carlmango11 wrote: » Tough sh*t. Bikes were around longer than cars. And the reason they don't pay tax is because bikes do practically 0 damage to roads. If everyone cycled the road maintenance bill would plummet.
Scruffy...The Janitor wrote: » At risk of recycling an extremely extensively made point at this stage: Motor tax =/= Road tax
No Pants wrote: » Cyclists pay no tax? When did the Revenue make this massive change and how come no one told me? Was it in the newspapers or something?
seamus wrote: » You know what they say about assumptions. Never assume any other road user is going to do anything until they've started doing it. Observe. There's a cyclist to your left, bearing down on the two in front of him. The most likely possible outcomes of this situation are:
jelenka wrote: » I don't mind cyclists on the road, I'd say more of them are vigilant and don't break the rules, but i absolutely hate it when 2 cyclists cycle next to each other having a chat, leaving no room to overtake them.
gramar wrote: » I've seen various studies that state that anywhere between 40-60% of accidents involving both cars and bicycles are caused by cyclists so why don't they have insurance to cover the damage caused by their actions? That makes no sense to me.
No Pants wrote: » Cyclists pay no tax? When did the Revenue make this massive change and how come no one told me? Was it in the newspapers or something? * Runs off to buy buy a bike *
SeanW wrote: » If you have a bicycle, you pay no transport related taxes on it.
jelenka wrote: » leaving no room to overtake them.
SeanW wrote: » So would the governments' tax take ... by a much larger degree.
ThisRegard wrote: » Show us these studies, or do we have to wait for the technology to be developed to see into other peoples imaginations ?
SeanW wrote: » If you have a bicycle, you pay no transport related taxes on it. Cyclists are also totally unregulated, and it shows. ?
gramar wrote: » I've had this debate before in other threads and I'm not going through all that again suffice to say that these were legimate studies that determined who was at fault in car/bicycle accidents in particular urban areas and also concluded the main contributing factors such as availability of cycle lanes, culture of cycling etc. Studies aside common sense would tell you that cyclists are responsible for a percentage of traffic accidents. To think otherwise is frankly absurd.
Studies aside common sense would tell you that cyclists are responsible for a percentage of traffic accidents
ThisRegard wrote: » Are you driving a Stenna Line car ferry or something ? If you can't manage to over take them, maybe you should be on a bike yourself.
jelenka wrote: » No , but when you are on busy narrow backroads ,with lots of oncomming traffic , you simply don't have the room .
Caliden wrote: » This question is for cyclists, do you not agree though that it is a bit crazy that a someone can just hop on a bike and go around without any knowledge of signs, car stopping distances (some seem to think we can stop on a penny) or any of that? Now I'm not lumping all cyclists in the same group and there are cyclists who take the time to educate themselves on the rules of the road. There are definitely cyclists that obey the laws but for each one of them there are at least 2 more that don't. Cycling is definitely one of the more dangerous ways to commute to work and I see some really stupid driving by people overtaking cyclists on blind bends or coming within inches of their bike every day of the week. I just think that there should be some sort of bike licence. Now it may seem really stupid but RSA ads alone are not enough to keep people safe. It would also help with the prosecution of people who have no right to call themselves a cyclist and are the reason cyclists get a bad name.
Jawgap wrote: » Then you should wait until there is space to complete any manoeuvre safely..... 'Really stupid driving' is the responsibility of the driver......drivers have no 'right' to overtake - if they can't do it safely the they wait until they can. Blaming cyclists, even I'll informed ones, for stupid driving is ridiculous.
Caliden wrote: » I never blamed cyclists so stop with being aggressive. Any opinion on the question I put forward?
Jawgap wrote: » VAT on components, repairs etc
Also as for regulation - the Road Traffic legislation applies and the government have been sitting on the new regs that would allow cyclists to be given FPNs for red light jumping, pavement cycling and dangerous overtaking, for at least a year now......
......maybe direct some of your ire in their direction......or you could just continue to not let the truth get in the way of opinions......
Jawgap wrote: » As for mad, it's pretty mad you can pass a test and pretty much have a licence for 50+ years to drive increasingly powerful lumps of metal without any requirement for reassessment. I passed my test with a Toyota Starlet - I'm now driving something three times larger, and probably 4 to 5 times more powerful - and I can, if I could afford it go buy something ten times more powerful than my existing vehicle without any requirement to undergo any kind of assessment! I could legitimately drive one of the new 1600 bhp Lamborghinis and there'd be nothing to stop me.......
SeanW wrote: » Which is countered possibly to the point of irrelevance by the Bike To Work scheme subsidy. .
Caliden wrote: » I just think that there should be some sort of bike licence. Now it may seem really stupid but RSA ads alone are not enough to keep people safe. It would also help with the prosecution of people who have no right to call themselves a cyclist and are the reason cyclists get a bad name.
Patww79 wrote: » This post has been deleted.
blackwhite wrote: » See, posts like this don't help the debate at all. There are bad drivers, and there are bad cyclists. Trying to pretend that, in any given incident, that cyclists are never in wrong is patently stupid and only serves to harden the extremes on both sides of the argument. When I cycle, I'm always annoyed by the amount of drivers who don't realise that cyclists are more vulnerable than they are and try to squeeze past when there isn't a sufficient gap, tailgate, and open car doors without looking (among other things). When I drive, I'm always shocked by the number of cyclists who don't realise how vulnerable they are, and will do stupid things like run red lights (including at this junction this morning, causing traffic coming from both directions to have to emergency brake), like swerving from one lane to another without hand signals or checking if there's someone already in the lane or cycle the wrong way down one-way streets. In short, SOME motorists need to realise how easy it is for a cyclist to get hurt, avoid doing stupid things that could result in someone being hurt and show a bit of consideration for others. And, SOME cyclists need to realise how easy it is for cyclists to get hurt, avoid doing stupid things that increase the chance of they themselves, and others, getting hurt, and show both consideration for other road users and a sense of responsibility for their own safety.
kylith wrote: » While I disagree with bike licences, due to the fact that it would leave many teenagers without transport to and from friends' houses and school/sports events and wouldn't help our childhood obesity problems, I do think that cycling roadcraft and bike maintenance should be taught in schools.
Caliden wrote: » This question is for cyclists, do you not agree though that it is a bit crazy that a someone can just hop on a bike and go around without any knowledge of signs, car stopping distances (some seem to think we can stop on a penny) or any of that?
looksee wrote: » There are arguments on both sides of this, there are also some rubbish car drivers who are a menace on the roads. However yesterday on a narrowish road that has a good bit of traffic there was a tail-back of cars because two cyclists - in team outfits so they were obviously experienced cyclists - were cycling side by side, one just right of the hard shoulder line and the other just left of the centre line. They did not seem to be in any hurry and it would have been far more appropriate for them to be in single file, just as a gesture to let the traffic have a reasonable chance of passing. As it was the outer cyclist was ideally placed to complain about cars coming too close to him as they overtook. Many cyclists are reasonable and try and give traffic every opportunity to pass, but the situation I described was just a sense of entitlement giving all cyclists a bad name.
