Will This Make Cycling Safer?

[Adamcski]

while 99% will probably ignore you, there will be that 1% who will stop and punch you - is it worth it?

I did type out a long response, but the short answer is yep.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Then they are idiots, considering road tax was abolished in 1937.

,,,but the argument is silly.

"Road Tax" is just a popular synonym for "Vehicle Excise Duty" or "VED" and therefor the use of the term is entirely acceptable to the general public.

 

[bass_junkie83]

,,,but the argument is silly.

"Road Tax" is just a popular synonym for "Vehicle Excise Duty" or "VED" and therefor the use of the term is entirely acceptable to the general public.

But VED is on a sliding scale based on the amount of emissions a vehicle puts out. Are people that use this argument equally triggered by electric car drivers for example?

 

[Marc]

But VED is on a sliding scale based on the amount of emissions a vehicle puts out. Are people that use this argument equally triggered by electric car drivers for example?

I believe there bare some very low emissions (non electric) vehicles that are already zero VED. I'm disabled and pay no VED whatever vehicle I own. Cyclist by definition would pay no VED. The whole "cyclists should pay road tax" is a complete nonsense.

 

[sphexx]

I believe there bare some very low emissions (non electric) vehicles that are already zero VED. I'm disabled and pay no VED whatever vehicle I own. Cyclist by definition would pay no VED. The whole "cyclists should pay road tax" is a complete nonsense.

I only pay (I think) £20 on my ancient diesel, virtually nothing. It probably ought to be based on weight etc and therefore on road use and emissions tackled another way.

Tax cycle tyres & anyone?

 

[robj20]

I only pay (I think) £20 on my ancient diesel, virtually nothing. It probably ought to be based on weight etc and therefore on road use and emissions tackled another way.

Tax cycle tyres & anyone?

Roads are funded through general taxation so cyclists already pay under that argument.

 

[Nod]

My first Landy was probably the worst vehicle I've ever had (possibly even ever driven!) as far as emissions go but was zero rated for VED. Current 9 year old Diesel still has relatively clean exhaust tips but costs a few bob to tax.

 

[sphexx]

Roads are funded through general taxation so cyclists already pay under that argument.

I know, I know ㋡ However there is an argument for funding roads through usage, short of toll roads — though “congestion charges” have brought a sort of return to tolls.

 

[bass_junkie83]

Roads are funded through general taxation so cyclists already pay under that argument.

Exactly. And really, how many cyclists don't also own a car and pay VED anyway? A tiny fraction I expect.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

I'm now waiting for the first reports of punch ups between frustrated drivers and cyclists who are holding them up by occupying the centre of the carriageway "because it's in the Highway Code"... :banghead:

 

[sphexx]

I'm now waiting for the first reports of punch ups between frustrated drivers and cyclists who are holding them up by occupying the centre of the carriageway "because it's in the Highway Code"... :banghead:

I do wonder about all this. In my youth I would guess near 100% of us were cyclists so even though I stopped cycling for quite a few decades I’ve never seen cyclists as “other” even though some behave thoughtlessly and a few badly, rather like car drivers.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

I do wonder about all this. In my youth I would guess near 100% of us were cyclists

...but now cycle trips are just 3% of road use.

I'll be happy if I'm proved wrong but idiots, being idiots, will probably prove me right. :banghead:

 

[LCPete]

I do wonder about all this. In my youth I would guess near 100% of us were cyclists so even though I stopped cycling for quite a few decades I’ve never seen cyclists as “other” even though some behave thoughtlessly and a few badly, rather like car drivers.

Yes exactly any road user can be a moron just that those in cars and vans are more likely to cause harm to others

 

[sphexx]

just that those in cars and vans are more likely to cause harm to others

Seems likely but is it true per mike travelled? There are currently many more cars on the road and I guess they do higher mileages. Cyclist do cause some accidents and can injure pedestrians so … ?

 

[Pound Coin]

,,,but the argument is silly.

"Road Tax" is just a popular synonym for "Vehicle Excise Duty" or "VED" and therefor the use of the term is entirely acceptable to the general public.

This is such nonsense.

The argument is not silly, it is simply to explain that motorists do not own the roads and they do not pay for the damage that they do to the infrastructure, the environment, and to Public Health.

There are many motorists that get this. Unforunatley there are also entitled ones, who think that they are more important than others.

 

[Pound Coin]

Seems likely but is it true per mike travelled? There are currently many more cars on the road and I guess they do higher mileages. Cyclist do cause some accidents and can injure pedestrians so … ?

Could we have some numbers on cyclists injuring, as compared with motorists injuring?

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Seems likely but is it true per mike travelled? There are currently many more cars on the road and I guess they do higher mileages. Cyclist do cause some accidents and can injure pedestrians so … ?

The figures are not quite what people seem to think: https://assets.publishing.service.g...ported-road-casualties-annual-report-2019.pdf

All reported casualties associated with different vehicle types per billion miles are...

• Pedestrians: 1,640
• Cyclists: 4,891
• Motorbikes: 5,051
• Cars: 195
• Buses: 141
• Vans: 60
• Lorries: 45

Fatalities...

• Pedestrians: 35.4
• Cyclists: 29
• Motorbikes: 104.6
• Cars: 1.6
• Buses: 0.6
• Vans: 0.6
• Lorries: 1.1

So the most striking point is that while casualty rates for cyclists and motorcyclists are similar (and worst) the fatality rate for motorcyclists is more than three times greater than for cyclists, which may reflect the greater speeds involved.

Also, the two groups having the largest casualty rates are the least used forms of transport.

 

[sphexx]

The figures are not quite what people seem to think: https://assets.publishing.service.g...ported-road-casualties-annual-report-2019.pdf

All reported casualties associated with different vehicle types per billion miles are...

• Pedestrians: 1,640
• Cyclists: 4,891
• Motorbikes: 5,051
• Cars: 195
• Buses: 141
• Vans: 60
• Lorries: 45

Fatalities...

• Pedestrians: 35.4
• Cyclists: 29
• Motorbikes: 104.6
• Cars: 1.6
• Buses: 0.6
• Vans: 0.6
• Lorries: 1.1

So the most striking point is that while casualty rates for cyclists and motorcyclists are similar (and worst) the fatality rate for motorcyclists is more than three times greater than for cyclists, which may reflect the greater speeds involved.

Also, the two groups having the largest casualty rates are the least used forms of transport.o

Very good! However there remains the question of how many cyclists caused or contributed to, their own accidents .

Or of course where no other person or vehicle was involve. Some years ago a motorbiker near here drove into a tree with for no obvious reason, presumably lost control due to speed or other factor. Car drivers do that too of course but more often survive.

 

[boliston]

The figures are not quite what people seem to think: https://assets.publishing.service.g...ported-road-casualties-annual-report-2019.pdf

All reported casualties associated with different vehicle types per billion miles are...

• Pedestrians: 1,640
• Cyclists: 4,891
• Motorbikes: 5,051
• Cars: 195
• Buses: 141
• Vans: 60
• Lorries: 45

Fatalities...

• Pedestrians: 35.4
• Cyclists: 29
• Motorbikes: 104.6
• Cars: 1.6
• Buses: 0.6
• Vans: 0.6
• Lorries: 1.1

So the most striking point is that while casualty rates for cyclists and motorcyclists are similar (and worst) the fatality rate for motorcyclists is more than three times greater than for cyclists, which may reflect the greater speeds involved.

Also, the two groups having the largest casualty rates are the least used forms of transport.

it would make more sense to compare risk on a basis of casualties or deaths per hour of travel time rather than per mile as this makes it look like walking is about 10x more risky than driving when it's probably a lot safer

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

it would make more sense to compare risk on a basis of casualties or deaths per hour of travel time rather than per mile as this makes it look like walking is about 10x more risky than driving when it's probably a lot safer

I doubt that you're correct but you could always suggest it to the DoT and see what they think.

 

[Pound Coin]

I doubt that you're correct but you could always suggest it to the DoT and see what they think.

The DoT are merely reporting figures.

It is a bit like the 17,000 died from just COVID, a figure that has been used erroneously to say the pandemic isn't a pandemic. It is best to look at what information is needed, then choose the most appropriate dataset.

As @boliston says, per hour travelled would be a far better stat to look at.

As would looking at stats for types of roads. Motorways are very safe, but carry very many miles of journey. However should motorways be excluded from comparisons, given they only carry motor traffic?

 

[Jelster]

This is such nonsense.

The argument is not silly, it is simply to explain that motorists do not own the roads and they do not pay for the damage that they do to the infrastructure, the environment, and to Public Health.

. Isn't that saying the opposite to the fact that VED is charged based on your emissions?

If you have a big engine likely to generate a lot of emissions, you pay a higher VED. Now, this will need to change, because the Government will be losing income as we move over to EV's as they are currently VED free, and of course, there will be less tax coming in from fuel.

 

[Pound Coin]

. Isn't that saying the opposite to the fact that VED is charged based on your emissions?

If you have a big engine likely to generate a lot of emissions, you pay a higher VED. Now, this will need to change, because the Government will be losing income as we move over to EV's as they are currently VED free, and of course, there will be less tax coming in from fuel.

But you do not pay for that damage(s) that driving causes. My main point was to (once again) repel the "I pay for roads" nonsense.

It will be really interesting to see how the Govt deals with the loss of fuel tax income. VED is easy to deal with, and I imagine it will not be long before EVs have a VED of greater than £0. I think there used to be £0 VED rates for low emission cars - and there aren't any more.

So I'd think that there will be VED for all cars, and some kind of mileage charge. It is a minefield, though. Currently it is not possible (unless you steal, or do red diesel) to avoid paying Tax/Duty on what fuels your vehicle. A mileage charge will probably see inventive ways of avoiding it. Another drawback of a mileage charge may be that navigation systems are set for the shortest route - often inadequate cross country lanes.

 

[sphexx]

(unless you steal, or do red diesel)

Or convert to dual petrol & gas and run a hot air balloon I don’t know if that’s still a thing but I nearly bought a car from a chap who was doing that.

 

[Nod]

Solar panels can charge EVs for free.

 

[sphexx]

Solar panels can charge EVs for free.

Where do you get the free solar panels?

 

[Nod]

Extension lead from next door's panels! - They never notice when I do it at night...

 

[Pound Coin]

A quote from. Helen Rumbelow article in The Times today.

Life in slow motion


Did you know that the American crime of “jaywalking” came from lobbying by the car industry? They got panicked by mass petitions to limit the speed of vehicles and connived to make pedestrians the problem instead.

If anyone needs help getting to grips with Britain’s new “pedestrian-first” Highway Code, you could do worse than the film recorded from a street-car in San Francisco in 1906, before the car lobby did their job. These 14 minutes of footage are so relaxing: boys amble in front of cars, a fancy-Edwardian lady neatly steps on to a slow-moving tram. People, not vehicles, set the pace. I look at the lads jogging along the centre of the road in our new low-traffic neighbourhood and think, finally, a century on, we have caught up.

Everyone will know what deregulation of buses did in this country, but I imagine most people won’t know that a glorious public transport system in Los Angeles was scuppered by motor industry lobbying.

When someone types about how their freedoms in driving a car are being eroded, they should take account of how those freedoms were obtained in the first place.

 

[Deleted sulking member 63079]

,,,but the argument is silly.

"Road Tax" is just a popular synonym for "Vehicle Excise Duty" or "VED" and therefor the use of the term is entirely acceptable to the general public.

It's not earmarked for roads though.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

It's not earmarked for roads though.

...which raises the perenial question: should we ring fence all taxes, no taxes or muddle on with our current chaotic mix of pretending hypothecation and then siphoning it off to reward the political friends of the current scum (sorry) government?

 

[mj4456]

When standing at a set of traffic lights waiting for the green man to cross we watched as a woman with child in tow stepped straight onto the road uttering we have right of way now to those waiting she pushed aside, luckily it was a slow moving bus coming through and she managed to dodge it, this time, she might not be so fortunate next time, not a good lesson to teach a child?

 

[robj20]

When standing at a set of traffic lights waiting for the green man to cross we watched as a woman with child in tow stepped straight onto the road uttering we have right of way now to those waiting she pushed aside, luckily it was a slow moving bus coming through and she managed to dodge it, this time, she might not be so fortunate next time, not a good lesson to teach a child?

She didn't though did she, I thought it was only side road junctions.

 

[cambsno]

Which is why the rules are badly thought out - people will literally step out in front of you thinking they are entitled to do so, forgetting that even the best drivers need time to react

 

[Pound Coin]

The best drivers should also be observing and anticipating. People do not generally just step out - they turn and face the direction they are gong to go in.

Unless, for example, they are avoiding someone else in front of them. Which is a scenario that a best driver should be ready for...

 

[mj4456]

She didn't though did she, I thought it was only side road junctions.

Darwin may have a say in her survival.

 

[robj20]

Darwin may have a say in her survival.

Im just waiting for the first people killed, feel for the drivers.

As I understand it as a driver you now treat side roads at the junction as of they have a zebra crossing IE right of way of someone is crossing our waiting. Didn't gives the pedestrian right to step out in front of a car.

 

[bass_junkie83]

Im just waiting for the first people killed, feel for the drivers.

As I understand it as a driver you now treat side roads at the junction as of they have a zebra crossing IE right of way of someone is crossing our waiting. Didn't gives the pedestrian right to step out in front of a car.

I honestly don't see how it changes much.
Approaching a turning you always check to see if anyone is crossing, or waiting to cross the road. If someone is already crossing, clearly you can't just mow them down, that is not a new rule.
And for anyone waiting to cross, or walking towards the kerb surely you have always expected that they could just walk out and be ready to stop if they do, based on the premise that there are a lot of idiots. All that has changed now is that you have to let them cross.

 

[cambsno]

I honestly don't see how it changes much.
Approaching a turning you always check to see if anyone is crossing, or waiting to cross the road. If someone is already crossing, clearly you can't just mow them down, that is not a new rule.
And for anyone waiting to cross, or walking towards the kerb surely you have always expected that they could just walk out and be ready to stop if they do, based on the premise that there are a lot of idiots. All that has changed now is that you have to let them cross.

But in some busy towns there will be almost endless people crossing. Traffic will back up on the other road and you then have to look and make a decision if that person is actively looking to cross or just standing there (which in itself is a further distraction)

 

[Sky]

I honestly don't see how it changes much.
Approaching a turning you always check to see if anyone is crossing, or waiting to cross the road. If someone is already crossing, clearly you can't just mow them down, that is not a new rule.
And for anyone waiting to cross, or walking towards the kerb surely you have always expected that they could just walk out and be ready to stop if they do, based on the premise that there are a lot of idiots. All that has changed now is that you have to let them cross.

Finally, someone that knows the Highway Code (as it has always been in my 50+ years of using it anyway).

Cyclists have always been a PITA for car drivers (and most other road users), but mostly for the ones that don't look, indicate or consider other people's vulnerability.

The biggest problem I see coming from this change is the 'empowering' of pedestrians and cyclists into taking the attitude that 'it's my right of way - don't you dare knock me down'. The trouble is they will still get knocked down, so I think these new changes will put them in even more danger for that reason alone.

 

[Pound Coin]

But in some busy towns there will be almost endless people crossing. Traffic will back up on the other road and you then have to look and make a decision if that person is actively looking to cross or just standing there (which in itself is a further distraction)

Well, if that is the case, then the precedence between those on foot and those in vehicles needs to be looked at. Because the opposite is that pedestrians are corralled and made to wait for the drivers. (i.e. like they are expected to now…)