Scottish cyclists to pay road tax

atpbx · 14 Sep 2009 at 17:32

eddiemcgarrigle said:
AGAIN!!! For everyone who slates cyclists, go borrow a bike, find your local A road and pedal on it for at least an hour and get a taste of what cyclists have to put with from car owners. When you've done that, then you can comment.

Yeah........................... I think the years of push biking I did around lincolnshire and the like (including 6 months of 15 mile round trip commuting from August to January in my teens) qualifies me to talk about cycling.

You should pay for insurance and have an ID number on your bike, so when I can claim for any damage you do to my car.

Basher · 14 Sep 2009 at 17:32

willhub said:
Why not? You'll have to give a brilliantly good answer for that, because as far as the law goes, it is.

The highway codes defined you have to be considerate to other road users. Riding two abreast (wide) is not being considerate.

Biohazard · 14 Sep 2009 at 17:33

yeah I think some people just shudder at regulation, I see no reason why the cycling community cannot be brought into order.

Amp34 · 14 Sep 2009 at 17:33

willhub said:
One thing I notice is car's certainly don't like to be behind a cyclist matching the speed limit, on many a time I've being doing 30 in a 30 coming into my village and I get overtaken quickly, and you have to remember, a car speedo showing 30mph may well be 3mph slower, so when I'm reading the speed off of my GPS @ 30, the speedo will be showing over 30 in there car, then they overtake probably doing over 40. When I'm doing 27ish they'll probs see it as 30.

I'm learning to drive at the moment and so sticking at the speed limit, it reinforces my previous experience (like yours) and what your post says. I've lost count of the number of times I have had people shooting past and even beeping when I am going AT the speed limit. I think like cyclists learner drivers are seen as idiots by idiots who drive cars. :rolleyes:

Amp34 · 14 Sep 2009 at 17:35

Basher said:
The highway codes defined you have to be considerate to other road users. Riding two abreast (wide) is not being considerate.

And driving up the backside of a cyclist, revving the engine and squeezing past is also not considerate, and the funny thing is that's what a huge proportion of car drivers do. Very few leave a reasonable distance between them and a cyclist, whether following them or going past...

willhub · 14 Sep 2009 at 17:35

atpbx said:
Yeah........................... I think the years of push biking I did around lincolnshire and the like (including 6 months of 15 mile round trip commuting from August to January in my teens) qualifies me to talk about cycling.

You should pay for insurance and have an ID number on your bike, so when I can claim for any damage you do to my car.

You are 33.... When you where that age the roads where not as bad as they are now..

Basher said:
The highway codes defined you have to be considerate to other road users. Riding two abreast (wide) is not being considerate.

No, that's why you can do things to be considerate like I said and it says in the highway code.

On my commute through Manchester, it's only about 3.5 miles each way, probably about 60-90% (good day - bad day) of drivers are not considerate.

Disco Boy · 14 Sep 2009 at 17:36

Basher said:
The highway codes defined you have to be considerate to other road users. Riding two abreast (wide) is not being considerate.

Highway code rule 66 states that cyclists are entitled to ride two abreast.

When overtaking a cyclist, you should allow as much room as you would a car. So basically you should be on the opposite side of the road.

Cyclists being two abreast halves their length, so it is easier for you to overtake. The width makes no difference as you should be on the opposite side of the road anyway, if you aren't then you are the one being inconsiderate.

Basher · 14 Sep 2009 at 17:38

Disco Boy said:
Highway code rule 66 states that cyclists are entitled to ride two abreast.

When overtaking a cyclist, you should allow as much room as you would a car. So basically you should be on the opposite side of the road.

Why should I be on the opposite side of the road? Bikes are thinner than cars therefore by leaving the same amount of room I wouldn't be as far away.

Anyway, the one's riding 3 or 4 abreast are the ones which really do my head in.

willhub · 14 Sep 2009 at 17:40

Basher said:
Why should I be on the opposite side of the road? Bikes are thinner than cars therefore by leaving the same amount of room I wouldn't be as far away.

Anyway, the one's riding 3 or 4 abreast are the ones which really do my head in.

And how much room do you leave cyclists? Basher, I think people cycling 3 or 4 breast you find very rarely, as it is very rare, infact, I've never seen it happen apart from in a group I've being in on an empty road. And I cycle all over the place, I do hundreds of miles a week, cycling with groups, seeing plenty of other groups, so if it was common you'd think I'd see it.

Basher · 14 Sep 2009 at 17:40

willhub said:
And how much room do you leave cyclists?

The same amount as I leave cars.

D18241 · 14 Sep 2009 at 20:23

RDM said:
The point is not when it is the car drivers fault but when it is the cyclists fault. A pedal scrape down the side of a car while filtering for example.

Again the point is when the cyclist is at fault, they can just ride off with no way of being identified. At least with a car you have the plate.

That is your fault, just as it would be a motorist coming round a blind bend and hitting an obstruction. Drive/ride to the road conditions after all.

that guy shudnt have been a idiot... oh i know its a bike goin pretty quick and its wet lets go out in front of them, you woudnt do it to a car or motorbike

[DOD]Asprilla · 14 Sep 2009 at 20:29

Basher said:
The highway codes defined you have to be considerate to other road users. Riding two abreast (wide) is not being considerate.

The highway code says you should be, not that you have to be.

Biohazard said:
yeah I think some people just shudder at regulation, I see no reason why the cycling community cannot be brought into order.

You mean in line with the driving community? It is. It's subject to the same laws and and containes the same percentage of idiots who leave accident scenes and who are inconsiderate. Licencing and taxing bikes won't help that.

I watched one of my colleagues get car doored in March (driver opens car door without looking) and the driver just laughed at her on the floor and drove off again. Another mate of mine was left with two broken ribs when the same thing happend to him in April and he had to restrain the driver to stop him leaving. Later that week a mate in Oxford got put over a car bonet when a driver pulled out without looking. Again, he didn't stop.

Obviously cycling attracts the nutters and lawbreakers and they need the same regulation as cars because that has helped them become paragons of virtue.

Shmo · 14 Sep 2009 at 20:55

They should do this. But change the rules so on normal roads it's one lane for cyclists and one lane for cars. Then sit back and enjoy the carnage

Amp34 · 14 Sep 2009 at 22:18

D18241 said:
that guy shudnt have been a idiot... oh i know its a bike goin pretty quick and its wet lets go out in front of them, you woudnt do it to a car or motorbike

Problem is people don't seem to think bikes hurt, or that they will always stop, it's not like they can kill (which unless you are the cyclist is pretty true).

Just to show how cyclelanes should be done, this is my town, the blue is the dual carriage ways, the red is the cycle lanes. The cycle lanes as stated before have road markings, signs and are to all intents roads (in fact mopeds and other small engined bikes also use it), they even has a clearly defined pedestrian path (with curb) down one side of them. However people still insist on walking down the middle of the road, instead of the path, and then get annoyed when you, the cyclist try and go past, oh and even though it looks clean, it still has the age old issue of broken glass everywhere... Now how many car drivers have to put up with people wondering down the middle of a main road? Not many, so if cyclists are taxed and licenced I expect the pedestrians that misuse our roads to be fined or moaned at by the police...

Now to show an example of a bad one, this is Plymouth...

Now at the top you have a path, that has been split into two, by just a white line, one side having an outline of a bike on the floor. no one takes a slight bit of notice and it's impossible to cycle down there without getting moaned at. It gets slightly better in the roundabout, but very confusing, because the bike lane is around the edge, about 1m wide and with awkkward railings to navigate past at each stop. As a cyclist you also have to stop for the pedestrians walking through instead of the other way round. Luckily the one positive is most people don't walk on that bit as it's longer... :rolleyes:

Again hopefully if cyclists are taxed and insured the police will come down on the people walking on the bike section of the path... Or not... :rolleyes:

The funny thing is both of the examples are far better than most lanes, which are usually a half metre wide piece of tarmac/gravel/dirt/glass on the side of the road...

Raumarik · 14 Sep 2009 at 22:52

Anyway to prevent cyclists jumping red lights would help, seen far too many close calls due to impatience that you don't get with car, truck and motorcyclists. It's not just a danger to the cyclist but also to other vehicles that swerve or brake to avoid hitting them.

I wouldn't mind if they got off their bike, pushed it across the road at the green man and then got back on, but they blatantly jump reds. I don't quite get the mentality of "I have the right to use the road just as you, but the same rules don't apply to me."

I use to cycle to and from work and never jumped reds as frankly I was too damn aware of how poor some drivers were at spotting a cyclist who was obeying the rules!!

meghatronic · 14 Sep 2009 at 22:54

Amp34 said:
Problem is people don't seem to think bikes hurt, or that they will always stop, it's not like they can kill (which unless you are the cyclist is pretty true).

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...ef+dies+after+being+hit+by+cyclist/article.do

timaloy · 14 Sep 2009 at 23:33

anything for money ,its getting beond a joke

mattheman · 15 Sep 2009 at 01:43

timaloy said:
anything for money ,its getting beond a joke

soon they charge you for walking.

dirtydog · 15 Sep 2009 at 06:56

Amp34 said:
However people still insist on walking down the middle of the road, instead of the path, and then get annoyed when you, the cyclist try and go past, oh and even though it looks clean, it still has the age old issue of broken glass everywhere...

I get this too when I have used cycle paths. A clearly segregated path with markings for bikes and pedestrians, yet you get people walking down the cycle part, or two or more people walking across the entire width of the path - and they act as if you have no right to be there :confused:

With that and dodging broken glass (why is there so much of it everywhere?

) it's no wonder some of us feel compelled to use the roads.

RDM · 15 Sep 2009 at 08:11

Amp34 said:
Ok technically I haven't hit anyone, however I did end up skidding to a stop just in front of them, cue them calling me a **** etc. because obviously it's perfectly fine to walk down the middle of a road when there is a perfectly good path next to it... It's not an isolated incident either, a huge number of pedestrians walk on the cycle area.

Moot point as to if they should be there or not. If you go round a blind corner and hit a pedestrian it is your fault as you are not riding in a safe manner. If I come round a blind bend on a motorcycle and a car has stopped on the other side of it I am still to blame if I hit it. At the end of the day you have to drive/ride at a speed that is suitable for the road conditions allowing you to stop in time if need be.

Amp34 said:
That is why trucks pay FAR more road tax than a car, and a morotcycle pays less than a car. Cars still do damage the road a reasonable amount (yes nowhere near a lorry however), cyclists really don't, compare the average pedestrian weight and the average cyclist (including bike) weight and there would be little different (as cyclists are generally not fat). So for road damage cyclists should pay the same amount as pedestrians.

Bike = 10-15kg
Motorcycle = 100-200kg
Car = 1500-3000kg
lorry = 7500-50000kg

Approximately...

So a motorbike pays about half the value of a car and weighs about 1/10. Going be weight alone then should a push bike pay half the value of a motorbike as it weighs about 1/10? £30 a year seem fine to you? If not, why not?

Amp34 said:
I would expect two cyclists riding abrest to take up the whole of their lane, it doesn't matter if one is next to the curb and the other next to the line in the centre of the road, it's their right, and tbh far safer for them. A question for you Basher, if you were driving down a country lane at 40 would you move out of the way of a car doing 60 down the lane? I doubt it, so why should a cyclist be any different?

And:

willhub said:
Why not? You'll have to give a brilliantly good answer for that, because as far as the law goes, it is.

Because the law isn't everything. Legally I don't have to let someone out of a sidestreet, legally I don't have to let someone get past some parked cars, legally I don't have to allow someone to pull out from their drive. You as a cyclist are asking for consideration from motorists yet seem to be not willing to give consideration to other road users yourself.