Jockscott, if you know what Aron means, why are you (mis) quoting him, knowingly implying him meaning something else? If not for argumentative means?
London cyclists dropping like flies
- Thread starter sooey
- Start date
And why do you think he comes on here keeping the argument about cyclists going on and on? (when at the end of the day, it is cyclists, not motorists who are dying on the streets of London) Some of us on here have put forward some methods of dealing with the carnage on our streets. Let's face it, any method the government eventually use to curb cycling deaths, will cost money. So why shouldn't it be the very fraternity who are needlessly dying, who have to bear the brunt of these costs? Aaron doesn't accept that cyclists should pay anything towards the cost of allowing them on the roads. I strongly believe, they should pay to be either on the roads or a dedicated cycle lane. (cue the "What about the children" whines and groans, from Aaron ) After all even cycle lanes cost money to set up, so charge them for using them.
And why do you think he comes on here keeping the argument about cyclists going on and on? (when at the end of the day, it is cyclists, not motorists who are dying on the streets of London) Some of us on here have put forward some methods of dealing with the carnage on our streets. Let's face it, any method the government eventually use to curb cycling deaths, will cost money. So why shouldn't it be the very fraternity who are needlessly dying, who have to bear the brunt of these costs? Aaron doesn't accept that cyclists should pay anything towards the cost of allowing them on the roads. I strongly believe, they should pay to be either on the roads or a dedicated cycle lane. (cue the "What about the children" whines and groans, from Aaron ) After all even cycle lanes cost money to set up, so charge them for using them.
Quite right. I can only assume that, if Aron is typical of many cyclists, his unwillingness to take on board suggestions that would ultimately benefit cyclists must display his satisfaction with the present state of affairs. After all, a cyclist running a red light might involve scratching my car (which is pretty scratched already anyway), but would likely upset a squashed cyclist a good deal more. That's where arrogance could well relate to stupidity.
dont know if this has already been suggested?
but why doesnt the government set up a basic cycle licence system where every cyclist pays a nominal sum into central fund,this is a government backed scheme and this would include basic insurance etc.
i would also say that each and every cyclist must display a badge of some sort to prove they have paid there dues.
but judging by the way the government has dealt with the road fund licence i really cant see it happening.
but why doesnt the government set up a basic cycle licence system where every cyclist pays a nominal sum into central fund,this is a government backed scheme and this would include basic insurance etc.
i would also say that each and every cyclist must display a badge of some sort to prove they have paid there dues.
but judging by the way the government has dealt with the road fund licence i really cant see it happening.
A cyclist should never have to pay any dues as long as cars are on the roads.
If you started penalising a cyclist then how long before some muppet would want pedestrians paying dues also just to walk down the street?
Its all about freedom and when you step into a car you have freedom removed by being penalised. Exactly as it should be!
If you started penalising a cyclist then how long before some muppet would want pedestrians paying dues also just to walk down the street?
Its all about freedom and when you step into a car you have freedom removed by being penalised. Exactly as it should be!
Therefore no one should fund special measures for cyclists , such as dedicated cycle lanes and toucan crossings. These should be removed forthwith and leave these "not wanting to pay our way" cyclists to the mercy of us who do pay our way on the highways and byways .
.
Therefore no one should fund special measures for cyclists , such as dedicated cycle lanes and toucan crossings. These should be removed forthwith and leave these "not wanting to pay our way" cyclists to the mercy of us who do pay our way on the highways and byways .
An extra tax on motorists should pay for them.
Ball ox
Can you give me one good reason why motorists should fund these clowns though? After all, we're expected to treat them like any other road user, even when overtaking, we're told to give them the same clearance we would afford another car.
Perhaps a better idea would be a nice new tax on everyone in the country. Let's say £1 per person.. Governments now looking at an extra £60 odd million per year.
- Joined
- 11 Jan 2004
- Messages
- 45,874
- Reaction score
- 3,517
- Country
Send it to me so I can count it first.
Any suggestions that cyclists may have to have roadcraft and responsibility enforced upon them by law to make up for lack of common sense run into the brick wall of Aron's "But poor people can't afford it!" and "Won't someone please think of the children?"
Trolling aside... re tax on motorists I've heard rumblings from certain sections of the motoring press that the government's pro-green policies of ever higher taxes on motorists who dare to drive anything bigger than a wheeled recycled cardboard box powered by free range solar energy and organically raised wind is starting to cause worried frowns in the treasury.
Therefore no one should fund special measures for cyclists , such as dedicated cycle lanes and toucan crossings. These should be removed forthwith and leave these "not wanting to pay our way" cyclists to the mercy of us who do pay our way on the highways and byways .
An extra tax on motorists should pay for them.
Because vehicles are taxed on emissions people are buying cars which are cheaper to tax. And because fuel is taxed to high heaven they're buying more economical cars too. As a result the taxman is getting less money out of the motorists.
But, with respect, I think you're all missing the point.
The problem is not that cyclists should pay for insurance; that is up to them, although I'd strongly advise it. What is lacking, as I have said before, is the means to easily and quickly identify those who break the law and cause accidents.
Whilst I'm on the subject, I believe we need more CCTV installations on our roads, especially at traffic lights. It is human nature that if we think we might get away with something we are more likely to end up doing it. Even the most honest of us. (I include myself, of course!)
The problem is not that cyclists should pay for insurance; that is up to them, although I'd strongly advise it. What is lacking, as I have said before, is the means to easily and quickly identify those who break the law and cause accidents.
Whilst I'm on the subject, I believe we need more CCTV installations on our roads, especially at traffic lights. It is human nature that if we think we might get away with something we are more likely to end up doing it. Even the most honest of us. (I include myself, of course!)
So you can read english then?
They do, it's called "tax", footpaths and roads are paid for by general taxation, as I've said, if you don't like it, then don't get cancer either, unless you have paid enough money to cover the use of roads, as well as any medical treatment you have had, you'd be a hypocrite to use the NHS, it's unlikely you will have paid the average £50,000 it costs to treat cancer, as well as the costs of your road use, and if you have, do you have any change for a government pension, hmm, I think not.
Then we have people living in social housing, I think in principle they should all be denied NHS treatment, or government pensions, if they are living in social housing they will clearly be paying far less in tax than they will cost these services, after the cost of housing them.
After all, you do strongly believe people should pay for what they use, right?
So you think poor = criminal.
I think I can chalk you up as an idiot and leave it there.
I wasnt aware the law did not apply to cyclists?
So are you going to counter my points against this, or just keep repeating we should have it?
By all means, stick to your argument, but if you can't counter critisisim, it's a pretty weak argument
