time to p*** off the motorists again

[Angelfishsolo]

However you want to paint it the money for the lovely smooth roads is only there because people who drive pay a lot in VED and fuel tax. DO you really think without that money we would have such a well developed road system ? Motorists are a massive source of revenue for the government and cyclists, especially those left wing hippie types with no grasp of reality, who don't own a car should be charged for being on the roads.
I personally have no respect for a grown man who does not have a car or motorbike unless they have a medical problem or they live in London or similar city. Those delusional hippies who cycle out of principal and carry that anti car agenda should be sent to live in the woods so they can wipe their arse with leaves and be a proper hippie.

You Sir are a prick of the highest order.

 

[Jezston]

Oh dear, and I actually thought at first he wasn't a troll.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Oh dear, and I actually thought at first he wasn't a troll.

We can all make mistakes.

 

[lulubel]

I don't think it's driving standards or driver training that are the issue so much as attitudes, and this is what needs to change.

Driving standards in the UK are much higher than they are here in Spain, and yet I feel safer cycling on the road here because drivers respect cyclists, and don't have the attitude that they shouldn't be on the road. Getting more people out of their cars and onto bikes is probably all it would take - cycling is a popular activity here - and the government doesn't really need to be proactive about this (by running a big ad campaign, for example) because the rising costs of running a car will just keep pricing more and more car drivers off the roads. And I'm sure those in power are very much aware of that.

 

[Black Sheep]

I have a better idea, seeing as the lovely tarmac roads that cyclists love so much are paid for by the massive rates of VED and fuel paid for by car drivers, why don't we make a law that cycles have to have their own VED and insurance before they are allowed on the road.
I also suggest that seeing as the most petrol hungry cars contribute the most money to the exchequer, we should have special lanes on all the motorways for any car over three litres or any car with more than 200 bhp.
We could invent a special rule where cyclists who have road bikes pay more in VED as they cannot survive without the roads paid for by car drivers. MTB'ers don't need roads so they can pay less. Obviously cyclists who have high powered cars get heavy discounts on VED. Also any roadie in team colours lycra should get an extra penalty as punishment for looking like a dick.

Yes, I agree completely, provided that the VED can be worked out on the current system

making all of us zero emission vehicles paying £0.00 per year just like drivers of gwhizz, prius and other hybrid / electric vehicles, adding to the cost of everyone else's VED to fund the disc that is to be displayed.

and yes, I did pay my £140 VED for my 1.3 hatch

Car drivers pay a shoot load of money in taxes for the honour of driving on the roads, the roads are built and paid for by car drivers, you can argue the semantics all you like car drivers pay a fortune and without that money to the exchequer we would not have those lovely smooth roads. Do you really think that without car drivers paying we would have a tarmac road network ?
Some people need to get real.

actually, if you work it out, the costs of maintaining (not building) the current network based on the costs purely from VED, insurance tax and fuel tax there is a -£5bn to be found from somewhere...
from costs that go straight to central government funds
some of which will end up in local council budgets
who are responsible for the roads in their area
who get the vast majority of their funding from
council tax
the only people who don't pay this are students and people who are not working / on income support or similar.



going back to the original post,

I'm looking at doing my motorbike licence this autumn, I passed my test ten years ago, just before hazard perception came in and I've failed the online practice due to clicking too early! I'm putting this down to 10 years driving, but more so, 20 years of cycling, looking further ahead and assuming people are not concentrating on driving.

I've adapted when i click and pass with flying colours by clicking a second or two later, after the hazard gets to the point I'd like to have already avoided it if possible (cars coming round blind corners while passing a parked car etc)
what I'm trying to say is, I feel the current test while good, is not perfect.

the idea of refreshing driving knowledge I do agree with, and having just renewed my licence, wondered if there ought to be a re-visit of the theory test given that things may have changed in that decade.

I don't think this would be too great an undertaking, you would have to make it possible to take it on evenings and weekends because of people who work full time, but given that the lady in the post office where I renewed it says they get people renewing them for anything up to two years after the renewal date (making the license not valid) so many people would forget or just not bother.

 

[Jezston]

I don't think it's driving standards or driver training that are the issue so much as attitudes, and this is what needs to change.

Driving standards in the UK are much higher than they are here in Spain, and yet I feel safer cycling on the road here because drivers respect cyclists, and don't have the attitude that they shouldn't be on the road. Getting more people out of their cars and onto bikes is probably all it would take - cycling is a popular activity here - and the government doesn't really need to be proactive about this (by running a big ad campaign, for example) because the rising costs of running a car will just keep pricing more and more car drivers off the roads. And I'm sure those in power are very much aware of that.

Very good point.

People in Paris drive like absolute bloody maniacs, and treat other cars like shoot, but they seem to often be far more unexpetantly patient and considerate of cyclists. I've been in situations there that would have led to being cut up, close passed, beeped at or shouted at in the UK which have resulted nothing untowards at all. I'd half expect to see some guy ram another car off the road for daring to attempt to overtake and piss on the burning remains, before encountering me and calmly sitting behind at a safe distance before I turn off.

 

[Mad at urage]

I'm looking at doing my motorbike licence this autumn, I passed my test ten years ago, just before hazard perception came in and I've failed the online practice due to clicking too early! I'm putting this down to 10 years driving, but more so, 20 years of cycling, looking further ahead and assuming people are not concentrating on driving.

I've adapted when i click and pass with flying colours by clicking a second or two later, after the hazard gets to the point I'd like to have already avoided it if possible (cars coming round blind corners while passing a parked car etc)
what I'm trying to say is, I feel the current test while good, is not perfect.

the idea of refreshing driving knowledge I do agree with, and having just renewed my licence, wondered if there ought to be a re-visit of the theory test given that things may have changed in that decade.

I don't think this would be too great an undertaking, you would have to make it possible to take it on evenings and weekends because of people who work full time, but given that the lady in the post office where I renewed it says they get people renewing them for anything up to two years after the renewal date (making the license not valid) so many people would forget or just not bother.

You've adapted your click due to your experience with computer use and computer games. Many perfectly good drivers have no experience at all of computers, have never played a computer game and have no idea that a mouse can click!

Again, forumites are basing their ideas on their own life experiences and ignoring the needs of those who don't sit at keyboards all day. After all, they're not like us, so can cheerfully be ignored .

Edit: You're exhibiting the same prejudice that mooted the abolition of cheques, because "Everyone uses a card now".

 

[Black Sheep]

You've adapted your click due to your experience with computer use and computer games. Many perfectly good drivers have no experience at all of computers, have never played a computer game and have no idea that a mouse can click!

Again, forumites are basing their ideas on their own life experiences and ignoring the needs of those who don't sit at keyboards all day. After all, they're not like us, so can cheerfully be ignored .

Edit: You're exhibiting the same prejudice that mooted the abolition of cheques, because "Everyone uses a card now".

That isn't what I said.

I said I had adapted WHEN I click, to click later in the timeline of the hazard.

However, you are correct, my gran would not be able to take the hazard perception test as she's never used a computer. However, my idea of every time the photo card license needs renewing ought to not have this problem since the older generation have paper licences that don't expire and so people who will have to renew are the people who don't know that computers used to not have a mouse.

as with most things like this, it needs to be phased in.

 

[Nigel-YZ1]

So as long as you pass a test it's ok to walk away from the examiner, get in a car, recline the seat like a deck chair, turn your hat sideways, scream off in a cloud of burning rubber while steering with your elbow pointed at the sky and one hand on the wheel, blabbing into your mobile and tailgating, bullying, driving head on and screaming abuse at everyone (and yes, I know someone who did and does just that!).
He'll pass a perception test every time - but mowing me down is more fun in the real world.


It's the attitudes and the 'I can get away with it' culture that's killing people.

Even the yellow boxes are being covered up now. That's another law to be broken with impunity.


BTW You'll never convince anyone that's paid a lot of money for something that they're entitled to nothing. It's better to say - "Yes, you're entitled to all this, but we'll take it away if..."
It's the 'take it away if...' bit that's missing these days. No one stresses the consequences enough.

 

[Mad at urage]

That isn't what I said.

I said I had adapted WHEN I click, to click later in the timeline of the hazard.

However, you are correct, my gran would not be able to take the hazard perception test as she's never used a computer. However, my idea of every time the photo card license needs renewing ought to not have this problem since the older generation have paper licences that don't expire and so people who will have to renew are the people who don't know that computers used to not have a mouse.

as with most things like this, it needs to be phased in.

Not true, when we moved house we had to get a new licence, this is then a photo-card licence, which expires.

So as long as you pass a test it's ok to walk away from the examiner, get in a car, recline the seat like a deck chair, turn your hat sideways, scream off in a cloud of burning rubber while steering with your elbow pointed at the sky and one hand on the wheel, blabbing into your mobile and tailgating, bullying, driving head on and screaming abuse at everyone (and yes, I know someone who did and does just that!).
He'll pass a perception test every time - but mowing me down is more fun in the real world.


It's the attitudes and the 'I can get away with it' culture that's killing people.

Even the yellow boxes are being covered up now. That's another law to be broken with impunity.


BTW You'll never convince anyone that's paid a lot of money for something that they're entitled to nothing. It's better to say - "Yes, you're entitled to all this, but we'll take it away if..."
It's the 'take it away if...' bit that's missing these days. No one stresses the consequences enough.

+1 or whatever de yoofz say

 

[henshaw11]

However you want to paint it the money for the lovely smooth roads is only there because people who drive pay a lot in VED and fuel tax. DO you really think without that money we would have such a well developed road system ? Motorists are a massive source of revenue for the government and cyclists, especially those left wing hippie types with no grasp of reality, who don't own a car should be charged for being on the roads.
I personally have no respect for a grown man who does not have a car or motorbike unless they have a medical problem or they live in London or similar city. Those delusional hippies who cycle out of principal and carry that anti car agenda should be sent to live in the woods so they can wipe their arse with leaves and be a proper hippie.

I'm sure there's a bridge missing your presence, but here goes...apologies if the Guardian's a bit too lefty to be considered your reading material, but beggars, etc..if it's troublesome you could always ask a responsible adult to read it to you

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/2011/aug/15/cyclists-paved-way-for-roads

best read the whole thing, but as a snippett:

"Cyclists' organisations, such as Cyclists' Touring Club in the UK and League of American Wheelmen (LAW) in the US, lobbied county surveyors and politicians to build better roads. The US Good Roads movement, set up by LAW, was highly influential. LAW once had the then US president turn up at its annual general meeting.The CTC individual in charge of the UK version of the Good Roads movement, William Rees Jeffreys, organised asphalt trials before cars became common. He took the reins of the Roads Improvement Association (RIA) in 1890, while working for the CTC."

"The CTC created the RIA in 1885 and, in 1886, organised the first ever Roads Conference in Britain. With patronage – and cash – from aristocrats and royals, the CTC published influential pamphlets on road design and how to create better road surfaces. In some areas, county surveyors took this on board (some were CTC members) and started to improve their local roads.Even though it was started and paid for by cyclists, the RIA stressed from its foundation that it was lobbying for better roads to be used by all, not just cyclists."




The majority of road spending/development in the early decades of the 20thC was funded from council/government - only a fraction came from then 'road tax'. Even when there was a 'road fund' some time later (hence the term 'road fund licence' the intention was to be used for maintenance - ie *damage* done by motor vehicles - rather than roading building as such - and is was later to be wound up anyway:

http://ipayroadtax.com/no-such-thing-as-road-tax/bring-back-the-road-fund/

Partway down that page there's a 5yr-by5yr breakdown of relative revenues/spends...

As I 'm sure has been posted already, VED is now a behaviour modifier - cyclists pay same as any other low emmisions vehicle - and if some figures I've seen recently (mebbe a thread here discussing it) are accurate then roads are effectively subsidised, VED only pays a proportion of all the cost involved.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

I'm sure there's a bridge missing your presence, but here goes...apologies if the Guardian's a bit too lefty to be considered your reading material, but beggars, etc..if it's troublesome you could always ask a responsible adult to read it to you

http://www.guardian....d-way-for-roads

best read the whole thing, but as a snippett:

"Cyclists' organisations, such as Cyclists' Touring Club in the UK and League of American Wheelmen (LAW) in the US, lobbied county surveyors and politicians to build better roads. The US Good Roads movement, set up by LAW, was highly influential. LAW once had the then US president turn up at its annual general meeting.The CTC individual in charge of the UK version of the Good Roads movement, William Rees Jeffreys, organised asphalt trials before cars became common. He took the reins of the Roads Improvement Association (RIA) in 1890, while working for the CTC."

"The CTC created the RIA in 1885 and, in 1886, organised the first ever Roads Conference in Britain. With patronage – and cash – from aristocrats and royals, the CTC published influential pamphlets on road design and how to create better road surfaces. In some areas, county surveyors took this on board (some were CTC members) and started to improve their local roads.Even though it was started and paid for by cyclists, the RIA stressed from its foundation that it was lobbying for better roads to be used by all, not just cyclists."




The majority of road spending/development in the early decades of the 20thC was funded from council/government - only a fraction came from then 'road tax'. Even when there was a 'road fund' some time later (hence the term 'road fund licence' the intention was to be used for maintenance - ie *damage* done by motor vehicles - rather than roading building as such - and is was later to be wound up anyway:

http://ipayroadtax.c...-the-road-fund/

Partway down that page there's a 5yr-by5yr breakdown of relative revenues/spends...

As I 'm sure has been posted already, VED is now a behaviour modifier - cyclists pay same as any other low emmisions vehicle - and if some figures I've seen recently (mebbe a thread here discussing it) are accurate then roads are effectively subsidised, VED only pays a proportion of all the cost involved.

 

[growingvegetables]

Motorists are a massive source of revenue for the government and cyclists, especially those left wing hippie types with no grasp of reality, who don't own a car should be charged for being on the roads.

ROFLMAO- Never let it be said that you allowed simple, basic facts to standin the way of your trolling pleasure.

DVLAAnnual Report & Accounts 2009-10 - “The Agency collected over £5,742m in VED” from which deduct “Thecost of VED collection in total was £129.9m” - a balance of £5,612million

Asagainst the budget for

• the Highways Agency (responsible only for strategic routes in England) was £4,857 million.<li>The roads budget for Transport Scotland (37% of £2.2 billion) – similarly responsible only for strategic routes – was £814 million.
  

That £5,671 million only covers central government expenditure on 3%of the road network, and you'realready being subsidised.

Now,instead of bleating about motorists being ripped off, do your******* homework. Go off and find the same budget figures for NorthernIreland, Wales, aye and for over 250 local authorities who look after97% of the road network.

Then add the cost of policing the roadnetwork; the cost for fire and rescue services for the road network;the costs of running air ambulance services; the costs to the NHS(who can only claim reimbursement from motor insurers to a maximum of£10,000 per case).

Ifyou're really diligent, you'll also find the costs of trafficpollution to the nation, and the costs of congestion to the economy(because there's simply too many of you).



Whenyou've done that, please feel free to come back to end offer me aconvincing argument why I (a non-car-owner) should be subsidising your motoring. And I might consider making similarly offensive (but much more painful) suggestions to return your compliments.

 

[Jezston]

*applause*

 

[Angelfishsolo]

ROFLMAO- Never let it be said that you allowed simple, basic facts to standin the way of your trolling pleasure.

DVLAAnnual Report & Accounts 2009-10 - “The Agency collected over £5,742m in VED” from which deduct “Thecost of VED collection in total was £129.9m” - a balance of £5,612million

I get the rest of the post and applaud the sentiment. Could you explain the quoted paragraph as the figures make no sense to me.