Cyclists should be banned off certain roads

JBR said:
LanceCorpralJones said:
I wasn't thinking quite so narrowly as health and benefits.
Although health is certainly one area that paying into and enjoying the service has no connection. Nor should it. Health treatment, in an ideal world, is a humanitarian service and should not be denied.
I was also not thinking simply along the lines of indigenous and immigrant contributors/users. There are a multplicity of indigenous users (and immigrants) that make little or no payment towards the services that they enjoy. There are also a multiplicity of users (indigenous and immigrant) that do pay and make no use of the service.
But lets keep this relevant to the original discussion.

I was also thinking of education, social services, refuse, libraries, leisure, housing, police, fire, defence, coastguard, etc, etc.
There is no connection between paying into and enjoying benefits of practically all public services. So why draw the distinction for roads, some of which are the responsibility of national agencies, and others are the responsibility of local organisations. So, by your suggestion, those who "pay to use" would be paying to a national agency and to the myriad of local organisations.
An argument could be that payment is made to one central agency that distributes the income to the numerous local organisations. Well payment is made now to a central agency but it is not re-distributed.
Any local payment now is made direct to the local organisation. (parking fines, congestion charges)

So while your suggestion might appear to be reasonable, in practice it is, well, not practicable.
Where would it end, pedestrians paying to use the pavements? Pushchairs must pay slightly more?

Surely the status quo is sensible, no payment for cycles and there is encouragement to "get on your bike" with all the associated benefits.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm beginning to lean toward your way of thinking.

I think we should all stop paying any taxes of any shape or form and benefit from all of the humanitarian services of which no-one should be denied.

Oh, wait...
Click to expand...
You seem to be determined to move this away from the original discussion, about cyclists using the roads.
I never suggested that anyone should not pay what is currently required of them for use of services, although I did argue that, in an ideal world, health, even education should be considered a humanitarian service. But we don't live in an ideal world.

I'm just suggesting that the status quo about cyclists not being required to pay for road use seems sensible. I compared it to other publicly provided services where some pay, some don't, some use the service, some don't.

The basic principle is that we don't normally "pay to use" public services. I accept there are exceptions but in general we do not pay to use public services, except where there is a simple, robust and sensible way to collect revenue. Although, again, there are probably some examples of exceptions.

Cyclists paying to use the roads just does not fall into that category, for me.
For an example, does anyone know the average annual milage covered by a cyclist? How would that compare to the average annual milage covered by motorists?

Lets do a "back of a stamp" calculation.
Average annual motoring milage, say 10,000 miles. Average annual Excise Licence, say £250. Excise licence per mile, say .025p.

Annual average cycling miles, say 1,000. Assume same excise cost per mile, which is unfair due to the wear and tear, pollution, accidents, safety requirements, parking requirements, etc, .025p X 1000 = £25 per year licence for a cyclist. So, in fairness, the licence for a cycle could be set about £10 per year.

Revenue would probably be less than the cost of collection and policing the system.
Costs would certainly outweigh any benefits.
Illogical, even in the name of equality.

Do you honestly think that is worth collecting or policing. Do you honestly think it would be sensible to have penalties for failing to display or have a cycle permit. What sort of a world are you advocating when the majority of teenagers would have cycling convicitions before they left school, and could even have cycling convicitions before the recognised age of responsibility?
 
Sponsored Links
seems ok to me. If cycles have numbers like everything else, would be easy to tap them for some dough. Anyone who uses the roads should pay. don't forget how cycles get in the way ,causing unnecessary gear changes , which causes extra gas usage. The NHS might be free on the face of it, until you have to fork out a wad for scrips.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: JBR
can we have all of RH's usernames in a separate thread to discuss this amongst themselves.
 
I agree, RH. £10 sounds about right.

Plus, of course, the cost of issuing licence plates for identification.

Plus, of course, compulsory third party insurance.
 
Sponsored Links
That is a recipe for hosing the sauce of the front of your artic.
 
gov's are very good at telling us what to do, pity they don't lead by example
 
cajar said:
can we have all of RH's usernames in a separate thread to discuss this amongst themselves.
Click to expand...
I agree, RH. £10 sounds about right.

Plus, of course, the cost of issuing licence plates for identification.

Plus, of course, compulsory third party insurance.
Click to expand...
That would be quite useful, as I'm beginning to lose track.
Click to expand...
Is this addressed to me, in which case, are you playing with your intimates?

It has nothing to do with the original discussion, as far as I can tell.

However, to address your comment about insurance for cyclists, what kind or extent of damage is caused by cyclists in a collision?

Would you also have a CID (Cyclists Insurance Database)?

I think your ideas are absurd.
 
you don't think too much. Swerving to miss a cyclist and hitting someone else. Damn right , insurance should be compulsory
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: JBR
collisioni said:
you don't think too much. Swerving to miss a cyclist and hitting someone else. Damn right , insurance should be compulsory
Click to expand...
Insurance is compulsory, especially for those that can't control their vehicles when swerving to avoid another vehicle/person/cyclist/horse/obstruction/tree/lamp post, etc..
Is this called "not being in full control of your vehicle?"
 
I take it you don't do much driving. How do you think accidents happen ? That's why they're called accidents. Jeez
 
RigidRaider said:
You'd have to be suicidal to ride a fast road bike with defective tyres. You can easily reach speeds of 45 to 50 mph so regular tyre inspections are part of a proper road cyclist's maintenance routine.
Click to expand...


So hang on... :LOL: 45 to 50 mph on the highway and no legislation on safety other than the nutcase owners opinion.??????? :LOL: :LOL:

The worlds gone mad. :LOL: :LOL: :LOL:
 
RigidRaider said:
Where are these 70 mph roads? The National Speed Limit on all but motorways and certain dual-carriageways is 60 mph, don't you know that?

Cyclists have as much right to use the roads as anybody else; all that needs to happen is for drivers to wake up, spot those cyclists and pass them carefully when it's safe to do so. What's so difficult about that?
Click to expand...
The A2 is neither dual carriageway [up to 4 lanes wide]nor a motorway , majority of it has a 70mph speed limit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Sponsored Links
Back
Top