to be annoyed at motorists who say that cyclists don't pay road tax

[toweraboveyou]

There are a lot of motorists who insist that cyclists have no rights on the road as they don't pay any road tax. However, this is bollocks as road tax was abolished in 1937 and all road financing comes from general tax which means that cyclists, such as myself, pay as much towards the roads as anybody else and have just as much right to be on them safely.

now see if you where a cyclist you would know the well known trick to getting the pothole filled in

''God
You cyclists are
Mean. Why lie about a pothole and a
Pram incident? ''

That looks like a really odd poem.

yes i mentioned the horrific accident on the A40 earlier in my posts. so sad as i knew people who knew and worked with this man, i lived close by to the accident and use the road regularly.
he was on the cycle lane it was a accident! a heartbreaking accident.
i know the road well and at that time of day in that direction the sun setting is blinding right in your line of view. if you were to slow your car down to 30 on a motorway your more likely to cause a pile up and kill several people. it was a horrific accident wrong place at wrong time, he should have slowed down but if he had it would not have been enough to save this mans life i doubt.

I'm not saying that cycles cause potholes did I say that? No need to point that little (obvious) fact out.

I was just talking about
Potholes in relation to a previous post about the roads getting resurfaced every march... Pretty sure they don't always...

looks again at pothole

humpf

My posting style, phone
And fat thumbs are
Famous on AIBU

I know
Lol

Bet you would like to know how to get that pothole filled in though - wouldn't you

If you join the CTC they tell you how to get potholes filled in, you don't just get cycle insurance for public liability - there are other perks.

I am too lazy (fat motorist syndrome you see) to find
Out how to get the pothole filled in

I actually rarely drive (I bus it on mat leave or walk) so I don't think about it too often lol

It is there though

Kayano, I think it's reasonable that ALL road users follow the laws of the road.

However, it's clearly unreasonable to misdirect our limited police and law enforcement resources when we clearly cannot stop all lawlessness on the road.

That being so, I really question the priorities of someone who wants to target cyclists rather than say the people doing 50mph down the 30mph residential road I have to cross to take my children to school.

I fear for their lives every time we cross it. Nobody stops to let us across. There are no police enforcement patrols, there is no lollipop lady, the pelican crossing that has been asked for for over a decade costs too much. Car drivers do not heed rule 170 of the Highway Code (or many of the other rules, for that matter).

While I have been annoyed by cyclists, felt that they passed me, as a pedestrian, too close, seen them put themselves at risk by going through red lights, NEVER have I felt any existential threat from cyclists, whereas that's a fear I have EVERY FUCKING TIME WE CROSS THE ROAD - is a car going to come round the corner at 50mph? Is that driver going to stop? I am at their mercy.

Frankly, if a cyclist got in my way, while I was on foot, it would be as likely to injure them as me.

I was riding my bike yesterday, here. I was in the road, and I saw a cyclist on the pavement. I thought 'why isn't he on the road?' Then after I pulled off from the light in the right-hand lane of three (the only one that goes straight ahead so it was that or try and merge into the speeding traffic from one of the nearside lanes), accelerated to 25mph to avoid getting cut up by an impatient motorist behind me, I realised: however annoying a cyclist on the pavement might be (and it is just that, an annoyance, and nothing more, in all but a tiny, tiny number of cases), the roads are in many places intimidating, hostile and outright impossible to use unless you have above-average fitness and a great deal of competence, so they don't have many options (yes they can get off and push, blah blah blah, I know, but I don't care, sorry, perhaps you could lobby for some proper cycle infrastructure instead).

If you get into such a flap everything you cross a road how do you do it?

That's not normal at all. Sounds like my needle phobia/ anxiety! It's a bit extreme.

I don't like motorists breaking the rules either (being mainly a pedestrian) but I just have to sigh when cyclists try to be all holier than though and all motorists are a danger...

When there is just shit on all sides

AhSatan the A40 cyclist was on the road, not the cycle path. He had a time trial bike and the A40 was the ideal place to ride it in terms of being well-surfaced, straight and with no junctions.

Unfortunately it was less than ideal in being a fast road and he was at high risk there. All in all the motorist should not drive if he cannot see where he is going. He had a dry cleaning business based in Slough and must have been up and down that road hundreds of times, and the sunrise, and sunset, Harold Camping excluded, are predictable daily events that we should be entirely prepared for.

It wasn't a problem of driving too fast, it was a problem of not being able to see. He could have driven much faster, if he had simply passed the cyclist instead of driving into the back of him.

Kayano I am not in a flap at all, but I do recognise that when I cross a busy road with two small children then we are at risk, and it's a riskier activity than many that people worry about in their lives. I'm quite happy with risk generally, but I know that it's there and I won't deny it. That's just the reality of the situation, and if you want to paint it as cyclist being holier-than-thou, or try and equate a 10kg bicycle doing 10-15mph with a 3000kg car doing 50mph, and say that it's 'shit on all sides', well that's entirely your choice, but I think you are completely wrong.

perhaps you could lobby for some proper cycle infrastructure instead

I do get the feeling that this wouldn't happen as then who would motorists and pedestrians have to moan about, rather than take action and try to find solutions it is easier to complain.

I would rather VED was scraped enough tax and duty is taken from fuel and as it goes into one general pot it doesn't directly benefit motorists.

I said there
Is shit on all sides as in:

There are shit cyclists
And there are shit motorists

Whereas I (as a pedestrian and motorist) often moan about cyclists, other
Motorists and other pedestrians, this thread seems to imply that it's just
Motorists who are bad. Yes they are more dangerous due to size and speed, but there are BAD cyclists too

That's
What I meant by shit on all sides and I stand by it.

Poulay yes I have been to the Netherlands thanks, and was almost run over (with my baby in a pushchair) on a pedestrian crossing by 2 cyclists riding 2 abreast who didn't bother to stop, or even slow down. Cyclists are king there and don't give a s**t about pedestrians.

Mainly in the Netherlands the cyclists and cars are kept apart. They have a lot more space than we do, their roads are wider, and the cyclists were there in bulk before the car age began, so the infrastructure was already in place. They don't expect cars and bikes to share the same narrow roads. So comparing there and here is like comparing oranges and apples.

We need a proper infrastructure here, rather than putting stupid little narrow cycle lanes on main roads. I'd have thought that a cyclist would prefer to go straight through, rather than follow a road the long way round. Keeping everything separate would be much safer for everybody. Our school promotes cycling, yet there is no infrastructure in place to allow us to do it. The main road to school is a 20 mph limit and full of speed bumps. It is also narrow with parked cars on both sides. It is extremely dangerous for an adult cyclist: there is no way I'd let my primary school child cycle there.

Just because a minority of motorists are stupid and irresponsible doesn't mean the majority are. I get very angry at the small fines/ sentences handed to those who drive with no licence and insurance. We've just had a case locally where a 23 yo with no licence took someone else's car, hit a woman on a ped crossing and drove off, because he was in a hurry to go and collect his Giro. The papers said he "narrowly avoided a custodial sentence" and he's been banned from driving for 2 years. WTAF? He isn't allowed to drive as it is, what difference is a 2 year ban going to make? A proper deterrent should be in place.

Bit late to this thread. But the OP is right, of course, when I cycle I create zero emissions. I would like to see the registering of bikes, and a sort of mileometer fitted to see how far we ride.

Then, we get a payment from the govt, coming out of motorist's vehicle tax based on that, in recognition of how much effort we go to to save the environment and congestion in towns and cities. Seems fair.

and cyclists going through red lights? Just a matter of jealousy. Doesn't impede anyone elses journey. I do it when it is safe to. I also ride on pavements when it is too dangerous to ride on the road. eg busy dual carriageways or large round-a-bouts.

i don't want cyclist to pay road tax, but i do think they should get points and fines if they go through a red light or ride dangourously.

indeed they should McHappy. < to be fair I only go through one light if it's on red which is on a steep slope and I cba stopping for no reason viz-a-viz safety, and then starting again uphill.>

Cyclists can be fined for going through a red light or riding dangerously.

No points because you don't need a driving licence to cycle, and quite rightly so.

The reality btw about red lights is that there are only a tiny, tiny number of red light cameras, less than 1 in 100 lights are cameraed, and the locations are marked online at the 'Safety Camera Partnership' for your area. So all those motorist amber gamblers (well, red light really), at most lights are simply not at risk of being caught.

Cyclists can be fined for going through a red light or riding dangerously. No points because you don't need a driving licence to cycle, and quite rightly so

But because cycles can't be identified the whole camera system is useless, which is how most motorists running reds are caught.

I also do not think it is sustainable to have increasing numbers of people use the roads who are not licensed to be competent to do so.

Op, whether it's called road tax or vehcle tax it amounts to the same thing in that car drivers have to pay to drive on the public highway while cyclists don't. I'm sick to death of inconsiderate cyclists cycling in and around London, jumping lights, cycling down one way streets, riding on pavements and expecting me to jump out of the way.

Whatmeworry, there aren't any cameras (well,not many anyway).

Sorry, it's a myth that every camera is wired up.

Here's for instance the Surrey Safety Camera Partnership:

www.surrey-safecam.org/fe/default.asp?n1=1&n2=44

Borough of Waverley: 1 camera
Elmbridge: 1 camera
Epsom & Ewell: 1 camera
Guildford: 2 cameras
Mole Valley: 0 cameras
Reigate & Banstead: 2 cameras
Runnymede: 1 camera
Spelthorne: 1 camera
Surrey Heath: 1 camera
Tandridge:0 cameras
Woking: 1 camera

Total 11 cameras (assuming they are all working properly)

How many traffic lights do you think there are in Surrey?

I think there are lots of people on the roads who are not competent to be there, whether they have licences or not I don't know, but I'd certainly rather they were in charge of a bicycle than a 3-tonne motor vehicle.

perhaps bikes should have some sort of number plate to identify them

Perhaps pigs might fly.

I would much prefer cyclists to use the road except the ones who cycle in the middle of the road so you can't get past than coming whizzing down the pavement, almost knocking people over which a lot do.

I like cycling in the middle of the road. If you want to get past you are more than welcome to overtake, just like you would for any other vehicle, I'm not going to stop you.