AIBU to think cyclists should pay tax and insurance?

[Pumpernickel10]

I'm probably digging a big hole here but I really feel that cyclists should pay road tax and insurance. This is why...
My SIL had a smash yesterday in her car, caused several thousand pounds worth of damage and had whiplash, this happened cause a cyclist rode through a red light causing her to swerve and hit a tree. The cyclist just carried on riding not knowing the damage he had caused. SIL will now lose 12 years no claims cause of this fucking idiot cyclist. He's got no number plate as they don't have them so there no telling who he is. This just doesn't seem right.
AIBU?

In the middle of a dual carriageway?? that would be dopey behaviour, yes.

So in that case the absence of insurance or number plates for cyclists makes no difference to the outcome so the argument is void.

You have a fairly typical twattish attitude to cyclists Lorenz.

So you couldn't overtake her on the dual carriageway then?

Lorenz, translation: out of my way, out of my way. I think that's the wrong attitude to have. It's not just your road, just be a bit more patient

No because she was driving down the middle of it! seriously down the middle of a lane!! And I wasn't driving anyway, the bus driver was.

Yes YABU.

And cyclists do pay tax, just like everyone else, assuming they have an income they are taxed on.

Yes dear, off course she was.

I think my point is that as motorists and motorcyclists we have to past tests and know the highway code to ride on the road and cyclists don't. I'm just asking for more a bit more common sense when on the roads for all users not just cyclists :)

Anyway, Lorenz, you might want to check out rule 163 in the highway code.

www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070314

There's a handy image attached

Excluding children, obviously, how many cyclists do you think there are that haven't passed a driving test? Do you not think maybe they also own and drive cars?

Ok Alice as you say cyclists pay tax out if their wages,well I do the same out of my wages but I still have to pay car tax, they are using the road the same way I am.

I don't know any adult cyclists who don't also drive.

So they've passed a test to be on the road, they know their highway code and pay vehicle tax. And as I said before are generally better, more patient drivers because they are also cyclists.

You pay vehicle emission duty. It would be a pretty pointless task to send out all those zero bills for zero emissions.

And they don't use the road like you do. They had 2 small wheels and are light. You have 4 and are big and heavy.

I can see some benefit perhaps in having some cycling certificate - i.e. if you've passed it, in an accident with the car, you would have reduced liability, or something along those lines.

However it's a fairly valid point that we

1.) Need to encourage more cyclists
2.) The accident could have been with a pedestrian, and they don't have to pass a test or have walking insurance

she was driving down the middle of it! seriously down the middle of a lane!

Last I heard that was correct. I know some drivers think otherwise, but you should only be overtaking a cyclist in a situation where it would be safe to overtake a car. You can't just have them get out of your way.

I do agree bennifer all I'm throwing around is ideas and that sounds a great idea.

They are not using the road in the same way you are, they are using it in a less-polluting, emission free, less dangerous, less dehumanising way. A better way.

Cars are a wonderful invention, but they are a menace in urban spaces. The more people we can get cycling, the nicer our towns and cities will be (specially when we stop designing them around cars). Also, then the roads will be less congested for those who do need to travel by motorised vehicle.

Out of interest, damage to roads is considered a function of the weight to the power of four.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_axle_weight_rating

A 2000kg car does 160,000 times as much damage to the road as a 100kg bike + rider.

So if road tax were about paying for the road (which it isn't), you could send out bills for £0.001 if you liked. Seems to be a bit of a waste of time though

Pumpernickle - you do not have to pay any vehicle emmissions tax you can purchase a small enough vehicle not to have to pay tax - it is your choice

Motorcars are really slow in urban spaces, cycling is by far the fastest option and easiest for parking as well - its the lazy option as you get to lock your bioke right outside a lot of stores.

If we go by car we have to find somewhere to park, then pay at the machine and walk back to the car and display the ticket int he windscreen, then walk to the shops we want to use, not really an easy option and all that walking

Even going to the supermarket you have to park miles away from the door and then dodge the other motorists trying to walk to the supermarket door - whereas on a bike the bike racks are often just a few feet from the front door and off you hop and into the store.

AHAHA OP, youre having a laugh arent you?

"Add message | Report | Message poster MynamesMikeIswimlikeafish Sun 19-Jun-11 16:53:01
I don't know any adult cyclists who don't drive"

Dh is a cycle commuter who doesnt drive. He does however pay income tax which pays fpr the roads wear and tear from his bicycle wheels.

Cyclist are traffic. Drivers forget this.

arf @ this old chestnut.