Cyclists.

[Gerrydelasel]

That's why we try to keep pedestrians and road users separate.

Pedestrians are road users. They are in fact the primary road users. We are all pedestrians by default and the roads were built for our use, which is precisely why pedestrians have automatic right of passage at all times on all roads (except on the recently-invented 'motorways', and this applies to cyclists too). Cars in effect only lease the use of the road from pedestrians through the mechanism of tax and license.
Cyclists are only one extremely small step up from pedestrians, much like rollerskates or skateboards, so it is difficult to see why they should justify a car-level of tax and license. Particularly when bikes have been a familiar part of pedestrian life for nearly two centuries, whereas some of us can still remember when a car in the village brought people out of their houses...

 

[JohnD]

it is difficult to see why they should justify a car-level of tax and license.

I must have missed that. Where was it suggested that they should pay the same tax as cars, and the licence should be equivalent?

Or did you just make it up?

 

[Gerrydelasel]

I must have missed that. Where was it suggested that they should pay the same tax as cars, and the licence should be equivalent?
Or did you just make it up?

Literally the first post of this thread.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/ukne...r-cyclists-after-attack/ar-BBVndn6?li=BBoPWjQ
Not just number plates, insurance, road tax and licensing as well. Especially the idiots that belong to cycling clubs that ride 10 or more abreast down road.

 

[Brigadier]

Slam. Dunk.

 

[JohnD]

I must have missed that. Where was it suggested that they should pay the same tax as cars, and the licence should be equivalent?

Or did you just make it up?

In the link, it says "said cyclists should be forced to carry number plates"

Where was it suggested that they should pay the same tax as cars, and the licence should be equivalent?

 

[cwhaley]

Going to post my 2 pence.

I am a motorist and a pedestrian and sometimes a cyclist. Everybody is entitled to use the road and just because cyclists don't pay "road tax" or have insurance, doesn't mean they should be on it any less than a car. Everybody pays for the maintenance of roads through general taxation.

They get unfair attention. There are idiot cyclists (the lycra-clad, hand-gestering, helmet cam, type) and ordinary people just trying to get around and this applies to cyclists, motorists, scooter-ists, etc. I'm often held up by one on the drive to work but I'm not really that fussed as I can usually overtake not long after encountering them. I'm also totally happy with groups of cyclists on a Sunday afternoon as I'd much rather overtake them all in one go that individually over a distance. I'm actually quite jealous they're out in the sun probably stopping off to sup some ales on the way home!

Only things that do annoy me are the over-reactions they have when they think you've overtaken too close and the dangerous undertaking when I'm turning left.

 

[EFLImpudence]

I'm actually quite jealous they're out in the sun probably stopping off to sup some ales on the way home!

Is that allowed - more than for drivers?

 

[Brigadier]

Is that allowed - more than for drivers?

IIRC, not directly prohibited as it is for driving.

 

[Brigadier]

Fook knows how it would be enacted in practice (viz-a-viz compulsory purchase of the required land etc), but......

..I've often thought it would be great if the UK would build a network of properly-tarmacced / drained / lit cycle routes, completely separated from the other roads, solely for the use of cyclists to commute on.
It would be a large investment at first, but wear would be practically nil, so maintenance would be similarly so, and the benefits in health, mood, and reduction in wear on the "car" roads would be huge.

Eventually though, it might be more achievable to phase out all private motorised transport, build a decent hub-to-hub network for public transport (for the inform, and for longer distances), and use the current road network for cycles and pedestrians only.

 

[Gerrydelasel]

..I've often thought it would be great if the UK would build a network of properly-tarmacced / drained / lit cycle routes,

Related fun video:

 

[durhamplumber]

I am baffled that anyone can think think a ton of metal, travelling at tens of miles per hour under self-motorisation, with dozens of horse power behind it, with a driver safely ensconsed behind impact bars and air bags, with air conditioning, heated seats and a media system, is somehow in the same league of social and environmental impact as a person pushing a pair of hoops with his legs and should warrant the same level of state regulation. Presumably rollerskates ought to be 'crushed and recycled' too.

Rofl...very sensible,,,unfortunately,,,most people are not,,,,and many talk utter bolox.

 

[motorbiking]

Is that allowed - more than for drivers?

yes. You have to be "legless" rather than simply over the limit


30 Cycling when under influence of drink or drugs.
(1)A person who, when riding a cycle on a road or other public place, is unfit to ride through drink or drugs (that is to say, is under the influence of drink or a drug to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the cycle) is guilty of an offence.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/30

5 Driving or being in charge of a motor vehicle with alcohol concentration above prescribed limit.
(1)If a person—

(a)drives or attempts to drive a motor vehicle on a road or other public place, or
(b)is in charge of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place, after consuming so much alcohol that the proportion of it in his breath, blood or urine exceeds the prescribed limit he is guilty of an offence.
(2)It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1)(b) above to prove that at the time he is alleged to have committed the offence the circumstances were such that there was no likelihood of his driving the vehicle whilst the proportion of alcohol in his breath, blood or urine remained likely to exceed the prescribed limit.
(3)The court may, in determining whether there was such a likelihood as is mentioned in subsection (2) above, disregard any injury to him and any damage to the vehicle.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/5

 

[Ian H]

(the lycra-clad, hand-gestering, helmet cam, type)

(56year old, vegetarian, plumbers, from the North East)

 

[acurachris]

Not just number plates, insurance, road tax and licensing as well.

It's laughable that people still go on about tax for cyclists, do people not understand the term "zero emissions"? So it's okay for your super fast and heavy Tesla to not pay tax but cyclists should?

Insurance is in direct proportion to the damage that can be done so compared to a car, a cycle can damage very little! Or perhaps pedestrians in general should carry insurance incase they scratch someone's parked car as they squeeze past it, or they bump into another person whilst walking down the street, yeah, perhaps every man, woman, child should be insured, just in case!

If anything it should be people that are insured as it is them that cause the accidents, not the car/bike/scooter etc, the person. That way, the more the person damages, the higher their insurance goes, rather than affecting the demographic!

World gone mad!

 

[motorbiking]

No insurance or licence required to drive any of these in the UK. Can be very expensive to the tax payer when things go wrong.

PS Teslas are now hit by the over £40k tax