Suicidal Cyclist

Altarf

Idiophreak wrote: »

Sorry, why would me cycling on the road equate to me being dead?

I've done a few thousand miles on the road in the last couple of years and am still not dead. It's perfectly safe...I'm perfectly entitled to ride there...So I'll ride there. Seriously, what's the problem with that 'logic'?

Number of cyclist killed on the road is > Number of cyclist killed on cycle paths

The failure in logic is choosing to ride in the most dangerous place, the road, rather than the "best, most shiney, perfect cycle path in the whole wide world".

Norman_Castle

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.

The amount gathered from motoring taxes exceeds the amount spent on roads. The amount gathered from income tax, NIC and VAT massively exceeds highway spending. So what?. Its called taxation.

'Paying vehicle tax gives you the right to use the roads'

Many vehicles are not taxed, they are fully entitled to use the roads. VED is not a toll or fee or charge to use the roads. Its just a tax.

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!

Does a unemployed motorist contribute more than a employed pedestrian?.

Throbbe

Idiophreak wrote: »

Thick as pigshit, deserve getting held up.

It's entirely up to you of course but it's a shame you bit there.

Against expectation this thread had developed into a pretty rational exchange of views, including the real reasons that many cyclists use the roads rather than specific cycle facilities and has hopefully informed cyclists and non-cyclists alike. Better to ignore Justin's trolling and let that continue.

Johno100

andrewf75 wrote: »

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.

So we take the 'cycling enthusiasts' out of the equation, who I assume include commuting cyclists (which represent 1.9% of total commuters in my region) and that leaves the dedicated cycle infrastructure for the "ordinary people"? But aren't we putting the cart before the horse hear, where is the demand other than from cycling evangelists for this cycling infrastructure?

andrewf75 wrote: »

That isn't an idea for any specific minority, it is an idea that makes everyone's quality of life better. There is no rational reason to oppose it.

It is for a tiny minority in this country, those who aren't your archetypal 'cycle enthusiast' who will always deem cycle paths / segregated cycle lanes not fit for purpose, but still cycle. If my local High Street is transformed from two lanes in either direction (or one lane and on street parking) to one lane and one cycle lane for these none existent cyclists, whose quality of life will be improved? The drivers stuck in the increased congestion being squeezed into one lane, the shop keepers who lose passing trade because of the removal of parking spaces and increased congestion or your imaginary cycling converts?

Idiophreak

JustinR1979 wrote: »

Too daft to use cyclepath, too daft to get a decent paying job and buy a car - goes hand in hand really.

Aw bless...I wish I had you on a keyring...could call it "pillock in your pocket" or something.

I couldn't afford a decent bike til I was earning > 40k...now my bike's worth double what I paid for my first car.

I can't imagine what kind of job you've managed to get without any kind of empathy or...common decency, really...Whatever it is, I'd be appalled if it's enough to buy a decent road bike...Wait a minute...is that what this is all about? Are you upset that they can afford toys you can't?

Almost breaks my heart.

Altarf wrote: »

Number of cyclist killed on the road is > Number of cyclist killed on cycle paths

The failure in logic is choosing to ride in the most dangerous place, the road, rather than the "best, most shiney, perfect cycle path in the whole wide world".

It's not a flaw in logic, just a simple risk assessment. I think the road's perfectly safe, so I use it.

Throbbe

Johno100 wrote: »

But aren't we putting the cart before the horse hear, where is the demand other than from cycling evangelists for this cycling infrastructure?

Many surveys suggest that there are people that would like to cycle and that the biggest barrier to this is a percieved lack of safety. There is the restrained demand.

Where better cycling facilities are provided, the number of cyclists tends to go up, demonstrating that this restrained demand existed.

I'm not talking about 15 mile journeys here where a car is more practical, or expecting everyone to leave the car behind every day no matter what the weather. I'm talking 1-2 mile trips to the shops, or work, or school that people currently do by car but could easily do by bicycle, saving money and getting a health benefit. It would also reduce congestion for those that are doing longer journeys, or carrying tools, or lots of shopping by car.

brat

Nick_C wrote: »

You won't be paying VED on a low emission vehicle, but you will be paying tax on the fuel.

How do you as a motorist pay for the costs of pollution, environmental damage, congestion, policing, collision and hospital costs not borne by insurers?
Do you see these as issues the motorist should have no responsibility for, as they don't seem to be a factor in your figures?

This report (from admittedly a green perspective) suggests in its conclusions that the motorist doesn't pay enough to cover these related costs

From IPPR report conclusions
Road spending, though not equal to revenue from motoring taxes, is still 40 per cent of the overall transport budget. But beyond this, there are wider environmental and social costs to society associated with road traffic. The costs of road casualties, climate change, air pollution, noise, and wider impacts on communities, cities and the countryside all far outweigh any tax revenue.

The RAC foundation accepts that the wider external costs (congestion, accident, pollution, environmental etc) should in some part be borne by the motorist, perhaps through road charging. However they argue that industrial and domestic fuel users don't share the tax burden for pollution and environmental impact to the extent that the motorist does.
Presumably their argument is that the environmental and pollutant costs of motoring should be borne by the general public purse.

Whether the motorist should pay for the entirety of the costs of motoring is obviously a political debate.

What is clear is that the direct taxes paid by the motorist doesn't cover all of the direct and external costs of motoring.

Idiophreak

Throbbe wrote: »

It's entirely up to you of course but it's a shame you bit there.

I know. I'll flog myself later

izzzzythedog

going to work and back to beat the traffic and save a few quid ?:T

fleshy fools wobbling around the local lanes testing my brakes and turning ability in a 3.5 ton van in the name of leisure :question:

Im not the best driver in the world although i try to be :A but making it so easy to create a brand new side of the road floral display has to be questioned

Altarf

Idiophreak wrote: »

It's not a flaw in logic, just a simple risk assessment. I think the road's perfectly safe, so I use it.

As I said, cyclist 'logic' perceiving that a road, where you are relying on others not to kill you, is safer than a cycle path.