Scottish cyclists to pay road tax

[semi-pro waster]

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?

I'd have thought that was more of an argument to re-evaluate the present costings in the interests of fairness than to introduce new ones but that's up for debate. It is also worth considering that at certain levels of weight/usage the road wear would be negligible with a further query as to where you stop the idea of taxing e.g. if an 80kg man carries a 40kg rucksack and walks along the road then should he be taxed? What is the lower weight limit on where taxation starts? 100kg? 150kg? Something different?

Basic point, and one I'd guess you'd agree with going by the smiley, is that weight alone isn't a great metric for charging. It is better to use another attribute (such as having an engine) along with weight if necessary.

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.

It's a bit of a difficult one, as a cyclist you are particularly vulnerable so it may be that moving to the side of the road is going to be considerate but would put you at much greater risk because the state of many verges is less than ideal. It is therefore hard to give an overall answer which covers all circumstances - personally when cycling I generally would pull to the side as much as possible to give car drivers a decent chance of passing since I want them where I can see them, I trust myself a whole lot more than I do other road users. However that was cycling in Edinburgh or Dundee - I suspect that in London I'd have to be rather more aggressive to get anywhere, you certainly do have to be a bit more forceful when driving.

 

[NickK]

What damage do they cause?

If they go through the red light and hit my car.

I've seen too many that run red lights without even stopping or looking then complain about car drivers being a danger on the road.

 

[[DOD]Asprilla]

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.

This is very true, but then as a driver I don't stop to let everyone out of side streets and nor to let everyone past parked cars, or pull out of their drive. I do it when its convenient for me and when it's safe. First thing I'll do is check my mirror and if there is no-one behind me then the person can wait until I pass and then do what they want.

Similarly, when I'm cycling I don't always cycle two abreast (in fact it's rare; when commuting I'm only next to someone when there is overtaking going on and when riding with mates we are usually drafting) but when I do, I don't always immediately move to allow a car to overtake the instant I'm aware of it. Instead I look to see when the next over taking point will be and if it's not too far away I won't waste the energy required to slow to single file and then accelerate back again.

I don't know what it is about some people that makes them exagerate the perceived issues they feel cyclists cause; I've never had my car damaged by a cyclist, I've never been held up by one for anything longer than 60 seconds when driving and even then a little acceleration saw me back behind the car in front after less than that again. It's a non-issue that for some reason non-cyclists like to come over all Daily Hail when really they should just take a deep breath.

 

[RDM]

Basic point, and one I'd guess you'd agree with going by the smiley, is that weight alone isn't a great metric for charging. It is better to use another attribute (such as having an engine) along with weight if necessary.

Indeed I wasn't being serious, the weight issue is a complete red herring, it may well have been the original purpose for road tax (i.e. repairing the damage done by wear and tear) but it has long since stopped being about that and is in effect taxation for using the road. If it is taxation for using the road why should certain groups be exempt? If you feel that they should be exempt give arguments for that rather than going on about wear and tear on the roads.

It's a bit of a difficult one, as a cyclist you are particularly vulnerable so it may be that moving to the side of the road is going to be considerate but would put you at much greater risk because the state of many verges is less than ideal.

However the argument I was responding to was the legal right to ride two abreast. I am struggling to see when it would put a rider at greater risk not to ride two abreast. While you may well have the legal right to do it, it is not always going to be showing consideration to other road users if you do.

It is therefore hard to give an overall answer which covers all circumstances - personally when cycling I generally would pull to the side as much as possible to give car drivers a decent chance of passing since I want them where I can see them, I trust myself a whole lot more than I do other road users. However that was cycling in Edinburgh or Dundee - I suspect that in London I'd have to be rather more aggressive to get anywhere, you certainly do have to be a bit more forceful when driving.

Again, no issues with this, however we have cyclists in this thread saying they have the right to ride two abreast so tough luck. Yet they still want additional consideration from other road users. Seems to me to be a bit of a double standard going on here.

 

[[DOD]Asprilla]

However the argument I was responding to was the legal right to ride two abreast. I am struggling to see when it would put a rider at greater risk not to ride two abreast. While you may well have the legal right to do it, it is not always going to be showing consideration to other road users if you do.

Riding two abreast is an extension of the theory that riding with more road presence is considerably safer than hugging the curb. The less space you provide yourself, the more likely you are to be in an accident. Also, it's a good opportunity to have a chat. See my comments about at to why I don't always move immediately.

 

[RDM]

I don't know what it is about some people that makes them exagerate the perceived issues they feel cyclists cause; I've never had my car damaged by a cyclist, I've never been held up by one for anything longer than 60 seconds when driving and even then a little acceleration saw me back behind the car in front after less than that again. It's a non-issue that for some reason non-cyclists like to come over all Daily Hail when really they should just take a deep breath.

What if their experience of cyclists differs from the model cyclist you yourself are? What if they have had to spend quite a bit of cash to sort out the scratches on a side panel from a cyclist's pedal while filtering? What if they have constantly been held up by a group of cyclists whose Sunday ride is much more important than all other road users? What if their abiding memories of cyclists are the poor ones rather than the considerate ones?

 

[RDM]

Riding two abreast is an extension of the theory that riding with more road presence is considerably safer than hugging the curb. The less space you provide yourself, the more likely you are to be in an accident.

Technically by riding two abreast you are actually giving yourself less space than if you where riding solo. Was certainly the case when I was cycling and tends to be the case when I sometimes do it with my motorbike and a mate.

Also, it's a good opportunity to have a chat. See my comments about at to why I don't always move immediately.

Which falls pretty much into showing consideration to other road users. In the above instance you are deciding that you having a chat is more important than other road users making progress. Fine as far as it goes but then don't turn around and ask for more consideration from other road users. Also remember that not everyone is a model cyclist and so may not be as considerate.

 

[[DOD]Asprilla]

What if their experience of cyclists differs from the model cyclist you yourself are? What if they have had to spend quite a bit of cash to sort out the scratches on a side panel from a cyclist's pedal while filtering? What if they have constantly been held up by a group of cyclists whose Sunday ride is much more important than all other road users? What if their abiding memories of cyclists are the poor ones rather than the considerate ones?

There will certainly be such cases, but frankly my opinion is that they are going to be few and far between and that most people are kidding themselves when it comes to the scale of the problem.

I don't know of a single person who has ever told me about a cyclist damaging their car, but every cyclist I know has been knocked off at least once, myself included (I got left hooked on a roundabout by someone who couldn't be bothered to wait for me to clear the first exit and went round me instead; I would have delayed him for about 3 seconds).

 

[willhub]

Technically by riding two abreast you are actually giving yourself less space than if you where riding solo. Was certainly the case when I was cycling and tends to be the case when I sometimes do it with my motorbike and a mate.



Which falls pretty much into showing consideration to other road users. In the above instance you are deciding that you having a chat is more important than other road users making progress. Fine as far as it goes but then don't turn around and ask for more consideration from other road users. Also remember that not everyone is a model cyclist and so may not be as considerate.

I guess you are pretty inconsiderate to other road users then when you're talking to someone in the passenger seats of your car......

 

[RDM]

There will certainly be such cases, but frankly my opinion is that they are going to be few and far between and that most people are kidding themselves when it comes to the scale of the problem.

But for those that do suffer damage from cyclists it is pretty much "Tough luck, I don't think it happens often enough to care about"?

 

[RDM]

I guess you are pretty inconsiderate to other road users then when you're talking to someone in the passenger seats of your car......

How? It takes up no more room on the road. Come on, surely you can come up with a somewhat better thought out argument than that?

 

[willhub]

How? It takes up no more room on the road. Come on, surely you can come up with a somewhat better thought out argument than that?

I thought it's being inconsiderate as far as concentration goes. Anyway, I don't really go out thinking I have to make sure I can allow car drivers to make as quick as progress as possible, as the majority of drivers that pass me are likely to break the speed limit, and besides, it just shows them being inpatient if a cyclist riding 2 abreast is delaying their progress, if anything the delay won't even be 1min....

But I've said enough on cycling 2 abreast.

 

[[DOD]Asprilla]

But for those that do suffer damage from cyclists it is pretty much "Tough luck, I don't think it happens often enough to care about"?

That's not what I said at all. I've already stated that I'm insured to cycle and that I think all cyclists should be, so please stop putting words in my mouth.

What I am saying is that the problem isn't as big as some people make out and tha cyclists, generally, are do not bring chaos to our city streets. Some of them are complete muppets and they deserve to be prosecuted for dangerous and illegal cycling, but I reckon, and this my come as a suprise to some people, that the percentage of cyclists who are dangerous inconsiderate idiots is exactly the same as the percentage of drivers who are dangerous idiots.

 

[RDM]

I thought it's being inconsiderate as far as concentration goes.

Not sure about you but I can certainly drive and talk at the same time with no real adverse effect on my driving. If I really need to concentrate for whatever reason I tend to stop talking. Your argument was stupid, come up with a better one.

Anyway, I don't really go out thinking I have to make sure I can allow car drivers to make as quick as progress as possible, as the majority of drivers that pass me are likely to break the speed limit, and besides, it just shows them being inpatient if a cyclist riding 2 abreast is delaying their progress, if anything the delay won't even be 1min....

But I've said enough on cycling 2 abreast.

Which is fine, but don't ask a motorist for consideration as you aren't prepared to give any yourself.

That's not what I said at all. I've already stated that I'm insured to cycle and that I think all cyclists should be, so please stop putting words in my mouth.

Apologies, there should have been a smiley at the end of that.

What I am saying is that the problem isn't as big as some people make out and tha cyclists, generally, are do not bring chaos to our city streets. Some of them are complete muppets and they deserve to be prosecuted for dangerous and illegal cycling, but I reckon, and this my come as a suprise to some people, that the percentage of cyclists who are dangerous inconsiderate idiots is exactly the same as the percentage of drivers who are dangerous idiots.

I agree the muppet percentage is probably about the same (whilst considerably higher when it comes to motorcyclists, many, many more muppet motorcyclists) but the difference is with a car (and a motorcycle) you have some way of tracing and getting recompense (even if not ideal) if they drive off without stopping. Why not have the same with bikes?

 

[[DOD]Asprilla]

you have some way of tracing and getting recompense (even if not ideal) if they drive off without stopping. Why not have the same with bikes?

Because the volume isn't the same. The number of cars, car miles and car accidents are far greater than the equivalent for cyclists. Consequently the costs involved in setting up such a system would far outweigh the benefits involved, for the moment.

Also, as I said earlier, there is no similar model anywhere else in the world so the risk of failure of such a system would also be very high.

There is a thread parallel to this in Motors about the police stopping and fining cyclists for jumping red lights, something I agree with and would like to see more of since those cyclists who do break the law do so because there is very little chance of anyone in authority stopping them. However, some of the posters there, non-cyclists, felt this was a waste of police resources and they'd much rather see the police responding to 'real crime'.

You can't please all the people all the time.

 

[RDM]

Because the volume isn't the same. The number of cars, car miles and car accidents are far greater than the equivalent for cyclists. Consequently the costs involved in setting up such a system would far outweigh the benefits involved, for the moment.

And this is a much better argument as to why such a system should not be put in place. Which was really all I was trying to get at, the arguments being used were poor on both sides of the debate.

 

[simpletom]

Been hit twice, both times by nobbers pulling out on me when they underestimated my speed and overestimated their Corsa or whatever. Once they didn't even stop and another time it left me out of training for six months. Other hairy moments include people turning right, from the opposite direction, across your lane after they have dithered around.

Then you get the beeping or yelling nobbers who think they're soo darn cool and yet, when you catch up to them at the lights they won't make eye contact with you.

Cycle lanes are a joke and appear to be used by street sweepers to contain the debris form the road. Either that or cars are parked in them, if they are on the road, or have dogs, glass, kids, holes or whatever in the segregated ones.

Theen you have tosspots who stop in ASLs (?), therefore making a safe start impossible at a busy junction. they are probably the same kind of tool who love to beat you to the lights because their engne is bigger than yours.

Tax cycles? Nah.

 

[Sol]

I just think it's the government hampering for more cash. By charging people to cycle they aren't going to increase the amount of people cycling in general, probably put people off. I'd love to see the costs of enforcing such a scheme too and it's doubtful it would even work. If they do bring out a tax I expect a rebate for all the times that the crappy roads in Aberdeen have buckled my wheels/burst tyres/etc etc. Cycling paths here are generally the worn area about 0.5m wide from the kerb with all the drains. If anything there should be a tax break/incentive for cycling not greater cost.

The only thing I would be for would be for compulsory insurance, I haven't purchased any to date but probably should so that in the even of a collision it's easier to claim for both parties.

I see more than my fair share of idiots in cars both when I'm walking and when I'm cycling to know that if they get away with all of that then it's probably likely that as they have been to now, cyclists will, with running red lights and such. I see loads (probably a lot more) of cars running red lights too to be perfectly honest (the it's only been red for 2-5 secs rule), recently the green man was on and two cars just followed each other through the red light as me and my other half were halfway across.

I got plowed by a large transit van early last year when it pulled out right in front of me when the driver didn't/couldn't see due to a drizzle covered window and I'm still waiting for that cash to materialise. Looks like that's going to cost me the best part of £400 (bike repairs only) without seeing a penny. Generally a car will end up with a scratch in a collision and a cyclist will end up with both trashed bike and potential death and it seems that there are too many drivers that do not realise they are in possession of a vehicle capable of causing death very easily.

 

[Nexus]

Theen you have tosspots who stop in ASLs (********?), therefore making a safe start impossible at a busy junction. they are probably the same kind of tool who love to beat you to the lights because their engne is bigger than yours.

I've never understood that either, especially as far as city driving goes. I think for some reason, some drivers just seem to be programmed to overtake cyclists, regardless of whether there is any actual need to, and often even putting themselves in danger.

I'm talking about the kind of people who are coming up to a red light with a que of traffic, yet they speed up over the limit to overtake you, only to then have to brake heavily anyway at the lights. Not to mention the cyclist is likely to filter through ahead of the que, and you haven't gained anything by overtaking.

 

[Draeger]

Road tax for cyclists?.

Heard about this yesterday, I had a chuckle to myself when I read it.

It will never happen, guaranteed.