Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Exemplar
    • By Exemplar 8th Aug 18, 9:41 AM
    • 1,181Posts
    • 481Thanks
    Exemplar
    Not a rant about cyclists - just a question
    • #1
    • 8th Aug 18, 9:41 AM
    Not a rant about cyclists - just a question 8th Aug 18 at 9:41 AM
    https://postimg.cc/gallery/299f522k8/


    So I drive to work because I have to. On the days I don't need the car I cycle and use the cycle lanes. I'm not precious about my bike and use it as I use the car, a tool to fulfil a function.

    For the past few days I have noticed what I would class as sporting cyclists using a particularly dangerous part of my route. My post this morning is to just understand why these guys would rather cycle dangerously than use the cycle path provided (in the pictures you will see it, the cycle lane is the larger part, pedestrians get the narrower part closer to the road).

    I'm sure that there are many arguments as to why from either side but I'm interested as to why someone would both put themselves in harms way from a vehicle over a pedestrian and also why It's considered acceptable to retard the traffic so badly (as was the case this morning).

    I'm not after an argument (although it will turn in to one as usual) rather a genuine reason. Do roads offer more safety? Are there less hazards? is it OK to not use a (in this case) well maintained cycle lane?

    Picture 1 = Aerial view
    Picture 2 = South to North Street View

    Last edited by Exemplar; 08-08-2018 at 9:46 AM.
    'Just because its on the internet don't believe it 100%'. Abraham Lincoln.
Page 3
    • prowla
    • By prowla 12th Aug 18, 10:58 AM
    • 10,086 Posts
    • 8,305 Thanks
    prowla
    In other news...
    'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45154708
    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.).
    • Nasqueron
    • By Nasqueron 12th Aug 18, 12:19 PM
    • 5,808 Posts
    • 3,515 Thanks
    Nasqueron
    In other news...
    'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45154708
    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.).
    Originally posted by prowla

    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)
    • Nasqueron
    • By Nasqueron 12th Aug 18, 12:30 PM
    • 5,808 Posts
    • 3,515 Thanks
    Nasqueron


    Ah - 30s.

    Originally posted by prowla

    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



    Yes, 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.
    Originally posted by prowla

    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 know that some cyclists do have an appalling attitude and think nothing of inconveniencing other road users.
    Originally posted by prowla

    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.
    Originally posted by prowla

    Each to their own. Some won't even cycle among city traffic, some do it at speed with ease


    The 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.
    Originally posted by prowla

    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
    • Norman Castle
    • By Norman Castle 12th Aug 18, 1:30 PM
    • 7,483 Posts
    • 6,256 Thanks
    Norman Castle
    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.
    Originally posted by prowla
    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.
    Don't harass a hippie. You'll get bad karma.

    Never trust a newbie with a rtb tale.
    • Norman Castle
    • By Norman Castle 12th Aug 18, 1:55 PM
    • 7,483 Posts
    • 6,256 Thanks
    Norman Castle
    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.).
    Originally posted by prowla
    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?
    Last edited by Norman Castle; 12-08-2018 at 2:05 PM.
    Don't harass a hippie. You'll get bad karma.

    Never trust a newbie with a rtb tale.
    • Nasqueron
    • By Nasqueron 12th Aug 18, 3:00 PM
    • 5,808 Posts
    • 3,515 Thanks
    Nasqueron
    In other news...
    'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45154708
    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.).
    Originally posted by prowla

    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-says
    • prowla
    • By prowla 12th Aug 18, 6:51 PM
    • 10,086 Posts
    • 8,305 Thanks
    prowla
    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?
    Originally posted by Norman Castle
    You seem to be projecting your anger and using inflammatory words.


    You are wrong - that was not me.
    • prowla
    • By prowla 12th Aug 18, 6:52 PM
    • 10,086 Posts
    • 8,305 Thanks
    prowla
    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.
    Originally posted by Norman Castle
    You keep banging on about your 2 minutes, don't you...
    • prowla
    • By prowla 12th Aug 18, 7:09 PM
    • 10,086 Posts
    • 8,305 Thanks
    prowla
    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
    Originally posted by Nasqueron
    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.


    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
    Originally posted by Nasqueron
    Who 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.


    I'm guessing you don't drive an Audi then - you seem to have an issue with projecting your prejudices onto others.


    Cycling safely (e.g. primary position) and making it so you don't die due to aggressive inpatient motorists is quite sensible actually.
    Originally posted by Nasqueron
    Ah yes - definitely a cyclist!


    Each to their own. Some won't even cycle among city traffic, some do it at speed with ease
    Originally posted by Nasqueron
    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.


    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
    Originally posted by Nasqueron
    On the Road Tax question, it is all due to be spent on the roads by 2020.


    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.
    • Xbigman
    • By Xbigman 12th Aug 18, 7:46 PM
    • 3,139 Posts
    • 1,375 Thanks
    Xbigman
    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.


    Darren
    Xbigman's guide to a happy life.

    Eat properly
    Sleep properly
    Save some money
    • Norman Castle
    • By Norman Castle 12th Aug 18, 7:52 PM
    • 7,483 Posts
    • 6,256 Thanks
    Norman Castle
    You seem to be projecting your anger and using inflammatory words.
    Originally posted by prowla
    Not angry at all, didn't realise "sulking" would be considered inflammatory.

    You keep banging on about your 2 minutes, don't you...
    Originally posted by prowla
    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.
    Don't harass a hippie. You'll get bad karma.

    Never trust a newbie with a rtb tale.
    • Nasqueron
    • By Nasqueron 12th Aug 18, 8:05 PM
    • 5,808 Posts
    • 3,515 Thanks
    Nasqueron
    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.
    Originally posted by prowla

    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 minutes



    Who 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.
    Originally posted by prowla

    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.
    Originally posted by prowla

    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.
    Originally posted by prowla

    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.
    Originally posted by prowla

    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.
    Originally posted by prowla

    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.
    Originally posted by prowla

    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.
    Last edited by Nasqueron; 12-08-2018 at 8:09 PM.
    • prowla
    • By prowla 12th Aug 18, 8:45 PM
    • 10,086 Posts
    • 8,305 Thanks
    prowla
    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.
    Originally posted by Norman Castle
    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.
    • Norman Castle
    • By Norman Castle 12th Aug 18, 8:48 PM
    • 7,483 Posts
    • 6,256 Thanks
    Norman Castle
    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.
    Originally posted by prowla
    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.
    Last edited by Norman Castle; 12-08-2018 at 8:56 PM.
    Don't harass a hippie. You'll get bad karma.

    Never trust a newbie with a rtb tale.
    • prowla
    • By prowla 12th Aug 18, 8:57 PM
    • 10,086 Posts
    • 8,305 Thanks
    prowla
    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.
    Originally posted by Nasqueron
    As I said...


    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
    Originally posted by Nasqueron
    Super.

    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.
    Originally posted by Nasqueron
    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.


    That was a joke, it would be more likely to be a BMW of course.
    Originally posted by Nasqueron
    Ah, sorry - I hadn't realised you had a sense of humour.


    Yes I cycle and drive.
    Originally posted by Nasqueron
    Lovely.


    If a car is close enough you can kick it then it's passing too close but eh meaningless made up anecdotes are pointless.
    Originally posted by Nasqueron
    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.


    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.
    Originally posted by Nasqueron
    Nice to see you took the trouble to look it up! Of course, subsequent Chancellors & governments may change their minds.

    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
    Originally posted by Nasqueron
    The government's site refers to it as Vehicle Tax.


    https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-tax


    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.
    Originally posted by Nasqueron
    Where did I say that cyclists subsidise drivers?

    3/10 trolling, must try harder.
    Originally posted by Nasqueron
    Ah - the old ploy of accusing someone who deigns to disagree with you of trolling. Null points to you...
    • prowla
    • By prowla 12th Aug 18, 9:12 PM
    • 10,086 Posts
    • 8,305 Thanks
    prowla
    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.
    Originally posted by Norman Castle
    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.
    • Norman Castle
    • By Norman Castle 12th Aug 18, 9:28 PM
    • 7,483 Posts
    • 6,256 Thanks
    Norman Castle
    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.
    Originally posted by prowla
    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.


    The answer is 90 seconds.
    Don't harass a hippie. You'll get bad karma.

    Never trust a newbie with a rtb tale.
    • esuhl
    • By esuhl 13th Aug 18, 8:46 AM
    • 8,397 Posts
    • 6,171 Thanks
    esuhl
    In other news...
    'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45154708
    Originally posted by prowla

    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.
    Originally posted by prowla
    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.).
    Originally posted by prowla

    If you can't cope with driving amongst slower vehicles, then get a taxi and let someone else worry about the traffic.
    • Norman Castle
    • By Norman Castle 13th Aug 18, 9:03 AM
    • 7,483 Posts
    • 6,256 Thanks
    Norman Castle
    Here is a link to an interesting legal view.

    http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.com/

    Originally posted by Xbigman
    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."
    Don't harass a hippie. You'll get bad karma.

    Never trust a newbie with a rtb tale.
    • Nasqueron
    • By Nasqueron 13th Aug 18, 10:12 AM
    • 5,808 Posts
    • 3,515 Thanks
    Nasqueron
    As I said...
    Originally posted by prowla
    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 below


    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.
    Originally posted by prowla
    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.
    Originally posted by prowla
    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.
    Originally posted by prowla
    Again, you gloss over the fact I proved you wrong because you can't answer the point.


    The government's site refers to it as Vehicle Tax.


    https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-tax
    Originally posted by prowla

    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?
    Originally posted by prowla
    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...
    Originally posted by prowla
    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?
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

1,363Posts Today

7,613Users online

Martin's Twitter