Bring back the Road Fund!

[brokenbetty]

Are you going to ask pedestrians to pay it too? If not why not?

No I'm not, because

1. people are pedestrians by default (invalid carriages aside, and I believe those are registered)

2. you have to draw the arbitrary line somewhere. I draw it roughly between wheels and feet rather than engines and no engines

In case you were wondering, I don't think prams need licenses either - because they are pushed by pedestrians.

 

[brokenbetty]

This is just paranoid waffle. Anyone that thinks that has been locked up in their mettle cage a bit too often

I don't own a metal cage.

 

[marinyork]

I don't own a metal cage.

Were you kidnapped and tortured by cyclists in the past?

I don't really get the obstinate nature of your views on VED (and now apparently on other issues). Some people think small gestures would work but most wouldn't go as far as your gesture politics. A lot of others believe that cyclists are an out group and that it doesn't make a great deal of difference beyond a certain point.

If any motorist had a sane conversation they would find out that I do have insurance and they might be shocked at how high a proportion it is compared to the vehicles of death that collectively wipe out people in the thousands every year and the insurance is only a few times more for a lot of the grumblers. For damage to cost it would be more akin to the much higher insurance that some younger drivers pay (or their parents).

It's the dark time of year again. Can I start grumbling about lights? There are a lot of lazy sods out there that don't bother to check or replace their lights. It costs them a lot less money for them to sort out their lights than it does mine on the bike. How about some sympathy towards cyclists and we start taxing bulbs in car lights a lot more heavily? No, thought not.

As for being accountable, as I've already pointed out, it is the other way round, drivers are in general less accountable than other people in various ways of measuring it, which is why numberplates aren't such a big deal. I've been driven into and people driven off. As for being identifiable, I've been followed before by nutcases. I've even seen road rage and people go up and punch cyclists. None of these accusations really wash.

It's just that motorists want to feel oppressed. You sympathise with them. You're welcome to do that but I don't see why any of the rest of us should be dragged along.

 

[Origamist]

2. you have to draw the arbitrary line somewhere. I draw it roughly between wheels and feet rather than engines and no engines

I prefer to "roughly" draw the line between human powered locomotion (walking, cycling, skating etc) and engine powered locomotion. Thankfully, as far as cycling licences go, the overwhelming majority of democracies, communist states, theocracies, dictatorships, etc tend to agree with me.

 

[theclaud]

They aren't that different. Better to look for common ground - to work to create it even - than emphsise how different we are all the time.

But right now they also send out a message that says they don't want to be insured, accountable or identifiable. And that message is heard all the time, whether or not they are on the bike.

How do you feel about harmless transgressions or minor errors by drivers?

I'm with Origamist on where you draw the line. And I don't think there's anything arbitrary about it. You can either get around in any number of harmless, convivial, egalitarian ways, or you can choose to hurtle around in a tonne of metal at high speed and sacrifice all those virtues.

 

[Bollo]

I don't think it legitimises the prejudices of motorists. It does the opposite. It says "we are all treated the same, we are all road users". For £15 or so, why would you not want to send that message?

To be truly mainstream cycling needs to grow up, and sometimes being a grownup means doing the paperwork and paying the taxes before you go out and play.

I agree completely, apart from the the £15 bit. Why do I have to pay such a high premium! It's unfair! I want to blockade something!!!


Taken from the link in the OP....

"The payment-by-axle load argument has been developed by Rob Ainsley over on Realcycling.co.uk:

The standard figure is that damage to roads is proportional to the fourth power of the axle weight. So a rough figure suggests that a car, which weighs about ten times as much as a cyclist (say 1000kg versus 100kg) should pay 10×10x10×10, or 10,000 times as much in ‘road tax’. So if a car pays £100 a year, the cyclist pays 1p. I’d happily pay my next 50 years’ ‘road tax’ now if it would shut up those certain motorists."

...which of course doesn't even factor in the impact of Co2 emissions, the cost of policing the roads, direct (injuries in or caused by vehicles) or indirect (obesity) health costs and environmental and other quality of life issues.

Oh, and for that I expect the development of city centre bike parks, the construction of uninterrupted cycleways (some people's houses may be subject to compulsory purchase but hey, that's progress) and a couple of hundred quid subsidy to upgrade my bike when the economy's looking a bit iffy. It's only fair. That's what my equitable 1p 'entitles' me to.

And after that bit of cathartic sarcasm, that's the whole point here. Many (not all) motorists have a completely unfounded sense of entitlement to use the roads at the expense of all others, pedestrians included. I don't see why I should pay a tax on other people's ignorance.

 

[brokenbetty]

Were you kidnapped and tortured by cyclists in the past?

No, unless it was so traumatic I've blotted it out. All that lyrca!

But I commute by bike every day. I am quite passionate about it, in my own way. And I'm very conscious that all that seems to come from cyclists is demands and criticism. More cyclepaths! More road space! Punish the bad drivers! Let us jump red lights and go against one way streets! Give us the pavements as well!

And any criticism is met with "well, drivers are worse".

Cycling is increasing in popularity. More cyclists are great, but behaviour that can is barely noticed when it's a few people may not work when it's everyone. If we don't get the road sharing sorted soon cyclists really will be pushed out. I think a visible gesture that says "we have grown up and we want to meet you half way" would go a very long way.

I don't really get the obstinate nature of your views on VED (and now apparently on other issues). Some people think small gestures would work but most wouldn't go as far as your gesture politics

Yes it's a gesture. So are please and thank you - that doesn't make them worthless. Humans have a great talent for rationalising what they want to do but at the end of the day it usually boils down to "it must be ok, cos it's me doing it". That's something I make a conscious effort to avoid.

 

[brokenbetty]

I prefer to "roughly" draw the line between human powered locomotion (walking, cycling, skating etc) and engine powered locomotion. Thankfully, as far as cycling licences go, the overwhelming majority of democracies, communist states, theocracies, dictatorships, etc tend to agree with me.

That's where car drivers usually draw it too.

 

[StuartG]

I wanna VED on my bike(s) cos I wanna save the planet. Now the going rate is:

VED band CO2 emissions (g/km)

A Up to 100 £0
B 101-120 £35
C 121-150 £120
D 151-165 £145
E 166-185 £170
F Over 185 £210

Now a bike is around 3g/km. Put a regression line through that lot and it should come out at around -£200. Being paid £200 to put a licence on my bike. By gad I've got 4. Asda sells more for £70 each. How big is my garage? They can even keep £50 for fully comp insurance.

Not fair Mr Motorist? I don't understand, it was your idea!

 

[Origamist]

That's where car drivers usually draw it too.

Great - nothing wrong with common ground - it's not us versus them. This is what we need to build on!

 

[brokenbetty]

Great - nothing wrong with common ground - it's not us versus them. This is what we need to build on!

Your common ground is an agreement that you don't have anything in common

 

[Bollo]

......And I'm very conscious that all that seems to come from cyclists is demands and criticism. More cyclepaths! More road space! Punish the bad drivers! Let us jump red lights and go against one way streets! Give us the pavements as well!
....

All that seems to come from cyclists. A bit sweeping that one? Lets take each demand and criticism at a time.

More cyclepaths! Not by me. Not really by many cycling organisations. Good cycle paths have their place. Poor cycle paths are dangerous. In this country, we have more poor than good, so simply calling for 'more' means more 'poor'.

More road space! It's the motorists' entitlement thing again. I have greater rights on the road as a cyclist than I do as a motorist. In exercising that right, I only ask for as much space as keeps me safe. The same as a reasonable motorist. I don't like to be tailgated while driving on the motorway and I don't like close passes while riding, because both put my life at risk.

Punish the bad drivers! Errrr yes - so bad drivers should be given even more leeway than at present?! Motorists responsible for the deaths of others are almost always given lighter sentences (often non-custodial!) than for any other offence leading to death. See this fella for a coal-face discussion of the law and motoring.

Let us jump red lights and go against one way streets! Err No. Cyclists do it, but even those that do probably aren't seeking a law change. Cyclists breaking the law should be punished to a degree commensurate with the crime.

Give us the pavements as well! - Hell no. Pavements are for pedestrians. If a cyclist rides on a non-shared use path, see the answer above about punishment. Shared use paths are a sop to remove cyclists from the road without spending anything on an alternative. They create confusion about where cyclists belong - "If I can ride on this bit of pavement because there's paint on it, why can't I ride on that identical bit of pavement with no paint?"



Finally, the general statement that cyclists are critical and demanding. I'll issue a challenge. You find published articles that demand or criticise cycling provision and opine the poor treatment of cyclists, and I'll do the same for motoring. Before you start, I'll let you know that I'll be looking at sites for the Road Hauliers' Association, the CBI, the AA and RAC, Safespeed who now have the ear of the conservative transport minister, the Countryside Alliance, the Vehicle Manufacturer's Association, fuelprotest.com, the Express, Mail, Telegraph, Times, Sun, specialist motoring publications and the online musings of TV personalities such as Clarkson and Littlejohn. For starters. I'll take a bet that cyclists come pretty low down on the whingometer compared to that lot.

 

[brokenbetty]

All that seems to come from cyclists. A bit sweeping that one? Lets take each demand and criticism at a time.
.....

You don't get it, do you? Yes, every point you make is exactly right, but it DOESN'T MATTER. Because as long as all all you are doing is complaining about the other guy you'll never change anything, just breed resentment create them and us.

If you want to change things you start by changing what you do, not by demanding others change. You say "ok, I see why that bothers you, I'll change it." Motes and beams.

 

[Origamist]

Your common ground is an agreement that you don't have anything in common

Of course we do - we all hate black cab drivers.

Seriously though, what you've written is nonsensical. Cyclists and drivers do share common ground - quite literally - the roads.

 

[Cab]

...which of course doesn't even factor in the impact of Co2 emissions, the cost of policing the roads, direct (injuries in or caused by vehicles) or indirect (obesity) health costs and environmental and other quality of life issues.

Oh, and for that I expect the development of city centre bike parks, the construction of uninterrupted cycleways (some people's houses may be subject to compulsory purchase but hey, that's progress) and a couple of hundred quid subsidy to upgrade my bike when the economy's looking a bit iffy. It's only fair. That's what my equitable 1p 'entitles' me to.

And after that bit of cathartic sarcasm, that's the whole point here. Many (not all) motorists have a completely unfounded sense of entitlement to use the roads at the expense of all others, pedestrians included. I don't see why I should pay a tax on other people's ignorance.

Thats one of the most superbly elegant and well reasoned rants I've ever seen. Bravo