Road signs

[Clive George]

It's still a choice. Stop whining if you don't want to make it.

So you're now a whining freeloader wannabee - but you're not a cyclist. Would you be a hypocrite by any chance?

[jsabine]

t a whining loser.

...

Your personal signal to noise ratio has been going down a lot recently.

Shame.

[The Medway Handyman]

If I understood that I'd reply. The third comment you cite wasn't from me. And I don't understand the rest of it anyway.

[The Medway Handyman]

That an argument is stereotypical doesn't make it any less valid.

So now, instead of spinning the truth to support your point, you are trying to gain the high ground by Argumentum ad populum.

Doesn't wash I'm afraid.

So your postings haven't been full of whining and mindless repetition then?

Simple point. Cyclists don't pay a SPECIFIC tax to use the roads. Motorists (excluding your pathetic exceptions masked as choice) do.

Cyclists don't have SPECIFIC insurance to use the roads. Motorists do.

Cyclists don't have to pass a test of competance to use the roads. Motorists do.

Cyclists don't have to be identifiable & traceable. Mororists do.

No representation without taxation to paraphrase a popular expression.

[Clive George]

I'm not the one whining.

Ok, here are the answers.

Taxation is a tool to raise money and control behaviour. VED does both these things. The government wants to encourage cycling, and realises that a cycle tax would not help. There is also the problem that the infrastructure to have a VED for cycles isn't in place. And what do you tax? Do you tax the toddler on his trike in the garden? I think you'd say no. But should he wander out onto the pavement? At what age would you apply your tax?

So it's impractical and it's politically unacceptable to have a cyclist tax.

(let's ignore the fact that I have actually paid quite a lot in cycle-specific tax - and no, it wasn't VAT, it was explicitly for cycle stuff).

The insurance required is third-party. A significant proportion of cyclists already do have the insurance - provided under home insurance policies. If it was costing them significant money, they'd withdraw it - but it isn't.

Were cyclists to cause as much third-party damage, or even a tenth as much damage, as motorists, then compulsory insurance would be bought in instantly. But despite the various high-profile cases, there isn't actually that much damage going on, so there isn't any financial incentive to mandate it.

See also the same problems with age as for taxation.

(let's ignore the fact that I actually have two insurance policies covering me while I ride my bike - one is home contents, included for free, and one is provided by virtue of being a mamber of the main cyclist campaigning organisation, which costs them a couple of quid a year).

No political incentive. Cycling is open to all, regardless of age, and historically always has been. Removing the freedom of children to ride would give no gain.

Most adult bike riders have actually passed a test of competence to use the roads. They posess licences allowing them to ride a low powered moped - the unpowered equivalent - so bikes would be included too.

The people you see breaking the various laws aren't doing it because they haven't passed a test - they're doing it for the same reason as any laws are broken, because they can and they perceive a benefit. This behaviour is not unique to cyclists - pretty much all motorists do it too. The standard solution is the same - enforcement. But enforcement costs money, so apart from a few highly publicised campaigns, it generally won't happen.

(I passed my cycling proficiency easily when I was 10, having been riding on roads since I was 6. At that age I knew my highway code pretty well. The experience of over a decade cycling helped when I was learning to drive too - a lot of the basics were already there, so passing the test wasn't too hard.)

No political incentive again. The disadvantages outweigh the advantages - as for taxation and insurance, implementing a registration plate scheme is hard and would be unpopular, for no significant gain. The people you'd be wanting to trace would still not be tracable, unless you were spending a punitive amount of money on enforcement.

See also registration plates for pedestrians - I _really_ don't want a society which does that. You're arguing to increase the snooping capabilities of the government - are you in favour of ID cards as well?

You've got that completely the wrong way round. The paraphrase renders it meaningless. The people who fought for the correct version of that would be sorely disappointed in your distortion.

(Let's not forget you are talking about measures which affect people without representation too - remember the age thing).

In summary, the things you complain about are that way for good reasons. There is no incentive to change them. Rather than complaining about it, you should be celebrating the fact that there are places where the nanny state and snooping government still hasn't got to.

[TMH]

Motorists don't.. the cars do.

[jsabine]

*All* the comments I quoted were from you. That was rather the point.

As for the rest, like everyone, you post some good stuff and some utter s**te. You're posting more s**te in comparison to the amount of good stuff recently. I think that's a shame.

Understandable enough for you?

[jsabine]

So, what's the difference between a 'cyclist' and a 'bloke on a bike'?

[Bob Eager]

The problem is there are cyclists....and cyclists. Just like motorists, good and bad. Unfortunately there are many more cyclists who are holier-than-thou and very arrogant. And I'm speaking as a pedestrian.

My house is not on a particularly busy road (neither is it a residential backwater). But just walking down to the shops, more often than not I get a cyclist whizzing past me on the pavement, missing me by millimetres, with a silent approach that is dangerous. People are badly injured by these kinds of cyclists, yet if they don't stop there is no way of tracing them as they have no number plate or other means of identification.

I have no problem with most of the others, although I'm sure some of them adopt anti-car tactics.

[Clive George]

Are these cyclists the lycra-clad keenies TMH hates, or "normal" people who TMH likes?

Is the pavement marked as shared use?

(If it is, blame the clods who made it so, and bring it up in the local paper, making sure it's the "facility" which is pointed to as the source of the problem. Shared use pavements help none of us. If it's not shared use, I have no qualms about recommending collision courses, having taken appropriate care.)

[Bob Eager]

Both.

Absolutely not. It's not wide enough, for a start.

[The Medway Handyman]

If it is, it shouldn't be. Waste of Bobs council tax.

So, you are now saying thats its OK to collide with pedestrians if they stray into cycle lanes?

[The Medway Handyman]

OK, so if I have an opinion that you disagree with its utter s**te, but if I post something you find useful, its good stuff?

Seems fair to me.

You wouldn't be a lycra lout by any chance?

[Bob Eager]

I think he means the actual I would take. Given half a chance (and taking care not to hurt myself) I will "fail to notice" a cyclist on the pavement, step back at the crucial moment and cause them to fall off...

[Clive George]

Agreed, though for different reasons.

Try a little harder at reading what I wrote. I'm recommending action a pedestrian can take. It's the opposite of what you suggest.

[geoff]

In message , Bob Eager writes

I like doing that

close them down and force them onto the road

[Steve Walker]

Motorists do. Drivers must have current address details registered on pain of sizeable fine for failing to do so. The registered keeper must identify who was driving at a particular time when required, on pain of a fine and points on their own licence for failing to do so. It is no defence that the keeper may not know who was driving at the time (and maybe no-one else can remember, since the request may come through almost a fortnight after the event), possibly in a household with grown up kids where the keeper may have been out of the house and their spouse and kids are all allowed to use the car at any time.

SteveW

[Grimly Curmudgeon]

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember "The Medway Handyman" saying something like:

Actually, pound to a penny says a sizeable minority of them were also members of a cycling club. It was certainly the case when I started work in a place where a lot of the workers commuted by bike.

[Dave]

Why do you think that speed cameras have been turned back to front so they get a photo of the driver and possibly any front seat passenger?

Photo of driver and numberplate in one shot.

Dave

[TMH]

Car drivers don't. Only PSV drivers have identification "plates" they have to wear.

So they don't have to identify them if they are prepared to pay up.