Should a 'road tax' be introduced for cyclists?

[Bletchleyite]

That's exactly what it is. It's a tax on your car. Not a tax on your use of the road. That's why it's fine to refer to it as those things, but not as road tax.

Actually it is a tax on the use of a motor vehicle on the public road. If your vehicle never goes on a public road you can notify as off road (SORN) and not pay it. So I fail to see why it isn't a road tax, though it is indeed not called Road Tax.

It's called Vehicle Excise Duty, ('car tax' is a description tolerated for those who have problems with long words). There hasn't been any direct charge to use the public highway since at least 1937, so maybe anybody still alive who was driving then could be excused for mistakenly calling it 'road tax'

It IS a direct charge for using the highway in certain classes of vehicle. It isn't hypothecated to fund maintenance of the highway, though.

 

[ashkeba]

This is the thing, straight away there’s the implicit assumption that people walking are getting in the way. It should be possible to walk along a path without having to keep looking over the shoulder in order to avoid getting subject to a gob of abuse, unfortunately experience is to the contrary.

Not an assumption I see. More like practical experience. It is normal to walk unmolested as long as you keep right. It is sadly true that some walkers appear arrogant and unwilling to do that for cyclists, runners or any other non drivers.

If someone wants an unobstructed cycle ride, the road is there for them. If one chooses to use a path, there has to be the expectation that people are going to be walking. Claiming that the road is more dangerous does not give the right for cyclists to then expose walkers to danger.

Equally existance of roads does not make obstructing shared paths correct. It is not difficult to walk on the right instead of being obstructive and I walk unsteady with a stick so I do not know what excuse these young fit people have for obstructing paths and causing aggro

 

[bramling]

Not an assumption I see. More like practical experience. It is normal to walk unmolested as long as you keep right.

Where is keeping right written down anywhere? Presumably the logical inference from the above is an acceptance that one is likely to be molested if in the way of cyclists, which certainly ties in with my experience.

It is sadly true that some walkers appear arrogant and unwilling to do that for cyclists, runners or any other non drivers.

I’ve stopped making way for cyclists on paths, too many bad experiences. Why should I show courtesy when none gets shown in return? Let them wait now, on the basis that if they’re going to be abusive anyway then they might as well have something to be abusive about. I’m afraid over the years my patience has worn down to zero on this.

Equally existance of roads does not make obstructing shared paths correct. It is not difficult to walk on the right instead of being obstructive and I walk unsteady with a stick so I do not know what excuse these young fit people have for obstructing paths and causing aggro

It seems that in the eyes of cyclists anyone walking on a shared path is fair game for being an obstruction. Roads are an unobstructed means of getting around, shared paths aren’t.

 

[Haywain]

It seems that in the eyes of cyclists anyone walking on a shared path is fair game for being an obstruction. Roads are an unobstructed means of getting around, shared paths aren’t.

So, although you still refer to it as a shared path you don’t want to share?

 

[py_megapixel]

It seems that in the eyes of cyclists anyone walking on a shared path is fair game for being an obstruction.

Once again, please stop tarring everyone who has ever ridden a bicycle with the same brush.

 

[Ediswan]

It is normal to walk unmolested as long as you keep right.

When cycling on shared paths, I don't mind which side pedestrians use, but it is easier for all if, where practical, they keep to a side. Of course, some paths at some times are too busy for that be practical.

 

[JGurney]

Where is keeping right written down anywhere?

The Highway Code, rule 2.

It seems to me that there is a growing problem arising through substantial numbers of both pedestrians and cyclists appearing to imagine that the rights and responsibilities of each towards the other somehow change depending on the presence or absence of motor vehicles. This is implied in the often false 'road'/'path' dichotomy which gets cited. In fact, the presence or absence of motor vehicles makes no difference to the way either should behave on public routes.

There is also an increasing tendency for pedestrians to be apparently determined to walk on the left (including sometimes when motor traffic is present, but especially when it is not).

None of these are an excuse for abusive or dangerous behaviour, by cyclists or anyone else. However, everyone following simple and long-standing rules such as 'walk on the right, drive and ride on the left, when meeting head on the vehicle or horse moves to their right while the pedestrian holds to their line on their right' will held avoid annoyance which can develop into more uncouth conduct.

 

[bramling]

The Highway Code, rule 2.

That rule is aimed at pedestrians walking in a road. A shared path or footpath isn’t a road, much as some cyclists seem to believe that it is.

There is also an increasing tendency for pedestrians to be apparently determined to walk on the left (including sometimes when motor traffic is present, but especially when it is not).

I’ll walk in whatever way I wish. I feel more comfortable walking on the left, that is the side we do most things in this country, which is why that’s why a lot of people do it. If cyclists want an environment where people behave in a specific way, there is the road.

None of these are an excuse for abusive or dangerous behaviour, by cyclists or anyone else.

Indeed. The amount of abusive behaviour by cyclists on paths is considerable, hence it’s to be expected that patience is going to run dry. Personally I’ve passed that point, and seemingly so has most of the rest of the population given the bad reputation cyclists have.

So, although you still refer to it as a shared path you don’t want to share?

To be frank, not any more, no. There comes a point when particular things are a thorough nuisance.

 

[JGurney]

That rule is aimed at pedestrians walking in a road. A shared path or footpath isn’t a road,

In fact they are. From Annex 4 of the Highway Code:

"The definition of a road in England and Wales is ‘any highway and any other road to which the public has access and includes bridges over which a road passes’ (RTA 1988 sect 192(1)). ...[References to Scotland cut]...
It is important to note that references to ‘road’ therefore generally include footpaths, bridleways and cycle tracks, and many roadways and driveways on private land (including many car parks). In most cases, the law will apply to them and there may be additional rules for particular paths or ways. Some serious driving offences, including drink-driving offences, also apply to all public places, for example public car parks."

Ref: https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/the-road-user-and-the-law.html

I’ll walk in whatever way I wish. I feel more comfortable walking on the left, ..... If cyclists want an environment where people behave in a specific way, there is the road.

The amount of abusive behaviour by cyclists on paths is considerable,

You appear to write that a path (as you are calling it) is a place where anyone can do as they like, yet you object to some obnoxious cyclists doing as they apparently wish. Either there are rules or there are not. If you are boasting that you will do whatever you wish you can hardly complain about others not behaving in the specific way that you would like. As I wrote above, the presence or absence or motor vehicles simply does not alter the rights and responsibilities of pedestrians and cyclists towards each other.

 

[Haywain]

That rule is aimed at pedestrians walking in a road. A shared path or footpath isn’t a road, much as some cyclists seem to believe that it is.





I’ll walk in whatever way I wish. I feel more comfortable walking on the left, that is the side we do most things in this country, which is why that’s why a lot of people do it. If cyclists want an environment where people behave in a specific way, there is the road.




Indeed. The amount of abusive behaviour by cyclists on paths is considerable, hence it’s to be expected that patience is going to run dry. Personally I’ve passed that point, and seemingly so has most of the rest of the population given the bad reputation cyclists have.



To be frank, not any more, no. There comes a point when particular things are a thorough nuisance.

I’m afraid to say that you seem to have an attitude that will invite adverse reactions from others.

 

[bramling]

In fact they are. From Annex 4 of the Highway Code:

"The definition of a road in England and Wales is ‘any highway and any other road to which the public has access and includes bridges over which a road passes’ (RTA 1988 sect 192(1)). ...[References to Scotland cut]...
It is important to note that references to ‘road’ therefore generally include footpaths, bridleways and cycle tracks, and many roadways and driveways on private land (including many car parks). In most cases, the law will apply to them and there may be additional rules for particular paths or ways. Some serious driving offences, including drink-driving offences, also apply to all public places, for example public car parks."

I don't read it like that. The section is entitled "the road user and the law", yet the mention about walking on the right is not a law. I have yet to see *any* signage on shared use paths suggesting people should walk on a particular side. In any case, it isn't just a case of which side one walks on, there can just as easily be trouble when cyclists appear from behind and in front, where the expectation from many seems to be that anyone walking should step off the path entirely.

You appear to write that a path (as you are calling it) is a place where anyone can do as they like, yet you object to some obnoxious cyclists doing as they apparently wish. Either there are rules or there are not. If you are boasting that you will do whatever you wish you can hardly complain about others not behaving in the specific way that you would like. As I wrote above, the presence or absence or motor vehicles simply does not alter the rights and responsibilities of pedestrians and cyclists towards each other.

Really, I don't see why there should be "rules" on a path at all. If there's an expectation for people to move out the way as a concession, such goodwill needs to be met with goodwill, otherwise it's no surprise when it finds itself evaporating.

I’m afraid to say that you seem to have an attitude that will invite adverse reactions from others.

So, as I've already said, I have gone from a position of attempting to make way for cyclists, receiving abuse nonetheless, and the fact my patience has (after quite a number of years) been worn down to zero, is somehow my fault for having "an attitude". I'd say this just sums up the cyclist mentality in one line, hence why most of the rest of the population seem to despise them too.

There needs to be a recognition that this pastime seems to cause more than its fair share of bad experiences. In the meantime, one is not legally required to make way for cyclists on paths, so let them tut, curse and swear when they find they can't bully people out of their way.

 

[ChrisC]

Interesting reading recent posts in this thread on both sides of the argument. I think there are a lot of generalisations and tarring all cyclists with the same brush. My experience during my regular walks is that the type of cyclist I meet depends very much on when and where I walk.

Most of my walking, when I have used shared paths and tracks, has been in rural areas, well away from large cities and midweek, rather than at weekends. I’ve done regular walks along trails like the Tissington and High Peak Trails in Derbyshire, Southwell Trail in Nottinghamshire and Trans Pennine Trail in South Yorkshire. A large number of the cyclists I meet are older people, often couples going at a steady leisurely pace or during school holidays family groups. I’ve mostly found them very considerate and friendly with some even stopping to chat. These type of cyclists will almost always only cycle on traffic free trails and avoid anywhere with busy traffic.

In winter when the footpaths are muddy, I do more walks closer to urban areas along better surfaced cycle paths, and there I do come across more of the lycra clad younger men cycling at speed and these are not always as considerate to walkers.

I’m now in a different situation, having after walking for years just these last few weeks been on some cycle rides along shared use paths. I am one of those people who have not been on a bike since I was in my teens. To make it even worse, I’m one of those terrible people who now have an e-bike! I’m definitely one of those older people who cycle at a more leisurely pace and I don’t ever intend to cycle along busy roads. Perhaps due to my lack of experience I have been very cautious when meeting pedestrians, slowing down and in some cases stopping to give them time to move to one side. I’m yet to encounter a rude pedestrian who has blocked the path and refused to let me through. Most people I have met have been very friendly and we have both said hello and thank you. I don’t think I have the courage to just ring my bell and keep going.

Last winter I was staying in London for a few days and met up with a friend near St Pancras station. I walked after dark at around 6pm from Tottenham Court Road to St Pancras through the back streets of Bloomsbury. That was an experience, that as someone not used to London I found quite dangerous. There were commuters cycling at speed along every street seemingly coming towards me from all directions. Crossing roads at junctions, even with pedestrian crossings, was a nightmare for someone like me from a quiet country village.

 

[Ediswan]

I have yet to see *any* signage on shared use paths suggesting people should walk on a particular side.

There are plenty of these about (and the mirror version). The segregation may only be some faded paint.

 

[bramling]

There are plenty of these about (and the mirror version). The segregation may only be some faded paint.
View attachment 120962

Which is fine when there's a line painted down the middle. The vast majority don't have this, and indeed are insufficiently wide, which is where issues arise. It's the equivalent of driving a motor vehicle along a single-track lane, yet many cyclists seem to expect a completely unhindered passage.

 

[JGurney]

I don't read it like that. The section is entitled "the road user and the law", yet the mention about walking on the right is not a law.

The passage quoted does not refer to walking on the right. It clarifies that "footpaths, bridleways and cycle track" are all roads in law. Highway code rule 2 states that pedestrians should walk on the right.

I have yet to see *any* signage on shared use paths suggesting people should walk on a particular side.

We do not generally see signage along roads suggesting that motorists should drive on a particular side. Nonetheless I am sure that you know as well as I that they must do so.

Really, I don't see why there should be "rules" on a path at all.

That position does seem inconsistent with your objecting to unruly conduct in such places. In the absence of rules unruly behaviour is to be expected.

For the avoidance of doubt, I am not defending such conduct, I object to it and think that a misguidedly belief that 'it's a path so there shouldn't be rules' is an underlying cause of it.

 

[Falcon1200]

It should be possible to walk along a path without having to keep looking over the shoulder in order to avoid getting subject to a gob of abuse, unfortunately experience is to the contrary.

Should it not also be possible for walkers to leave room for cyclists to pass, thus making life easier and more pleasant for everyone?

I’ve stopped making way for cyclists on paths

So, as I've already said, I have gone from a position of attempting to make way for cyclists

Which possibly explains why you receive abuse from cyclists. Shared paths are, as their name suggests, to be shared.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Should it not also be possible for walkers to leave room for cyclists to pass, thus making life easier and more pleasant for everyone?

Well, exactly. Milton Keynes, which has had them the longest, has the Redway Code, which instructs all users to treat them as "traffic free country lanes" - walk on the right, ride on the left, neither should block the full width.

Which possibly explains why you receive abuse from cyclists. Shared paths are, as their name suggests, to be shared.

If someone deliberately obstructed me (and yes, you would easily know if they were doing so), they would absolutely find me to be an abusive cyclist, despite my normal cycling demeanour being far more placid and accommodative than others. I get the feeling that, like the on road cycling campaigners who so often fail to cycle defensively, the poster is likely to be largely bringing their poor experiences on themselves, notwithstanding that some cyclists do behave badly on shared paths (e.g. the number of Cambs Busway close passes I reported a few weeks back).

 

[AM9]

.

Which is fine when there's a line painted down the middle. The vast majority don't have this, and indeed are insufficiently wide, which is where issues arise. It's the equivalent of driving a motor vehicle along a single-track lane, yet many cyclists seem to expect a completely unhindered passage.

Oh dear, once again find myself agreeing with you (in part at least). Like many I am a user of public highways in all three modes, car, cycle and on foot. The Highway Code could be better but try here are rules and recommendations that are quite easy to follow:
Road vehicles - applies to roads and shared places, - generally road without footpaths:- keep to the left and give priority to more vulnerable road users, (normally cyclists and pedestrians).
Cyclists - the same as for vehicles with priority for pedestrians.
Pedestrians - on a road without a pavement, walk on the right to face oncoming traffic. On shared space, walk on the left as pedestrians are users sharing the space, and other users should give priority to those on foot. On footpaths/pavements where only pedestrians should be walking, we all on to the *left*. This is a problem that is rarely discussed. Defaulting to walking on to he left means that on pavements, pedestrians nearest the kerb always face oncoming traffic, - the sole exception being on the offside of a one way street.
I have observed pedestrians happy walking on the correct side in other countries without difficulty, why so many here in the UK can't beats me!

 

[341o2]

Yes, a cyclist thinking that someone obstructing him has the right to be aggressive, I mostly drive on rural roads where overtaking is impossible. and have spent many miles behind cyclists. Yet if I dared to complain, or worse still, attempt an unsafe overtake, it would be "another aggressive driver, hand your licence in immediately"
I have read comments on social media that cyclists improve road safety by slowing traffic down, and it is not the cyclist causing congestion, YOU cause congestion by being there in the first place

 

[Bletchleyite]

Wilful obstruction where here is space for a safe overtake, as @bramling is suggesting, is different from there genuinely being no safe overtaking opportunity.

 

[AM9]

Yes, a cyclist thinking that someone obstructing him has the right to be aggressive, I mostly drive on rural roads where overtaking is impossible. and have spent many miles behind cyclists. Yet if I dared to complain, or worse still, attempt an unsafe overtake, it would be "another aggressive driver, hand your licence in immediately"
I have read comments on social media that cyclists improve road safety by slowing traffic down, and it is not the cyclist causing congestion, YOU cause congestion by being there in the first place

So what should a cyclist do when cycling on a rural road where "overtaking is impossible"?

 

[Bletchleyite]

So what should a cyclist do when cycling on a rural road where "overtaking is impossible"?

If a queue has built, they should pull over occasionally, when safe, to allow it past. The Highway Code refers.

 

[341o2]

Horse riders usually cooperate to let other road users pass.
How about the moped rider, riding as close to the centre of the road as possible all the time. Impossible to overtake, because I can't see whether there is oncoming traffic.
The HC states that you should not wilfully obstruct someone who wishes to overtake, and if someone is aggressively tailgating, I will slow down and even stop. As my father said "Let him go and crash somewhere else"

 

[Bletchleyite]

How about the moped rider, riding as close to the centre of the road as possible all the time. Impossible to overtake, because I can't see whether there is oncoming traffic.

Motorcycles are to be ridden in the centre of the applicable lane. Only bicycles have a "secondary position".

 

[bramling]

Well, exactly. Milton Keynes, which has had them the longest, has the Redway Code, which instructs all users to treat them as "traffic free country lanes" - walk on the right, ride on the left, neither should block the full width.



If someone deliberately obstructed me (and yes, you would easily know if they were doing so), they would absolutely find me to be an abusive cyclist, despite my normal cycling demeanour being far more placid and accommodative than others. I get the feeling that, like the on road cycling campaigners who so often fail to cycle defensively, the poster is likely to be largely bringing their poor experiences on themselves, notwithstanding that some cyclists do behave badly on shared paths (e.g. the number of Cambs Busway close passes I reported a few weeks back).

Would you like to give a definition of what meets your bar for being “deliberately obstructed”, and how you would go about being aggressive?

It seems that for many cyclists obstruction counts as no more than someone else merely being present.

I find it rather odd how so many people seem to think they have the right to go around being aggressive and abusive when on a cycle. It really is no surprise at all why the pastime has such a toxic rep.

As I have now written more than once, abuse was happening *when being co-operative*, so this isn’t merely a case of receiving abuse as a result of being awkward. It’s rather telling how this point keeps being overlooked, as it can never by cyclists at fault, can it?

 

[Haywain]

Would you like to give a definition of what meets your bar for being “deliberately obstructed”, and how you would go about being aggressive?

It seems that for many cyclists obstruction counts as no more than someone else merely being present.

I find it rather odd how so many people seem to think they have the right to go around being aggressive and abusive when on a cycle. It really is no surprise at all why the pastime has such a toxic rep.

Could you give your definition of "being aggressive"? I get the impression that you see any cyclist who passes you as being aggressive. Now, I appreciate that when walking a cyclist passing from behind can come as a slight shock if no warning has been given, but that does not demonstrate aggression.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Would you like to give a definition of what meets your bar for being “deliberately obstructed”

An example would be walking several-abreast on the path, as the Redway Code asks people not to do, and not moving to single-file when I ring my bell on approach*. Another would be walking down the middle of a path without enough space to cycle past one side, or wandering all over it, when if you walk towards one side (not in the gutter, just move over a bit) it would be safely possible to pass at low speed.

* It is not just cycling, to be honest, some couples - and it mostly is couples - have forgotten how to be considerate of others. I am thoroughly sick of having to walk in the road to pass couples on a narrow pavement who seem unable to break their handhold so they can walk in single file so people can walk in both directions.

and how you would go about being aggressive?

I suspect you'd get an eff-and-jeff or two if you were being obviously deliberately obstructive on a path wide enough to pass safely were you not so being. If you think you'd counter that physically I suspect you've not met me

It seems that for many cyclists obstruction counts as no more than someone else merely being present.

Certainly some cyclists do act in that manner. I don't, and it annoys me when they do - I am an outspoken critic of e.g. the Twitter "lycra campaigners" and their unwillingness to share the road with other users.

 

[bramling]

An example would be walking several-abreast on the path, as the Redway Code asks people not to do, and not moving to single-file when I ring my bell on approach. Another would be walking down the middle of a path without enough space to cycle past one side, or wandering all over it, when if you walk towards one side (not in the gutter, just move over a bit) it would be safely possible to pass at low speed.

Wouldn’t be doing any of those things. What I’m talking about is merely walking on a typical path (the type that is a few feet wide), and being expected to move right into the gutter *immediately* upon the bell being rung. Worse if one has the audacity to walk side by side.

I suspect you'd get an eff-and-jeff or two if you were being obviously deliberately obstructive on a path wide enough to pass safely were you not so being. If you think you'd counter that physically I suspect you've not met me

Ah, sort of what Mr Pomeroy thought on the Guildford train, then?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Wouldn’t be doing any of those things. What I’m talking about is merely walking on a typical path (the type that is a few feet wide), and being expected to move right into the gutter *immediately* upon the bell being rung. Worse if one has the audacity to walk side by side.

If walking side by side one should move to single file to allow another path user (whatever their mode - cycle, runner or simply someone walking faster) to pass, yes. I'm getting bored of having to walk in the road to avoid people so doing.

Walking in the gutter as an individual, no.

Ah, sort of what Mr Pomeroy thought on the Guildford train, then?

I hope you aren't suggesting that I'd be knifing pedestrians for not letting me past, as that's quite outrageous, really.

 

[Bikeman78]

I have to admit I am coming round to understanding why people despise cyclists so much. The attitude and behaviour of many cyclists (and it isn’t just a minority) on shared-use paths is frankly appalling, whilst in London the amount of red-light jumping is endemic.

To be honest I don’t really care too much about the red lights if it doesn’t affect me, but I’ve kind of had it happen once too often when crossing on a green man at a pedestrian crossing and a cyclist not only comes charging through but also yells abuse at anyone in the way. To be fair this is more of a London thing as it doesn’t seem to happen too much elsewhere, but poor attitude on shared paths seems to apply everywhere, and has got considerably worse since Covid.

I’m not sure if the logistics of a taxation scheme would make it worthwhile though, and many of the gripes do tend to sit in inadequate enforcement of existing laws territory.

To be honest a lot of people in London are quite aggressive/impatient whether they are walking, cycling or driving. I don't mind travelling around on tubes or trains but I wouldn't drive or cycle there. As regards tax, I don't really care either way. I only pay 30 quid a year for my car so I'd expect a bike to be less than that. As you say, is it worth the hassle?