Would they, they are pretty **** anyway and the extra space, specifically that not two feet from the left would be a joy to use as we cant really use it when cars are using it.

I dont know where the £400 I pay for our two cars goes to, do I have to show myself more respect ?

 

By that argument pedestrians should be paying too as they are road users.

 

They do, they are.

 

IN SUMMARY:

THE REVENUE FROM THE "VEHICLE EXCISE LICENCE" IS NOT USED FOR THE UPKEEP OF THE ROADS!! ROAD TAX WAS ABOLISHED IN 1937!!

CHRIST!!

 

It isn't road tax, it is 'road fund license' which suggests that it is used for matters relating to the roads ?

The fact of the matter is that less than 10% of the revenue generated is actually spent on the roads, the rest of it goes in government coffers to use for whatever they like !

So, without the contribution from RFL payers, the rest of the public services would be in a real mess.

The laws relating to road users date from a time when cars were a minority, does it really make sense to have horses, pedestrians and other slower moving and more vulnerable road users mixing it with the cars, buses and trucks ?

Pedestrians may have the moral high ground but who comes off worse when they walk in front of a bus ?

Or militant cyclists when they end up under a truck ?

The majority of road users are motor vehicles, fact !

About time the outdated laws were changed to keep up with the times.

If we relied on the income from horse riders and cyclists to build and maintain roads, we would not have any !

 

VED revenue in 2004/2005, for example, was £4.7bn (Table 7.15 in DfT 2006, 129) whilst total expenditure on road building and maintenance in England alone in the same period was £6bn (Table 7.13 in DfT 2006, 128).

We must also consider the fact that almost all of the wear and tear done to roads is caused by motor vehicles (Highways Agency 1994), and that a large proportion of the remainder of current road expenditure (for example traffic controls, road widening schemes, town bypasses, and all motorways) is not required by bicycles, pedestrians, horse riders and other non-motorised road users. These are costs which logically should be borne by the motorist alone.

Revenue from fuel duty in 2004/05 was £23bn (Table 7.15 in DfT 2006, 129)

but:

The economic cost of road accidents, for example, was estimated in 2004 to be some £18bn per year (DfT 2004, 5) and the cost to the British economy of road traffic congestion was estimated to be £20bn, rising to £30bn by 2010 (Goodwin 2004, 2)

In 1998 it was calculated that between 12,000 and 24,000 deaths may be may "brought forward" each year in the UK as a result of air pollution, and that between 14,000 and 24,000 hospital admissions annually result from poor air quality (COMEAP 1998), to which road transport is by far the largest single contributor (FoE 1999, 1),



I think the motorist may be costing the economy more than it generates....

(edited from: http://www.jake-v.co.uk/content/54.php)

 

Are they? How many pedestrians cross a road each day?

 

Let's not forget the uk cycle industry is worth over 2 billion. Lots of tax there.

 

As a driver and cyclist, I enjoy these threads

By the way, the E36 325i Coupe that nearly rammed me off the road between Partington and Altrincham when I had right of way, you are a *****!

Steve

 

I would hazard a guess that the UK motor industry pays a little more than that!

Steve

 

We shall ignore the fact that most people who cycle, also own and pay for cars but surely cycling is an important option for those who cannot afford a car, strange as it may seem not everyone can. The road network as it is would not be needed if it were just cycles, biked are fine on pretty much any kind of path, the "roads" would only need to be a quarter or less of the width and the surface would not need to be heavy duty,

I get sick of car drivers bleating about how they pay for the roads out of their benevolence, if they had their way bikes would be banned, along with horses, caravans HGV's, buses and anything else, eventually they would want other cars banned so they could travel without anyone getting in the way, like it or not this is the system, it isn't going to change, bitch all you want bikes wont get banned and remember it is your choice to drive rather than cycle, nobody is stopping you exercising the right to cycle, for free on the countries road network other than yourself.

I can understand the annoyance at bad cycling but not the selfish attitude to sharing the road, it gets boring explaining the same arguments to those with a lack of understanding.

 

Of course. But I'm not the clown saying cycles should be banned from the road? Where would all that revenue and jobs go.

These threads always go the same way. Fact is, cyclist can use the roads. We can even get them closed to race on....and even race on them whilst open, blocking all traffic! Cool!

 

Depends whether you class crossing a road as 'using it'

I, personally don't !

Just as I don't 'use' a zebra crossing when I drive over it !

When you cross the road you are not using the road to get from point A to point B, that is what pavements are for.

 

i would hazard a guess that, as a socio-economic group, cyclists are in general (and on average) - better educated, earn more, pay more tax, are less of a burden on the state than non cyclists

and car drivers who can't grasp that "road tax" does not pay for roads, thus giving them sole rights to the country's roads are on average thicker, earn less, pay less tax and are more of a burden on the state than cyclists

 

......thread closed

 

A Zebra crossing is part of the road system of which you use as a motorist.

 

Oh man these threads always result in the same thing.

 

Interesting debate.

Cyclists on whole, don't really bother me on the roads. They should be regulated in some way though, as a lot haven't got any road sense at all.

Not sure how that would work though.

What I would like to see banished from the roads, is all these pikey ***** riding around on clapped out rickety trailer things, being dragged by mangy clapped out horses.

In fact, pikeys having horses should be outlawed. Last summer, a pikey **** was riding down our street, on the ******* pavement. It's bad enough that horses **** all over the road, without them doing it on the pavement.

You get a fine if you don't clean up your dog's ****, but, nothing is done about horse manure.


And breath.

 

The pikeys round here don't have horses...they all have transit pickups and drive round in circles all day looking out for metal to nick.

Had six different ones driving past the house last sunday FFS, blowing horns and shouting on megaphones for scrap .

 

No !

It a method for pedestrians to cross from one pavement to another, serves no valid purpose as part of the road network.

The road would still be there even if the crossing wasn't !

I'm not that bothered though as I think everyone other than me should be banned from using my roads anyway !

 

Oh the irony of this on a website centreing on drivers of gas-guzzling road-going rally cars.
Anyhow, this thread was started by a pushbike rider bleating about how hard done by he is, not by car drivers bleating about anything.

 

Yeah really ironic. Imagine that, starting a thread about push bikes in the Non-Scooby section of the forum...sorry your point was?

 

I, as do all our cycle couriers, have 3rd party liability insurance. In fact, you will find that a LOT of cyclists are covered for 3rd party liability when they are cycling even if they have specific cycle insurance or not. Often general household insurance will cover them, work policies and other travel insurances will. Granted its not compulsory but then the incidences of cyclists being at fault and causing major loss/injury are low.

With regards to training, well I have done basic road stuff when a kiddy - that is training. I've also been trained and tested as both a car driver and separately as a motorcyclist. I have 10s of1000s of hours of experience driving all types of vehicles in this country, so when I ride a bike (which I do for 1000s of miles every year), then no-one can say that I am not experienced enough or uninsured or that I don't contribute to the upkeep of the roads through the taxes I pay to the Government. I also chose to obey the Highway Code.

But it is dangerous out there for cyclists as it is for other road users, so if I look out for myself, command my stretch of road sometimes by going primary its because I perceive a danger to myself and I want to ensure I don't get splatted. As soon as it is safe again, then I will move over and allow whoever to pass. The amount of times that people zoom past, toot and then get held up 100m up the road is uncountable. I just smile to myself as I go past.

Patience and tollerance to other road users is the key.

 

With regards to VED and tax on fuel etc to fund roads, I agree that the tax and duty is not used specifically for the highways, it all goes into to Government's pot of tax revenue with all the other taxes we pay and use the revenue where needed. It would as ludicrous as saying the taxpayers own the banks and are entitled to bonuses from bailed out banks.

 

The valid purpose is that it allows one group of road users (pedestrians) to use the road by crossing it.

 

You do know we are allowed to do both, to enjoy both cars and bikes, I dont ride a bike because its eco, I ride it to get some exercise, save some petrol and because I like it.

What pisses me off it people who cling onto their cars like a security blanket, use it for every journey however small and moan about the fuel, moan about the cost and moan about every single little inconvenience like being behind a cyclists for a few yards, a cyclist who has not paid for the roads, how dare they use MY roads but will happily sit behind a Citroen C1 that doesnt pay any VED either, in a queue of hundred of other cars not moving as happy as a pig in ****, or at least accepting it, let a cyclist get in the way for 10 seconds and its war !

I think there is a lack of understanding between motorists and cyclists, being both gives us a perspective, certain sections of society cant get their head around why anyone would cycle if they have access to a car, some car drivers see all cyclists as an afront as it makes them feel guilty for being lazy or that all cyclists think they are superior eco champions, some just think it is funny to abuse cyclists as they can drive off. the reverse is true as well, some cyclists are utter arseholes, with their cameras and attitude but some of that is down to having been treated like crap in the past.

 

This is my main bug bear with cyclists, insurance should be compulsory. When it does become so I will stop thinking they are a liability on the road.

And rofl at the moneysavingexpert link, must have been Kieran after writing the original post.

 

insurance and tax will never be applied to push bikes, for starters it would be impossible to enforce and think of all those who don't have the means to own a car and a bike is their only form of transport...and should it apply to every child that gets their first bike; stabilisers and all. Never gonna happen.

 

What purpose would insurance for cyclist serve? What exactly do they need to insure against?

I've never seen a bike crash into a car and write it off.

 

Since when did an accident have to involve writing a car off you fool.

If a cyclist is the cause of a road accident due to their selfish riding habits then I want their insurance details to pay for the damage caused by them. Oh hang on they don't have any therefore you can't claim against them, what a fantastic situation. No better than people who drive cars with no insurance.