Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Sensible comment
10 views
Skip to first unread message
Mrcheerful
May 24, 2013, 4:25:34 AM5/24/13
to
"bigtamg
As has been pointed out car excise duty / road tax is based on emissions.
The least polluting cars are free, so obviously cyclists should be also.
However they should be subject to the same registration requirements as
cars - i.e. central register and registration plate.
The roads are very busy - and when you think of the volume of road traffic
laws - highly regulated.
Cyclists want to operate in this highly regulated environment, so they
should be subject to the same controls and responsibilities as other road
users - if a car owner breaks the law they can be tracked via their
registration plate - no reason for cyclists to operate otherwise - many do
cycle responsibly, but others seem to think the road traffic rules are for
motorised drivers only.
Maybe there is also a need for cyclists to prove that they have a working
knowledge of the Highway code - they want car drivers to abide by the rules
but some cyclists don't seem to know that the Highway Code covers them as
well.
Too much red tape? - all road users being registered and having to prove
they have a basic level of knowledge of the rules to protect themselves and
other road users would seem to deliver sufficient benefits to be worthwhile
considering."
I would add the requirement for insurance against third party risks.
http://money.aol.co.uk/2013/05/23/should-cyclists-pay-a-road-tax/
As has been pointed out car excise duty / road tax is based on emissions.
The least polluting cars are free, so obviously cyclists should be also.
However they should be subject to the same registration requirements as
cars - i.e. central register and registration plate.
The roads are very busy - and when you think of the volume of road traffic
laws - highly regulated.
Cyclists want to operate in this highly regulated environment, so they
should be subject to the same controls and responsibilities as other road
users - if a car owner breaks the law they can be tracked via their
registration plate - no reason for cyclists to operate otherwise - many do
cycle responsibly, but others seem to think the road traffic rules are for
motorised drivers only.
Maybe there is also a need for cyclists to prove that they have a working
knowledge of the Highway code - they want car drivers to abide by the rules
but some cyclists don't seem to know that the Highway Code covers them as
well.
Too much red tape? - all road users being registered and having to prove
they have a basic level of knowledge of the rules to protect themselves and
other road users would seem to deliver sufficient benefits to be worthwhile
considering."
I would add the requirement for insurance against third party risks.
http://money.aol.co.uk/2013/05/23/should-cyclists-pay-a-road-tax/
Simon Weissel
May 24, 2013, 9:49:30 AM5/24/13
to
On 24/05/2013 09:25, Mrcheerful wrote:
> "bigtamg
> As has been pointed out car excise duty / road tax is based on emissions.
> The least polluting cars are free, so obviously cyclists should be also.
> However they should be subject to the same registration requirements as
> cars - i.e. central register and registration plate.
So far so good ...
> "bigtamg
> As has been pointed out car excise duty / road tax is based on emissions.
> The least polluting cars are free, so obviously cyclists should be also.
> However they should be subject to the same registration requirements as
> cars - i.e. central register and registration plate.
> The roads are very busy - and when you think of the volume of road traffic
> laws - highly regulated.
the amount of untaxed, unlicensed, uninsured drivers there are on the
roads as well as the vast majority of drivers with piss-poor driving
standards and who routinely break the law. Regulated yes, but highly
regulated? - I don't think so.
> Cyclists want to operate in this highly regulated environment, so they
> should be subject to the same controls and responsibilities as other road
> users - if a car owner breaks the law they can be tracked via their
> registration plate - no reason for cyclists to operate otherwise - many do
> cycle responsibly, but others seem to think the road traffic rules are for
> motorised drivers only.
> Maybe there is also a need for cyclists to prove that they have a working
> knowledge of the Highway code - they want car drivers to abide by the rules
> but some cyclists don't seem to know that the Highway Code covers them as
> well.
have to as well". No, having others not follow the rules is no excuse
for your own shortcomings and poor standards and it holds no water in
any argument.
> Too much red tape? - all road users being registered and having to prove
> they have a basic level of knowledge of the rules to protect themselves and
> other road users would seem to deliver sufficient benefits to be worthwhile
> considering."
>
> I would add the requirement for insurance against third party risks.
>
> http://money.aol.co.uk/2013/05/23/should-cyclists-pay-a-road-tax/
>
JNugent
May 24, 2013, 10:12:10 AM5/24/13
to
On 24/05/2013 14:49, Simon Weissel wrote:
> On 24/05/2013 09:25, Mrcheerful wrote:
>> "bigtamg
>> As has been pointed out car excise duty / road tax is based on emissions.
>> The least polluting cars are free, so obviously cyclists should be also.
>> However they should be subject to the same registration requirements as
>> cars - i.e. central register and registration plate.
> So far so good ...
>
>> The roads are very busy - and when you think of the volume of road
>> traffic laws - highly regulated.
> I think "highly regulated" is a bit of an exaggeration when you consider
> the amount of untaxed, unlicensed, uninsured drivers there are on the
> roads as well as the vast majority of drivers with piss-poor driving
> standards and who routinely break the law. Regulated yes, but highly
> regulated? - I don't think so.
"Highly regulated" is a more than reasonable description.
> On 24/05/2013 09:25, Mrcheerful wrote:
>> "bigtamg
>> As has been pointed out car excise duty / road tax is based on emissions.
>> The least polluting cars are free, so obviously cyclists should be also.
>> However they should be subject to the same registration requirements as
>> cars - i.e. central register and registration plate.
> So far so good ...
>
>> The roads are very busy - and when you think of the volume of road
>> traffic laws - highly regulated.
> I think "highly regulated" is a bit of an exaggeration when you consider
> the amount of untaxed, unlicensed, uninsured drivers there are on the
> roads as well as the vast majority of drivers with piss-poor driving
> standards and who routinely break the law. Regulated yes, but highly
> regulated? - I don't think so.
The fact that the regulation is so all-encompassing and stringent is the
very reason for the breaches. You can't have people breaking rules
unless there are rules to break.
Perhaps you don't realise how regulated and restricted driving has become.
During my lifetime, the regulation and restriction has intensified
enormously.
When I was a boy (in a non-car-owning family), there was no MOT testing.
No tyre regulations. No requirement for seat belts (indeed, seatbelts
were something only encountered on aeroplanes). No such thing as screen
washers (still less headlamp-washers). Once outside a posted limit in an
urban or suburban area, there was no speed limit (none at all). There
was no breathalyser. There were no licence endorsements and (obviously)
no totting-up procedure. There were no GATSOs, no ANPR cameras and no CCTV.
There were no yellow lines and no areas of cities patrolled by the
Gestapo searching for interlopers arriving in motor vehicles without the
requisite "papers" (either being a local councillor or a member of said
Gestapo). There were no city centres from which motor vehicles were
banned. If you needed or wished to go somewhere, the state did not
officiously seek to prevent you from getting there. Or from parking once
you did get there, either by over-restriction or prohibitive pricing.
There were very few traffic lights and what there were were deployed
only in order to reduce traffic conflict at some junction rather than to
make journeys more unpleasant, slower or more tedious.
>> Cyclists want to operate in this highly regulated environment, so they
>> should be subject to the same controls and responsibilities as other
>> road users - if a car owner breaks the law they can be tracked via
>> their registration plate - no reason for cyclists to operate otherwise -
>> many do cycle responsibly, but others seem to think the road traffic
>> rules are for motorised drivers only.
>
> Yebbut - it's not highly regulated - innit.
>> Maybe there is also a need for cyclists to prove that they have a working
>> knowledge of the Highway code - they want car drivers to abide by the
>> rules but some cyclists don't seem to know that the Highway Code covers
>> them as well.
>
> Ahh the old chestnut, "if you want us to follow the rules then you lot
> have to as well". No, having others not follow the rules is no excuse
> for your own shortcomings and poor standards and it holds no water in
> any argument.
did not say what you say he said.
>> Too much red tape? - all road users being registered and having to prove
>> they have a basic level of knowledge of the rules to protect
>> themselves and other road users would seem to deliver sufficient benefits
>> to be worthwhile considering."
>> I would add the requirement for insurance against third party risks.
>> http://money.aol.co.uk/2013/05/23/should-cyclists-pay-a-road-tax/
> Not really very sensibubble.
cyclists are insured anyway?
Dave - Cyclists VORK
May 25, 2013, 5:56:36 AM5/25/13
to
On 24/05/2013 14:49, Simon Weissel wrote:
> On 24/05/2013 09:25, Mrcheerful wrote:
>> "bigtamg
>> As has been pointed out car excise duty / road tax is based on emissions.
>> The least polluting cars are free, so obviously cyclists should be also.
>> However they should be subject to the same registration requirements as
>> cars - i.e. central register and registration plate.
>
> So far so good ...
>
>> The roads are very busy - and when you think of the volume of road
>> traffic
>> laws - highly regulated.
>
> I think "highly regulated" is a bit of an exaggeration when you consider
> the amount of untaxed, unlicensed, uninsured drivers there are on the
> roads as well as the vast majority of drivers with piss-poor driving
> standards and who routinely break the law. Regulated yes, but highly
> regulated? - I don't think so.
Untaxed, unlicensed, uninsured drivers are a small minority, who are
>> "bigtamg
>> As has been pointed out car excise duty / road tax is based on emissions.
>> The least polluting cars are free, so obviously cyclists should be also.
>> However they should be subject to the same registration requirements as
>> cars - i.e. central register and registration plate.
>
> So far so good ...
>
>> The roads are very busy - and when you think of the volume of road
>> traffic
>> laws - highly regulated.
>
> I think "highly regulated" is a bit of an exaggeration when you consider
> the amount of untaxed, unlicensed, uninsured drivers there are on the
> roads as well as the vast majority of drivers with piss-poor driving
> standards and who routinely break the law. Regulated yes, but highly
> regulated? - I don't think so.
regularly apprehended because of the high level of regulation.
If the 'vast majority' have 'piss-poor driving standards' and 'routinely
break the law' - why are accident rates at an all time low?
>
>> Cyclists want to operate in this highly regulated environment, so they
>> should be subject to the same controls and responsibilities as other road
>> users - if a car owner breaks the law they can be tracked via their
>> registration plate - no reason for cyclists to operate otherwise -
>> many do
>> cycle responsibly, but others seem to think the road traffic rules are
>> for
>> motorised drivers only.
>
> Yebbut - it's not highly regulated - innit.
But it is.
>> Cyclists want to operate in this highly regulated environment, so they
>> should be subject to the same controls and responsibilities as other road
>> users - if a car owner breaks the law they can be tracked via their
>> registration plate - no reason for cyclists to operate otherwise -
>> many do
>> cycle responsibly, but others seem to think the road traffic rules are
>> for
>> motorised drivers only.
>
> Yebbut - it's not highly regulated - innit.
>
>> Maybe there is also a need for cyclists to prove that they have a working
>> knowledge of the Highway code - they want car drivers to abide by the
>> rules
>> but some cyclists don't seem to know that the Highway Code covers them as
>> well.
>
> Ahh the old chestnut, "if you want us to follow the rules then you lot
> have to as well". No, having others not follow the rules is no excuse
> for your own shortcomings and poor standards and it holds no water in
> any argument.
Are you seriously suggesting that cyclists standards are higher than
>> Maybe there is also a need for cyclists to prove that they have a working
>> knowledge of the Highway code - they want car drivers to abide by the
>> rules
>> but some cyclists don't seem to know that the Highway Code covers them as
>> well.
>
> Ahh the old chestnut, "if you want us to follow the rules then you lot
> have to as well". No, having others not follow the rules is no excuse
> for your own shortcomings and poor standards and it holds no water in
> any argument.
motorists? I always knew you were a bit dim, but come on.
>
>> Too much red tape? - all road users being registered and having to prove
>> they have a basic level of knowledge of the rules to protect
>> themselves and
>> other road users would seem to deliver sufficient benefits to be
>> worthwhile
>> considering."
>>
>> I would add the requirement for insurance against third party risks.
>>
>> http://money.aol.co.uk/2013/05/23/should-cyclists-pay-a-road-tax/
>>
>
> Not really very sensibubble.
>
Entirely sensible.
>> Too much red tape? - all road users being registered and having to prove
>> they have a basic level of knowledge of the rules to protect
>> themselves and
>> other road users would seem to deliver sufficient benefits to be
>> worthwhile
>> considering."
>>
>> I would add the requirement for insurance against third party risks.
>>
>> http://money.aol.co.uk/2013/05/23/should-cyclists-pay-a-road-tax/
>>
>
> Not really very sensibubble.
>
--
Dave-Cyclists VORK
Motorists account for 1 single fatality per 208,311,415 miles driven. A
simply incredible safety record.
0 new messages