Not a rant about cyclists - just a question
Comments
-
In other news... I don't know why cycles can't just be classified as other vehicles on the road, and so be subject to the same laws.
Easy rules:
1. Road rules apply to all road users on wheels.
2. If you can't do 20% of a road's speed limit then don't use it (without a police escort for abnormal loads, etc.).
1) They already do. Drivers kill and seriously injure vastly more people than cyclists (typically cyclists are involved in 1 or 2 deaths a year maximum vs thousands for drivers), if anything we should ban cars from roads
2) 20% of even a 70 is 14mph, something anyone can do, let alone experienced cyclists, I'm hardly a pro and did a 44 mile loop yesterday averaging just under 16 on a variety of roads (think 60 was the maximum)0 -
Ah - 30s.
If your life is so badly planned that waiting 30s to safely pass someone without killing them causes problems, then you are the one with the problem. You can pass a cyclist easily, you cannot pass easily many other road users who legally use the road but may not be doing the speed you wantYes, many other things can be slow too; funnily enough, the suggestion was not aimed specifically at bikes, but rather selfish road users who have no consideration for people wanting to get on with their lives.
AKA you are road raging because you cannot drive at the limit all the time. Try going a bit slower and setting off early. I drive for a sport I do, I aim to be there an hour before the start so if there are delays or problems I have leeway. I always note I get stressed and probably more aggressive when I leave much less time and think I am going to arrive without much spare time. Doing 70mph on a motorway in the inside lane is much more relaxing than bombing along at 90 in the outside lane trying to get around people with an Audi on your bumper trying to do 100I know that some cyclists do have an appalling attitude and think nothing of inconveniencing other road users.
Cycling safely (e.g. primary position) and making it so you don't die due to aggressive inpatient motorists is quite sensible actually.There are some roads which I (being a cyclist) would not consider safe to go on. My son's car was at a garage last week and he asked me if I thought it would be OK to cycle his route to work, to which I said no, I did not think so.
Each to their own. Some won't even cycle among city traffic, some do it at speed with easeThe general taxation is a red-herring; are you saying that the taxes from motor vehicle use does not amply pay for the roads? And, of course, the non-drivers still make use of and benefit from roads, even if they don't drive themselves.
So no, cyclists do not subsidise motorists.
No tax on cars pays for roads. Perhaps you are one of those people who believes you pay "road tax" and that annual fee goes to the roads, I don't know but your post implies that? Any which way, car tax (or VED as it's actually called) goes to the government to do what they like, same as VAT, income tax etc. It's nominally a pollution tax given how much environmental damage and health problems cars cause but it certainly does not go on roads. Road building and indeed, road repair, comes from public funds (either from the DFT or council tax) which come from all our taxes. So yes in fact cyclists DO subsidise motorists as the budget for road building is vastly more than any cycle infrastructure0 -
NSL dual carriageways are often upgraded from roads which are often the only practical route. They are not motorways and as such will have slower vehicles on them which drivers need to accommodate. Excluding people from these roads to accommodate motorists and their desire to drive as if on motorways is unjust and unfair. These other road users can get on with their life but they will just have a very minor delay, 15 instead of 60mph for 2 minutes? The cyclists are just getting on with their lives, its very selfish to ban them from roads simply for motorists convenience.I suppose if every car needed someone walking in front of it carrying a red flag, then the danger would be reduced down to near-zero; however, the purpose of the road would be negated. Bit extreme, reducing the speed to one that allows drivers more time to react would be more sensible.
NSL dual carriageways have the same speed limit as motorways, but if someone goes on to one unable to get anywhere near that, then they are impeding the other road users who simply want to get on with their lives.0 -
3, If you can't do 20% of a roads speed limit for a short distance without sulking then don't use it.I don't know why cycles can't just be classified as other vehicles on the road, and so be subject to the same laws.
Easy rules:
1. Road rules apply to all road users on wheels.
2. If you can't do 20% of a road's speed limit then don't use it (without a police escort for abnormal loads, etc.).
I might be wrong but was it you who in previous posts repeatedly complained about passing the same cyclist daily despite there being a "perfectly good" cycle path?0 -
In other news... I don't know why cycles can't just be classified as other vehicles on the road, and so be subject to the same laws.
Easy rules:
1. Road rules apply to all road users on wheels.
2. If you can't do 20% of a road's speed limit then don't use it (without a police escort for abnormal loads, etc.).
Cycling UK has responded to this - in the last 10 years 99.4% of pedestrian deaths involved a motor vehicle, yet only 27% of drivers who were convicted of death by dangerous driving were sent to prison at an average of only 14 months sentence. In 2016 448 pedestrians were killed on roads, just 3 involved a bike (and that doesn't mean the rider was even at fault, just that it involved a bike). Tinkering at the edges by introducing an offence which is pretty much already covered through existing laws while ignoring the massive elephant in the room is the sort of silly response we see from the government.
https://www.cyclinguk.org/press-release/governments-review-cycle-laws-masks-failure-tackle-wider-road-safety-review-says0 -
You seem to be projecting your anger and using inflammatory words.Norman_Castle wrote: »3, If you can't do 20% of a roads speed limit for a short distance without sulking then don't use it.
I might be wrong but was it you who in previous posts repeatedly complained about passing the same cyclist daily despite there being a "perfectly good" cycle path?
You are wrong - that was not me.0 -
You keep banging on about your 2 minutes, don't you...Norman_Castle wrote: »NSL dual carriageways are often upgraded from roads which are often the only practical route. They are not motorways and as such will have slower vehicles on them which drivers need to accommodate. Excluding people from these roads to accommodate motorists and their desire to drive as if on motorways is unjust and unfair. These other road users can get on with their life but they will just have a very minor delay, 15 instead of 60mph for 2 minutes? The cyclists are just getting on with their lives, its very selfish to ban them from roads simply for motorists convenience.0 -
Ah the Norm bloke is banging on about 2 minutes and you keep going on about 30s.If your life is so badly planned that waiting 30s to safely pass someone without killing them causes problems, then you are the one with the problem. You can pass a cyclist easily, you cannot pass easily many other road users who legally use the road but may not be doing the speed you want
I'm guessing you are a cyclist, given how vehemently you seem to be endorsing their selfish use of the roads which they don't pay for.
Who is road-raging?AKA you are road raging because you cannot drive at the limit all the time. Try going a bit slower and setting off early. I drive for a sport I do, I aim to be there an hour before the start so if there are delays or problems I have leeway. I always note I get stressed and probably more aggressive when I leave much less time and think I am going to arrive without much spare time. Doing 70mph on a motorway in the inside lane is much more relaxing than bombing along at 90 in the outside lane trying to get around people with an Audi on your bumper trying to do 100
I very rarely have a specific time I need to be somewhere, but if I do, then I do set off in good time; sorry to burst that bubble of yours.
I'm guessing you don't drive an Audi then - you seem to have an issue with projecting your prejudices onto others.
Ah yes - definitely a cyclist!Cycling safely (e.g. primary position) and making it so you don't die due to aggressive inpatient motorists is quite sensible actually.
I used to work with someone who cycled to work and he was a very angry person, even telling stories of how he kicked people's cars.Each to their own. Some won't even cycle among city traffic, some do it at speed with ease
On the Road Tax question, it is all due to be spent on the roads by 2020.No tax on cars pays for roads. Perhaps you are one of those people who believes you pay "road tax" and that annual fee goes to the roads, I don't know but your post implies that? Any which way, car tax (or VED as it's actually called) goes to the government to do what they like, same as VAT, income tax etc. It's nominally a pollution tax given how much environmental damage and health problems cars cause but it certainly does not go on roads. Road building and indeed, road repair, comes from public funds (either from the DFT or council tax) which come from all our taxes. So yes in fact cyclists DO subsidise motorists as the budget for road building is vastly more than any cycle infrastructure
You are right that Road Tax (the common name for "Vehicle Tax") does not cover the cost of the roads, but that plus vehicle VAT plus fuel duty do. Whilst it is true that it all goes into and comes out of a central pot, the numbers are roughly the same.
Regarding cyclists subsidising the roads, as I said earlier, everybody uses or benefits from the roads even if they are not car owners. I'm sure you wouldn't be moaning about it so much if you needed an ambulance to come and help you in an emergency.0 -
Here is a link to an interesting legal view.
http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.com/
On another point, I've been involved with a cycle lane consultation recently and the local council are a joke. They kept quoting Sustrans but when I attempted to quote the bits from Sustrans guidelines that they were trying to ignore I was told that Sustrans guidelines were not legal requirements and my point was not valid. Like I said, joke.
It's simple, there is no interest in this country in anything but pandering to high tax paying cars so cyclists will always be second class citizens. Apart from VED (car tax if you like) there is the duty on fuel that pays billions to central government and all the parking charges/fines that pay millions to local councils. No council/government wants to upset their cash cow drivers.
This makes electric cars very interesting. The government can easily change the VED criteria so that electric cars will become taxable. They've already done it with low emissions cars. But how will they replace the billions they now get from fuel duty? That's a question I'd like the answer to.
DarrenXbigman's guide to a happy life.
Eat properly
Sleep properly
Save some money0 -
Not angry at all, didn't realise "sulking" would be considered inflammatory.You seem to be projecting your anger and using inflammatory words.
Apparently "the answer is in the question". Feel free to share the answer.You keep banging on about your 2 minutes, don't you...
You've become very defensive, is it because your argument doesn't have much merit.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343K Banking & Borrowing
- 250K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.6K Spending & Discounts
- 235.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards