94 Million set aside for cycling

[ewwimbledon]

There should be a way of clocking cyclists who run the lights in the same way cars can be photographed. I agree that they are really putting their own lives at risk but nonetheless I would feel bad and no doubt get blamed if I hit a cyclist even if it was their fault for ignoring the light.

There should also be fines for riding 2 a breast in bus lanes holding up buses.

A fine for not wearing a helmet for the same reason a driver is fined for not wearing a seat belt.

I know this increases admin but we've managed it for cars.

 

[Lillywhite]

There should be a way of clocking cyclists who run the lights in the same way cars can be photographed. I agree that they are really putting their own lives at risk but nonetheless I would feel bad and no doubt get blamed if I hit a cyclist even if it was their fault for ignoring the light.

There should also be fines for riding 2 a breast in bus lanes holding up buses.

A fine for not wearing a helmet for the same reason a driver is fined for not wearing a seat belt.

I know this increases admin but we've managed it for cars.

Why would you get the blame if you collided with a cyclist running a red light and the lights were green in your favour?

It is not against the Highway Code to ride two a breast.

How can you fine a cyclist when it's not against the law to ride without a helmet? If you are suggesting that it should be law that all cyclists wear a helmet then that's completely another matter and a political hot chestnut but they may be difficult to enforce for all cyclists including juveniles. Helmets are only designed for low speed accidents and no way offer much protection in a high speed crash involving motor vehicles.

Like it or not motor vehicles are responsible for more carnage on the highway than any amount of cyclists could cause.

I would advocate more respect between all road users.

 

[JaEdBa]

when I was younger there were 5 primary schools and 3 secondary schools within an easy cycle ride of my house.

so why is it so obvious when the school holidays are by the amount of traffic on the road now? I can hardly recall anyone getting a lift to school 20 years ago, now everyone seems to.

I think that's part of the issue of traffic congestion.

 

[Lillywhite]

There needs to be more respect between all road users. Here is some good advice for both motorists and cyclists.

http://www.bloodycyclist.com/think-cyclist/

 

[Lillywhite]

Good article on the BBC News Magazine site this morning:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23694438

 

[junglist]

Since purchasing the Z I seem to have developed a hatred for cyclists.

There's nothing worse than enjoying a drive on a nice quiet country lane only to turn a corner to find there's 3 abreast in the middle of the road.

I understand their concept of riding defensively so car drivers don't take the piss but a lot of them think they own the roads. I was up in the Yorkshire Dales a couple of weeks back and there must have been 10+ taking up the whole road. Then you get the usual "30mph everywhere regardless" brigade who refuse to overtake them and what should have been an enjoyable drive in the country just turns into a frustrating ballache.

Not to mention the whole issue of them not paying insurance / tax etc.

I do a fair bit of cycling myself although mainly off road / trails but I always ride with the mindset of not getting in the way of motorists.

 

[gannet]

Not to mention the whole issue of them not paying insurance / tax etc.

If you'd read the whole thread you would now know how false this statement is

And don't assume every cyclist doesn't have insurance, some of us do!

 

[ewwimbledon]

Good article on the BBC News Magazine site this morning:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23694438

Good background and supports your views, but the fact remains (as someone else has already pointed out) that as more cars are hybrids or reduce emissions the government will change the rules to make more cars fall back into the net. So, while they call it an emissions tax we all know it isn't really. It is a car tax.

A good example of this behaviour is the London congestion charge. Certain vehicles including (bizarrely) a hybrid Porsche Cayenne were exempt for a while. But all the wealthy city folk just bought electric and hybrid cars leading to reduction in receipts and hey presto Boris changed the rules so that, since about December 2012, hybrid cayennes now have to pay (much to my friend's annoyance having splashed out £80K on one - not that I feel too sorry for him).

I guess what gets people's goat is the amount of money and fuss they make for cyclists including now apparently the planned carving up of the Embankment and making it into a major blue cycle lane, without there being an equivalent tax to the "car tax" on bikes.

 

[original guvnor]

VED is a tax on car ownership which in recent years has been linked to CO2 emissions because the government was hoping to persuade manufacturers to work harder in producing cars that emitted lower levels of CO2. This has been a success. As we all know, CO2 levels have plummeted in modern cars compared to those of just a few years ago. But previously it has been linked to other things based on car ownership. It raises a lot of money for the Exchequer.

When cars become zero-emitters at the point of use will VED wither and die? Common sense suggests it won't. It might be a tax on fuel but what if everyone is using hydrogen fuel cells and/or electric. How do you tax mains electricity for example? If you tax cars that use it then surely any other electrical appliance as well? No, what is more likely is that you will either pay road tolls or car ownership will be taxed as it used to be with no real link to emissions but perhaps on electricity usgage/horsepower etc. If it is the latter then I fail to see why cars should be treated any differently to any other road user.

I'm not an economist but I seem to recall from economics lectures that governments tax 'negative externalities' (those things that are deemed bad for society and therefore should be discouraged) and provides grants on 'positive externalities' (those things it wishes to encourage greater take-up of). Hence the reason why purchasers of electric cars are eligible for a £5k government grant at present and why petrol/diesel engined cars are paying VED. But what of zero-emitting cars of the future? Surely the government won't be giving us all £5k to buy a new car for long and it will have to find VED money from somewhere and it WILL come from road-users, that we can be sure of.

 

[Lillywhite]

Not to mention the whole issue of them not paying insurance / tax etc.

If you'd read the whole thread you would now know how false this statement is

And don't assume every cyclist doesn't have insurance, some of us do!

I think he's mean specific third party 'cycling' insurance but many cyclists are either a member of 'British Cycling' and/or 'CTC' who include third party insurance and legal advice as part of membership. The remaining cyclists, not a member of these organisations, will be usually be covered by third party cover as standard under their house contents insurance.

 

[Lillywhite]

VED is a tax on car ownership which in recent years has been linked to CO2 emissions because the government was hoping to persuade manufacturers to work harder in producing cars that emitted lower levels of CO2. This has been a success. As we all know, CO2 levels have plummeted in modern cars compared to those of just a few years ago. But previously it has been linked to other things based on car ownership. It raises a lot of money for the Exchequer.

.......But what of zero-emitting cars of the future? Surely the government won't be giving us all £5k to buy a new car for long and it will have to find VED money from somewhere and it WILL come from road-users, that we can be sure of.

Pages 8 and 9 of a document I posted earlier may answer your question as to future government's proposals but clearly this is still relating to a specific tax on 'motorised vehicles', with a long list of 'exempted' motorised vehicles listed on page 14.

http://www.parliament.uk/Templates/BriefingPapers/Pages/BPPdfDownload.aspx?bp-id=SN01482

 

[Sketchley]

...a lot of them think they own the roads.

I'd put it to you that it's probably you that "thinks you own the roads" otherwise why would you be getting annoyed about someone else using a what is a shared facility? Would you have been quite so annoyed to round the corner and see a horse, or pedestrian, a tractor or another car? All are entitled to be there just like you are. We all own the roads and we are all entitled to use them.

 

[GregZ4]

...a lot of them think they own the roads.

I'd put it to you that it's probably you that "thinks you own the roads" otherwise why would you be getting annoyed about someone else using a what is a shared facility? Would you have been quite so annoyed to round the corner and see a horse, or pedestrian, a tractor or another car? All are entitled to be there just like you are. We all own the roads and we are all entitled to use them.

Well said sir!


Sent from some bloody gadget using Tapatalk

 

[Anonymous]

I read that BBC article this morning, and whilst it says that the VED is not for road maintenance, it doesn't clarify what is!

Surely, to fight the belief that people have about "Road Tax" being what pays for the roads, then they should publicise how the roads are paid for?

Oh, and, make sure all official departments are using the same name for it.

If they educate people into realising how roads are paid for, then perhaps that would rule out some of the "road rage" towards cyclists?

 

[Sketchley]

I read that BBC article this morning, and whilst it says that the VED is not for road maintenance, it doesn't clarify what is!

Surely, to fight the belief that people have about "Road Tax" being what pays for the roads, then they should publicise how the roads are paid for?

Oh, and, make sure all official departments are using the same name for it.

If they educate people into realising how roads are paid for, then perhaps that would rule out some of the "road rage" towards cyclists?

Roads are paid for out of general taxation. For example income tax, capital gains tax. The money that comes in from VED simply goes into the pot from which things are paid for. There is no corrolation between revenue from VED and road expenditure.

 

[Anonymous]

I read that BBC article this morning, and whilst it says that the VED is not for road maintenance, it doesn't clarify what is!

Surely, to fight the belief that people have about "Road Tax" being what pays for the roads, then they should publicise how the roads are paid for?

Oh, and, make sure all official departments are using the same name for it.

If they educate people into realising how roads are paid for, then perhaps that would rule out some of the "road rage" towards cyclists?

Roads are paid for out of general taxation. For example income tax, capital gains tax. The money that comes in from VED simply goes into the pot from which things are paid for. There is no corrolation between revenue from VED and road expenditure.

My point being though, that it seems one of the main arguments used against cyclists is that they don't pay a tax to use the road, whilst the car driver giving the abuse, firmly believes that the VED is him paying to use the road. I agree with what you said - and I am suggesting that that message should be publicised more.

 

[Sketchley]

I read that BBC article this morning, and whilst it says that the VED is not for road maintenance, it doesn't clarify what is!

Surely, to fight the belief that people have about "Road Tax" being what pays for the roads, then they should publicise how the roads are paid for?

Oh, and, make sure all official departments are using the same name for it.

If they educate people into realising how roads are paid for, then perhaps that would rule out some of the "road rage" towards cyclists?

Roads are paid for out of general taxation. For example income tax, capital gains tax. The money that comes in from VED simply goes into the pot from which things are paid for. There is no corrolation between revenue from VED and road expenditure.

My point being though, that it seems one of the main arguments used against cyclists is that they don't pay a tax to use the road, whilst the car driver giving the abuse, firmly believes that the VED is him paying to use the road. I agree with what you said - and I am suggesting that that message should be publicised more.

Agree completely the message needs to get out there a little better. Technically VED is a license for the car to use the road it is not payment for the roads themselves and it's that message needs to get out there better.

The ipayroadtax website is helping but mainstream media and motoring organisation could do more.

From ipayroadtax

The UK’s Department for Transport is pretty good on registration for cyclists: the standard reply is along the lines of “if we required cyclists to be registered and carry number plates we’d have to do the same for pedestrians.” Drivers of cars and HGVs and vans require licenses and identification plates because they are no longer benign road users: strap on an engine and you become a potential danger. Road users without engines pose little risk to others

 

[Sketchley]

Just found this hit the nail on the head I thought

"Arguing that cyclists therefore have less right to use the roads is like arguing that smokers should take precedence for medical treatment, because non-smokers don't buy cigarettes and therefore 'don't pay hospital tax".

 

[Anonymous]

Just found this hit the nail on the head I thought

"Arguing that cyclists therefore have less right to use the roads is like arguing that smokers should take precedence for medical treatment, because non-smokers don't buy cigarettes and therefore 'don't pay hospital tax".

But the smokers would say that they "cover" the extra cost that smoking related illness puts on the NHS by due of the duty paid on fags. Alcohol the same I guess. Not that they should get priority, but that they already pay for the extra burden they may pose.

 

[Sketchley]

Just found this hit the nail on the head I thought

"Arguing that cyclists therefore have less right to use the roads is like arguing that smokers should take precedence for medical treatment, because non-smokers don't buy cigarettes and therefore 'don't pay hospital tax".

But the smokers would say that they "cover" the extra cost that smoking related illness puts on the NHS by due of the duty paid on fags. Alcohol the same I guess. Not that they should get priority, but that they already pay for the extra burden they may pose.

While it may cover the extra cost it doesn't mean extra entitlement or priority as you said. Apply that to VED and payment for roads, while VED might cover the extra cost of road repairs caused by the damage heavy motorised vehicals do or for new infastructure to handle congestion or from increased polution, it does not mean vehicals that pay then have priority on the same roads over vehicles that don't pay as they do little or no damage, don't cause congestion and don't pollute.