telstarbox
Established Member
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.
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 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.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.
Do you have a problem with the more vulnerable person taking control of deciding what is safe?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.
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.some even act as vigilanties and policemen, such as Cycling Mikey
As for rules, cyclists expect not to obey them, but insist others do
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.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.
Yes, I'd forgotten every cyclist was exactly the sameAs for rules, cyclists expect not to obey them
Pedestrians are the most vulnerable road users, so may we hold up cyclists until we consider it safe for them to pass?Do you have a problem with the more vulnerable person taking control of deciding what is safe?
If doing otherwise would place you, as a pedestrian, in danger then yes.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!Pedestrians are the most vulnerable road users, so may we hold up cyclists until we consider it safe for them to pass?
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!
No thanks, I don't want to be knocked over or beaten upI 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!
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.No thanks, I don't want to be knocked over or beaten up
No thanks, I don't want to be knocked over or beaten up
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.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
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).
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... ).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.
"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?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.
Any to back up yours?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.
Agreed. Certain newspaper websites and social media sites have such echo chambers readily available.This thread would be better off closed down and relocated to some random place where angry people complain about everything and no-one listens.
"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.
Should we then close off all those shared paths that were built by a cycling charity?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.
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
I would nowadays actually go as far as advocating cycling should be on roads only.
Oh I don’t know, it’s quite useful for training one’s 'Ignore' listThis thread would be better off closed down and relocated to some random place where angry people complain about everything and no-one listens.
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)?
Thus putting cyclists at even greater risk of injury and death on the roads than we are already. Thanks.
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.
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),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.
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 taxNot 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),