If the £94m is spent on separating cyclist and motorist (i.e. protected cycle lane with kerb to delineate from the road and without reducing road width), it will be money well spent and we can all get on and love one another again! 
94 Million set aside for cycling
- Thread starter TitanTim
- Start date
TitanTim said:I did hiss some cycling friends off recently by implying if they want to use the roads then pay a tax to use them like other road users, stands to sense to me IMHO. Would bring in a bit more cash for road maintenance etc
Tim.
It doesn't work like that.
IK. said:TitanTim said:I did hiss some cycling friends off recently by implying if they want to use the roads then pay a tax to use them like other road users, stands to sense to me IMHO. Would bring in a bit more cash for road maintenance etc
Tim.
It doesn't work like that.
Tim I do.
40% tax rate, NiC, VAT on just about everything I buy, vehicle excise, fuel duty, road tax etc etc
We pay more in tax than is spent on roads. Govt policy for years.
If you want to see money blown for minority transport try looking at HS2......
Sent from some bloody gadget using Tapatalk
do people really still think thatTitanTim said:I did hiss some cycling friends off recently by implying if they want to use the roads then pay a tax to use them like other road users, stands to sense to me IMHO. Would bring in a bit more cash for road maintenance etc
Tim.
mad4slalom
Senior member
black tarmac was chatting to red tarmac , when he suddenly turned white and ran away, why did you run said red when he finally caught up with him, I saw green tarmac coming,... hes a bloody cyclepath .... 
TitanTim said:I did hiss some cycling friends off recently by implying if they want to use the roads then pay a tax to use them like other road users, stands to sense to me IMHO. Would bring in a bit more cash for road maintenance etc
You do need educating Tim. :wink: Road tax was abolished in 1937. Suggest you have a look at this site.
http://ipayroadtax.com/
gannet said:do people really still think thatTitanTim said:I did hiss some cycling friends off recently by implying if they want to use the roads then pay a tax to use them like other road users, stands to sense to me IMHO. Would bring in a bit more cash for road maintenance etc
Tim.
I don't think Tim's point is all that unreasonable, you don't explain your objection to it. However, of more importance is the need to train cyclists in the same way that car drivers and motorcyclists are, with cycling proficiency tests and issue of 'cycling licences'.
The Moo said:Perhaps we would be better investing the money in the Nigerian space program........oh wait a minute we already are.
good idea that. maybe they'll spam some other form of life instead of us!
dr_john said:
You're joking of course? A national scheme would cost millions to implement and administer. For what, how many cyclists actually cause a serious accident? Please give me the figures? Cycling proficiency tests are still carried out in most schools. Yes it's annoying when you see a cyclists run a red light as it is with a motorised vehicle. Clearly it made sense after WW2 to introduce a driving test simply because a driver was in charge of of a potential lethal weapon. Perhaps mobility scooters and mothers with these large buggies could be included in your proposal?
Transport Research Lab report...
"The 64-page analysis found that police attributed responsibility for collisions more or less evenly between drivers and cyclists overall, but this was skewed by the fact that when child riders were involved their behaviour was named as a primary factor more than three-quarters of the time.
With adult cyclists, police found the driver solely responsible in about 60%-75% of all cases, and riders solely at fault 17%-25% of the time.
The cyclists' lobby group CTC said the report showed that the government needed to focus more on driver behaviour rather than on issues such as cyclists wearing helmets. The TRL published a separate DfT-commissioned report today in which it was estimated that the universal use of helmets could save between 10 and 15 lives a year, a conclusion disputed by the CTC.
"The main cause of crashes seems to be 'failed to look properly', whereas very few cyclists are injured or killed acting illegally, such as failing to use lights at night or disobeying traffic signals," said Chris Peck, from the lobby group."
"The 64-page analysis found that police attributed responsibility for collisions more or less evenly between drivers and cyclists overall, but this was skewed by the fact that when child riders were involved their behaviour was named as a primary factor more than three-quarters of the time.
With adult cyclists, police found the driver solely responsible in about 60%-75% of all cases, and riders solely at fault 17%-25% of the time.
The cyclists' lobby group CTC said the report showed that the government needed to focus more on driver behaviour rather than on issues such as cyclists wearing helmets. The TRL published a separate DfT-commissioned report today in which it was estimated that the universal use of helmets could save between 10 and 15 lives a year, a conclusion disputed by the CTC.
"The main cause of crashes seems to be 'failed to look properly', whereas very few cyclists are injured or killed acting illegally, such as failing to use lights at night or disobeying traffic signals," said Chris Peck, from the lobby group."
The government approved training, now called bikeabilty instead of cycling proficiency, includes the recommend reading of book called cycle craft. Amongst other things this book teaches the importance of primary and secondary riding positions, the latter being typically 2 to 3 feet from the curb you would 'excpet' a cyclist to be. However, the primary position is to ride in the middle of the lane so the driver behind cannot fail to see you and must overtake using the second lane or oncoming lane like they would when overtaking a car. Afterall the highway code does say motorists should give cyclist as much room as a car when passing.Now to be fair on the book this position is only suggest when the road narrows, or hits pinch point (traffic island) or in traffic when the cyclist is keeping up for the motor vehicles or dangerous situations where making yourself more visible is key.
The irony here is that this is gov approved training which motoroists often suggested should be compulsory however the same motorists would be the first to complain at a cyclist riding 'primary'. Be careful what you wish for.
The irony here is that this is gov approved training which motoroists often suggested should be compulsory however the same motorists would be the first to complain at a cyclist riding 'primary'. Be careful what you wish for.
I understand that specific 'cyclist awareness training' is being recommended to be included in driving lessons in future.
see the posts from other people - the 'road tax' drivers (including me) pay doesn't go towards maintaining the roads and hasnt done for years. That comes from the many varied others taxes we pay. So you see cyclists already pay just as much as drivers do to ride on the road.dr_john said:gannet said:do people really still think thatTitanTim said:I did hiss some cycling friends off recently by implying if they want to use the roads then pay a tax to use them like other road users, stands to sense to me IMHO. Would bring in a bit more cash for road maintenance etc
Tim.
I don't think Tim's point is all that unreasonable, you don't explain your objection to it. However, of more importance is the need to train cyclists in the same way that car drivers and motorcyclists are, with cycling proficiency tests and issue of 'cycling licences'.
In my case cycling isnt even that cheap an option - london stop-start (those red lights you see
) traffic kills the drive train and brake pads 
my current bike is 4 months old and has already eaten a set of brake pads, chain and cassette...gannet, if I cycled in London (heaven forbid) then I would certainly wear one of those 'I Pay Road Tax' hi-vis cycling jerseys.
http://ipayroadtax.com/shop/
I am, however, planning to get one of those #bloodycyclists road jerseys. :wink:
http://ipayroadtax.com/shop/
I am, however, planning to get one of those #bloodycyclists road jerseys. :wink:
Irrespective of where your tax goes, I pay for a road licence each year to use my vehicle on the road, so I don't think it's unreasonable to expect other road users including cyclists to fork out. Just needs a rethink of basing what you pay on emissions which needs scrapping.
As I'm well educated and attended primary school will devise a tax plan
Tim.
As I'm well educated and attended primary school will devise a tax plan
Tim.
The tax argument is a joke. The idea that you are only entitled to use something becuase you paid tax on it is ridiculous. Should someone be denied the right to use a service for example the nhs, becuase they are out of wrok and not paying national insurance, of course not it's a stupid argument. Furthermore we all pay for things we don't use, I'm married no kids, high income, highest coucil tax in London, there are lots of things I pay towards already that I don't use schools and children's playgrounds to start with. If we had a system where you pay only for what you use I'd be much better off but many poorer people would not. Instead we have a tax system where 'everyone' contributes and that's then divided up and spent according to need not according to who paid what.
I almost certainly already pay more than my fair share towards the upkeep of cycling infrastructure without any need for a separate bike tax. 20% vat on £5k worth of bikes to start with.
I almost certainly already pay more than my fair share towards the upkeep of cycling infrastructure without any need for a separate bike tax. 20% vat on £5k worth of bikes to start with.
A
Anonymous
Guest
The whole "road tax" (or whatever its official name is...ved?) was discussed on another thread. It is the first thing that comes to mind yes, i.e. cars pay this tax (unless exempt) so why not bikes?
I think the road maintenance is actually paid for via council tax....so in effect, everyone contributes to the roads anyway.
Now then....wherever this money comes from - the biggest failing is the years of underinvestment in the roads, resulting in the shite we now have.
And as for contributing to things via tax - where does all the taxation from fags and booze go? Smokers are a drain on the NHS, but in effect, they have paid extra towards it! (not sure if that true, but its my chain smoking mums argument!!!).
I think the road maintenance is actually paid for via council tax....so in effect, everyone contributes to the roads anyway.
Now then....wherever this money comes from - the biggest failing is the years of underinvestment in the roads, resulting in the shite we now have.
And as for contributing to things via tax - where does all the taxation from fags and booze go? Smokers are a drain on the NHS, but in effect, they have paid extra towards it! (not sure if that true, but its my chain smoking mums argument!!!).
