London cyclists dropping like flies
- Thread starter sooey
- Start date
- Joined
- 11 Jan 2004
- Messages
- 45,874
- Reaction score
- 3,517
- Country
The current system of vehicle taxation is based on CO2 output.
HGV's pay more as they cause more damage to the roadway: the heavier the vehicle, the higher the payment.
Bicycles are neither heavy nor emit CO2. Their riders are the same weight and emit the same CO2 as pedestrians.
Now justify taxing cyclists.
But, just for a bit of fun, work out how to implement the system first, hey?
HGV's pay more as they cause more damage to the roadway: the heavier the vehicle, the higher the payment.
Bicycles are neither heavy nor emit CO2. Their riders are the same weight and emit the same CO2 as pedestrians.
Now justify taxing cyclists.
But, just for a bit of fun, work out how to implement the system first, hey?
So?
Pedestrian crossing, pedestrian has already crossed, road junction with no traffic coming the other way (clear visibility).
The only reason to stop is because of the red light, the only reason drivers don’t go through is because they are afraid of being caught and fined for doing something that presents no danger.
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?
What, you mean after you specifically said street view hasn’t been updated to show it, hmmmm, no I didn’t.
And you describe something where you have multiple junctions, with no right of way, but no need to stop, hmm, does not compute, if it’s a shared pathway you will have no right of way.
Why don’t you rebuke my answers to that post, instead of some inane monkey bashing about how what I typed bored you.
It’s clear you don’t have much of an argument to make if you can’t type simple rebuttals, feel free to just keep repeating yourself, I’m sure everyone is suitably impressed by your witty ripostes.
This has already been discussed, they do pay, roads are paid for by general taxation.
Vehicle tax, petrol duty, are just general taxes like Vat on electricity and gas, stamp duty for housing, Vat on consumer goods, income tax, council tax, tax on pensions, tax on savings, tax on flights, tax tax tax.
I’ve said more on this, but it’s been said, you can like LMB just continue reposting “But they should pay whaaaaaaaa”, or you can refute my arguments.
Shouldn’t be too hard if you think they are wrong, no?
Yes, that is what road tax is based on at present. An equally valid method would be to base it on the area of the road surface occupied at any moment in time. HGVs would still pay more than cars; cars would still pay more than bicycles; but cyclists would then find themselves contributing as well. Cyclists occupy part of our road system, so why shouldn't they pay for the privilege like the rest of us do?
Now, you tell me what is wrong with that suggestion.
That's easy. In order to be permitted to ride a bicycle on the road (or a cycle path or the pavement, if that's what they prefer) a cyclist would have to register their vehicle with the DVLA (or whatever they call themselves now), pay the required amount of road tax for which they would receive a road tax licence and a licence number, and have number plates fitted displaying that licence number. Naturally, the road tax they would be liable for would have to be calculated to cover all necessary administrative expenses incurred.
There is also the advantage that cyclists would then be instantly identifiable. Perhaps then they'd be less likely to arrogantly sail past red traffic lights.
The reason drivers stop at red traffic lights is because that is what the law obliges them to do.
I presume that you are now saying that cyclists are above the law.
Traffic lights are a safety device that is intended to prevent traffic from more than one direction trying to drive across the same junction at the same time. Believe it or not, that is also to protect cyclists in the same way. When a few more arrogant cyclists have taken it upon themselves to break the law in this way and have found themselves flattened into the tarmac, this stupid selfish practice may stop.
Of course, the cost of repairing any scratches to the paintwork of the car that performs this good service should be recoverable from the estate of the deceased arrogant cyclist.
Good let's talk about traffic lights a subject close to my heart, if you have the misfortune to leave the M5 @ Avonmouth you are confronted with a large round about that for the last few years has been graced with traffic lights, they are on 24/7 every day of the year, I'll have wasted half of my life sat at them at 2 in the morning with no other M F in sight.
- Joined
- 11 Jan 2004
- Messages
- 45,874
- Reaction score
- 3,517
- Country
I think you'll find I said it hadn't been updated since the SIGNS were put in, imagine some big blue lolly pops with a person and cycle on them, not difficult ...
You don't need to stop 99.9% of the time,
you ride towards the junction, utilising the ample view you observe nothing coming, you continue. On the rare occassion something is there you ride round the back of the waiting vehicle...
I still think whoever planned in the route knows more about it than you, who requested to see it, didn't bother to look and just seem intent on an argument no matter any logic to the contrary.
1) in that case, so should a pedestrian, we should license anyone with legs and mandate insurance for shoes! While we're at it, let's regulate those pesky wheelchair users!
You'll find in your scenario the motorist is still at fault for wiping out the bus stop.
Brake, THEN swerve, if safe to do so. If not, brake and risk hitting the cyclist.
Although really, if you are unable to stop, you were going too fast.
And yes, I am an advanced trained motorist thankyou.
So what statistics do you have to support cyclists causing vast numbers of 3rd party deaths?
2)
If there were no roads they would cycle on tracks, trails, paths or across open country.
Quite simple really. But seeing as there are roads it makes sense to use them.
Really you just think they shouldn't because of your selfish sense of entitlement.
I pay road tax so I own the road(!)
I tax 6 vehicles, do I get priority over you?!
Because cyclists have a right to use the road, motorists pay for the privilege.
Bringing in legislation to change this simply wouldn't succeed, it certainly isn't sufficiently in the public interest to merit the time and expense of implementing such a thing.
Care so much? Start a .gov petition.
What you describe would be nanny state political suicide.
Especially as you couldn't realistically charge road tax when eco cars and historic vehicles are free. So road tax for ordinary motorists would go up to pay for all this unnecessary additional administration.
Even if you knew the name and address of a cyclist you observed travelling through a red light, do you believe the police would give the slightest of inconsequential craps? No.
As pedestrians can also cause damage and disruption to traffic, or are capable of committing crime in general should we all wear numberplates on our person 24/7?
Maybe I should put a numberplate on my cat.
Are you a fan of blue boilersuits?
Can we rename this the cycle rant thread?
No, let's keep it as is cos another one's just gone down today.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-24989985
I've lost count now how many have died since I started this thread 4 or 5 I think.
I wonder when it will dawn on that stupid bstrd Johnson that encouraging people to ride bikes amidst heavy traffic is not a good idea.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-24989985
I've lost count now how many have died since I started this thread 4 or 5 I think.
I wonder when it will dawn on that stupid bstrd Johnson that encouraging people to ride bikes amidst heavy traffic is not a good idea.
By their licence number or, if they are not displaying one, they get picked up and charged.
Easy!
Cyclists are road users why should they not pay like everyone else.
You refute that argument if you can.
