Why does the UK hate cyclists?

Status
Not open for further replies.
inflames said:
I didn't use the word TAX. But if you want to call it that we can. A cyclist uses the road maybe they should pay a very small fee to use it. We all know that the government will change the Zero VED tax on certain cars in the future when they realise they are losing money.
Click to expand...
Why should a cyclist make a “contribution” that a car driver isn’t required to make?
 
Vonhelmet said:
Why should a cyclist make a “contribution” that a car driver isn’t required to make?
Click to expand...
Like i said i never actually used the word tax, what i was trying to say is that cyclists that use the road should have a licence plate of some kind making it easier to trace those who break the rules of the road or those who do actually damage a car i know this a rare but it sometimes happens. Maybe annual fee is a little to much, maybe a one of payment for the plate and then its yours for life?
 
hornetstinger said:
If you want rolling resitance why not drag a plow behind your bike? Or apply brakes hard throughout the ride? Or pull a steam engine?
Click to expand...

A plough, now there's an idea! That one however will mean I cause damage to the roads and then I'd feel bad. I've ridden this work hack setup for years on end now, has to be 12 to 13 years. I've a road bike for if I want to go out and set a 10 mile TT time in the new forest etc. I just add things to the daily commute to try keep the legs in shape, mix things up etc, alas I am noticing recently that the lack of weekend long distance rides is starting to show its effects on the legs :( It's just what I do!

inflames said:
I didn't use the word TAX. But if you want to call it that we can. A cyclist uses the road maybe they should pay a very small fee to use it. We all know that the government will change the Zero VED tax on certain cars in the future when they realise they are losing money.
Click to expand...

Can't make cyclists pay to use the road when cars pay to use the roads based on their emissions. If anything people should be rewarded for using bicycles to commute, not charged.
 
inflames said:
Like i said i never actually used the word tax, what i was trying to say is that cyclists that use the road should have a licence plate of some kind making it easier to trace those who break the rules of the road or those who do actually damage a car i know this a rare but it sometimes happens. Maybe annual fee is a little to much, maybe a one of payment for the plate and then its yours for life?
Click to expand...
Ah, apologies, I came in halfway. Identification? As said, it's been looked at but the government has decided it's not worth it... As have seemingly every other government in the world.
 
One word: obesity.

It's possible that the uk's overweight general public hate cyclists because they are too lazy to cycle themselves and resent others doing it because it reminds them of their lack of fitness.
 
Vonhelmet said:
Drivers can’t see cyclists because we’re not wearing hi vis. Nothing to do with their eyesight being below the required standard.
Click to expand...
Yes all drivers who have more trouble seeing someone wearing dark clothing at night as opposed to someone in light/reflective clothing have bad eyesight.
That article doesn't give any percentage of people who have eyesight below the required standard - just that most opticians have seen someone in the last month whose eyes are bad, given they might be seeing (no pun intended) 100+ people a month that could be one patient or 100. If the similar standard for eyesight was applied to cyclists (which if they're on the road and travelling at say 10-20mph should be), I wonder how many cyclists would fail the test.
Personally I think anyone driving who doesn't meet the required standards for eyesight and is involved in any accident should lose their licence and undergo an a full retest (and if found to be below the level during a stop should not be allowed to drive until they've got their eyes sorted - same as if they had a vehicle defect), the cost of an eye test every couple of years is minimal compared to the cost of running a car*.

With regards to high vis/reflective gear, even if something to do with personal safety only helps in some cases it's worth doing in my opinion, which is why I have several such vests in the boot of the car (bought to go in the breakdown kit), despite the fact I've never actually had to use them, and I only ever expect to use them for for an emergency.
If I was routinely riding a bike in the dark, or on busy roads I'd make very sure I had as much stuff on me to make me visible as possible - there are a few cyclists around here who wear reflective gear (one seems to wear his high vis/reflective jacket from work**) and they are usually far more visible at much longer distances than those that don't, even when they don't have active lighting.
Mind you I tend to be of the opinion that any reasonable steps for personal safety/accident prevention are worth it, which is why the garage has multiple sets of eye/ear protectors for the powertools, the shed has face masks for the strimmer/brushcutter, and I bought steel toecap wellies when we were doing some work in the garden (I needed new wellies and they were only a fiver more online).


*You can do a basic self test for the minimum required distance yourself so no excuse.

**I suspect he either works in one of the quaries or factories/depots given where I normally see him.
 
Vonhelmet said:
Ah, apologies, I came in halfway. Identification? As said, it's been looked at but the government has decided it's not worth it... As have seemingly every other government in the world.
Click to expand...

That fine, we have all done it. Its should be looked at more, i get passed by a certain cyclist everyday that just jumps the lights if he gets the chance no light, no helmet, one day maybe his luck will run out and the poor driver will get the blame. Now if he had a plate to identified he would think twice, specially now with the amount of dash cams people are using. It is these kind of cyclist that give others a bad name.
Now i look at the other end, i pass this one guy everyday on a single carriage way a 60 limit, in high viz and lit up like a christmas tree. You can't miss the guy, hat off to him he has gone out of his way to be seen and to be honest i wouldn't ride that road!
 
Werewolf said:
Yes all drivers who have more trouble seeing someone wearing dark clothing at night as opposed to someone in light/reflective clothing have bad eyesight.
Click to expand...

I wasn't being wholly serious that this was the sole reason, but it is a serious concern if even a small proportion of drivers can't see what they're doing.

Werewolf said:
That article doesn't give any percentage of people who have eyesight below the required standard - just that most opticians have seen someone in the last month whose eyes are bad, given they might be seeing (no pun intended) 100+ people a month that could be one patient or 100. If the similar standard for eyesight was applied to cyclists (which if they're on the road and travelling at say 10-20mph should be), I wonder how many cyclists would fail the test.
Click to expand...

The difference being that cyclists aren't required to even meet a requirement. That seems fair given that cyclists aren't throwing a tonne of metal round at 30, 50, 70mph. The article does note that there are a non-trivial number of fatalities and injuries caused by drivers where eyesight is a factor. Are there any caused by cyclists in similar circumstances? I doubt it...

Werewolf said:
Personally I think anyone driving who doesn't meet the required standards for eyesight and is involved in any accident should lose their licence and undergo an a full retest (and if found to be below the level during a stop should not be allowed to drive until they've got their eyes sorted - same as if they had a vehicle defect), the cost of an eye test every couple of years is minimal compared to the cost of running a car*.
Click to expand...

Indeed.

Werewolf said:
With regards to high vis/reflective gear, even if something to do with personal safety only helps in some cases it's worth doing in my opinion, which is why I have several such vests in the boot of the car (bought to go in the breakdown kit), despite the fact I've never actually had to use them, and I only ever expect to use them for for an emergency.
If I was routinely riding a bike in the dark, or on busy roads I'd make very sure I had as much stuff on me to make me visible as possible.
Mind you I tend to be of the opinion that any reasonable steps for personal safety/accident prevention are worth it, which is why the garage has multiple sets of eye/ear protectors for the powertools, the shed has face masks for the strimmer/brushcutter, and I bought steel toecap wellies when we were doing some work in the garden.

*You can do a basic self test for the minimum required distance yourself so no excuse.
Click to expand...
I absolutely agree that people should be making themselves visible, but hi-vis and the like becomes an easy opportunity for victim blaming. Read any article about a cyclist being hit by a car and I guarantee they will comment on whether the cyclist had a helmet or hi-vis gear on, whether or not either would have been at all helpful. A helmet in particular isn't any use in pretty much any car crash you care to imagine, yet it will get mentioned every time.
 
As someone who drives but doesn't cycle I don't hate cyclists at all, I see a lot of bad behaviour from both motorists and cyclists on a daily basis. Legitimate question though, if a cyclist comes past me and scratches my car what exactly am I meant to do?
 
K1LLSW1TCH said:
As someone who drives but doesn't cycle I don't hate cyclists at all, I see a lot of bad behaviour from both motorists and cyclists on a daily basis. Legitimate question though, if a cyclist comes past me and scratches my car what exactly am I meant to do?
Click to expand...
There's not a lot you can do... Much like if someone scratches your car in a car park or keys it on the street, which I would imagine is a far more likely occurence.
 
K1LLSW1TCH said:
As someone who drives but doesn't cycle I don't hate cyclists at all, I see a lot of bad behaviour from both motorists and cyclists on a daily basis. Legitimate question though, if a cyclist comes past me and scratches my car what exactly am I meant to do?
Click to expand...

The same thing as when a pedestrian scratches your car.
 
inflames said:
I didn't use the word TAX. But if you want to call it that we can. A cyclist uses the road maybe they should pay a very small fee to use it. We all know that the government will change the Zero VED tax on certain cars in the future when they realise they are losing money.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't paying council tax, income tax, the VED I already pay on my car cover it? Could I get a discount maybe?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom