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

The car at the front in each lane should be required to pull off the road to allow others past. Successively of course, if the nexr one doesn’t go fast enough...

Innocent Bystander posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Beachcomber posted:

....... it is extremely common to come across a mile or two tailback of vehicles behind a lone cyclist peddling along at whatever speed they do........

In all my years of cycling and driving (including a few years spent in Southeast England), I have never seen what you describe. Not even close.

Nor have I, in various parts of UK, though from rptime to time isolated cases of up to a couple of dozen cars . However, I do know that a lot of Cornish roads are particularly narrow and twist and turn with poor forward visibility, so I can picture it happening there of all places.

Nor me, funnily enough. 

ChrisR_EPL posted:

I just remembered that Don can't deal with more than a couple of paragraphs at a time.

Don - cyclists pay their usage by buying stuff that they wouldn't otherwise buy, to go cycling. For us it's bikes, clothing, toys and cake at a cafe. Motorists usage costs are extracted from fuel duties. Driving causes damage in so many different ways, and cycling is exactly the opposite.

Sorry, but most people, pretty close to 100% buy clothing, lots of car toys to be had for the automotive enthusiast and motorists stop for cake at cafe as well, in fact they buy extra for family and friends since they have the extra capacity to carry it home. 

Cyclists should have no problem paying an annual usage fee for all the bike lanes that are maintained in cities and other places and for services provided for them to use the roadways. 

seakayaker posted:

ChrisR_EPL posted:

I just remembered that Don can't deal with more than a couple of paragraphs at a time.

Don - cyclists pay their usage by buying stuff that they wouldn't otherwise buy, to go cycling. For us it's bikes, clothing, toys and cake at a cafe. Motorists usage costs are extracted from fuel duties. Driving causes damage in so many different ways, and cycling is exactly the opposite.

Sorry, but most people, pretty close to 100% buy clothing, lots of car toys to be had for the automotive enthusiast and motorists stop for cake at cafe as well, in fact they buy extra for family and friends since they have the extra capacity to carry it home. 

Cyclists should have no problem paying an annual usage fee for all the bike lanes that are maintained in cities and other places and for services provided for them to use the roadways. 

I certainly don't have any problem paying for my share of transport infrastructure through my taxes. But lots of things are subsisdised. Transit riders don't pay the full cost of bus services. Health care is provided here in Canada without direct cost to the recipient for many services. Motorists don't explicitly pay the full cost of the health impacts on others that their driving causes. We don't pay the full cost for the environmental damage that the extraction and burning of fossil fuels in our cars causes. We don't pay a per-day fee for parking on the street in a lot of cases. We don't pay directly for the routine and violent carnage on the roads we cause. And cyclists don't explicitly pay for cycling infrastructure or road occupancy. But in our modern society, there is give and take. Policies are formed to both be efficient, and to encourage activities that benefit us all.

winkyincanada posted:

seakayaker posted:

ChrisR_EPL posted:

I just remembered that Don can't deal with more than a couple of paragraphs at a time.

Don - cyclists pay their usage by buying stuff that they wouldn't otherwise buy, to go cycling. For us it's bikes, clothing, toys and cake at a cafe. Motorists usage costs are extracted from fuel duties. Driving causes damage in so many different ways, and cycling is exactly the opposite.

Sorry, but most people, pretty close to 100% buy clothing, lots of car toys to be had for the automotive enthusiast and motorists stop for cake at cafe as well, in fact they buy extra for family and friends since they have the extra capacity to carry it home. 

Cyclists should have no problem paying an annual usage fee for all the bike lanes that are maintained in cities and other places and for services provided for them to use the roadways. 

I certainly don't have any problem paying for my share of transport infrastructure through my taxes. But lots of things are subsisdised. Transit riders don't pay the full cost of bus services. Health care is provided here in Canada without direct cost to the recipient for many services. Motorists don't explicitly pay the full cost of the health impacts on others that their driving causes. We don't pay the full cost for the environmental damage that the extraction and burning of fossil fuels in our cars causes. We don't pay a per-day fee for parking on the street in a lot of cases. We don't pay directly for the routine and violent carnage on the roads we cause. And cyclists don't explicitly pay for cycling infrastructure or road occupancy. But in our modern society, there is give and take. Policies are formed to both be efficient, and to encourage activities that benefit us all.

I think many of us would accept that your summary of taxation and funding contributions illustrates the current state of affairs, ie cyclists don’t explicitly pay for cycling infrastructure or road occupancy. Motorists are denied access to that infrastructure unless they first pay VED and (with the insignificant exception of a few ev cars) buy their fuel and in doing so, pay per mile for using that infrastructure.

Don Atkinson posted:

winkyincanada posted:

seakayaker posted:

ChrisR_EPL posted:

I just remembered that Don can't deal with more than a couple of paragraphs at a time.

Don - cyclists pay their usage by buying stuff that they wouldn't otherwise buy, to go cycling. For us it's bikes, clothing, toys and cake at a cafe. Motorists usage costs are extracted from fuel duties. Driving causes damage in so many different ways, and cycling is exactly the opposite.

Sorry, but most people, pretty close to 100% buy clothing, lots of car toys to be had for the automotive enthusiast and motorists stop for cake at cafe as well, in fact they buy extra for family and friends since they have the extra capacity to carry it home. 

Cyclists should have no problem paying an annual usage fee for all the bike lanes that are maintained in cities and other places and for services provided for them to use the roadways. 

I certainly don't have any problem paying for my share of transport infrastructure through my taxes. But lots of things are subsisdised. Transit riders don't pay the full cost of bus services. Health care is provided here in Canada without direct cost to the recipient for many services. Motorists don't explicitly pay the full cost of the health impacts on others that their driving causes. We don't pay the full cost for the environmental damage that the extraction and burning of fossil fuels in our cars causes. We don't pay a per-day fee for parking on the street in a lot of cases. We don't pay directly for the routine and violent carnage on the roads we cause. And cyclists don't explicitly pay for cycling infrastructure or road occupancy. But in our modern society, there is give and take. Policies are formed to both be efficient, and to encourage activities that benefit us all.

I think many of us would accept that your summary of taxation and funding contributions illustrates the current state of affairs, ie cyclists don’t explicitly pay for cycling infrastructure or road occupancy. Motorists are denied access to that infrastructure unless they first pay VED and (with the insignificant exception of a few ev cars) buy their fuel and in doing so, pay per mile for using that infrastructure.

It's not motorists who are denied access, it is their cars. All people enjoy free access to our transport corridors unless they choose a motorised vehicle as a way to travel along it. Then, rightfully, they are subject to significant regulation and cost-recovery, such is the dangerous and destructive nature of their choice. People may choose to avoid such impost by walking or cycling freely along the transport corridors that we, as a society have preserved for all to use. Of course, that choice comes with a risk that someone in a car runs them down.

Really do people still think they are directly paying to use the roads?  Nobody has paid a tax linked to road usage in the UK since 1937 when Road Tax was abolished, and a tax on vehicles introduced.  So that’s it really - 21 pages of <your words here> on an argument that doesn’t exist based on some backward notion that cyclists don’t pay for something nobody else pays for either!  Except of course as has been pointed out, that we all pay various forms of tax every day that is used to run the country including funding infrastructure.

VED is nothing to do with road use.  It is just another way to tax a purchase many can’t avoid.  It has of course evolved, probably each time the exchequer realised the last change was resulting in too little tax, e.g linked to CO2, then oops, CO2 and car value...

For the sake of transparency, I have 3 cars (2 of which have inflated VED costs, one becasue of emissions I’m afraid and another due to price) and two bikes - road and mountain.  That would mean by the way, that if VED was a road use tax, I’d have paid three times on the premise that if I only had one car I would have paid to use it on the roads every day of the year if I wanted. I would then be entitled to waste some of my investment in 3 years of road use per year paying VED and ride a bike for a change...

winkyincanada posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

winkyincanada posted:

seakayaker posted:

ChrisR_EPL posted:

I just remembered that Don can't deal with more than a couple of paragraphs at a time.

Don - cyclists pay their usage by buying stuff that they wouldn't otherwise buy, to go cycling. For us it's bikes, clothing, toys and cake at a cafe. Motorists usage costs are extracted from fuel duties. Driving causes damage in so many different ways, and cycling is exactly the opposite.

Sorry, but most people, pretty close to 100% buy clothing, lots of car toys to be had for the automotive enthusiast and motorists stop for cake at cafe as well, in fact they buy extra for family and friends since they have the extra capacity to carry it home. 

Cyclists should have no problem paying an annual usage fee for all the bike lanes that are maintained in cities and other places and for services provided for them to use the roadways. 

I certainly don't have any problem paying for my share of transport infrastructure through my taxes. But lots of things are subsisdised. Transit riders don't pay the full cost of bus services. Health care is provided here in Canada without direct cost to the recipient for many services. Motorists don't explicitly pay the full cost of the health impacts on others that their driving causes. We don't pay the full cost for the environmental damage that the extraction and burning of fossil fuels in our cars causes. We don't pay a per-day fee for parking on the street in a lot of cases. We don't pay directly for the routine and violent carnage on the roads we cause. And cyclists don't explicitly pay for cycling infrastructure or road occupancy. But in our modern society, there is give and take. Policies are formed to both be efficient, and to encourage activities that benefit us all.

I think many of us would accept that your summary of taxation and funding contributions illustrates the current state of affairs, ie cyclists don’t explicitly pay for cycling infrastructure or road occupancy. Motorists are denied access to that infrastructure unless they first pay VED and (with the insignificant exception of a few ev cars) buy their fuel and in doing so, pay per mile for using that infrastructure.

It's not motorists who are denied access, it is their cars. All people enjoy free access to our transport corridors unless they choose a motorised vehicle as a way to travel along it. Then, rightfully, they are subject to significant regulation and cost-recovery, such is the dangerous and destructive nature of their choice. People may choose to avoid such impost by walking or cycling freely along the transport corridors that we, as a society have preserved for all to use. Of course, that choice comes with a risk that someone in a car runs them down.

OMG, for the life of me, that fact had never crossed my mind..........................

.............talk about nit-picking !

winkyincanada posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

winkyincanada posted:

seakayaker posted:

ChrisR_EPL posted:

I just remembered that Don can't deal with more than a couple of paragraphs at a time.

Don - cyclists pay their usage by buying stuff that they wouldn't otherwise buy, to go cycling. For us it's bikes, clothing, toys and cake at a cafe. Motorists usage costs are extracted from fuel duties. Driving causes damage in so many different ways, and cycling is exactly the opposite.

Sorry, but most people, pretty close to 100% buy clothing, lots of car toys to be had for the automotive enthusiast and motorists stop for cake at cafe as well, in fact they buy extra for family and friends since they have the extra capacity to carry it home. 

Cyclists should have no problem paying an annual usage fee for all the bike lanes that are maintained in cities and other places and for services provided for them to use the roadways. 

I certainly don't have any problem paying for my share of transport infrastructure through my taxes. But lots of things are subsisdised. Transit riders don't pay the full cost of bus services. Health care is provided here in Canada without direct cost to the recipient for many services. Motorists don't explicitly pay the full cost of the health impacts on others that their driving causes. We don't pay the full cost for the environmental damage that the extraction and burning of fossil fuels in our cars causes. We don't pay a per-day fee for parking on the street in a lot of cases. We don't pay directly for the routine and violent carnage on the roads we cause. And cyclists don't explicitly pay for cycling infrastructure or road occupancy. But in our modern society, there is give and take. Policies are formed to both be efficient, and to encourage activities that benefit us all.

I think many of us would accept that your summary of taxation and funding contributions illustrates the current state of affairs, ie cyclists don’t explicitly pay for cycling infrastructure or road occupancy. Motorists are denied access to that infrastructure unless they first pay VED and (with the insignificant exception of a few ev cars) buy their fuel and in doing so, pay per mile for using that infrastructure.

It's not motorists who are denied access, it is their cars.All people enjoy free access to our transport corridors unless they choose a motorised vehicle as a way to travel along it. Then, rightfully, they are subject to significant regulation and cost-recovery, such is the dangerous and destructive nature of their choice. People may choose to avoid such impost by walking or cycling freely along the transport corridors that we, as a society have preserved for all to use. Of course, that choice comes with a risk that someone in a car runs them down.

Funny that ! When I explained this to the bus driver last week, he told me to" F**k Off"

Next week i'll explain it more clearly...."my aquaintance, winkincanada says....."......let me try to guess what he will say...!

Judge posted:

Really do people still think they are directly paying to use the roads?  Nobody has paid a tax linked to road usage in the UK since 1937 when Road Tax was abolished, and a tax on vehicles introduced.  So that’s it really - 21 pages of <your words here> on an argument that doesn’t exist based on some backward notion that cyclists don’t pay for something nobody else pays for either!  Except of course as has been pointed out, that we all pay various forms of tax every day that is used to run the country including funding infrastructure.

VED is nothing to do with road use.  It is just another way to tax a purchase many can’t avoid.  It has of course evolved, probably each time the exchequer realised the last change was resulting in too little tax, e.g linked to CO2, then oops, CO2 and car value...

For the sake of transparency, I have 3 cars (2 of which have inflated VED costs, one becasue of emissions I’m afraid and another due to price) and two bikes - road and mountain.  That would mean by the way, that if VED was a road use tax, I’d have paid three times on the premise that if I only had one car I would have paid to use it on the roads every day of the year if I wanted. I would then be entitled to waste some of my investment in 3 years of road use per year paying VED and ride a bike for a change...

The answer to that is simple: shift all car duty onto fuel, pricing it for private use at a sufficiently high rate that people feel bike is a so much more sensible means of transport, and with health benefits' too (especially with a lot fewer cars on the road.

It then wouldn't make any difference how many cars you have, as you can only drive one at a time. People who do need to drive on occasion would feel they're getting value for money as the roads would be so much clearer.

And with Brexit, no need to worry about the knock-on effect on the motor industry if fewer people buy cars because there's precious little produced in UK anymore anyway, and what is here will probably leave.

Judge posted:

Really do people still think they are directly paying to use the roads?  Nobody has paid a tax linked to road usage in the UK since 1937 when Road Tax was abolished, and a tax on vehicles introduced.  So that’s it really - 21 pages of <your words here> on an argument that doesn’t exist based on some backward notion that cyclists don’t pay for something nobody else pays for either!  Except of course as has been pointed out, that we all pay various forms of tax every day that is used to run the country including funding infrastructure.

VED is nothing to do with road use.  It is just another way to tax a purchase many can’t avoid.  It has of course evolved, probably each time the exchequer realised the last change was resulting in too little tax, e.g linked to CO2, then oops, CO2 and car value...

For the sake of transparency, I have 3 cars (2 of which have inflated VED costs, one becasue of emissions I’m afraid and another due to price) and two bikes - road and mountain.  That would mean by the way, that if VED was a road use tax, I’d have paid three times on the premise that if I only had one car I would have paid to use it on the roads every day of the year if I wanted. I would then be entitled to waste some of my investment in 3 years of road use per year paying VED and ride a bike for a change...

Try this......

1.rescind the VED on each of your cars

2. take each one of your cars onto the road system

3. draw attention of a policeman to the fact that you have your car on the highway

4. report back here what happend (*)

Cheers

Don

(*) I'm only guessing here, but I bet there is some kind of link between VED and the right to put your car on the road.

Now try the same exercise with your push bike, and again i'm guessing, but..............

QED

Don Atkinson posted:

winkyincanada posted:

It's not motorists who are denied access, it is their cars. All people enjoy free access to our transport corridors unless they choose a motorised vehicle as a way to travel along it. Then, rightfully, they are subject to significant regulation and cost-recovery, such is the dangerous and destructive nature of their choice. People may choose to avoid such impost by walking or cycling freely along the transport corridors that we, as a society have preserved for all to use. Of course, that choice comes with a risk that someone in a car runs them down.

Funny that ! When I explained this to the bus driver last week, he told me to" F**k Off"

Next week i'll explain it more clearly...."my aquaintance, winkincanada says....."......let me try to guess what he will say...!

You deliberately missed the bit where I said "motorised". (OK, the first sentence does not mention buses)

Don Atkinson posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

.

 

I think many of us would accept that your summary of taxation and funding contributions illustrates the current state of affairs, ie cyclists don’t explicitly pay for cycling infrastructure or road occupancy. Motorists are denied access to that infrastructure unless they first pay VED and (with the insignificant exception of a few ev cars) buy their fuel and in doing so, pay per mile for using that infrastructure.

It's not motorists who are denied access, it is their cars. All people enjoy free access to our transport corridors unless they choose a motorised vehicle as a way to travel along it. Then, rightfully, they are subject to significant regulation and cost-recovery, such is the dangerous and destructive nature of their choice. People may choose to avoid such impost by walking or cycling freely along the transport corridors that we, as a society have preserved for all to use. Of course, that choice comes with a risk that someone in a car runs them down.

OMG, for the life of me, that fact had never crossed my mind..........................

.............talk about nit-picking !

Not nit-picking at all. People can absolutely choose free access to the roads. I do so every day. The regulations and taxes levied on motoring are only becasue they are motorised vehicles, and really has nothing to do with the person in them. (Because of the propensity of motorised vehicles to do great harm to others, operators must also be licensed, of course.)

Don Atkinson posted:

Judge posted:

Really do people still think they are directly paying to use the roads?  Nobody has paid a tax linked to road usage in the UK since 1937 when Road Tax was abolished, and a tax on vehicles introduced.  So that’s it really - 21 pages of <your words here> on an argument that doesn’t exist based on some backward notion that cyclists don’t pay for something nobody else pays for either!  Except of course as has been pointed out, that we all pay various forms of tax every day that is used to run the country including funding infrastructure.

VED is nothing to do with road use.  It is just another way to tax a purchase many can’t avoid.  It has of course evolved, probably each time the exchequer realised the last change was resulting in too little tax, e.g linked to CO2, then oops, CO2 and car value...

For the sake of transparency, I have 3 cars (2 of which have inflated VED costs, one becasue of emissions I’m afraid and another due to price) and two bikes - road and mountain.  That would mean by the way, that if VED was a road use tax, I’d have paid three times on the premise that if I only had one car I would have paid to use it on the roads every day of the year if I wanted. I would then be entitled to waste some of my investment in 3 years of road use per year paying VED and ride a bike for a change...

Try this......

1.rescind the VED on each of your cars

2. take each one of your cars onto the road system

3. draw attention of a policeman to the fact that you have your car on the highway

4. report back here what happend (*)

Cheers

Don

(*) I'm only guessing here, but I bet there is some kind of link between VED and the right to put your car on the road.

Now try the same exercise with your push bike, and again i'm guessing, but..............

QED

QED doesn't actually add anything to your idiotic "logic". I am perhaps dumber for having read it.

Then there's this....

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-42651568

and this....

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-39641122

Innocent Bystander posted:

 

You may be right with some, though others actually are not comfortable holding up traffic and would move aside if they could, but having regard for the energy demand to which I alluded in my last post. And of course I recognise the reality of travel in rural areas particularly, or if you have a lot of stuff to carry (though in India and China bikes seem to be able to carry an awful lot, including the kitchen sink!). Beeching was the scourge of public transport.

As for jumping red lights, as a commuting cyclist I have nothing but distain for such people, not only causing a hazard to other road users, but giving the rest of us a bad name. Same goes for jumping the lights by using the pavement to bypass them! Or riding in dark clothing on a dull day and not using lights when it’s dark.

Certainly it is a minority of cyclists who behave badly.  It is an unfortunate feature of human nature that those are the ones that are noticed.

winkyincanada posted:

Beachcomber posted:

....... it is extremely common to come across a mile or two tailback of vehicles behind a lone cyclist peddling along at whatever speed they do........

In all my years of cycling and driving (including a few years spent in Southeast England), I have never seen what you describe. Not even close.

I'm glad for you.  Here it is a very common occurrence on the road into Exeter from Barnstaple direction.  

 

The answer to that is simple: shift all car duty onto fuel, pricing it for private use at a sufficiently high rate that people feel bike is a so much more sensible means of transport, and with health benefits' too (especially with a lot fewer cars on the road.

It then wouldn't make any difference how many cars you have, as you can only drive one at a time. People who do need to drive on occasion would feel they're getting value for money as the roads would be so much clearer.

And with Brexit, no need to worry about the knock-on effect on the motor industry if fewer people buy cars because there's precious little produced in UK anymore anyway, and what is here will probably leave.

That sounds reasonable in some situations - in cities and large towns.  For the rest of that it would make things extremely difficult.  There are large parts of the country where public transport is not particularly practicable.  At the moment I am commuting by train (a nasty, unpleasant experience), but I have to drive between home and station, which is about 10 miles each way.  In my previous job I drove, because it would have taken far too long to go by train.

Beachcomber posted:

 

The answer to that is simple: shift all car duty onto fuel, pricing it for private use at a sufficiently high rate that people feel bike is a so much more sensible means of transport, and with health benefits' too (especially with a lot fewer cars on the road.

It then wouldn't make any difference how many cars you have, as you can only drive one at a time. People who do need to drive on occasion would feel they're getting value for money as the roads would be so much clearer.

And with Brexit, no need to worry about the knock-on effect on the motor industry if fewer people buy cars because there's precious little produced in UK anymore anyway, and what is here will probably leave.

That sounds reasonable in some situations - in cities and large towns.  For the rest of that it would make things extremely difficult.  There are large parts of the country where public transport is not particularly practicable.  At the moment I am commuting by train (a nasty, unpleasant experience), but I have to drive between home and station, which is about 10 miles each way.  In my previous job I drove, because it would have taken far too long to go by train.

My post was deliberate in its extreme nature, to balance some others on here - however as mentioned in a previous post I do recognise the realities of rural living. What is needed, of course, is to find the right balance - and at the moment I believe it is not right, and more needs to be done to get far more people out of their cars, bikes being a particilarly good alternative in certain circumstances - abd the very last thing to do is discourage those that would cycle by taxing them, when already they are having to overcome inhibiting factors such as comfort, weather, frequent repair of punctures, the lack of a protective coccoon and journey time (though in some instances the latter may be no worse).

winkyincanada posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

Judge posted:

Really do people still think they are directly paying to use the roads?  Nobody has paid a tax linked to road usage in the UK since 1937 when Road Tax was abolished, and a tax on vehicles introduced.  So that’s it really - 21 pages of <your words here> on an argument that doesn’t exist based on some backward notion that cyclists don’t pay for something nobody else pays for either!  Except of course as has been pointed out, that we all pay various forms of tax every day that is used to run the country including funding infrastructure.

VED is nothing to do with road use.  It is just another way to tax a purchase many can’t avoid.  It has of course evolved, probably each time the exchequer realised the last change was resulting in too little tax, e.g linked to CO2, then oops, CO2 and car value...

For the sake of transparency, I have 3 cars (2 of which have inflated VED costs, one becasue of emissions I’m afraid and another due to price) and two bikes - road and mountain.  That would mean by the way, that if VED was a road use tax, I’d have paid three times on the premise that if I only had one car I would have paid to use it on the roads every day of the year if I wanted. I would then be entitled to waste some of my investment in 3 years of road use per year paying VED and ride a bike for a change...

Try this......

1.rescind the VED on each of your cars

2. take each one of your cars onto the road system

3. draw attention of a policeman to the fact that you have your car on the highway

4. report back here what happend (*)

Cheers

Don

(*) I'm only guessing here, but I bet there is some kind of link between VED and the right to put your car on the road.

Now try the same exercise with your push bike, and again i'm guessing, but..............

QED

QED doesn't actually add anything to your idiotic "logic". I am perhaps dumber for having read it.

Ah. You actually tried the exercise, ? And apart from concluding it was idiotic, what did the RCMP chap say .?

Beachcomber posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Beachcomber posted:

....... it is extremely common to come across a mile or two tailback of vehicles behind a lone cyclist peddling along at whatever speed they do........

In all my years of cycling and driving (including a few years spent in Southeast England), I have never seen what you describe. Not even close.

I'm glad for you.  Here it is a very common occurrence on the road into Exeter from Barnstaple direction.  

The A396 doesn't seem to resemble the road you're describing (except for an unbelievable number of cars using it). It's a pretty major A-road. The sort I would assiduously avoid on my bike, but it looks fairly straight and with lots of opportunity for overtaking. The A-roads coming into Exeter seem to be narrower, but they're still not country lanes in the way I imagined them in your post. There do seem to be a LOT of country lanes in the area, though and it looks very nice for cycling indeed (just not on the A-roads).