Half Cyclist????

[hubgearfreak]

as SOHSS says there are good and bad cyclists, car drivers, bus drivers etc. We need to focus on the bad road users in all of the groups

we could do that, and pander to clarkson et al, or we could be concerned by the groups of bad road users that kill 1000's each year

 

[magnatom]

as for irritated drivers, many of us cyclists also pay VED and insurance & etc. on our motors but decide to leave them at home. others of us are too young to do so. so most cyclists would fit into the category of child or low mileage motorist who's subsidises those wedded to their cars. so a driver who is irritated by who he views to be the freeloaders is really a dumbass, IMO.
a driver who gets irritated probably isn't the calm sort that should be in charge of something big and dangerous anyhow

however, their use of the road is a privilege, that can be revoked.
they can't ban you from cycling, can they?

Ummm, with regards to the cyclists who also pay VED, insurance etc and drive a reasonably low milage, you'll find I am one of them. Thinking that you subsidise anyone is to place a dirty great chip on your shoulder. You pay so that you can have the use of the car. You pay for no-one else. Remember VED does not subsidise the roads or anything else related to car driving, it goes towards general taxation. You argument sounds very similar to one often used by car drivers...

Drivers will not listen to any group, who sees themselves as 'mighter than though'. I agree that cars are far more dangerous than bikes, of course they are, but suggesting that we should focus our enegy purely on one group (drivers) whilst ignoring another (cyclists) would only antagonise, no matter how right you think you are in your argument.

 

[hubgearfreak]

Ummm, with regards to the cyclists who also pay VED, insurance etc and drive a reasonably low milage, you'll find I am one of them. Thinking that you subsidise anyone is to place a dirty great chip on your shoulder. You pay so that you can have the use of the car. You pay for no-one else. Remember VED does not subsidise the roads or anything else related to car driving, it goes towards general taxation. You argument sounds very similar to one often used by car drivers....

i get your point & you're right.

but if the funds raised by VED was put onto fuel, and the same amount collected, they'd pay more, and me less.

also, given that the VED doesn't go far (or directly) towards the true costs of motoring, all motoring is subsidised. the more miles you do, the more the subsidy.

presumably, that the VED only pays part of the true costs of motoring (say 1/10th or 1/3rd or whatever) then there must be an annual mileage (1/3rd or 1/10th of the average) that isn't subsidised

 

[magnatom]

i get your point & you're right.

but if the funds raised by VED was put onto fuel, and the same amount collected, they'd pay more, and me less.

also, given that the VED doesn't go far (or directly) towards the true costs of motoring, all motoring is subsidised. the more miles you do, the more the subsidy.

presumably, that the VED only pays part of the true costs of motoring (say 1/10th or 1/3rd or whatever) then there must be an annual mileage (1/3rd or 1/10th of the average) that isn't subsidised

Then you need to lobby your MP for changes to the way cars and driving are taxed. However, this has nothing to do with the rights or wrongs of being on the road.