Do cyclists have a date with death?

snail1 · 23 Aug 2009 at 09:41

[DOD]Asprilla;14733269 said:
It's not called road tax, that's just what you call it and you're wrong. It's called Vehicle Excise Duty and it's got nothing to do with paying for roads or their repair. Your point is pointless.

Quoted for truth. I am always amazed how many people who pay VED do not understand where it goes.

EvilDreams · 23 Aug 2009 at 11:46

It's not called road tax, that's just what you call it and you're wrong. It's called Vehicle Excise Duty and it's got nothing to do with paying for roads or their repair. Your point is pointless.

It's commonly known as road tax which is good enough. As to where it goes, note my use of "ostensibly" in the first post in this thread where I mentioned it. It doesn't matter because I am still paying it or my car doesn't get to be on the road. We are drifting further and further from the original arguments here so I am not going to waste any more time going in circles and picking over semantics with you because you're not going to change my mind and I'm not going to stop cyclists from wasting my time. Meanwhile we end up 5 pages on and no closer to anyone magically changing anyone else's mind.

Where there is a clearly marked cycle lane I really don't care if there are cyclists on the road. They can dawdle along as slow as they like because then they're not forcing everyone behind to cross into oncoming traffic to overtake them.

However, when there isn't an allocated cheapskate lane, the traffic is being bottlenecked down to 10mph which is unacceptable. If the roads are too narrow to accommodate a cycle lane then the cyclists should be on the pavement.

Where they belong.

dantonkin · 23 Aug 2009 at 12:00

"Cheapskate lane, 10mph, on the pavement" What a lovely person.

EvilDreams said:
It's commonly known as road tax which is good enough. As to where it goes, note my use of "ostensibly" in the first post in this thread where I mentioned it. It doesn't matter because I am still paying it or my car doesn't get to be on the road. We are drifting further and further from the original arguments here so I am not going to waste any more time going in circles and picking over semantics with you because you're not going to change my mind and I'm not going to stop cyclists from wasting my time. Meanwhile we end up 5 pages on and no closer to anyone magically changing anyone else's mind.

Where there is a clearly marked cycle lane I really don't care if there are cyclists on the road. They can dawdle along as slow as they like because then they're not forcing everyone behind to cross into oncoming traffic to overtake them.

However, when there isn't an allocated cheapskate lane, the traffic is being bottlenecked down to 10mph which is unacceptable. If the roads are too narrow to accomodate a cycle lane then the cyclists should be on the pavement.

Where they belong.

[DOD]Asprilla · 23 Aug 2009 at 12:11

This is what I don't understand; ED consistenly refers to cyclists as cheapskates and yet avoids all discussion relating to the finances.

I drive a £47k car and ride a £1.5k bike, so obviously a cheapskate.

teulk · 23 Aug 2009 at 12:17

[DOD]Asprilla;14733839 said:
This is what I don't understand; ED consistenly refers to cyclists as cheapskates and yet avoids all discussion relating to the finances.

I drive a £47k car and ride a £1.5k bike, so obviously a cheapskate.

You cheapskate buy a more expensive car and bike - scuffer

EvilDreams · 23 Aug 2009 at 12:56

[DOD]Asprilla;14733839 said:
This is what I don't understand; ED consistenly refers to cyclists as cheapskates and yet avoids all discussion relating to the finances.

I drive a £47k car and ride a £1.5k bike, so obviously a cheapskate.

Are you every cyclist?

teulk · 23 Aug 2009 at 13:22

EvilDreams said:
Are you every cyclist?

Obviously hes not but the way your going on you seem to think that every cyclist is a cheapskate when in fact there not as [DOD]Asprilla just pointed out. How much does a cyclist have to earn not to fall in your category of "cheapskate", how much does their bike have to cost so as not to fall into the category of "cheapskate", if they also own a car how much does the car value have to be so as not to fall into your category of "cheapskate" :confused:

EvilDreams · 23 Aug 2009 at 14:00

You see, once again you are trying to drag this down into pedancy and semantics which just makes the thread awkward to read (like cyclists make driving awkward) and wastes everyone's time (you cyclists seem to love that too), and I'm just not going there. Let's keep this thread an efficient highway of convenient and easy philosophical travel shall we? Or maybe you should just get on the metaphorical pavement so to speak?

Jonny ///M · 23 Aug 2009 at 15:29

Or you just shut up and **** off. We are entirely legal and within our rights to ride on the road so deal with it. It's illegal to ride on the pavement so basically you want people to break the law to keep you happy. Lovely.

EvilDreams · 23 Aug 2009 at 15:36

Charming. When I was too young to drive and rode a bike I rode on the pavement. I see people riding on the pavement every day. The police certainly don't enforce it, so what's the problem with it? It's certainly safer for cyclists.

snail1 · 23 Aug 2009 at 15:38

EvilDreams said:
Charming. When I was too young to drive and rode a bike I rode on the pavement. I see people riding on the pavement every day. The police certainly don't enforce it, so what's the problem with it? It's certainly safer for cyclists.

it is illegal.

EvilDreams · 23 Aug 2009 at 15:39

snail1 said:
it is illegal.

So is speeding but I bet most if not all of you have done that or do it regularly.

snail1 · 23 Aug 2009 at 15:42

EvilDreams said:
So is speeding but I bet most if not all of you have done that or do it regularly.

but presumably that is ok because it does not slow you down?

Cycling on the pavements is, in my opinion, more dangerous to peds. Sensible and legal driving and cycling makes it better for all road users.

EvilDreams · 23 Aug 2009 at 15:44

Well, we're obviously not getting anywhere here.

Of course cyclists have every right (legally) to be on the road, but that doesn't mean I have to enjoy it.

SpeedFreak · 23 Aug 2009 at 15:47

EvilDreams said:
Charming. When I was too young to drive and rode a bike I rode on the pavement. I see people riding on the pavement every day. The police certainly don't enforce it, so what's the problem with it? It's certainly safer for cyclists.

You are not very open to reasoning here are you?

As has been said, cyclists are not allowed to ride on pavements. While I do not particularly agree with this law, it is the law none the less.

With regards to Road Tax, it doesn't exist, end of story. It is essentially an emmissions tax and the last time I checked, electric vehicles and some small diesels were exempt. It would therefore be tricky to charge cyclists when there are virtually no associated emissions.

If you have a problem with cyclists slowing you down, complain to your local council and request that more cycle lanes/paths are created. Ideally, this is what cyclists actually want anyhow and as the council funds this work tax shouldn't be a concern to you.

Insurance.. I have always had my own cycle insurance covering me and others as well as my bike for theft, but untl it is law, there isn't any way to enforce it.

86JR · 23 Aug 2009 at 15:50

i hoped it wasnt just me, in plymouth i keep coming across them cycling either in the middle of the road or on the right hand side.

was driving along the other day and there was a pavement, then a bike lane, then the road, and the cyclist chooses to ride in the middle of the road infront of me instead of in the empty bike lane.

so i had to do a dangerous overtaking maneuver which thankfully i pulled off, nevertheless he swerved to the right as i overtook and i nearly went into the car coming the opposite way.

felt like getting out of the car and battering him but i doubt the police would care about his lack of highway code skills if that happened.

****ing annoying!

EvilDreams · 23 Aug 2009 at 15:52

SpeedFreak said:
As has been said, cyclists are not allowed to ride on pavements. While I do not particularly agree with this law, it is the law none the less.

So you've never broken the speed limit then?

If you have a problem with cyclists slowing you down, complain to your local council and request that more cycle lanes/paths are created. Ideally, this is what cyclists actually want anyhow and as the council funds this work tax shouldn't be a concern to you.

At last a reasonable suggestion from someone here. There are cycle lanes on more modern parts of my city and on the wider roads. Some of the roads are just too narrow though, but there are some wide pavements on a lot of those roads.

Interestingly enough there are also cycle lanes on pavements. I thought it was akin to murder riding on the pavement according to some here?

SpeedFreak · 23 Aug 2009 at 15:59

The speed limit analogy is a no go as it is a law of absolutes and we just aren't allowed to cycle on an unmarked pavement. My argument used to be that no cyclist has ever killed a pedestrian until this muppet came along:

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news...-killed-pedestrian-escapes-jail-sentence.html

Bristol for me is a bit hit and miss with regards to cycle lanes. Some just stop which is pretty annoying but I should also point out that I have been knocked off my bike by a car while in a cycle lane.

SDK^ · 23 Aug 2009 at 16:00

Interesting how often you've referred to cyclists as cheapskates ED
My bikes cost more than most people spend on a car (£8K), they are insured and I have public liability insurance. I drive and pay all the necessary taxes and insurance on those as well.

If I want to cycle in the middle of the road and hold you up then I will - happy days

Many people ride bikes to keep fit - not to save money

EvilDreams · 23 Aug 2009 at 16:06

SpeedFreak said:
The speed limit analogy is a no go as it is a law of absolutes and we just aren't allowed to cycle on an unmarked pavement.

you said:
While I do not particularly agree with this law, it is the law none the less

Which applies to speed limits too, right? The police will understand that you may have had to speed in order to get past a caravan safely just as they will understand that you were cycling on the pavement because it was safer. Here at least, I never had trouble from the police for cycling on the pavement.

My argument used to be that no cyclist has ever killed a pedestrian until this muppet came along:

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news...-killed-pedestrian-escapes-jail-sentence.html

So, 1 case then? I could strangle someone to death tomorrow, should we ban hands? People die of all sorts of things every day.

Bristol for me is a bit hit and miss with regards to cycle lanes. Some just stop which is pretty annoying but I should also point out that I have been knocked off my bike by a car while in a cycle lane.

Would that have been the case if the cycle lane was drawn on the kerb side of the pavement?