Scottish cyclists to pay road tax

[willhub]

I can't believe this.

So you guys are saying (ok some of you) that because a cyclist will exhale more than someone walking (what about Running people huh? what then?!) that they will be giving off more "emissions" than a fatty walking down the road or eating a burger?

All this global warming blame this blame that is nonsense. If humans breathing caused that much damage then there's be breathing tax or a population control of some sort to stop people having more chidren and thus breathing in our precious air.

Go kill some sheep and cows, they contribute to the largest chunk of methane release anyway, that will solve the climate crisis for sure....not.

Let's not stop there! let's put a tax on furious fappery too because some people breathe heavily while fapping all over their ex's face no doubt

It does not matter how much Co2 we put out, I don't think we are actually making Co2 no? Just we breath the air in, take out the oxygen and discard Co2, the trees can take care of that.

 

[eddiemcgarrigle]

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.

 

[Basher]

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.

I have done that and I still don't like many cyclists. I especially hate the sunday cycle races who cycle 3 across making overtaking very tricky.

 

[willhub]

I have done that and I still don't like many cyclists. I especially hate the sunday cycle races who cycle 3 across making overtaking very tricky.

What about when they're 2 abreast? 3 is illegal but 2 is perfectly fine.

 

[[DOD]Asprilla]

I'm not sure about plates, but I certainly think that cyclists should have some kind of training. However, I would also guess that most cyclists also have either a driving or motorcycle license and this should suffice currently. Afterall, to pass those tests you should have read and understood the highway code......

As I say in all these threads, it's not cyclists who are idiots, it's people and it doesn't matter whether they are walking, cycling or driving. Cars get damaged by other cars and by trollies in car parks and having licences and insurance doesn't stop the perpetrators from ignoring it and leaving the scene. The same will happen when the same people are on bikes.

As has been said, VED is based on emissions & therefore bikes don't get taxed. Change the structure of the tax and some, like me, will pay it. As for registering bikes and having them dispay plates, I don't know anywere else in the world that does this, so the cost of implementation and the likelihood of failure is going to fairly large. Not really worth it for the relatively low benefits.

What about when they're 2 abreast? 3 is illegal but 2 is perfectly fine.

Not true. The HC says you should never ride more than two abreast; it's only if it says must not that it's a legal requirement.

 

[eddiemcgarrigle]

Good for you Basher, did you have a big sign saying "I'm really a car owner, be nice" dangling from your seatpost?

I have to agree with you about the cycling clubs as there are two near me who seem to think they can stop traffic to let their members get a free run through junctions to improve their time. Not when I'm around. Just live with the fact that most cyclists obey the law just as most motorists obey the law and that there is a minority of idiots in both types of vehicle. Oh, we can include motorbikes too but that's a different story.

 

[steve-h]

I didnt read past page 1... but

Road cyclists should have a licence though, too many idiots.

yeah, because taxing car users has certainly stopped all the idiot drivers

...

+ cars/motorbikes cause road wear... bikes do not

+ bikes arent allowed on the pavement, so where do you expect them to go?

tax everyone who wants to ride a bike now? :/

a vote for insurance though. good idea.

 

[Basher]

What about when they're 2 abreast? 3 is illegal but 2 is perfectly fine.

Depends how abreast they are. If one is right next to the kerb and one is near the middle of the road, that is not ok.

 

[RDM]

- i've been hit by a car 2 almost 3 times , 1 crossing on a green man on path due to flat tyre , 2nd guy pulled out into other lane and hit front of bike , 3rd was same as 2nd. Why would i be accountable for damage to the car? when its the drivers fualt let him pay for his own repairs

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.

- i've also hit a pedestrain for him looking at me on the bike on the road and decided to walk across road into front of me not bothering to hurry / wait for me to go past

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.

I've also been mowed down on my bike by a pedestrian standing in my lane of a cycle lane, just round a blind corner (obviously it was my fault, just like it's the car drivers fault when a little girl runs out in front of them...)

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.

 

[RDM]

+ cars/motorbikes cause road wear... bikes do not

The amount of wear from a motorbike is pretty low too, much lower than a car. The amount from a car is tiny compared to that from a truck. Not to mention that this isn't what road tax is for any more, if it was road tax would be much, much lower.

 

[willhub]

Depends how abreast they are. If one is right next to the kerb and one is near the middle of the road, that is not ok.

Indeed it's not, as no cyclist should be right near the kerb anyway.

Not true. The HC says you should never ride more than two abreast; it's only if it says must not that it's a legal requirement.

Where is the bit about riding abreast in the highway code on the gov site? I've seen it before but can't locate it now.

 

[Basher]

Indeed it's not, as no cyclist should be right near the kerb anyway.

Indeed.

Cyclists do cycle 2, 3, 4 abreast, sometimes one very near the kerb and one one the white line. It annoys me, especially when they make no effort to move out of the way.

 

[Amp34]

Depends how abreast they are. If one is right next to the kerb and one is near the middle of the road, that is not ok.

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?

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.

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.

The amount of wear from a motorbike is pretty low too, much lower than a car. The amount from a car is tiny compared to that from a truck. Not to mention that this isn't what road tax is for any more, if it was road tax would be much, much lower.

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...

 

[willhub]

I've never ever seen cyclists go 3 or 4 abreast, that's careless and not really possible unless they're on a dual carridge way where it's damn right stupid or taking up the right hand lane :\

If the cyclists are on busy or narrow road then it's considered courteous to go single file, you don't have to. If you've had problems with them riding 2 abreast on quietish roads or very narrow roads then you can't really complain, quiet roads you can safely overtake and on very narrow roads it makes no difference if they're single file or 2 abreast as you'd not be able to safely overtake either way. Sometimes I stop and move to the side of let some drivers go past, if they're right on my a$$ or reving then it makes me abit nervous. Usually I'll have them wait though, as stopping then getting back up to speed is not good.

 

[Nexus]

Depends how abreast they are. If one is right next to the kerb and one is near the middle of the road, that is not ok.

Two cyclists abreast, no matter where they are, as long as they are between their kerb and the white lines is perfectly fine. Cyclists have the same rights to be there as a motorist, there are just too many motorists that don't know the highway code and assume that Cyclists have to get out of the way. It's no different to coming up behind a slow car, it might be annoying, but you just have to find a safe place to pass.

What I find most annoying is that when you are actually going at speed, say in a 30mph zone, and you get some idiot beeping at you, just to try and get past your at way over the speed limit. Had a woman do that to me last week when I was trying to make a right turn. I had every right to be in that position on the road as I was signalling to turn right, yet all she did was beep at me like I had to get out of her way!

 

[Disco Boy]

It doesn't matter how many abreast bikes are as, in the highway code, it states that when overtaking a cyclist you should allow as much room as you would a car. So it makes no difference to an overtaking driver where in the lane a cyclist is, as the overtaking driver should be on the other side of the road anyway.

 

[Basher]

Two cyclists abreast, no matter where they are, as long as they are between their kerb and the white lines is perfectly fine.

No, it isn't.

 

[willhub]

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.

No, it isn't.

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

 

[meghatronic]

If a car driver has to give a cyclist as wide a berth as a car (rightly so), how come cyclists can cycle two abreast? Surely, by reasoning, that's like two cars driving side-by-side?

 

[willhub]

If a car driver has to give a cyclist as wide a berth as a car (rightly so), how come cyclists can cycle two abreast? Surely, by reasoning, that's like two cars driving side-by-side?

Cars are not usually as wide as a single lane, and if you are going to give a cyclist the same width as a car when overtaking, then you can do that when they're cycling 2 abreast.