Cyclists !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Gazza posted:

Yes So called Don world is real, I walked out of my dentist last week to be narrowly missed by a cyclist hurtling town the hill on the pavement, I could have been seriously hurt. I used to travel to work at about 4:30, and the local postman used to jump the red light at the bottom of the hill, so they could use the momentum to travel the other side of the junction up an incline. Until one of them died!

I think the response to the original post seems to be cyclists are saints, he was obviously upset about his friend, show some compassion.

 

 

 

I don't think anyone here has claimed that all cyclists are saints - it's rather a challenge to Don who seems to condemn all cyclists on the basis of one or two individual experiences. On the most recent of Don's specific cases, most posters sympathised with Don's acquaintance and agreed the cyclist was at fault, while disagreeing with Don's generalisations about cyclists.

Anyhow your post actually confirms exactly what the police are saying about cyclists and motor vehicles. You were narrowly missed i.e. no-one was hurt, fortunately as the cyclist was an idiot. But the other cyclist in your story was killed by a motor vehicle, although you rather imply that he got his comeuppance as he probably ran through a red light.

Clive

He did run through a red light

Hmm.  I've managed to hit pedestrians head on in two separate incidents in London In the last few years.

Ladies, on their own, with no regard for what was going on around them walked straight out in front of me.

One of them was rather large and made for quite a cushioned impact.  The other lady was a middle aged oriental lady of very petite and slim build.  My crash helmet hit her square on in the chest and I and my bike landed on top of her.  Quite an awful experience resulting from her walking out when the pedestrian lights were red and the road traffic lights green.  Worst thing was she would not accept help or allow me or the other pedestrians to call for an ambulance.

Most unfortunate and regrettable but on both occasions he cyclist was not to blame.  In my world at least...

Peter

ChrisSU posted:

Where on Earth did this idea that cyclists don't pay tax come from?! In the UK, car tax is a notional sum, vaguely related whichever fuel is currently out of favour with the idiot government of the day. The vast majority of road building and maintenance is funded from general taxation, and any cyclist who works and pays his taxes has contributed.

Chris,

I don't think anybody on this thread has suggested that cyclists don't pay tax. Perhaps youngsters who are still at school etc don't,, but generally speaking, I freely acknowledge that many cyclist pay tax, just like all of us.

But they don't pay tax as a pre-requisit to use the roads. Motorists do, directly, in the form of VED and indirectly in the form of fuel duty. The combined VED and Fuel Duty brings in approx £40bn pa. The treasury spend on road is c. £9bn pa.

Don Atkinson posted:

ChrisSU posted:

Where on Earth did this idea that cyclists don't pay tax come from?! In the UK, car tax is a notional sum, vaguely related whichever fuel is currently out of favour with the idiot government of the day. The vast majority of road building and maintenance is funded from general taxation, and any cyclist who works and pays his taxes has contributed.

Chris,

I don't think anybody on this thread has suggested that cyclists don't pay tax. Perhaps youngsters who are still at school etc don't,, but generally speaking, I freely acknowledge that many cyclist pay tax, just like all of us.

But they don't pay tax as a pre-requisite to use the roads. Motorists do, directly, in the form of VED and indirectly in the form of fuel duty. The combined VED and Fuel Duty brings in approx £40bn pa. The treasury spend on road is c. £9bn pa.

I think Don's £9bn pa might even be on the high side (according to my google-fu, at least - I could only find just over half that). The £40bn seems about right.

The question(s) for me is whether the 1700 people killed each year by motorists, the 20,000 people seriously injured each year by motorists, the health costs and early deaths due of vehicle emissions in the cities, the the health costs from obese and otherwise sedentary motorists, the environmental costs of manufacturing vehicles that are in use for only 5% of their calendar "lives" and the greenhouse effects of vehicle emissions should be considered in the trade-off. Even with the tax and spending numbers Don quotes, are motorists paying enough for their habits?

Don's tax would certainly end cycling in the UK. The pertinent question is perhaps whether or not that's a good outcome.

winkyincanada posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

ChrisSU posted:

Where on Earth did this idea that cyclists don't pay tax come from?! In the UK, car tax is a notional sum, vaguely related whichever fuel is currently out of favour with the idiot government of the day. The vast majority of road building and maintenance is funded from general taxation, and any cyclist who works and pays his taxes has contributed.

Chris,

I don't think anybody on this thread has suggested that cyclists don't pay tax. Perhaps youngsters who are still at school etc don't,, but generally speaking, I freely acknowledge that many cyclist pay tax, just like all of us.

But they don't pay tax as a pre-requisite to use the roads. Motorists do, directly, in the form of VED and indirectly in the form of fuel duty. The combined VED and Fuel Duty brings in approx £40bn pa. The treasury spend on road is c. £9bn pa.

I think Don's £9bn pa might even be on the high side (according to my google-fu, at least - I could only find just over half that). The £40bn seems about right.

The question(s) for me is whether the 1700 people killed each year by motorists, the 20,000 people seriously injured each year by motorists, the health costs and early deaths due of vehicle emissions in the cities, the the health costs from obese and otherwise sedentary motorists, the environmental costs of manufacturing vehicles that are in use for only 5% of their calendar "lives" and the greenhouse effects of vehicle emissions should be considered in the trade-off. Even with the tax and spending numbers Don quotes, are motorists paying enough for their habits?

Don's tax would certainly end cycling in the UK. The pertinent question is perhaps whether or not that's a good outcome.

Glad to know you've handed your car keys in, winky. But, for the avoidance of doubt, please confirm.

Don Atkinson posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

ChrisSU posted:

Where on Earth did this idea that cyclists don't pay tax come from?! In the UK, car tax is a notional sum, vaguely related whichever fuel is currently out of favour with the idiot government of the day. The vast majority of road building and maintenance is funded from general taxation, and any cyclist who works and pays his taxes has contributed.

Chris,

I don't think anybody on this thread has suggested that cyclists don't pay tax. Perhaps youngsters who are still at school etc don't,, but generally speaking, I freely acknowledge that many cyclist pay tax, just like all of us.

But they don't pay tax as a pre-requisite to use the roads. Motorists do, directly, in the form of VED and indirectly in the form of fuel duty. The combined VED and Fuel Duty brings in approx £40bn pa. The treasury spend on road is c. £9bn pa.

I think Don's £9bn pa might even be on the high side (according to my google-fu, at least - I could only find just over half that). The £40bn seems about right.

The question(s) for me is whether the 1700 people killed each year by motorists, the 20,000 people seriously injured each year by motorists, the health costs and early deaths due of vehicle emissions in the cities, the the health costs from obese and otherwise sedentary motorists, the environmental costs of manufacturing vehicles that are in use for only 5% of their calendar "lives" and the greenhouse effects of vehicle emissions should be considered in the trade-off. Even with the tax and spending numbers Don quotes, are motorists paying enough for their habits?

Don's tax would certainly end cycling in the UK. The pertinent question is perhaps whether or not that's a good outcome.

Glad to know you've handed your car keys in, winky. But, for the avoidance of doubt, please confirm.

To a large degree yes. I choose to drive as little as is possible for all the reasons I have outlined above. I've been fortunate enough to be able to put myself in a position where this is possible. I contrast, it seems that you view the true costs of motoring (mostly imposed by you on others) as just a part of the deal. "I'm going to drive a lot. I don't care what it costs. I just want to do it. And curse any freeloading cyclists that get in my way".

Do you really want to tax "utility cycling" (cycling for transport, rather than purely for recreation) out of existence? For the avoidance of doubt, please confirm.

winkyincanada posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

ChrisSU posted:

Where on Earth did this idea that cyclists don't pay tax come from?! In the UK, car tax is a notional sum, vaguely related whichever fuel is currently out of favour with the idiot government of the day. The vast majority of road building and maintenance is funded from general taxation, and any cyclist who works and pays his taxes has contributed.

Chris,

I don't think anybody on this thread has suggested that cyclists don't pay tax. Perhaps youngsters who are still at school etc don't,, but generally speaking, I freely acknowledge that many cyclist pay tax, just like all of us.

But they don't pay tax as a pre-requisite to use the roads. Motorists do, directly, in the form of VED and indirectly in the form of fuel duty. The combined VED and Fuel Duty brings in approx £40bn pa. The treasury spend on road is c. £9bn pa.

I think Don's £9bn pa might even be on the high side (according to my google-fu, at least - I could only find just over half that). The £40bn seems about right.

The question(s) for me is whether the 1700 people killed each year by motorists, the 20,000 people seriously injured each year by motorists, the health costs and early deaths due of vehicle emissions in the cities, the the health costs from obese and otherwise sedentary motorists, the environmental costs of manufacturing vehicles that are in use for only 5% of their calendar "lives" and the greenhouse effects of vehicle emissions should be considered in the trade-off. Even with the tax and spending numbers Don quotes, are motorists paying enough for their habits?

Don's tax would certainly end cycling in the UK. The pertinent question is perhaps whether or not that's a good outcome.

Glad to know you've handed your car keys in, winky. But, for the avoidance of doubt, please confirm.

To a large degree yes. I choose to drive as little as is possible for all the reasons I have outlined above. I've been fortunate enough to be able to put myself in a position where this is possible. I contrast, it seems that you view the true costs of motoring (mostly imposed by you on others) as just a part of the deal. "I'm going to drive a lot. I don't care what it costs. I just want to do it. And curse any freeloading cyclists that get in my way".

Do you really want to tax "utility cycling" (cycling for transport, rather than purely for recreation) out of existence? For the avoidance of doubt, please confirm.

In other words....No.

We absolutely need cycling to play a significant part in the future of urban transport in Britain. IMO.

Clive B posted:

We absolutely need cycling to play a significant part in the future of urban transport in Britain. IMO.

Not everybody can cycle. But virtually everybody can use public transport, even many who need assistance.

I used Venice, a few posts back, to illustrate how easily this could function, without the need for cycles, in an urban environment.

As expected, the cycling community on the forum objected.

Don Atkinson posted:

 

To a large degree yes. I choose to drive as little as is possible for all the reasons I have outlined above. I've been fortunate enough to be able to put myself in a position where this is possible. I contrast, it seems that you view the true costs of motoring (mostly imposed by you on others) as just a part of the deal. "I'm going to drive a lot. I don't care what it costs. I just want to do it. And curse any freeloading cyclists that get in my way".

Do you really want to tax "utility cycling" (cycling for transport, rather than purely for recreation) out of existence? For the avoidance of doubt, please confirm.

In other words....No.

And the answer to my question is......yes?

Don Atkinson posted:

Clive B posted:

We absolutely need cycling to play a significant part in the future of urban transport in Britain. IMO.

Not everybody can cycle. But virtually everybody can use public transport, even many who need assistance.

I used Venice, a few posts back, to illustrate how easily this could function, without the need for cycles, in an urban environment.

As expected, the cycling community on the forum objected.

Venice is an awesome example to use. Nearly every city in the world is just like Venice, isn't it?

So because not 100% of the transport solution can be cycling, there should be no cycling at all? Right?

Come on Don, you're just trolling us......

winkyincanada posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

 

To a large degree yes. I choose to drive as little as is possible for all the reasons I have outlined above. I've been fortunate enough to be able to put myself in a position where this is possible. I contrast, it seems that you view the true costs of motoring (mostly imposed by you on others) as just a part of the deal. "I'm going to drive a lot. I don't care what it costs. I just want to do it. And curse any freeloading cyclists that get in my way".

Do you really want to tax "utility cycling" (cycling for transport, rather than purely for recreation) out of existence? For the avoidance of doubt, please confirm.

In other words....No.

And the answer to my question is......yes?

No.

After reading through this thread,  

I can certainly understand both points of view.

I live in a more rural location and we regularly have groups of cyclists on our more narrow roads, many dressed as if they are competing in the tour de france, riding side by side, possibly admiring each others lycra outfits....!!!!

I do often think they are dicing with death, as many holiday makers to the area, don't know the roads and generally drive to fast...

Should cyclists pay for using the roads? I'm 80...20 for a no, but that said maybe a safe cycling test would be useful, same for those of a certain age who use mobility scooters, I'm not deliberately comparing cyclists with old folk on scooters but it's a matter of keeping safe...

Motorists have a driving test, motorcyclists likewise, why not cyclists??? 

It's going to take a bit more time than I have at the moment to summarise my points of view about cycling and cyclists, but for the time being, I guess there are four separate issues that this thread has covered....

inconsiderate and dangerous behaviour of cyclists

source of revenue, if bikes start to replace cars

charging road users according to occupancy/utilisation

pedestrianisation/public transport v cycling

......for sure these issues are somewhat inter-twined, and for sure some of my proposals are more radical than the average cyclist finds comfortable. And for sure i also enjoy recreational cycling.

Don Atkinson posted:

Clive B posted:

We absolutely need cycling to play a significant part in the future of urban transport in Britain. IMO.

Not everybody can cycle. But virtually everybody can use public transport, even many who need assistance.

I used Venice, a few posts back, to illustrate how easily this could function, without the need for cycles, in an urban environment.

As expected, the cycling community on the forum objected.

I said A significant part, but not exclusively. It needs to form one part of the solution. 

wenger2015 posted:

After reading through this thread,  

 

Motorists have a driving test, motorcyclists likewise, why not cyclists??? 

Because the risk presented by cyclists is extremely small in comparison to that presented by motoring. The reduction in harm would be very small, but at considerable cost. It's not just the cost of the licensing program. Many people would give up cycling altogether (much to Don's delight) thus eliminating the substantial benefits that cycling brings.

Driving a car is the one thing that most of us do that poses a serious threat to the lives of our family, friends and others (including ourselves). Driving tests themselves are arguably inadequate to mitigate this risk, as is the lack of any requirement for periodic re-testing (which pilots are required to undertake).

wenger2015 posted:

After reading through this thread,  

I live in a more rural location and we regularly have groups of cyclists on our more narrow roads, many dressed as if they are competing in the tour de france, riding side by side, possibly admiring each others lycra outfits....!!!!

 

While certainly not a strict necessity, the lycra you describe is simply the most practical clothing for extensive cycling. The tight-fitting stretchy fabric doesn't flap in the breeze, is designed to be comfortable when sweating, prevents chafing and effectively holds the seat padding in place. The jerseys have handy pockets for carrying food, tubes, tools etc. Some cyclists also wear it in bright colours to enhance visibility to the dangerous road users they encounter. It's essentially part of the equipment used in the sport. Consider that while it's entirely possible to play a game of football, dressed in jeans and wearing sneakers, no-one who plays football at all "seriously" does so. It's the same thing. Why do ascribe vanity as the prime reason in the case of cyclists? 

winkyincanada posted:

wenger2015 posted:

After reading through this thread,  

 

Motorists have a driving test, motorcyclists likewise, why not cyclists??? 

Because the risk presented by cyclists is extremely small in comparison to that presented by motoring. The reduction in harm would be very small, but at considerable cost. It's not just the cost of the licensing program. Many people would give up cycling altogether (much to Don's delight) thus eliminating the substantial benefits that cycling brings.

Driving a car is the one thing that most of us do that poses a serious threat to the lives of our family, friends and others (including ourselves). Driving tests themselves are arguably inadequate to mitigate this risk, as is the lack of any requirement for periodic re-testing (which pilots are required to undertake).

Back in 69 I moved back from Canada on the back of a promise from my parents I could have a bike...I was only 7 at the time.

My parents on returning to England reneged on their promise, having decided the roads were far to dangerous....

Move on 40 years,  more cars on the roads and logic would suggest more idiots driving those cars..

That said possibly a few idiots also riding bikes.....

But considering bike riding can be a matter of life and death any measures to make cycling safer has to be a useful exercise... and worth consideration 

winkyincanada posted:

wenger2015 posted:

After reading through this thread,  

I live in a more rural location and we regularly have groups of cyclists on our more narrow roads, many dressed as if they are competing in the tour de france, riding side by side, possibly admiring each others lycra outfits....!!!!

 

While certainly not a strict necessity, the lycra you describe is simply the most practical clothing for extensive cycling. The tight-fitting stretchy fabric doesn't flap in the breeze, is designed to be comfortable when sweating, prevents chafing and effectively holds the seat padding in place. The jerseys have handy pockets for carrying food, tubes, tools etc. Some cyclists also wear it in bright colours to enhance visibility to the dangerous road users they encounter. It's essentially part of the equipment used in the sport. Consider that while it's entirely possible to play a game of football, dressed in jeans and wearing sneakers, no-one who plays football at all "seriously" does so. It's the same thing. Why do ascribe vanity as the prime reason in the case of cyclists? 

Certainly no offence intended in describing the outfits....more the fact that riding side by side on narrow roads is not a great idea, although as I understand it perfectly legal in this country anyway 

Wenger,

some people scare very easily. 

wenger2015 posted:

But considering bike riding can be a matter of life and death any measures to make cycling safer has to be a useful exercise... and worth consideration 

It's a question of risk and reward. Bike licensing is not cost-effective. Better things to spend money on. Those that despise cyclists on the roads propose licensing, along with taxes and idiotic fines (as in New South Wales) as a means to achieve their goal of far fewer cyclists. It has little, if anything to do with safety.

winkyincanada posted:

wenger2015 posted:

But considering bike riding can be a matter of life and death any measures to make cycling safer has to be a useful exercise... and worth consideration 

It's a question of risk and reward. Bike licensing is not cost-effective. Better things to spend money on. Those that despise cyclists on the roads propose licensing, along with taxes and idiotic fines (as in New South Wales) as a means to achieve their goal of far fewer cyclists. It has little, if anything to do with safety.

Are cyclists despised?

Can I ask how you come to that conclusion?

wenger2015 posted:

winkyincanada posted:

wenger2015 posted:

But considering bike riding can be a matter of life and death any measures to make cycling safer has to be a useful exercise... and worth consideration 

It's a question of risk and reward. Bike licensing is not cost-effective. Better things to spend money on. Those that despise cyclists on the roads propose licensing, along with taxes and idiotic fines (as in New South Wales) as a means to achieve their goal of far fewer cyclists. It has little, if anything to do with safety.

Are cyclists despised?

Can I ask how you come to that conclusion?

A combination of personal experience of frequent abuse from motorists on the roads (Australia is the worst country I've ever experienced for this), and the combination of victim blaming and white-hot hatred that spews onto the comments sections of cycling-related stories in the media. And Don.