Food for Thought: Should Cyclists Pay Road Tax?

willhub said:
This is the problem with most drivers, they assume that all cyclists travel at extremely slow speeds, even down hill,
Click to expand...

Very true! Even when on the drops they sometimes pull out in front and accelerate to 20mph, urgh!

PS. Are you the willhub from bikeradar? Whats with the ban?
 
snail1 said:
But upkeep is paid from VED, income tax, council tax etc etc IIRC, which is why, in my opinion, linking VED to road upkeep is spurious.
Click to expand...

Technically upkeep is still paid from VED, as the government take in 50bn a year in fuel duty and VED - but only spend 8bn on roads.

Meaning they make a profit on the motorist :(
 
rypt said:
Technically upkeep is still paid from VED, as the government take in 50bn a year in fuel duty and VED - but only spend 8bn on roads.

Meaning they make a profit on the motorist :(
Click to expand...

I think one think we can agree on is that this Government has used the motorist as a cash cow. I commute using both a car and bike (not simultaneously:)) so I do agree on the costs of motoring.
 
GSXRMovistar said:
And get them to do what and why?

I guess you can see where I'm going with this, all road users should have the same level of protection against other road users which doesn't seem to be the case when cycles are involved.
Click to expand...

What, are you for real, cyclists and pedestrians are the most at risk, so care and respect is needed towards them, morally people should pay for the damage they have done, but how many people drive around in cars and vans without road tax and insurance, in a perfect world we wouldn't need insurance and nobody would crash but it doesn't happen.
 
Goldy said:
Very true! Even when on the drops they sometimes pull out in front and accelerate to 20mph, urgh!

PS. Are you the willhub from bikeradar? Whats with the ban?
Click to expand...

Yea, I requested to be banned, I ask too many bike related questions and I'm abit clumsy and people like Softlad just wind me up and NapoleonD been a snobby git and other things, I could never ask a serious question there as no one took me seriously, so I requested to be banned :)

I post on Cycle Chat now.

I got hit by a car once, about 2 years ago, I was cycling up to a junction and I was at the side of a car who turned left when I was going straight on, I thought he was going straight on, he never indicated, I fell off my bike, bent my shifter, smashed my K750i, he got out, said it's OK! I'm a cyclist, I was shocked, I don't know what to do in those situations, I just started f'ing and blinding like an idiot, I never knew what to do, never got his details, in the end I just said it's OK it was my fault I was stupid. I guess it was my fault, technically classed as undertaking even though I was in a cycle lane. Not so long ago in Manchester the same thing happened, except I never got knocked off as I don't go by the side of cars near turning now as I know most do not indicate to turn left.

RDM said:
To give the passenger plenty of room to open the door without taking out the throng of passing pedestrians. Silly I know thinking of other road and pavement users...
Click to expand...

Use your mirrors, unless it was a very busy high street no need to stop that far from the kerb obstructing the road.

As opposed to going round the car on the correct side? Why?
Click to expand...

Don't know if you noticed, I said possibly, for example if there was a load of cars behind me I might stop as I know what drivers are like sometimes they probably would not see the car in front of me stopped and plow into me. A could not get into the correct lane the other day cause of a cop 4x4 barging past.
 
Last edited:
rypt said:
White lines, and metal drains, are less grippy surfaces - as such your ability to go over them is dependant how much you are using the tires, the more power and torque you try to transmit the more likely you are to go over the limit of grip offered by the surface.
Click to expand...

Just think of wet white lines as patches of ice, they you'll pretty much be there. i.e. you can slide on them even if you aren't using the pedals and going in a relatively straight line.
 
That too bad willhub. Hope things are better on cycle chat.

You did have a lot of questions though :p nothing wrong with that at all.
 
RDM said:
The passenger was getting out on the curbside not into the highway. The gap was about a meter at most and yet still the cyclist decides that the curbside is a better place to pass.
Click to expand...

You are still responsible to check it is clear. What if the door had been opened into a child for example? Also if you were parking then you should have been by the kerb thus preventing undertaking by cyclists.

Car drivers have a much a responsibility to check for danger as a cyclist does.
 
cheets64 said:
What, are you for real, cyclists and pedestrians are the most at risk, so care and respect is needed towards them, morally people should pay for the damage they have done, but how many people drive around in cars and vans without road tax and insurance, in a perfect world we wouldn't need insurance and nobody would crash but it doesn't happen.
Click to expand...
Of course I'm for real, otherwise I would not have said it. But I don't see your reason for mentioning cars/vans that are illegally uninsured (that’s a completely different subject/debate).

I'm talking about protection for all road users from a legal view point, at the moment I know that if I'm in accident with someone driving a car that is at fault their insurance will pay for the damages regardless of whether they can afford it or not. Assuming their insurance is all correct their current circumstances don't affect me.

But if I was to have an accident with a cyclist and their at fault I don't have the protection of their insurance, to have the car fixed I would have to take legal proceedings against them (in the meantime paying for the damages myself) and then hope that even if/once they are found liable they have the means to repay.

As I already mentioned above, I'm not anti bike and I know there are good/bad road users on both sides.
 
rypt said:
And rightly so, as long as it is money taken from the motorist that is used to fund the roads (and the cycle tracks) the motorist has more right to them than the cyclists.

Once these cycling projects are funded by money that is not taken from motorists - then perhaps cyclists will have the right to use them (which is where cycling tax comes in - if you want better facilities pay for them via a cyclist road tax).
Click to expand...

Malt_Vinegar said:
Wrong again!

Cyclists use the roads by right. Motorists PAY for the priveledge. So, motorists have equal rights to cyclists for use, ONLY because they pay for it.

Cyclists and Motorists HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS to use the roads. Your argument is crap :p
Click to expand...

^^
Exactly

Do people in the 40% tax band have more right than the unemployed to NHS treatment or to police help?


Haggisman said:
This simply isn't true. I've got plenty of experience both off and on road cycling, and on a bike it doesn't matter how good your brakes or technique are, the tyres are too thin and the weight is too low to attain enough friction between the tyres and the road surface.
Click to expand...

Well from Will's comment earlier I assume he will agree with me, it is possible to do, as long as you have the right technique and some good brakes it's pretty regular. Remember you also don't have the same momentum as a car, and that is the deciding factor. Force your weight over the rear tyre and slam on the brake (or pump to just that point before locking up) and I can easily stop from 30 in around 4-5m, how many cars can do that? (On road on a MTB)
 
GSXRMovistar said:
If you were on your bike and a car was to knock you off (car driver being at fault) and damage your bike (for this example lets say no damage to yourself), would you expect the car owner to pay for the damage? And if you answered yes and they declined what would you do?
Click to expand...

Call the Police. I strongly belive we should have a system like the do in Holland whereas vehicle drivers are always assumed to be at fault when hitting a cyclist. It makes the roads a lot safer for us cyclists and make car drivers think twice before doing silly things like pulling out late for example.

rypt said:
Cyclists use NON traffic roads by right, roads paid for by the motorist belong to the motorist - don't like it, pay some cyclist road tax to fund your precious cycle ways.
Click to expand...

How many times must this be sadi. Pedestrains, Animals (Horses, donkeys, horse an cart, farm animals) and cyclists use the road by right. Motor vehicles by license. Thats all public highways.

Don't like cyclists riding in a defensive position, horses or farm animals or slow pedestrians crossing the road slowing you down? Tough ****.

Amp34 said:
What about a mountain bike with hydraulic disk brakes? Bearing in mind a good one will be designed to do just those sort of speeds off road, so on road is a doddle, and a road bike is designed to do those speeds and more on road. And if you can't outstop a car on the road either your brakes arent vey good (admittedly a lot of cheap bikes will fall into this catagory) or you technique isn't very good.
Click to expand...

40 MPH on a mountain bike? That would have to be downhill and even with some real nice hydraulic disk brakes stopping offroad is going to be interesting. Keeping high speed on the flat on a mountain bike isn't easy and they simply are not geared high enough.

As for not stopping as quick as a car well they happen to have far better breaks and far more surface area in contact with the road than a cycle does. However you should ride in such a way that you can stop if a car stops suddenly in front of you but again the same applies to motor vehicle drivers.
 
I don't know about outstopping a car, yes it is possible to do but I'd say it's on the dangerous side, I can stop very quick but if I try stop uber quick I'll just lock my back wheel up and I don't like doing that, my tyres are VERY fragile as far as skidding is concerned.

If you are doing 30mph then I can say yes 4-5m is easy, but I reckon a car can better it, anything over 30 and a car wins, I've been in the car and see how quick a car can stop from 40-50mph and I'd not want to try that on a bicycle, I cant imagine it finish well :p

I used to have a big heavy saracen X-Ray and it was hard to keep a high speed, I reckon I only average 16 mph on a very good day to college, 10 mile there 15 back, I could push it to about 28mph on the flat, was pretty touch but tbh I was not as fit as I am now, a slight slop got it to 31mph. If you compare a road bike, 31mph on the flat is quite easy sometimes.

When I was younger, I was on a mtb with front disk brake, and I was on the path (naughty me), car pulled out of driveway I slammed on, my bike did a back wheelie nearly vertical.
 
Last edited:
willhub said:
Use your mirrors, unless it was a very busy high street no need to stop that far from the kerb obstructing the road.
Click to expand...

LordSplodge said:
You are still responsible to check it is clear. What if the door had been opened into a child for example? Also if you were parking then you should have been by the kerb thus preventing undertaking by cyclists.

Car drivers have a much a responsibility to check for danger as a cyclist does.
Click to expand...

Unbelievable. You really, desperately want it to be someone elses fault other than the idiot cyclist!
 
Amp34 said:
Well from Will's comment earlier I assume he will agree with me, it is possible to do, as long as you have the right technique and some good brakes it's pretty regular. Remember you also don't have the same momentum as a car, and that is the deciding factor. Force your weight over the rear tyre and slam on the brake (or pump to just that point before locking up) and I can easily stop from 30 in around 4-5m, how many cars can do that? (On road on a MTB)
Click to expand...

This is possible but how many people learn this way? Most cyclists especially more casual one will just slam on the breaks and lock up or go over the handlebars.
 
RDM said:
Unbelievable. You really, desperately want it to be someone elses fault other than the idiot cyclist!
Click to expand...

No. As I said earlier it was six of one half a dozen of the other. The cyclist should have gone round (assuming it didn't look to him like you was in a queue of traffic) and you should have parked correctly and the passenger should have checked before getting out.
 
LordSplodge said:
How many times must this be sadi. Pedestrains, Animals (Horses, donkeys, horse an cart, farm animals) and cyclists use the road by right. Motor vehicles by license. Thats all public highways.
Click to expand...

You may want to revise this a little because I can think of a massive number of public highways where animals and cyclists aren't allowed to use them. Seems that the "right" isn't quite as conclusive as you thought...
 
willhub said:
No, I'm just trying to point out, you where also in the wrong :)
Click to expand...

Of course, because it is always the motorists fault...

And you wonder why some motorists are getting more peeved with cyclists every day when that attitude is so common.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom