
Not the case on the cycle path that I pass on the way to the station every day, that no cyclists use. It is perfectly maintained.
...
Not the case on the cycle path that I pass on the way to the station every day, that no cyclists use. There are no side roads.
...
Not the case on the cycle path that I pass on the way to the station every day, that no cyclists use. It actually means that you can avoid roundabouts.
...
Not the case on the cycle path that I pass on the way to the station every day, that no cyclists use. It is a long 1/4 -1/2 mile length.
...
Not the case on the cycle path that I pass on the way to the station every day, that no cyclists use. There are no driveways or cars parked.

It's interesting that the one part of my post you chose not to quote was the one bit that explains why none of the above rambling matters.

You could have the best, most shiney, perfect cycle path in the whole wide world (which you clearly do, well done) and I wouldn't use it - because *most* cycle paths are rubbish so I ignore all of them.

You'd be surprised how these things work...where I used to live there was a cycle path that looked *perfect*...half a mile stretch, flat, nice and wide, set around20ft back from the road, good lighting, good visibility..easy to get on to...So I'd use it every day, right? Nah.

Though it looks *perfect* from the road, when you actually ride it on a road bike, it's like getting punched in the nuts over and over...so many tree roots, lumps and bumps...end up slowing down and weaving all over the place. And it *is* easy to get on to (if you want to slow to 5mph to make the turn and accelerate again), but you have to give way at the other end to get back off again.

If you assume the 1/2 mile takes around 90 seconds to complete on the road at a decent 20mph...compare that to: slow for the corner(s) (15 seconds), avg 15mph along the distance (2 mins), stop and give way at the end(30s), get back up to speed (15s)... You're looking at taking literally twice as long to cover the same distance....and feeling like you've been kicked in the nuts for the pleasure...why would I do that? I'm perfectly happy on the road, so I'll just stay there, thanks.

andrewf75

Johno100 wrote: »

What? You can't say that! What would the cycling activists have to campaign for then? It's all about good 'infra' and #spaceforcycling, the second of which translates to redistribute road space and hand it over to the non-existent hordes waiting to mount their Bromptons and with the hope the consequential increase in traffic congestion will get the rest of us out of our cars.

You're missing the point. Cycle paths aren't for serious cyclists. Those lycra clad enthusiasts prefer to cycle on the road and will continue to do so and they have every right to if they choose that.

Cycle infrastructure is a good idea because it will encourage ordinary people (not cycle enthusiasts) to use bikes to get from A to B within urban areas hence reducing congestion. That isn't an idea for any specific minority, it is an idea that makes everyones quality of life better. There is no rational reason to oppose it.

Throbbe

Idiophreak wrote: »

It's interesting that the one part of my post you chose not to quote was the one bit that explains why none of the above rambling matters.

You could have the best, most shiney, perfect cycle path in the whole wide world (which you clearly do, well done) and I wouldn't use it - because *most* cycle paths are rubbish so I ignore all of them.

Also, I suspect most car drivers don't realise the distances that you might be riding. Hoping on and off a 1/2 mile path as part of a 1-2 mile journey would be a fairly minor inconvenience. Doing it repeatedly on a 60 mile ride is just ridiculous when there is a better alternative.

To put it in driving terms, I'll often use back roads rather than a motorway if I'm in no particular hurry, and I know many other drivers too. Should we be legally obliged to use this facility, provided at great expense by other taxpayers (which even has 'motor' in the name, like cycle paths refer to 'cycles'), and adding traffic to roads intended for local journeys? Of course not, we're just exercising our personal choice to use the route that best meets our needs. I make the same choices on the bike.

I'll use cyclepaths where they are the best choice for me, but like you experience has taught me to assume they'll be rubbish until proven otherwise.

Idiophreak wrote: »

You'd be surprised how these things work...where I used to live there was a cycle path that looked *perfect*...half a mile stretch, flat, nice and wide, set around20ft back from the road, good lighting, good visibility..easy to get on to...So I'd use it every day, right? Nah.

Similarly, I actually have a pretty decent cyclepath between the village I live in and the nearest town. It's 2 miles long, is fairly wide, and reasonably well maintained. Why don't I use it? Mostly because of the 200m stretch which veers away from the road, through trees and up a steep (for Cambridgeshire!) hill. As soon as autumn arrives the surface is covered in a slippery layer of fallen leaves that are never cleared, and because the sun doesn't penetrate the trees it stays that way for months on end.

To drivers this would appear to be an excellent facility, but unfortunately it isn't, and there is no easy way to bypass the poor section.

almillar

adouglasmhor

If I buy a cake I am contributing to the costs of roads. If I drive a low emision car I pay no tax on that so amn't. You are paying towards the upkeep of the roads not to use them, there is a difference, so your big long post was a bit of a waste of time but showed you still don't get it. Sorry the bad man makes you pay taxes like everyone else.

As I was implying in my post - if you buy a cake, cigarettes, booze, you do contribute to the costs of roads. You also get to eat, smoke or drink a product.
When I pay VED 'road tax' - the 'product' is that I get to drive on the road, and that's all I get. It does go towards the upkeep of the road (that's the point I'm trying to make, actually!) but for the individual, no payment, no driving. I maintain that I am effictively PAYING to use the public highway. As you say, and as I said when I mentioned exemptions, not all vehicles need to pay, that's fine by me.
You're right, whatever it is that I don't get, I still don't get - I've got no problem with paying to be on the road, I've got a problem with people saying that a pedestrian or cyclist contributes AS MUCH to the road network as a driver - that's simply not true!

Norman Castle:

Vehicle tax is either fuel duty which is a purchase tax and VED which is designed to reduce pollution. With stamp duty or inheritance tax. What "product" is received?

Yes, this is similar - for this one, the 'product' is the right to buy the house. Not very tangible.

Paying vehicle taxes does not give you the right to use the roads. They are paid to avoid tax evasion penalties.

OK - 'Paying vehicle taxes gives you the right to use the roads, without tax evasion penalties'. That's a bit of a daft statement (and I'm talking about VED (road tax), not the fuel tax), so I'll stick with 'Paying vehicle tax gives you the right to use the roads'. Yes, that's it.
Also - obeying the law gives you the right to not be done for disobeying the law.

Motorists benefit from all public spending. Why should they be allowed to claim selected parts and state what they believe their taxes are being used for?.

No they don't - there are stats above showing that more is collected from 'vehicle taxes' than is spent on roads. EFFECTIVELY that means the government are making money out of motorists, and (RIGHTLY) spending it on public transport etc. You can tell me it all goes into one pot, and all comes out of one pot all you want, but motorists do, EFFECTIVELY, pay for roads.

Strider590:

I hate to state the obvious, but cyclists need fuel too, in the form of nutrition, energy and water. All of which they pay tax on, in the form of VAT.

Sorry, I was talking about fuel duty, not VAT.