You assume they are not insured. Some certainly are
P O I. Until recently, cycles in Guernsey WERE taxed. Until recently, motor vehicles in Guernsey were taxed, but not now. Additional duty has been applied to fuel.
Correct.
But if that person had ridden (cycled) up to a red traffic light and then dismounted to push the bike across the junction and then continues to ride the bike, there is an offence of #Failing to comply with a traffic sign# (the red light)
Err ... absolutely
In message , Grimly Curmudgeon writes
I wasn't doing well last night, was I ?
The same as usual then.
I let it go because I thought it was all too accurate..
On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 20:57:01 +0100, Dave had this to say:
According to Wilkinson's 'Road Traffic Offences',
"Section 22 (Road Traffic Act 1972) applies to cyclists, trams, trolley vehicles, horse-drawn vehicles, but not to equestrians. As to persons pushing cycles, see 114 J.P.Jo. 160; a person who pushed a lorry to try to make it start was held to be guilty of taking it and driving it away.... and so it can be argued that persons pushing bicycles and hand carts are guilty of an offence if they disobey a traffic sign. On the other hand, there is the argument that 'Stop' signs and traffice lights do not apply to persons pushing pedal cycles and hand carts because, presumably, such signs are not meant to affect pedestrians, who can walk into main roads and against traffic signs at their pleasure. If a pedestrian can do that, cannot a pedestrian pushing a pram, or a child with a scooter, do the same? And if a pram-pusher can, why should not a cycle-pusher? A counter-argument is that the mischief aimed at by s.22 is to prevent any type of vehicle being in a major road in disobediance of the sign or going against the red light and that it is immaterial whether such a vehicle arrives there by mechanical or muscular power, the offence being 'driving or propelling' a vehicle."
In message , "dennis@home" writes
At least I'm not a redundant ex non-achiever
Oh yes, very clever f****it. Now what was your point? Assuming you had one.
As long as they keep out of my way I don't care.
I assume that the vast majority have no insurance, 100% pay no road tax,
100% have no specific license to ride a bike - and 100% percent are lycra clad wankers wearing half a melon on their heads.
Geoff on a bad day is 100% more sensible than you.
Just because you're too clueless to know about the various bands of VED, no need to assume everybody else is. If you're going to argue about such things, make sure you understand the basics first.
Oh look - cyclists pay the same VED as some cars - yet you don't complain about the latter. You're a hypocritical loser, letting blind prejudice rather than rational thought guide your opinions.
Are you still trying to be an achiever then? Don't waste your time on the impossible. Do something useful, like voluntary work in Afghanistan.
That would be 10xE^6 better than you then. Geoff is quite intelligent, but is just a horrible person. You are stupid.
none of which are any of the things *some* cyclists do which are antisocial, congratulations!
Yes, but that's because you're an idiot, and assume wrong.
Most household insurance includes generic third party cover which covers cycling (but not driving motor vehicles). And most cyclists do pay VED. Most cyclists are also drivers, and they don't give you a refund on VED for the days you bike instead. Most Usenet arguments that appear to be between cyclists and motorists turn out to be more accurately described as between people who know something about cycling and people who don't.
(There hasn't been a Road Tax as such since Churchill abolished it.)
What do you need to know about cycling to see that *some* cyclists behave in an anti social way?
but not as cyclists so irrelevant
As I don't get a refund for days I walk instead.
Most have insurance through their house insurance.
All taxpayers pay towards the roads. Motor vehicles cause *much* more wear on roads than cycles, much more than their VED covers.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.