• The Forums are now open to new registrations, adverts are also being de-tuned.

UK proposals: Cycle Streets With 15mph Limit And No Overtaking

These threads are just pathetic.

Bikes don't cause congestion, pollute or wear the road and have been around a lot longer than cars.
Cars are a luxury, hence get taxed. If you don't like it, don't drive one.
 
Bike = low emission = no VED
Fiat 500 Twinair = low emission = no VED
Toyota Prius = low emission = no VED
A N Other low emission vehicle = low emission = no VED

I'm not sure how else to explain why you don't have to pay VED on a bike.

I did not say that bike owners should pay VED... in fact I said earlier in the thread that this will never happen (for practical reasons).

What I am trying to say here is that in my view the argument that if the bike owner also has a car for which he already paid VED then he should be exempt from paying VED on the bike, is totally irrelevant in the context of this discussion...
 
These threads are just pathetic.

Bikes don't cause congestion, pollute or wear the road and have been around a lot longer than cars.
Cars are a luxury, hence get taxed. If you don't like it, don't drive one.

I have to disagree. I was stuck behind a bunch of mamils this afternoon riding 4 abreast on a country road.

When I sounded my horn to alert them of my presence the air was polluted with their venomous expletives.

Sadly the stick I normally have prepared for such occasions had been appropriated for garden duties.
 
Bikes don't cause congestion, pollute or wear the road and have been around a lot longer than cars.
Cars
What about horses?

They are a menace at times where I live, nothing worse than driving down a lane only to be met by a rider who's hobby trasport looks like it's about to dance on your bonnet.

They should be banned from the roads unless they have insurance IMO.
 
Just as a point of order the argument that bikes have around longer than cars hence have as much right to use the road as cars is daft. You are forgetting that civilisations evolve and if some roads are no longer safe for cyclists then we either make them safe or remove them from those roads as transportation has evolved. We stopped burning witches as we realised it was all a bit daft so if allowing unregulated unqualified cyclists to travel on the same roads as cars and trucks is seen as no longer sensible it is a logical decision to get them off the roads in question.
 
cb1965 said:
Just as a point of order the argument that bikes have around longer than cars hence have as much right to use the road as cars is daft. You are forgetting that civilisations evolve and if some roads are no longer safe for cyclists then we either make them safe or remove them from those roads as transportation has evolved. We stopped burning witches as we realised it was all a bit daft so if allowing unregulated unqualified cyclists to travel on the same roads as cars and trucks is seen as no longer sensible it is a logical decision to get them off the roads in question.

This has already been done, you are not allowed to cycle on motorways. I doubt you would find many cyclists arguing that this is unjust.
 
Preston, Lancashire, now has the main drag through the city centre down to one lane (used to be two) which is only demarked by a change in paving. So cars and pedestrians are on the same level. Side roads on and off the main drag used to be controlled by pelican lights - gone. Pedestrians have now assumed right of way at junction where cars need to turn off the main drag.

All I can say is - mayhem - for car drivers. It will achieve its object, drive the cars out of the city centre. Works for me, Ill shop out of city centre perhaps at the Reebok Centre in Bolton.

Well done Preston, fantastic own goal on your shops and hence business rates.

Its been lovely - toodle pip Preston.
 
This has already been done, you are not allowed to cycle on motorways. I doubt you would find many cyclists arguing that this is unjust.

Yes, but I can think of numerous other roads where the same should apply.

That said if a cyclist is dumb enough to choose to cycle on them maybe the process of natural selection will do its thing ;)
 
As has been pointed out, there is no such thing as road tax. This disappeared many years ago (about the same time road repairs stopped!)

We now have VED which (as has also been pointed out) is based rather crudely on CO2 emissions from the vehicle, and not any other emissions from the driver).

On this basis bicycles don't pay any VED, like some other categories of road users, notably low emission vehicles.

Anyway, its lucky that these suicidal cyclists are only on bikes (and Darwinism tends to keep their numbers down.) Imagine what would happen if they graduated into car driving. Oh some of them have....

Be careful because as my daughter, a theatre nurse would confirm, Darwinism works two ways. The number of overweight and wasted people she sees with preventable conditions; conditions which would have prevented by vigorous exercise are legion. I belong to a cycling club and most of folk there aged over 50 look 5 years younger than the are; and more importantly no type 2 diabetes and other lifestyle illnesses ( apologies to those with type 2 through no fault of their own). I suspect some of the rabid anti cyclist motorists are in less than perfect physical shape and are a tad envious as they stew in their tin boxes.
 
Milton7;1932685 I belong to a cycling club and most of folk there aged over 50 look 5 years younger than the are; and more importantly no type 2 diabetes and other lifestyle illnesses[/QUOTE said:
Of course this could be self-selection at work.

Eg. they're cycling because they are fit and not fit because they are cycling.
 
Of course this could be self-selection at work.

Eg. they're cycling because they are fit and not fit because they are cycling.

It is reckoned that cycling 5 miles per day takes 10 years off your fitness age, so it appears that the cycling is what makes the difference...as you would expect.

Once again, I have to say this thread is pathetic.
We have drivers saying cycling doesn't make you fitter, but obviously it will, it's strenuous exercise, and others saying cyclist and horse riders should be banned from the road as they get in the way.
They both have greater rights to use the road than car drivers do.

The quicker the rather short sighted, bigoted car drivers can get hat into their heads, the quicker we can move on from these pathetic threads.
 
It is reckoned that cycling 5 miles per day takes 10 years off your fitness age, so it appears that the cycling is what makes the difference...as you would expect.

Once again, I have to say this thread is pathetic.
We have drivers saying cycling doesn't make you fitter, but obviously it will, it's strenuous exercise, and others saying cyclist and horse riders should be banned from the road as they get in the way.
They both have greater rights to use the road than car drivers do.

The quicker the rather short sighted, bigoted car drivers can get hat into their heads, the quicker we can move on from these pathetic threads.

Is it wine o' clock or whine o' clock already? ;)
 
We have drivers saying cycling doesn't make you fitter, but obviously it will, it's strenuous exercise, and others saying cyclist and horse riders should be banned from the road as they get in the way.
They both have greater rights to use the road than car drivers do.

Out of interest, how so?
 
The ignore function in this site needs modifying to hide quotes by others of the people you have on ignore. The reason I put DM on ignore us so I don't have to read his posts yet here they are ...... sigh !
 
Motorways included? or are they not roads?

I hope you don't mind me pointing out the obvious, but motorways are roads with special conditions attached...and clearly signed.

If you haven't already understood that, maybe you should avoid them. :)


As I have already pointed out. These threads are pathetic because some attempt to throw in ridiculous scenario just to justify their pointless, bigoted, point of view that they should have sole rights to the road.

Think of it this way. Car drivers come some way below pigs in the order of rights of passage on roadways. That should tell you something.
 
Last edited:
As I have already pointed out. These threads are pathetic because some attempt to throw in ridiculous scenario just to justify their pointless, bigoted, point of view that they should have sole rights to the road.

Your view that other forms of transport should automatically be granted preference because of some draconian law just doesn’t work in todays world.

I’m surprised you have even found the internet with your two tin cans and a piece of string.
 
If both road users exercised a little more consideration for fellow users things might just move along a little more smoothly. Simple things like being aware if on a road with few overtaking opportunities to assist the person who may be in a hurry, rather than the "I'm going as fast as I want thank you" by either speeding up a bit or facilitating an overtake. You never know if the person behind might be needing to get somewhere urgently rather than just being a tailgater.

Letting someone swap lanes at a junction rather than the aggressive blast with the horn, they might be a stranger to those parts and end up in the wrong place, is it such a hardship.

If we all showed a little more tolerance all our journeys might become that little bit less stressful.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom