cyclists to pay their way?

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?

 

"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

 

>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
~~~~~~~~~~

 

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?

 

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 _`\(,_ | (_)/ (_) |

 

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

 

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 -------

 

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!

 

"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.

 

>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
~~~~~~~~~~

 

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.

 

> [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

 

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?

 

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!"

 

(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 -------

 

(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 -------