London cyclists dropping like flies

[AronSearle]

I don't know the amount of damage in pounds and I don't know exactly how many accidents.

So conclusions before facts then, kk.

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

legal

riding on pavements

Unenforceable.

with no lights at night and in dark clothing

Darwinism

I can only assume that, in your view, these are perfectly safe things to do.

Statistics dear boy, statistics, how dangerous they are depends on the results they produce, jumping red lights can actually be safer in a number of situations (try not to hyperbole your response).

I haven't got anything to hide

I bet I could find a few things in your interent history that say otherwise.

Everyone has "something" to hide, that may be perfectly legal.

You simply have no respect for personal liberty, "as long as your all right jack" no one who is ok with random searches can claim to respect liberty.

 

[JBR]

I don't know the amount of damage in pounds and I don't know exactly how many accidents.

So conclusions before facts then, kk.

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

legal

riding on pavements

Unenforceable.

with no lights at night and in dark clothing

Darwinism

I can only assume that, in your view, these are perfectly safe things to do.

Statistics dear boy, statistics, how dangerous they are depends on the results they produce, jumping red lights can actually be safer in a number of situations (try not to hyperbole your response).

I have told you that I do not possess the figures you asked for and, I assume, neither do you. I do, however, have the experience of having witnessed the things I mention and on that experience I base my opinion. Or am I not entitled to hold an opinion? As for cyclists weaving in and out of traffic, I suppose that depends on the way it is done. Motorists can be prosecuted for driving without due care and attention: I presume that cannot apply to cyclists in their privileged position. And cyclists riding on public footpaths could be enforceable if the police took a harder line. I suspect they have been ordered to turn a blind eye by the powers that be.

I haven't got anything to hide

I bet I could find a few things in your interent history that say otherwise.

Everyone has "something" to hide, that may be perfectly legal.

You simply have no respect for personal liberty, "as long as your all right jack" no one who is ok with random searches can claim to respect liberty.

You are very welcome to search my internet history and get back to me. I look forward to hearing your findings. I sincerely hope that you are not suggesting that I have been looking at pictures of young children.

I suppose it depends on your definition of personal liberty. Running red lights, cycling on the pavement and so on are not things that I would describe as personal liberties. How far would your definition extend, I wonder? The personal liberty to steal? The personal liberty to sell drugs?

 

[AronSearle]

I have told you that I do not possess the figures you asked for and, I assume, neither do you.

You are the one claiming cyclist cause lot's of trouble, the burdon of proof is not on me.

I do, however, have the experience of having witnessed the things I mention and on that experience I base my opinion. Or am I not entitled to hold an opinion?

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

As for cyclists weaving in and out of traffic, I suppose that depends on the way it is done. Motorists can be prosecuted for driving without due care and attention: I presume that cannot apply to cyclists in their privileged position.

More assumptions and hyperbole.

You are very welcome to search my internet history and get back to me. I look forward to hearing your findings. I sincerely hope that you are not suggesting that I have been looking at pictures of young children.

Are you deliberatly being stupid just for something to say?

I ask because I clearly said everyone does something, that is perfectly legal (child porn being illigal), but that they wish to keep private, everybody has something to hide, including yourself.

Many people would object to random stop and searches, just because you don't, doesnt mean you get to insist others liberties are infringed upon.

I suppose it depends on your definition of personal liberty. Running red lights, cycling on the pavement and so on are not things that I would describe as personal liberties. How far would your definition extend, I wonder? The personal liberty to steal? The personal liberty to sell drugs?

But we are talking here of the enforcement of cycle numberplates (which again, is questionable as any kind of safety measure), it requires random stop and checking of ID for enforcement.

Exactly what people objected to with ID cards.

 

[CaptainCaveman289]

Next argument for persecuting only cyclists?
If instead you feel that all road users should wear numberplate identification...

You don't seem to grasp that a bike is a wheeled vehicle, which by definition needs roads to function comfortably.
Pedestrians can function perfectly well without roads, and as a matter of fact roads present far more danger to pedestrians than they do to road users.
So why would you want to make pedestrians pay towards the cost of the roads, and why shouldn't cyclists do so as they are road users.

Of course I realise bicycles are wheeled vehicles, although I don't agree that they by definition need roads to function comfortably. I more commonly ride off roads, paths, fields, muddy rocky gullies etc. A bicycle is a highly adaptable multi-terrain vehicle.
So you are pretty much completely wrong on that.
(Unless you mean 'road bikes' specifically, i.e. Those silly tour'de'france dealios, so that's one variant among many. But you didn't say that did you? Besides, they do perfectly well on tarmac paths...).

Therefore pedestrians arn't on their own in not needing roads, you'll find roads are there primarily for the benefit of horse & carts, cars, vans buses and lorries.

Besides; pedestrians already pay for roads!
Roads are a part of national infrastructure, payed for by general taxation.
VED does not pay for roads!
(how many times can this fact be ignored?)

Do pavements constitute part of a road? I believe (although I stand to be corrected) that the spending comes from the same pot. Therefore pedestrians are very much road users.
What about where there are no pavements? Ever been to the countryside? Shock horror, people walk/jog on the road!

Please refer to previous post for further road users that I don't believe should in any way wear numberplates or pay road tax etc.

 

[sooey]

Do pavements constitute part of a road? I believe (although I stand to be corrected) that the spending comes from the same pot. Therefore pedestrians are very much road users.

Pavements are only necessary because there are forking great roads full of traffic everywhere. If there were no roads pedestrians could still get around, and a lot safer albeit slower.

Therefore pedestrians arn't on their own in not needing roads, you'll find roads are there primarily for the benefit of horse & carts, cars, vans buses and lorries.

Mountain bikes and off road types are very much in the minority, as are the wierdos who ride them. Most people who ride to work on a bike wouldn't do so if there were no nice smooth roads for them to peddle along. So let them pay something towards the cost of the bleedin things.

 

[EFLImpudence]

VED does not pay for roads!
(how many times can this fact be ignored?)

Would I be correct in thinking that the reason VED does not pay for roads is because it was designated as VED and stated that it does not pay for roads after the receipts from the Road Fund Licence exceeded the expenditure on roads?

 

[jockscott]

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

legal

riding on pavements

Unenforceable.

Sorry, the first point is illegal. and dangerous.. Have you never heard of "Lane Discipline"? If I'm waiting in a lane of traffic, to turn left (or right) and the other lane is moving faster, then pull into that lane, then back into my original lane, a few cars ahead, , I'm actually breaking the law. Cyclists should obey the bloody law (not even considering the danger they are putting themselves in)

Your second point,,, The only reason it's unenforceable, is because cyclists are untraceable. I believe there are a few cases where cyclists have been caught and fined for riding on pavements. I personally think pedestrians should be given hefty sticks so they can push them through the spokes of cyclists riding on pavements. (hopefully they'll shove them through the front wheel) That'd sort the buggers out.

 

[jockscott]

But we are talking here of the enforcement of cycle numberplates (which again, is questionable as any kind of safety measure), it requires random stop and checking of ID for enforcement.

.

Nothing random about stopping a cyclist who's just broken the law by running a red light, or riding on the pavement. There's nothing wrong with police following up cctv images of a cyclist breaking the law and calling at his house to ask him questions as to why he felt it necessary to break the law.

So where exactly does this "randomness" come in? I don't see the police stopping every motorist, to check everything is in order? I've never been stopped whilst driving my car, by a police officer saying he's conducting a random stop, to check I'm driving legally. Police did write to me once,,, because I'd been caught by a speed camera. Had to admit to that and got a fine and 3 points on my licence (because I'm fairly honest) They couldn't have done that with a photo of a cyclists breaking a speed limit,, could they? (and believe me, it is possible) or a photo of a cyclist entering a one way street the wrong way.(or any of the other laws they break on numerous occasions)

 

[JBR]

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.

More assumptions and hyperbole.

Are you deliberatly being stupid just for something to say?

I don't think these comments are worthy of a response.

I ask because I clearly said everyone does something, that is perfectly legal (child porn being illigal), but that they wish to keep private, everybody has something to hide, including yourself.

Then I invite you once more, and for the last time (I am becoming bored with you), if you think I have something to hide, tell me. I'd love to know!

But we are talking here of the enforcement of cycle numberplates (which again, is questionable as any kind of safety measure), it requires random stop and checking of ID for enforcement.

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

As I said, I'm rather bored with you now and I don't intend to continue this dialogue, so (and I've been waiting to say this for some time) -

on your bike!

 

[CaptainCaveman289]

Do pavements constitute part of a road? I believe (although I stand to be corrected) that the spending comes from the same pot. Therefore pedestrians are very much road users.

Pavements are only necessary because there are forking great roads full of traffic everywhere. If there were no roads pedestrians could still get around, and a lot safer albeit slower.

Therefore pedestrians arn't on their own in not needing roads, you'll find roads are there primarily for the benefit of horse & carts, cars, vans buses and lorries.

Mountain bikes and off road types are very much in the minority, as are the wierdos who ride them. Most people who ride to work on a bike wouldn't do so if there were no nice smooth roads for them to peddle along. So let them pay something towards the cost of the bleedin things.

Yes I agree, pedestrians would still get around without roads, so would cyclists, because they also don't need roads. That was my point, thankyou for assisting it...

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.

Ironically the only place I've seen a noticable switch to predominancy of road bikes is in the alps...

Around here there are many miles of lovely smooth cycle paths, when i lived close enough to work to cycle in (it was shorter and faster than driving), about 30% of my journey was on road. The rest was along paths and fields.
(i commuted on a mountain bike !)

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!

 

[CaptainCaveman289]

VED does not pay for roads!
(how many times can this fact be ignored?)

Would I be correct in thinking that the reason VED does not pay for roads is because it was designated as VED and stated that it does not pay for roads after the receipts from the Road Fund Licence exceeded the expenditure on roads?

VED hasn't been directly linked to roads spending since 1937.

'Road tax' pays into directly to the exchequer.
Central government and local authorities then pay out for roads at a proportion depending on the type of road.
Road spending is determined by strategy set out on need and growth, not receipts taken from 'road tax'.

Does the amount taken in 'road tax' exceed roads spending?
Do you have reference of this?
If so, then that's an argument for reducing tax for motorists and certainly not for starting to tax cyclists (that don't need roads in the way cars do...)
I'd be happy fo that, as mentioned; I pay a small fortune out in 'road tax'!

 

[JBR]

I don't think it really matters what 'road tax' is actually used for. In fact, as far as I'm aware, all taxes are used by the government for whatever they want.

So why, then, do motorists pay 'road tax' (I'm not going to get into what it's called) and cyclists do not? Presumably, it is just an excuse to tax some of us a little more. We could equally have something called 'air tax' or 'sun tax'.

Perhaps it would be simpler just to add a little more to income tax for everybody - including cyclists, of course. For some reason, they seem to be taxed less than motorists. Remember, it's nothing to do with the provision of roads, is it?

 

[jockscott]

I don't think it really matters what 'road tax' is actually used for. In fact, as far as I'm aware, all taxes are used by the government for whatever they want.

So why, then, do motorists pay 'road tax' (I'm not going to get into what it's called) and cyclists do not? Presumably, it is just an excuse to tax some of us a little more. We could equally have something called 'air tax' or 'sun tax'.
?

If the government put a tax on sex, I'm quite sure Aaron would be getting a rebate.

 

[CaptainCaveman289]

So JBR,
You are actually aggreived because you believe as a motorist you are being taxed unfairly?
I agree, but why pick on cyclists because they are treated less unfairly?

Is it just because they are an easier target than the offending tax institution?

Let's take a quick wander down wild exaggeration lane:
It's a bit like saying, "look, those people are being killed, that's not fair, they should kill all the people instead" - the problem is the killing, not who is the victim(!)

The system of road tax is certainly outmoded in it's current format, I pay tax on 6 (private) vehicles*, that doesn't mean I do any more miles a year and I can only use 1 vehicle at a time.
Someone else could do 10x the mileage I do, in a more polluting vehicle and pay considerably less 'road tax' overall.
*luckily 4 are bikes which are cheap (although they're all in the most expensive bike tax band) but the car and van are the highest pre '04 rate and sting a little.

I'm all for abolition of road tax in it's current format, instead any co2 offsetting can be done by further taxes at the pump**, therefore more travel or fuel inefficiencies can be proportionate to vehicle selection, this also means foreign registered vehicles will also pay something.
While their at it, incorporate basic 3rd party insurance like the kiwi's do! No uninsured drivers, no annual renewal headache unless you want fire & fully comp cover.
**there will need to be some tax offsetting available for commercial users, in consideration of business impact and the associated addition to consumer pricing as a result.

If you want to persecute high emissions vehicles, this can be done directly off the back of the MOT, which takes emissions readings, so you pay an additional green tax linked exactly to your vehicle.

Road funding can continue to come from general taxation like it already does and therefore all road users will continue to pay for there upkeep as they already do.

 

[JBR]

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