mart360

I think it should be an offence not to use a cycle lane if one is provided!!!

I know of one 7 mile lane that was put in at cost to ""save lives"" and the very people who's lives it was designed to save dont use it!!!


Nope instead they want to play Eddie Merckx but can only reach about 15mph, and wonder why when thier trying this 2 abreast, the 30 odd que of cars is a tad frustrated.... yet they steadfastly refuse to pull in every now and again to let said traffic past.

Mart

Kieran_Burns

iTrader: (1)

2 abreast IS legal.

However (and again, it's the individual not ALL cyclists) some consideration should be shown....

and even a complete lard **** like me can cruise around 18ish (personal best for the 12 miles to work was 36 minutes... avg of 20mph)

You should ask why the 7 mile stretch is not used: ask the people who choose not to - you might be surprised at the answer

Lee247

So, if motorists are the interlopers, who are the A roads and Motorways for, as I was under the impression, cyclists were not allowed to use these roads

Kieran_Burns

iTrader: (1)

Only motorways... and they're restricted roads in their own right (no learners etc, etc)

mart360

Didnt say it wasnt

I just find it funny that they'll happily huff & puff and complain about motorists, and how inconsiderate we are, when there's a cycle lane built especially for them, paid for from our contributions, (road tax) that they dont / wont use..

Now who's inconsiderate?

Mart

Kieran_Burns

iTrader: (1)

Mart - you've missed the point (twice) about contributions.....

There is no road tax

and the roads are not paid for by that little disk in the corner of your windscreen, they are paid for out of the public purse.

davyboy

5 pager?

New_scooby_04

iTrader: (4)

I'm not missing theat point at all: I'm agreeing with you, by the laws of physics and the characteristsc of the vehicle, cars have to be more dangerous to pedestrians. There can be no disputing that, nor can their be any disputing of the need to earn a licence to drive a car.

BUT, playing devils advocate, how many people have to get killed or seriously injured before one stipulates a test being necessary for that means of transportation? Cyclists DO kill and seiously injure pople... AND, furthermore, even if most of he accidents were caused by inconsiderate, inobservant drivers, would it not be better for cyclists to get some formal training in defensive riding? You don't even have to satisfy a sight test to get on a bike and ride it on the public highway....something tells me that ain't right!

I honestly think that some cyclists ride like they have been granted eternal life and forget just how hard they are for a motorist to see and hear coming!

Too much thinking is based around the notion that accidents will happen and how to negate the consequences when they do, not enough thinking is devoted to trying to prevent the accident in the first place. I think ALL road users (cyclists and pedestrians) need better education on passive safety measures!

SJ_Skyline

Locked on the 4th

mart360

Sorry Kieran,
if you look, your road tax goes to HMG, who dont actually spend it on the roads per se, but give it to your local council, who ARE responsible for the roads etc, its the local councils who choose where it goes, namley daft cycle lanes that arnt used, and loads of daft traffic calming measures to make it safer for the minority, who dont give a fig,


(i bet you really are a spandex lover )

Mart

CrisPDuk

This I wholly agree with

Cycle lanes are a travesty in this country, most of the recent ones are paid for with EU grants, but unfortunately, rather than create a viable network of cycleways, local authority planners seem to use them as a means of creating congestion.

The ones around here (Macclesfield) are awful, they cross roads for no reason, take up huge chunks of busy junctions and generally make progress harder and less safe for cyclists, motorists and pedestrians

Kieran_Burns

iTrader: (1)

Okay - I'll go through this a point at a time:

1. Roads are paid for out of general taxation and Council Tax NOT VED (that just goes into the huge melting pot)
2. VED is emission based: bikes are zero emission, so would pay no VED anyway
3. Low / Zero emission vehicles pay no VED, so where does that leave them?
4. Many cyclists are also car owners, so pay VED anyway - it's a one off payment pa. I pay it and just choose not to drive the car. Many other cyclists do likewise. Am I a freeloader because I choose to ride a bike?
5. As said above - I agree about daft cycle lanes: they are a monumental waste of public money and are simply a sop to the 'green' agenda. Many aren't used because they are positively dangerous.

We really shouldn't call it Road Tax - that went over 70 years ago. It's a CAR tax. You choose to drive a car on the public highway and have to pay for the privilege .

Kieran_Burns

iTrader: (1)

As I've already said: you're trying to fix the wrong problem: bikes aren't dangerous (go look up the stats) motor vehicles are. Even with all the testing and the penalties and the checks 1000's are killed each year by motor vehicles - with no checks, no testing, and very few penalties; very, very few people are killed by cyclists.

Fix the problem, don't blame the victim.

TonyBurns

iTrader: (3)

I love these cyclist threads
I still have a personal belief that cyclists should be put in a field and bombed (ok only joking )

Being serious, cyclists should have more laws pushed on them, for example, compulsary protection (pads, helmets and reflective gear minimum), alot dont, also that they should perform some sort of training from a young age (this is before the cycling proficiency test was binned by the Tories in the late 70's - early 80's ), as if you teach your kids to cycle properly and not try to run down pedestrians on the pavement (happens quite a bit, had to get out of the way by nearly throwing myself into bushes a few times), and be taught that they should NOT speed on the pavements, thats what the road is there for.

It does work both ways, motorists should be taught to give cyclists more room and observe any obsticals (parked vehicles etc) before overtaking a cyclist, so its not all one sided

Tony

Kieran_Burns

iTrader: (1)

Gawd - don't start the helmet debate There's reams of stats both ways - however, compulsion doesn't work. The greatest defense a bike rider can have is numbers: compulsion lowers the uptake of cycling (again: go look it up) and actually makes it MORE likely per head to have injuries.

Oh, and there are more head injuries per pedestrian and per motorist than there are per cyclist. So I'll happily join in with compulsory helmet wearing when everyone walking or driving does as well

New_scooby_04

iTrader: (4)

But they are dangerous: the govenrment stats said they killed 18 pedestrians and injured 434. Surely the fact that this is significantly less than the figure for cars is not an argument for not testing cyclists (are we to argue that the above figures are inconsequential?), it's an argument for:

1) Testing cyslists to further reduce their (lower compared to cars) risk to pedestrians
2) Revising the way we look at educating drivers to see if we can further reduce the risk they pose.

Cyclists aren't the vicitms here: they're part of the problem, albeit a smaller part!

The accidents cause by unlicenced drivers etc is a good point, but isn't that an argument in support of system of testing etc rather than its detriment - what we're saying there is that a proportion of the deaths/injuries involving cars are caused by people who have no business being on the road as they are not qualified and have not demonstrated their competence to operate a car. By logical extension doesn't that mean that a system of testing whereby someone's fitness to use a bike on the road is assurred might reduce the numbers of accidents caused by cyclists?

I'm not sure the line of reasoning that an intervention doesn't work because some people abuse it is sound, as it negates the effect of the intervention on those who do comply with it. The solution there is to increase the penalty for people who circumvent the intervention.

New_scooby_04

iTrader: (4)

PS I'm just playing devils advocate here.... not much on TV.

J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

I just ride my bike solely to **** car drivers off and get in the way, I love to display my big gay bum in "Spandex" so they get all excited, I spend all the money I save on "Road Tax" and lights on Vaseline and more Spandex. Cycle lanes are a pain as it means if I use them I cant show my buttocks off like an in Season Baboon and really get in the way like I want to, I sometimes get some of my bum chums to come out for a ride and we all ride, 200 abreast like a big gay chorus line, all massive middle aged male saggy ***** with a good view of dangly aging ******* for good measure, jibbing on and off the pavement with impunity and flying through red lights oblivious to the danger, relying on the impeccable reactions of drivers, so highly trained and vigilant they are.

I love to annoy the honest white van man, the upstanding and selfless Q7 driver and the considerate L200 pick up owner.

So nerr nerr ne nerr nerr you sad acts, you have to put up with my antics and there is nothing you can do about it, im off to ride round with no insurance, no tax, no lights and maybe no pants like they do in London sometimes, might start an anti car demo and bring the place to gridlock.

CREWJ

I had to laugh

Kieran_Burns

iTrader: (1)

I think I've found my hero

Wurzel

iTrader: (1)

I am really fed up with this quote that cyclists are car owners aswell so pay tax anyway

Yes they pay tax on the one vehicle, "the car". If I had 2 cars I would have to pay tax and insurance on both vehicles, not just the one and then say "oh well I have already paid tax on my car so am therefore covered to use any other vehicle I own on the public highway".

Kieran_Burns

iTrader: (1)

You don't still think that little bit of paper in the corner of yor windscreen gives you any entitlement to be on the road do you? You have read what's been said before about it having nothing to do it?

Go back and read what's been said - motorists have no entitlement to be on the road: it's a privilege.

Leslie

Cant say fairer than that.

Les

Kieran_Burns

iTrader: (1)

Actually - I think you can:

http://radwagon.blogspot.co.uk/2012/...ding-cars.html

It's worth a read. You'll see that red light jumping is by no means restricted to a minority of cyclists - and you'll see the impact of cars as opposed to cyclists on the pavement as well.

Incidentally: I view RLJ cyclists as akin to sheep molesters, and people who use the mobile while driving.

J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

I agree, how much would you like us cyclists to pay, based on what criteria ?

Emissions, even my stinky **** emits less C02 than the most meagre car which will be free anyway so cant really tax it on C02.

Capacity, of what, the riders lungs ?

Imagine the admistration, if a Moped is £15 a year, how much would a bike be, the same, half that ? they would then have to be all registered, every garaged MTB would have to be sorned if not used, every bike would have to have a registration plate, where would that go ?

It would raise, **** all and cost a fortune if it could be made to work at all.

Whilst I am on the bike I am not in the car, I dont have to pay to use my bike but my car will be sat at home, one of the three, soon to be four we have, three we pay ved on, I pay about 15/20 grand in stopages on my income a year, council tax on £2100 a year, VAT and god knows what else and people still moan about me toddling the seven miles to work on a push bike to try and keep fit, to avoid further NHS burden. My kids go to private school courtesy of the inlaws and I get private healthcare from work, therefore my contribution is nailed on, I am doing my bit, to do it, I need to get about.

Mogsi

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/...5&postcount=27

DonNedly

iTrader: (10)

if all the motorists stopped paying for the upkeep of the roads then soon enough they would be in too poor a state for you to ride your bike down them.

So in summary, you cyclists need us motorists so how about treating us with respect.

CREWJ

That's hilarious
Another one who hasn't read the thread....

Kieran_Burns

iTrader: (1)

trails

iTrader: (41)