Should a 'road tax' be introduced for cyclists?

[Bletchleyite]

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)

From experience, the MK Redways work reasonably well and encourage less experienced cyclists. That a few Lycra clad road cyclists prefer to ride fast on the dual carriageway is really neither here nor there. This isn't about cyclists causing a problem by being on the road, as they by and large don't, it's about how we get people to cycle who are - rationally - scared of sharing space with larger and faster vehicles.

Dutch style utility cycling isn't fast, that's not the point of it. In many ways it's a form of enhanced pedestrianism.

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?

There's one big difference between the Netherlands and most of the UK outside East Anglia and a small part of Merseyside/West Lancashire - the UK has hills, and riding up them gets you sweaty.

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'm personally in favour of the van speed limits becoming standard for all vehicles* i.e. 50-60-70 for single, dual, motorway rather than 60-70-70. This makes for a less fraught driving experience, less impatience and less overtaking as well as smoother driving meaning less pollution. Some Councils e.g. Derbyshire are already doing it with signage (e.g. on the Snake Pass and some roads in the Peak), but I'd like to see it blanket as NSL. A small number of motorway like duals with a central reservation and crash barrier (e.g. the A5 through MK) could be designated special roads and signed up to 70.

I don't, however, like blanket urban 20s even as a cyclist, as they mean an overtaking car is alongside me and posing me a threat for longer. I prefer 30 for urban minor roads and 40 for urban major roads with a dedicated cycle path. There are very few places I would put a 20 limit in preference to designing the road layout, by way of regulating parking and installing planters etc to create natural chicanes and curves, to make 20 or even less feel the right speed to drive in small non-thoroughfare residential streets and some small village/town centres with large number of pedestrians and pedestrianisation not viable.

* Including lorries and coaches, though obviously the limiter would make it 50-56-56 and 50-60-62 respectively.

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.

I'd not say "enjoys". As I mention above, I hate 20s as a cyclist as it means the vehicle overtaking me that poses a threat is there for longer. I prefer 30. Utility cycling mostly takes place at 10-15mph, so you only remove the overtaking if you go that low with the limit.

20s also make bus travel very, very unattractive as with the lower possible top speed it becomes little faster than walking, let alone cycling.

 

[py_megapixel]

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.

Nobody is saying that you have to enjoy cycling in lycra in the countryside. The question, though, remains: what substantial problem does it cause you for other people to choose to do that?

To put it another way, how is it making your life much more difficult (I do not count a few minutes added to a journey time as making your life much more difficult), apart from that they do not conform to your irrational prejudices against them?

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

You said that cyclists should increase their visibility, but also that they should not use powerful lights. To me this seems like a double standard, as you seem to have no issue with cars using powerful lights for the same purpose.

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.

I know I shouldn't put petrol in my bicycle. That's not the issue under discussion here!!

 

[Meerkat]

the UK has hills, and riding up them gets you sweaty.

Not if you are in the right gear (as in mechanical not attire!)

I'm personally in favour of the van speed limits becoming standard for all vehicles* i.e. 50-60-70 for single, dual, motorway rather than 60-70-70. This makes for a less fraught driving experience, less impatience and less overtaking as well as smoother driving meaning less pollution. Some Councils e.g. Derbyshire are already doing it with signage (e.g. on the Snake Pass and some roads in the Peak), but I'd like to see it blanket as NSL. A small number of motorway like duals with a central reservation and crash barrier (e.g. the A5 through MK) could be designated special roads and signed up to 70.

no no no no no no no. And no! Speed limits are already too low in this country, 60 on dual carriageways is ridiculously slow. They are arbitrary numbers created when cars were far less safe.
I was gutted when I found they had done that to the Snake Pass, its horrible now.

 

[johncrossley]

no no no no no no no. And no! Speed limits are already too low in this country, 60 on dual carriageways is ridiculously slow. They are arbitrary numbers created when cars were far less safe.
I was gutted when I found they had done that to the Snake Pass, its horrible now.

Do lower speed limits make roads safer or more dangerous?

 

[miklcct]

It's all a moot point as it will never happen. It will be unworkable in the same way as the dog license became. Imagine proposing that today!

Why was dog licence scheme failed?

I'm personally in favour of the van speed limits becoming standard for all vehicles* i.e. 50-60-70 for single, dual, motorway rather than 60-70-70. This makes for a less fraught driving experience, less impatience and less overtaking as well as smoother driving meaning less pollution. Some Councils e.g. Derbyshire are already doing it with signage (e.g. on the Snake Pass and some roads in the Peak), but I'd like to see it blanket as NSL. A small number of motorway like duals with a central reservation and crash barrier (e.g. the A5 through MK) could be designated special roads and signed up to 70.

no no no no no no no. And no! Speed limits are already too low in this country, 60 on dual carriageways is ridiculously slow. They are arbitrary numbers created when cars were far less safe.
I was gutted when I found they had done that to the Snake Pass, its horrible now.

As a driver I think the national speed limit is too high in this country apart from motorways. My favour is a complete reduction should be done at the same time as metrication like what Ireland did in 2005:
motorways: 120 km/h
dual carriageways: 100 km/h
single carriageways: 80 km/h
city roads: 50 km/h

which makes the speed limits in line with our neighbour.

 

[stuu]

I'm personally in favour of the van speed limits becoming standard for all vehicles* i.e. 50-60-70 for single, dual, motorway rather than 60-70-70. This makes for a less fraught driving experience, less impatience and less overtaking as well as smoother driving meaning less pollution. Some Councils e.g. Derbyshire are already doing it with signage (e.g. on the Snake Pass and some roads in the Peak), but I'd like to see it blanket as NSL. A small number of motorway like duals with a central reservation and crash barrier (e.g. the A5 through MK) could be designated special roads and signed up to 70.

I don't agree with that, what would be better is stricter enforcement of the limits that do exist now, especially in towns. And yes I'm as guilty of that as anyone else, but it's not really a good thing that limits are ignored

 

[biko]

People do cycle without dedicated infrastructure

Not as many as with 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.

Converted pavements are not a solution. A proper solution would be a height difference between pavement and cycle path and between cycle path and road. And the second point is what I mentioned before: new cycling infrastructure in the UK is mainly lacking around junctions.

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.

Not necessarily. Design can do a lot. A path parallel to a main road crossing a minor road can for example be put a little further from the main road (wider verge in the middle) so that a car can wait in between main road and cycle path. Clear marking and use of a different colour for the cycle path will make very clear drivers need to look out. If space is tight, you would have a cycle lane instead of a separate path and as you say, sight lines are better.

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.

Not true, a lot is possible also in tight spaces, but the paradigm in road design needs to change. I agree with the second part. A full network (or at least some kind of a structure) has way more benefits than some paths which randomly end just before a junction.

The Netherlands has way more space for separate lanes, and far more open sight lines.

I wouldn't say so. Newer neighbourhoods are designed with cycling and walking in mind, but older ones are tight and cramped. I can give sufficient examples of streets in the city where I live which feel quite similar to streets in the UK.

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.

Most of the country isn't like that, especially cities are quite narrow (okay, except Amsterdam). I can see that it would be more difficult to build separate cycle paths in the UK countryside than in the Netherlands, but cities are similar.

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.

That's one way of solving this for minor roads. For more important roads, another solution is as I mentioned earlier in this post by creating more space between cycle path and main road so cars can wait in between.

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

That's actually not always true. In cities cyclists are prioritised, but on ring roads and more suburban places, they have to wait just as long as the cars.

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 only Dutch people that dress differently when they go cycling are those on speed bikes and mountainbikes.

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.

Actually, I cannot think of any stretch of road in the Netherlands where it is allowed to cycle and where the speed limit is still 80 km/h. In cities, the trend is to go to speed limits of 30 km/h if there is no separated cycle path (for example just a cycle lane).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not if you are in the right gear (as in mechanical not attire!)

It is still effort!

no no no no no no no. And no! Speed limits are already too low in this country, 60 on dual carriageways is ridiculously slow. They are arbitrary numbers created when cars were far less safe.
I was gutted when I found they had done that to the Snake Pass, its horrible now.

So much more relaxing to drive, and considerably safer.

 

[Meerkat]

Do lower speed limits make roads safer or more dangerous?

Safer, but having a bloke with a flag walking in front would be safer - its about whether the increase in safety is so marginal it isnt worth the cost.

Not necessarily. Design can do a lot. A path parallel to a main road crossing a minor road can for example be put a little further from the main road (wider verge in the middle) so that a car can wait in between main road and cycle path.

AIUI those are the ones that are considered dangerous, because a cyclist at a decent speed comes into eyeline too late for the drivers.

So much more relaxing to drive, and considerably safer.

Boring to drive. How much is "considerably"?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Boring to drive. How much is "considerably"?

Enough for Derbyshire County Council to want to buy a load of 50 signs!

I wouldn't be bored there if it was 30. It is one of the most visually stunning drives in the UK.

 

[biko]

AIUI those are the ones that are considered dangerous, because a cyclist at a decent speed comes into eyeline too late for the drivers.

The whole idea is to warn drivers by making it very clear there is a cycle path they need to cross. Furthermore, in the space in between main road and cycle path drivers can look left and right, so sight lines are good. This is a nice example of such a design: https://www.google.nl/maps/@52.4859...4!1shVUpB4G8k0hvKoWyotV0tw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

(for the people who cannot open the link: Street View picture of a road with a design I explained before)

 

[Ashley Hill]

Why was dog licence scheme fail

Because it was widely ignored by both dog owners and the police. It neither protected dogs nor placed any restrictions on thier owners.

 

[The Ham]

The whole idea is to warn drivers by making it very clear there is a cycle path they need to cross. Furthermore, in the space in between main road and cycle path drivers can look left and right, so sight lines are good. This is a nice example of such a design: https://www.google.nl/maps/@52.4859...4!1shVUpB4G8k0hvKoWyotV0tw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

(for the people who cannot open the link: Street View picture of a road with a design I explained before)

Which is now what cycle infrastructure in the UK is supposed to be designed to, if anyone is interested they can look up LTN 01/20 which provides details of the new standards (I won't be offended if many of you don't).

 

[Ex-controller]

Sorry, have gone through thread in detail so apologies if this has been mentioned, but if the aim is to encourage active travel, include cycling, then I don’t think these are the kinds of obstacles we want to put up.

I like the Danish attitude, where they say that they have to treat their cyclists like kings and queens. And as anyone who has visited Copenhagen will tell you, no encouragement needed to cycle there. It has one of the largest modal shares for commuter transport.

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

Back on topic! I should gladly pay a tenner as 'tax' to fund establishment of a road traffic enforcement organisation that would soon become financially viable.

As for more cycling, NIMBY please! Cyclists may be beninger than drivers but many break the rules: not singling out when passing on narrow stretches, going too fast etc.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Back on topic! I should gladly pay a tenner as 'tax' to fund establishment of a road traffic enforcement organisation that would soon become financially viable.

Because enforcement is only needed because of people who don't comply with the law, I would like to see the costs of it funded by way of the level of fines imposed, so far as possible.

 

[Haywain]

Cyclists may be beninger than drivers but many break the rules: not singling out when passing on narrow stretches, going too fast etc.

Would you like to clarify which rules are being broken?

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

Would you like to clarify which rules are being broken?

Going too fast round blind corners, too close to other cyclists, to walkers, children, dogs, ignoring stop signs, undertaking on the inside, using a telephone, cycling while holding the lead of a dog, eating or drinking (toreau rouge!*) while moving etc etc

* a well-known energy drink

 

[Haywain]

Going too fast round blind corners, too close to other cyclists, to walkers, children, dogs, ignoring stop signs, undertaking on the inside, using a telephone, cycling while holding the lead of a dog, eating or drinking (toreau rouge!*) while moving etc etc

* a well-known energy drink

So not actual rules being broken (other than perhaps ignoring stop signs), just you being offended.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So not actual rules being broken (other than perhaps ignoring stop signs), just you being offended.

Ignoring a stop sign is indeed an offence, is it not? The rest aren't, though they are bad practice which should be discouraged. You can drive/cycle like an idiot without actually breaking any laws, but that doesn't make doing so OK.

 

[Haywain]

Ignoring a stop sign is indeed an offence, is it not? The rest aren't, though they are bad practice which should be discouraged. You can drive/cycle like an idiot without actually breaking any laws, but that doesn't make doing so OK.

Ignoring a stop sign may be an offence but it's done so often by car drivers that it seems strange to pick up on cyclists doing it. Some of the others may not be ideal but I suspect that most if this is just ill informed ranting typical of the anti cycling brigade.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Ignoring a stop sign may be an offence but it's done so often by car drivers that it seems strange to pick up on cyclists doing it. Some of the others may not be ideal but I suspect that most if this is just ill informed ranting typical of the anti cycling brigade.

It might actually be more feasible for a cyclist to safely ignore one as they approach at a much lower speed than a car with far better unobstructed all round visibility. They are quite rare in the UK, but I can't recall one I've come across even vaguely recently where if it was a "give way" I wouldn't still have stopped.

But antisocial driving/riding may not be illegal, but it is still to be deprecated.

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

Ignoring a stop sign may be an offence but it's done so often by car drivers that it seems strange to pick up on cyclists doing it. Some of the others may not be ideal but I suspect that most if this is just ill informed ranting typical of the anti cycling brigade.

First time I have been called anti-cycling, thanks very much*

I have been a keen cyclist for more than forty years.

I am not anti cycling, but I do not just want 'more cycling', I am generally anti motoring.

That many drivers break the law/rules is well-known, and of course much more serious than rule/law-breaking by cyclists, so I did not bother mentioning it.

I used to drive a lot, now I am retired, gave up driving, I cycle mainly on quiet routes without motors. Even there the biggest problem by far is drivers accessing the fields who are sadly allowed to use the cycleways. And drivers who illegally park and drive on cycleways.

* to avoid misunderstanding, I am not angry, rather pleased/entertained at being called anti-cycling!

 

[johncrossley]

I have been a keen cyclist for more than forty years.

The aim is not to encourage people to be keen cyclists, we just want them to make short journeys instead of using the car. In Netherlands and Denmark they have a lot of people cycling, but few of them would be classed as 'keen cyclists'. They just use the bike because it is cheap, safe and convenient. Most people who use the car for most of their trips are not 'keen motorists'. I wouldn't be surprised if Britain has a particularly large number of keen cyclists, given British success in cycling sport. It is evident that national sporting success in competitive cycling doesn't lead to heavy usage for day to day trips.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The aim is not to encourage people to be keen cyclists, we just want them to make short journeys instead of using the car.

All cycling should be encouraged, even for no purpose, as it is a great form of low-impact exercise.

 

[johncrossley]

All cycling should be encouraged, even for no purpose, as it is a great form of low-impact exercise.

Of course, there's nothing wrong with sporting or leisure cycling, but the main focus of the campaign must surely be for short utilitarian trips, given the large potential for modal shift.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Of course, there's nothing wrong with sporting or leisure cycling, but the main focus of the campaign must surely be for short utilitarian trips, given the large potential for modal shift.

Yes, I'd agree that should be the push, but any encouragement of increased physical activity of any kind is a positive given the obesity crisis (which will be exascerbated by all the home-working - you'd be surprised just how much walking is built into a commute, even one by car).

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

Please, no one-sided encouragement of cycling without discouragement of driving! Just increasing cycling while motoring is not restricted could have negative consequences: more fighting for space, more 'accidents'. One might be able to 'show' that there were health benefits even then, but not for bereaved families.

I favor just discouraging motoring to start with.

@johncrossley
Right there, I agree, I do not want more keen cyclists. I mentioned being a keen cyclist because of the mention of being anti-cycling.

I do nearly all my trips by cycle, I walk a bit, not used a train for a couple of months.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Please, no one-sided encouragement of cycling without discouragement of driving! Just increasing cycling while motoring is not restricted could have negative consequences: more fighting for space, more 'accidents'. One might be able to 'show' that there were health benefits even then, but not for bereaved families.

That isn't actually true - the more cyclists on a given road, the more visible and so safer they are as a group.

 

[Howardh]

If we had a tax on a bicycle, would an owner of a unicycle only pay half??