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

northpole posted:

Who knows, this government initiative could ultimately act as an incentive to bring forward electric lorries which would be a great thing for town and city centres.

I’m more than a little sceptical about one of the main reasons for it being to level the playing field and make Johnny Foreigner pay for using “our” roads.  Next thing they’ll have to turn up in UK with empty tanks and buy all fuel here - that would really help level the field...

as for bikes, well, really, please....!!

Peter

in so far as "Wear and Tear" of our roads go, for sure, bikes are almost insignificant. But as for capital cost, that is a different matter. And in the absence of dedicated cyclepaths (paid for by cyclists, I would suggest) then cyclists do occupy our roads and should pay their fair share for this occupation.

As for "johnny foreigner" lorry drivers not paying their fair share of maintenance, this IMHO is just the brexiteers having another stupid swipe at the EU as we leave. It will backfire (to use a pun !). UK lorries and cars contribute to the Revenue Stream a surplus (over building and maintaining our roads) of about £30bn each year. It's just a convenient tax-collection scheme. The access charge that was introduced c. three years ago on foreign lorries more or less covers their wear and tear of our roads. If we start taxing them pay more, the EU will retaliate, And quite rightly so !

Don Atkinson posted:

As for the associated health, environment and quality-of-life parameters, the data is too diverse to be meaningful.....

 

That's just wishful thinking on your part. You believe it because it makes you feel better about your car-centric lifestyle choices..

winkyincanada posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

As for the associated health, environment and quality-of-life parameters, the data is too diverse to be meaningful.....

 

That's just wishful thinking on your part. You believe it because it makes you feel better about your car-centric lifestyle choices..

The data is too diverse to be meaningful. Pressure groups use bits of information to try to justify their particular cause. Politicians likewise. It gets turned into little strap-lines and some people begin to believe it.

You have no idea at all what makes me, or virtually anybody else, feel better about anything, and likewise what lifestyle choices people make other than your own.

I think this is all a bit daft now. Actually it got daft a long way back in the thread. Complete nonsense. 

Drewy posted:

I think this is all a bit daft now. Actually it got daft a long way back in the thread. Complete nonsense. 

It's beyond nonsense, and all arguments have been repeated enough times for most people to grasp it, even those that don't agree with it. Imagine being so feeble of mind though still to believe that in our lifetimes a government could even begin to consider road pricing for cyclists, esp on a mileage rate. But it's Christmas, so let us all pause briefly to remember the simple, the feeble, the slow of comprehension and the desperate-to-be-right, in their endless struggle aginst reason and common sense. Happy Christmas Don. Even though you'll doubtless find a reason to disagree with that, coming as it does from a cycling enthusiast. 

I can't believe this is still running! I found that retiring from this thread about six months ago did wonders for my health - almost as much as cycling.

Cdb posted:

I can't believe this is still running! I found that retiring from this thread about six months ago did wonders for my health - almost as much as cycling.

It gets just enough bumps to keep it alive. Not so sure your health is benefiting from cycling, though. One thing I learned on this thread from Don is that the data are inconclusive on that aspect .

ChrisR_EPL posted:

Drewy posted:

I think this is all a bit daft now. Actually it got daft a long way back in the thread. Complete nonsense. 

It's beyond nonsense, and all arguments have been repeated enough times for most people to grasp it, even those that don't agree with it. Imagine being so feeble of mind though still to believe that in our lifetimes a government could even begin to consider road pricing for cyclists, esp on a mileage rate. But it's Christmas, so let us all pause briefly to remember the simple, the feeble, the slow of comprehension and the desperate-to-be-right, in their endless struggle aginst reason and common sense.Happy Christmas Don. Even though you'll doubtless find a reason to disagree with that, coming as it does from a cycling enthusiast. 

Happy Xmas Chris.

Cycling Infrastructure in London.

Just signed up for this lecture on 29th Jan at the ICE, Great George Street.

In this lecture, Brian Deegan, the co-author of the London Cycling Design Standards,  will examine the successes and failures of the £100 million London Cycle Network project and discuss the standard of the highway engineering schemes delivered.
 
By highlighting areas where changes could have been made to improve the delivery of the project, it is hoped that lessons can be learnt for the future. The design approaches of each of London’s 33 local authorities were cross-referenced against cycling growth and pedal cycle collisions. From the analysis, the project is shown to have had a positive impact on promoting cycling growth in central London but little identifiable impact on collisions.

If anything useful or interesting transpires I will report.

London has huge spatial constraints to try and add in dedicated cycle lanes.  Two mornings ago I came across a poor chap lying in one of the cycle lanes in a foetal position with a broken bike lying on the pavement beside him.  I dread to think what may have caused the accident - whether he simply hit a kerb or another cyclist I don't know.  The design of this route, whilst perhaps temporary, is downright dangerous.  There is a two way cycle route which goes up Blackfriars Road, across the bridge and on up towards Farringdon.  Before you get that far however, just before the new Goldman Sachs office building, the lane comes to an abrupt halt.  Not helped recently by Goldman's obtaining a bus lane closure where cyclists were previously able to enjoy relative security.  Heading out of town, with very little notice you find yourself conflicted with cars in a narrow lane - extremely dangerous for cyclists and frustrating for motorists.  Coming down from Farringdon you are encouraged to stop and cross the road (they have traffic lights dedicated to this) however, when the lights are green, there is a very dangerous arc manoeuvre you have to follow in crossing the road and accessing the cycle lane.  This I suspect is where the poor chap nearly met his maker.  Sincerely hope he recovers but this is a good example of terrible implementation by tfl.  Perhaps the end game will be more successful but the interim solutions are, in places, frightening.

Peter

northpole posted:

London has huge spatial constraints to try and add in dedicated cycle lanes.  Two mornings ago I came across a poor chap lying in one of the cycle lanes in a foetal position with a broken bike lying on the pavement beside him.  I dread to think what may have caused the accident - whether he simply hit a kerb or another cyclist I don't know.  The design of this route, whilst perhaps temporary, is downright dangerous.  There is a two way cycle route which goes up Blackfriars Road, across the bridge and on up towards Farringdon.  Before you get that far however, just before the new Goldman Sachs office building, the lane comes to an abrupt halt.  Not helped recently by Goldman's obtaining a bus lane closure where cyclists were previously able to enjoy relative security.  Heading out of town, with very little notice you find yourself conflicted with cars in a narrow lane - extremely dangerous for cyclists and frustrating for motorists.  Coming down from Farringdon you are encouraged to stop and cross the road (they have traffic lights dedicated to this) however, when the lights are green, there is a very dangerous arc manoeuvre you have to follow in crossing the road and accessing the cycle lane.  This I suspect is where the poor chap nearly met his maker.  Sincerely hope he recovers but this is a good example of terrible implementation by tfl.  Perhaps the end game will be more successful but the interim solutions are, in places, frightening.

Peter

Yep, poor cycling infrastructure can often be worse than none at all.

When I come across stupidly designed cycle lanes I often find it better to cycle on the road - whoever designed some of them should be forced to cycle them non stop for a month, night and day, in all weathers,then asked to comment on their suitability.

the cost of these lanes for the tax payer is high , they should be trialed out surely .   cyclist should also pay for in the form of road tax too

audio1946 posted:

the cost of these lanes for the tax payer is high , they should be trialed out surely .   cyclist should also pay for in the form of road tax too

And here we go again........

winkyincanada posted:

audio1946 posted:

the cost of these lanes for the tax payer is high , they should be trialed out surely .   cyclist should also pay for in the form of road tax too

And here we go again........

I had an interesting talk on Sunday with one of my students. She is KPMG's Head of Global Taxation, providing advice and insight to companies on how to meet their taxation obligations (no doubt with minimum transfer of funds in mind) but equally, governments on how to set up and maximise their revenue streams.

Looks like many governments are already considering how to maintain income streams despite falling revenue for diesel use and the future potential for (*) electric cars . Road occupation and time-of-day seemed to feature prominently. She was somewhat more vague about taxing cyclists but could see the benefit of running a trial, when I suggested Vancouver..............

(*) there's a pun in there somewhere !

audio1946 posted:

the cost of these lanes for the tax payer is high , they should be trialed out surely .   cyclist should also pay for in the form of road tax too

No, it’s easy: close city roads to cars, then no need to make cycle lanes, or at least plenty of space.

audio1946 posted:

the cost of these lanes for the tax payer is high , they should be trialed out surely .  cyclist should also pay for in the form of road tax too

well said that man !

But be prepared for a lot of flack from the die-hard cyclists on this forum !

Basically, they don't want to pay, and will come up with all manor of well-rehearsed excuses as to why they shouldn't.

audio1946 posted:

the cost of these lanes for the tax payer is high , they should be trialed out surely .   cyclist should also pay for in the form of road tax  too

Quote from I Pay Road Tax web-site:

ROAD TAX WAS ABOLISHED 75 YEARS AGO

Road tax doesn't exist. It's car tax, a tax on cars and other vehicles, not a tax on roads or a fee to use them. Motorists do not pay directly for the roads. Roads are paid for via general and local taxation. In 1926, Winston Churchill started the process to abolish road tax. It was finally culled in 1937. [Don't believe a 'single issue website campaign'? OK, check out BBC.co.uk's article on the subject then. ] The ironically-named iPayRoadTax.com helps spread this message on cycle jerseys. Car tax is based on amount of CO2 emitted so, if a fee had to be paid, cyclists - who are sometimes branded as 'tax-dodgers' - would pay the same as 'tax-dodgers' such as disabled drivers, police cars, the Royal family, and band A motorists, ie £0. Most cyclists are also car-owners, too, so pay VED. Many of those who believe road tax exists, want cyclists off the roads or, at least registered, but bicycle licensing is an expensive folly.

naim_nymph posted:

audio1946 posted:

the cost of these lanes for the tax payer is high , they should be trialed out surely .   cyclist should also pay for in the form of road tax  too

Technically correct, of course.

But we all know what is meant ! And Churchill wasn’t always correct, IMHO !

Lets just accept that fuel duty and VED = Road Tax generally.

Don’t live in UK but came over for Ride London 2 years ago. Closed roads, wonderful ride.  BUT had to cycle from hotel in Canary Wharf to register at Olympic stadium the day before and it was horrific ????. So-called cycle lanes were just the gutters of dual carriageways riddled with glass and debris and abutted by fast moving HGVs. Roundabouts were a gamble for life and limb.  I cannot imagine how people use these on a regular basis. 

R.K posted:

Don’t live in UK but came over for Ride London 2 years ago. Closed roads, wonderful ride.  BUT had to cycle from hotel in Canary Wharf to register at Olympic stadium the day before and it was horrific ????. So-called cycle lanes were just the gutters of dual carriageways riddled with glass and debris and abutted by fast moving HGVs. Roundabouts were a gamble for life and limb.  I cannot imagine how people use these on a regular basis. 

With trepidation.............  

audio1946 posted:

the cost of these lanes for the tax payer is high , they should be trialed out surely .   cyclist should also pay for in the form of road tax too

I'll pay a tax when the number of motorists killed and injured by cyclists and pedestrians each year equals the number of pedestrians and cyclists killed and injured by motorists. Or when the pollution I cause by cycling equals the pollution caused by driving the "average" car. Or when the road damage my bike causes equals the road damage that a car causes.

winkyincanada posted:

audio1946 posted:

the cost of these lanes for the tax payer is high , they should be trialed out surely .   cyclist should also pay for in the form of road tax too

I'll pay a tax when the number of motorists killed and injured by cyclists and pedestrians each year equals the number of pedestrians and cyclists killed and injured by motorists. Or when the pollution I cause by cycling equals the pollution caused by driving the "average" car. Or when the road damage my bike causes equals the road damage that a car causes.

In one word:  Never.

Erich posted:

winkyincanada posted:

audio1946 posted:

the cost of these lanes for the tax payer is high , they should be trialed out surely .   cyclist should also pay for in the form of road tax too

I'll pay a tax when the number of motorists killed and injured by cyclists and pedestrians each year equals the number of pedestrians and cyclists killed and injured by motorists. Or when the pollution I cause by cycling equals the pollution caused by driving the "average" car. Or when the road damage my bike causes equals the road damage that a car causes.

In one word:  Never.

Yep. That's my point. Motorists are taxed and charged to compensate for the enormous costs that our choice to drive imposes on the environment and on others. By contrast, my choice to cycle imposes very little cost on others, and once the reduction in health care costs are factored in, is  perhaps a net benefit.

winkyincanada posted:

audio1946 posted:

the cost of these lanes for the tax payer is high , they should be trialed out surely .   cyclist should also pay for in the form of road tax too

I'll pay a tax when the number of motorists killed and injured by cyclists and pedestrians each year equals the number of pedestrians and cyclists killed and injured by motorists. Or when the pollution I cause by cycling equals the pollution caused by driving the "average" car. Or when the road damage my bike causes equals the road damage that a car causes.

"taxation" should be based on measures such as "occupation" or "utilisation", not the irrelevant features above.