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

Don Atkinson posted:

To summarise, so far :-

Not much advice on how a pedestrian should deal with aggressive cyclists eg on a narrow towpath or when a family group is enjoying a shared cycle/path route. Disappointing, to say the least.

Plenty of cyclists asserting their right to use the road system and that motorists have a duty of care towards cyclists. I don’t disagree with these points of view nor the opinion that cycling provides good exercise and health benefits.

The health benefits could be gained by recreational cycling, off-road. That’s what we do, along with lots of other recreational activities such as hiking, back-packing and swimming.

This leaves the commuter-cyclists.  Sometimes aggressive.  Increasingly assertive, even demanding of their rights. If their numbers are going to increase, then things have to change IMHO.

30 million motorists  in the UK are not going to evaporate. Colin Buchanan figured that out back in the 60’s and we invested in our roads. Call it what you like - VED, fuel tax etc but, a car is only allowed to use the roads if the appropriate tax has been paid. I am simply promoting a change, in that commuter-cyclists should pay a tax, in a similar way to that of a motorist, in order to use the road system. How much ? An initial estimate, based on road-occupancy, was about £2k pa. The funds could be ring-fenced for cycle-ways, or simply rolled into the government general funds like VED and fuel tax etc. and hope the gov responds to the commuter-cycling community for sensible investment.

Seems eminently reasonable to me. I can't understand the reluctance expressed so positively here !

Don 

You keep saying your proposals are eminently reasonable but you simply don't take account of the very sensible practical objections.

On the MK redways: my point was that the chances of building a separate cycle network were extremely unlikely, because what would be built would be a shared system like the redways and this has many problems. 

I did also point out to you that building a separate system might be feasible in a new town like MK but how on earth could that be done across existing urban areas. Squeezing in the separate blue lanes in London is problematic and of course merely divides up the existing carriageways in a different way.

Now you suddenly suggest that only commuting cyclists would have to pay your putative tax. So at a stroke you remove all other cyclists from legitimate cycling on the roads! Why shouldn't road cyclists be allowed to go out and enjoy the countryside on a day trip or go touring, or even race? And what about cyclists who want to go off road but have to cycle on road to get to a suitable site?

Of course your 'eminently reasonable' calculation is based on an absurd premise and clearly designed to be a wind up. Which is why I will desist again from posting!

Clive

Christopher_M posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

....I can't understand the reluctance expressed so positively here !

To me it's about manners, not rights or taxation.

C.

Of course, manners are incredibly important. And manners, together with the current number of cyclists on roads in places like Newbury, seems to work - just !

But if we are to have an increase in the number of cyclists, then queues of cars are going to find themselves trailing behind more and more relatively slow bikes, bringing the town to a near standstill.

I only mention Newbury because i'm not familiar with all the towns represented by this forum.

So my suggestion is that we invest in new infrastructure to provide cycle-only routes to specifically cater for the commuter-cyclist. This seems to be the principal type of cyclist who uses the roads during the rush hour and who has been most vocal on this forum. The tax would help to pay for the infrastructure, even if this, like VED and fuel-tax, is indirect.

northpole posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

...This leaves the commuter-cyclists.  Sometimes aggressive.  Increasingly assertive, even demanding of their rights. If their numbers are going to increase, then things have to change IMHO.

Didn't they used to say similar things about the Suffragettes??!!

Peter

Yes, I believe they did.

And now, of course, women have the right to work and pay income tax. Just like men.

northpole posted:

Perhaps we should organise a Padded Cell cycle through London to help enlighten Don?  Who knows, you might even enjoy it!  You'd certainly get a grasp of my comments about the 'thrills' of dedicated cycle lanes, particularly if we start around 8:30 am when the lanes are well populated.  It may even persuade you of the merit for the Mayor of London to offer £2k per anum sponsorship for cyclist commuters, rather than try to charge them.... Are you up for it Don?

Peter

London's not my scene any more.  And for sure the arrangements for cyclists are little more than suicide lanes !

I used to travel up to London for various meeting, but i always took the train or parked on the outskirts such as Hammersmith and then used the underground, buses or walked to get around. Quite a pleasant walk from (say) Waterloo to Euston, or (when the tubes were on strike) Paddington to Liverpool Street.

A few times I have witnessed a collision between a cyclist and pedestrian, eg on the Euston Road, just opposite UCLH. Usually a speeding cyclist colliding with a wandering pedestrian. Why can't cyclists travel more slowly and be far more aware of pedestrians ?

I am adequately aware of the limitations of the current arrangements for cyclists in London. But with proper funding, I do believe things could be improved. My daughter and son-in-law cycle from Earlsfield/Wimbledon to Waterloo each day. They use various parks and riverside cycle/footpaths so basically avoid the roads. Seems to work.

The trouble Don is that you think your views are reasonable, when they palpably aren't. 

£2000 tax to ride a bike. Reasonable? You glossed over my earlier essay as 'a rant' (neat sidestep there) so failed to deal with how paying a shedload of many taxes means that £35 - £n00 VED is neither her not there. But £2000 tax to ride a life-enhancing pollution & congestion reducing means of transport is not even on the same planet as reasonable. It does what you want though, which is to rid the world of road cyclists. 

You're a grown man; you must be able to decide how to deal with rude ignorant members of the public. They exist all over the place; they're the same ignorant retards who throw litter, spit in the street, barge in front of you in queues. Mode of transport doesn't make them a different species. Try shouting 'excuse meeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!' in a very indignant voice. That might work.

Cyclists assert their right to the road because it's an absolute right, not dependent on payment. Everybody has the same right to the road. It's easy to recognise that right. The exception is those who introduce danger to the environment by driving fast heavy dangerous machinery into the equation. That danger is why you have to be trained, insured and the dangerous heavy machinery has to be checked regularly for on-going roadworthiness.

Recreational cycling is additional to the weekly norm. If more of us cycled congestion would be reduced, oil imports could be lower thus balance of payments deficits would reduce; NHS costs would reduce in the short & long term.... Oh sorry this listing of facts is 'a rant' isn't it. Tssk. Apologies....

Commuter cyclists are the same as you & your friends Don, we just want to get to work in a reasonable time, without being killed. It's just that we like to do it instead of driving the cars we've paid for and insured and paid all the taxes on. If you think we're rude or shouty, try driving at a fellow driver or passing within an an inch of their door mirror. When you've done that a couple of times do report back on how friendly and accommodating the driver was each time. You know that yellow line on the station platform, with instruction to stand behind it when a train is passing? To get a feel of why cyclists get peevved at drivers who think it's ok to pass at speed, stand the wrong side of that yellow line when a train goes straight through the station, with your back to the oncoming train. Again, please come back and report how fine it was and how you weren't unnerved at all by it. It's nothing isn't it Don. What are we wittering about eh?

You're right; 30m motorists won't evaporate. But then cyclists are also drivers, so we still have to pay VED and the costs of running a car that genrates all those taxes. We pay less fuel duty, but we're less of a drain on the NHS, we don't wear the roads out, we don't tend to kill or seriously injure a few thousand people a year at vast cost..

Cdb posted:

Don 

You keep saying your proposals are eminently reasonable but you simply don't take account of the very sensible practical objections. Oh come on Clive, I have tried. I pointed out that people could do who want exercise. Proper funding could provide dedicated cycle routes suited to those who commute.

On the MK redways: my point was that the chances of building a separate cycle network were extremely unlikely, because what would be built would be a shared system like the redways and this has many problems. Why do you presume they would be shared. I'm proposing dedicated.

I did also point out to you that building a separate system might be feasible in a new town like MK but how on earth could that be done across existing urban areas. Many towns redevelop large areas. Take Newbury. Redevelopment all over. Plenty of room to create dedicated cycle-ways. It doesn't get done because the developers want to use the space for an extra couple of houses. If the "cycle-tax" was ring-fenced, we would get our dedicated cycle system. Squeezing in the separate blue lanes in London is problematic and of course merely divides up the existing carriageways in a different way. I agree. That is not a solution. I am not proposing blue suicide lanes.

Now you suddenly suggest that only commuting cyclists would have to pay your putative tax. Well, it's not a punitive tax, its an investment in infrastructure fund (but call it a tax if you must). And it would only be paid by those wishing to use the road system and/or the dedicated cycle paths. There would be no need for recreational cyclist, using only footpaths/towpaths etc to pay anything.  So at a stroke you remove all other cyclists from legitimate cycling on the roads! Not at all. If you want to use the roads, you simply pay the access charge, ie the £2k pa tax. Bit like my car. I only used the term "commuting" because all other forms of cycling can be done off-road.  Why shouldn't road cyclists be allowed to go out and enjoy the countryside on a day trip or go touring, they could. They just need to pay the annual tax. or even race? ditto, or hire a race track - I know a suitable one in North Hampshire, but Forum Rules forbid me to say more !!!! And what about cyclists who want to go off road but have to cycle on road to get to a suitable site? Use your car like I do, and for which you have paid VED and fueltax, or pay the annual cycle tax

Of course your 'eminently reasonable' calculation is based on an absurd premise and clearly designed to be a wind up. I am exploring a new way of helping cyclists Which is why I will desist again from posting!

Clive

Don Atkinson posted:

 

But if we are to have an increase in the number of cyclists, then queues of cars are going to find themselves trailing behind more and more relatively slow bikes, bringing the town to a near standstill.

The answer is for the car drivers to use bikes - less congestion as they take up,less space, so better progress and less frustration, no pollution, costbsaving etc etc

Don Atkinson posted:

 

 

A few times I have witnessed a collision between a cyclist and pedestrian, eg on the Euston Road, just opposite UCLH. Usually a speeding cyclist colliding with a wandering pedestrian. Why can't cyclists travel more slowly and be far more aware of pedestrians ?

 

 

Why should cyclists go slower? They're perfectly entitled to ride up to the speed limit, like cars. Pedestrians should look before stepping intomthe road.

i bet there are more collisions between cars and pedestrians - why can't cars go slower?

ChrisR_EPL posted:

The trouble Don is that you think your views are reasonable, that's right, IMHO, they are, when they palpably aren't. You are entitled to your  view.

£2000 tax to ride a bike. Reasonable? You glossed over my earlier essay as 'a rant' (neat sidestep there) so failed to deal with how paying a shedload of many taxes means that £35 - £n00 VED is neither her not there. But £2000 tax to ride a life-enhancing pollution & congestion reducing means of transport is not even on the same planet as reasonable. It does what you want though, which is to rid the world of road cyclists. I explained that the £2k pa matched the "occupancy" factor. This is a NEW IDEA. revolutionary. I know new ideas are difficult to grasp, by it's not THAT difficult. Oh btw, motorists pay fuel duty as well, I did mention this. VED + Fuel duty is probably in line with £2k pa, again, I think I mentioned that.

You're a grown man; you must be able to decide how to deal with rude ignorant members of the public. They exist all over the place; they're the same ignorant retards who throw litter, spit in the street, barge in front of you in queues. Mode of transport doesn't make them a different species. Try shouting 'excuse meeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!' in a very indignant voice. That might work. thank you, I do.

Cyclists assert their right to the road because it's an absolute right, not dependent on payment. Yes I know. But that is the CURRENT situation and cyclist don't find it works too well. I am proposing a NEW IDEA Everybody has the same right to the road. It's easy to recognise that right. The exception is those who introduce danger to the environment by driving fast heavy dangerous machinery into the equation. That danger is why you have to be trained, insured and the dangerous heavy machinery has to be checked regularly for on-going roadworthiness.

Recreational cycling is additional to the weekly norm. If more of us cycled congestion would be reduced, oil imports could be lower thus balance of payments deficits would reduce; NHS costs would reduce in the short & long term.... Oh sorry this listing of facts is 'a rant' isn't it. Tssk. Apologies.... accepted. I know it's difficult to stay out of "rant" mode.

Commuter cyclists are the same as you & your friends Don, we just want to get to work in a reasonable time, without being killed. It's just that we like to do it instead of driving the cars we've paid for and insured and paid all the taxes on. If you think we're rude or shouty, The ones I mentioned were on towpaths and shared-use paths, not the normal highway system. try driving at a fellow driver or passing within an an inch of their door mirror. When you've done that a couple of times do report back on how friendly and accommodating the driver was each time. Why would I want to do that ? I don't drive like that at all ! Its because of that sort of thing that I don't ride a bike on the roads anymore. Its why I am proposing something DIFFERENT. You know that yellow line on the station platform, with instruction to stand behind it when a train is passing? To get a feel of why cyclists get peevved at drivers who think it's ok to pass at speed, stand the wrong side of that yellow line when a train goes straight through the station, with your back to the oncoming train. Again, please come back and report how fine it was and how you weren't unnerved at all by it. I used to provide consultancy services to the transport industry, including the railway industry. I used to walk along the tracks and stand in a Place of Safety as a train went past. So i already know what it's like. It felt somewhat similar when cyclists flew past my family including young grandchildren on bikes in Center Parcs. Its something ! It's nothing isn't it Don. What are we wittering about eh?

You're right; 30m motorists won't evaporate. But then cyclists are also drivers, so we still have to pay VED and the costs of running a car that genrates all those taxes. We pay less fuel duty, but we're less of a drain on the NHS, we don't wear the roads out, we don't tend to kill or seriously injure a few thousand people a year at vast cost.. I know it's difficult to stay out of "Ra.................

Innocent Bystander posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

 

But if we are to have an increase in the number of cyclists, then queues of cars are going to find themselves trailing behind more and more relatively slow bikes, bringing the town to a near standstill.

The answer is for the car drivers to use bikes - less congestion as they take up,less space, so better progress and less frustration, no pollution, costbsaving etc etc

Well, that's a different point of view to mine......

Innocent Bystander posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

 

 

A few times I have witnessed a collision between a cyclist and pedestrian, eg on the Euston Road, just opposite UCLH. Usually a speeding cyclist colliding with a wandering pedestrian. Why can't cyclists travel more slowly and be far more aware of pedestrians ?

 

 

Why should cyclists go slower? You are joking, aren't you ? They're perfectly entitled to ride up to the speed limit, like cars. Only if it is safe to do so, taking into account probable hazards. Pedestrians should look before stepping intomthe road. People make mistakes. These are hazards, Cyclists, like car drivers, need to learn to anticipate hazards.

i bet there are more collisions between cars and pedestrians - why can't cars go slower? They should do so, when there are potential hazards.

Don Atkinson posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

 

 

A few times I have witnessed a collision between a cyclist and pedestrian, eg on the Euston Road, just opposite UCLH. Usually a speeding cyclist colliding with a wandering pedestrian. Why can't cyclists travel more slowly and be far more aware of pedestrians ?

 

 

Why should cyclists go slower? You are joking, aren't you ? Not in the slightest, actually. They're perfectly entitled to ride up to the speed limit, like cars. Only if it is safe to do so, taking into account probable hazards. Wholeheartedly agree, and ride defensively, and have a loud horn if cycling fast in busy places. Pedestrians should look before stepping intomthe road. People make mistakes. they do - but they also have responsibility These are hazards, Cyclists, like car drivers, need to learn to anticipate hazards. Wholeheartedly agree with both (as above) - and it is a pity more car drivers don't: maybe compulsory taking of an advanced driving test every, say 5 years should be introduced, given the deadly nature of mistakes or poor anticipation when [supposedly] in control of a ton or two of metal travelling at speed.  

i bet there are more collisions between cars and pedestrians - why can't cars go slower? They should do so, when there are potential hazards.

 

Innocent Bystander posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

 

 

A few times I have witnessed a collision between a cyclist and pedestrian, eg on the Euston Road, just opposite UCLH. Usually a speeding cyclist colliding with a wandering pedestrian. Why can't cyclists travel more slowly and be far more aware of pedestrians ?

 

 

Why should cyclists go slower? You are joking, aren't you ? Not in the slightest, actually. They're perfectly entitled to ride up to the speed limit, like cars. Only if it is safe to do so, taking into account probable hazards. Wholeheartedly agree, and ride defensively, and have a loud horn if cycling fast in busy places. Pedestrians should look before stepping intomthe road. People make mistakes. they do - but they also have responsibility These are hazards, Cyclists, like car drivers, need to learn to anticipate hazards. Wholeheartedly agree with both (as above) - and it is a pity more car drivers don't: maybe compulsory taking of an advanced driving test every, say 5 years should be introduced, given the deadly nature of mistakes or poor anticipation when [supposedly] in control of a ton or two of metal travelling at speed.  

i bet there are more collisions between cars and pedestrians - why can't cars go slower? They should do so, when there are potential hazards.

 

 

Clearly you accept that cyclist have responsibilities and many cyclists fail quite miserably to discharge those responsibilities. Perhaps as well as paying my proposed tax, they should also be subject to a frequent cycling test. 

I have to undertake frequent flying tests to keep my job. So frequent driving and cycling tests seem perfectly sensible propositions. 

My flight tests cost me something like £1k pa. I imagine the driving tests and cycling tests would be somewhat less.

Innocent Bystander posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

 

But if we are to have an increase in the number of cyclists, then queues of cars are going to find themselves trailing behind more and more relatively slow bikes, bringing the town to a near standstill.

The answer is for the car drivers to use bikes - less congestion as they take up,less space, so better progress and less frustration, no pollution, costbsaving etc etc

Cyclists don't cause congestion, cars do. Where there's congestion there are bikes overtaking cars. 

Drewy posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

 

But if we are to have an increase in the number of cyclists, then queues of cars are going to find themselves trailing behind more and more relatively slow bikes, bringing the town to a near standstill.

The answer is for the car drivers to use bikes - less congestion as they take up,less space, so better progress and less frustration, no pollution, costbsaving etc etc

Cyclists don't cause congestion, cars do. Where there's congestion there are bikes overtaking cars. 

I disagree. Cyclists, in the situation described, are the root cause of the described congestion.

Don Atkinson posted:

Drewy posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

 

But if we are to have an increase in the number of cyclists, then queues of cars are going to find themselves trailing behind more and more relatively slow bikes, bringing the town to a near standstill.

The answer is for the car drivers to use bikes - less congestion as they take up,less space, so better progress and less frustration, no pollution, costbsaving etc etc

Cyclists don't cause congestion, cars do. Where there's congestion there are bikes overtaking cars. 

I disagree. Cyclists, in the situation described, are the root cause of the described congestion.

Thought you might

Drewy posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

 

But if we are to have an increase in the number of cyclists, then queues of cars are going to find themselves trailing behind more and more relatively slow bikes, bringing the town to a near standstill.

The answer is for the car drivers to use bikes - less congestion as they take up,less space, so better progress and less frustration, no pollution, costbsaving etc etc

Cyclists don't cause congestion, cars do. Where there's congestion there are bikes overtaking cars. 

Yes indeed.

And its funny how some car drivers really get upset when cyclists overtake them, especially big 4x4s. (I'm assuming that never includes you, Don) - Only this morning it happened to me, cars crawling only up to 3mph (pedestrans faster) and stop/start. I went past and pulled in slightly  into the gap in front of him to get inside the white line as a truck was approaching a few car lengths ahead - no need for the car to brake at all but he honked me!

Innocent Bystander posted:

Drewy posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

 

But if we are to have an increase in the number of cyclists, then queues of cars are going to find themselves trailing behind more and more relatively slow bikes, bringing the town to a near standstill.

The answer is for the car drivers to use bikes - less congestion as they take up,less space, so better progress and less frustration, no pollution, costbsaving etc etc

Cyclists don't cause congestion, cars do. Where there's congestion there are bikes overtaking cars. 

Yes indeed.

And its funny how some car drivers really get upset when cyclists overtake them, especially big 4x4s. (I'm assuming that never includes you, Don) never bothers me. It doesn't happen very often at the times I go to/from work. It doesn't even bother me when a cyclist causes a 10/20 car queue behind him, as I described above. But that's probably just me ! - Only this morning it happened to me, cars crawling only up to 3mph (pedestrans faster) and stop/start. I went past and pulled in slightly  into the gap in front of him to get inside the white line as a truck was approaching a few car lengths ahead - no need for the car to brake at all but he honked me! There are inconsiderate car drivers, just like there are inconsiderate cyclists. I don't care for either.

Drewy posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

Drewy posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

 

But if we are to have an increase in the number of cyclists, then queues of cars are going to find themselves trailing behind more and more relatively slow bikes, bringing the town to a near standstill.

The answer is for the car drivers to use bikes - less congestion as they take up,less space, so better progress and less frustration, no pollution, costbsaving etc etc

Cyclists don't cause congestion, cars do. Where there's congestion there are bikes overtaking cars. 

I disagree. Cyclists, in the situation described, are the root cause of the described congestion.

Thought you might

Reality check:

M6 through Bimingham: congestion virtually 24hours a day 365 days a year. Cause: cyclists simultaneously choosing to stop and have a chinwag with their bikes blocking the exits of all exit sliproads.

M40 from the M25 junction into London every morning. Cause: one cyclist in Marylebone occupying keeping clear of pedestians stepping into the road, so effectively occupying the whole inner lane (of 3)

A4 at Heathrow approaching London every morning. Cause: one cyclist in Brentford having to use the road because of parked cars on the cycle lane (This road, the Great West Road as it was called, was built in the 1930s with a dedicated cycle lane - and so safe enough for kids like me to cycle to school in our teens 30 years or more later, though in practice I usually went by Tube because it was quicker and less trouble carrying my case full of books. Last time I visited the area, admittedly a few years ago now, the cycle lane was chockablock with parked cars.)

Yes, clearly all congestion is caused by inconsiderate cyclists.

Of course, there  are other answers - one, that I am sure Don would welcome, would be for cars to be replaced by small (no bigger than a car) VTOL bladeless flying machines: just think, with three dimensions to occupy the congestion in the air would be far less than it is on the ground, and cyclists would cease to hold up cars (or vice versa)...

Or better still, have bikes become flying machines, and leave the metal box lovers to their ground based, self-inflicted, polluted traffic jams.

(I beg to claim that this departure from current reality is excusabke given that my last post was a reality check)

I think Don has been found out. He's made up a problem, come up with one the stupidest ideas ever and completely fails to answer the real world facts that rebuke his silly nonsense, instead preferring to claim that a £2000 tax that would fund commuter-only cycle routes is 'reasonable', based on some man-maths that even James May himself would scoff at.

Look Don, bikes don't cause traffic problems, cars do. I used to ride across MK and never have cars waiting behind me. I got held up by other cars when I drove in. I've spent 10 years riding 21 miles the other way, sometimes on the A421 and usually on the many many permutations of B roads & minor roads, to get to work. The only traffic I held up were the nervous, or juggernauts who happened to come up behind me on the narrowest bits of the route. I moved over to the grass verges asap to let them through. 

Just how is this mythical problem solved by charging each cyclist £2000 to contribute to a network of new commuter-only cycle routes? It's so unworkable as to be beyond laughable. £2000 is a punitive tax that will remove at a stroke all but the top level pro cyclists from the road, so will raise about £40k. That's the reality. Like all punitive taxes it doesn't raise money it drives people away, which clearly is your intent - get off my roads. 

On Planet Don, where all cyclists pay this tax, what does it build? A parallel cycle route alongside every road in the UK? Seriously? Even on quiet empty roads that I've used for 10 years and only held up Mavis in her Nissan Micra near Botolph Claydon? Will there be a new shiny cycle path all the way to Marsh Gibbon, just for me and the bloke who goes the other way when it's sunny? Really? Where does the space come from, the road, or the adjacent fields? That's in the countryside. In towns & cities, do we magically create space? How? Narrower footpaths? Narrower roads maybe? Come on Don - where does this space come from, and what justification is there for reducing the size of farmers' fields or narrowing rural & urban roads & footpaths to create an unnecessary and unneeded separate cycle track? 

Charging cyclists £2000 to create a space that isn't needed on every road in the country, where most normal motorists can happily co-exist with cyclists, is such a laughable proposal that - yet again - we're forced to deduce that Don has not the faintest idea. Making up a problem and then coming up with such an ill-thought through 'solution' might generate some internet traffic, but luckily anyone and everyone with any chance of implementing transport strategies would lob this in the nearest shredder before getting to the last paragraph. Come on Don, admit it. You've been pulling our chain. No-one can really be that stupid, surely? £2000 tax to solve a non-existent problem, which would drive every cyclist into the car for every journey. Yeah - that's a really good plan. Not. 

Good one Don. You can give up now. It's a stupid unworkable totally impractical suggestion, and you know it. It's not beneficial to anyone, flies in the face of so many govt policies, and addresses a non-existent problem. What a berk you are (meant in the truest sense of the word there Don.)

The reduced congestion from people commuting by bike instead of car actually saves car drivers money - say an arbitrary £2000 a year in saved time value and fuel. So motorists should be paying a part of that to everyone who opts to change from car to bike - perhaps just a one-off payment of that amount into a fund to buy someone a bike, thereafter every year saving. Now that sounds like a more sensible proposition...

Innocent Bystander posted:

The reduced congestion from people commuting by bike instead of car actually saves car drivers money - say an arbitrary £2000 a year in saved time value and fuel. So motorists should be paying a part of that to everyone who opts to change from car to bike - perhaps just a one-off payment of that amount into a fund to buy someone a bike, thereafter every year saving. Now that sounds like a more sensible proposition...

Top Gear [proper TG with CH&M] did a series of spoof cycling information films, and eventually got it right when they observed that because so many of us don't drive, the roads have fewer cars on them. It's a simple equation. Drivers who choose to cycle to work use up less road space, cause less congestion and cause zero pollution, and free up car parking spaces at their destination. I'm yet to see anyone take their car into the office and park it next to the desk. 

The barmy £2000 tax will - would, it's off the scale stupid - cause a massive increase in traffic, esp in towns & cities. How mad would anyone have to be to propose a tax that would raise nothing, and directly & massively increase the scale of the problem it's somehow supposed to solve? Unreal...

ChrisR, I could be wrong, but with the £2k tax I do think Don is just being mischievous, enjoying rattling the cage of anyone willing to bite, as I hinted before.

Come on chaps, let's not form a lynching mob just yet!  This is, after all, the Padded Cell, and Don's latest thread is perfectly suited to it!  It would make a perfect discussion point on that equally serious political programme: Bremner Bird & Fortune....!!

Peter