Jump to content

Should road bicycle users/cyclists be taxed and insured?


Passiflora

Recommended Posts

The original post is a valid question and of course it?s those who regard cycling, and the freedom of the cyclist, as a religion who belittle and demean the question with snideness and accusations of trolling. S/he may have provoked a response but this is not trolling.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

nxjen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The original post is a valid question and of

> course it?s those who regard cycling, and the

> freedom of the cyclist, as a religion who belittle

> and demean the question with snideness and

> accusations of trolling. S/he may have provoked a

> response but this is not trolling.


If taken in isolation, no. If taken in the context of her continued and repeated attempts on the General ED thread to promote car use and belittle cycling (including several times immediately prior to establishing this thread) it's simply trying to be childishly provocative, or trolling. If I put up a thread saying "Should all private cars be banned from Southwark?" - not even making a case or stating a position on it - you and others would rightly accuse me of trolling.


As for the question, it's been done to death in a million other public fora, newspaper and TV debates, etc etc. It's not as though she's suddenly come up with some revelatory new concept. Trolling, pure, simple and obvious.


Trolling (v): the deliberate act of making random unsolicited and/or controversial comments on internet forums with the intent to provoke an emotional knee jerk reaction from unsuspecting readers to engage in a fight or argument


You couldn't find a more obvious example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should road bicycle users/cyclists be taxed and insured?


The very short answer is 'no'


The short, rude answer is 'no - why don't you f%ck off'


The short polite answer is 'no, and there is no good reason for it. The fact that some people don't like cyclists is not a good reason'.


And the long answer is 'There's no such thing as road tax, just excise duty on cars. Like there is on fags and booze but not on cakes or gloves or hammers or cat food. No reason to put it on bikes rather than hammers. Compulsory insurance is a political decision but essentially is required where there is a clear public need for it i.e. the risk of an indemnity being required but not met is widespread and/or serious. You need insurance to keep a tiger but not a dog. You need insurance to set off a firework display for the public but not to wave sparklers about in your garden. You need special insurance to drive a bus full of passengers, regular insurance to drive a car, and no insurance to ride a bike. These all make sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a fantastic move to encourage cyclists in London - see all the cycle routes.

This is to the detriment of cars (taking up their precious lanes) - of which there are far too many anyway, so this is a good thing.


More bikes = less cars.


I think there should be a system for rewarding car drivers who change to cycling commute instead.


So, no - no tax on bikes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DaveR Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Should road bicycle users/cyclists be taxed and

> insured?

>

> The very short answer is 'no'

>

> The short, rude answer is 'no - why don't you f%ck

> off'

>

> The short polite answer is 'no, and there is no

> good reason for it. The fact that some people

> don't like cyclists is not a good reason'.

>

> And the long answer is 'There's no such thing as

> road tax, just excise duty on cars. Like there is

> on fags and booze but not on cakes or gloves or

> hammers or cat food. No reason to put it on bikes

> rather than hammers. Compulsory insurance is a

> political decision but essentially is required

> where there is a clear public need for it i.e. the

> risk of an indemnity being required but not met is

> widespread and/or serious. You need insurance to

> keep a tiger but not a dog. You need insurance to

> set off a firework display for the public but not

> to wave sparklers about in your garden. You need

> special insurance to drive a bus full of

> passengers, regular insurance to drive a car, and

> no insurance to ride a bike. These all make

> sense.


Trolling doesn't deserve such a good answer, but very well put.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nigello Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> No, but fines should be levied on those who don't

> have working lights front and rear. Too many times

> I see cyclists with no lights and no reflective

> gear, posing a danger to themselves and others.

> (No car, no motorbike, no cycle, just legs)


Agree - when being driven by Mrs H at night I feel like a navigator in a plane, acting as a spotter for hazards in the form of cyclists on black bikes in black clothes and black helmets or hats. Why anyone would do anything so utterly suicidal when an adequate set of lights can be had for a fiver is beyond me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, but fines should be levied on those who don't have working lights front and rear. Too many times I see cyclists with no lights and no reflective gear, posing a danger to themselves and others.


I love the irony in this statement (and you see this sort of thing every week on forums, newspaper letters columns etc about cyclists all in black, no lights etc that are seen).


So they're seen then?!


Same way that you see pedestrians and trees and dogs and cats and parked cars and rubbish bins and other unlit things like debris in the road.


If I jump a traffic light while wearing dark clothing, every motorist for half a mile around will see me.

If I have fluoro kit and bright flashy lights, I'll still get "sorry mate, I didn't see you..."


;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> I love the irony in this statement (and you see

> this sort of thing every week on forums, newspaper

> letters columns etc about cyclists all in black,

> no lights etc that are seen).

>

> So they're seen then?!

>

> Same way that you see pedestrians and trees and

> dogs and cats and parked cars and rubbish bins and

> other unlit things like debris in the road.

>

> If I jump a traffic light while wearing dark

> clothing, every motorist for half a mile around

> will see me.

> If I have fluoro kit and bright flashy lights,

> I'll still get "sorry mate, I didn't see you..."

>

> ;-)


Got to say, nobody is more pro cyclist than me, in either theory or practice, but can't agree with you on that one. Yes, you will eventually see a cyclist in black on a dark night and poorly lit road, when s/he comes into the scope of the headlights; for me, observing as a passenger, that moment is often terrifyingly close to a fatality. Yes, as with light jumpers etc etc it is frequently used by motorists as a stick with which to beat us (not that I think Nigello was), but my concern is for the cyclist. Why in the name of arse would you not avail yourself of at least the bare minimum equipment to help car drivers see you? Riding at night is inherently risky, there are a million un-MOT'd and uninsured cars on the road, there are drunk drivers, drug drivers, drivers on 'phones, drivers with poor eyesight/night vision, speeding drivers...any cyclist who doesn't make themselves decently visible wants their head examined. If it takes the prospect of fines to make them see sense, I'm all for it (not that anything would be done, given the failure to tackle 'phone use, speeding etc).


Oh. I seem to feel quite passionately about this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> nxjen Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > The original post is a valid question and of

> > course it?s those who regard cycling, and the

> > freedom of the cyclist, as a religion who

> belittle

> > and demean the question with snideness and

> > accusations of trolling. S/he may have provoked

> a

> > response but this is not trolling.

>

> If taken in isolation, no. If taken in the

> context of her continued and repeated attempts on

> the General ED thread to promote car use and

> belittle cycling (including several times

> immediately prior to establishing this thread)

> it's simply trying to be childishly provocative,

> or trolling. If I put up a thread saying "Should

> all private cars be banned from Southwark?" - not

> even making a case or stating a position on it -

> you and others would rightly accuse me of

> trolling.

>

> As for the question, it's been done to death in a

> million other public fora, newspaper and TV

> debates, etc etc. It's not as though she's

> suddenly come up with some revelatory new concept.

> Trolling, pure, simple and obvious.

>

> Trolling (v): the deliberate act of making random

> unsolicited and/or controversial comments on

> internet forums with the intent to provoke an

> emotional knee jerk reaction from unsuspecting

> readers to engage in a fight or argument

>

> You couldn't find a more obvious example.



Oh dear, I'm now a troll, whatever that is on here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

snowy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Passiflora Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > And therefore have number plates?

>

> You?re a real amateur at this.


Why would I be a amateur? Number plates are legal on cars etc so why not on bikes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Passiflora Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> snowy Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Passiflora Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > And therefore have number plates?

> >

> > You?re a real amateur at this.

>

> Why would I be a amateur? Number plates are legal

> on cars etc so why not on bikes?


Because it?s nonsensical and a policy topic that has been reviewed by greater minds than yours for years. You sound like this:


"Alice laughed: "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible things." "I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."


Read the answers you were given above. Think about the concept of proportionality. Get back to us when you?ve looked at why it doesn?t exist (apart from in Switzerland and a few random US states)and won?t exist and then get back to us when you process them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Passiflora Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> Why would I be a amateur? Number plates are legal

> on cars etc so why not on bikes?


So are steering wheels, seatbelts and windscreen wipers. Bikes are not cars, thank goodness. Suggest you research the concept of the syllogistic fallacy ("My dog has four legs and a tail. My cat has four legs and a tail. Therefore my dog is a cat."). Cars carry them, therefore why not bikes? Why not then pedestrians? Wheelchairs? Pushchairs? Skateboards?


Even you can't (I really hope) be so foolish as to genuinely believe this would be a good, or even workable, idea. It was just poor quality trolling, and glad to see it has been treated as such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh here we go again. Too many people are dying due to poor air quality. We are facking the planet up due to burning fossil fuel. Let's have a go at the cyclists then. At its most extreme tolerate a bit of antisocial behaviour recognising the enormous benefits to society.


Focusing on the real culprits, drivers feel they have a right to drive what they want, how they want, where they want, when they want. Overturn that culture and we can move on.


Most road users manage to coexist fairly peacefully. I may shout at pedestrians, cyclists and motor vehicles but a tiny fraction of those I encounter each day and in the hope that calling someone a dangerous wonker will eventually influence them to act otherwise. I have plenty of nice interaction too.


We have a representational democracy and governments are influenced by the popular (right wing) press, but generally sense prevails and nonsense like that proposed will have been properly considered and rightly rejected no doubt on many occasions. Do write to your MP to get to raise with DfT because it would be an interesting reply

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • A repetitive tried and tested cycle that seems to be slowing down in London thankfully. Brixton was the start. Councils consciously and purposely let an area decline until that area is next on the list for social and ethnic cleansing and ultimately gentrification. In come the first wave of arty/ creatives to squat and house share. A few coffee shops and cool but inexpensive cafe/ bars and art spaces open up. The crackheads, dealers and other assorted criminals who were once left to operate openly and brazenly to sell, shop lift, mug, beg, purchase,  publicly consume on decent folks doorsteps, stairwells,in bin sheds and without fear of the law begin to be targeted, rounded up and moved on. A few more jaunty and sustainable coffee shops/ bars appear . The Guardian and other facilitators in the media jump on the bandwagon, first claims of vibrancy are rolled out. Next step a few cool retro clothing shops pop up selling ' reclaimed Levi's for more than they originally cost and ten times the price of what the recently departed charity shop charged. Foxtons open a branch and the arty types and first wavers/ drivers have there first moan about there initially paltry rents going up. The guardian do a generic lets move to Brixton, Dalston, Hackney, Deptford, Walthamstow type double pager. Interview a graphic designer or two who have just bought a former crack den on the manor for next to peanuts. They will later bemoan the next wave who have more money than them. Cool, edgy and vibrant are now the buzzword bingo must use lingo. Few more coffee shops ( how original ) Pop up everything,. Organic and sour dough move in. The night time economy starts to thrive, more cool bars and eateries open. More squats and the last crack house that was once one of many are cleared out. Second wave is around the corner.   All of a sudden there's a visible police presence again and the streets are safe for fun seekers with plenty of disposable cash to chuck about on a dose of vibrancy with added coolness. By this stage even the locally brewed beer is organic. There's queues outside the newly arrived organic, sourdough, artisan and sustainable bakers. Instagram has Brixton trending. The greasy spoon of thirty year has gone cause the lease is up and the landlord has hiked the rents up by 60/70%. Followed by small family run independents that served the community  for decades and more.  The local characters, activists, eccentrics are getting less and less. There's a new show in town for a week or two and until the next brand arrives. Brewdog move in. Former job centres are converted into bars but peak edginess means it's still called the job centre. Followed by a couple more chain eateries. The resident DJ'S and music venues are replaced by another generic brand boasting guest chefs. The Guardian lifestyle section is now on it's fifth or sixth orgasm. Turn a few pages and hypocrisy is rampant with articles on the evils of gentrification, foxtons, capitalism, social cleansing and unaffordable housing. The middle classes continue to arrive in there droves to buy into the vibrancy and multiculturalism supposedly on offer. There isn't much multiculturalism going on at the packed latest place to eat, drink and fart. The multiculturalism on show comes in the form of bar staff, doorman and cheap as chips uber drivers and delivery workers. Rice and peas, jerk everything, red stripe at six quid a can from some hipster haunt that is currently flavour of the month and the place to be seen. The first wavers are now blaming the latest hedge funded brand that's pulled into town for driving gentrification and there soon to be hastened departure to be first wavers again somewhere else. Less cool but up and coming here we come. Covid has certainly helped/ been a factor in slowing down the process of gentrification. I also think it may be the driver for almost putting a stop to it. Remote working, less need to move to London to be near an office, less disposable cash, sky high rents, worthless degrees that relied on that disposable cash , different priorities, knife and gang crime and a large dose of much needed realism has put a huge spanner in the works for the shitty process and cycle that is/ was the gentrification and social cleansing of working class London. Manchester and Liverpool is next on the list for the planners. Thankfully.
    • Can you just queue up to withdraw cash or are other transactions like stamp purchasing required?  Do M&S do cash back?
    • Or don't stop using cash. Stop using your phone or even your watch as a banknote. At the same time avoid the risk of having your card cloned at cash points, by hand held card readers, oyster readers and point-of sale terminals to name a few. God only knows how much damage we're doing to the planet because all the above must require a hell of a lot of resources and juice from the grid. It won't happen though. I know of quite a few people who deem carrying cash about as a pain/ chore. But not a big lump of plastic with a screen and full of personal information that can be easily gleamed. I feel the same about carrying a phone about so i don't most of the time. I'll be in the minority but certainly don't see or treat a phone as a necessity.  You can't get a banknote out of your sky rocket with a phone in your hand. It's become a source of dopamine for many. It's an addiction for many. They're an easy target for thieves. They're a godsend to cyber fraudsters who are stealing billions and are doing so without the need of cash points.
    • There used to be an Osteopath at The Gardens (not physio) but they have since left.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...