Not a rant about cyclists - just a question
Comments
-
Ah the Norm bloke is banging on about 2 minutes and you keep going on about 30s.
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.
Cyclist and driver yes. I pay various taxes including VED, fuel duty, PAYE, NI, council tax. NONE OF THEM pay for roads directly. If you pay tax in the UK you pay for roads.
I have never seen any situation on narrow roads that I cycle on where a car has been behind me for 2 minutes. I have never been stuck behind a bike for 2 minutesWho is road-raging?
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.
Your posts on here clearly show you can't cope with a tiny delay behind a bike waiting for a safe space and you ignore all the other points about other legal road users which might delay you. You clearly have an issue.I'm guessing you don't drive an Audi then - you seem to have an issue with projecting your prejudices onto others.
That was a joke, it would be more likely to be a BMW of course.Ah yes - definitely a cyclist!
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.
Yes I cycle and drive.
If a car is close enough you can kick it then it's passing too close but eh meaningless made up anecdotes are pointless.On the Road Tax question, it is all due to be spent on the roads by 2020.
So it is not spent on roads currently then? As I said? QED you're wrong? Well done! The road fund license was planned by George Osbourne, in case you missed it he is not chancellor any more (he's not even an MP), there is no guarantee Spreadsheet Phil will implement it, if he's even in position then.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.
It's the common (and wrong) name for vehicle excise duty - a clear distinction from tax. I'm sure I could find a few combinations of other sums that add up to whatever fictitious sum you are working from but it's irrelevant anyway - just because the numbers happen to add up to a similar total does not mean fuel duty and VED / VAT actually pay for the roads. Road building comes from central government funds (largely) but road maintenance comes from council tax so if you pay council tax even if you don't own a car you already pay for road maintenance, hence a cyclist DOES subsidise car drivers. Regardless my fuel duty and £20 a year VED already cover my contributions as does VAT on cycle stuff. I'm sure your head would explode with confusion if you were stuck behind a Nissan Leaf doing 20 in a 60 limit given it's a car, but pays no VED or fuel duty
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.
You said cyclists do not subsidise drivers (post #37 unless you edit it of course).
Now you admit they do.
You lost so tried to move the goal posts.
3/10 trolling, must try harder.0 -
Sorry, I've been out for a drive - no cyclists in sight!Norman_Castle wrote: »Not angry at all, didn't realise "sulking" would be considered inflammatory.
Apparently "the answer is in the question". Feel free to share the answer.
You've become very defensive, is it because your argument doesn't have much merit.
You posed a question in which you gave your own answer; I didn't feel the need to repeat it.0 -
The answer isn't in the question.Sorry, I've been out for a drive - no cyclists in sight!
You posed a question in which you gave your own answer; I didn't feel the need to repeat it.
Your responses are avoiding criticism of your idea to ban cyclists from fast roads because your argument has little merit. Be honest, you're just moaning about cyclists.0 -
As I said...Cyclist and driver yes. I pay various taxes including VED, fuel duty, PAYE, NI, council tax. NONE OF THEM pay for roads directly. If you pay tax in the UK you pay for roads.
Super.I have never seen any situation on narrow roads that I cycle on where a car has been behind me for 2 minutes. I have never been stuck behind a bike for 2 minutes
I can cope perfectly well - you misconstrue words on a chat forum and attempt to deflect them into some pseudo-assessment of a person having issues.Your posts on here clearly show you can't cope with a tiny delay behind a bike waiting for a safe space and you ignore all the other points about other legal road users which might delay you. You clearly have an issue.
Ah, sorry - I hadn't realised you had a sense of humour.That was a joke, it would be more likely to be a BMW of course.
Lovely.Yes I cycle and drive.
It is an anecdote, but factually correct.If a car is close enough you can kick it then it's passing too close but eh meaningless made up anecdotes are pointless.
It's funny how some cyclists can deem a space to be wide enough when they want to nip through between cars, but then take umbrage if the opposite happens - something of a double-standard.
Nice to see you took the trouble to look it up! Of course, subsequent Chancellors & governments may change their minds.So it is not spent on roads currently then? As I said? QED you're wrong? Well done! The road fund license was planned by George Osbourne, in case you missed it he is not chancellor any more (he's not even an MP), there is no guarantee Spreadsheet Phil will implement it, if he's even in position then.
The government's site refers to it as Vehicle Tax.It's the common (and wrong) name for vehicle excise duty - a clear distinction from tax. I'm sure I could find a few combinations of other sums that add up to whatever fictitious sum you are working from but it's irrelevant anyway - just because the numbers happen to add up to a similar total does not mean fuel duty and VED / VAT actually pay for the roads. Road building comes from central government funds (largely) but road maintenance comes from council tax so if you pay council tax even if you don't own a car you already pay for road maintenance, hence a cyclist DOES subsidise car drivers. Regardless my fuel duty and £20 a year VED already cover my contributions as does VAT on cycle stuff. I'm sure your head would explode with confusion if you were stuck behind a Nissan Leaf doing 20 in a 60 limit given it's a car, but pays no VED or fuel duty
https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-tax
Where did I say that cyclists subsidise drivers?You said cyclists do not subsidise drivers (post #37 unless you edit it of course).
Now you admit they do.
You lost so tried to move the goal posts.
Ah - the old ploy of accusing someone who deigns to disagree with you of trolling. Null points to you...3/10 trolling, must try harder.0 -
You've let the cat out of the bag there in your use of the term "fast roads" - if you can't do 20% of the flow of traffic, then you are disrupting it.Norman_Castle wrote: »The answer isn't in the question.
Your responses are avoiding criticism of your idea to ban cyclists from fast roads because your argument has little merit. Be honest, you're just moaning about cyclists.
The laws itself recognises a nominal 25 mph on a NSL road as being a hazard and says that motor vehicles which cannot do 25 mph on a dual carriageway must have a flashing amber light, presumably to alert other road users that there is a hazard; apparently cyclists, despite being smaller than a tractor, don't need to do that.0 -
Didn't realise there was a cat in a bag. Not sure why referring to nsl roads as fast roads makes any difference. Presumably the law recognises expecting cyclists to maintain 25mph is unrealistic. Motor vehicles will generally be expected to be travelling at similar speeds so a flashing light will alert other drivers to the unexpected slower speed. Cyclists will be very unlikely to be travelling at higher speed so motorists shouldn't need to be alerted to their slower speed.You've let the cat out of the bag there in your use of the term "fast roads" - if you can't do 20% of the flow of traffic, then you are disrupting it.
The laws itself recognises a nominal 25 mph on a NSL road as being a hazard and says that motor vehicles which cannot do 25 mph on a dual carriageway must have a flashing amber light, presumably to alert other road users that there is a hazard; apparently cyclists, despite being smaller than a tractor, don't need to do that.
The answer is 90 seconds.0 -
In other news...
It's crazy. In the last ten years 99.4% of all pedestrian deaths involved a motor vehicle.
And only 27% of drivers convicted of death by careless driving received a prison sentence! And even then the average was just 14 months!
https://www.cyclinguk.org/press-release/governments-review-cycle-laws-masks-failure-tackle-wider-road-safety-review-says
Our roads are incredibly dangerous, and it's not due to cyclists. Motorists kill hundreds of people each year, safe in the knowledge that they're unlikely to go to prison for it.
Introducing a "death by dangerous cycling" law is just the government trying to ride the wave of the current anti-cycling sentiment in the country.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.
Mostly they do, don't they? I mean, you wouldn't want cyclists on motorways or cars of cycle paths. And there's not much need for a bell on a car or windscreen wipers on a bike. But otherwise...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.).
If you can't cope with driving amongst slower vehicles, then get a taxi and let someone else worry about the traffic. 0 -
I think the intention is for dangerous cyclists to be prosecuted for dangerous cycling rather than manslaughter. Its also possible the sentances will be higher than if charged for a lesser cycling offence where a conviction for manslaughter is unlikely.
From the above,
"A cyclist who is considered to have caused death by dangerous cycling may be charged with involuntary manslaughter. However given the statutory definition of dangerous cycling this would have to entail riding the bicycle in an obviously and flagrantly dangerous manner. There are probably no circumstances in which a cyclist who has committed the proposed offence of causing death by dangerous cycling has not also committed the offence of (gross negligence) manslaughter. There is only therefore any point in introducing a statutory offence of causing death by dangerous cycling if (as was felt to be the case with motorists in the 1950s) guilty people are walking free because of a reluctance of a jury to convict."0 -
As I said...
You're forgetting what you even posted
Post #37 you made two claims
1) That taxes from motor vehicles amply pay for the roads
-- Except they don't actually pay for the roads, it's general taxation. Taxation on PAYE covers the roads. Corporation tax covers the roads. You are implying that VED / fuel duty covers the cost of roads but this money is not allocated for this purpose, which is the point.
2) That cyclists don't subsidise motorists which we'll cover belowI can cope perfectly well - you misconstrue words on a chat forum and attempt to deflect them into some pseudo-assessment of a person having issues.
You have spent several days ranting about cyclists blocking roads, banning bikes from roads, demanding minimum speeds etc yet you claim you don't have an issue! Do you even read what you write?It is an anecdote, but factually correct.
It's funny how some cyclists can deem a space to be wide enough when they want to nip through between cars, but then take umbrage if the opposite happens - something of a double-standard.
Frankly I don't believe that conversation ever happened but whatever.
You can't comprehend the difference between bikes filtering in slow / static traffic and cars passing at speed close by? OK....Nice to see you took the trouble to look it up! Of course, subsequent Chancellors & governments may change their minds.
Again, you gloss over the fact I proved you wrong because you can't answer the point.
Arguing the semantics now, it is still VED and a tax on pollution, nothing to do with using the road.Where did I say that cyclists subsidise drivers?
You didn't. You said cyclists DO NOT subsidise drivers (post #37) which is false. Most cyclists also own cars - National Travel Survey in 2008 showed 83% of cyclists were in a household with a car, compared to 82% of all UK households! Your argument that cyclists don't pay for roads is moot.Ah - the old ploy of accusing someone who deigns to disagree with you of trolling. Null points to you...
You present meaningless anecdotes and no evidence. Whenever you are proved wrong you move the goal posts and come up with new arguments, when these are defeated you try again. You have not provided any meaningful evidence to support any of your assertions such as why cyclists should not go on roads beyond the fact you don't like and rely on pointless anecdotes that you clearly cannot prove. What else is there to assume but trolling?0 -
It is an anecdote, but factually correct.
.
What about Nasqueron's point? I imagine your colleague to be justifiably angry with someone who could have killed him.
I once slapped a car on it's roof as it was passing and drifting in to me. That close, and that instinctive and I didn't even need to stretch. A car should never be that close when passing.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards