Cyclists should do a theory test!

Spook_ie · 08-06-2015 06:45PM

Pinch Flat wrote: »

If that model was applied to motor tax, versus the capital expenditure and subsidies to fund the road network, motor tax would be many multiples of what it is currently. I'm assuming the vast majority of motorists wouldn't mind digging deep when their next motor tax demand hits the hall mat, bearing in mind people are protesting over a few euros a week for water.

Ah yeah the whole weight thing is unreasonable - the weight of a car has nothing to do with the wear and tear it exerts on the road. Ok let's be reasonable - I think it's only fair that cyclists should be taxed based on emissions as motorists currently are - again, how do you propose this is calculated? Clinics with exercise bikes that people breath into so they can collect co2 data? Another laughable suggestion.

Nothing says that the tax you pay on emissions has to be based on empirical data, after all the emissions based motor tax is €120 for 0g, so perhaps we should begin there as a starting rate

Pinch Flat · 08-06-2015 06:47PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

Why do you not think that you can have two vat rates for two different things?
You can have two VAT rates for the same item in garages depending on if it's fitted or just supplied, so no problem applying 0% and 50% to two different types of bicycle

Oh oh straw man territory. Your assertion was that if you pay motor tax on a car that you have no entitlement to use the road as cyclist until you pay an equivalent 'cycle tax'. Your comment regarding 50% vat on cycling - higher than booze, fags or fuel - is totally laughable and doesn't even warrant a reply.

Throughout this thread (which incidentally was to discuss theory tests for cyclists - how many taxi I drivers have a theory test or engage in cpd to bring them up to speed in road safety and legal developments btw?) we haven't been able to agree how you propose to tax cyclists - emissions (which apparently involves recording the co2 passing from their lungs) or asking them to stump up for the costs of roads (which the vast majority do anyway as motorists, excise /duty and tax payers).

So let's say in the morning the government introduced a €200 flat fee for cyclists to use the roads (what I pay on a 1.6 diesel car annually), would your attitude towards cyclists change? I don't think so.

Spook_ie · 08-06-2015 06:50PM

Unknown Soldier wrote: »

I would but it doesn't exist. Start a petition or contact your MP.

You're the one doing the "obfuscation" tbh.

You don't pay motor tax to "use" your car. You don't pay tax to "use" lots of things. I'm struggling to think of one but when I do i realise it's usually called a "Licence" or "permit"

It's a tax.

The original meaning behind road/motor tax was for the upkeep of the road infrastructure.

You don't like cyclists being on the road. They annoy you. Lets forget about the "tax" and all that.

You just don't want them using the same road as you.

It's really that simple.

If it's not that simple, then please put up a definitive list of "pre being allowed to cycle" on the road things that you think should be mandatory to make you "OK" with cyclists being on the road.

I don't think you can.

I don't need to because I don't actually want to get rid of cyclists, but I do get fed up with the same old tripe trotted out by cyclists on boards that they have a car and therefore they pay motor tax which somehow magically equates providing cycle lanes for nothing

Pinch Flat · 08-06-2015 06:54PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

Nothing says that the tax you pay on emissions has to be based on empirical data, after all the emissions based motor tax is €120 for 0g, so perhaps we should begin there as a starting rate

Lol I can see the headlines "Ireland leads the way in charging cyclists the equivalent of motor car tax and doubles vat on new bike purchases".

Kalman · 08-06-2015 06:55PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

But as anybody who knows, knows that since 2012 they're not, so remove the duplicity and remove the cycle lanes. After all you can still use bus lanes anyway

Un-like cars, cyclists do not damage the environment. Cities and towns are actually encouraging people to use bikes. [the bike was there before the car] .

awec · 08-06-2015 06:57PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

Why should it be based on weight? or even size, it's something that should be based on supply, now if it costs €50,000 ( arbitrary figure ) to provide 500m of roadway that has 3 meters width designated as cycle lanes and 30 meters width as other traffic then I see no reason why 10% of the cost shouldn't be recouped by increasing taxation on cyclists to cover it, after all they are the only ones in the cycle lane, but then again seeing as the counter will be cyclists don't have to use the cycle lane then just get rid of cycle lanes altogether

Where on earth have you got this notion that motor tax pays for roads?

Your entire argument is based on nonsense. By your logic people who pay higher bands of motor tax have more right to use the road than those on the lower bands. Rubbish.

Spook_ie · 08-06-2015 07:01PM

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Oh oh straw man territory. Your assertion was that if you pay motor tax on a car that you have no entitlement to use the road as cyclist until you pay an equivalent 'cycle tax'. Your comment regarding 50% vat on cycling - higher than booze, fags or fuel - is totally laughable and doesn't even warrant a reply.

Throughout this thread (which incidentally was to discuss theory tests for cyclists - how many taxi I drivers have a theory test or engage in cpd to bring them up to speed in road safety and legal developments btw?) we haven't been able to agree how you propose to tax cyclists - emissions (which apparently involves recording the co2 passing from their lungs) or asking them to stump up for the costs of roads (which the vast majority do anyway as motorists, excise /duty and tax payers).

So let's say in the morning the government introduced a €200 flat fee for cyclists to use the roads (what I pay on a 1.6 diesel car annually), would your attitude towards cyclists change? I don't think so.

Once again seeing as you can't seem to understand simple logic.

The money you pay in motor tax on a motor is for the use of THAT vehicle on a public highway, there is no provision that allows that motor tax to be magically transferred to another vehicle!

50% is an arbitrary figure it could be 0% on clunkers ( I think thats the term some one used ) and 25% on mid range cycles and 50% on specialist cycles, the actual figures matter less than the principle of the user pays and the more the user can afford the more he should pay

Why pick on taxi drivers, I think all drivers should have refresher courses but of course training should be aimed at those most likely to benefit from it, which would in general opinion seem to be cyclists

If you paid €200 a year, I'd have suggested the €120 zero emission rate personally ) then at least you'd put paid to all the " I pay road tax arguments, you don't " which is true because the vehicle that you paid your tax on is by your choice sitting on the drive way costing you money to leave it standing there

awec · 08-06-2015 07:04PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

Once again seeing as you can't seem to understand simple logic.

The money you pay in motor tax on a motor is for the use of THAT vehicle on a public highway, there is no provision that allows that motor tax to be magically transferred to another vehicle!

50% is an arbitrary figure it could be 0% on clunkers ( I think thats the term some one used ) and 25% on mid range cycles and 50% on specialist cycles, the actual figures matter less than the principle of the user pays and the more the user can afford the more he should pay

Why pick on taxi drivers, I think all drivers should have refresher courses but of course training should be aimed at those most likely to benefit from it, which would in general opinion seem to be cyclists

If you paid €200 a year, I'd have suggested the €120 zero emission rate personally ) then at least you'd put paid to all the " I pay road tax arguments, you don't " which is true because the vehicle that you paid your tax on is by your choice sitting on the drive way costing you money to leave it standing there

A public highway. Not a "for people who pay motor tax" highway.

The only person with limited understanding here is you.

Knasher · 08-06-2015 07:13PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

Why pick on taxi drivers

I would have thought you would be very eager to increase the tax rates that taxi drivers pay. Considering the amount of road use a taxi driver benefits from, it seems ridiculous that that should pay the same "road/motor tax" that somebody down the country does, when they only use their cars once a day for a quick spin to the shops.

CramCycle · 08-06-2015 07:17PM

I missed these old threads, nonsensical ramblings, rantings, no understanding of economics, public health misunderstanding, narrow singular viewpoint rather than a population wide view, no understanding of traffic and traffic adaption.

And these are only from the last three pages, and only the stuff I could recall from a brief skim through.

Fantastic.

Pinch Flat · 08-06-2015 07:29PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

Once again seeing as you can't seem to understand simple logic.

Maybe logical in your own little world. If it's so logical, why hasn't this been rolled out in other countries?

Spook_ie wrote: »

The money you pay in motor tax on a motor is for the use of THAT vehicle on a public highway, there is no provision that allows that motor tax to be magically transferred to another vehicle!

Again wrong. If I have a car and choose to cycle instead of using the car, it attracts no further tax liability. I realise you champion this idea time and time and get frustrated when people dont agree, but that is the current case. Have you thought about lobbying your local politician to have it reviewed, because that's all the chance you have.

Spook_ie wrote: »

50% is an arbitrary figure it could be 0% on clunkers ( I think thats the term some one used ) and 25% on mid range cycles and 50% on specialist cycles, the actual figures matter less than the principle of the user pays and the more the user can afford the more he should pay

Fair play to you for sticking to your guns on that one - and I see we now have an intermediate tax band. This gets more insane the more I read it.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Why pick on taxi drivers, I think all drivers should have refresher courses but of course training should be aimed at those most likely to benefit from it, which would in general opinion seem to be cyclists

At the moment there's no requirement for a taxi driver to pass any specific test or improve their road knowledge ( or even know where they are going). The vast majority of cyclists are drivers as well, so they already possess a driving licence and in some cases a theory test. From what I've seen of taxi drivers both as a passenger and road user their interpretation of road law and the rules of the road leave a lot to be desired.

Spook_ie wrote: »

If you paid €200 a year, I'd have suggested the €120 zero emission rate personally ) then at least you'd put paid to all the " I pay road tax arguments, you don't " which is true because the vehicle that you paid your tax on is by your choice sitting on the drive way costing you money to leave it standing there

We'd be the only country in the world to do so, with cycling infrastructure that lacks behind other EU countries, but hey I'll go along with it. becuae it's a complete circular argument - you feel cyclists should be taxed to use the roads, I disagree so let's move on.

It would cost me more to drive my car the 30km to and from work and park it for the day - a round trip in bumper to bumper traffic that takes multiples of what I can cycle currently, wear and tear on my car, no certainty of when I can get there or back, hours of delay if I come upon an accident , the stress of traffic jams, potential obesity due to lack of exercise (cycling keeps me extremely fit) and poor diet that would result from 'dash board dining' - been there, done that.

For me the advantages of cycling to work far outweighs the advantage of using a tonne of metal that's 20% full to haul my ass in and out to work.

tipparetops · 08-06-2015 08:23PM

Sam Kade wrote: »

Which is practically every road.
The social services for letting a child cycle on their own

very few parents let their child onto busy roads on a bicycle, if they do, they must accept blame if the child is injured or killed.
Its like dog owners being liable for their dog running onto a road and causing an accident.

Also all built up areas are 50kph zones.

CramCycle · 08-06-2015 08:37PM

tipparetops wrote: »

very few parents let their child onto busy roads on a bicycle, if they do, they must accept blame if the child is injured or killed.
Its like dog owners being liable for their dog running onto a road and causing an accident.

Also all built up areas are 50kph zones.

So if my child follows the rules, does nothing unexpected but you skim him for sh1t and giggles, this is my fault.

For the sake of everyone on the roads, if this is how you act and then apportion blame, get off the roads.

Pinch Flat · 08-06-2015 08:44PM

tipparetops wrote: »

very few parents let their child onto busy roads on a bicycle, if they do, they must accept blame if the child is injured or killed.

Victim blaming - all too common. I'm sure my neighbour whose 10 year old daughter was killed by a speeding motorist would disagree.

The busy roads are dangerous because people insist on treating them like a race track.

tipparetops · 08-06-2015 08:44PM

CramCycle wrote: »

So if my child follows the rules, does nothing unexpected but you skim him for sh1t and giggles, this is my fault.

For the sake of everyone on the roads, if this is how you act and then apportion blame, get off the roads.

but first your child would have to be on the road alone, I doubt that.
the harsh reality is cyclists will not let their kids cycle on the roads alone, they cycle on footpaths.
this is the harsh truth cyclists will never admit.

KwackerJack · 08-06-2015 08:45PM

Seen one on Sunday afternoon swaying all over the road. Passed him out only to see him chatting on the phone!

Bloody idiot

RainyDay · 08-06-2015 08:47PM

steamengine wrote: »

Captain Chaos was referring to the situation where:-

1 The bus has it's own lane
2 There is no cycle lane
3 Your 1 pax cars are bumper to bumper in the outside lane.

So the cars are out of the way, ergo - no need for them to pull over.

Some time back, I was on the 15 heading into Dublin city centre and approaching Newcomen Bridge, the bus was stuck behind a cycling snail on the bridge incline. The cyclist was clearly oblivious to the fact that a cycle lane existed on the footpath to the left, and this is the sort of stupidity that needs to be sorted out.

Yes, I understand the scenario he was talking about, but why limit the principle to that scenario (unless this is a naked attack-cyclists-promote-driving policy). If the principle is that 70+ people on a bus have priority over cars with mostly 1 and up to 5 people, then the obvious result is that every time a bus appears in the rear window, the car driver will pull over and let the bus through, just like some expect cyclists will do.

So is this really a principle that we want to apply to give buses priority, or is it just an attack on cyclists?

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

Wow....the anti cyclist brigade have actually lost the plot here!

It's actually quite funny, how they can see the bus supposedly held up by the cyclist, but they can't see the queue of cars. Some people must wear blinkers while driving.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Typical obfuscation, as a cyclist you need pay no further tax to use your cycle in public, as a motorist you have paid a tax to use one vehicle in public. You seem unable to comprehend that paying a tax for one vehicle does not translate to being a tax paid for another type of vehicle.

You seem unable to comprehend that most cyclists ARE motorists. They aren't seperate groups. I don't have a bank account for cycling and a bank account for driving.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Once again seeing as you can't seem to understand simple logic.

The money you pay in motor tax on a motor is for the use of THAT vehicle on a public highway, there is no provision that allows that motor tax to be magically transferred to another vehicle!

50% is an arbitrary figure it could be 0% on clunkers ( I think thats the term some one used ) and 25% on mid range cycles and 50% on specialist cycles, the actual figures matter less than the principle of the user pays and the more the user can afford the more he should pay

Why pick on taxi drivers, I think all drivers should have refresher courses but of course training should be aimed at those most likely to benefit from it, which would in general opinion seem to be cyclists

If you paid €200 a year, I'd have suggested the €120 zero emission rate personally ) then at least you'd put paid to all the " I pay road tax arguments, you don't " which is true because the vehicle that you paid your tax on is by your choice sitting on the drive way costing you money to leave it standing there

Could you just explain again why you want a HIGHER vat rate than the standard rate? So given that cyclists already pay VAT when they buy a bike, why do you want to increase it further?

And will this general 'user-pays' approach to every purchase of every good or service?

tipparetops · 08-06-2015 08:56PM

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Victim blaming - all too common. I'm sure my neighbour whose 10 year old daughter was killed by a speeding motorist would disagree.

The busy roads are dangerous because people insist on treating them like a race track.

Very sad, but I would have to know the full true story before commenting.
As you cannot there is no point adding these personal stories.

Pinch Flat · 08-06-2015 09:17PM

tipparetops wrote: »

this is the harsh truth cyclists will never admit.

I've absolutely no issue with my 8 year old cycling on paths when going from our house to the Phoenix park - there's no cycle lane and very narrow busy roads. I'll tackle them on my own when commuting, perhaps when he's a bit older I'll accompany him on the road - we use some of the less busy ones around our area.

steamengine · 08-06-2015 09:21PM

RainyDay wrote: »

Yes, I understand the scenario he was talking about, but why limit the principle to that scenario (unless this is a naked attack-cyclists-promote-driving policy). If the principle is that 70+ people on a bus have priority over cars with mostly 1 and up to 5 people, then the obvious result is that every time a bus appears in the rear window, the car driver will pull over and let the bus through, just like some expect cyclists will do.

So is this really a principle that we want to apply to give buses priority, or is it just an attack on cyclists?

It's actually quite funny, how they can see the bus supposedly held up by the cyclist, but they can't see the queue of cars. Some people must wear blinkers while driving.

Most reasonable road users of whatever mode, while not falling over their perceived adversaries, do not see any advantage in obstructing their progress either. It is unlike the maritime or aviation environments which have mode priority rules where steam gives way to sail, or powered aircraft give way to gliders.

If the thrust of your argument is bicycles have parity of esteem with buses, then all I can do is remind you of the words of a ferry captain on the Dun Laoire Holyhead run, quite a few years back now, who got fed up with sailing dinghies getting in his way whilst entering the Harbour. It was something along the lines of ' Next time I come in here, stay well clear, 'cos I ain't stopping. The result was a victory for common sense.

Cars don't come into it, they're already held up - maybe cyclists should realise just how lucky they are, but rule the roost seems to be the end game with some.

tipparetops · 08-06-2015 09:26PM

Pinch Flat wrote: »

I've absolutely no issue with my 8 year old cycling on paths when going from our house to the Phoenix park - there's no cycle lane and very narrow busy roads. I'll tackle them on my own when commuting, perhaps when he's a bit older I'll accompany him on the road - we use some of the less busy ones around our area.

I have no problem with that, I am pointing out that only a mental case would let their child cycle on the road unaccompanied.
Cycling is dangerous, the reasons do not matter, it just is.
Cyclists know this and take their chances, but cyclists will not let their own children take that chance.

Pinch Flat · 08-06-2015 09:31PM

tipparetops wrote: »

I have no problem with that, I am pointing out that only a mental case would let their child cycle on the road unaccompanied.
Cycling is dangerous, the reasons do not matter, it just is.
Cyclists know this and take their chances, but cyclists will not let their own children take that chance.

Cycling is not dangerous. Drivers kill cyclists. Have you paused to think why it is perceived that cycling is dangerous?

Spook_ie · 08-06-2015 09:35PM

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Maybe logical in your own little world. If it's so logical, why hasn't this been rolled out in other countries?

Again wrong. If I have a car and choose to cycle instead of using the car, it attracts no further tax liability. I realise you champion this idea time and time and get frustrated when people dont agree, but that is the current case. Have you thought about lobbying your local politician to have it reviewed, because that's all the chance you have.
Point 1

Fair play to you for sticking to your guns on that one - and I see we now have an intermediate tax band. This gets more insane the more I read it.
Point 2

At the moment there's no requirement for a taxi driver to pass any specific test or improve their road knowledge ( or even know where they are going). The vast majority of cyclists are drivers as well, so they already possess a driving licence and in some cases a theory test. From what I've seen of taxi drivers both as a passenger and road user their interpretation of road law and the rules of the road leave a lot to be desired.
Point 3

We'd be the only country in the world to do so, with cycling infrastructure that lacks behind other EU countries, but hey I'll go along with it. becuae it's a complete circular argument - you feel cyclists should be taxed to use the roads, I disagree so let's move on.

It would cost me more to drive my car the 30km to and from work and park it for the day - a round trip in bumper to bumper traffic that takes multiples of what I can cycle currently, wear and tear on my car, no certainty of when I can get there or back, hours of delay if I come upon an accident , the stress of traffic jams, potential obesity due to lack of exercise (cycling keeps me extremely fit) and poor diet that would result from 'dash board dining' - been there, done that.

For me the advantages of cycling to work far outweighs the advantage of using a tonne of metal that's 20% full to haul my ass in and out to work
Point 4.

Point 1 Correct as it stands at the moment there would be no tax liability for using a cycle, however, given that your argument about motor tax is that you already pay for it on your car why would you pay it on a cycle (correct me if I'm misinterpreting you ) if the tax regime was changed just because you have paid it for a car would not exempt you from having to pay it on a cycle, they are two separate vehicles.

Point 2 Nothing insane about VAT, luxury items tend to attract higher tax rates, is a sexy cycle more of a luxury than a clunker? If so then increase the VAT

Point 3 Going off topic, but as it currently stands to become a taxi driver you are now required to pass a test that tests your knowledge of the taxi area you intend to work, agreed it wasn't always that way and indeed in some areas the only requirement was to present yourself to the local PSV inspector, answer half a dozen questions about PSV law and that was it, I would love for a driving test to be part of the licensing procedure, maybe it would rid us of some turkeys but that wouldn't help with cyclists flouting the law!

Point 3a I notice a few people have alluded to my old argument that a crap cyclist is probably also a crap driver, but seeing as you don't normally train downwards it would be more logical to start at the bottom, ie cyclists ( I've not included pedestrians because by law they are NOT defined as road users)

Point 4 And that's your choice, I just don't believe other people should have to pay for your choices, therefore put up the VAT on sexy cycles and if you decide that's the way you want to go, then go for it, who would I be to argue but don't expect myself and a lot of others to like paying for your lifestyle choices

Unknown Soldier · 08-06-2015 09:36PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

I don't need to because I don't actually want to get rid of cyclists, but I do get fed up with the same old tripe trotted out by cyclists on boards that they have a car and therefore they pay motor tax which somehow magically equates providing cycle lanes for nothing

I knew you couldn't. More "obfuscation" on your part

You had a simple question and you couldn't answer it.

Or maybe you can and just need more time?

Does this annoy you? get your blood up so to speak?

It's just a simple list?

What would make you happy sharing the road with cyclists?

No more "obfuscation" please.

Shame on me doing this on AH after all these years....

tipparetops · 08-06-2015 09:42PM

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Cycling is not dangerous. Drivers kill cyclists. Have you paused to think why it is perceived that cycling is dangerous?

Cyclists like yourself choose to go onto the roads with drivers that kill cyclists.
Have you paused to think about that, do you have a death wish.

Spook_ie · 08-06-2015 09:47PM

awec wrote: »

Where on earth have you got this notion that motor tax pays for roads?

Your entire argument is based on nonsense. By your logic people who pay higher bands of motor tax have more right to use the road than those on the lower bands. Rubbish.

Motortax, until recently, went into central funds and was paid out to local authorities for ( among other things ) the provision of local roads, the repair of local roads, the improvement of local roads, under the LGA system, ergo motortax does indeed provide for repair of roads up to L numbers, any other roads are the responsibility of the NRA and funded direct from the government rather than councils.

As to people who pay more road/motor tax having more rights, kindly show me where i have even hinted at that. However, I have said that if cyclists were to pay something, then motorists wouldn't be able to throw the old chestnut of "I pay roadtax" into any arguments, a win for the cyclists but a win you should contribute to

I believe that people who drive bigger vehicles should pay more tax, but I also believe that cyclists should pay towards their infrastructure , especially as they are not even required to use them after wards

rubadub · 08-06-2015 09:48PM

tipparetops wrote: »

the harsh reality is cyclists will not let their kids cycle on the roads alone, they cycle on footpaths.
this is the harsh truth cyclists will never admit.

tipparetops wrote: »

Cyclists know this and take their chances, but cyclists will not let their own children take that chance.

Not sure why you single out cyclists, I imagine most adults without bikes will also instruct their kids to illegally cycle on the path for their own safety. Then some of these hypocritical cunts will moan about people cycling on footpaths.

And this talk of increasing tax etc, people have heard about the government scheme giving people back tax for buying a bike right? in some other countries they pay people per mile they cycle to work

ThisRegard · 08-06-2015 09:49PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

the tax I pay to use a motor on the road are direct taxes for the use of the road for that vehicle, not some away with the fairies theory like yours that " I pay motor tax on a car so I can use a cycle under the same basis" the tax you've paid is for the car NOT your cycle

Isn't your motor tax, as a taxi driver, subsidised by everyone else?

Spook_ie · 08-06-2015 09:53PM

Unknown Soldier wrote: »

I knew you couldn't. More "obfuscation" on your part

You had a simple question and you couldn't answer it.

Or maybe you can and just need more time?

Does this annoy you? get your blood up so to speak?

It's just a simple list?

What would make you happy sharing the road with cyclists?

No more "obfuscation" please.

Shame on me doing this on AH after all these years....

No obfuscation, I believe that cyclists as road users should contribute, so simple I'm sure that if you read it a couple of times you'll understand the pov

RainyDay · 08-06-2015 09:53PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

Motortax, until recently, went into central funds and was paid out to local authorities for ( among other things ) the provision of local roads, the repair of local roads, the improvement of local roads,

How did you manage to work out that it was the motor tax that was paid back out to local authorities for roads? Why would it not have been (for the sake of argument) the income tax of cyclists that was paid back out to local authorities for roads? Do you have some way of tracking the money once it gets paid into the central account?

steamengine wrote: »

Most reasonable road users of whatever mode, while not falling over their perceived adversaries, do not see any advantage in obstructing their progress either. It is unlike the maritime or aviation environments which have mode priority rules where steam gives way to sail, or powered aircraft give way to gliders.
[...]
Cars don't come into it, they're already held up - maybe cyclists should realise just how lucky they are, but rule the roost seems to be the end game with some.

It's really funny again how you pontificate about 'most reasonable road users' and then you exclude cars from that group. So car drivers are not 'reasonable road users'? Or is there some other reason why you expect cyclists to pull over for buses, but not cars?

Cyclists should do a theory test!

Comments