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

Cdb posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

I haven't seen much evidence of anything other than "my logic" in this thread, or many other threads in the Padded Cell.

Same applies to debates in the Commons and PM's Question-time and elsewhere in politics

Anyway, my proposals regarding cyclists paying for access to our road system is designed to counter the growing trend whereby many cyclists seem to think the panacea for all our ills is to eliminate cars and convert to bikes or buses.

Don

You claim that you have a monopoly on logic I have never made claim to a monopoly on logic but you haven't engaged seriously with many of the counter arguments on this thread. My only suggestion has been that cyclists pay to use the road system In any case you seem to have switched from your not unreasonable question about inconsiderate cycling on paths shared with walkers to an assertion that cyclists hold up traffic I haven't switched from one to the other, I have raised both issues without any great evidence this is a significant problem on the roads as with most posters on this forum, my evidence in based on my personal experience. There has been counter evidence about the latter claim I haven't noticed it (*), just claims that cycling, rather than cars, cause less congestion - which isn't the same thing. We are talking about the current situation where cars are the predominant users of the roads, and cyclists are not . (*) winky has made his usual remark that motorists are only delayed for a few seconds by each cyclists. This is not my experience. I made some comments on your proposed solution to the supposed problem of cyclists holding up other vehicles, but you simply ignored these,  and I think that are practical and therefore logical queries. Here they are again, below.

Clive

I'm sorry, Don, but all this just reads like a scheme to drive cyclists off the roads altogether in order supposedly to free up space for cars. Whatever is the case against dodgy cyclists who jump red lights, harass pedestrians, and so on, I don't think there is any evidence that it is the number of cyclists on the road who cause congestion I never said this was the case, motorists are the primary cause of road congestion, but they pay for the roads - cyclists cause a disproportionate amount of delay and congestion and don't pay for access. of course the amount of congestion caused by cyclists is currently small, but as an example,  a queue of 20 or so cars following a single cyclist at <10 mph for a mile along Hambridge Lane at 07:20 = congestion/delay which is what I talking about. Where I live in Milton Keynes there is congestion at peak driving times - the rush hour and school runs - and there are very few cyclists on the main roads as they mostly use the separate paths.  So the limit of the resource is primarily about motorised vehicle use not cyclists. Yes, but motorists pay to use this resource and accept its limitations - a bit like trains which are overcrowded during the peak but half empty off-peak.

You suggest two options. 1 - to charge cyclists to use the roads. How much do you think such a charge should be, it's up to the Gov to set, it's just a tax, nothing more, nothing less, just like the tax you pay to put a car on the road. My idea would be to set a charge that reflects occupancy of the road - perhaps £2,000 per year per cycle at present bearing in mind that cyclists are banned from all motorways? How much would the charge need to be, to cover setting up a whole bureaucratic structure to register and collect the charges? probably about £200 per cycle, much the same as for cars, but i'm sure the accountants could work it out ! Of course once cyclists were charged for using the roads, they would have greatly raised expectations about the quality of the provision for cyclists and their rights in relation to all other users true, and we would have the funds available to provide this excellent infrastructure, as I pointed out before . And why should I have to pay for a car and a bike when I can only occupy the road with one of them at a time? same reason as I pay for all my cars, even though I can only drive one at a time - it's a tax !! Apart from these practical considerations, charging cyclists to use the roads would be to undermine the health benefits of cycling I pay for the gym, I pay for my hiking boots, I pay for etc etc.....alternatively, lobby your MP or form a party to persaude society to provide funding through a more widespread tax - I did already suggest this BTW while also punishing children and less well off citizens who use cycling as a cheap means of getting to work (a necessity in many areas with inadequate bus services).

Option 2. To get Parliament to pay for a completely separate cycle infrastructure. First I cannot see any political party being willing to pick this up given the current shortage of funds for basic services, like the NHS. And the cyclists' lobby is unlikely to have the weight to persuade them otherwise. At the moment the lobby is unable to get much done to help cyclists. If there is no will, I don't see a solution, we just live with the current chaos, I was only making a suggestion - nothing wrong with that ! But how practical would this be anyhow? depends on how many people want to pay to ride bikes, given the enthusiasm for cycling on this forum I should have thought the cost per head would make it eminently practical You mention Sustrans, but the routes they develop are either primarily on existing roads or off-road, although there are some adaptations such as ex-railway lines, or canal towpaths. But these routes are often leisure routes yep, I know, but why stand still, why not get Sustrans to expand their venture - it was only a suggestion !! and not much use for commuting - in towns there's not really any room for a separate infrastructure and where it is developed it's likely to reduce road space for motorised vehicles. It can be done in new developments - and I mentioned Milton Keynes earlier. But here the alternative is a combined cycle/pedestrian network which creates different problems.

Thanks, for your response, Don. I think I misunderstood what you meant by 'my logic' so I apologise for claiming you thought you had a monopoly on logic.  I'm not engaging any further as I don't expect we can come to an agreement, but at least there's a debate here for people to see the different views.

BW
Clive

Don Atkinson posted:

Cdb posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

I haven't seen much evidence of anything other than "my logic" in this thread, or many other threads in the Padded Cell.

Same applies to debates in the Commons and PM's Question-time and elsewhere in politics

Anyway, my proposals regarding cyclists paying for access to our road system is designed to counter the growing trend whereby many cyclists seem to think the panacea for all our ills is to eliminate cars and convert to bikes or buses.

Don

You claim that you have a monopoly on logic I have never made claim to a monopoly on logic but you haven't engaged seriously with many of the counter arguments on this thread. My only suggestion has been that cyclists pay to use the road system In any case you seem to have switched from your not unreasonable question about inconsiderate cycling on paths shared with walkers to an assertion that cyclists hold up traffic I haven't switched from one to the other, I have raised both issues without any great evidence this is a significant problem on the roads as with most posters on this forum, my evidence in based on my personal experience. There has been counter evidence about the latter claim I haven't noticed it (*), just claims that cycling, rather than cars, cause less congestion - which isn't the same thing. We are talking about the current situation where cars are the predominant users of the roads, and cyclists are not . (*) winky has made his usual remark that motorists are only delayed for a few seconds by each cyclists. This is not my experience. I made some comments on your proposed solution to the supposed problem of cyclists holding up other vehicles, but you simply ignored these,  and I think that are practical and therefore logical queries. Here they are again, below.

Clive

I'm sorry, Don, but all this just reads like a scheme to drive cyclists off the roads altogether in order supposedly to free up space for cars. Whatever is the case against dodgy cyclists who jump red lights, harass pedestrians, and so on, I don't think there is any evidence that it is the number of cyclists on the road who cause congestion I never said this was the case, motorists are the primary cause of road congestion, but they pay for the roads - cyclists cause a disproportionate amount of delay and congestion and don't pay for access. of course the amount of congestion caused by cyclists is currently small, but as an example,  a queue of 20 or so cars following a single cyclist at <10 mph for a mile along Hambridge Lane at 07:20 = congestion/delay which is what I talking about. Where I live in Milton Keynes there is congestion at peak driving times - the rush hour and school runs - and there are very few cyclists on the main roads as they mostly use the separate paths.  So the limit of the resource is primarily about motorised vehicle use not cyclists. Yes, but motorists pay to use this resource and accept its limitations - a bit like trains which are overcrowded during the peak but half empty off-peak.

You suggest two options. 1 - to charge cyclists to use the roads. How much do you think such a charge should be, it's up to the Gov to set, it's just a tax, nothing more, nothing less, just like the tax you pay to put a car on the road. My idea would be to set a charge that reflects occupancy of the road - perhaps £2,000 per year per cycle at present bearing in mind that cyclists are banned from all motorways? How much would the charge need to be, to cover setting up a whole bureaucratic structure to register and collect the charges? probably about £200 per cycle, much the same as for cars, but i'm sure the accountants could work it out ! Of course once cyclists were charged for using the roads, they would have greatly raised expectations about the quality of the provision for cyclists and their rights in relation to all other users true, and we would have the funds available to provide this excellent infrastructure, as I pointed out before . And why should I have to pay for a car and a bike when I can only occupy the road with one of them at a time? same reason as I pay for all my cars, even though I can only drive one at a time - it's a tax !! Apart from these practical considerations, charging cyclists to use the roads would be to undermine the health benefits of cycling I pay for the gym, I pay for my hiking boots, I pay for etc etc.....alternatively, lobby your MP or form a party to persaude society to provide funding through a more widespread tax - I did already suggest this BTW while also punishing children and less well off citizens who use cycling as a cheap means of getting to work (a necessity in many areas with inadequate bus services).

Option 2. To get Parliament to pay for a completely separate cycle infrastructure. First I cannot see any political party being willing to pick this up given the current shortage of funds for basic services, like the NHS. And the cyclists' lobby is unlikely to have the weight to persuade them otherwise. At the moment the lobby is unable to get much done to help cyclists. If there is no will, I don't see a solution, we just live with the current chaos, I was only making a suggestion - nothing wrong with that ! But how practical would this be anyhow? depends on how many people want to pay to ride bikes, given the enthusiasm for cycling on this forum I should have thought the cost per head would make it eminently practical You mention Sustrans, but the routes they develop are either primarily on existing roads or off-road, although there are some adaptations such as ex-railway lines, or canal towpaths. But these routes are often leisure routes yep, I know, but why stand still, why not get Sustrans to expand their venture - it was only a suggestion !! and not much use for commuting - in towns there's not really any room for a separate infrastructure and where it is developed it's likely to reduce road space for motorised vehicles. It can be done in new developments - and I mentioned Milton Keynes earlier. But here the alternative is a combined cycle/pedestrian network which creates different problems.

 

"My idea would be to set a charge that reflects occupancy of the road - perhaps £2,000 per year per cycle at present"

And there it is. You just don't like cyclists. They annoy you. For some unexplained reason, you attribute imagined and unacceptable amounts of your own personal inconvenience to them. You think they're free-loading. You want them taxed off the roads. You just don't think it's FAIR. I think you might even be jealous, or perhaps just feel foolish, sitting in your steel box in traffic while cyclists glide by. Maybe you subconsciously long for youth and level of physical interaction with the world, now long gone. I just don't know. But your hatred is irrational, that's for sure.

But....cyclists certainly won't be causing any more congestion if your ludicrous suggestion were to see the light of day as there would be no cyclists (but you know that). But all of them in their cars would. I wonder by how much taxes would have to be raised to pay for the poorer health of all those ex-cyclists no longer getting exercise in their daily routines and by the increased health and environmental impacts caused by all those ex-cyclists driving everywhere.  

Bicycles aren't the whole solution, but they're part of a better outcome in terms of transport strategy. Everybody who chooses to cycle instead of taking the car benefits everybody. As to your annoyance? My advice.....get over it.

winkyincanada posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

Cdb posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

I haven't seen much evidence of anything other than "my logic" in this thread, or many other threads in the Padded Cell.

Same applies to debates in the Commons and PM's Question-time and elsewhere in politics

Anyway, my proposals regarding cyclists paying for access to our road system is designed to counter the growing trend whereby many cyclists seem to think the panacea for all our ills is to eliminate cars and convert to bikes or buses.

Don

You claim that you have a monopoly on logic I have never made claim to a monopoly on logic but you haven't engaged seriously with many of the counter arguments on this thread. My only suggestion has been that cyclists pay to use the road system In any case you seem to have switched from your not unreasonable question about inconsiderate cycling on paths shared with walkers to an assertion that cyclists hold up traffic I haven't switched from one to the other, I have raised both issues without any great evidence this is a significant problem on the roads as with most posters on this forum, my evidence in based on my personal experience. There has been counter evidence about the latter claim I haven't noticed it (*), just claims that cycling, rather than cars, cause less congestion - which isn't the same thing. We are talking about the current situation where cars are the predominant users of the roads, and cyclists are not . (*) winky has made his usual remark that motorists are only delayed for a few seconds by each cyclists. This is not my experience. I made some comments on your proposed solution to the supposed problem of cyclists holding up other vehicles, but you simply ignored these,  and I think that are practical and therefore logical queries. Here they are again, below.

Clive

I'm sorry, Don, but all this just reads like a scheme to drive cyclists off the roads altogether in order supposedly to free up space for cars. Whatever is the case against dodgy cyclists who jump red lights, harass pedestrians, and so on, I don't think there is any evidence that it is the number of cyclists on the road who cause congestion I never said this was the case, motorists are the primary cause of road congestion, but they pay for the roads - cyclists cause a disproportionate amount of delay and congestion and don't pay for access. of course the amount of congestion caused by cyclists is currently small, but as an example,  a queue of 20 or so cars following a single cyclist at <10 mph for a mile along Hambridge Lane at 07:20 = congestion/delay which is what I talking about. Where I live in Milton Keynes there is congestion at peak driving times - the rush hour and school runs - and there are very few cyclists on the main roads as they mostly use the separate paths.  So the limit of the resource is primarily about motorised vehicle use not cyclists. Yes, but motorists pay to use this resource and accept its limitations - a bit like trains which are overcrowded during the peak but half empty off-peak.

You suggest two options. 1 - to charge cyclists to use the roads. How much do you think such a charge should be, it's up to the Gov to set, it's just a tax, nothing more, nothing less, just like the tax you pay to put a car on the road. My idea would be to set a charge that reflects occupancy of the road - perhaps £2,000 per year per cycle at present bearing in mind that cyclists are banned from all motorways? How much would the charge need to be, to cover setting up a whole bureaucratic structure to register and collect the charges? probably about £200 per cycle, much the same as for cars, but i'm sure the accountants could work it out ! Of course once cyclists were charged for using the roads, they would have greatly raised expectations about the quality of the provision for cyclists and their rights in relation to all other users true, and we would have the funds available to provide this excellent infrastructure, as I pointed out before . And why should I have to pay for a car and a bike when I can only occupy the road with one of them at a time? same reason as I pay for all my cars, even though I can only drive one at a time - it's a tax !! Apart from these practical considerations, charging cyclists to use the roads would be to undermine the health benefits of cycling I pay for the gym, I pay for my hiking boots, I pay for etc etc.....alternatively, lobby your MP or form a party to persaude society to provide funding through a more widespread tax - I did already suggest this BTW while also punishing children and less well off citizens who use cycling as a cheap means of getting to work (a necessity in many areas with inadequate bus services).

Option 2. To get Parliament to pay for a completely separate cycle infrastructure. First I cannot see any political party being willing to pick this up given the current shortage of funds for basic services, like the NHS. And the cyclists' lobby is unlikely to have the weight to persuade them otherwise. At the moment the lobby is unable to get much done to help cyclists. If there is no will, I don't see a solution, we just live with the current chaos, I was only making a suggestion - nothing wrong with that ! But how practical would this be anyhow? depends on how many people want to pay to ride bikes, given the enthusiasm for cycling on this forum I should have thought the cost per head would make it eminently practical You mention Sustrans, but the routes they develop are either primarily on existing roads or off-road, although there are some adaptations such as ex-railway lines, or canal towpaths. But these routes are often leisure routes yep, I know, but why stand still, why not get Sustrans to expand their venture - it was only a suggestion !! and not much use for commuting - in towns there's not really any room for a separate infrastructure and where it is developed it's likely to reduce road space for motorised vehicles. It can be done in new developments - and I mentioned Milton Keynes earlier. But here the alternative is a combined cycle/pedestrian network which creates different problems.

 

"My idea would be to set a charge that reflects occupancy of the road - perhaps £2,000 per year per cycle at present"

And there it is. You just don't like cyclists. They annoy you. For some unexplained reason, you attribute imagined and unacceptable amounts of your own personal inconvenience to them. You think they're free-loading. You want them taxed off the roads. You just don't think it's FAIR. I think you might even be jealous, or perhaps just feel foolish, sitting in your steel box in traffic while cyclists glide by. Maybe you subconsciously long for youth and level of physical interaction with the world, now long gone. I just don't know. But your hatred is irrational, that's for sure.

But....cyclists certainly won't be causing any more congestion if your ludicrous suggestion were to see the light of day as there would be no cyclists (but you know that). But all of them in their cars would. I wonder by how much taxes would have to be raised to pay for the poorer health of all those ex-cyclists no longer getting exercise in their daily routines and by the increased health and environmental impacts caused by all those ex-cyclists driving everywhere.  

Bicycles aren't the whole solution, but they're part of a better outcome in terms of transport strategy. Everybody who chooses to cycle instead of taking the car benefits everybody. As to your annoyance? My advice.....get over it.

The use of bicycles instead of cars has many benefits in relation to environment, congestion and health.  However cyclists using certain roads can be a hazard, to the other users of the road, any pedestrians around the vicinity and last but not least to themselves.  I refer specifically to country windy roads (in UK).  I used to ride a motorbike and I have experience as to how vulnerable I was on two wheels with my body open to the elements.  Now as a driver in a car, it beggars belief how so many cyclists take to riding  country roads without a further thought to their position and awareness of their situation.  One of my accepted rules to good driving is always have the imagination of a possible bad scenario in any given situation.  In other words drive cautiously and have the belief that all other drivers on the road have the capacity to reckless or stupid driving, so if the other driver does something dangerous I am prepared for that situation.  The cyclists I have encountered seem to take the opposite view, they cycle in a manner that they trust the drivers of the car to do the 'right' thing, its really extraordinary gamble they are prepared to risk with their own lives..!  When a country road is bendy the action of over taking cyclists becomes a tricky situation and when you have trucks and lorries bombing down the opposite way (on narrow English roads) especially on a bend, quite a few of these larger of these vehicles will come across slightly on the cyclists' side of the road because of their wider width.  Of course there will be someone reading the above and say the driver should simply slow down and wait for a safe time to over take and vast majority of drivers do (thankfully..!).  But the above I hope shows how dangerous country roads can be if not prepared.  Another angst is cyclists who cycle with headphones on (mostly in cities such as London), I think they are their own worst enemies who entice their own deaths.       

winkyincanada posted:

"My idea would be to set a charge that reflects occupancy of the road - perhaps £2,000 per year per cycle at present"

And there it is. You just don't like cyclists. They annoy you. For some unexplained reason, you attribute imagined and unacceptable amounts of your own personal inconvenience to them. You think they're free-loading. You want them taxed off the roads. You just don't think it's FAIR. I think you might even be jealous, or perhaps just feel foolish, sitting in your steel box in traffic while cyclists glide by. Maybe you subconsciously long for youth and level of physical interaction with the world, now long gone. I just don't know. But your hatred is irrational, that's for sure.

But....cyclists certainly won't be causing any more congestion if your ludicrous suggestion were to see the light of day as there would be no cyclists (but you know that). But all of them in their cars would. I wonder by how much taxes would have to be raised to pay for the poorer health of all those ex-cyclists no longer getting exercise in their daily routines and by the increased health and environmental impacts caused by all those ex-cyclists driving everywhere.  

Bicycles aren't the whole solution, but they're part of a better outcome in terms of transport strategy. Everybody who chooses to cycle instead of taking the car benefits everybody. As to your annoyance? My advice.....get over it.

I couldn't put it better myself, other than that I would add that this relates to cycling in general and on roads in particular, and has nothing to do with the question of rude, inconsiderate or dangerous cyslists, who should behave better (ditto rude, inconsiderate or dangerous pedestrians, drivers, 'mobility scooters', wheelchair users, roller bladers/skaters, skateboard riders, horse riders, animal herders, etc)

winkyincanada posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

 

"My idea would be to set a charge that reflects occupancy of the road - perhaps £2,000 per year per cycle at present"

And there it is. You just don't like cyclists. Not true. How you come to this outrageous conclusion simply beggars belief !They annoy you. No, they don't. For some unexplained reason, you attribute imagined and unacceptable amounts of your own personal inconvenience to them. I don't feel inconvenienced by the majority of cyclists You think they're free-loading We are !! - i'm a cyclist as well, remember ?. You want them taxed off the roads. Rubbish ! but I do consider cyclists who want to use the roads should pay, and what better way to tax them than based on occupancy ? You just don't think it's FAIR I consider it very fair and reasonable that ALL users of the road system should pay on a similar basis ie occupancy. I think you might even be jealous please rest assured that I am not , or perhaps just feel foolish, sitting in your steel box in traffic while cyclists glide by Nope !. Maybe you subconsciously long for youth and level of physical interaction with the world, now long gone nope ! we both still enjoy country walks, cycling, backpacking in the Canadian Rockies and canoeing along the Bow river, even cycling between Canmore and Banff along that nice new cycle way that was completed a few years back !!!! . I just don't know. But your hatred there is absolutely no hatred whatsoever and I would respectfully request that you withdraw that unpleasant accusation ! is irrational, since there is none, it can't be irrational that's for sure.

But....cyclists certainly won't be causing any more congestion if your ludicrous (I appreciate that is your personal point of view, probably because it would hurt your pocket, but not for any other reason) suggestion were to see the light of day as there would be no cyclists (but you know that no, none of us know that, the suggestion of £2,000 pa was based on my perception of relative occupancy no more, no less !). But all of them in their cars would. I wonder by how much taxes would have to be raised to pay for the poorer health of all those ex-cyclists no longer getting exercise in their daily routines (they could walk !! or run !!) and by the increased health and environmental impacts caused by all those ex-cyclists driving everywhere.  

Bicycles aren't the whole solution, but they're part of a better outcome in terms of transport strategy. Everybody who chooses to cycle instead of taking the car benefits everybody No disagreement there, just pay for occupancy !!. As to your annoyance? again, please be reassured, I am not annoyed My advice.....get over it. nothing to get over, but thank you for your concern

Don Atkinson posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

 

"My idea would be to set a charge that reflects occupancy of the road - perhaps £2,000 per year per cycle at present"

And there it is. You just don't like cyclists. Not true. How you come to this outrageous conclusion simply beggars belief !They annoy you. No, they don't. For some unexplained reason, you attribute imagined and unacceptable amounts of your own personal inconvenience to them. I don't feel inconvenienced by the majority of cyclists You think they're free-loading We are !! - i'm a cyclist as well, remember ?. You want them taxed off the roads. Rubbish ! but I do consider cyclists who want to use the roads should pay, and what better way to tax them than based on occupancy ? You just don't think it's FAIR I consider it very fair and reasonable that ALL users of the road system should pay on a similar basis ie occupancy. I think you might even be jealous please rest assured that I am not , or perhaps just feel foolish, sitting in your steel box in traffic while cyclists glide by Nope !. Maybe you subconsciously long for youth and level of physical interaction with the world, now long gone nope ! we both still enjoy country walks, cycling, backpacking in the Canadian Rockies and canoeing along the Bow river, even cycling between Canmore and Banff along that nice new cycle way that was completed a few years back !!!! . I just don't know. But your hatred there is absolutely no hatred whatsoever and I would respectfully request that you withdraw that unpleasant accusation ! is irrational, since there is none, it can't be irrational that's for sure.

But....cyclists certainly won't be causing any more congestion if your ludicrous (I appreciate that is your personal point of view, probably because it would hurt your pocket, but not for any other reason) suggestion were to see the light of day as there would be no cyclists (but you know that no, none of us know that, the suggestion of £2,000 pa was based on my perception of relative occupancy no more, no less !). But all of them in their cars would. I wonder by how much taxes would have to be raised to pay for the poorer health of all those ex-cyclists no longer getting exercise in their daily routines (they could walk !! or run !!) and by the increased health and environmental impacts caused by all those ex-cyclists driving everywhere.  

Bicycles aren't the whole solution, but they're part of a better outcome in terms of transport strategy. Everybody who chooses to cycle instead of taking the car benefits everybody No disagreement there, just pay for occupancy !!. As to your annoyance? again, please be reassured, I am not annoyed My advice.....get over it. nothing to get over, but thank you for your concern

 

"Rubbish ! but I do consider cyclists who want to use the roads should pay , and what better way to tax them than based on occupancy ?"

But you must admit that the effect of your idiotic suggestion would almost certainly be to remove all but a very few wealthy cyclists from the roads. That I should pay £2,000 x 8 bikes every year for the family to scurry along the glass,gravel and rubbish-strewn <1m of pot-holed shoulder grudgingly granted to me by giant pickups is absurd. Little revenue would be collected and no new infrastructure would be funded. More cars on the roads for everyone get stuck behind and more exhaust pipes to suck on - what joy! Lose, lose, lose.

A better way for cyclists to pay their share is to collect taxes from everyone who benefits from the activity, just like we do now. Or perhaps a surcharge on hiking boots to pay for trails in our parks and wilderness?

I'll modify my allegation of hatred to: "Don hates it when people cycle on the road". And yes you're annoyed. Very annoyed from what I can see.

[Re-posting due to a chunk inadvertently deleted]

A charge that reflects occupancy of the road :

Bike occupancy: say nominal 6ft x 2ft =12sq ft. Car occupancy ignoring micro cars) varies from say 10ft x 5ft =50 sq ft to 18ft x 6ft =108 sq ft. On that basis if bike road tak should be £2000 pa, car road tax should be £8,000 - £18,000, perhaps divided into £2k bands.

Actually more appropriate would be occupied area x mileage, though I don't have enough awareness of typical bicycle mileage: guessing 5k per year average bike, so with that as the £2k baseline ( 12 sq ft x 5k miles), a large car commuting 40 miles to/from work so 108 sq ft x 20k miles = £2,000 x 108/12 x 20/5 = £72,000 p.a. Now that might well help reduce commuting mileage and encourage use of alternative transport. A different regime may be necessary for commercial vehicles to prevent untoward effect on goods prices, however there would need to be appropriate taxation of any private use of company vehicles to ensure advantage is not taken, and to be fair the charge would only apply to usage, so GPS loggers on all vehicles including bikes would be needed to record actual journeys, and it would make no difference how many bikes or motor vehicles anyone owns.

Would the moderators kindly disable the quote facility - just for this thread?

+1 (sorry )

What is the beef bones about this thread ?  Where is the Beef ?    Where is the roasting ?  And where is the Gravy. !!!!!!!!!!!

When quoting it is not difficult to delete the irrelevant sections at the time, minimising the bulk, although in some cases the responses relate to virtually all of what had been a long comment, so the interspersed responses do not seem unreasonable to me, though tending towards the voluminous... 

winkyincanada posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

 

"My idea would be to set a charge that reflects occupancy of the road - perhaps £2,000 per year per cycle at present"

 

 

"Rubbish ! but I do consider cyclists who want to use the roads should pay , and what better way to tax them than based on occupancy ?"

But you must admit that the effect of your idiotic  now, now winky no need to get annoyed ! suggestion would almost certainly be to remove all but a very few wealthy cyclists from the roads - really ? - so the discussion is simply about COST (*). That I should pay £2,000 x 8 bikes (8 bikes = a wealthy family IMHO) every year for the family to scurry along the glass,gravel and rubbish-strewn <1m of pot-holed shoulder grudgingly granted to me by giant pickups is absurd oh come on winky, i've driven several times from Robson Street and over the Lion Gate Bridge (and on up to Whistler) and your description is exaggerated - and you could route through Stanley Park . Little revenue would be collected and no new infrastructure would be funded if enough cyclists want it - and the funding is right, it will happen !!. More cars on the roads for everyone get stuck behind and more exhaust pipes to suck on - what joy! Lose, lose, lose OMG, you are such a pessimist !!

A better way for cyclists to pay their share is to collect taxes from everyone who benefits from the activity, just like we do now. Or perhaps a surcharge on hiking boots to pay for trails in our parks and wilderness? ok, no probs there - but I do pay for my Wilderness Pass each year and my National Parks pass.

I'll modify my allegation of hatred to: "Don hates it when people cycle on the road". winky, you are just so wrong ! And yes you're annoyed, so very wrong . Very annoyed from what I can see, your perception is simply wrong.

(*) Since we are now down to COST, what would be a reasonable cost, in your opinion ?

FWIW, my figure of £2,000 pa was derived as follows :-

commute of 20 miles per day each way = 200 miles per week = 10,000 miles per year

10,000 miles per year at 40mpg = 250 gallons fuel in a car at £6 per gallon of which (in the UK) £4 is tax

250 gallons at £4 per gallon = £1,000 tax per year

Bikes are slower, occupancy is therefore greater. Hence as a first order estimate, let's say double the occupancy factor, and double the tax = £2,000 per bike per year.

Ok, not perfect, but then no tax system is perfect. However, a starter for discussion.

..........and I really, really did try to minimise the "Quote" within "Quote" element.....................

Innocent Bystander posted:

[Re-posting due to a chunk inadvertently deleted]

A charge that reflects occupancy of the road :

Bike occupancy: say nominal 6ft x 2ft =12sq ft. Car occupancy ignoring micro cars) varies from say 10ft x 5ft =50 sq ft to 18ft x 6ft =108 sq ft. On that basis if bike road tak should be £2000 pa, car road tax should be £8,000 - £18,000, perhaps divided into £2k bands.

Actually more appropriate would be occupied area x mileage, though I don't have enough awareness of typical bicycle mileage: guessing 5k per year average bike, so with that as the £2k baseline ( 12 sq ft x 5k miles), a large car commuting 40 miles to/from work so 108 sq ft x 20k miles = £2,000 x 108/12 x 20/5 = £72,000 p.a. Now that might well help reduce commuting mileage and encourage use of alternative transport. A different regime may be necessary for commercial vehicles to prevent untoward effect on goods prices, however there would need to be appropriate taxation of any private use of company vehicles to ensure advantage is not taken, and to be fair the charge would only apply to usage, so GPS loggers on all vehicles including bikes would be needed to record actual journeys, and it would make no difference how many bikes or motor vehicles anyone owns.

Occupancy needs to take account of the TIME spent on the road as well as area.

And bikes that "take up their position in the road" occupy as much space as a family car. As for "wobbly" bikes................well - let's start with a "slow moving cricket pitch"

Don Atkinson posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

 

"My idea would be to set a charge that reflects occupancy of the road - perhaps £2,000 per year per cycle at present"

 

 

"Rubbish ! but I do consider cyclists who want to use the roads should pay , and what better way to tax them than based on occupancy ?"

But you must admit that the effect of your idiotic  now, now winky no need to get annoyed ! suggestion would almost certainly be to remove all but a very few wealthy cyclists from the roads - really ? - so the discussion is simply about COST (*). That I should pay £2,000 x 8 bikes (8 bikes = a wealthy family IMHO) every year for the family to scurry along the glass,gravel and rubbish-strewn <1m of pot-holed shoulder grudgingly granted to me by giant pickups is absurd oh come on winky, i've driven several times from Robson Street and over the Lion Gate Bridge (and on up to Whistler) and your description is exaggerated - and you could route through Stanley Park . Little revenue would be collected and no new infrastructure would be funded if enough cyclists want it - and the funding is right, it will happen !!. More cars on the roads for everyone get stuck behind and more exhaust pipes to suck on - what joy! Lose, lose, lose OMG, you are such a pessimist !!

A better way for cyclists to pay their share is to collect taxes from everyone who benefits from the activity, just like we do now. Or perhaps a surcharge on hiking boots to pay for trails in our parks and wilderness? ok, no probs there - but I do pay for my Wilderness Pass each year and my National Parks pass.

I'll modify my allegation of hatred to: "Don hates it when people cycle on the road". winky, you are just so wrong ! And yes you're annoyed, so very wrong . Very annoyed from what I can see, your perception is simply wrong.

(*) Since we are now down to COST, what would be a reasonable cost, in your opinion ?

FWIW, my figure of £2,000 pa was derived as follows :-

commute of 20 miles per day each way = 200 miles per week = 10,000 miles per year

10,000 miles per year at 40mpg = 250 gallons fuel in a car at £6 per gallon of which (in the UK) £4 is tax

250 gallons at £4 per gallon = £1,000 tax per year

Bikes are slower, occupancy is therefore greater. Hence as a first order estimate, let's say double the occupancy factor, and double the tax = £2,000 per bike per year.

Ok, not perfect, but then no tax system is perfect. However, a starter for discussion.

 

My argument is not about the cost itself, but the inevitable effect of such a ridiculous proposition. It doesn't matter whether "enough cyclists want it". I stand by my assertion that $3000 per bike would remove all but a tiny fraction of cyclists from the road. There would be no cyclists left to "want it".

My ideal cost remains zero. Choosing to cycle rather than drive is good for everyone and should be encouraged.

Robson street is choked with traffic and parked cars, not cyclists, and is best avoided. The shared use path on the LGB is well appreciated, but the presence of pedestrians ensures caution (by me, at least). The highway to Whistler is a reasonable enough ride from a scenery perspective, but we're of course forced into a narrow, rock, metal (from cars and trucks), gravel and glass strewn shoulder the whole way. It's in good condition, so no potholes, but dangerous stromwater drainage grids are pretty regular. It's hardly a top-class accommodation. More of "paint a few bike stencils in off the edge of the road and call it good", sort-of-thing. Traffic averages 20kmh to 30kmh over the speed limit at all times, making for quite an unpleasant experience and not one I choose often. I do ride through Stanley Park in both directions. It's pleasant enough, but speeding motorists, aggressive cyslists and clueless pedestrians detract during peak times.

We have 2 bikes each many of them quite old - one year of your tax would far exceed the purchase price of all of them combined. Perhaps motorists should be charged a tax equivalent to the purchase price of their vehicles each year, then.

Only the most enthusiastic cyclists do anything like 10,000 miles per year. Very much in the minority. We also don't take up twice as much space. We can ride much closer together in the direction of travel and could travel 3 abreast in a single lane (if we didn't fear being squashed by an impatient texting driver). Motorists take up the whole lane, even when by themselves, and leave much larger buffers in front (to account for their lack of attention, I guess)

Your fuel tax goes (only partway) to pay for damage you cause, both to the environment, my health and the roads themselves, not just for "occupancy". My bikes don't take up a lane when I'm not using them either, unlike the lines of parked cars all over the city.

I suspect you're trolling (I hope so at least) but discussion it is.

Don Atkinson posted:

Occupancy needs to take account of the TIME spent on the road as well as area.

And bikes that "take up their position in the road" occupy as much space as a family car. As for "wobbly" bikes................well - let's start with a "slow moving cricket pitch"

I did think of the time element after scribbling that, so it might be appropriate for factor in in addition to the space and mileage. But also, wear and tear damage to road surfaces is proportional to weight, so weight should also be factored in.

That aside, by your logic:

The faster Anyone drives drive the less they should pay - better scrap having tax on fuel as that works in reverse
smaller engined cars that use less fuel and so pay less fuel tax should pay more road tax
Pedestrians must pay, probably about the same as bicycles as they occupy smaller area but go a lot slower. Children pay more than adults as they are slower and don't travel purely in direct lines. Dogs must pay, akin to children perhaps.
anyone who causes any form of holdup, say a breakdown or accident, should be fined a suitable sum - road volume related, but could be £10,000o per minute on a motorway.

oh and nearly forgot: by the same logic as cyclists paying the petrol tax they have saved, teetotallers should be taxed for not drinking alcohol.

Etc.

winkyincanada posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

 

"My idea would be to set a charge that reflects occupancy of the road - perhaps £2,000 per year per cycle at present"

 

 

 

My argument is not about the cost itself, but the inevitable effect of such a ridiculous now, now, there you go again !! proposition my proposition is that cyclists should pay and I have suggested that "occupancy" would be a reasonable basis. It doesn't matter whether "enough cyclists want it". I stand by my assertion that $3000 per bike would remove all but a tiny fraction of cyclists from the road. There would be no cyclists left to "want it". who knows ?

My ideal cost remains zero. I'm sure it it does, but that is simply on the basis of selfishness. Choosing to cycle rather than drive is good for everyone really ? I simply don't think you will find that a vote-winner for the daily commute ! and should be encouraged - might as well make running to work mandatory - even better still ?

Robson street is choked with traffic and parked cars, not cyclists, and is best avoided. The shared use path on the LGB is well appreciated, but the presence of pedestrians ensures caution (by me, at least). The highway to Whistler is a reasonable enough ride from a scenery perspective, but we're of course forced into a narrow, rock, metal (from cars and trucks), gravel and glass strewn shoulder the whole way. It's in good condition, so no potholes, but dangerous stromwater drainage grids are pretty regular. It's hardly a top-class accommodation. More of "paint a few bike stencils in off the edge of the road and call it good", sort-of-thing. Traffic averages 20kmh to 30kmh over the speed limit at all times, making for quite an unpleasant experience and not one I choose often. I was simply pointing out the times I have driven that route have not left me with the impression you have painted - things must have deteriorated dramatically this last 18 months I do ride through Stanley Park in both directions. It's pleasant enough, but speeding motorists, aggressive cyslists ????????? at least we seem to agree on one thing and clueless pedestrians detract during peak times.

We have 2 bikes each many of them quite old - one year of your tax would far exceed the purchase price of all of them combined. Perhaps motorists should be charged a tax equivalent to the purchase price of their vehicles each year, then. I think we do here in the UK - "Classic" cars attract lower insurance premiums and (possibly) lower Car Tax - but i might be mistaken on the latter.

Only the most enthusiastic cyclists do anything like 10,000 miles per year. Very much in the minority. We also don't take up twice as much space. You do at present, and in any realistic situation for the foreseable future ! We can ride much closer together in the direction of travel and could travel 3 abreast in a single lane (if we didn't fear being squashed by an impatient texting driver). Motorists take up the whole lane, even when by themselves, and leave much larger buffers in front (to account for their lack of attention, I guess)

Your fuel tax goes (only partway) to pay for damage you cause, both to the environment, my health and the roads themselves, not just for "occupancy" UK revenue from motor vehicles is c. £40bn pa - spending on roads is c. £9bn pa. You will find that motorists pay for much, much more than their costs, be that direct cost or indirect cost. Moving to bikes would reduce the motoring surplus available. My proposal is that cyclists should simply pick up the lost revenue. My bikes don't take up a lane when I'm not using them either, unlike the lines of parked cars all over the city.

I suspect you're trolling (I hope so at least) your hopes are dashed !! but discussion it is.

Just think of it along the line of :-

"as revenue from motorists decline, so revenue from cyclists increase such that the total revenue take remains constant" 40 million motorists pay £1k each = £40bn revenue slowly transforming to 40 million cyclists pay £1k each = £40bn revenue. (but in the meantime, due to the occupancy factor, cyclists pay double ie £2k pa !!

Innocent Bystander posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

Occupancy needs to take account of the TIME spent on the road as well as area.

And bikes that "take up their position in the road" occupy as much space as a family car. As for "wobbly" bikes................well - let's start with a "slow moving cricket pitch"

 

I did think of the time element after scribbling that, so it might be appropriate for factor in in addition to the space and mileage. Good start ! But also, wear and tear damage to road surfaces is proportional to weight, so weight should also be factored in. If you look at Road Note No4 (well out of date now) or later versions of the highway manual, you will find that wear and tear is only really affected by HGVs and PSVs etc, NOT by your average car

That aside, by your logic:

The faster Anyone drives drive the less they should pay (having just acquired a BMW SUV that looks like a really good proposition)   - better scrap having tax on fuel as that works in reverse
smaller engined cars that use less fuel and so pay less fuel tax should pay more road tax Yep, the BMW and the Mercs have big engines so I would certainly endorse these propositions.......
Pedestrians must pay, probably about the same as bicycles as they occupy smaller area but go a lot slower. woah, woah, hang on there. I actually walk - this doesn't look like a good idea to me !! Children pay more than adults as they are slower and don't travel purely in direct lines. so long as it doesn't apply to grandchildren it suits me !! Dogs must pay, akin to children perhaps. No dogs anymore, so suits me fine !
anyone who causes any form of holdup, say a breakdown or accident, should be fined a suitable sum - road volume related, but could be £10,000o per minute on a motorway. Covered by insurance so ok by me too. On re-reading my last few comments I seem to detect some kind of "trend" here. I think i've detected it elsewhere in this thread...........something like.....if it affects me it's a BAD idea, if it doesn't affect me.............

oh and nearly forgot: by the same logic as cyclists paying the petrol tax they have saved, teetotallers should be taxed for not drinking alcohol. Again, no worries here !!!

Etc.

Lots of common ground here, so time to move forward.

So we need tolls set up un every public highway and footpath, measuring size and weight plus time and distance covered to exit - an adjustment made for weight loss, and no speed limit, or rather variable speed limits - when gov't finances are down, they reduce the speed limit to increase income.

Innocent Bystander posted:

Lots of common ground here, so time to move forward.

So we need tolls set up un every public highway and footpath, measuring size and weight plus time and distance covered to exit - an adjustment made for weight loss, and no speed limit, or rather variable speed limits - when gov't finances are down, they reduce the speed limit to increase income.

Yep, as I indicated earlier, we have the technology, its called GPS !

Just type in you credit-card details to the Gov Website, and your on your bike !!!!

Anyway, back to my OP.

We had a lovely walk today, not along the towpath, but through leafy green woodland and pasture. Not a car or cyclist in sight. Just the sound of birds and cattle. Three hours of pure delight.

Don Atkinson posted:

Anyway, back to my OP.

We had a lovely walk today, not along the towpath, but through leafy green woodland and pasture. Not a car or cyclist in sight. Just the sound of birds and cattle. Three hours of pure delight.

I'm surprised it took so long to come up with the obvious solution - there are '000s of miles of unmetalled public footpaths, all but impassable to most two wheelers,  where walkers/ramblers/strollers (of whom I am one, as well as a keen recreational cyclist) can indulge their passion to their hearts content, undisturbed by the lycra clad hordes!!

Don Atkinson posted:

Anyway, back to my OP.

We had a lovely walk today, not along the towpath, but through leafy green woodland and pasture. Not a car or cyclist in sight. Just the sound of birds and cattle. Three hours of pure delight.

Enjoy it while you can - it won't be free for much longer, and then there'll by runners trying to make the journey a short a time as possible, and cyclists likewise (too skint to afford a bell or new brake pads) 

Wow. Looks like Don has been studying James May's Man Maths ethos, where any number can be contrived to fit the required answer. Pardon the lecture, but there's so much wrong with his opinions that it needs correcting.

Cycling improves health, reduces obesity and improves cardio-vascular fitness. It significantly reduces the risk of later life diseases such as Parkinsons, Alzheimer's and other wasting diseases. It reduces pollution, reduces wear & tear on roads to almost zero, and promotes well-being. Cycling commuters take significantly less time off sick,  and are more productive. All of this is easily verified on the net, there are numerous studies and reports that confirm these facts.

So cycling is a good thing. It keeps us fit, reduces the load now and later on the NHS and other care services, and doesn't damage the roads. and if more kids cycled to school there'd be fewer cars on the school run so that blip of traffic around 8:30 would be significantly reduced; anyone who drives to work in school holidays will know this.

Cycling produces all of these massively positive benefits. The downside apparently is that sometimes cars are held up. Funny that; I'm driving a lot these days since my job changed, and although I see loads of cyclists it's rare to be held up by them. It's not cyclists who make up traffic jams, it's all the other selfish gits driving their cars that get in my way when I'm driving. Cyclists v occasionally delay my arrival at the back of another traffic queue.

Windy country roads eh? I do most of my cycling mileage on B & C roads, and they aren't very winding. It's true. Lanes evolved as means of linking hamlets & villages, and they tend not to meander back on themselves, they go roughly A to B. This is my experience in the south east, east mids, north east and across The Peak District. I'm not claiming they're arrow straight, just that winding country lanes isn't the norm. Where there are bends, best to assume that a girl on a horse is just around it, and drive accordingly (people like girls and like horses, so it's a useful aide memoire )

So, all good so far.

Taxes then... We all pay tax; this forum is probably self-selecting, in that people who are happy to spunk a few grand on a nice music system probably have a lot of disposable income, and therefore are quite well off. I'd be happy to suggest that people who're happy to spend a few grand on a decent bike with electric gears are in the same boat. We pay a lot of tax and we pay a lot of additional tax buying improvements for our bikes [like our hifis], and on clothing, and on the overpriced foodstuffs that we eat. Estimates a couple of years ago were that cycling contributes about £6bn pa to the UK economy in the form of taxes, employment and cash flow. You want to tax that out of existence with is £2000 occupancy tax that no-one would pay? Blimey.

Taxes all go into one big pot anyway, so [in my case] the 20% of everything from £11k to [what is it? £33k?], the 40% of everything above, duty on wine and fuel into the car, insurance tax, airport taxes, VAT on about everything blah blah blah, I reckon that all of that adds up to a lot. It might add up to a bit more or a bit less than some of you, but given that the principle is that we all pay a reasonable amount, I'm happy that I contribute, and contribute a few thousand a year. So answer this Don - if I pay a few grand a year over to HMRC, and you do too presumably, what relevance is the couple of hundred quid's worth of VED in that much bigger amount? I mean, if you want to start laying down a claim on the roads because you've paid a bit more, you might as well barge into A&E demanding to be seen first as you've paid more, or push in at the police station past all the petty criminals and document producers to report your theft from your shed, shouting "I pay more, deal with me first". Only life doesn't work that way; we all pay what we have to and very few offer to pay more taxes where they don't have to. We all contribute to shared national resources and don't quibble at those who've paid less having more than they've paid in. Unless you're called Don and don't like being held up on your roads.

Btw car tax is VED and is based on pollution, not some halfwit calculation based on 'occupancy'. You might fart a bit more or a bit less than me, but even so me + bike generates less pollution that you + car, ergo you need to pay more tax, and low polluting cars pay zero or v little tax. [As an aside, any massive and or smoking polluting car from before 1974 is also VED-free. Stick that in your pipe & smoke it Don] That tax represents both the pollution you cause, the damage you do to the roads with your car, and the ruination of the country where every single town & village is given over to the car, where vast car parks have to be built to leave them somewhere when we get to work, and where swathes of countryside have been buried under mile after mile of motorway & dual c/way. Cars kill hundreds of people a year; they bring danger where none existed. Cars aren't that great really.

@CDB - I too live in MK and the redway system there is noted in planning circles as an example of how not to do it. It's a dreadful way of getting to work, although if you have a wish to cycle much more slowly and to go further for no reason other than planning simplicity, and you have a fancy for getting tangled up in dog leads or coming across dumped furniture in the underpasses or enjoy second-guessing which way a bunch of schoolkids might suddenly go, fill yer boots - the MK redway is your lobster.