cyclists to pay their way?

Discussion in 'Road Cycling' started by Fred, Mar 28, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Fred

    Fred Guest

    This article appeared in my local paper! Any comments for printable feed-back? Fred

    North Wales Weekly News 27/3/03

    Is it time for cyclists to pay their way?

    One of my strict rules over the years has been to go the extra mile to ensure the safety of
    cyclists on the road, writes IAN JOHNSON. Sadly, in recent times that extra mile has been goobled
    up by driving far over to the wrong side of the road to avoid gaggles of them that frequently
    insist on riding two three and sometimes four abreast on narrow lanes. It may be a naïve view, but
    years ago cyclists were a gentle breed who would always acknowledged the fact that you gave them a
    wide berth. But in recent times a new generation has made it’s mark. Although there are still
    thousands of courteous cyclists wou still have my respect there is a hard core of them who have a
    severe attitude problem, illustrated by three incidents I witnessed recently. Firstly a mountain
    biker who wanted to change lanes stopped a whole flow of traffic to do so by pressing the button on
    a pedestrian crossing. Secondly a man on a cycle with duff brakes was talking on a mobile phone
    when he hit the car of an elderly woman. He started to use keywords, ” jobless” and “on benefit”
    leaving the woman in no doubt over the loss of her no claims bonus for paintwork repairs. Then to
    crown it all a gaggle of cyclists swept round a bend taking up all the cycle track and pedestrian
    way forcing a mother with pram into the road. Their language was disgusting. Maybe cyclists should
    be more accountable for their use of the road and their actions. Many millions of pounds, may be
    funded via the road tax drivers pay, has been spent on miles of maroon tarmac for cycleways. So why
    shouldn’t cyclists pay their way? I don’t suggest a £50 road tax, but perhaps an annual safety
    inspection fee to help contribute to their special bits of road. And as cycling is becoming such a
    boom activity isn’t it time the adults who take part were forced to pay a third party insurance
    premium every year?
     
    Tags:


  2. Jpfler

    Jpfler Guest

    "Fred"@invalid.btinternet.com posted article from North Wales Weekly News
    27/3/03-

    >Is it time for cyclists to pay their way?

    >And as cycling is becoming such a boom activity isn’t it time the adults who take part were
    >forced to pay a third party insurance premium every year?

    NO!

    Jim
     
  3. >And as cycling is becoming such a boom activity isn’t it time the adults who take part were
    >forced to pay a third party insurance premium every year?

    Apart from "no" as an answer, he really doesn't know his insurance, does he? Many people in the UK
    already have it as part of their household insurance (it's in the small print) and if you are a
    member of the CTC or BCF, you get it as a perk of membership. So that's a fair few cyclists who
    already have it. Typical ignorant motorist ;-)

    Cheers, helen s

    ~~~~~~~~~~
    Flush out that intestinal parasite and/or the waste product before sending a reply!

    Any speeliong mistake$ aR the resiult of my cats sitting on the keyboaRRRDdd
    ~~~~~~~~~~
     
  4. Tanya Quinn

    Tanya Quinn Guest

    I don't know how the tax system works for you over there.. but in Canada and most of the U.S. I
    believe local roads are funded by municipal (property) taxes, and highways are funded by higher
    levels of government (often from gas tax). So since cyclists cannot travel on the roads funded by
    gas tax, and do pay local taxes, they have an equal right to be on the road as motor vehicles.

    You should mention in your feedback that you are a responsible cyclist that obeys all of the rules
    of the road, and you believe in ticketing any ones that do such flagrant things as mentioned in the
    article, just as car drivers should get ticketed when running lights, failing to signal lane
    changes, parking on the sidewalk etc.

    Also cyclists cause far less "wear and tear" to the roads than motor vehicles do.

    You may also want to highlight economic benefits of cycling. Less cars on the road, less air
    pollution, less unproductive time spent sitting in gridlock. That extra costs to discourage cycling
    will lead to more cars on the road, more pollution, more gridlock.

    Some statistics comparing the average amount of damage done by a cyclist in a collision at fault vs.
    a car at fault in a collision (extremely negligible) and the fact that cyclists rarely cause anyone
    to be hospitalized as arguments against mandatory third-party liability. Pedestrians don't have to
    carry third-party liability insurance to walk around, and people running can knock others over,
    trample on property etc. Where do you draw the line?

    And the anti-cyclist author should actual like paying for bicycle trails to keep more bicyclists out
    of his path!

    "Fred" <"Fred"@invalid.btinternet.com> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > This article appeared in my local paper! Any comments for printable feed-back? Fred
    >
    >
    > North Wales Weekly News 27/3/03
    >
    >
    > Is it time for cyclists to pay their way?
    >
    > One of my strict rules over the years has been to go the extra mile to ensure the safety of
    > cyclists on the road, writes IAN JOHNSON. Sadly, in recent times that extra mile has been goobled
    > up by driving far over to the wrong side of the road to avoid gaggles of them that frequently
    > insist on riding two three and sometimes four abreast on narrow lanes. It may be a naïve view, but
    > years ago cyclists were a gentle breed who would always acknowledged the fact that you gave them a
    > wide berth. But in recent times a new generation has made it?s mark. Although there are still
    > thousands of courteous cyclists wou still have my respect there is a hard core of them who have a
    > severe attitude problem, illustrated by three incidents I witnessed recently. Firstly a mountain
    > biker who wanted to change lanes stopped a whole flow of traffic to do so by pressing the button
    > on a pedestrian crossing. Secondly a man on a cycle with duff brakes was talking on a mobile phone
    > when he hit the car of an elderly woman. He started to use keywords, ? jobless? and ?on benefit?
    > leaving the woman in no doubt over the loss of her no claims bonus for paintwork repairs. Then to
    > crown it all a gaggle of cyclists swept round a bend taking up all the cycle track and pedestrian
    > way forcing a mother with pram into the road. Their language was disgusting. Maybe cyclists should
    > be more accountable for their use of the road and their actions. Many millions of pounds, may be
    > funded via the road tax drivers pay, has been spent on miles of maroon tarmac for cycleways. So
    > why shouldn?t cyclists pay their way? I don?t suggest a £50 road tax, but perhaps an annual safety
    > inspection fee to help contribute to their special bits of road. And as cycling is becoming such a
    > boom activity isn?t it time the adults who take part were forced to pay a third party insurance
    > premium every year?
     
  5. On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:34:29 -0500, Fred wrote:

    > Firstly a mountain biker who wanted to change lanes stopped a whole flow of traffic to do so by
    > pressing the button on a pedestrian crossing.

    Terrrible thing! I imagine you would be just as upset had a pedestrian had the audacity to press
    that button.

    To cross very busy streets with traffic that will not yield, it is sometimes the only way. Now,
    to be proper the cyclist should have walked across the street, but I would not deduct much if
    he didn't.

    > Secondly a man on a cycle with duff brakes was talking on a mobile phone when he hit the car of an
    > elderly woman. He started to use keywords, ” jobless” and “on benefit” leaving the woman in no
    > doubt over the loss of her no claims bonus for paintwork repairs.

    I am sorry for her experience. The cyclist in that case was at fault, since it is not possible for
    him to safely operate his vehicle and use a cell-phone, as he so clearly demonstrated. But this
    happens all the time, with the at-fault person also driving a car. Why get more upset becuase the
    fool is on a bike? The damage is more serious from being hit by a car.

    > Then to crown it all a gaggle of cyclists swept round a bend taking up all the cycle track and
    > pedestrian way forcing a mother with pram into the road. Their language was disgusting.

    If I saw that, I would find out what group they were with and report them.

    > Maybe cyclists should be more accountable for their use of the road and their actions.

    No doubt.

    > Many millions of pounds, may be funded via the road tax drivers pay, has been spent on miles of
    > maroon tarmac for cycleways.

    Most of that at the behest of drivers and automobile associations, who do not want to share the road
    with cyclists. Not, to my mind, the best option.

    > So why shouldn’t cyclists pay their way?

    Indeed, why not?

    I don’t suggest a £50 road tax, but perhaps an
    > annual safety inspection fee to help contribute to their special bits of road. And as cycling is
    > becoming such a boom activity isn’t it time the adults who take part were forced to pay a third
    > party insurance premium every year?

    Possibly so. The only thing to keep in mind is that, in return for equivalent fees and requirements
    with automobile traffic, cyclists might demand equivalent treatment on the roads. Think about that
    the next time you pass a cyclist in a no-passing zone.

    --

    David L. Johnson

    __o | "It doesn't get any easier, you just go faster." --Greg LeMond _`\(,_ | (_)/ (_) |
     
  6. Hunrobe

    Hunrobe Guest

    Since I don't know how roadway construction and maintenance is funded in Wales, my only response
    would be to ask what the one thing- discourteous, unsafe, under/noninsured, foulmouthed people
    riding bicycles- has to do with the other- taxes. I've never heard of any government imposed tax
    that makes people more courteous, more mindful of safety, or better insured. There likely is a
    correlation between the use of profanity and taxes but here in the States raising taxes doesn't
    *discourage* profane language. Maybe the Welsh are different though. <g>

    Regards, Bob Hunt
     
  7. On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 18:34:29 +0000 (UTC), "Fred" <"Fred"@invalid.btinternet.com> said:

    >And as cycling is becoming such a boom activity isn’t it time the adults who take part were forced
    >to pay a third party insurance premium every year?

    The rip-off known as insurance is the reason nobody can afford a car anymore, and I damn sure ain't
    paying insurance to ride a bike.

    --

    I think. Therefore, I am not a conservative! ------ http://www.todayslastword.org -------
     
  8. Fred

    Fred Guest

    Thank you all for your moderated views, I have decided to ignore the writer and not send the
    following: Fred

    I wholeheartedly agree with Mr IAN JOHNSON whose knowledge seems to be only exceeded by his
    tolerance. Having ridden for years on my bike, I think it was only last year around Easter that
    I too came across a 'gaggle ' of cyclists riding three or for abreast, even racing. My
    suspicions were confirmed when I saw a car with some cycles on it's roof following this unruly
    bunch even shouting expletives to some of the riders, obviously trying to pass, without success,
    I may add. And as for passing cyclists, nobody in their right mind should give them a wide
    berth, motorists in their cars should drive as close as possible to the deviant member of
    society and gently squeeze them, after overtaking them, into the gutter, after all that is where
    cyclists belong. If they can't afford to drive a car like the rest of us, they should use public
    transport or if they do own a car make sure that before using their beloved pushbikes, they
    leave the cars engine running in order to ensure that at least petrol tax is paid and car
    manufacturers are given an incentive to ensure the development of environmentally cleaner
    engines. Not to mention that the National Health Service may find it needs fewer doctors, nurses
    and hospital beds due to this unreasonable desire for a healthy lifestyle. After all mountain
    bikers are an especially fit breed and if anything they must realise, that pedestrian crossings
    are only for the infirm and fit bikers should be able to cross the road without the benefit of a
    green light in their favour, thereby depriving a hapless motorist of a 'clean kill'! Shame on
    all those who cause a delay to the busy and responsible motoring public. With regard to the
    colourful tarmac, so freely laid by our enlightened local authority, and paid for by council tax
    payers (rates) it is obvious that cyclists are usually on benefit and unemployed and are
    recipients of moneys paid for by the hardworking motoring public. But I reasoned, that as a
    motorist, I am usually able to park my car within the allotted , colourful space at the
    roadside, just when I need to get my cigarettes or paper from the local shop and have found by
    ignoring demurring cyclists I can get on with my selfish life, quite happily! Even our local
    'wibbly wobbly way' is far too expensive to maintain as a cycle route with its cracking, apple
    green tarmac. It only attracts pebbles, broken glass, dogs**t (in plastic bags & loose),
    pedestrians who are constantly harassed by two wheelers, picnickers who would like to enjoy the
    seaside from their cars with the doors wide open and last but not least our wonderful fishermen
    who can't swing 8oz of lead attached to a 2in three pronged hook, without some cyclist
    interrupting a carefully prepared cast.

    Finally, I can only assume that anybody not having graduated to four motorised wheels after
    reaching the age of 17 years is not fully developed and should certainly be kept indoors for their
    own safety!
     
  9. W K

    W K Guest

    "Fred" <"Fred"@invalid.btinternet.com> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > This article appeared in my local paper! Any comments for printable feed-back?

    > their actions. Many millions of pounds, may be funded via the road tax drivers pay, has been spent
    > on miles of maroon tarmac for cycleways.

    It should be pointed out that most of the cycleways are not for the benefit of cyclists, but as
    traffic claming measures to slow cars down. It works by giving the driver the impression that the
    road is narrower.
     
  10. >Finally, I can only assume that anybody not having graduated to four motorised wheels after
    >reaching the age of 17 years is not fully developed and should certainly be kept indoors for their
    >own safety!
    >
    >

    Snooze... yawn ...

    ~~~~~~~~~~
    Flush out that intestinal parasite and/or the waste product before sending a reply!

    Any speeliong mistake$ aR the resiult of my cats sitting on the keyboaRRRDdd
    ~~~~~~~~~~
     
  11. On Sat, 29 Mar 2003 05:09:40 GMT in rec.bicycles.misc, [email protected] (Pete Rose Was
    Cool) wrote:

    > The rip-off known as insurance is the reason nobody can afford a car anymore,

    sorry, but when some idiot cager hits me, i want him to be insured. where i live, if you get caught
    driving without insurance, they impound the car until it's insured, and rightly so.
     
  12. Hunrobe

    Hunrobe Guest

    > [email protected]

    wrote:

    >The rip-off known as insurance is the reason nobody can afford a car anymore, and I damn sure ain't
    >paying insurance to ride a bike.

    Do you hear that, everyone? No one can afford a car so the roads are ours!

    "Free at last, free at last! Thank God Almighty, I am free at last!"

    Just don't tempt fate by assuming all that automobile traffic is an optical illusion. There may be
    one or two uninsured motorists mixed in with the filthy rich that can still afford cars.

    Regards, Bob Hunt
     
  13. Pete Hickey

    Pete Hickey Guest

    In article <[email protected]>, Hunrobe <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Do you hear that, everyone? No one can afford a car so the roads are ours!
    >
    >"Free at last, free at last! Thank God Almighty, I am free at last!"

    "And he said the word. And what was the word? Hot Dog!"

    -Pete

    --
    --
    LITTLE KNOWN FACT: Did you know that 90% of North Americans cannot taste the difference between
    fried dog and fried cat?
     
  14. Alan

    Alan Guest

    I think we're all Bozos on this bus.

    --

    alan

    Anyone who believes in a liberal media has never read the "Daily Oklahoman."

    "Pete Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:_SLha.53014>
    > "And he said the word. And what was the word? Hot Dog!"
     
  15. (Reposting article deleted by rogue canceler...)

    On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 18:34:29 +0000 (UTC), "Fred" <"Fred"@invalid.btinternet.com> said:

    >And as cycling is becoming such a boom activity isn’t it time the adults who take part were forced
    >to pay a third party insurance premium every year?

    The rip-off known as insurance is the reason nobody can afford a car anymore, and I damn sure ain't
    paying insurance to ride a bike.

    --

    *** Cancel my posts, and I repost 'em! *** *** It's called free speech - live with it ***

    I think. Therefore, I am not a conservative! ------ http://www.todayslastword.org -------
     
  16. (Reposting article deleted by rogue canceler...)

    On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 18:34:29 +0000 (UTC), "Fred" <"Fred"@invalid.btinternet.com> said:

    >And as cycling is becoming such a boom activity isn’t it time the adults who take part were forced
    >to pay a third party insurance premium every year?

    The rip-off known as insurance is the reason nobody can afford a car anymore, and I damn sure ain't
    paying insurance to ride a bike.

    --

    *** Cancel my posts, and I repost 'em! *** *** It's called free speech - live with it ***

    I think. Therefore, I am not a conservative! ------ http://www.todayslastword.org -------
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...