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

stuart.ashen posted:

I always say a cheerful "morning" or "afternoon". They just need to know I am passing without being startled. Works for me...

Stu

You're right. I've come around to the idea that a warning is good. I'm getting a couple of cheery sounding bells. That will do.

A couple?

one for passing left the other for passing right perhaps? One for pedestrians the other for cyclists?

I have a bell and an air horn...

ChrisR_EPL posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

I'm not insisting that you should be PLEASED to pay £8 a day etc, just that you SHOULD pay it because it's equitable.

No. Anyone who cycles to work should be given a tax rebate.

The arguments about why regular cycling is such a positive thing have been posted here numerous times. You've failed to discuss any of them, instead choosing to hide behind petulant responses like 'feel better now?', or dismissing a few paragraphs of reasoned discussion as a rant. You've completely failed to put forward any opposition to any points raised, because you know that in reality there is no argument against regular cycling.

The link I posted that covered the 43% reduction in cancers & other serious illnesses? You'd impose a punitive £2000 a year tax on cyclists and negate all of that benefit? Like I said Don, I thought at first you were a bit of an idiot; everything you've posted since has confirmed that and now you tell us that thanks to one jogger you'll refuse to help all joggers. What berk you are. A bit of an idiot, and belligerent with it.

Cycling to work reduces pollution and congestion (despite your ridiculous idea that cyclists cause congestion). It reduces wear & tear on the roads to zero. It has enormous measurable short and long term health benefits. It makes people who do cycle to work better employees. If there are to be changes to the tax system, cycling needs to be given an almighty push to make it an easier choice, with tax incentives to do it. Let's start with a refund of VED, and the mileage rate equivalent to business miles by car being refunded back through the tax system. That's be a good start. Not hitting people with a £2000 charge to even think about cycling to work.

Wow you are a little prejudiced on behalf of the cyclist, your not really a diplomat, not the type to build bridges over the divide...?

Innocent Bystander posted:

A couple?

one for passing left the other for passing right perhaps? One for pedestrians the other for cyclists?

I have a bell and an air horn...

One for each of the bikes I might ride to work. I'm not putting a bell on my bike for weekend riding, as I don't spend any significant time on shared-use trails for that type of riding.

Ah, multiple bikes never ocurred to me!

Romi posted:

ChrisR_EPL posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

I'm not insisting that you should be PLEASED to pay £8 a day etc, just that you SHOULD pay it because it's equitable.

No. Anyone who cycles to work should be given a tax rebate.

The arguments about why regular cycling is such a positive thing have been posted here numerous times. You've failed to discuss any of them, instead choosing to hide behind petulant responses like 'feel better now?', or dismissing a few paragraphs of reasoned discussion as a rant. You've completely failed to put forward any opposition to any points raised, because you know that in reality there is no argument against regular cycling.

The link I posted that covered the 43% reduction in cancers & other serious illnesses? You'd impose a punitive £2000 a year tax on cyclists and negate all of that benefit? Like I said Don, I thought at first you were a bit of an idiot; everything you've posted since has confirmed that and now you tell us that thanks to one jogger you'll refuse to help all joggers. What berk you are. A bit of an idiot, and belligerent with it.

Cycling to work reduces pollution and congestion (despite your ridiculous idea that cyclists cause congestion). It reduces wear & tear on the roads to zero. It has enormous measurable short and long term health benefits. It makes people who do cycle to work better employees. If there are to be changes to the tax system, cycling needs to be given an almighty push to make it an easier choice, with tax incentives to do it. Let's start with a refund of VED, and the mileage rate equivalent to business miles by car being refunded back through the tax system. That's be a good start. Not hitting people with a £2000 charge to even think about cycling to work.

Wow you are a little prejudiced on behalf of the cyclist, your not really a diplomat, not the type to build bridges over the divide...?

Don certainly comes across as a bit of a "belligerent idiot", but I'm convinced he's just trolling us.

Bananahead posted:

As a pedestrian I know that I am more important than cyclists and motorists.

As a cyclist I know that pedestrians are more important than me and that I am more important than motorists.

As a motorist I know that pedestrians and cyclists are more important than me.

A bit like the Frost Report?

Romi posted:

Wow you are a little prejudiced on behalf of the cyclist, your not really a diplomat, not the type to build bridges over the divide...?

Don has repeatedly claimed that cyclists should be required to pay a tax, essentially for being in the way of those who drive, and that we'd benefit as it would fund cycle facilities. I've posted responses that point out what a ridiculous idea that all is, esp when he suggests 20p per mile as a reasonable amount based on some idiotically childish maths that used an average of 10,000 cycle miles a year for a cyclist.  There was a commuting mileage contest a few years ago on a cycling web site that ran for about 3 years; one would assume some exaggeration but even then very few got much above 7-8000 per year, most were doing a lot less. Don based it all on numbers plucked out of the sky, to fund cycle lanes. I asked how that would work, say in my neck of the woods where I ride on country lanes and rarely see traffic let alone hold it up. Where would these lanes go? Who would benefit? Just how could it even begin to make any kind of sense? The answer obviously is that it doesn't even begin to make sense.

My replies simply point out what an idiotic thing it is to suggest any charge at all to cycle, let alone this made-up 20p a mile. My commute was a round trip of 42 miles; I enjoyed it and did it for the fun of it and to keep reasonably fit, not because I'm some demented eco-warrior desperate to save the planet. Paying £8.40 a day to ride to to work wouldn't happen and that logic would cascade across virtually all cyclists resulting in a massive drop in cycling in the UK, and most particularly the sort of cycling that really helps - cycle commuting, which replaces vehicle usage at peak times.

Don's argument are ridiculous, all I've done is point it out to him. Initially I thought he was just a not v good troll but he keeps coming back for another go, so I'll continue to show him up for the belligerent idiot that he sounds like. I'm not wasting time building bridges with him, his ideas are frankly stupid and have no chance of being implemented but I'm making sure that readers here see the reality of cycling and what how it's hugely beneficial. The media - esp at the moment with the fall-out from the moron who killed the woman in London - is even more anti-cycling than usual; I'm making sure that it's not a one-sided love-in where cycle haters like Don don't get a free unchallenged run at it. 

Based on the all the good cyclists do for themselves and the subsequent benefits to all, a tax rebate based around car usage seems like a perfectly sensible start point, infinitely more sensible than a 20p a mile charge and all that goes with it.

ChrisR_EPL posted:

Romi posted:

Wow you are a little prejudiced on behalf of the cyclist, your not really a diplomat, not the type to build bridges over the divide...?

Don has repeatedly claimed  suggested that cyclists should be required to pay a tax, essentially for being in the way of those who drive, and that we'd benefit as it would fund cycle facilities. I've posted responses that point out what a ridiculous idea that all is, esp when he suggests 20p per mile as a reasonable amount based on some idiotically childish maths that used an average of 10,000 cycle miles a year for a cyclist.  There was a commuting mileage contest a few years ago on a cycling web site that ran for about 3 years; one would assume some exaggeration but even then very few got much above 7-8000 per year, most were doing a lot less. Don based it all on numbers plucked out of the sky, to fund cycle lanes. I asked how that would work, say in my neck of the woods where I ride on country lanes and rarely see traffic let alone hold it up. Where would these lanes go? Who would benefit? Just how could it even begin to make any kind of sense? The answer obviously is that it doesn't even begin to make sense.

My replies simply point out what an idiotic thing it is to suggest any charge at all to cycle, let alone this made-up 20p a mile. My commute was a round trip of 42 miles; I enjoyed it and did it for the fun of it and to keep reasonably fit, not because I'm some demented eco-warrior desperate to save the planet. Paying £8.40 a day to ride to to work wouldn't happen and that logic would cascade across virtually all cyclists resulting in a massive drop in cycling in the UK, and most particularly the sort of cycling that really helps - cycle commuting, which replaces vehicle usage at peak times.

Don's argument are ridiculous, all I've done is point it out to him. Initially I thought he was just a not v good troll but he keeps cth him, his ideas are frankly stupid and have no chance of being implemented but I'm making sure thoming back for another go, so I'll continue to show him up for the belligerent idiot that he sounds like. I'm not wasting time building bridges wiat readers here see the reality of cycling and what how it's hugely beneficial. The media - esp at the moment with the fall-out from the moron who killed the woman in London - is even more anti-cycling than usual; I'm making sure that it's not a one-sided love-in where cycle haters like Don don't get a free unchallenged run at it. 

Based on the all the good cyclists do for themselves and the subsequent benefits to all, a tax rebate based around car usage seems like a perfectly sensible start point, infinitely more sensible than a 20p a mile charge and all that goes with it.

I suggested a flat tax as an alternative to my initial proposal of an "occupation-based" charge. I still consider a charge on cyclists for occupying highway space is both fair and workable. Whether it would ever be introduced is another matter. However, if motoring and/or the use of petrol/diesel declines, the government will need to introduce replacement taxation.

It is highly improbable that any UK Government will introduce a tax rebate for cyclists.

I have edited the post to suppress the unnecessary but continued vitriolic name-calling. In doing so, I am reminded of Soctrates' comment "when debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the looser". There are more recent comments along similar lines.

I really do wonder if this post should be put to bed now. Hurricanes, nutters with ballistic missiles and Brexit - surely bigger things than outmoded methods of transport to worry over?

I can see both sides of the debate.....personally I'm not a great fan of cyclists on the road, I followed two today, coming back from work, they were riding side by side on a busy road , which made overtaking somewhat tricky, and to overtake meant going on to the other side of the road and the oncoming traffic was considerable,  so I was stuck behind for a good couple of miles. 

I can understand some motorists can be a nightmare but equally so with cyclists.... 

Ravenswood10 posted:

I really do wonder if this post should be put to bed now. Hurricanes, nutters with ballistic missiles and Brexit - surely bigger things than outmoded methods of transport to worry over?

This post started as a result of attitudes of one group of people towards another group of people.

Nutters with ballistic missiles and Brexit are of a similar nature, but slightly more remote from our day-to-day activities. However, to be reasonably fair, you would have to (?) give me credit for also starting a "Brexit" thread over a year and a half ago ?

wenger2015 posted:

I can see both sides of the debate.....personally I'm not a great fan of cyclists on the road, I followed two today, coming back from work, they were riding side by side on a busy road , which made overtaking somewhat tricky, and to overtake meant going on to the other side of the road and the oncoming traffic was considerable,  so I was stuck behind for a good couple of miles. 

I can understand some motorists can be a nightmare but equally so with cyclists.... 

The difference being that cyclists aren't killing thousands of people a year.

All insignificant in the grand order of things! 

wenger2015 posted:

I can see both sides of the debate.....personally I'm not a great fan of cyclists on the road, I followed two today, coming back from work, they were riding side by side on a busy road , which made overtaking somewhat tricky, and to overtake meant going on to the other side of the road and the oncoming traffic was considerable,  so I was stuck behind for a good couple of miles. 

I can understand some motorists can be a nightmare but equally so with cyclists.... 

I personally, and speaking as a cyclist, don't think cyclists should ride side by sode when the road is busy - yes, one argument is that they have as much right to the road as anyone else, but the counter-argument is that everyone has a duty not  to cause an obstruction, and the latter to me over-rides on moral consideracy grounds, and also over-ride legally.

From a different angle, the cyclists caused a few minutes delay. What is thar in the overall scheme of things? Other than in unfortunate critical situations such as when a flight, or a birth, may be missed (when a question would be why cut it so fine?), what difference does it make to anything?

Innocent Bystander posted:

wenger2015 posted:

I can see both sides of the debate.....personally I'm not a great fan of cyclists on the road, I followed two today, coming back from work, they were riding side by side on a busy road , which made overtaking somewhat tricky, and to overtake meant going on to the other side of the road and the oncoming traffic was considerable,  so I was stuck behind for a good couple of miles. 

I can understand some motorists can be a nightmare but equally so with cyclists.... 

I personally, and speaking as a cyclist, don't think cyclists should ride side by sode when the road is busy - yes, one argument is that they have as much right to the road as anyone else, but the counter-argument is that everyone has a duty not  to cause an obstruction, and the latter to me over-rides on moral consideracy grounds, and also over-ride legally.

From a different angle, the cyclists caused a few minutes delay. What is thar in the overall scheme of things? Other than in unfortunate critical situations such as when a flight, or a birth, may be missed (when a question would be why cut it so fine?), what difference does it make to anything?

All true, in a general sense. Cyclists who dismount at traffic lights and become "pedestrians" to gain a few seconds are another source of amusement (or annoyance depending on your sense of humour).

A few weeks back, returning home via a level crossing on a couple of successive days, I was held up each day by the crossing gates which were closed. On the first day, being fairly close to the crossing, I noticed a cyclist "overtake" all the cars queued up on the far side of the crossing, by cycling along the adjacent footpath to place himself firmly and positively at the front of the queue. When the gates opened, he was first off, across the the railway and towards my side of the crossing, leading a queue of at least 60 cars. it's a narrow country road for the next 3 miles !!

The next day, I was about 50 cars back from the crossing gates and out of sight of the crossing. The first sign that indicates the crossing has opened, is when the opposing traffic reaches your point in your queue. Guess what ! Yep ! this self-same cyclist was again leading the queue of about 60 cars along the country road. Nobody could overtake him. Quite correctly he had taken up his position in the road and was calmly and confidently cycling at about 10mph along the first mile of road which is flat. The next two miles are up hill, again with no opportunity to overtake. I guess his speed would reduce to about 5 mph.

So, 1 mile at 10 mph, then 2 miles at 5 mph and a queue of at least 60 cars in tow, all of whom had been patiently waiting at the crossing for about 10 minutes before starting this section of their journey. Not one of them appeared to be flashing headlights, tooting their horn or showing any sign of frustration at all.

amazing - in the widest sense possible.

Ravenswood10 posted:

I really do wonder if this post should be put to bed now. Hurricanes, nutters with ballistic missiles and Brexit - surely bigger things than outmoded methods of transport to worry over?

Which mode of transport is outmoded though ... the car or the bicycle?

Don Atkinson posted:

I suggested a flat tax as an alternative to my initial proposal of an "occupation-based" charge. I still consider a charge on cyclists for occupying highway space is both fair and workable. Whether it would ever be introduced is another matter. However, if motoring and/or the use of petrol/diesel declines, the government will need to introduce replacement taxation.

It is highly improbable that any UK Government will introduce a tax rebate for cyclists.

I have edited the post to suppress the unnecessary but continued vitriolic name-calling. In doing so, I am reminded of Soctrates' comment "when debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the looser". There are more recent comments along similar lines.

When you grasp that taxing cycles doesn't work, you might realise why I keep telling you how ridiculous your idea is. Look around the world Don and count the countries that tax cycling and cyclists. What does that tell you? The reasons why it's so unworkable and so against every govt policy have been posted in this thread enough times, and are but a Google away should you be bothered to at least try to grasp those reasons. That you are unable to even offer any counter-argument - not even a sentence - says so much about you.

I agree that a tax rebate is unlikely, but it's certainly a much fairer way of using the tax system to encourage cycling instead of implementing punitive taxes that will only discourage it as a day-to-day activity.

Being referred to as an idiot is not vitriolic; if you think it is that shows us how thin skinned you are, but then you're the one who admitted earlier in this thread that you don't ride on the roads as you consider that it's too dangerous. It's not, but again it says a lot about your ability to understand things if you think it's dangerous to ride a bike on public roads. My 3-5000 annual miles never felt in the slightest bit dangerous. Maybe we cycle differently.

Looser refers to an item being not as tight as a comparable item. Loser is one who has lost something, e.g Don and his marbles. A mix of an inability to offer any kind of opposing argument as to why cycling should be encouraged, childish responses that consist only of 'good rant?' or the petty strike-through of posts, coupled with numerous examples of your semi-literate approach to the English language suggests that you haven't really got much idea of what you're talking about.

Don Atkinson posted:

 

It is highly improbable that any UK Government will introduce a tax rebate for cyclists.

Actually there already is one. The govt were keen enough to encourage cycling to introduce the Cycle To Work Scheme. If you're happy to buy a reasonable bike with a value up to £1000, the C2W scheme allows its purchase net of tax and NI.

This is "our" road. OK, it's just the road on which we live. But the cost of the development included the cost of the infrastructure.

From left to right in the photo :- footpath; short-term vehicle parking lane; cycle path; highway (towards me); highway (away from me); cycle path.

We didn't have any say in what was being provided. However, the cycle paths get very, very little use. In fact, the footpath gets more use. We obviously pay tax to run our vehicles on the highways. We don't pay tax to use the cycle paths.

This is not "our" road but we use it daily. I have never seen a pedestrian use it and only the occasional cyclist.

It looks to be a relatively safe environment for the cyclist. Notice that even here in Vernon, we find it necessary to remind cyclists to give way to pedestrians. Reminds me of my opening post !

This road takes us past our golf course (and the Vernon Naim dealer is located in the distance on the left !)

The highway used to have two lanes for traffic in the direction of the white car. Since our last visit, it has been reduced to one lane so as to accommodate the cycle lane/footpath. Note the "pedestrian" crossings on the cycle path. This effectively means that the white car (ie all vehicles) have to give way to cyclists and pedestrians when turning right eg to the liquor store beyond the bikes.

I think that this is the sort of arrangement that some cyclists in this thread are demanding be provided in the UK ie where the cyclist has a continuous right of way.

I personally don't think it is safe for cyclists to assume that all cars will give way, but at least the coroner will be clear as to who is at fault.

I like the idea of instructing the pedestrians/cyclists to keep to the right hand side of the path. In my experience most near misses between pedestrians and cyclist are caused by groups of pedestrians wandering willy nilly all over the path.

Don Atkinson posted:

This is "our" road. OK, it's just the road on which we live. But the cost of the development included the cost of the infrastructure.

From left to right in the photo :- footpath; short-term vehicle parking lane; cycle path; highway (towards me); highway (away from me); cycle path.

We didn't have any say in what was being provided. However, the cycle paths get very, very little use. In fact, the footpath gets more use. We obviously pay tax to run our vehicles on the highways. We don't pay tax to use the cycle paths.

And the problem with that is what, exactly?

The cycle paths are not exactly generous, though I guess adequate (3ft?) provided there are no drain covers etc. the parking space is generous - is parking free, or charged?

Don Atkinson posted:

This is not "our" road but we use it daily. I have never seen a pedestrian use it and only the occasional cyclist.

It looks to be a relatively safe environment for the cyclist. Notice that even here in Vernon, we find it necessary to remind cyclists to give way to pedestrians. Reminds me of my opening post !

I wonder what stupid idiot of a motorist designed that. (Only a motorist would stick pedestrians and cycllsts together - and there is room there for them to be separate (though in practice itbmay be so sparsely used that it isn't a problem shared...

On the basis that steam gives way to sail, the instruction for cyclists to give way to pedestrians does not seem unreasonable - but of course, the same rule should be applied to the road, cars yield to cyclists and pedestrians. Now there's a thought...