Yes, because then car drivers would become far more CONSIDERATE to other road users, you never know they may carry on cycling after they get their car licence for short journeys. That would mean less cars, less congestion in towns and less pollution, everybody wins, except anti cyclists... Also the more cyclists on the road the more road users will notice them (as you will regularly be looking out for them instead of just "seeing" them occasionally).
Scottish cyclists to pay road tax
- Thread starter Old Wino
- Start date
Yes, because then car drivers would become far more CONSIDERATE to other road users, you never know they may carry on cycling after they get their car licence for short journeys. That would mean less cars, less congestion in towns and less pollution, everybody wins, except anti cyclists... Also the more cyclists on the road the more road users will notice them (as you will regularly be looking out for them instead of just "seeing" them occasionally).
Soldato
As well as that we should also be learning to co-exist as road users no matter what our choice of transport is. Sadly, this is not the case and most probably never will be.
In an ideal world and all that, I guess.
Associate
- Joined
- 6 May 2009
- Posts
- 566
I'm sure that I'm a better (more observant and considerate) driver because I rode a motorbike first. In the same way I now cycle a lot too which is a real eye-opener.
All the talk of 'cyclists' as separate from other road users is funny. I've no evidence but would guess that over 95% of adult cyclists also drive!
I'd guess that they are in general safer drivers too.
All the talk of 'cyclists' as separate from other road users is funny. I've no evidence but would guess that over 95% of adult cyclists also drive!
I'd guess that they are in general safer drivers too.
I think car drivers should have to ride a bicycle / motorbike before being allowed to drive a car, a lorry / bus driver needs to have driven a bicycle / motorbike AND a car before becoming qualified. This is because all drivers should be aware of the situation that more vulnerable road users than themselves are in, and why they do what they do and why they need more space in certain situations etc.
Either way why have a tax on cyclists? Why not talk walkers too? Human powered transport NEEDs to be free from taxation, otherwise we would be crossing a line. Then we would need to tax breathing, sex, or anything else we do.
Either way why have a tax on cyclists? Why not talk walkers too? Human powered transport NEEDs to be free from taxation, otherwise we would be crossing a line. Then we would need to tax breathing, sex, or anything else we do.
Soldato
I echo the sentiments in the above two posts.
I see road users from a varied perspective as I cycle, drive a car, ride a motorcycle and I also drive fire appliances to incidents during the course of my work.
I see road users from a varied perspective as I cycle, drive a car, ride a motorcycle and I also drive fire appliances to incidents during the course of my work.
Man of Honour
I'm not arguing in favour of the taxation being for wear and tear based on weight, I was highlighting that the argument about weight would be better aimed at re-evaluating current bandings of tax rather than introducing new categories. However since I don't believe it's a particularly good measure I'm happy to ignore that specific argument for the moment.
I'd contend that the net benefits of cycling in terms of health, reduced congestion etc (and/or walking for that matter) outweigh the disadvantages that their not paying Road Tax may cause - the amount that they would be expected to pay is probably going to be nominal only anyway so it isn't likely to be all that worthwhile implementing it i.e. the cost of implementation is quite possibly more than would be raised from it so unless it is done as a point of principle it doesn't make a lot of sense. I'd think it still makes sense for cyclists and pedestrians to be exempt from Road Tax as a matter of public policy, adding them to the categories of users who do pay Road Tax would provide a disincentive for many which we really don't need given the state of the Nation's health.
As mentioned previously it increases road presence and if it prevents someone acting too impatiently behind you trying to overtake in an unsuitable place then it is less of a risk. However a person who chooses to overtake in unsuitable places might very well do so irrespective of people riding two abreast - in such a situation there's not much you can do to make it safer.
It may be a double standard but there is a certain inequity in terms of size, power and potential damage that can be caused by a car versus a bike. That's not to excuse cyclists who do not show due care and consideration but cars do have the power (both literal and metaphorical) in the 'contest' and as such I'd hope that drivers would be considerate of the weaker party.
Why do you think that? It isn't like driving tends to make motorists more considerate to other motorists. Do you really think they would have some sort of epiphany and start being nice to cyclists because they were forced to ride a bike? Judging from this thread it isn't like being a cyclist suddenly makes you a considerate person either.
Alternatively they would do just the minimum amount needed to get their test and then forget about it again. But instead you have a bunch of unsure cyclists, a lot of whom have no real experience of the road and probably a large increase in accidents due to it.
And exactly how would you administer such a scheme? You think taxing bikes is unworkable, enforcing a certain number of hours on a cycle would be just as bad.
Yes to an extent I do, it would make people that have never ridden on the road actually understand why cyclists do what they do and, from the number of replies in this thread that don't understand why, it would make a huge difference. It would also make people aware of what cyclists may do in response to certain dangers too, and make them more aware of other road users (there's nothing like making you aware of other road users than being on a machine that one touch from one of those other road users could kill or seriously injure you), and possibly drive more defensively.
And an unsure cyclist is worse than an unsure car driver? At least an unsure cyclist isn't going to kill someone if they don't brake in time, or accidently press the accelerator instead of a brake. It would give them an opportunity to learn the rules of the road, in tandem with doing it in a car. My driving learning has gone much faster because I already understand most of the rules of the road (dual carriageways and big roundabouts excepted) and so only really needed to know how to work the car and apply what I already knew.
Yes most people probably would do the bare minimum, however people do that already with most things (including learning to drive) so that wouldn't make any difference and yes most people would probably forget about it afterwards, however a lot would carry on cycling, and those that didn't if they ever needed to cycle on the road would already have experience. I've already mentioned the positives for driving a car..
Yes, well I did say semi seriously, that's the main hitch, just like the road tax argument implimenting it would probably cost a fortune and be very difficult, but not impossible. The government are already thinking about having a minimum number of hours lessons for learning to drive, only enforceable by doing it with a registered instructor, perhaps something similar with cycling. Join a "club" and go out with a registered cycle "instructor" in a group? Maybe even force the cycling to learn the rules of the road before you even go out in a car on the road...
Soldato
Don't what?
Are you saying that bikes don't move for cars and if so, what circumstances are you talking about?
I cant work out if you are trolling or not.
Soldato
Yes, and a number of people have explained why.
Soldato
I've explained that as a road user I will be courtious to other road users, however:
1) I'll do my upmost to ensure my safety first of all, which mean maintaining road presence and ensuring that other road users don't put my life at risk by performing unsafe overtaking.
2) I'll defer to quicker road users, but I won't be subserviant. Just as I wouldn't let someone driving right behind me make me drive quicker than I want to, I won't have other road users dictate my actions. I'll move, but if there is an opportunity coming up shortly which offers a better and safer chance to overtake, then the person behind me can wait until then.
1) I'll do my upmost to ensure my safety first of all, which mean maintaining road presence and ensuring that other road users don't put my life at risk by performing unsafe overtaking.
2) I'll defer to quicker road users, but I won't be subserviant. Just as I wouldn't let someone driving right behind me make me drive quicker than I want to, I won't have other road users dictate my actions. I'll move, but if there is an opportunity coming up shortly which offers a better and safer chance to overtake, then the person behind me can wait until then.
Soldato
Road presence, generally. Have you read the thread?
Soldato
[DOD]Asprilla;14882137 said:
I can do so much better. Need to take my camera to Ambleside.
Soldato
It's not. Has has ben mentioned already in this thread, those cyclists most likely to be involved in accidents at the ones who hug the curb as this tends to invite drivers to come closer to them and make riskier overtaking attempts. Those who 'take ownership' of the road are safer. It's pretty simple really.