Should a 'road tax' be introduced for cyclists?

[Bletchleyite]

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?

The Swiss, who had mandatory insurance costing about £10/year and mandatory licence plates, abolished it as bringing no benefit and discouraging cycling, which should be a decent clue.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

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.

Out of interest, what do you mean there? In my experience "lycra" and "campaigners" are pretty much opposite ends of the cycling demographic.

 

[Bikeman78]

The Swiss, who had mandatory insurance costing about £10/year and mandatory licence plates, abolished it as bringing no benefit and discouraging cycling, which should be a decent clue.

Yes I remember you mentioned this before. In practical terms, what would it achieve? Would all cyclists behave like model citizens if they had to pay a tenner a year? Would drivers suddenly be more accepting of cyclists? Would it bring in enough revenue to build some useful cycle lanes? I suspect the answer is no to all three. The idiots would still be idiots and of course the worst offenders wouldn't pay the tax anyway.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Out of interest, what do you mean there? In my experience "lycra" and "campaigners" are pretty much opposite ends of the cycling demographic.

Jeremy Vine's Twitter is a very good place to start.

 

[Falcon1200]

I mostly drive on rural roads where overtaking is impossible.

What kind of road are we talking about here? Presumably single-track ones, as I can't imagine there are many full-width rural roads where the traffic is so heavy that overtaking a bike, using the opposite carriageway, is impossible for 'many miles'. I do stop if necessary to let vehicles pass or overtake, sometimes they acknowledge me, other times they do not.

YOU cause congestion by being there in the first place

How dare we! Although I think you'll find that by far the majority of congestion on our roads is caused by vehicles, mostly cars, not bicycles.

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.

That is not the impression I get from the comments of the cyclists here.

Worse if one has the audacity to walk side by side.

Nothing wrong with that of course, but it is surely not unreasonable to move to single file for the few seconds needed for a bike to pass; Or should the cyclist just follow the pedestrians, at walking place, until they leave the shared path, or, if going in the opposite direction, move themself and their bike into the muddy verge?

 

[ashkeba]

On shared space, walk on the left as pedestrians are users sharing the space, and other users should give priority to those on foot.

While your suggestion has some merit, it is contrary to the highway code and will be result in conflict with all other users, even other walkers. Please don't.

 

[ABB125]

While your suggestion has some merit, it is contrary to the highway code and will be result in conflict with all other users, even other walkers. Please don't.

If pedestrians all walk on the left, how will they conflict with each other?

 

[Bletchleyite]

If pedestrians all walk on the left, how will they conflict with each other?

If the Highway Code tells them to walk on the right, they would conflict with those complying with it. We could change it, but until we do it should be complied with.

 

[bramling]

What kind of road are we talking about here? Presumably single-track ones, as I can't imagine there are many full-width rural roads where the traffic is so heavy that overtaking a bike, using the opposite carriageway, is impossible for 'many miles'. I do stop if necessary to let vehicles pass or overtake, sometimes they acknowledge me, other times they do not.



How dare we! Although I think you'll find that by far the majority of congestion on our roads is caused by vehicles, mostly cars, not bicycles.



That is not the impression I get from the comments of the cyclists here.



Nothing wrong with that of course, but it is surely not unreasonable to move to single file for the few seconds needed for a bike to pass; Or should the cyclist just follow the pedestrians, at walking place, until they leave the shared path, or, if going in the opposite direction, move themself and their bike into the muddy verge?

I’m not sure it is entirely reasonable to expect two people to change to single file every single time a cycle wants to come past, especially when plenty of room exists to pass were they to reduce speed.

However it isn’t only that, when we *did* used to change to single file every time a bell rung, we were still copping abuse for not doing so quickly enough, or for not moving off the path entirely should a cycle be coming the other way at the same moment. It is the latter two behaviours which have soured the goodwill which originally existed, hence we will *not* change to single file now.

The issue isn’t so much obstructing a path, but that cyclists expect not to have to slow down. If they want that kind of completely unhindered experience, roads exist.

I’m afraid I feel more comfortable walking on the left side, and am not going to change this. We do things on the left in this country, the only reason it is recommended to walk on the right on roads is for the benefit of the *pedestrian* in giving them a better view of oncoming traffic should someone be about to actually run them over. It isn’t for the convenience of vehicles, and indeed the guidance is also to change to the other side where visibility is restricted.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I’m not sure it is entirely reasonable to expect two people to change to single file every single time a cycle wants to come past

It is always reasonable for pedestrians to go single file to allow any other legitimate user of the path to pass. Always. I'm sick of being forced into the road *when walking in the opposite direction* to pass inconsiderate couples who won't - and it's always couples who can't bear to part their hands for two seconds. I'm getting so sick of it that I'm increasingly tempted, rather than walking in the road, to simply stop in front of them until they do. It seems to be a COVID thing from when you did expect people to walk around you 2m apart - those days are of course long gone and people need to stop it.

especially when plenty of room exists to pass were they to reduce speed.

You'd as much be claiming they were close-passing you if that was what they did.

However it isn’t only that, when we *did* used to change to single file every time a bell rung, we were still copping abuse for not doing so quickly enough, or for not moving off the path entirely should a cycle be coming the other way at the same moment. It is the latter two behaviours which have soured the goodwill which originally existed, hence we will *not* change to single file now.

Selfish and inconsiderate. It is not "goodwill", it is the correct way to use a shared path. You're not being nice if you do it, you're doing what's required of you as a user of a public shared path.

The issue isn’t so much obstructing a path, but that cyclists expect not to have to slow down.

Certainly cyclists should slow right down to pass pedestrians if they need to go closer than a couple of feet.

 

[bramling]

If the Highway Code tells them to walk on the right, they would conflict with those complying with it. We could change it, but until we do it should be complied with.

I’m going to do a straw poll in my office tomorrow, see who (1) is aware of any rule requiring them to walk on the right, and (2) would actually comply if there were one. I have a strong suspicion what the result is going to be.

It is always reasonable for pedestrians to go single file to allow any other legitimate user of the path to pass. Always. I'm sick of being forced into the road *when walking in the opposite direction* to pass inconsiderate couples who won't - and it's always couples who can't bear to part their hands for two seconds. I'm getting so sick of it that I'm increasingly tempted, rather than walking in the road, to simply stop in front of them until they do. It seems to be a COVID thing from when you did expect people to walk around you 2m apart - those days are of course long gone and people need to stop it.

This is a completely different situation. In your example you’re essentially being forced to do something unsafe. In my example we’re merely talking about convenience for cyclists. Not the same thing.

Selfish and inconsiderate.

What is? The fact that when we did move out the way it was common to receive abuse for not doing so quickly enough or for not stepping onto a muddy verge?

Certainly cyclists should slow right down to pass pedestrians if they need to go closer than a couple of feet

Now we’re getting somewhere!

It’s interesting that cyclists expect drivers of motor vehicle drivers to treat them with consideration, yet many fail to do so in respect of pedestrians. This is rather hypocritical.

Next time I’m driving a car and I encounter a cyclist in front of me, should I sound my horn and expect them to get out of the way, and give them abuse if they don’t? This is essentially the exact same comparison.

 

[AM9]

Now we’re getting somewhere!

It’s interesting that cyclists expect drivers of motor vehicle drivers to treat them with consideration, yet many fail to do so in respect of pedestrians. This is rather hypocritical.

Much of the acrimony in this thread seems to hinge on a presumption by some that all cyclists are arrogant, are a hazard to all other road users and hurl abuse at every other highway and footpath user that doesn't get out of their way. Of course, as the Daily Mail and other paragons of objective journalism report, some pretty unreasonable cyclists do exist, but in reality, they are in a minority. Let's face it, 'cyclists obeying rule of the road' doesn't give the typical reader of that rag much incentive to continue to buy their copy.
In my experience, the incidence of bad cyclists' behaviour is pretty rare, and certainly not prevalent enough to upset anybody but the most self-entitled of motorists or pedestrians.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

Interesting observation:

https://twitter.com/JessieSingerNYC/status/1572254550660112386

Less than a year after the City of New York installed a protected bike lane on Prospect Park West, cycling on the sidewalk fell from 46 percent of riders to 3 percent

 

[bramling]

Interesting observation:

https://twitter.com/JessieSingerNYC/status/1572254550660112386

"Less than a year after the City of New York installed a protected bike lane on Prospect Park West, cycling on the sidewalk fell from 46 percent of riders to 3 percent"

The problem with that is it then encourages a mentality that cycles shouldn’t be on the road at all. Certainly when I used to cycle to university in London (no cycle superhighways in those days!) I would *want* to be on the road, because it offered by far the quickest and most unhindered means of completing the journey. It would have been nice to be able to ding the bell and expect all the obstructive empty taxis to move out the way!

I can understand why some cyclists might prefer not to use roads, which is of course their choice, however in making that choice this shouldn’t compromise people walking.

Most of this does of course come down to the usual problem that parts of this country are grossly overpopulated in terms of population density, which increases the amount of conflict likely to occur.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The problem with that is it then encourages a mentality that cycles shouldn’t be on the road at all.

That is to be fair the view (and the law) held by the Dutch, who *know* cycling like no other country in the world.

I'd be a bit less strong than that, but would say "the default position for cycling should be on a dedicated cycle facility of a Dutch style design". Fit riders of expensive road bikes may prefer the road, but pretty much everyone else is better off on a dedicated facility.

 

[bramling]

Much of the acrimony in this thread seems to hinge on a presumption by some that all cyclists are arrogant, are a hazard to all other road users and hurl abuse at every other highway and footpath user that doesn't get out of their way. Of course, as the Daily Mail and other paragons of objective journalism report, some pretty unreasonable cyclists do exist, but in reality, they are in a minority. Let's face it, 'cyclists obeying rule of the road' doesn't give the typical reader of that rag much incentive to continue to buy their copy.
In my experience, the incidence of bad cyclists' behaviour is pretty rare, and certainly not prevalent enough to upset anybody but the most self-entitled of motorists or pedestrians.

Fancy a walk, the two of us along a path of mutual choice? We can walk two abreast whilst discussing topics of choice such as the Thameslink Programme, see how long it is before there’s a run-in with a cyclist.

To be fair, most of my bad experience is with the leisure brigade. The worst seeming to be the types who turn up on one of the walks where there’s a cycle hire, or get their own crappy bikes with under inflated tyres and the seat too low, off the back of the car, and seem to expect that their “day out” trumps anything else. Unfortunately this group seems to have bred like rats in recent years.

That is to be fair the view (and the law) held by the Dutch, who *know* cycling like no other country in the world.

I'd be a bit less strong than that, but would say "the default position for cycling should be on a dedicated cycle facility of a Dutch style design". Fit riders of expensive road bikes may prefer the road, but pretty much everyone else is better off on a dedicated facility.

That just wouldn’t work here, as it’s pretty much guaranteed that anyone choosing to cycle on roads would be hounded off. There’s numerous reasons why cycling on roads is preferable, not least because it tends to be quicker. As in my example I gave, there’s no way I would have been wanting to mess around with cycle paths, as it would likely have doubled the journey time. I wanted to be off the train at King’s Cross and straight down to Aldwych. 10 minutes.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That just wouldn’t work here, as it’s pretty much guaranteed that anyone choosing to cycle on roads would be hounded off. There’s numerous reasons why cycling on roads is preferable, not least because it tends to be quicker. As in my example I gave, there’s no way I would have been wanting to mess around with cycle paths, as it would likely have doubled the journey time. I wanted to be off the train at King’s Cross and straight down to Aldwych. 10 minutes.

In a sensible world, of course, there'd be a cycle facility all the way down Kingsway, a tram running down the middle (and under the tram subway) and no cars.

 

[AM9]

Fancy a walk, the two of us along a path of mutual choice? We can walk two abreast whilst discussing topics of choice such as the Thameslink Programme, see how long it is before there’s a run-in with a cyclist.

I'm in York at the moment, and struggling to walk around the city a bit because I have an oedema issue with my feet. Still, the the thought was welcome, although TL is far less of an issue here now. How about class 195s? Of course it would have to be a compliant shared path, I.e. at least 3m wide (or more if flows were high).

 

[biko]

What a load of generalisations and prejudice on this thread. As I’ve seen before on these threads, the concept cyclist is something different in the UK from countries where people really cycle. In Dutch we have two words for cyclist: one for people who do it as a sport on a race bike (mostly in Lycra) and one for ordinary people cycling as a mode of transport on a city bike. The UK seems to have too many people doing the first or going somewhere on a racing bike. Those bikes ride better at higher speeds so invite people to ride more aggressively. The UK needs more of the latter type of cyclists, but that won’t happen until facilities are better and safer, which won’t be supported with the views generated by mostly people cycling as a sport.

That is to be fair the view (and the law) held by the Dutch, who *know* cycling like no other country in the world.

I'd be a bit less strong than that, but would say "the default position for cycling should be on a dedicated cycle facility of a Dutch style design". Fit riders of expensive road bikes may prefer the road, but pretty much everyone else is better off on a dedicated facility.

We’ve got two types of cycle path: one which is compulsory to use and one which is voluntary. The former is the default and the latter mostly in recreational areas and nature reserves. That works pretty well as the racing cyclists will then use the road and the other cyclists the path. In cities and towns only compulsory paths exist but you don’t see that many racing bikes in towns.

 

[Bikeman78]

This thread has been going round in circles for nine months. Does anyone seriously expect cycle tax to become a thing? What do the public at large hope it will achieve? I think a lot of people will be disappointed and that nothing will really change.

 

[bramling]

This thread has been going round in circles for nine months. Does anyone seriously expect cycle tax to become a thing? What do the public at large hope it will achieve? I think a lot of people will be disappointed and that nothing will really change.

No there isn’t much point, and indeed the practical logistics of collecting the tax, as well as enforcing it, would outweigh any monetary benefit.

What possibly might be more useful is something involving compulsory insurance. This would probably be to everyone’s benefit.

 

[JamesT]

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.

Highway Code rule 2 prefixes that requirement to keep right with a stipulation that it applies where there is no pavement. I believe that if the intention was that the rule should be general it wouldn’t have that qualification.
Rule 1 which talks about using pavements and foot ways where possible says you should avoid being next to the kerb with your back to traffic. If I’m on a pavement next to a road, that implies to me that I should walk on the left of the pavement. If I’m travelling in the direction of the traffic I’m furthest away from it, if I’m facing the traffic then I will be next to the kerb.
If Rule 2 is imposing a general keep right requirement then there is a conflict between the two rules.

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.

Rule 160 is the one that states that drivers and riders should keep left by default whilst moving. In comparison with Rule 2, the only prefix is that it applies to vehicles in motion, and exceptions to the rule are listed afterwards.

So I believe you are misinterpreting the Highway Code in stating there is a requirement to keep right and my experience is that generally people will keep left on footpaths.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No there isn’t much point, and indeed the practical logistics of collecting the tax, as well as enforcing it, would outweigh any monetary benefit.

What possibly might be more useful is something involving compulsory insurance. This would probably be to everyone’s benefit.

The Swiss would like to disagree, having had it and abolished it.

 

[Falcon1200]

This thread has been going round in circles for nine months. Does anyone seriously expect cycle tax to become a thing?

No, because cycle tax, and registration numbers on bikes or cyclists, are IMHO a knee-jerk reaction by people who have been annoyed or delayed by cyclists.

What possibly might be more useful is something involving compulsory insurance.

How would that be enforced, short of registration plates on bikes or cyclists? Would the Police really start checking every cyclist they observe to ensure they have insurance? Given the number of uninsured, and indeed unlicensed, vehicle drivers on our roads, a far greater hazard to everyone, pedestrians, cyclists and other motorists alike, not a chance.

 

[SHD]

Is there not a quasi-mandatory civil liability insurance in the UK?
In France, home insurance always covers civil liability insurance of the insured and their family, including recreative activities such as cycling.
Although subscribing home insurance is only technically required for tenants, it is obvious that in practice everyone subscribes one.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is there not a quasi-mandatory civil liability insurance in the UK?
In France, home insurance always covers civil liability insurance of the insured and their family, including recreative activities such as cycling.

A lot of home insurance in the UK does as well, though hardly anyone knows it does, and not every policy does nor is it mandatory to even have home insurance if you rent or own outright (though it's generally mandatory if mortgaged). A while back I got it in writing from Direct Line that they did, though the underwriting may of course have changed in the meantime. You get two wordings - one of them covers liability arising out of owning/occupying the home only (e.g. a roof tile falling on the neighbours' car), the other covers any liability to residents of that home with only specific exceptions e.g. caused by motor vehicles.

Nothing mandatory though.

 

[Tetchytyke]

To summarise:
Cyclists who choose not to use a shared use cycle path, instead preferring the road, are a menace to road users and should be punished.
Cyclists who choose to use a shared use cycle path are a menace to pedestrians and should be punished.

Glad we've got that sorted!

(My preference is to use a cycle path, but in the UK cycle paths are usually rubbish and usually involve having to give way to turning traffic at every single side road. Even where the road markings are for turning cars to give way, it seldom happens. The constant acceleration and braking gets tiring very quickly).

As for use of the bell on shared paths, I've had abuse for ringing the bell ("why should I move out of your way?!?") and abuse for not ringing the bell ("you sneaked up on me and scared me!"). Again, you just can't win sometimes

 

[341o2]

Much of the acrimony in this thread seems to hinge on a presumption by some that all cyclists are arrogant, are a hazard to all other road users and hurl abuse at every other highway and footpath user that doesn't get out of their way. Of course, as the Daily Mail and other paragons of objective journalism report, some pretty unreasonable cyclists do exist, but in reality, they are in a minority. Let's face it, 'cyclists obeying rule of the road' doesn't give the typical reader of that rag much incentive to continue to buy their copy.
In my experience, the incidence of bad cyclists' behaviour is pretty rare, and certainly not prevalent enough to upset anybody but the most self-entitled of motorists or pedestrians.

Come to Bournemouth promenade or The New Forest when a sportve is being held. the seafrount rangers do nothing about cyclists because of the abuse they invariably receve.
to give one example, calling out to a cyclist "Mind my dog", and he went completely ape, yelling and ranting, mostly using a two word phrase while giving the one finger.
I, and many others simply stay at home (as we have been told to do so) when a sportive is being held. So much for sharing

 

[JGurney]

Highway Code rule 2 prefixes that requirement to keep right with a stipulation that it applies where there is no pavement.

Yes, quite so. If a road includes one or more footways, pedestrians would usually walk on those.

I believe that if the intention was that the rule should be general it wouldn’t have that qualification.

Quite, of course it applies only to roads without separate footways. There never was never any suggestion that on a road including footways to both sides, pedestrians were supposed to walk on the one on their right.

Rule 1 which talks about using pavements and foot ways where possible says you should avoid being next to the kerb with your back to traffic. If I’m on a pavement next to a road, that implies to me that I should walk on the left of the pavement. If I’m travelling in the direction of the traffic I’m furthest away from it, if I’m facing the traffic then I will be next to the kerb.
If Rule 2 is imposing a general keep right requirement then there is a conflict between the two rules.

As above, I don't suppose there was ever any intention that the reference to walking on the right in rule 2 should apply where there was a footway. There is no conflict between Rule 1's provisons concerning pedestrians on footways and Rule 2's provision for pedestrians walking on roads without footways, because the two could not both apply in the same place.

Rule 160 is the one that states that drivers and riders should keep left by default whilst moving. In comparison with Rule 2, the only prefix is that it applies to vehicles in motion,

Both could only possibly apply to road users in motion, as their 'left' and 'right' will be defined by their direction. (E.g. a stationary person standing in a road might reasonably be on either side of it. It would only be once they started walking along it in one direction or other that it would be sensible to refer to the sides of the road as being on their left or right relative to their direction).

So I believe you are misinterpreting the Highway Code in stating there is a requirement to keep right

It is a plain statement that on roads without footways pedestrians should "keep to the right-hand side". I see no scope for interpretation or misinterpretation there.

 

[Bikeman78]

To summarise:
Cyclists who choose not to use a shared use cycle path, instead preferring the road, are a menace to road users and should be punished.
Cyclists who choose to use a shared use cycle path are a menace to pedestrians and should be punished.

That seems to be it in a nutshell. Not welcome anywhere; too fast for paths and too slow for roads. Personally I nearly always stay on the road. If that delays motor vehicles by a few seconds, tough luck! 99.9% of my cycling is along urban roads so there's little to be gained by overtaking anyway. I can cycle to work or Central station faster than I can drive so the argument that I'm too slow on my bike doesn't really stack up. On the odd occasion that I drive, the biggest cause of delay is other motor vehicles. It certainly isn't people on bikes.

How would that be enforced, short of registration plates on bikes or cyclists? Would the Police really start checking every cyclist they observe to ensure they have insurance? Given the number of uninsured, and indeed unlicensed, vehicle drivers on our roads, a far greater hazard to everyone, pedestrians, cyclists and other motorists alike, not a chance.

I've never been stopped by the Police on my bike or in my car. It's rare to see any Police, despite riding past a Police station every day. There's something like a million uninsured vehicles, despite ANPR cameras. Of course the cameras will only check that the vehicle has insurance. They cannot check that the person inside is insured for that vehicle so no doubt the figure is a lot higher. So long as the vehicle has tax, insurance, MOT and no defects then there won't be any reason to stop it unless a driving offence takes place.