Motorists vs Cyclists
- Thread starter Shoseki
- Start date
Dunno, but they get cycle lanes/paths (they dont pay for them, car drivers do)
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 3,586
- Location
- Swindon, Wiltshire
Dear motorist.
I am a cyclist.
Please leave a bit of room when passing, and please don't kill me.
I'll follow the rules of the road as the other half of the deal.
All the best
Justinwilkin.
there wasn't that easy?
I am a cyclist.
Please leave a bit of room when passing, and please don't kill me.
I'll follow the rules of the road as the other half of the deal.
All the best
Justinwilkin.
there wasn't that easy?
The tax on the RRP of the bikes, 17.5%
Plus they are there for ANYBODY to use, you don't need a licence or insurance just a bike, its simple really.
lmao you are 19 and been driving what 2 years and you think the speed limit is an expectation, going 60 mph is fine on a rural road if its straight and safe but doing it on bends and road where ahead is not visible is crazy, you wouldst drive 80 mph on the motor way if you could see 30 yards in front of you.
Rural roads are used by tractors and farm use quite a lot and are very old roads with old layout more than likely made for horse and cart travel many moons ago and not built for boy races and excessive speeding, heard on the radio that your are 3 times more likly to die on a rural road than an urban one in a car and that most "accidents" involve only one car on rural road.
I have been driving 7 years and never had an accident but doesn't mean I zoom around because I have not had a accident in 7 years.
That should be default, and not only between cyclists and motorists, but personal motorists vs taxis, personal motorists vs HGV drivers, personal motorists vs ambulances, and pedestrians vs everything on the road.
Like it or not, you aren't in the same boat as professional drivers, who, btw, hate personal transport too. They use the road all day every day, know it like the back of their hand, and although most of them (imo) drive a little too quickly, they are extremely aware of what is going on around them. They have that much driving experience, they have seen *every* kind of idiot. That means personal transport, of course.
Most people in their little cars get up, half asleep, jump behind the wheel, drive sleepily for 30 minutes to get to work, then forget about it the rest of the day until home time. You don't have the care/experience/attitude that professional drivers have, yet most of the same responsibilities - in fact, its even harder when there are such high numbers hanging around social hubs like schools, big businesses etc. Theres always someone ready to step out at you.
Some statistics on road accidents would be good, but its too early in the morning. My prediction would be, more accident involving personal transport than any other, especially in cities, but that's wouldn't be really surprising I guess.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Aug 2003
- Posts
- 3,001
I think road tax should not have to be paid by any cyclist...
I do, however, believe that cyclists should have proper identifying markings on their bike like a registration plate, and be fully insured. It should be a criminal offense to not be insured or showing registration markings just as if you were in a car.
Interesting little mind game there. By changing the words around, you make it sound like cyclists get something for nothing.
Cyclists and motorists do not choose to pay road tax, both use the road but motorists are taxed for it. You do not have a choice, you do the damage, you are taxed. You aren't to choose whether you pay it or not, tax is taken from you. You are not a consumer on the road. The cyclists are not consumers either, using the road too, but pay no money, thus getting a free lunch. Both use the road, but you are taxed on it.
I know it sounds like a silly semantic argument, but the mindshift is quite subtle.
Cyclists and motorists do not choose to pay road tax, both use the road but motorists are taxed for it. You do not have a choice, you do the damage, you are taxed. You aren't to choose whether you pay it or not, tax is taken from you. You are not a consumer on the road. The cyclists are not consumers either, using the road too, but pay no money, thus getting a free lunch. Both use the road, but you are taxed on it.
I know it sounds like a silly semantic argument, but the mindshift is quite subtle.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
That also depends where you are in the country, in Dundee they don't appear to have any that I can recall or very few while in Edinburgh they have a lot of lines painted on the road for cyclists - I hesitate to actually call them cycle lanes because 95% of the time there are cars parked in them which means if I'm meant to be in the cycle lane I've got to keep swerving round the cars or go the other way and mount the pavement. To keep swerving is almost certainly as unsafe as if I just sit about a car width away from the pavement regardless so I can maintain a steady speed and direction. While I'm on the subject it would be nice if cars wouldn't sit on the cycle 'boxes' in front of certain traffic lights, they are there for a reason.
Both cyclists and motorists do things to aggravate the other party, a little bit of courtesy goes a long way though.
I occasionaly park my child-raping 4x4 in a city centre car park and walk. Bikes present an obvious danger in busy pedestrianised areas. Before I saw this thread I didn't realise I had an issue, but this has highlighted a few areas for me.
I hate this road tax argument! a lot of cyclists like myself own a car as well and guess what, pay road tax for it!
I live in a town and work out of town. I take quiet roads for 17 miles to work on my bike. I occasionally will cycle on the dual carriage way early in the morning to work if I am wanting to time trial to work but most of the time I will use quieter rural roads.
As a further point. a lot of the cycle lanes provided are of rediculously poor quality. Often getting the side of a poorly maintained road where all the potholes are which is why you may see cyclists cycling further from the edge of the road. If I am doing 20mph on my road bike, last thing I want to do is cycle in right at the edge and hit a 20cm deep pothole and fly over my handlebars.
When driving my car I give cyclists the space that I would appreciate if I was riding a bike. All it needs is education for both sides of the part and we would all get along better.
I live in a town and work out of town. I take quiet roads for 17 miles to work on my bike. I occasionally will cycle on the dual carriage way early in the morning to work if I am wanting to time trial to work but most of the time I will use quieter rural roads.
As a further point. a lot of the cycle lanes provided are of rediculously poor quality. Often getting the side of a poorly maintained road where all the potholes are which is why you may see cyclists cycling further from the edge of the road. If I am doing 20mph on my road bike, last thing I want to do is cycle in right at the edge and hit a 20cm deep pothole and fly over my handlebars.
When driving my car I give cyclists the space that I would appreciate if I was riding a bike. All it needs is education for both sides of the part and we would all get along better.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 13 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 5,798
Does the OP have a driving license? If not your missing out
Associate
- Joined
- 3 Sep 2003
- Posts
- 1,700
Similarly you could say cyclists and pedestrians have a right to use the road, motorists only have a right by licence.
Thats just completely impractical. Many people don't use their bikes on the roads. Many people change bikes all the time. Many people have boought bikes for children that never get used. The amount of bikes owned and sold probably matches if not exceeds the amount of cars bought and sold, trying to get everyone to become insured for their bikes would be utter chaos. Thered be no real way of checking for bicycle insurance either. Bikes aren't registered with something to the equivalent of the dvla so records would be sketchy and uninforceable.
Problem with registering/taxing bikes is that many, many many bicycles sit rusting in people's garages, and never go out. You don't have to have road tax or any insurance of any kind on a car that sits in a garage, only to take the garage out. Since a car costs Tax by the year, petrol, and has other associated costs, people won't usually have cars unless they can financially justify it (such as being able to work, the convenience associated etc). So if all they did was sit it in the garage, they wouldn't bother owning one.
Because a bicycle doesn't have these sorts of associated costs (MOT is another one) people have no qualms about buying bicycles and leaving them for years and not using them. So a huge amount of your database will be dead data.
Without the associated costs, there is no justification for the system, unless we started to register what *everyone* owned of *everything*.
Because a bicycle doesn't have these sorts of associated costs (MOT is another one) people have no qualms about buying bicycles and leaving them for years and not using them. So a huge amount of your database will be dead data.
Without the associated costs, there is no justification for the system, unless we started to register what *everyone* owned of *everything*.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Aug 2003
- Posts
- 3,001
Well, quite simply, if there is no way (in your opinion) for a cyclist to be insured and registered when they're riding on the road, then IMO it's not safe for them to be there. Cyclists are not just involved in accidents, sometimes they are the cause (Which is justification for an insurance requirement).
There should be a certain %age of road tax going to more cycle lanes, although I guarantee that most cyclists won't use them anyway.
There should be a certain %age of road tax going to more cycle lanes, although I guarantee that most cyclists won't use them anyway.
Associate
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2005
- Posts
- 1,595
I fully agree that the practical problems involved in bike registration would be far too prohibitive for it to be feasible. However, a bicycle; a potentially dangerous machine should and does belong in a seperate catagory to, say, a tumble drier.
Well... people do get up to some speeds whilst riding down hills... still most cyclists cycle at the same speed that someone could sprint at, which is hardly a danger.
Its the weight and thus momentum of a car at speed that makes it dangerous. A car weighs > 10x that of a human, even if it is carrying only one person inside. A bicycle weighs < 30kg probably (?) so the difference is mostly speed...
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
Very much so for most commercially available bikes, the Brooklyn Machine Works TMX (seriously seriously heavy duty freeride/downhill type bike) weighs in at ~65lbs and that is one of the heaviest I know of. Most good ordinary mountain-bikes will be in the 30-35lbs range which is approx 13-15kg. It still hurts if it ploughs into you but the chances are it will be less severe than a car going at equivalent speeds.
The chances are it definately will be less severe! A car can way up to a ton or more!
If there was a choice between hit by a hammer or a sponge at the same speed, I'd choose the sponge
EDIT : And why is that in lbs :S means absolutely nothing to me... /meh at imperial