'Hmm, think the Romans may have a word or two to say about that. ' - fair enough, they cycled a lot as well!!! Kin ell the roads that we have now are/wer econstructed for motorised transport NOT cycles!!
They were paid for out of tax raised by people in the past. New drivers haven't contributed to the building of these roads so they should stay off the oldies' roads and build their own.
Not really bibble - they were established to allow people to get from place to place easily. you'll find a lot of roads in London pre-date either cars or bikes - they will have been used by pedestrians and horses & carts/carriages. The bicycle pre-dates the internal combustion engine and therefore the car - an awful lot of roads will have had people cycling on them before cars were even dreamt of, so by your logic it's the motorised vehicles that should be banned cos they weren't using the roads first.
I'm sympathetic to some of your points, but this thing about cyclists not being entitled to use the roads doesn't add up. What we need is not any particular road user banned from the road, but for all the people using the roads, be that on foot, bike, car, lorry, bus or segway, to be better educated in how to behave and more considerate/aware of other road users needs and behaviour.
My work means I do around 30k miles a year on all manner of roads and all over the country. It gets on my tits when i find cyclists two a breast on a narrow road, or jumping red lights, or holding up traffic on the main carriage way when there is a specifically provided cycle lane just next door, but I have to say the vast majority of downright dangeroaus or reckless behaviour I see comes from cars or motorcyclists.
Ye gods, OK lets do it this way. In the modern world Motorists pay road tax for the up keep of the road NOT cyclists. (if the Gov choose to spend the money on something else, that is up to them). So my logic is this...if you pay ROAD tax and INSURANCE then you are entitled to use and have a say in how roads are managed! Easy really. Let the cyclists pay road tax and insurance and take a test then they can cycle their sweaty arses off to their hearts content!! Until that happens I will be against cyclists on the roads...and yes I do own the road, albeit a small part of them!!
[cite]Posted By: bibble[/cite]So yes they belong to motorised vehicles because we pay for them, when are cyclists going to get this concept?
Nope. There is no such thing as 'road tax'. You pay tax for your car, we all pay for roads whether we have a car or not (or bike come to that). Check it out:
zzzzzzz...24 Red...if we did not pay road tax, then even more tax would come out the government pot to be spent on theroads, something which cyclists are obviously happy about. So motorists pay a tax that stops more money coming out the govs coffers...hmmm...so motorists pay a road tax then!!
I look forward to your debate about insurance??? And a riding test!!!!!!
Look cyclists should not be on the road until they fulfill the same criteria as other road users!!
If cyclists are as responsible(???) as they sat they are, then logic says the above is worth doing!!
'Surely a cyclist pays tax (VAT) on his bike - Not if its second hand, same applies to cars etc (VAT is paid on a new purchase.)
'And by your reasoning, does that mean pedestrians shouldnt use the road either as they arent insured and don't pay 'road tax'?? , - The last time I looked Pedestrians had a pavement to walk on?? If they are on the road then they would be a bloody nuisense as well!!
So Floyd, you dont wanna pay insurance then, me neither but I have too and so should cyclists
[cite]Posted By: bibble[/cite]'Surely a cyclist pays tax (VAT) on his bike - Not if its second hand, same applies to cars etc (VAT is paid on a new purchase.)
'And by your reasoning, does that mean pedestrians shouldnt use the road either as they arent insured and don't pay 'road tax'?? , - The last time I looked Pedestrians had a pavement to walk on?? If they are on the road then they would be a bloody nuisense as well!!
So Floyd, you dont wanna pay insurance then, me neither but I have too and so should cyclists
But what about all those pesky Zebra crossings, foot bridges and underpasses that didn't pat any tax for, and why aren't they insured against to damage to your car if they step out into the road without looking and cause an accident?
''But what about all those pesky Zebra crossings, foot bridges and underpasses that didn't pat any tax for, and why aren't they insured against to damage to your car if they step out into the road without looking and cause an accident? '' - So 2 wrongs make a right does it?? I guess you have never heard of a pedestrian being sued for damaging a car after stepping in front of it, and also getting charged by the Ambulance service for the lift to A+E.
Its only a matter of time before accidental liability insurance will become an option for pedestrians!! I ve got a dog and even that is insured should it run out in th road and causes an accident, I think you will find that if a pedestian is deemed negligent then they will pay the damages!! Next!
Bibble I have not cycled since my Raleigh chopper went missing a couple of decades ago. I agree with Exiled. What do you think the premium would be for a cyclist? Would it be more or less than the postage and cost of preparation of the documents needed to create it? If it was financially worthwhile to get people who generate such miniscule insurance risks, why do you think it isnt done??
You have to pay insurance because you are a risk to other road users and property.
And judging by your illogical approach to them shown on this list, cyclists in particular.
Is that the sound you make when admitting you are utterly wrong on the facts?
Bibble said:
"if we did not pay road tax, then even more tax would come out the government pot to be spent on the roads"
And if I didn't pay VAT on baked beans the same thing would apply.
Bibble said:
"I look forward to your debate about insurance??? And a riding test!!!!!!"
There is of course a case for cyclists having insurance. Before we compel things in this country however, there needs to be an overwhelming interest for others. Insurance is compulsory for cars because of the high level of damage, injury and death they cause. That does not apply to bikes - I will leave you to check out the stats. That's not to say cyclists don't cause accidents, but when they do overwhelmingly they are the ones that suffer the consequences.
Also of course the government wants to promote cycling because it is cleaner, healthier and cheaper than driving, so they are unlikely to create financial barriers to taking it up.
To a lesser extent, the same probably applies to cycling proficiency. I anticipate the council-run schemes drying up as the cuts take effect. They certainly couldn't resource compulsory tests. However, all cyclists should be responsible and take lessons. Southwark for example offers two free sessions, total of four hours, with a well-trained instructor. Fantastic service.
Haven't we had all this debate before on another thread?
'You have to pay insurance because you are a risk to other road users and property. And judging by your illogical approach to them shown on this list, cyclists in particular' - Yes i hate cyclists (on the road, especially in rush hour), oh yes did I mention that I have a cycle, a mountain bike to be precise, I use it to ride off road in the woods, so I guess that would make it a woods bike. I dont hate people who ride cycles, I hate cyclists on the road for all the logical reasons given, if you wish to spin my words and just say they are illogical then good luck to you.
Is that the sound you make when admitting you are utterly wrong on the facts?
Bibble said:
"if we did not pay road tax, then even more tax would come out the government pot to be spent on the roads"
And if I didn't pay VAT on baked beans the same thing would apply.
Bibble said:
"I look forward to your debate about insurance??? And a riding test!!!!!!"
There is of course a case for cyclists having insurance. Before we compel things in this country however, there needs to be an overwhelming interest for others. Insurance is compulsory for cars because of the high level of damage, injury and death they cause. That does not apply to bikes - I will leave you to check out the stats. That's not to say cyclists don't cause accidents, but when they do overwhelmingly they are the ones that suffer the consequences.
Also of course the government wants to promote cycling because it is cleaner, healthier and cheaper than driving, so they are unlikely to create financial barriers to taking it up.
To a lesser extent, the same probably applies to cycling proficiency. I anticipate the council-run schemes drying up as the cuts take effect. They certainly couldn't resource compulsory tests. However, all cyclists should be responsible and take lessons. Southwark for example offers two free sessions, total of four hours, with a well-trained instructor. Fantastic service.
Haven't we had all this debate before on another thread?
I agree with most of what you say Red, but I would add, if you make proficiancy test compulsory then the private sector will step in and provide the service. No reason why it should be free for cyclists.
Most London boroughs will offer some free training.
I've got a Boris bike key, there's a few teething problems with it and I reckon it'll be a long while before it's available to non-members. But it's a good thing to have and it's good to be able to borrow a bike for a half-hour pootle through Hyde Park or wherever.
I think when Boris agreed to take on the idea he inherited, neither he nor TfL really thought through how people would use it - as a substitute for buses and the Tube when commuting. In a way, it's part of the appeal for me - it's a bit of a journey into the unknown as more people start to ride bikes.
It won't do much to reduce traffic in town, mind - only those who absolutely have to, cabbies, or idiots, drive in central London.
Back to the thread, I am thinking of using the scheme. I am more likely to use it for short rides on dedicated cycle lanes. Cheaper healthier and gult free. And having researched a few sites, almost as fast as using the car or motorbike, especially when finding a parking sport is considered.
[cite]Posted By: Exiled_Addick[/cite]I agree with most of what you say Red, but I would add, if you make proficiancy test compulsory then the private sector will step in and provide the service. No reason why it should be free for cyclists.
True. The cost would however likely put off new entrants at a time when the government is trying to encourage them. I guess it's a judgement call on the costs/benefits.
[cite]Posted By: Floyd Montana[/cite]I am more likely to use it for short rides on dedicated cycle lanes.
Likewise, although I hope they extend the scheme further out of central London. I would then probably give up on public transport entirely.
My views on cyclists has changed recently, I used to be a bit like bibble thinking they were a menace and dangerous and I'd spout off the same "I pay road tax and insurance blah blah blah" argument.
But the more I've thought about it lately the more I think that cyclists should be given a chance. I've got myself a key for the Boris Bikes although I haven't used it yet as my life hasn't required it.
I'm actually of the opinion now that we should take a leaf out of Paris' book and close the city off to traffic on Sundays and also I'd go as far as say that between the hours of 7:30-9:30 and 16:30-18:30 we should only allow buses and cycles in Zone 1. It'd certainly ram home the "Public Transport" usage. Fares would have to be more reasonable though.
[cite]Posted By: RedArmySE7[/cite]Fares would have to be more reasonable though.
And the service not so w***.
[cite]Posted By: 24 Red[/cite]True. The cost would however likely put off new entrants at a time when the government is trying to encourage them. I guess it's a judgement call on the costs/benefits.
So just because the government wants people to ride bikes, we should just sacrifice the safety of every person in London? Seems a little odd to me, anyhows, think of all the extra road tax income we'd make if EVERYONE drove a car, so hows about we just scrap the driving test?? Of course not.
Comments
Hmm, think the Romans may have a word or two to say about that.
Kin ell the roads that we have now are/wer econstructed for motorised transport NOT cycles!!
I'm sympathetic to some of your points, but this thing about cyclists not being entitled to use the roads doesn't add up. What we need is not any particular road user banned from the road, but for all the people using the roads, be that on foot, bike, car, lorry, bus or segway, to be better educated in how to behave and more considerate/aware of other road users needs and behaviour.
My work means I do around 30k miles a year on all manner of roads and all over the country. It gets on my tits when i find cyclists two a breast on a narrow road, or jumping red lights, or holding up traffic on the main carriage way when there is a specifically provided cycle lane just next door, but I have to say the vast majority of downright dangeroaus or reckless behaviour I see comes from cars or motorcyclists.
OK lets do it this way. In the modern world Motorists pay road tax for the up keep of the road NOT cyclists. (if the Gov choose to spend the money on something else, that is up to them). So my logic is this...if you pay ROAD tax and INSURANCE then you are entitled to use and have a say in how roads are managed! Easy really. Let the cyclists pay road tax and insurance and take a test then they can cycle their sweaty arses off to their hearts content!! Until that happens I will be against cyclists on the roads...and yes I do own the road, albeit a small part of them!!
Nope. There is no such thing as 'road tax'. You pay tax for your car, we all pay for roads whether we have a car or not (or bike come to that). Check it out:
Road tax myth
I look forward to your debate about insurance??? And a riding test!!!!!!
Look cyclists should not be on the road until they fulfill the same criteria as other road users!!
If cyclists are as responsible(???) as they sat they are, then logic says the above is worth doing!!
And by your reasoning, does that mean pedestrians shouldnt use the road either as they arent insured and don't pay 'road tax'??
'And by your reasoning, does that mean pedestrians shouldnt use the road either as they arent insured and don't pay 'road tax'?? , - The last time I looked Pedestrians had a pavement to walk on?? If they are on the road then they would be a bloody nuisense as well!!
So Floyd, you dont wanna pay insurance then, me neither but I have too and so should cyclists
But what about all those pesky Zebra crossings, foot bridges and underpasses that didn't pat any tax for, and why aren't they insured against to damage to your car if they step out into the road without looking and cause an accident?
I guess you have never heard of a pedestrian being sued for damaging a car after stepping in front of it, and also getting charged by the Ambulance service for the lift to A+E.
Its only a matter of time before accidental liability insurance will become an option for pedestrians!! I ve got a dog and even that is insured should it run out in th road and causes an accident, I think you will find that if a pedestian is deemed negligent then they will pay the damages!! Next!
I have not cycled since my Raleigh chopper went missing a couple of decades ago.
I agree with Exiled.
What do you think the premium would be for a cyclist?
Would it be more or less than the postage and cost of preparation of the documents needed to create it?
If it was financially worthwhile to get people who generate such miniscule insurance risks, why do you think it isnt done??
You have to pay insurance because you are a risk to other road users and property.
And judging by your illogical approach to them shown on this list, cyclists in particular.
"zzzzzzz...24 Red..."
Is that the sound you make when admitting you are utterly wrong on the facts?
Bibble said:
"if we did not pay road tax, then even more tax would come out the government pot to be spent on the roads"
And if I didn't pay VAT on baked beans the same thing would apply.
Bibble said:
"I look forward to your debate about insurance??? And a riding test!!!!!!"
There is of course a case for cyclists having insurance. Before we compel things in this country however, there needs to be an overwhelming interest for others. Insurance is compulsory for cars because of the high level of damage, injury and death they cause. That does not apply to bikes - I will leave you to check out the stats. That's not to say cyclists don't cause accidents, but when they do overwhelmingly they are the ones that suffer the consequences.
Also of course the government wants to promote cycling because it is cleaner, healthier and cheaper than driving, so they are unlikely to create financial barriers to taking it up.
To a lesser extent, the same probably applies to cycling proficiency. I anticipate the council-run schemes drying up as the cuts take effect. They certainly couldn't resource compulsory tests. However, all cyclists should be responsible and take lessons. Southwark for example offers two free sessions, total of four hours, with a well-trained instructor. Fantastic service.
Haven't we had all this debate before on another thread?
I never said it did, you were the one who dismissed pedestrians from this argument because they have pavements and focussed in on cyclists, not me.
I agree with most of what you say Red, but I would add, if you make proficiancy test compulsory then the private sector will step in and provide the service. No reason why it should be free for cyclists.
I've got a Boris bike key, there's a few teething problems with it and I reckon it'll be a long while before it's available to non-members. But it's a good thing to have and it's good to be able to borrow a bike for a half-hour pootle through Hyde Park or wherever.
I think when Boris agreed to take on the idea he inherited, neither he nor TfL really thought through how people would use it - as a substitute for buses and the Tube when commuting. In a way, it's part of the appeal for me - it's a bit of a journey into the unknown as more people start to ride bikes.
It won't do much to reduce traffic in town, mind - only those who absolutely have to, cabbies, or idiots, drive in central London.
I am more likely to use it for short rides on dedicated cycle lanes.
Cheaper healthier and gult free.
And having researched a few sites, almost as fast as using the car or motorbike, especially when finding a parking sport is considered.
Way more than I would have guessed.
Thanks for the link Inspector
True. The cost would however likely put off new entrants at a time when the government is trying to encourage them. I guess it's a judgement call on the costs/benefits.
Likewise, although I hope they extend the scheme further out of central London. I would then probably give up on public transport entirely.
But the more I've thought about it lately the more I think that cyclists should be given a chance. I've got myself a key for the Boris Bikes although I haven't used it yet as my life hasn't required it.
I'm actually of the opinion now that we should take a leaf out of Paris' book and close the city off to traffic on Sundays and also I'd go as far as say that between the hours of 7:30-9:30 and 16:30-18:30 we should only allow buses and cycles in Zone 1. It'd certainly ram home the "Public Transport" usage. Fares would have to be more reasonable though.
And the service not so w***.
So just because the government wants people to ride bikes, we should just sacrifice the safety of every person in London? Seems a little odd to me, anyhows, think of all the extra road tax income we'd make if EVERYONE drove a car, so hows about we just scrap the driving test?? Of course not.
Lunch? I've not long been awake.....
Ahhh the life of a tax dodger!