Should there be a new offence listed

[ancient_mariner]

We seem to be being provocative for the sake of it, pushing people into corners of opinion they might not choose to occupy voluntarily. Can we not be better than this?

 

[Cobra]

We seem to be being provocative for the sake of it, pushing people into corners of opinion they might not choose to occupy voluntarily. Can we not be better than this?

Tis the way of some people on TP unfortunately.
It's best not to "feed" them Toni.

 

[ancient_mariner]

Tis the way of some people on TP unfortunately.
It's best not to "feed" them Toni.

I began a reply early on but could see where things were going. As you say, best not feed the masters of bating.

To me this is important, because opinions are partially formed from conversations that we have, and this kind of discussion will harden up an otherwise more nuanced or open opinion. What we do in virtuality affects us in meatspace - there are some on the forum I'd never wish to meet in the flesh because of how they respond and treat others.

 

[Pound Coin]

I agree, it would be great if all could take stock of the impact their consumption decisions make on others, both in this country and in the world.

There's a comment somewhere (I don't think it is on TP), that youth, cyclist, driver, pedestrian, motorcyclist, are all the same person. They just form tribes and the tribes have defence and attack memes.

There's a lot of angst, which hasn't been helped by the out going Prime minister, caused by people putting themselves in silos and throwing brickbats out at others that are different. Always someone else at fault.

This thread is an example - it is the youths at fault. Full stop. However, it is a little more complex than that, and this would be a poorer place if it was just an echo chamber of people going "Yeah!" and nodding away.

 

[ancient_mariner]

This thread is an example - it is the youths at fault. Full stop. However, it is a little more complex than that, and this would be a poorer place if it was just an echo chamber of people going "Yeah!" and nodding away.

There's a way of writing things that gives the same information without the sting that pushes up resistance. Yesterday in reply to a question about driving in Italy I found myself writing "you may not take your car into Siena - you must park outside and use a taxi". By changing it to " we found that we had to leave our car outside...... etc" the same information could be delivered without challenging for reaction. If one can take the other party along too then they have been won over and the world is a better place, but if their face just gets smacked into the wall of opposing opinion then textual fisticuffs result.

And sme simply thrive on an argument and baiting others, with no interest in actually making a difference. And some are simply self-seeking black holes, never satisfied and never settling, always moving on to the next conquest - since you mention present PM.

 

[Plain Nev]

My local County Council has sent me (and presumably every household) a survey relating to roads etc.

You're lucky it wasn't a whip round.

 

[Dave Canon]

Road tax doesn't exist and hasn't for many years.

Well we are still paying an annual Vehicle Tax which equates to a Road Tax. As for the cycle lane I mentioned, it is in better repair than the main road which has many pot holes which I think would be dangerous for cyclists. The cyclists having to give way at junctions I understand but in the new cycle lanes in my area, they are giving priority to cyclist which will lead to many deaths (there has already been one) . If I am travelling along a road and wish to turn left across a cycle lane I can easily see if I cyclist is coming towards me but I cannot easily see if a cyclist is coming from my left because that is behind me and wing mirrors are set up for the road. I personally would think it makes more sense to have dedicated cycle lanes which are independent of roads which I have seen in The Netherlands. This would not be possible everywhere. In my local area they made the shared cycle/road the main bus route which seem to be a dangerous choice where several side streets running parallel would have been better for the cyclist. I wrote to the Council about this and they said it had been considered but the local Cyclist representative insisted that they use the main road as cyclist would use this anyway. This makes no sense to me as when I cycled regularly, I always picked out a safer routed along side roads.

Dave

 

[Cobra]

I personally would think it makes more sense to have dedicated cycle lanes which are independent of roads which I have seen in The Netherlands.

We have a network of them here, they are called "Redways" and run parallel to the roads, but are separated by wide verges and underpasses to save crossing roads, but cyclists (mostly) prefer to use the dual carriageways rather than share them with pedestrians.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

We have a network of them here, they are called "Redways" and run parallel to the roads, but are separated by wide verges and underpasses to save crossing roads, but cyclists (mostly) prefer to use the dual carriageways rather than share them with pedestrians.

That is definitely where a new offence should be created. They waste so much precious diesele and time, and in return get to inhale a nice think black whiff

 

[Pound Coin]

We have a network of them here, they are called "Redways" and run parallel to the roads, but are separated by wide verges and underpasses to save crossing roads, but cyclists (mostly) prefer to use the dual carriageways rather than share them with pedestrians.

We have loads round here.

They are called "Roads".

 

[Pound Coin]

Well we are still paying an annual Vehicle Tax which equates to a Road Tax. As for the cycle lane I mentioned, it is in better repair than the main road which has many pot holes which I think would be dangerous for cyclists. The cyclists having to give way at junctions I understand but in the new cycle lanes in my area, they are giving priority to cyclist which will lead to many deaths (there has already been one) . If I am travelling along a road and wish to turn left across a cycle lane I can easily see if I cyclist is coming towards me but I cannot easily see if a cyclist is coming from my left because that is behind me and wing mirrors are set up for the road. I personally would think it makes more sense to have dedicated cycle lanes which are independent of roads which I have seen in The Netherlands. This would not be possible everywhere. In my local area they made the shared cycle/road the main bus route which seem to be a dangerous choice where several side streets running parallel would have been better for the cyclist. I wrote to the Council about this and they said it had been considered but the local Cyclist representative insisted that they use the main road as cyclist would use this anyway. This makes no sense to me as when I cycled regularly, I always picked out a safer routed along side roads.

Dave

Dedicated cycleways sounds fantastic!

The United Kingdom has a network of roads, of varied quality and capacity, totalling about 262,300 miles (422,100 km)

262,300 miles of dedicated cycleways. Bring it on!

Or, alternatively, look at integration, and getting people out of their silos, and away from their memes.

 

[Pound Coin]

There's a way of writing things that gives the same information without the sting that pushes up resistance. Yesterday in reply to a question about driving in Italy I found myself writing "you may not take your car into Siena - you must park outside and use a taxi". By changing it to " we found that we had to leave our car outside...... etc" the same information could be delivered without challenging for reaction. If one can take the other party along too then they have been won over and the world is a better place, but if their face just gets smacked into the wall of opposing opinion then textual fisticuffs result.

And sme simply thrive on an argument and baiting others, with no interest in actually making a difference. And some are simply self-seeking black holes, never satisfied and never settling, always moving on to the next conquest - since you mention present PM.

Arguments...
Baiting...
Memes.

This is really a bit of natural selection at work, for you as well as them. We don't need a jaywalking law, but we do need people to be aware of their surroundings. Sorry you had a scare.

Is it natural selection for Black Fox? Difficult to get the nuance from what you wrote above.

The thread is about youths getting in the way of a driver and how there should be a law against it. No context, and easily agreed with. However, in a location with pedestrians, like a town or village, a driver should be aware of pedestrians, should be ready for them to do stuff that might not be 100% predictable.

It is about getting out of silos. Forgetting memes. Being considerate.

A driver being aware of surroundings just as much as the youths would have meant that the thread wouldn't have happened. No one cross. Certainly not excited enough to start a thread on a forum.

 

[Deleted sulking member 63079]

Well we are still paying an annual Vehicle Tax which equates to a Road Tax. As for the cycle lane I mentioned, it is in better repair than the main road which has many pot holes which I think would be dangerous for cyclists. The cyclists having to give way at junctions I understand but in the new cycle lanes in my area, they are giving priority to cyclist which will lead to many deaths (there has already been one) . If I am travelling along a road and wish to turn left across a cycle lane I can easily see if I cyclist is coming towards me but I cannot easily see if a cyclist is coming from my left because that is behind me and wing mirrors are set up for the road. I personally would think it makes more sense to have dedicated cycle lanes which are independent of roads which I have seen in The Netherlands. This would not be possible everywhere. In my local area they made the shared cycle/road the main bus route which seem to be a dangerous choice where several side streets running parallel would have been better for the cyclist. I wrote to the Council about this and they said it had been considered but the local Cyclist representative insisted that they use the main road as cyclist would use this anyway. This makes no sense to me as when I cycled regularly, I always picked out a safer routed along side roads.

Dave

It doesn't equate to a road tax as it isn't ringfenced for roads. Roads are paid for out of general taxation, so everyone pays for the upkeep of roads.

 

[Deleted sulking member 63079]

We have a network of them here, they are called "Redways" and run parallel to the roads, but are separated by wide verges and underpasses to save crossing roads, but cyclists (mostly) prefer to use the dual carriageways rather than share them with pedestrians.

Department For Transport say that if you're cycling at over 18mph you should avoid the use of cycle lanes, especially those shared with pedestrians, and use the road instead.

 

[Cobra]

We have loads round here.

They are called "Roads".

I thought the discussion was separate cycle lanes?

Department For Transport say that if you're cycling at over 18mph you should avoid the use of cycle lanes, especially those shared with pedestrians, and use the road instead.

But they aren't cycle lanes they are dedicated cycle ways, and there is well over 200 miles of them, in and around MK,
there are no speed limits posted, and as I said well away from the ( mostly) dual carriageways. All purpose built as MK developed.

Both the cyclists and pedestrians are supposed to keep left, and any approaching cyclists is supposed to ring their bell.
Surely that's safer for cyclists than competing with 70 mph traffic.

 

[munch]

I have no problems with large SUV per se, I'd even consider one myself for towing.

What's wrong with them is that they cause greater injury to occupants and other road users than the equivalent saloon car, use more fuel and cause greater pollution. You can argue the toss about the detail but whichever way you stack it up people die and are injured because of that choice. Now that risk is part of the overall mix so that additional risk is simply part f the overall risk, but it is entirely ignored by the industry, more than ignored, the "stylish SUV" is intensely marketed to help drive sales, and people mistakenly choose them "because they feel safe". Ultimately, they and other road users are more at risk, they are really poor choices for city streets, for situations where no other factors apply.

That's not a "Saloon car good, SUV bad" rant, life's altogether more complicated than that. If I rooled the wurld restricting inappropriate speed would be the single greatest contribution to safety.

Care to back up your statement about SUV's causing greater injury to occupants?

 

[Deleted sulking member 63079]

I thought the discussion was separate cycle lanes?

But they aren't cycle lanes they are dedicated cycle ways, and there is well over 200 miles of them, in and around MK,
there are no speed limits posted, and as I said well away from the ( mostly) dual carriageways. All purpose built as MK developed.

Both the cyclists and pedestrians are supposed to keep left, and any approaching cyclists is supposed to ring their bell.
Surely that's safer for cyclists than competing with 70 mph traffic.

There's no need to compete with motorists on a 70mph road as you can stay close to the left and anyone that finds those cyclists difficult to pass by any means should surrender their licences immediately as it's clear they shouldn't be on the road.

Probably safer than weaving in and out of pedestrians who ignore the markings that split cycle paths between pedestrians and cyclists.

And the DFT guidance is about lanes and separate paths, so still against DFT guidance.

That said, I'm a confident, competent cyclist, and I wouldn't want to cycle on a dual carriageway. But as a driver, I just think that drivers who actually find cyclists an issue must be crap at it and should probably not have a licence.

 

[Pound Coin]

I thought the discussion was separate cycle lanes?

But they aren't cycle lanes they are dedicated cycle ways, and there is well over 200 miles of them, in and around MK,
there are no speed limits posted, and as I said well away from the ( mostly) dual carriageways. All purpose built as MK developed.

Both the cyclists and pedestrians are supposed to keep left, and any approaching cyclists is supposed to ring their bell.
Surely that's safer for cyclists than competing with 70 mph traffic.

When you talk about separate cycle lanes, what do you mean?
Routes for cyclists to get about the country, or a limited specialist provision, which doesn’t actually go door to door, much like motorways for motorised vehicles?

 

[Ham]

Care to back up your statement about SUV's causing greater injury to occupants?

Actually, no, not really. The data is there if you want to find it. If you don't want to find it, citing chapter and verse will hardly help. There are some types of incidents where the occupants of the SUV are safer (as I alluded to earlier) but overall the picture is not favourable.

I'll point you towards a Grauniad article if you'd like a high level view, but I'd feel uncomfortable citing that as a primary source, some of the numbers are a little wild and sensational and aren't supported in detail with what I have seen elsewhere. I'll repeat what I said earlier: Look around and you will find a lot of opinion, but where data exists it is unequivocal (and frankly, self explanatory) that SUV cause greater damage to vulnerable road users, and pretty conclusive (if substantially more complex) that the statistical data supports the assertion that they are more dangerous for the occupants. That's far from saying "if you have an SUV you will have an accident", any more than buying a lottery ticket means you will win.

My point in following up on what was a lighthearted post in the first instance is that, in my view, the ascendency of the SUV is a fashion ploy foisted on us by the motor industry to foster desire and sales, in which we are all to a greater or lesser extent complicit*. In a small way, this conversation may give people pause for thought when considering the choice of a vehicle. There are plenty of sound reasons for choosing an SUV, but the negative aspects are not part of the general discourse and informing people is no part of manufacturer's marketing plans.

*I include myself in that. I like shiny. I like cars (and bikes), and I've got a big estate car that can tow a caravan, if I wanted a bigger! shiny! caravan, I'd need something like, I dunno, an XC90, Q7 to tow it. And no, I wouldn't "need" it, but I'd want it and possibly get it. On the other hand, "having" to get one of those behemoth actually puts me off the idea, but that might change as I age and fancy the idea of a twin axle. We're all a complex mix of competing ideas, those who espouse The One True Way (whatever that happens to be for them) tend to be boring, or Mormons.

 

[munch]

Actually, no, not really. The data is there if you want to find it. If you don't want to find it, citing chapter and verse will hardly help. There are some types of incidents where the occupants of the SUV are safer (as I alluded to earlier) but overall the picture is not favourable.

I'll point you towards a Grauniad article if you'd like a high level view, but I'd feel uncomfortable citing that as a primary source, some of the numbers are a little wild and sensational and aren't supported in detail with what I have seen elsewhere. I'll repeat what I said earlier: Look around and you will find a lot of opinion, but where data exists it is unequivocal (and frankly, self explanatory) that SUV cause greater damage to vulnerable road users, and pretty conclusive (if substantially more complex) that the statistical data supports the assertion that they are more dangerous for the occupants. That's far from saying "if you have an SUV you will have an accident", any more than buying a lottery ticket means you will win.

My point in following up on what was a lighthearted post in the first instance is that, in my view, the ascendency of the SUV is a fashion ploy fostered by the motor industry to foster desire and sales, in which we are all to a greater or lesser extent complicit*. In a small way, this conversation may give people pause for thought when considering the choice of a vehicle. There are plenty of sound reasons for choosing an SUV, but the negative aspects are not part of the general discourse and informing people is no part of manufacturer's marketing plans.

*I include myself in that. I like shiny. I like cars (and bikes), and I've got a big estate car that can tow a caravan, if I wanted a bigger! shiny! caravan, I'd need something like, I dunno, an XC90, Q7 to tow it. And no, I wouldn't "need" it, but I'd want it and possibly get it. On the other hand, "having" to get one of those behemoth actually puts me off the idea, but that might change as I age and fancy the idea of a twin axle. We're all a complex mix of competing ideas, those who espouse The One True Way (whatever that happens to be for them) tend to be boring, or Mormons.

well that's a good cop out isn't it?

To me if you make a point and someone challenges it you either back your point up or shut up.

 

[ancient_mariner]

Arguments...
Baiting...
Memes.

Is it natural selection for Black Fox? Difficult to get the nuance from what you wrote above.

The thread is about youths getting in the way of a driver and how there should be a law against it. No context, and easily agreed with. However, in a location with pedestrians, like a town or village, a driver should be aware of pedestrians, should be ready for them to do stuff that might not be 100% predictable.

It is about getting out of silos. Forgetting memes. Being considerate.

A driver being aware of surroundings just as much as the youths would have meant that the thread wouldn't have happened. No one cross. Certainly not excited enough to start a thread on a forum.

None of this was difficuly to understand clearly unless one specialises in being intentionally obtuse. It was clear that BF was aware of his surroundings and the peds because he didn't have an accident.

 

[Pound Coin]

None of this was difficuly to understand clearly unless one specialises in being intentionally obtuse. It was clear that BF was aware of his surroundings and the peds because he didn't have an accident.

I suggest you re-read the first post in the thread, it talks about them not having a care in the world, and that he would be at fault if there was a crash.

There is no context, no indication of what kind of road it is. The post simply carries the implication that the driver is right, and the youths wrong. That’s how you have read it, I think. And Black Fox even suggests that, if it went to court, he would be found at fault. Which suggests some level of culpability on the part of the driver? Unless the justice system is stacked and usually against drivers? (I’d suggest that it isn’t, but that’s a different thread)

The Highway Code puts responsibility on pedestrians, but also on drivers. Unless you are driving right next to the pavement, people don’t just jump out, you see them and slow down. And if people are in a a position to just jump out, you should be going slower anyway, particularly if they are looking at their phones.

Instead of wiping away what I am saying by implying I am being obtuse, it is an idea to have a look from outside the motorists’ silo? There have been 60 years plus of making the motorists lot better, to the detriment of vulnerable road users. This has led to some motorists being more entitled than perhaps they should be. Where there aren‘t pedestrians about, this might be sensible, but is it really appropriate in busy city areas, towns and villages?

 

[Cobra]

There's no need to compete with motorists on a 70mph road as you can stay close to the left

But the point being that is not how it works here, I often see them riding 2 or 3 abreast on the roads here.
And certainly not in the "kerb" as you suggest.

anyone that finds those cyclists difficult to pass by any means should surrender their licences immediately as it's clear they shouldn't be on the road.

And the cyclists that weave across the lanes because they can, or think they are invincible?
And they are surprised when Darwin's law comes into play..

Routes for cyclists to get about the country, or a limited specialist provision, which doesn’t actually go door to door,

Its how it works here, pretty much door to door..
You now have 2 choices, either believe me or don't,
but I'm done with the feeding...

 

[JonathanRyan]

Actually, no, not really. The data is there if you want to find it. If you don't want to find it, citing chapter and verse will hardly help. There are some types of incidents where the occupants of the SUV are safer (as I alluded to earlier) but overall the picture is not favourable.

I'll point you towards a Grauniad article if you'd like a high level view, but I'd feel uncomfortable citing that as a primary source, some of the numbers are a little wild and sensational and aren't supported in detail with what I have seen elsewhere. I'll repeat what I said earlier: Look around and you will find a lot of opinion, but where data exists it is unequivocal (and frankly, self explanatory) that SUV cause greater damage to vulnerable road users, and pretty conclusive (if substantially more complex) that the statistical data supports the assertion that they are more dangerous for the occupants. That's far from saying "if you have an SUV you will have an accident", any more than buying a lottery ticket means you will win.

Is actually really complicated.

In general, bigger vehicles are safer for the occupants but less safe for pedestrians. Newer vehicles are safer for both. Higher vehicles are more likely to roll at speed but those types of accidents don't tend to feature pedestrians and high speed crashes are both a bad idea and relatively rare. But of course, there are many exceptions and the best plan is not to be involved in a crash in the first place.

Lots of suvs have been historically bad at the whole not crashing thing mainly because of poor visibility but this is improving as we get more sensors and autonomous controls.

I didn't read the nyt article linked by the guardian because paywall, but I suspect its at least 4 years old. Time are changing.

People estimate the range rover which ended up on a tube line was traveling at 120mph and there's little that will help at that speed. But 2 out of 3 occupants survived.

 

[Ham]

Is actually really complicated.

Well, yes. As I've consistently said, the clearest takeaway is that SUV are more dangerous for vulnerable road users. Huge advances have been made in cocooning the car occupants from the impact of mistakes on the road (theirs or others, yes "impact" was deliberate) but I think you'll find that the "Newer vehicles are safer for both" is only valid comparatively to their previous performance, and the differential remains between saloon and SUV. It is also relatively well accepted, although harder to demonstrate, that the isolation and perceived invulnerability has negative effect on safety, and there's no getting away from the physics of a higher CoG, although as you highlight it's possible to mitigate what the effect of that is on occupants.

 

[Deleted sulking member 63079]

But the point being that is not how it works here, I often see them riding 2 or 3 abreast on the roads here.
And certainly not in the "kerb" as you suggest.



And the cyclists that weave across the lanes because they can, or think they are invincible?
And they are surprised when Darwin's law comes into play..


Its how it works here, pretty much door to door..
You now have 2 choices, either believe me or don't,
but I'm done with the feeding...

Quicker to overtake 2 cycles riding alongside each other than a row of cyclists.

Cyclists that are weaving all over the place are obviously dangerous and probably shouldn't be on the roads. But I've still never encountered one that has actually been a problem to pass sensibly.

 

[Pound Coin]

But the point being that is not how it works here, I often see them riding 2 or 3 abreast on the roads here.
And certainly not in the "kerb" as you suggest.



And the cyclists that weave across the lanes because they can, or think they are invincible?
And they are surprised when Darwin's law comes into play..


Its how it works here, pretty much door to door..
You now have 2 choices, either believe me or don't,
but I'm done with the feeding...

Sadly, some good anti-cyclist memes in there. “2 or 3 abreast”. “Weaving about”. Yes, some cyclists do that, but “some motorists drive their Range Rovers at 120 into a Tube Station”. I am pretty sure I won’t see that comment plastered on any posts about motorists, becasue it is not how most Range Rover drivers behave.

OK - back to the Red Routes. A simple question - can cyclists get from their homes to the places of leisure or work purely on Red Routes, or do they also have to also use the road network in MK. Are cyclists required to ride on Red Routes exclusively?

Please don’t accuse me of being a Troll. If what I am saying is tosh, then perhaps expain why, or ask for further explanation, but accusing me (and Andy?) of being Trolls is not the solution.

 

[Marc]

Sadly, some good anti-cyclist memes in there. “2 or 3 abreast”. “Weaving about”. Yes, some cyclists do that, but “some motorists drive their Range Rovers at 120 into a Tube Station”. I am pretty sure I won’t see that comment plastered on any posts about motorists, becasue it is not how most Range Rover drivers behave.

OK - back to the Red Routes. A simple question - can cyclists get from their homes to the places of leisure or work purely on Red Routes, or do they also have to also use the road network in MK. Are cyclists required to ride on Red Routes exclusively?

Please don’t accuse me of being a Troll. If what I am saying is tosh, then perhaps expain why, or ask for further explanation, but accusing me (and Andy?) of being Trolls is not the solution.

The redways connect many of the villages in MK. I haven't used them for a number of years now but, iirc, you can cycle to the main shopping centre without touching any roads.

 

[the black fox]

Oh dear what did I start , looking back in retrospect I think a lot depends on where you live . Here in semi rural wales most of the roads are narrow and hilly so driving at speed round towns is not the norm ,bar from visitors who think there still on the motorway . No I never hit or even came near to hitting the phone zombies but still got the finger for daring to beep my hooter .. .
As for cyclists that again depends on where you live and how the local councils have applied the shared cycle track legislations , I know for a certainty that one of the shared with walkers cycle tracks locally is well under the width limit specified and any attempts by the council to erect speed barriers tends to find them thrown into the marsh shortly after .
I doubt that it’s motorists doing it no roads in the area or the dog walkers but oh dear it couldn’t possibly be the poor sweet Lycra clad cyclists could it

 

[ancient_mariner]

I suggest you re-read the first post in the thread, it talks about them not having a care in the world, and that he would be at fault if there was a crash.

I will reply from my computer at home tonight, however when BF talks about prosecution I recognise the feeling and fear very well, of being innocent yet accused of all kinds of things. Consider the post that accused him of owning an inappropriate vehicle without knowing his circumstances as an example.

 

[Ham]

I will reply from my computer at home tonight, however when BF talks about prosecution I recognise the feeling and fear very well, of being innocent yet accused of all kinds of things. Consider the post that accused him of owning an inappropriate vehicle without knowing his circumstances as an example.

You mean like, where I wrote "I'm really not having a go at you personally, you may have a valid reason for choosing a 4x4 but the overwhelming majority of people don't."?

Curious how people hear what they feel.

 

[Pound Coin]

Curious how people hear what they feel.

Which is why I put about silos and memes.

 

[cambsno]

I have no problems with large SUV per se, I'd even consider one myself for towing.

What's wrong with them is that they cause greater injury to occupants and other road users than the equivalent saloon car, use more fuel and cause greater pollution. You can argue the toss about the detail but whichever way you stack it up people die and are injured because of that choice. Now that risk is part of the overall mix so that additional risk is simply part f the overall risk, but it is entirely ignored by the industry, more than ignored, the "stylish SUV" is intensely marketed to help drive sales, and people mistakenly choose them "because they feel safe". Ultimately, they and other road users are more at risk, they are really poor choices for city streets, for situations where no other factors apply.

That's not a "Saloon car good, SUV bad" rant, life's altogether more complicated than that. If I rooled the wurld restricting inappropriate speed would be the single greatest contribution to safety.

What garbage!

I have an SUV - Kia Sportage. Its the internal space that we like - being able to have plenty of room on long journeys. Estate cars feel more cramped to me. Also, people with limited mobility find it so much easier to get in and out.

I do drive the SUV slower than my old saloon as the economy is less.

 

[Dave Canon]

It doesn't equate to a road tax as it isn't ringfenced for roads. Roads are paid for out of general taxation, so everyone pays for the upkeep of roads.

The DVLA say "Drivers must buy car tax every year. The money this raises is paid directly into the central government fund, which is used for projects that benefit everyone – including road work and maintenance." I am certainly aware that I pay this as do other car owners but do not know any cyclist who pay this. Of course we could scrap the Vehicle Licence and just increase income tax or VAT then motorist and cyclist would pay. However, that is not the point. My point is that a lot of money is now being spent on cycle lanes but cyclist are not using them.

Dave

 

[Dave Canon]

I crossed a street this morning and just avoided being run down by a cyclist. I did look before crossing the road but concentrated on my left as it was a one way street. The cyclist came from the the other direction purposely cycling the wrong way. This was not a high speed sporting cyclist but a middle aged lady out shopping. What was even more odd is the parallel street of which she passed both ends was a one way street in the right direction for her. I was also hit a glancing blow by a cyclist 2 weeks ago when I crossed a light controlled pedestrian crossing; the cars all stopped but the cyclist ignored the red light.

Dave

 

[cambsno]

I crossed a street this morning and just avoided being run down by a cyclist. I did look before crossing the road but concentrated on my left as it was a one way street. The cyclist came from the the other direction purposely cycling the wrong way. This was not a high speed sporting cyclist but a middle aged lady out shopping. What was even more odd is the parallel street of which she passed both ends was a one way street in the right direction for her. I was also hit a glancing blow by a cyclist 2 weeks ago when I crossed a light controlled pedestrian crossing; the cars all stopped but the cyclist ignored the red light.

Dave

I see just as many drivers driving badly as I do cyclists. The main question is how many cyclists were not being dangerous, as you get good and bad in all modes of transport. Was that cyclist aware of you and prepared to take action?

Hardly a day goes by when I encounter a driver going too slow, bad overtaking, tailgating, pulling out when they shouldnt. In Jersey last week a women decided to overtake a cyclist going up a hill and gave him plenty of space - bad thing was its a typical Jersey road (she probably gave too much space) as my daughter and i were cycling down the other side of the road and she was too close to us causing us to almost come off!

 

[BADGER.BRAD]

As far as I remember there was never a person run over or a crashed caused whilst they or a driver was using a mobile phone before mobile phones were invented So they should be banned ! That is of course a joke but I really do hate the way a hell of a lot of people turn into zombies for long lengths of time whilst using smart phones it makes them antisocial quite often in social places pubs restaurants, and leaves them very vulnerable to accidents and risk of violence to nick the thing. As this is mainly ( but not always) young people I think maybe restricting them to one of the following phones until they are over 30 and pass a test ! This way most of them would be too embarrassed to get the phone out, luckily for me I have no shame !

Just as a side note this phone saved my £500 camera when I dropped it and it bounced off the screen hence the crack !

 

[Dave Canon]

I see just as many drivers driving badly as I do cyclists. The main question is how many cyclists were not being dangerous, as you get good and bad in all modes of transport. Was that cyclist aware of you and prepared to take action?

Hardly a day goes by when I encounter a driver going too slow, bad overtaking, tailgating, pulling out when they shouldnt. In Jersey last week a women decided to overtake a cyclist going up a hill and gave him plenty of space - bad thing was its a typical Jersey road (she probably gave too much space) as my daughter and i were cycling down the other side of the road and she was too close to us causing us to almost come off!

The lady in the one way street was aware of me and did brake to avoid me but she should not have been there. In the case of cyclist ignoring red lights at a pedestrian crossing, his reaction was to yell abuse at me. A few of the other pedestrians were angered by this but he swiftly left the scene. Yes I also see some appalling motoring particularly on motorways with some care weaving from lane to lane at well above the speed limit. I am also regularly tailgated along a local road where the speed limit is clearly 30mph; I normally use my cruise control which is oblivious to tailgaters but I do set it at 32mph as I know from my satnav that this is more accurate. The local police regularly set speed traps along this section.

Dave

 

[Suvv]

I crossed a street this morning and just avoided being run down by a cyclist. I did look before crossing the road but concentrated on my left as it was a one way street. The cyclist came from the the other direction purposely cycling the wrong way. This was not a high speed sporting cyclist but a middle aged lady out shopping. What was even more odd is the parallel street of which she passed both ends was a one way street in the right direction for her. I was also hit a glancing blow by a cyclist 2 weeks ago when I crossed a light controlled pedestrian crossing; the cars all stopped but the cyclist ignored the red light.

Dave

Interesting, I was cycling to town once and had to walk on the pavement at one point because the road was one way, A car then came along the road from behind me, when I shouted at him that it was one way he said that he knew that but did not know how to get where he wanted without going the wrong way.
His wife was quite verbal in the abuse she was giving him.

Once in London I was driving down a narrow one way street and a big red Fire Engine came the other way. Luckily I was able to get my car up on the pavement to let it pass.

It isn't always cyclists or pedestrians who do wierd things.

 

[Deleted sulking member 63079]

The DVLA say "Drivers must buy car tax every year. The money this raises is paid directly into the central government fund, which is used for projects that benefit everyone – including road work and maintenance." I am certainly aware that I pay this as do other car owners but do not know any cyclist who pay this. Of course we could scrap the Vehicle Licence and just increase income tax or VAT then motorist and cyclist would pay. However, that is not the point. My point is that a lot of money is now being spent on cycle lanes but cyclist are not using them.

Dave

Maybe they should build ones that suit cyclists and that the cyclists can use without beaking DFT guidance then.

But the point is that all cyclists are already paying for roads, as everyone, whether they have a car or not.

Road tax does not exist.