Should a 'road tax' be introduced for cyclists?

[Meerkat]

Disruption to what, exactly?

Producing "proper" cycle infrastructure would involve massive roadworks and demolitions.

The only way you will ever get Old Mrs Smith to cycle to the shops is if there are no cars. Hence dedicated facilities are essential.

I disagree, get more people out there cycling and people will see that it really isnt that dangerous. Its not the old folk I see riding on the pavements.
I actually think the weather and cycle storage (at both ends) are a bigger disincentive. The car in your drive is much easier to leap in than the bike locked away in the garage (if the property has anywhere to securely store a bike) and it gets nicked at the other end.

It is doable. The Netherlands didn’t have many cycling paths until the ‘70s. It is not that hard to convert parts of pavements or a lane to a separated cycle path. My main problem with British cycle paths (not only a British problem, also in France for example) is that junction design is very bad.

People won’t cycle if there aren’t good facilities. So dedicated infrastructure is necessary

People do cycle without dedicated infrastructure.
Converted pavements are a bodge, and get ignored by most cyclists - too many pedestrians and dogs getting in the way, too much broken glass, too many obstructions, too many places where you have to give way.
Even if segregated cyclepaths are given priority over roads at junctions they are dangerous because of the viewing angle involved, its actually safer to have an on-road cycle lane.
Most of our urban infrastructure is too space restricted for cohesive segregated cycle infrastructure, and if its not cohesive its slower than staying on the road.
The Netherlands has way more space for separate lanes, and far more open sight lines.

 

[py_megapixel]

Enjoy getting pulled over in my world then. I'm not suggesting that it would stop you head getting squashed by a HGV

What exactly would it stop, then?

Tits are tits and they all need stamping out.

But not all lycra-wearing cyclists are tits. In fact, the vast majority are simply doing exactly the same as the people in their cars - making a journey, either for their own enjoyment or to reach a destination. You may find them annoying because of your personal prejudices, but I think it's necessary for you to acknowledge that they are not fundamentally doing anything wrong.

Also motorists say the same about cyclists.

Some motorists say the same about cyclists, and as I've said above, I believe they are largely incorrect.
And don't forget that some of motorists are, at other times, cyclists.

Cars now have to have daytime running lights to make them more visible to other road users. If you guys want to feel and be safer, wearing some high viz would be a start, it's not rocket science.

Cyclists can use bright lights in the daytime as well which is good for visibility, and nobody appears to be saying they shouldn't, except you:

High powered (...) lights would also be banned

I don't want to get on a bike because I'm warmer and safer in a car, or on a bus, or a train. Also, it's pretty hard to fall off a car, bus or train. And it's another thing to worry about if I go into a shop, when I could've just walked there.

The reason you are safer in a car is because most danger to cyclists comes from the cars being much larger than them. It's also quite hard to fall off a bike as long as you get used to balancing on it properly, which is surprisingly quick to get the hang of (plus most people have already learned it as a child) - I've been commuting on a bicycle frequently for multiple years and not fallen off at all, apart from once on some unexpected black ice on a corner, where plenty of pedestrians were falling over too.

But in any case, nobody is making you cycle if you really don't want to.

 

[Meerkat]

But in any case, nobody is making you cycle if you really don't want to.

Well actually.....
One way of making cycling safer (and possibly increasing cycling at the same time) would be to make cycle training a compulsory part of the driving test process. It builds an understanding of cyclists needs and behaviour. I believe some responsible hauliers put their drivers through such a scheme - it may have been some of them I saw down my road, a rather comical sight of twenty bulky middle aged blokes in full NR style orange waterproofs wobbling along on bikes (there did seem to be a fair amount of laughing from them too).

 

[johncrossley]

Producing "proper" cycle infrastructure would involve massive roadworks and demolitions.

They did it in the Netherlands and have done quite a bit in London. Arguably London can cope with such disruption less than anywhere else in Britain.

You can see material on the internet showing how the Dutch managed to reorganise their streets. It is a continuous process. Look at https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/. He has a lot of before and after examples.

People do cycle without dedicated infrastructure.

Not many. Can you cite a region or country in the developed world that has mass cycling without infrastructure?

 

[Dave W]

One way of making cycling safer (and possibly increasing cycling at the same time) would be to make cycle training a compulsory part of the driving test process. It builds an understanding of cyclists needs and behaviour. I believe some responsible hauliers put their drivers through such a scheme - it may have been some of them I saw down my road, a rather comical sight of twenty bulky middle aged blokes in full NR style orange waterproofs wobbling along on bikes (there did seem to be a fair amount of laughing from them too).

On the opposite side, I went to a "trading places" thing that was on Trafalgar Square - mostly for the free hi-viz gear (which should be a *choice*) - it did amaze me how surprisingly limited the view was of anything directly in front and to the side of a lorry cab. I'm not one for throwing it up the inside of an artic anyway - but did highlight why you definitely shouldn't.

I don't want to get on a bike because I'm warmer and safer in a car, or on a bus, or a train. Also, it's pretty hard to fall off a car, bus or train. And it's another thing to worry about if I go into a shop, when I could've just walked there.

It's not about your attitude stopping you cycling. It's your attitude which, when expressed en masse, stops people who would like to cycle from starting to do so.

It also hardens attitudes of current cyclists - if this bizarre attitude is held by the driver behind me how can I be sure they're not going to regard my journey, and even worse safety, as less important than theirs? So I will treat them with severe suspicion. If that means defaulting to hostility so be it - your vehicle weighs 1.5+ tons more than mine. Sorry if I hurt your feelings when you use it dangerously.

 

[Bletchleyite]

On the opposite side, I went to a "trading places" thing that was on Trafalgar Square - mostly for the free hi-viz gear (which should be a *choice*) - it did amaze me how surprisingly limited the view was of anything directly in front and to the side of a lorry cab. I'm not one for throwing it up the inside of an artic anyway - but did highlight why you definitely shouldn't.

FWIW my urban hybrid has "daytime running lights" anyway - dynamo lights which can't be switched off - but as a driver you can't rely on the presence of DRLs because the most vulnerable and important road users - pedestrians - can (and should) wear what they want.

The purpose of DRLs is to make cars etc more visible to other road users, not as a driver assistance scheme. It is still the driver's responsibility to ensure they don't hit things, be they lit or not.

Producing "proper" cycle infrastructure would involve massive roadworks and demolitions.

Indeed. Worthwhile ones in most urban settings at least, and it still stands out to me how few interurban main roads don't have cycle facilities. For example, you can't cycle MK to Buckingham without going on a main road ("yellow roads" only go part way) unless you want to do a massive diversion that multiplies the distance by about 1.5, and yet there are no facilities on those main road sections despite there being plenty of space. As such I don't cycle to visit my friend in Buckingham. If there was, I would, at least in summer.

I disagree, get more people out there cycling and people will see that it really isnt that dangerous. Its not the old folk I see riding on the pavements.

I think you would need huge numbers for that. Otherwise, cycling alongside large vehicles like buses and lorries is intimidating.

I actually think the weather and cycle storage (at both ends) are a bigger disincentive. The car in your drive is much easier to leap in than the bike locked away in the garage (if the property has anywhere to securely store a bike) and it gets nicked at the other end.

Those are relevant, too.

People do cycle without dedicated infrastructure.

But many won't.

Converted pavements are a bodge, and get ignored by most cyclists - too many pedestrians and dogs getting in the way, too much broken glass, too many obstructions, too many places where you have to give way.

I agree, it needs to be a proper segregated facility. It can be shared, but it needs to be wider and better, e.g. the MK Redway system.

Even if segregated cyclepaths are given priority over roads at junctions they are dangerous because of the viewing angle involved, its actually safer to have an on-road cycle lane.

It can be, but the change in the Highway Code requiring giving way on turning should in time sort this as the culture shifts.

Most of our urban infrastructure is too space restricted for cohesive segregated cycle infrastructure, and if its not cohesive its slower than staying on the road.
The Netherlands has way more space for separate lanes, and far more open sight lines.

I don't see anything different about the urban landscape in NL than UK that we can't change to fix. It just requires the car being knocked down the priority list.

What exactly would it stop, then?

Particularly as he (it's got to be a he, hasn't it? ) is totally misinformed about polystyrene vs. hard cycle helmets. Generally the former are more expensive and more effective. The latter are a fashion item - they will meet minimum legal (CE) spec, but won't have any of the extra features like anti-torsion (reduces neck injuries).

Motorcycle helmets are better of course, but aren't practical for wearing during heavy physical exercise.

Cyclists can use bright lights in the daytime as well which is good for visibility, and nobody appears to be saying they shouldn't, except you:

To be fair, I have been dazzled (while cycling and walking) by bright cycle lights far too often. I am all in favour of them but there should be a legal requirement on mounting angle and dim-dip for oncoming traffic above a certain lumen level. OK, some would ignore it, but responsible cyclists wouldn't, and despite the OP's view most cyclists are responsible.

 

[LOL The Irony]

The problem with such a policy is that for many the tax that they pay as a cyclist would still be tiny and so wouldn't generate much.

My intention is for this tax to be a deterrent rather than a revenue stream.

For example, you'd exempt hybrids, so my £350 mountain bike (when new circa 16 years ago) wouldn't be charged. However even if that I can get up to a decent speed at times (there's a flat section of road where cars doing 30 aren't going much faster than me.

Well they'd have to stick to the speed limit like cars are expected to.

Of course the most likely outcome would be the import of cycles from France, booze cruises may be mostly a thing of the past, however with savings of £1,000/bike there would be a significant advantage in going and buying one from France.

Of course the other loophole would be to buy the bits separately and build your own, as again you'd make a significant saving.

Imagine thinking I wouldn't track anyone who did that and ask if they'd paid. The loopholes won't exist.

If course the net result would be far fewer cyclists, but much more congestion. Higher bills for the NHS due to the population being less healthy and the impact of more pollution.

All I'd be removing are the road racers (unless you're stupid enough to pay £1300 for a £300 bike).

The way to ensure that cyclists to follow the rules of the road would be to have a dash cam and submit the footage of cyclists breaking the law to the police. As whilst it wouldn't lead to many convictions it'll be enough that the police will know where the for spots are (that's assuming that you actually catch more than a few doing so, as chances are you'll catch many many more drivers doing so).

Well then we put registration plates on bikes.

Clearly trolling but I will bite with a couple of points.

No, these are my genuine beliefs. It's hard to cope with such a suggestion so I'll give you a pass for thinking that.

taking the tube has zero health benefits. Hopefully cycling with help get my heart rate up, reduce my chance of obesity and therefore reduce my chance of needing the NHS. Clearly you haven’t noticed the covid pandemic. TfL don’t want anyone using the tube and have spent the last 2 years actively discouraging tube / bus users. Surely I shouldn’t use the tube because i will catch covid

Then walk. Walking is superior.

As for reckless cycling- I hate the people that do it as it fuels peoples irrational comments.

So the main reason you hate it is not because it's illegal and dangerous, but because it gives me and others like me ammunition for our beliefs? I mean my cyclist brother gives you guys a bad enough name as is.

Run red lights? Lots of cars do.

Lots of cyclists do as well.

insurance and number plate? don’t stop cars breaking the law otherwise we wouldn’t need enforcement measures. Some drivers don’t think twice about parking on a double yellow line as they just pay the fine, move on and do it again.

It makes them easier to catch when they break the law.

In a crash involving a bike the cyclist normally takes some pain, unlike a car driver.

Some?

If a car driver hits a pedestrian after running a red light they are not personally impacted so no incentive not to do it again.

You're deluded.

Will leave it there as it is clear from other posts you are anti cycling so you dont wont accept an arguments that don’t match your views?

On yer bike then

Which, in just five words, sums up the entire rationale behind the 'road tax for cyclists' demands.

Everyone using the highway should pay their way.

What exactly would it stop, then?

Well there isn't anything and that's a risk you have to take when cycling.

But not all lycra-wearing cyclists are tits.

If they're not a tit, they're deluding themselves into thinking they're on the tour de France.

In fact, the vast majority are simply doing exactly the same as the people in their cars - making a journey, either for their own enjoyment or to reach a destination.

In lycra, on a racing bike? Yeaaaaaaaaaaaah...

that they are not fundamentally doing anything wrong.

No, they are.

Cyclists can use bright lights in the daytime as well which is good for visibility, and nobody appears to be saying they shouldn't, except you:

I didn't say they would be banned from having lights. You are misconstruing and misrepresenting what I said.

would be to make cycle training a compulsory part of the driving test process.

No.

Not many. Can you cite a region or country in the developed world that has mass cycling without infrastructure?

Any country lane.

which should be a *choice*

Fine then, get run over because you were dressed in all black with no lights in the dark.

It's your attitude which, when expressed en masse, stops people who would like to cycle from starting to do so.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! PEOPLE ARE LISTENING TO THE OTHER SIDE'S ARGUMENT OVER OUR'S!

If you're easily swayed by that, then you weren't going to start in the first place.

 

[stuu]

Everyone using the highway should pay their way.

Which they are. Roads are paid out of general taxation, so anyone who has ever paid a penny in tax has contributed

 

[Bletchleyite]

My intention is for this tax to be a deterrent rather than a revenue stream.

There are no grounds to deter an environmentally friendly and healthy mode of transport, I'm afraid.

Well they'd have to stick to the speed limit like cars are expected to.

Riding a bicycle above the speed limit is in most locations a considerable amount of effort. Almost never will cyclists be speeding. Only on long 20 or 30mph downhills would most people have any chance. And you were aware, presumably, that the speed limit doesn't apply to pedal cycles anyway?

Imagine thinking I wouldn't track anyone who did that and ask if they'd paid. The loopholes won't exist.

Laughable to suggest you'd manage 100% enforcement, there isn't of any crime.

All I'd be removing are the road racers (unless you're stupid enough to pay £1300 for a £300 bike).

I think you don't understand what you get for the money. Doesn't suit me to spend that much (mine cost about £250) but each to their own. I'm sure your average rider of a £5K road bike thinks there's something you've bought that is a waste of money.

Well then we put registration plates on bikes.

Switzerland repealed this law as it was a waste of money.

Then walk. Walking is superior.

Walking does sit above cycling in the "hierarchy of modes", but it isn't very practical for journeys between say 3-6 miles, which are the sweet spot for cycling.

What do you think of lycra-wearing runners, I wonder?

Everyone using the highway should pay their way.

You would like a pedestrian tax, then? Well, there is one - Council Tax and Income Tax, the same thing that funds the roads for cyclists and drivers of EVs. Vehicle excise duty is not a "road tax" other than it being due for using certain types of vehicle thereon.

If they're not a tit, they're deluding themselves into thinking they're on the tour de France.

Do you also stand on street corners casting aspersions at what others wear? Runners? Lycra cycle clothing is practical for cycling, offering freedom of movement, low chafing and still being comfortable when wet, as well as having added padding for seat comfort. Nobody looks good in it.

In lycra, on a racing bike? Yeaaaaaaaaaaaah...

Plenty of longer distance cycle commuters, yes. But if they're doing it for exercise, that's good too. All forms of cycling are to be encouraged (aside from illegal cycling such as on the pavement).

Fine then, get run over because you were dressed in all black with no lights in the dark.

It is the responsibility of a car driver not to hit things with their car. Some of those things aren't lit, e.g. a pedestrian who has fallen over, or a parked or broken down car. Drive slower.

Yes, cyclists should have lights and are required to by law. Yes, I always have them (mine are on a dynamo, I can't not). But no, it is not acceptable to drive in a manner that would not allow you to stop in the distance you can see to be definitely clear. If you don't agree, please go and surrender your driving licence as you are not fit to be on the road.

Nobody is forcing you to cycle, but your hatred for those who do wish to do so is quite astounding.

 

[LOL The Irony]

Which they are. Roads are paid out of general taxation, so anyone who has ever paid a penny in tax has contributed

But ALL road vehicles have to pay;
Road tax*
Fuel duty*
For an annual test

A bike pays zilch. Nadda. Nothing. Not a sausage. It doesn't even need an annual test.

*yes, duracells don't need to pay this, but considering they like for like weigh more than their ice counterparts, they should be taxed.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But ALL road vehicles have to pay;
Road tax*
Fuel duty*
For an annual test

The latter is not a tax, the maximum price of it is fixed but it doesn't go into public coffers.

A bike pays zilch. Nadda. Nothing. Not a sausage. It doesn't even need an annual test.

Indeed, it doesn't need one, because the mechanical aspects of a bicycle are so simple that it is easy for even a layman to know if there is a problem with them and usually to fix themselves.

A cyclist doesn't pay "zilch". They pay their Income Tax and Council Tax, which is where the funding for road maintenance mostly comes from.

 

[LOL The Irony]

There are no grounds to deter an environmentally friendly and healthy mode of transport, I'm afraid.

Yes there is and it's called buying a racing bike.

And you were aware, presumably, that the speed limit doesn't apply to pedal cycles anyway?

It should do. Yet you guys act like you have a hard time? Crimea River.

I'm sure your average rider of a £5K road bike thinks there's something you've bought that is a waste of money.

I didn't spend 5k on something I could've spent 200 quid on at Halfords. I also won't look like an embarrassment to the entirety of mankind.

Walking does sit above cycling in the "hierarchy of modes"

Thank you.

What do you think of lycra-wearing runners, I wonder?

Walk or swim. But I think that of all runners.

You would like a pedestrian tax, then?

Pedestrians aren't using the highway, they're using the pavement. Can we introduce a codebreaker tax for the residents of Bletchley for the honor of living there?

Do you also stand on street corners casting aspersions at what others wear?

No, I don't act fatherless. But I do cast aspersions. Nissan Juke drivers, for instance.

All forms of cycling are to be encouraged

Not the type that encourages you to think you're in the TdF.

It is the responsibility of a car driver not to hit things with their car.

It is the responsibility of the cyclist to make themselves visible to other road users, by the use of lights, reflectors and other high visibility items. It's a 2 way street.

A cyclist doesn't pay "zilch". They pay their Income Tax and Council Tax, which is where the funding for road maintenance mostly comes from.

At the point of use they don't. Duracell drivers also don't, but I already covered this.

Laughable to suggest you'd manage 100% enforcement, there isn't of any crime.

Stopping one is better than stopping none.

Switzerland repealed this law as it was a waste of money.

We're not all perfect now.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes there is and it's called buying a racing bike.

Nonsensical prejudice.

I didn't spend 5k on something I could've spent 200 quid on at Halfords.

No, you'd not get the same thing for £200 at Halfords. The £200 hybrid from Halfords is your Ford Fiesta. The £5K road bike is your Ferrari. You'd not say those were the same, would you?

I also won't look like an embarrassment to the entirety of mankind.

How others dress is none of your business, please keep your nose out of it. Do you also go around ridiculing other people for how they choose to dress?

Walk or swim. But I think that of all runners.

So basically you're just curmudgeonly and dislike people who are fitter and healthier than you? Fine, but they're doing you a favour by costing the NHS less...

Pedestrians aren't using the highway, they're using the pavement.

The pavement is part of the highway (albeit part reserved for pedestrians), and if necessary pedestrians have every right to walk on the road.

Can we introduce a codebreaker tax for the residents of Bletchley for the honor of living there?

Council Tax. One of the lower ones due to our unitary authority, too.

No, I don't act fatherless. But I do cast aspersions. Nissan Juke drivers, for instance.

I neither have one nor want one, but it looks like a reasonable small car for those who do?

Not the type that encourages you to think you're in the TdF.

Including that type. Cycling is environmentally friendly and makes cyclists fitter, which is to be encouraged. The only kind to be discouraged is where an offence is being committed, e.g. by cycling on the pavement. It is typically not lycra-clad road cyclists that do this (I don't think I have ever seen someone riding an expensive road bike in lycra on the pavement), rather it is kids and scallies (north)/chavs (south) riding exactly the £200ish bikes you seem to prefer for some reason.

It is the responsibility of the cyclist to make themselves visible to other road users, by the use of lights, reflectors and other high visibility items. It's a 2 way street.

It is, but equally it is the responsibility of a driver not to hit things with their car.

At the point of use they don't. Duracell drivers also don't, but I already covered this.

Payment at the point of use for cycling is a bad idea, as it discourages it. Cycling is to be encouraged, whether you like it or not.

 

[py_megapixel]

Well there isn't anything and that's a risk you have to take when cycling.

But these are adults we're talking about, and they are capable of electing to take that risk for themselves. It is really not any of your business whether they wear a helmet or not, especially as you admit that a helmet is of limited use in the first place.

If they're not a tit, they're deluding themselves into thinking they're on the tour de France.

So your problem is that you think they're deluding themselves. They are clearly not deluding you. So what is the problem?

In lycra, on a racing bike? Yeaaaaaaaaaaaah...

Well, it's the equivalent of taking a classic car out for a drive at the weekend, or going back and forth on the same stretch of railway line for a day to finish off spotting an entire class. That's the "for their own enjoyment" but in my original post.

No, they are.

What are most cyclists - the ones which aren't 'tits' - they doing wrong, other than (as I said before) not pandering to your own prejudices?

I didn't say they would be banned from having lights. You are misconstruing and misrepresenting what I said.

The bit I was referring to was where you said they would not be allowed to have high-powered lights, despite the fact that cars very much do have high-powered lights.

A bike pays zilch. Nadda. Nothing. Not a sausage.

A bike doesn't pay fuel duty because it doesn't have fuel, beyond the food eaten by the rider, which is already taxed by different means.

As for VED, we can estimate how much it would be. The yearly VED for an "alternative fuel" vehicle is £145. The "alternative fuel" category is mostly hybrid cars, and a medium sized one of those seems to have a mass of about 1350kg depending on which exact model you choose. Estimates for the average mass of a bicycle vary, but 27kg is an easy number to calculate this with and is probably towards the upper end so should produce the most car-favourable estimate.

This means that a car is about 50x heavier than a bicycle. If we adjust the VED to be 50x less, this would make the VED for a bicycle slightly under £3 a year, or 25p a month. Is it really worth collecting £3 a year from each cyclist? It probably costs them more than £3 to process each form, for crying out loud, so they'd be making a loss if they tried - and then they'd have to deal with refunding the remaining months if someone sold their bike etc. etc. - so basically the DVLA would be throwing money away.

I didn't spend 5k on something I could've spent 200 quid on at Halfords.

Surely you can understand that what you get for £5000 from a specialist retailer is very different to something you spend £200 on at Halfords. It's like asking a Lamborghini driver why they bought that when they could have a Nissan Micra for a tenth of the cost.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well, it's the equivalent of taking a classic car out for a drive at the weekend, or going back and forth on the same stretch of railway line for a day to finish off spotting an entire class. That's the "for their own enjoyment" but in my original post.

Not only that, but taking a classic car out for a drive is emitting carbon and other pollutants, and going riding up and down a stretch of railway is potentially taking a seat someone else may want if it is busy. Neither have health benefits. Whereas going for a bike ride is healthy exercise as well as enjoyment. This is why it is to be strongly encouraged.

The bit I was referring to was where you said they would not be allowed to have high-powered lights, despite the fact that cars very much do have high-powered lights.

There is to be fair a problem with some cyclists having misaligned high powered lights with no dim-dip feature. I can see why this annoys people, as it annoys me when cycling too, as it blinds me. When cycling at night I've had to pull over and stop to let such an oncoming cyclist pass before, because I could no longer see where the edge of the road was. There really does need to be something done about this specific issue, if only a police car spotting someone with such lights stopping them and having a word about the issues they cause.

High powered lights on bikes are a very good thing, but they need to be able to be dimmed and dipped for oncoming traffic like they are on a car.

 

[stuu]

But ALL road vehicles have to pay;
Road tax*
Fuel duty*
For an annual test

A bike pays zilch. Nadda. Nothing. Not a sausage. It doesn't even need an annual test.

*yes, duracells don't need to pay this, but considering they like for like weigh more than their ice counterparts, they should be taxed.

Road tax was abolished in 1937

ICE vehicles pay an emissions duty; bicycles are zero emission therefore they pay zero VED. And every cyclist pays tax in one way or another, and a great many of them also own cars so pay VED anyway

What is your problem with cyclists? And more generally why are people SO upset by the idea of cycling?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Road tax was abolished in 1937

ICE vehicles pay an emissions duty; bicycles are zero emission therefore they pay zero VED. And every cyclist pays tax in one way or another, and a great many of them also own cars so pay VED anyway

What is your problem with cyclists? And more generally why are people SO upset by the idea of cycling?

I think half the time it's envy - they can't abide to see other people fitter than them as they sit in their car with their middle-aged spread against the steering wheel.

Other than that it's something else for a driver to do to overtake one.

The only problem I have with cycles on the road (as a cyclist) is that I don't agree with open-road racing in every context. For instance I encountered a triathlon on the Hardknott Pass once, a road which requires driving/riding with the utmost of care and patience, and I didn't appreciate the weaving in and out that they were doing in order to keep ahead. On the other hand, up a wide single carriageway or a reasonably wide country lane it's neither here nor there. I think there is a need to legislate to require a risk assessment to be submitted to the Police for the route and for them to either decline or require a formal road closure for parts that pose a specific risk like that.

 

[Failed Unit]

Road tax was abolished in 1937

ICE vehicles pay an emissions duty; bicycles are zero emission therefore they pay zero VED. And every cyclist pays tax in one way or another, and a great many of them also own cars so pay VED anyway

What is your problem with cyclists? And more generally why are people SO upset by the idea of cycling?

Some Diesel cards also pay Zero VED, may last car fell into that category. I believe Diesel cars below 1.6l were exempt (don't know when that changed) so if it is OK for evil polluting diesel cars to pay £0 I am happy that bikes do as well.

As a driver and a cyclist, I find the biggest cause of traffic jams in urban areas is badly parked vehicles, which bikes can easily pass but other vehicles can't, couriers are now the worse offenders. On A roads where the speed limit is 60mph bikes can slow down the cars (but they tend to pass quickly - if not always safely). I personally find in terms of causing delays to me driving it is cars going below the speed limit, or HGVs passing each other on Dual carriageways.

It works both ways but maybe 1 in 1000 motorists are dangerous on the road, it is just they are easier to remember then the 999 safe ones. (** Swap with bike, van or whatever has irritated you recently)

 

[Meerkat]

Worthwhile ones in most urban settings at least, and it still stands out to me how few interurban main roads don't have cycle facilities.

They would cost a lot of money for very little use. Better to concentrate on getting numbers up in urban areas and then some of those people would get more adventurous

It can be, but the change in the Highway Code requiring giving way on turning should in time sort this as the culture shifts.

That wont really work for the segregated cycle tracks that most people think of, where there is a verge separating the road and the cycle path. The crossing is a bit set back and the speed of the cyclists and the angles the driver is looking at make it risky even if the intent is good.

I don't see anything different about the urban landscape in NL than UK that we can't change to fix.

My memories are of wider, straighter, streets, often with one each side of a canal; space and sightlines created by the roadside dykes and ditches everywhere. Just more space, and so many roads that the narrow bits were bypassed anyway.

The only problem I have with cycles on the road (as a cyclist) is that I don't agree with open-road racing in every context.

Plus those who act like they are the peloton in the TdF. Drivers would get nicked for driving so dangerously close to each other at speed, so should cyclists.

I think many of the cycle campaigners are their own worst enemy.
Firstly the constant campaigning for safety that has the effect of giving non-cyclists an exaggerated image of the danger (though I accept its a tricky balance when campaigning)
Secondly the projection of their own way of cycling onto the general public - eg the demand for changing rooms and showers in workplaces. One boss said he drove the two miles to work rather than use his bike because he didnt want to have a shower on arrival. I asked him whether he would have a shower if he walked, but he had been captured by the lycra speedsters who got showers put in.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That wont really work for the segregated cycle tracks that most people think of, where there is a verge separating the road and the cycle path. The crossing is a bit set back and the speed of the cyclists and the angles the driver is looking at make it risky even if the intent is good.

The way it's done is that at minor road crossings you continue the cycle path and the kerb across the crossing, meaning the driver has to bump up to cross them. This has the effect of making them pay more attention. It's not common in the UK but it's the norm in Germany and the Netherlands.

At major road crossings, you have traffic lights with the cycleway having its own prioritised phase.

My memories are of wider, straighter, streets, often with one each side of a canal; space and sightlines created by the roadside dykes and ditches everywhere. Just more space, and so many roads that the narrow bits were bypassed anyway.

Not everywhere.

Plus those who act like they are the peloton in the TdF. Drivers would get nicked for driving so dangerously close to each other at speed, so should cyclists.

Unfortunately car drivers don't get nicked for that, but I do agree and wish they would!

Secondly the projection of their own way of cycling onto the general public - eg the demand for changing rooms and showers in workplaces. One boss said he drove the two miles to work rather than use his bike because he didnt want to have a shower on arrival. I asked him whether he would have a shower if he walked, but he had been captured by the lycra speedsters who got showers put in.

It's not expensive to provide these and it allows people to e.g. run to work if they wish, so why resent it? Not practical for every business, but certainly easy and cheap to do in any business with a large building.

How much different people sweat varies. I used to cycle about 5 miles to work. I'm no speedster, but I was definitely in need of a shower on arrival and thankful that they were provided.

 

[The Ham]

I would disagree with zero maintenance. Lots of cycle routes are damaged by tree routes (but still useable)

If tree roots are cuisine an issue it's nothing to do with the impact from cyclists using or not using them. In reality cycle lanes have near zero maintenance costs compared to roads.

But ALL road vehicles have to pay;
Road tax*
Fuel duty*
For an annual test

A bike pays zilch. Nadda. Nothing. Not a sausage. It doesn't even need an annual test.

*yes, duracells don't need to pay this, but considering they like for like weigh more than their ice counterparts, they should be taxed.

The VED and fuel duty exist primarily to change driver behaviour, mostly to reduce the emissions from driving cars. What changes in behaviour would be the reason for adding taxes to cycles?

Regardless of what you think, there will be loopholes that wouldn't be easy to close.

For example I buy a bike and then change the wheels to racing bike wheels, is that enough to justify the tax? Probably not. Likewise if I go overseas and but a carbon fibre frame (using cash) how would you be able to trace that I've done this?

Yes I may get caught at the boarder, however the likelihood is slim given how few cars get searched.

Then of course there's likely to be bike companies which make a near racing bike (as there would have to be a legal definition of what one was) so that it wasn't subject to the tax, there would then be online guides as to how to convert to a racing bike. Although chances are it would be something like swapping the wheels, which as I said above the purchase of which wouldn't be enough to justify the tax in the first place.

 

[Haywain]

It works both ways but maybe 1 in 1000 motorists are dangerous on the road, it is just they are easier to remember then the 999 safe ones.

I really wish it was as low as that. In my experience the close passes come from about 1 in 10.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I really wish it was as low as that. In my experience the close passes come from about 1 in 10.

Incompetent driving is certainly very widespread. And I'm not saying I'm perfect!

When driving (or otherwise using the road), it's not a bad idea to assume not only that everyone is grossly incompetent but also that they are out to kill you...

 

[LOL The Irony]

No, you'd not get the same thing for £200 at Halfords. The £200 hybrid from Halfords is your Ford Fiesta. The £5K road bike is your Ferrari. You'd not say those were the same, would you?

A bike is a bike and a car is a car. I'm the one laughing all the way to the bank as I now have £4800 to spend on something else, such as a car or a summer house for my garden or a Mk3 TGS from the 2025 Hornby catalogue.

How others dress is none of your business, please keep your nose out of it

Likewise what I choose to do and how I choose to behave is none of your business either.

So basically you're just curmudgeonly and dislike people who are fitter and healthier than you? Fine, but they're doing you a favour by costing the NHS less...

Well I clearly offered 2 other ways of being fit and healthy, which you appear to have blatantly ignored in a vain attempt to get one over on me. Also running puts pressures on your joints that swimming won't, so go on.

But these are adults we're talking about, and they are capable of electing to take that risk for themselves. It is really not any of your business whether they wear a helmet or not, especially as you admit that a helmet is of limited use in the first place.

Crumple zones are of limited use in a head on with a lorry with a high ride height, for instance, a Scania XT. So should we just pack in the whole safety thing and build cars like we did in the 1950's?

So your problem is that you think they're deluding themselves. They are clearly not deluding you. So what is the problem?

Well, it's the equivalent of taking a classic car out for a drive at the weekend, or going back and forth on the same stretch of railway line for a day to finish off spotting an entire class. That's the "for their own enjoyment" but in my original post.

Because they're not in the TdF. I don't understand how putting on those silly clothes that make you look like a clown and cycling next to BMWs doing 70, on country lanes full of pot holes, on a way to expensive plastic bike with an uncomfortable seat and no suspension is more enjoyable than a nice ride through a country park, wearing comfortable clothing and on a comfortable bike, riding along at your own pace. Then you have the problem of the former morons acting like BMW drivers who think they own the road. Hmmm, there might be a correlation here...

The bit I was referring to was where you said they would not be allowed to have high-powered lights, despite the fact that cars very much do have high-powered lights.

What is the main issue at hand here? If we were talking about cars in this thread, I would bring it up.

A bike doesn't pay fuel duty because it doesn't have fuel, beyond the food eaten by the rider, which is already taxed by different means.

Well if you tried putting petrol in a bicycle, you'd wind up with a 2 wheel bomb. That, or you'd clean the inside of your frame.

What is your problem with cyclists? And more generally why are people SO upset by the idea of cycling?

Because I don't like those e who act like they own the show.

Inb4 bUt ThErE aRe CaR dRiVeRs WhO bEhAvE lIkE tHaT. Yes, I know and I'm not denying it.

I think half the time it's envy - they can't abide to see other people fitter than them as they sit in their car with their middle-aged spread against the steering wheel.

Someone's either delusional or projecting.

Plus those who act like they are the peloton in the TdF. Drivers would get nicked for driving so dangerously close to each other at speed, so should cyclists.

But cars are evil and polluting. Riding a racing bike is the way to enlightenment and Jesus. In more than one way, but anyways.

 

[Haywain]

When driving (or otherwise using the road), it's not a bad idea to assume not only that everyone is grossly incompetent but also that they are out to kill you...

I think that's a good assumption to make when cycling too!

 

[Bletchleyite]

A bike is a bike and a car is a car. I'm the one laughing all the way to the bank as I now have £4800 to spend on something else, such as a car or a summer house for my garden or a Mk3 TGS from the 2025 Hornby catalogue.

I don't doubt that a typical cyclist might consider those things a waste of money. How's about you spend your money as you choose, and they'll spend theirs as they choose? You know, live and let live?

Likewise what I choose to do and how I choose to behave is none of your business either.

It is when you post about it on a discussion forum.

Well I clearly offered 2 other ways of being fit and healthy, which you appear to have blatantly ignored in a vain attempt to get one over on me. Also running puts pressures on your joints that swimming won't, so go on.

People can do the form of fitness activity they choose to do. Again, you make your choice, let others make theirs. A big advantage of cycling is that it is not only a fitness activity but also a mode of transport, so a commute by bicycle can use otherwise "dead time" to get fit, too. I've done it, and I was at my fitness peak at the time because I'd be doing 90 minutes of exercise every single day with basically no wasted time.

Because they're not in the TdF. I don't understand how putting on those silly clothes that make you look like a clown and cycling next to BMWs doing 70, on country lanes full of pot holes, on a way to expensive plastic bike with an uncomfortable seat and no suspension is more enjoyable than a nice ride through a country park, wearing comfortable clothing and on a comfortable bike, riding along at your own pace. Then you have the problem of the former morons acting like BMW drivers who think they own the road. Hmmm, there might be a correlation here...

I don't own a fancy road bike, but have ridden road bikes, and the fun is in being able to ride reasonably quickly. Again, how about you live and let live? Lycra clothing is a practical matter just as it is for running, as I've said it offers freedom of movement, reduced chafing and remains comfortable when wet, as well as including padding for a less sore backside when riding. Wide, padded saddles are all very well, but have downsides, e.g. chafe.

Because I don't like those e who act like they own the show.

Act like they own the show? In what way? How is riding a bicycle down the street in lycra acting like one owns the show, any more than me driving my diesel Ford Kuga down the same road does?

It's got nothing to do with the vehicle. There are idiot pedestrians, idiot cyclists and idiot drivers. Most of the time, they are the same idiot, regardless of which of the three they are using. Most cyclists also drive and walk.

Someone's either delusional or projecting.

Well, you've failed to explain any rational reason why you have such a pathological hate of cyclists and have a problem with people engaging in a pursuit which doesn't really affect you other than offend your eyes or cost you 10 seconds to overtake them, to which the only answer is "that is a you problem".

Cyclists are fellow human beings riding a bicycle. It is not healthy to carry pathological resentment and hatred towards other humans who are just getting on with their lives as you are yours.

I think that's a good assumption to make when cycling too!

The more vulnerable a road user you are, the more it makes sense to do that!

But not in the aggressive manner you might if someone walked up to you and indicated that they were going to punch your lights out, of course, as that just escalates. In a defensive manner - watch for incompetent/negligent actions and allow the road user space to carry them out, which costs little time and means you both don't die on this occasion.

 

[Haywain]

In a defensive manner - watch for incompetent/negligent actions and allow the road user space to carry them out, which costs little time and means you both don't die on this occasion.

Or by denying them the space to do something stupid - by 'owning' the lane.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Or by denying them the space to do something stupid - by 'owning' the lane.

Or that, yes, hence the primary position in the centre of the lane (which is emphasized by the new Highway Code).

 

[Meerkat]

The way it's done is that at minor road crossings you continue the cycle path and the kerb across the crossing, meaning the driver has to bump up to cross them. This has the effect of making them pay more attention. It's not common in the UK but it's the norm in Germany and the Netherlands.

At major road crossings, you have traffic lights with the cycleway having its own prioritised phase.

The speed bump crossing helps but the vision lines still arent great for the speeds involved. To be safe the cyclist has to slow down. Having traffic lights, even with cyclist priority, slows the cyclists down. If its slow then the better cyclists don't use them. The Dutch get round this by making using them compulsory, but that would be one hell of a fight here (and from the link given a way above might be why the British didnt create cycle lanes on new roads the way the Dutch did back in the 30's when there was space to do it)

It's not expensive to provide these and it allows people to e.g. run to work if they wish, so why resent it? Not practical for every business, but certainly easy and cheap to do in any business with a large building.

I don't resent their existence, but I think the hard core cyclists loud demands for such facilities harm the image of utility cycling by making it sound like you will need a shower if you cycle to work - which just isnt true, unless you do the cycling equivalent of running to work rather than walking. Do any Dutch people dress up to cycle, they all look very much utility cycling wearing what their outfit for the day?
The other negative thing I think the cycling organisations do is get captured by the fundamentalists and get involved in the speed limits debate, demanding 20mph limits on ALL urban roads, not just residential side streets, and 40mph on country roads - the latter in particular being damaging as it slows down all the locals on their daily business to help the tourists and lycra clad who drive to their area, get in the way, and spend very little. Fighting against motorists is a guaranteed losing game.

I really wish it was as low as that. In my experience the close passes come from about 1 in 10.

I tend to ride high, and then duck in to let people by once they have slowed down. A tactical wobble can also be a good plan sometimes!

 

[johncrossley]

The other negative thing I think the cycling organisations do is get captured by the fundamentalists and get involved in the speed limits debate, demanding 20mph limits on ALL urban roads, not just residential side streets, and 40mph on country roads - the latter in particular being damaging as it slows down all the locals on their daily business to help the tourists and lycra clad who drive to their area, get in the way, and spend very little. Fighting against motorists is a guaranteed losing game.

Much of London now enjoys a 20 mph limit, including A roads. Including the northbound carriageway of Park Lane, which used to be a racetrack. In much of the Netherlands the rural speed limit (other than main roads) is effectively 60 km/h, given how many 60 zone areas they have got now.