Poor old Don. Every 2-3 pages he completely forgets everything he's been told, and starts again. It's as if his retentive memory has completely gone, along with his ability to comprehend simple facts. And Don do please learn to understand English grammar. Your latest howler is "all manor of well-rehearsed excuses". Really? Given your enormous age you'd be expected to know stuff like this by now, along with all the other errors that punctuate your wild attempts at getting your point across but which cumulatively remove even more credibility from your already shaky stance.
Let's have a quick recap for you Don. Everybody pays for the roads, it's called taxation. We pay PAYE or are self employed and pay on demand. We buy a car, it attracts VAT. We also pay VED, but can pay none if we buy the sort of car that the govt would prefer us to have. We pay a bit extra per mile on top with fuel duty and VAT on fuel duty.
The same applies to a bike Don. The going rate for a half decent bike these days starts at about £500, so there's £100 straight to HM Treasury. We might buy a plastic hat @ £50+ so another tenner goes into the pot. Lycra is perfect for riding so a couple of pairs of shorts, a few tops, gloves, bad weather protection, shoes and maybe a pair of overshoes for winter, that's going to add up quite quickly, let's say £200, so there's another £40 to HMRC. A lot of people will go for more decent stuff but let's stay low to avoid accusations of exaggeration. Lights - cheap tat for a tenner, or something good and doubled up, it's easy to get to a couple of hundred quid on half decent lights. Mine were. What about the toys, like a Garmin for example, or a decent bike computer? Again a couple of hundred is routine. Let's not dwell on those who buy a bike worth about £3k plus £300 worth of Garmin and then renew clothing annually happily shelling out £100+ on individual items of clothing, and their contribution to the local economy by cycling in groups to local cafes at the weekend. 20 cyclists turning up at your little cafe on a Saturday afternoon for a coffee & a slice of cake is handy boost to that small business Don.
Our fuel duty is the VAT on a Mars Bar or equivalent. You don't ride 20 miles to office and do it purely on fresh air. So your pet peeve that we don't pay for usage, well that's tosh too.
Add it all up and cyclists and cycling make quite a contribution towards govt coffers, as well as funding this £4bn industry that creates jobs and wealth further afield.
To summarise: most members of society pay in to the national pot, and cyclists contribute some more towards it from their cycling purchases. As we're a civilised nation we don't stop people from using the roads just because they haven't paid. It's a shared national resource, we have many that are free at point of use because as a civilised nation we've chosen to do that.
Your obsession - and that's what it is, an absolute obsession - is misguided because you focus only on one part of usage. To repeat the above point, we've all paid already as members of society and then paid more as cyclists, but cyclists aren't charged a specific additional fee raised through VED and a specific fuel duty equivalent. Why not? Because - yet again - the net benefit to society is hugely positive in terms health, well-being, pollution, congestion, and the lack of damage to the roads for comparable journeys. You've been made aware of this though, every 3 pages and still you fail to make any meaningful counterclaim. Maybe Don you live your life by ignoring awkward issues and imagine that if you ignore them they don't count. It doesn't work that way; it hasn't worked for your grammar, punctuation and use of idiom, and doesn't work for this discussion that you seem so keen to show yourself up in.
You have a specific issue with cycling infrastructure. To be clear on this - cycling infrastructure benefits everybody, not just cyclists. It separates cyclists from vehicular traffic in some urban landscapes, so there should be a drop in collisions & therefore NHS use. It encourages cycling so reduces the load on PT as well as reducing the volume of traffic in our cities. And it reduces pollution. It's a big win-win, and it's perfectly valid to bear that cost from current taxation - it's yet another example of a shared national resource that benefits society. And away from the urban sprawl there's no need to create cycle lanes and special provision; I don't want the English countryside to be spoilt with miles of cycle-specific lanes that benefit absolutely nobody. Most of those roads are fine as they are thanks.
What's needed is for all road users to learn that road space has to be shared with anybody who happens there. That mentality is such a great leap forward; if you could only grasp it Don the world would be a slightly improved place.