London cyclists dropping like flies
- Thread starter sooey
- Start date
You seem quite proud to be subsidised by motorists.
Evidence? I think it is worthwhile. I wonder which of us is right!
There's no reason why they should not have to pay if cyclists are. The necessary additional administration would be paid for by cyclists.
Yes, if there is evidence of the event taking place. Many traffic lights already have cameras fitted. I have a video camera in my car and I'd be more than happy to supply the evidence to the police.
Don't be silly.
I haven't the faintest idea what you are blathering on about!
Who's subsidising me? I pay the road tax on 6 vehicles!
I'm a massive petrol head. (well, the van is diesel...)
I rarely cycle, if I do it's for pleasure rather than transport (i.e. Getting muddy somewhere).
But I do respect that to some people it is all they can afford,
And that it offers undeniable benefits towards health, pollution and congestion.
I could say the same, my scenario is as ridiculous as the one to which I was replying, that was the point.
As for taxing cycle use, have you not noticed all the government subsidised cycle to work schemes of the past few years? Would seem contradictory to start putting people off.
If it was so much in the public interest, it would have been in place years ago, it isn't.
Please refer back to my well reasoned previous posts for further justification.
Authoritarian state, e.g. Communist China of old, Winston Smith etc. etc.
The endless bureaucracy controlling each minute detail of human interaction.
Where does it all end?
You seem to think that driving through a red traffic light presents no danger.
I'm glad you don't work as a lollipop man, the kids wouldn't last a week.
I'm actually surprised you've lived long enough to be posting on here now. So, are you admitting on an open forum to having broken the Road Traffic Act, not once, but many times? (remember Big Brother is watching you)
The main reason motorists stop at a red light is because they don't want to cause accidents.
But f*ck all for your cycle. Marvellous.
Think about why the government want to encourage cycle use. Could it be that they are unwilling to pay for road improvements and building more roads?
Oh yes, they can't afford to do that what with all the foreign aid they provide, so let's try to make everyone use a bicycle instead.
I have a suspicion that, in time, the government will do a (or yet another) U-turn. After all, if everyone gives up their cars in favour of bicycles where will they get the money to replace road tax and fuel duty? And if the number of cyclists killed on the roads continues to increase, perhaps they will be forced to do something about it.
Going back to your statement above, road tax and fuel duty hasn't put motorists off yet, has it? And as for acting in the public interest, are we talking about the same governments - you know, the ones in Westminster and Brussels?
It is marvellous.
To repeat myself; eco cars and historic vehicles pay zero tax.
125cc m/c's only pay about £15.
Do you believe, if there wasn't a massive public backlash* they could get away with charging any more than a token £5?
*remember the pasty tax.
Do parents have to tax their kids.bikes?
What about my brothers twins? They're nearly 2 and are getting balance bikes for Christmas, will they have to be taxed?
I doubt it, it's more.likely gesturing to 'appear' green and also to.reduce the number of all these big fat fatties clogging up our hospitals. How about a fat tax?..
You think the government encourage cycling, so they can cut highways spending, to provide foreign aid? Tinfoil hat much?
As for costs putting motorists off, yes they do, cars are expensive to run.
If you earn minimum wage they are barely if at all affordable.
This pushes people into cycling, because thankfully it remains dirt cheap and has sufficiently few barriers to taking up.
Let's take an 18yr old male as an example, he wants to get to his apprenticeship 2 miles away, so fancies a car:
£1500 learning and passing a test, £2k insurance, £1k car, £200 road tax, £500+ fuel.
Or he could buy a second hand pushbike for £50.
Your right, he should just sit on the dole or spend 4 times as long walking...
Not forgetting again that general taxation funds highways spending, therefore cyclists DO pay for the roads they use...
If I pay more general tax than you does that make me any more entitled?
If I pay more general tax than you does that make me any more entitled?
By that logic other road users pay for the roads they use twice. Or don't you think they pay into general taxation as well?
Hurr duur, As I said, I already did, you can go back and read my arguments, and refute them, or you can act like a goldfish, with no memory or intelligence, going round in circles repeating the same questions, same as LMB, doesn’t win you the argument though.
You seem to think that driving through a red traffic light presents no danger.
It’s funny that the two people who responded to my point about traffic lights, BOTH selectively cut off the same bit of text, hmmmmm, here it is again
“Did you know in some countries they turn the traffic lights off at night, because they are then seen as unnecessary “out of hours”?
What does this tell you about your attitude? “
Now rather than some inane comment, that completely misses the point, followed by some emoticons, or an assumption that jumping read lights means careering into oncoming vehicles or ploughing down schoolchildren, why not engage your simian brain and debate the actual point?
Right?
So basically you have no right of way at junctions, but you do if you are on the road.
I don’t know why this is so hard for you to understand, most people who cycle (and not just to pop to the pub), don’t want to stop at every junction, we only have your word for it that 99.9% of the time there is no traffic on the intersecting roads.
I’m sure they do, being the same people that plan most cycle ways which do have any number of issues with them.
Never mind a dutch study found that such cycle lanes with junctions increased accidents by 24% at junctions (which is why they have specific junction designs).
No no, trust the authorities, they know better!
You seem to think that driving through a red traffic light presents no danger.
It’s funny that the two people who responded to my point about traffic lights, BOTH selectively cut off the same bit of text, hmmmmm, here it is again
“Did you know in some countries they turn the traffic lights off at night, because they are then seen as unnecessary “out of hours”?
What does this tell you about your attitude? “
Forgive me if I have misunderstood you, but are you saying that, if the junction appears to be clear, it is quite acceptable for cyclists to proceed through red traffic lights?
If so, do you think it should also be acceptable for motorists to do the same?
And yes, I am aware of the flashing amber traffic lights at night in some foreign countries. What difference does that make?
Yes.
Traffic lights are rarely for saftey, they are for traffic management.
Most, if not all, should be turned of outside of rush hour (as other countries do).
Why stop at a pedestrain crossing, when there are no pedestrains?
If it's clear, why is the light red, it's not because the light is intelligent enough to see it's clear, it's simply on a timer, over time these can be replaced for intelligent lights.
Proper junction design is key (cross roads junctions, rather than roundabouts are just plain dangerous).
People who run red lights, causing accidents, are very often speeding, drunk, or plain stupid risk takers, it's got nothing to do with it being clear, it's about the "I CAN MAKE IT" arrogance, and it applies equally to all wheeled drivers.
Has anyone given any reason NOT to go when it's clear, other than "ZE RULE BOOK SAYS NO!".
Should this apply to 60mph junctions, maybe not, but then I'd challenge anyone to cycle that fast.
Of course, I await with baited breath for all these to be re-interpeted to "youz wants carz to just plough into traffic, youz wants people swearving all overs the plaze like maniacs (dribble droool)"
Motorists have already paid for highways too,
Then they receive an.additional spurious tax running an internal combustion engine,
This charge is based on engine size.or co2 emissions.
Lets apply this to non-ICE transport,
Walking = 0cc, 0 engine emissions,
Same for cycling,
Free you say?!
Although of course, not all motor vehicles are required to pay.
E.g. Eco cars and historic vehicles.
If you want to.doubly charge all road users you can't include cyclists but.ignore all other road users, these include, although may not be limited to:
Pedestrians,
Wheelchair users,
Horse riders,
Unicyclists,
Cyclists,
Skateboarders,
Foot scooterers
Etc etc.
Maybe pay by miles of use, every individual to be gps tracked?!
So ASearle,
is it your honest opinion that unless a cycle route is perfect for mile upon mile,
cyclists should instead select a more dangerous alternative? (i.e. The road)
is it your honest opinion that unless a cycle route is perfect for mile upon mile,
cyclists should instead select a more dangerous alternative? (i.e. The road)
Doesn't really say much about my "law abiding" attitude, but speaks volumes about your complete lack of law awareness.
So what if traffic lights are turned off in "other countries" ? Go and live there if you don't like it here in the UK.
There was an interesting debate about cyclists today on the Jeremy Vine show on Radio 2 today. One caller spoke of "defensive driving" and went on to say something along the lines of "Because cyclists are amongst the most vulnerable of road users, they should practise "defensive cycling" Another caller advocated the use of Hi viz vests (not many cyclists seen to have even heard of them, but instead, rely on the 1w lightbulb powered by a triple A battery to ensure they are seen at night, whilst riding through red traffic lights,,,, which do operate "out of hours" )
