Suicidal Cyclist

Idiophreak

Norman_Castle wrote: »

I hope there's a bollard at the end.

Maybe...there's certainly a bollend in the middle

ETA: Damnit, crossposted and was beaten to it!

Strider590

Throbbe wrote: »

Judging people as groups (cyclists/drivers/BMW owners) is OK for comedy purposes, but on the road it leads to an increased risk of injury, and I'm certain no-one wants that.

Well, this is the thing..... We continue to apply negative stereotypes to minority groups, again (as I mentioned before) it's just like racism. The more different you are to the "norm", the worst your treated. Motorcyclists encounter a similar thing, but their speed means they encounter fewer vehicles than a cyclist.

custardy

Throbbe wrote: »

I can see a bell end if that helps.

Idiophreak wrote: »

Maybe...there's certainly a bollend in the middle

ETA: Damnit, crossposted and was beaten to it!

yes the black car in the middle with another car coming down in the distance.

peter_the_piper

brat wrote: »

I don't think you're aware of it, but you're emphasising my point.

Yep, it reads as you think we should all travel at the 30 limit or less. Whether you meant that I doubt but thats how it reads.

brat

almillar wrote:

Brat"So why (specifically in relation to risk assessment) does the motorist drive at 60mph rather than 40mph?"
You can continue that arguement down to zero miles per hour, staying indoors, and hiding under the table in case of an earthquake. Like you intimate, you judge the risk. A massive big rule, though, would be that you should be driving at a speed where you can stop within the distance you can see. Lots of variables in there of course.

Exactly.

peter_the_piper wrote: »

Yep, it reads as you think we should all travel at the 30 limit or less. Whether you meant that I doubt but thats how it reads.

It reads nothing of the sort. All I'm saying, and I think you sort of agree with almillar and I, that we all judge the risk, based on lots of variables that are appropriate to us and the circumstance at that moment, and act accordingly. Motorists and cyclists are both capable of this, and I think the penny may have finally dropped with Altarf.

adouglasmhor

almillar wrote: »

adouglasmhor


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.No becasue as i have pointed out you could drive a car on it for nothing, so obviously you are paying for something else. As you say, and as I said when I mentioned exemptions, not all vehicles need to pay, that's fine by me.see above
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:


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



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.



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:


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

You're not expressing yourself in a way that's going to change my view.

Norman_Castle

almillar wrote: »

(boy this is a busy thread!)
Norman Castle:


Yes - more tax is collected from motoring taxes than is spent on roads. My point exactly! That's all I'm saying! Roads aren't run at a loss by Gov, so no taxes are needed from anywhere else. I'll repeat yet again, I know that none of this money is allocated or ringfenced for certain things, but on a simple in/out basis, motorists pay for roads and more.

Taxes are not simple. Vehicle taxes for commercial vehicles are paid by consumers. Bus passengers fares pay for the fuel. Goods transport costs are added to the purchase price. Businesses claim mileage allowances or fuel costs against income tax. This will represent a high proportion of fuel duty income but will be returned as tax allowances.

Sorry, I've said that some vehicles are exempt, and you've chosen the one quote where I didn't say it. You nitpicking. I'm not sure how taxing VED exempt vehicles works these days, without a disc, but they do still have to be 'taxed' is my understanding - whether they have to pay or not. Maybe this has changed, but it doesn't change my point - if you're required to pay VED, and you don't, you're not allowed to be on the road. It's EFFECTIVELY a toll or fee. And yes, it is a tax, never denied that!.

VED is not a toll or fee. It's just a tax. If you need to see a direct return for a tax you pay then feel free to consider VED as a payment to drive on the roads. You'll be wrong but happy.

brat

almillar wrote: »

Agree - motorists should (and do) pay towards this. [pollution, environmental costs, etc] I hope the stats you quote are nice and up to date, and that it breaks down lorries, buses, cars - as cars are getting cleaner every year.

The linked report was from 2012. Reducing the costs of transport pollution and greenhouse effects is welcome, and must be factored into the debate, but the costs of congestion are spiralling, so one cost may, in the medium term, be replaced by another.

almillar wrote: »

Let's light another fire - how much tax do cyclists contribute to the collisions, and associated costs to the Gov, that they cause?!

I've no idea, but I'm pretty sure the associated costs will be small fry compared to the amount saved by the NHS by the lower life health costs of a fit cyclist.

Norman_Castle

Originally Posted by almillar
Let's light another fire - how much tax do cyclists contribute to the collisions, and associated costs to the Gov, that they cause?!

Doesn't this depend on how much tax they pay overall?.

IronWolf

People are idiots, I've had cyclists run through red lights and almost knock me over and have the audacity to ring their bell at me, they're lucky they were out of swinging distance. I've had drivers turn into a road without looking in front of them at all and almost knock me off my bike, one of them I even kicked his license plate off I was that close to getting hit.

I get passed so closely by cars all the time, that Im almost tempted to fix a spike to the end of my handle bars so I can give their paintwork a good scratch when they do it.