Cyclists

[Green Rebel]

Nope, he was on a roundabout, car coming onto the roundabout didn't stop and went over him. He had right of way.

Cyclist wasn't arrested so I presume cycling whilst pissed isn't an offence in the UK

Fair point if he was sober but as you pointed out he wasn't so imo he had no right to be on the road. And I don't know about the UK but afaik, tis illegal to ride a bike here while pissed.

 

[Benevolent Despot]

Who jogs on the road?

Morons.

 

[How bad boy]

Yep it's a tax on the vehicle for general use, I suppose most people feel it's still a tax enabling the payer to use the road

It's a mindset that is difficult to change I suppose. The fact remains that if I didn't pay it I wouldn't be able to drive my car legally on the roads, a tax no cyclist pays

That doesn't bother me particularly, I do think they should have insurance though

Vehicle Excise Duty is partly about the immense costs of providing infrastructure for cars, partly about the pollution they generate, which is why it's linked to emissions.
But it doesn't come close to paying for the roads. Much of the cost of roads comes from general taxation.

Besides the fact that due to actually paying taxes, most cyclists dobpay for the roads, many also owb a car (like me) and pay their VED on it. So I do pay.

Cyclists have cost almost nothing by way of infrastructure historically. That is thankfully changing. if you saw thw state of cycle paths/lanes round here, you'd agree there is nigh on no effort spent on cyclists. Cycle labes are on the road when it is convenient for motorists, the second it gets tight, the lanes disappear.
would you ask motorists to pay for such a shit infrastructure?

 

[How bad boy]

Fair point if he was sober but as you pointed out he wasn't so imo he had no right to be on the road. And I don't know about the UK but afaik, tis illegal to ride a bike here while pissed.

There isn't a legal limit for cycling. So 'failing' a breathalyser misunderstands what that means. You can't fail such a tedt as a cyclist, no more than you can fail a breathalyser test as a pedestrian.
Liam, your licensing idea is impractical, unworkable and pointlessly bureaucratic.
It would cost more lives than it would save, and be a huge waste of government time and money.

 

[backagain]

I think we've already established the tax is for general use as is all tax, it just goes in the pot and isn't earmarked for anything

In that sense we all contribute, all taxpayers anyway

It doesn't change the fact that car owners have to pay it and cyclists don't, and that's what people find hard to understand. As I said that bit doesn't particularly bother me, the insurance really does, I cover uninsured cyclists with my contribution to the uninsured motor bureau fund, something a cyclist doesn't contribute to in any way, but has the benefit of.

Cyclists can cause accidents and I have to pay for their negligence

 

[How bad boy]

But VED is not road tax, nor does it cover the cost of the roads, even if it were. You do not seem to get that important flaw in your point.

When was the last time a cyclist killed a motorist?

 

[Ballsaq]

Cyclists are a menace, the road would be a safer place without them.

 

[backagain]

But VED is not road tax, nor does it cover the cost of the roads, even if it were. You do not seem to get that important flaw in your point.

When was the last time a cyclist killed a motorist?

Frank, I've accepted 3 times now it isn't specifically used for roads but is general income to the exchequer to be spent on anything, how is that flawed?

As for your last point, I don't know, but are you seriously suggesting cyclists are never at fault, ever?

Of course it's a lot less, as is reflected in the approximate £40 annual cost of insurance. Why shouldn't they pay that? Why do I have to cover the ones at fault?

 

[watermelon]

Frank, I've accepted 3 times now it isn't specifically used for roads but is general income to the exchequer to be spent on anything, how is that flawed?

As for your last point, I don't know, but are you seriously suggesting cyclists are never at fault, ever?

Of course it's a lot less, as is reflected in the approximate £40 annual cost of insurance. Why shouldn't they pay that? Why do I have to cover the ones at fault?

See you clearly no idea.

More than two thirds of all crashes
between drivers and cyclists in Central
London are the fault of the motorist,
research indicates. The City of Westminster Council found
that drivers were to blame for 68 per
cent of collisions between cyclists and
motor vehicles in the borough in the past
12 months. It found that cyclists were at
fault for only 20 per cent. In the
remaining 12 per cent of cases, no cause
could be found or both parties were to
blame.

 

[backagain]

Which is why insurance for cyclists, based on risk is £40 as against the hundreds for motorists

Maybe I know nothing, no need for that btw you're very defensive

But one thing I certainly don't know and I'd like you to tell me, as you probably do know and I'm stupid, why do I have to pay for uninsured cyclists who are at fault?

Could you explain how that's fair?