Cyclists should be banned off certain roads

[collisioni]

I think the point has been made, already

 

[DCUK6]

The other week I witnessed 3 cyclists hitting car within a few days.
All caused by the cyclist. One undertook a car indicating and wondered why he had a car in his face,
Another overtook another cyclist without looking.

All three got back on their bikes and rode off.

Don't mind so much about the mot, But I think there should be insurance.

O, and another thing,
http://youtu.be/PI7aKLuHK7k

 

[ladylola]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned horses in this. No tax or insurance needed to take one on the road and they have right of way over motor vehicles , also heavy and slow and death is liable to ensure in an accident.

 

[collisioni]

Horses ain't machines. Also it's usual for the rich and privileged to own horses and they call the shots

I'm surprised no one has mentioned horses in this. No tax or insurance needed to take one on the road and they have right of way over motor vehicles , also heavy and slow and death is liable to ensure in an accident.

 

[Dextraneous]

The only answer would be to rebuild our entire road network with separate cycle paths as in the Netherlands, but unfortunately our overcrowded and medieval road network won't allow this, not to mention the obvious cost problem.

A better solution would be to make cars narrower After all, the majority of journeys on roads at any one time involve one or two people per car and sitting one behind the other would make a darned more sense in many ways.

 

[ladylola]

Horses ain't machines. Also it's usual for the rich and privileged to own horses and they call the shots

I'm surprised no one has mentioned horses in this. No tax or insurance needed to take one on the road and they have right of way over motor vehicles , also heavy and slow and death is liable to ensure in an accident.

True but the original post was suggesting that slower vehicles ( and therefore road users) be banned to prevent accidents. Money and privilege didn't enter into it just speed and safety . The argument could just as easily include farm vehicles , milk floats and pedestrians .

 

[ladylola]

The only answer would be to rebuild our entire road network with separate cycle paths as in the Netherlands, but unfortunately our overcrowded and medieval road network won't allow this, not to mention the obvious cost problem.

A better solution would be to make cars narrower After all, the majority of journeys on roads at any one time involve one or two people per car and sitting one behind the other would make a darned more sense in many ways.

An even better solution may very well involve greater public transport.

 

[collisioni]

I didn't start with animals, just added. Further farm machinery has insurance and mot's. Cycles don't. Does everything have to be spelt out.

 

[longdogs]

The only answer would be to rebuild our entire road network with separate cycle paths as in the Netherlands, but unfortunately our overcrowded and medieval road network won't allow this, not to mention the obvious cost problem.

A better solution would be to make cars narrower After all, the majority of journeys on roads at any one time involve one or two people per car and sitting one behind the other would make a darned more sense in many ways.

View media item 80518

 

[JBR]

Cyclists have as much right to use the roads as anybody else...

...even though they pay nothing towards their upkeep!

Yes we do!!!!!!!!! Everybody pays for the roads, even those who do not use them.

Roads are paid for out of general taxation. There is no such thing as Road Tax, or even Road Fund Licence. The disc you buy to display in your windscreen is called Vehicle Excise Duty.

Since 1937 there has been no direct relationship between the tax and government expenditure on public roads.

I don't think that makes any difference. All of the many taxes we are forced to pay in this country, by whatever name they are called, go to either national or local government and may be used for anything they please. A motorist's road tax may contribute to foreign aid, whilst roads may be paid for by someone else's income tax.

My point is that motorists pay road tax (or whatever you wish to call it) whilst cyclists do not. To me, that means that motorists contribute more to the exchequer than do cyclists, all other things being equal. Whether the money is spent directly on roads (or cycle paths for that matter) or not isn't important.

 

[JBR]

The other week I witnessed 3 cyclists hitting car within a few days.
All caused by the cyclist. One undertook a car indicating and wondered why he had a car in his face,
Another overtook another cyclist without looking.

All three got back on their bikes and rode off.

Don't mind so much about the mot, But I think there should be insurance.

O, and another thing,
http://youtu.be/PI7aKLuHK7k[/QUOTE]

And some form of identification.

(Good video!)

 

[JBR]

The only answer would be to rebuild our entire road network with separate cycle paths as in the Netherlands, but unfortunately our overcrowded and medieval road network won't allow this, not to mention the obvious cost problem.

A better solution would be to make cars narrower After all, the majority of journeys on roads at any one time involve one or two people per car and sitting one behind the other would make a darned more sense in many ways.

Presumably, they'd pay half the road tax? !

 

[JBR]

The only answer would be to rebuild our entire road network with separate cycle paths as in the Netherlands, but unfortunately our overcrowded and medieval road network won't allow this, not to mention the obvious cost problem.

A better solution would be to make cars narrower After all, the majority of journeys on roads at any one time involve one or two people per car and sitting one behind the other would make a darned more sense in many ways.

An even better solution may very well involve greater public transport.

Good idea. Make buses narrower as well. Everyone could stand up!

 

[EddieM]

if you cant stop short off another vehicle by 30 yards your going to fast

30 yards between vehicles in London? Had it soft lad, bl**dy luxury

 

[LanceCorpralJones]

Cyclists have as much right to use the roads as anybody else...

...even though they pay nothing towards their upkeep!

Yes we do!!!!!!!!! Everybody pays for the roads, even those who do not use them.

Roads are paid for out of general taxation. There is no such thing as Road Tax, or even Road Fund Licence. The disc you buy to display in your windscreen is called Vehicle Excise Duty.

Since 1937 there has been no direct relationship between the tax and government expenditure on public roads.

I don't think that makes any difference. All of the many taxes we are forced to pay in this country, by whatever name they are called, go to either national or local government and may be used for anything they please. A motorist's road tax may contribute to foreign aid, whilst roads may be paid for by someone else's income tax.

My point is that motorists pay road tax (or whatever you wish to call it) whilst cyclists do not. To me, that means that motorists contribute more to the exchequer than do cyclists, all other things being equal. Whether the money is spent directly on roads (or cycle paths for that matter) or not isn't important.

Interesting logic, only those that pay should be allowed to use the facility?
Would that refer to roads alone, or all publicly provided facilities?

Or would you prefer some kind of sliding scale depending on who paid the most?
Kind of a slippery slope (excuse the pun), do you think?