London cyclists dropping like flies

[sooey]

Mountain bikes are in the minority? What do you base this wild assumption on?
I'd say the opposite, mountain bikes are in the majority.
That's certainly the case in our works cycle racks, mountain bikes were the most commonplace throughout my growing up and most cyclists on the road I see are on mountain bikes.

Yeah, and how many people who ride them have ever been off road with them, or do so on a regular basis? Ans. not facking many.

Edit to add:
To your final point "let them pay for the bleedin things".
Roads are funded through general taxation, NOT 'road tax'.
Cyclists DO pay for roads! This is indisputable fact!

So motorists also pay for roads through general taxation, but still have to pay more to use them. Also indisputable fact. So why shouldn't cyclists pay too?

 

[CaptainCaveman289]

So to keep matters simple, you agree with me then?

I agree that motorists are taxed in an incorrect fashion, I don't necessarily agree with you.

 

[CaptainCaveman289]

Mountain bikes are in the minority? What do you base this wild assumption on?
I'd say the opposite, mountain bikes are in the majority.
That's certainly the case in our works cycle racks, mountain bikes were the most commonplace throughout my growing up and most cyclists on the road I see are on mountain bikes.

Yeah, and how many people who ride them have ever been off road with them, or do so on a regular basis? Ans. not f*****g many.

Edit to add:
To your final point "let them pay for the bleedin things".
Roads are funded through general taxation, NOT 'road tax'.
Cyclists DO pay for roads! This is indisputable fact!

So motorists also pay for roads through general taxation, but still have to pay more to use them. Also indisputable fact. So why shouldn't cyclists pay too?

So you acknowledge you were likely wrong on the proportion of cycle type. Good.
I hope you also acknowledge that these vehicles are perfectly capable of travelling on routes that are not roads and that many many miles are travelled on paths.
Failing to acknowledge these salient points is willful ignorance.

What makes you think most mountain bike owners only cycle on roads and never on paths? Is it just a blinding hate of cyclists or is this some kind of informed opinion?
What tangable and quantified information is this?



As for your other point, refer to my other posts in this topic regarding my views on taxation of the motorist through the present 'road tax' system.

I'm against it.

(edit to add
Motorists are unfairly persecuted. I don't believe in spreading unfair persecution. The question isn't "why shouldn't cyclists pay double too" it's "why should they?" and also "why should motorists?".
If it's actually a green tax on engine emissions (that appears to be the mechanism behind the current tariff structuring), then lets call a spade a spade and rebrand road tax as emissions tax. But it still wouldn't apply to cyclists...

(2nd edit to highlight area of initial edit)

 

[sooey]

Where bikes are capableof goingis besides the point. Mostpeople use them to get about on roads, end of story. Let them also pay for the privilege.
But far from wanting to pay their way a gang of these freeloaders actually staged a protest yesterday demanding millions of pounds be spent to make their lives easier. Selfish bstrds, put some money in the pot first.

 

[CaptainCaveman289]

Your a very angry individual, why not try to.relax? You may live longer?

Also I've editted my previous post to tag some more to the end regarding my position on vehicle taxation, it's relevant.

 

[CaptainCaveman289]

Where bikes are capableof goingis besides the point. Mostpeople use them to get about on roads, end of story. Let them also pay for the privilege.
But far from wanting to pay their way a gang of these freeloaders actually staged a protest yesterday demanding millions of pounds be spent to make their lives easier. Selfish bstrds, put some money in the pot first.

Most people? Completely unquantified. Free loaders? Pay money into the pot first?
They already do, roads are funded by general taxation.

Should non-motorists that also don't cycle receive a tax rebate for the roads they don't use? No.

Can you reference anything regarding this protest? News link?
I'm not willing to form an opinion of it off the back of your word alone.

Maybe they want the millions of pounds they already pay (through taxes) to better represent their needs? Although this is.spurious, I'm not going to defend them as I have no idea what it is you are on about.

 

[sooey]

Your a very angry individual,

No, I'm a slightly amused individual at the moment actually.

 

[CaptainCaveman289]

Your a very angry individual,

No, I'm a slightly amused individual at the moment actually.

Glad to hear it

 

[AronSearle]

So motorists also pay for roads through general taxation, but still have to pay more to use them. Also indisputable fact. So why shouldn't cyclists pay too?

It's funny how everyone seems to ignore the same point I make again and again, must be because you lot know you are wrong.

Many millions of people do not pay nearly enough tax to pay for the services they use, housing, healthcare, schools, pensions, welfare, many many people use all these benefits, but only pay enough tax for some of them.

So who here is advocating people only get what they pay for?

I do know, however, that I have seen many cyclists weaving in and out of traffic

legal

Sorry, the first point is illegal. and dangerous..

It's legal (it's called filtering), why don't you break the habit of being wrong all the time and get your facts right.

And again for the last time, I am completely in favour of stop and search because I have nothing to hide.

Good for you, YOU have nothing to hide, so are perfectly happy to have other peoples liberties infringed upon. Never mind that they may have something to hide, that's legal, because you don't.

You want to hold that position, you are entitled to, but you can't then claim to respect liberty when you only respect what doesn't affect you.

You are entitled to an opinion, just don't expect anyone consider it to have any value if it's based of assumptions.

Yes, I think we'll have to agree to disagree here. You think you're right; I know I'm right.

You know you are right, but admit you made assumptions and have no evidence to prove them

KK

 

[JBR]

Most people? Completely unquantified. Free loaders? Pay money into the pot first?
They already do, roads are funded by general taxation.

Should non-motorists that also don't cycle receive a tax rebate for the roads they don't use? No.

Can you reference anything regarding this protest? News link?
I'm not willing to form an opinion of it off the back of your word alone.

Maybe they want the millions of pounds they already pay (through taxes) to better represent their needs? Although this is.spurious, I'm not going to defend them as I have no idea what it is you are on about.

I confess that I'm becoming a little confused now.

Earlier, you said that you think motorists should not have to pay 'road tax' (let's not argue about what it's called, please). I agree with you.

So neither motorists, cyclists or pedestrians should pay any additional 'road tax'. I agree.

But pedestrians, who indirectly contribute to the roads in general taxation should not receive any rebate.

So motorists and cyclists (who travel on the roads) should contribute to the construction and upkeep of roads, along with pedestrians who do not use the roads.

Don't you think that's a little unfair on pedestrians?

 

[JBR]

And again for the last time, I am completely in favour of stop and search because I have nothing to hide.

Good for you, YOU have nothing to hide, so are perfectly happy to have other peoples liberties infringed upon. Never mind that they may have something to hide, that's legal, because you don't.

You want to hold that position, you are entitled to, but you can't then claim to respect liberty when you only respect what doesn't affect you.

I did say that I didn't want to continue banging my head against the wall but, just for you Aron, I'll clarify. I am completely in favour of stop and search because I, and most honest people, have nothing to hide. I respect both their and my liberty, but I do not agree with dishonest people or those that break the rules having the right to be dishonest and to break the rules.

You are entitled to an opinion, just don't expect anyone consider it to have any value if it's based of assumptions.

Yes, I think we'll have to agree to disagree here. You think you're right; I know I'm right.

You know you are right, but admit you made assumptions and have no evidence to prove them

KK

Yes, I know I'm right but I respect your right to think that you're right, even if you don't have any evidence to prove your assumptions.

 

[jockscott]

I do know, however, that I have seen many cyclists weaving in and out of traffic

legal

Sorry, the first point is illegal. and dangerous..

It's legal (it's called filtering), why don't you break the habit of being wrong all the time and get your facts right.
[/quote]

Can you link to anywhere on the internet where in UK traffic laws, it states that it's legal for cyclists to weave in and out of lanes? (your supposed filtering) I'd suggest you first look in the Highway Code, but I suspect you don't even know what that is. When you find nothing on the subject saying it's legal. I'd suggest you call at your local police station and ask a traffic cop if it's legal to do as you say. Honestly I've never heard such bolleaux in all my life as I've heard from you on this thread.

 

[AronSearle]

I am completely in favour of stop and search because I, and most honest people, have nothing to hide.

Speaking for other people now are you?

Why how magnanimous of you, not really getting this whole "liberty" thing are you, just because -you- have nothing to hide, doesn't mean others don't, at the risk of Reductio ad absurdum(ing) my own argument, you're neighbour might be a crossdresser, or he might have a copy of "Brazilian sluts 8" in his pocket, perfectly legal, perfectly up to him, but maybe HE doesn't want to be stopped and searched?

But that's OK, because YOU don't have anything to hide, neither should anyone else?

You respect liberty my ass!

Yes, I know I'm right but I respect your right to think that you're right, even if you don't have any evidence to prove your assumptions.

Drivers cause 90% of accidents involving bikes

http://www.treehugger.com/bikes/cyclists-cause-less-than-10-of-bikecar-accidents.html

"adult cyclists, police found the driver solely responsible in about 60%-75% of all cases, and riders solely at fault 17%-25% of the time."

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15/cycling-bike-accidents-study

About 100 pedestrians a year are killed on the footpath by cars each year.

There have only been three pedestrians killed since 1945 by cyclists on the footpath


Phew, that was 10 seconds of my life I will never get back from googling, feel free to spend 10 of your own seconds trying to desperately prove you are not just full of sh1t

Can you link to anywhere on the internet where in UK traffic laws, it states that it's legal for cyclists to weave in and out of lanes? (your supposed filtering) I'd suggest you first look in the Highway Code, but I suspect you don't even know what that is. When you find nothing on the subject saying it's legal. I'd suggest you call at your local police station and ask a traffic cop if it's legal to do as you say. Honestly I've never heard such bolleaux in all my life as I've heard from you on this thread.

Oh dear, would you like help removing your size 12s from your mouth.

Did you not think to use google before making a complete prat of yourself?

section 211 of the highway code

It is often difficult to see motorcyclists and cyclists, especially when they are coming up from behind, coming out of junctions, at roundabouts, overtaking you or filtering through traffic.

88

Manoeuvring. You should be aware of what is behind and to the sides before manoeuvring. Look behind you; use mirrors if they are fitted. When in traffic queues look out for pedestrians crossing between vehicles and vehicles emerging from junctions or changing lanes. Position yourself so that drivers in front can see you in their mirrors. Additionally, when filtering in slow-moving traffic, take care and keep your speed low.

I hope Scotland votes for independence, we will then see a measurable raise in the average IQ of the UK.

 

[Deleted member 63160]

Hey Aron. You should get an award for being the person most desparate to be right on the internet ever. Did you not have a teddy when you were little?

 

[JBR]

I am completely in favour of stop and search because I, and most honest people, have nothing to hide.

Speaking for other people now are you?

No, for myself.

Why how magnanimous of you, not really getting this whole "liberty" thing are you, just because -you- have nothing to hide, doesn't mean others don't, at the risk of Reductio ad absurdum(ing) my own argument, you're neighbour might be a crossdresser, or he might have a copy of "Brazilian sluts 8" in his pocket, perfectly legal, perfectly up to him, but maybe HE doesn't want to be stopped and searched?

But that's OK, because YOU don't have anything to hide, neither should anyone else?

You respect liberty my ass!

Calm down dear. You're going to burst a blood vessel.

(Do you really think my neighbour could be a cross-dresser? I might go over and ask her.)

Yes, I know I'm right but I respect your right to think that you're right, even if you don't have any evidence to prove your assumptions.

Drivers cause 90% of accidents involving bikes

http://www.treehugger.com/bikes/cyclists-cause-less-than-10-of-bikecar-accidents.html[/QUOTE]

'Treehugger'? Sounds like a completely unbiased web site.

"adult cyclists, police found the driver solely responsible in about 60%-75% of all cases, and riders solely at fault 17%-25% of the time."

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15/cycling-bike-accidents-study[/QUOTE]

And the Grauniad's 'Bike blogger'? Now that must be unbiased.

About 100 pedestrians a year are killed on the footpath by cars each year.

There have only been three pedestrians killed since 1945 by cyclists on the footpath

Phew, that was 10 seconds of my life I will never get back from googling, feel free to spend 10 of your own seconds trying to desperately prove you are not just full of s**t

I hope Scotland votes for independence, we will then see a measurable raise in the average IQ of the UK.

I really would advise you to calm down Ahole. Look at me - perfectly calm and collected.