Should a 'road tax' be introduced for cyclists?

[telstarbox]

Exactly - at this time of year I'm often driving well below the speed limit on my commute because there are tractors out and about. It's just one of the compromises of living in a society.

 

[AM9]

I think that's pretty much it, and by "inconsiderate" they mean "daring to be riding slowly on the road".

The roads are full of things going slower than a car: tractors, horses, horseboxes, HGVs, caravans. If drivers are always having to take "evasive action" to avoid "dangerous cyclists", perhaps the problem is really the driver.

I would add to that motivation to call for cycle tax is also related to cyclist being able to make rapid progress through stationary traffic, (i.e. the "not fair" claim).

 

[341o2]

I think that's pretty much it, and by "inconsiderate" they mean "daring to be riding slowly on the road".

The roads are full of things going slower than a car: tractors, horses, horseboxes, HGVs, caravans. If drivers are always having to take "evasive action" to avoid "dangerous cyclists", perhaps the problem is really the driver.

Tractors sometimes, and horseriders usually cooperate to allow other traffic to pass.
But, for example, one cycling instructor teaches children to adopt the primary position and only permit another user to pass when they deem it safe to do so.
As for rules, cyclists expect not to obey them, but insist others do, some even act as vigilanties and policemen, such as Cycling Mikey

 

[Haywain]

But, for example, one cycling instructor teaches children to adopt the primary position and only permit another user to pass when they deem it safe to do so.

Do you have a problem with the more vulnerable person taking control of deciding what is safe?

 

[JGurney]

some even act as vigilanties and policemen, such as Cycling Mikey

Telling the police about a crime you have seen being committed is not being a vigilante. I would certainly hope that my neighbours would call the police if they saw my house was being burgled. Telling them about offences of careless driving, etc, is no different.

 

[Falcon1200]

As for rules, cyclists expect not to obey them, but insist others do

As usual, dismissing all cyclists as the same, which is not the case, at all.

 

[py_megapixel]

But, for example, one cycling instructor teaches children to adopt the primary position and only permit another user to pass when they deem it safe to do so.

The correct approach is to adopt the primary position when it is not safe for other vehicles to pass. This is because riding near the side of the road can be seen as an invitation for them to force past unsafely.

It seems to me a lot like you have never travelled on a bicycle in traffic, and are commenting on it with very little idea about what it entails.

As for rules, cyclists expect not to obey them

Yes, I'd forgotten every cyclist was exactly the same

 

[341o2]

Do you have a problem with the more vulnerable person taking control of deciding what is safe?

Pedestrians are the most vulnerable road users, so may we hold up cyclists until we consider it safe for them to pass?

 

[Haywain]

Pedestrians are the most vulnerable road users, so may we hold up cyclists until we consider it safe for them to pass?

If doing otherwise would place you, as a pedestrian, in danger then yes.

 

[py_megapixel]

Pedestrians are the most vulnerable road users, so may we hold up cyclists until we consider it safe for them to pass?

I assume you're thinking of shared paths which don't have room for cyclists to safely overtake. In which case - yes, of course you can!

 

[johncrossley]

Pedestrians are the most vulnerable road users, so may we hold up cyclists until we consider it safe for them to pass?

Pedestrians have a comprehensive nationwide network of footpaths, reaching virtually every urban street and many rural ones. For the most part, cycles have to share with cars.

I assume you're thinking of shared paths which don't have room for cyclists to safely overtake. In which case - yes, of course you can!

The growing trend for shared paths isn't great for either cyclists or pedestrians. It is only really suitable in areas generally away from built up areas, where there are few pedestrians.

 

[341o2]

I assume you're thinking of shared paths which don't have room for cyclists to safely overtake. In which case - yes, of course you can!

No thanks, I don't want to be knocked over or beaten up

 

[py_megapixel]

No thanks, I don't want to be knocked over or beaten up

You asked whether you as a pedestrian were allowed to hold up cyclists for your safety. To which my response was, if you are in an area which both cyclists and pedestrians are expected to use, yes.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

 

[Falcon1200]

No thanks, I don't want to be knocked over or beaten up

Last Thursday I cycled along a shared-use path (on an old railway as it happens) and encountered numerous pedestrians, including several groups of teenagers on a hike; One of these groups had stopped for a rest and were sitting, complete with rucksacks, blocking the entire path. I slowed down and rang my bell, they moved and said sorry, I said thanks (as I did with all other walkers) and no harm was done. It did not occur to me to knock anyone over or beat anyone up.

So please do not tar all cyclists with the same brush, we are ordinary human beings just like everyone else and just want to enjoy our pastime without causing or receiving hassle, or worse, to or from anyone.

 

[Bikeman78]

Tractors sometimes, and horseriders usually cooperate to allow other traffic to pass.
But, for example, one cycling instructor teaches children to adopt the primary position and only permit another user to pass when they deem it safe to do so.
As for rules, cyclists expect not to obey them, but insist others do, some even act as vigilanties and policemen, such as Cycling Mikey

Cycling Mikey appears to be based in London. Very little point in barging past a cyclist in an urban area to get to the next red light five seconds faster. If I had a quid for every time I caught up with an impatient driver at the next junction I could have retired by now.

 

[bramling]

I would add to that motivation to call for cycle tax is also related to cyclist being able to make rapid progress through stationary traffic, (i.e. the "not fair" claim).

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.

 

[Irascible]

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.

None of that is something that should be dealt with by tax, more by actually enforcing the law. If cyclists jump a red light on the road, do the same as you would a car driver ( and they deserve it - it takes no effort to just get off & walk ). TBH the same was true of motorbike couriers in London when they were relevant ( ahem, I am not going to be pointing fingers there... ).

If you tax cyclists "because of cycle lanes" you'll end up taxing pedestrians for pavements. Plenty of peds try and barge you & then get shirty.

 

[fishwomp]

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.

"And it isn't just a minority".. , because you know how many people are cyclists and have studied how many of them use shared paths and then how many of them abuse such paths?

Define cyclist to be someone who cycles regularly (at least once a month).

Now think how many of those people are abusing the road or path. Granny going to the shop on a bike - despise her! The reverend cycling to a service, a clear reprobate. The grandkid learning to ride, in the devil's arms already. 40% of Oxford adults cycle regularly. Lock 'em up.

What absolute ignorance to despise a class of people on account of the action of some members.

Why not despise pedestrians? It's just as easy.

They cross the road unexpectedly at any location they choose, sometimes drunkenly, hurl abuse, and almost never walk with any illumination at night.

This is also like confusing "people who drink alcohol" with "drunks". They are not the same, but one is a part of the other.

Start saying "bad cyclists" and everyone will agree. Say "cyclists" and you show ignorance.

This thread would be better off closed down and relocated to some random place where angry people complain about everything and no-one listens.

 

[AM9]

There is a minority view among committed drivers that all other users of the public highway should be subordinate to motorists, after all, 'they are the only ones who pay road tax' which as a justification just demonstrates their ignorance. They would like strict jaywalking laws to keep pedestrians out of 'their' way, cyclists taxed, (a thinly disguised way of effectively banning them), and reduced enforcement of 'unnecessary', 'nanny state' restrictions on their driving activities toallowthe police to deal with 'real criminals'.
Such is the absurdity of such self-interest groups that fortunately the imperatives of reducing motor vehicle traffic will just ignore their rantings and hopefully cyclists and pedestrians will continue to have unfettered use of the highway. 'Cycle tax' is a non-starter. However, abuse of pedestrian space is an issue that should receive more attention, - perhaps as a part of the ever-increasing deployment of AI assisted CCTV.

 

[341o2]

Any facts to back up your assertion?
In fact, cyclists argue that they are not causing any harm, and police should be dealing with "real criminals" instead.
Ah, yes, road tax. When VOSA stop referring to Tax your car, car tax, vehicle tax etc, then I will do likewise.
It isn't just shared paths. Many cyclists ride on pavements, footpaths and other pedestrian facilities and think that "peds" should look out for them and get out of their way, and if they don't, serves them right if I hit one

 

[py_megapixel]

Any facts to back up your assertion?
In fact, cyclists argue that they are not causing any harm, and police should be dealing with "real criminals" instead.

Any to back up yours?

Ah, yes, road tax. When VOSA stop referring to Tax your car, car tax, vehicle tax etc, then I will do likewise.

??

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.

 

[scosutsut]

This thread would be better off closed down and relocated to some random place where angry people complain about everything and no-one listens.

Agreed. Certain newspaper websites and social media sites have such echo chambers readily available.

 

[bramling]

"And it isn't just a minority".. , because you know how many people are cyclists and have studied how many of them use shared paths and then how many of them abuse such paths?

Define cyclist to be someone who cycles regularly (at least once a month).

Now think how many of those people are abusing the road or path. Granny going to the shop on a bike - despise her! The reverend cycling to a service, a clear reprobate. The grandkid learning to ride, in the devil's arms already. 40% of Oxford adults cycle regularly. Lock 'em up.

What absolute ignorance to despise a class of people on account of the action of some members.

Why not despise pedestrians? It's just as easy.

The difference is that by and large most people *don’t* cause a problem when merely walking.

By contrast, go on virtually any kind of off-road path, for example but not limited to the many disused railway trails we have in this country, and it’s pretty much guaranteed there will be numerous run-ins with cyclists, many of whom expect people to get out of their way instantly, and become abusive if this doesn’t happen. Exactly the sort of behaviour often complained about cyclists being on the receiving end of from motorists.

I would nowadays actually go as far as advocating cycling should be on roads only.

 

[Haywain]

The difference is that by and large most people *don’t* cause a problem when merely walking.

By contrast, go on virtually any kind of off-road path, for example but not limited to the many disused railway trails we have in this country, and it’s pretty much guaranteed there will be numerous run-ins with cyclists, many of whom expect people to get out of their way instantly, and become abusive if this doesn’t happen. Exactly the sort of behaviour often complained about cyclists being on the receiving end of from motorists.

I would nowadays actually go as far as advocating cycling should be on roads only.

Should we then close off all those shared paths that were built by a cycling charity?

 

[Falcon1200]

it’s pretty much guaranteed there will be numerous run-ins with cyclists, many of whom expect people to get out of their way instantly, and become abusive if this doesn’t happen

As per my Post #314 above, that is not in any shape or form how I behave when cycling on shared paths. Besides, on a shared path, is it unreasonable to expect pedestrians to be aware that cyclists use them too, and to not wander across the whole width, or be on one side with their dog on the other and the lead stretched right across (if the dog is even on a lead in the first place)? We must all treat each other with respect and consideration.

I would nowadays actually go as far as advocating cycling should be on roads only.

Thus putting cyclists at even greater risk of injury and death on the roads than we are already. Thanks.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

This thread would be better off closed down and relocated to some random place where angry people complain about everything and no-one listens.

Oh I don’t know, it’s quite useful for training one’s 'Ignore' list

 

[bramling]

As per my Post #314 above, that is not in any shape or form how I behave when cycling on shared paths. Besides, on a shared path, is it unreasonable to expect pedestrians to be aware that cyclists use them too, and to not wander across the whole width, or be on one side with their dog on the other and the lead stretched right across (if the dog is even on a lead in the first place)?

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.

Thus putting cyclists at even greater risk of injury and death on the roads than we are already. Thanks.

The thanks should be directed at those cyclists who cause problems, not those who just want to be able to walk around without being constantly expected to get out the way. 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.

Experience shapes views unfortunately, and whilst at one point I was pretty pro cycling, having seen how too many behave I can totally understand how the bad reputation has come about.

 

[Tetchytyke]

But, for example, one cycling instructor teaches children to adopt the primary position and only permit another user to pass when they deem it safe to do so.

A cycling instructor teaching cyclists how to ride properly. Whatever next.

The fact you appear to see this as a bad thing is probably why you seem to have a disproportionate number of incidents with cyclists.

 

[341o2]

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.

Not quite. If you keep or use a motor vehicle on the public highway, you are obliged to pay the (whatever you choose to call it),

 

[AM9]

Not quite. If you keep or use a motor vehicle on the public highway, you are obliged to pay the (whatever you choose to call it),

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