Cycling: issues/noticeboard

[Horsebox]

karter Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The govt need to sort out this deficit, they

> should put road tax on bikes.

>

> and cement lorries should have proper mirrors or

> have cameras installed to see cyclists when

> turning left.

No such thing as 'road tax', Karter. Roads are paid for out of general taxation.

I assume you mean vehicle excise duty?

www.ipayroadtax.com

[ImpetuousVrouw]

Interesting link:

Had to cut and paste this bit:

Do low emission cars have less right to be on the road?

Owners of those cars which emit the lowest amount of pollutants pay zilch for their ?road tax?.

Those motorists who think ?road tax? still exists must be awfully confused by cars which pay ?0 VED. Here?s a class of car which looks like any other class of car but which doesn?t ?pay for the roads.?

How many motorists think Band A cars are freeloaders and should be banned from the roads they, apparently, don?t pay for? Probably none. Yet how many think cyclists are tax-dodgers, using roads paid for by motorists? Probably a lot.

This is why the term ?road tax? is so abhorrent. It?s used by such organisations as the AA when they know full well it?s Vehicle Excise Duty. But ?road tax? is the the commonly used term, they might argue. Yet there are lots of words and phrases that were commonly used in their day, but which grate on modern ears. There?s no need to use a term which is 74-years past its sell-by date when there?s a perfectly acceptable, readily understood alternative: car tax.

VED is a technical term, used mostly by those-in-the-know ? such as HM Treasury and, er, the Association of British Drivers. Car tax is in common use: it?s how the Post Office describes the tax.

So as cyclists already pay tax for the roads and do not emit CO2, they should not be forced to pay Vehicle Excise Duty.

[c_m_h]

Ladymuck Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Well, it appears sufficiently wide and it is

> linked to an Advanced Stop Lane. Good start.

Wrong, not a good start at all! People get squished by left turning vehicles because bike lanes linked to ASLs encourage them to "scoot" up the inside of stationary traffic, right past car doors waiting to be flung open, and stop under the wing mirrors or immediately infront of vehicles, right in the blindspots. ASL are good in theory, but death traps in practice to inexperienced/ignorant cyclists.

Police video highlighting how little lorry drivers can actually see in their mirrors:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPkbNFt5NuY&feature=player_embedded

Council-subsidised on-road cycle training.

[Ladymuck]

*flicks karter's ear*

[Ladymuck]

c_m_h Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>ASL are good in theory,

> but death traps in practice to

> inexperienced/ignorant cyclists.

You are right of course. The key thing here is for cyclists to undergo proper training so that they are not ignorant. Personally I would NEVER EVER cycle down the inside of large vehicles such as lorries/buses etc. Lorries are a particular hazard and are the primary cause of deaths in cycling accidents in exactly this type of situation.

Though ASLs are handy for getting that "head start" once the lights change, and for positioning/indication purposes so that drivers behind are aware of the cyclist's next move.

[karter]

thanks for that impetous, road tax on horse and carriage too i say.

*slaps ladyM around with a big bike tax disc*

[Ladymuck]

Talking of HGVs being responsible for the majority of cycling fatalities, Lambeth Council have been placing their lorry drivers on cycle awareness training courses designed especially for lorry drivers for some months now. The course includes actually getting on bikes and experiencing what it's like to be a cyclist.

They have now extended the scheme to all their drivers of essential cars and say that their next step is to train bus and lorry drivers as accredited cycle instructors so that they, in turn, may eventually deliver instruction themselves.

Good or what!

[Loz]

That ipayroadtax site is weird. It took me ages to find out exactly what point he/she was trying to make. It seems to spend an awful lot of pages trying to stop people saying 'Road Tax' (which admittedly is incorrect) to using the phrase 'Car Tax' (which is also incorrect). He then calls the site 'I Pay Road Tax' which is groaning with (I think unintended) irony.

Summary: Someone with too much time on their hands. But decent web design skills.

[ruffers]

ImpetuousVrouw Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> So as cyclists already pay tax for the roads and

> do not emit CO2, they should not be forced to pay

> Vehicle Excise Duty.

That rather rests on accepting the presumption that it's correct that low emission vehicles shouldn't pay. As they cause as much damage to the roads and their pollution is merely displaced I think they should pay the same as any other car myself.

[Horsebox]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> That ipayroadtax site is weird. It took me ages

> to find out exactly what point he/she was trying

> to make...He then calls the

> site 'I Pay Road Tax' which is groaning with (I

> think unintended) irony.

I thought this was really clear, especially the bit where he/she mentions the intentional irony of the site's name.

[Loz]

'Car Tax' is still just as incorrect as 'Road Tax' though.

[Horsebox]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> 'Car Tax' is still just as incorrect as 'Road Tax'

> though.

Not if your main vehicle is a car, it's not

The Post Office also uses the term 'Car Tax'.

It's much more accurate than 'Road Tax'.

[Loz]

But not if it is a 'van', 'bus', 'motorbike', etc. VED covers all sorts of vehicles, but of course 'vehicle tax' wouldn't make the same political point, would it. Besides, he's hoist on his own petard as 'car tax' isn't payable on some cars.

It's like trying to refer to income tax as a 'Policemen Tax' because you pay tax on your earnings as a copper. It's a nonsense.

Lobby groups do come up with some stupid approaches to arguments sometimes. This one is almost as daft as PETA's attempt to reclassify fish as 'sea kittens'.

[Horsebox]

That VED is not payable by all cars is covered on the site, and quoted by Impetuos Vrow earlier on.

You're very opposed to, or struggling with, the concept of 'no such thing as road tax'? Militant motorist?

And sea kittens? Lol! Completely different kettle of, er, fish.

[Loz]

You're very opposed to, or struggling with, the concept of 'no such thing as road tax'? Militant motorist?

Oh don't be stupid. As I pointed out earlier, 'Road Tax' is a misnomer. Replacing it with another incorrect name is just as wrong. Why do do you persist?

Road Tax - wrong. Car tax - wrong. Sea Kittens - wrong. Horsebox - wrong.

[Horsebox]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> > You're very opposed to, or struggling with, the

> concept of 'no such thing as road tax'? Militant

> motorist?

>

> Road Tax - wrong. Car tax - wrong. Sea Kittens -

> wrong. Horsebox - wrong.

Well, no: Car Tax You can also apply for a fishing license. How handy.

Freshwater sea kitten, Loz?

[northlondoner]

ImpetuousVrouw Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Fixed penalty fine for cars and vans for sitting

> or parking in the cycle box at lights or cycle

> lanes.

Fixed penalty fine for cyclists

1. Going through red light (a classic)

2. Weaving crazily in and out of traffic, assuming everyone else will anticipate the course they intend to take. By magic, no less.

3. Cycling on pavement ( another classic)

4. Not using lights at night

5. Riding two abreast, chatting amiably

6. Not respecting the following law of physics:Truck turning left + bike "undertaking" truck = hurt cyclist.

Agreed?

[ImpetuousVrouw]

In regards the 2 abreast thing, it is legal:

Rule 66

You should

* never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends

Also going through the traffic doesn't cause any problems to other vehicles, it just pisses off drivers because you are stuck in traffic. You cause the congestion, it's not our faut that you can't move forward but we can.

[Ladymuck]

Something which made me smile a while back.

I was stationary at a red set of lights. Immediately next to me was a (rather dishy!) motorcyclist. As the lights switched to "amber", he turned towards me, flashed me the most beautiful smile and said cheekily:

"RACE YOU"!

(following which he roared off into the distance)

[Ladymuck]

And something which made me laugh so much I nearly came off my bike.

I was in that really busy part of Kensington (where all those fast flowing lanes come together) headed for Knightsbridge. Unfortunately I missed the relevant roadsign and worried over whether I had crossed into the correct lane. Anyway, when at the red lights I approached a taxi-driver for confirmation. Well, he looked at me (and my bike) quite incredulously and then piped up:

"What? You aint going on that thing are you? You're off your fucking trolley mate...fuck me girl...you got balls though I'll give you that...bad enough in this cab at this time of day...fuck me..."

The lights then changed, he signalled to me that I was indeed in the correct lane, and as he pulled away I could still hear him talking to himself..."off her fucking head...fucking mental..."

I then caught up with him at the next set of lights as he was just pulling away when he gave me that incredulous look once more and shouted out:

"You're fucking serious aint ya...well good luck to ya mate...you're gonna need it...fucking mental".

Made me laugh all the way to Knightsbridge (and back again).

[Horsebox]

Oh! Hi, Laydee Muck. Time fer a tune up?

http://skateandannoy.com/aa-sna-uploads/2007/06/barbie.jpg

[Horsebox]

Double post.

[northlondoner]

ImpetuousVrouw Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> In regards the 2 abreast thing, it is legal:

>

> Rule 66

>

> You should

>

>

> * never ride more than two abreast, and ride

> in single file on narrow or busy roads and when

> riding round bends

>

> Also going through the traffic doesn't cause any

> problems to other vehicles, it just pisses off

> drivers because you are stuck in traffic. You

> cause the congestion, it's not our faut that you

> can't move forward but we can.

Actually, no, that's not the reason many drivers have issues with some cyclists. Cycists swap from inside to outside lane in the blink of an eye - and can even create their own middle lane in between moving cars. This is simply NOT safe in busy traffic. That;s why so many cyclists are hurt or killed on our roads. I speak as a cyclist and driver. You'll understand one day. Maybe when you are a bit older.

[ImpetuousVrouw]

Thanks for the condescending advice.

I've been cycling in London for 25 years and did a stint as a cycle courier years ago.

[jimmy two times]

There's a lot of sh1t cyclists out there.