Should road bicycle users/cyclists be taxed and insured?

[fishbiscuits]

Cycling should be incentivised, not penalised.

I do agree that there should be consequences for not using lights, as well as dangerous/antisocial behaviour... failing to slow down for pedestrians already crossing the road, jumping lights, cycling on pavement, etc. But not sure it's practical to enforce.

[natty01295]

No it's wrong to Tax Cyclist's, They do not pollute the environment therefore it Is tax free,And it should be

Q:Who would enforce it???

[edcam]

No but I do often wish all bikes were fitted with technology which clocks them when they jump lights. Never gonna happen though.

[rendelharris]

edcam Wrote:

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

> No but I do often wish all bikes were fitted with

> technology which clocks them when they jump

> lights. Never gonna happen though.

I trust you also wish that cars were fitted with the same technology to clock them jumping red lights (especially at the pelican at ED station, which is now a disgrace, guaranteed a minimum of two cars running the red) and breaking the speed limit? Fit that to cars and I would gladly, seriously, accept it on my bikes.

I've long thought that would be a great innovation - the technology's there, proven workable and economical; even my bike speedometer works off GPS! It would, of course, be political suicide for anyone who tried to introduce it, as there would be a great outcry of it being against civil liberties - as with speed cameras. Quite when civil liberties became conflated with liberty to break the law when nobody's watching, I'm not sure.

[malumbu]

I'll happily register, tax and insure my bike when any government introduces average speed cameras. That overnight would fundamentally change driver behaviour. Some of the money raised could go towards cart tracks and other motorised sports so people could still enjoy the thrills of driving like an rrrrsss.

I'm sure a similar cycle only track could also be funded out to the North Downs so Dulwich Paragon could stop annoying the (good?) citizens of North Kent. That's for another thread!

[rendelharris]

malumbu Wrote:

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

> I'll happily register, tax and insure my bike when

> any government introduces average speed cameras.

Seconded!

[exdulwicher]

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

The fine art of posting a deliberately inflammatory coment or statement and then just sitting back and watching the arguments unfold. There's a few topics pretty much guaranteed to do that - newspapers know that an opinion column on cycling in general (usually ith some well worn cliches about red lights, dark clothing and not using cycle lanes) will always get them a load of clicks and comments.

Your attitude seems pretty much made up and no amount of common sense or worldly evidence will convince you but here you go anyway:

https://www.bikebiz.com/business/bicycle-licensing-for-dummies

[Passiflora]

Can't be bothered to click on some link.

Somebody just told me to F off earlier back but not bothered really.

As usual, Rendal et al turns the thread around to their own advantage and assumes I'm a 'she'

Totally laughable response by some!

Get on your bike!

[JoeLeg]

Passiflora Wrote:

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

> Can't be bothered to click on some link.

>

Well that says a lot about your willingness to engage in actual debate.

> Somebody just told me to F off earlier back but

> not bothered really.

Of course you?re not, that?s why you mentioned how ?not bothered? you are...

>

> As usual, Rendal et al turns the thread around to

> their own advantage and assumes I'm a 'she'

>

No, Rendel - and many others - argued with you, which you seem to have a problem with.

> Totally laughable response by some!

>

> Get on your bike!

2/10, must try harder.

Seriously, if you?re gonna troll at least be interesting. This is some lame business you got going on.

[Passiflora]

JoeLeg Wrote:

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

> Passiflora Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Can't be bothered to click on some link.

> >

>

> Well that says a lot about your willingness to

> engage in actual debate.

>

>

> > Somebody just told me to F off earlier back but

> > not bothered really.

>

> Of course you?re not, that?s why you mentioned how

> ?not bothered? you are...

>

> >

> > As usual, Rendal et al turns the thread around

> to

> > their own advantage and assumes I'm a 'she'

> >

>

> No, Rendel - and many others - argued with you,

> which you seem to have a problem with.

>

>

> > Totally laughable response by some!

> >

> > Get on your bike!

>

> 2/10, must try harder.

>

>

> Seriously, if you?re gonna troll at least be

> interesting. This is some lame business you got

> going on.

Lame business you got going on?

I'm not a teenager but you sound like you are.

[malumbu]

I'm now confused. This thread was fairly pointless which begs the question why am I posting. But when is a question provocative and when is it inflammatory. I like putting up provocative threads as I generally learn from others and will be hopefully have a more informed position. But I dislike posters putting up links without some effort to add some further detail. I'm not sure who I am siding with now. Barry Gardener is talking about Climate Change on QT, which is more interesting that this thread, but of course relevant particularly I expect with some Trojan Horse petrol heads are engaged on this one. Now as for that VW advert with the 'cool' parent driving their child to school, particularly in context of school kids marching against climate change...

[rendelharris]

Passiflora Wrote:

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

> As usual, Rendal et al turns the thread around to

> their own advantage and assumes I'm a 'she'

"turns the thread round to their advantage" aka "disagrees with me". Obviously, it's frustrating when you were hoping for lots of support for your anti-cyclist hatred and instead get a majority disagreeing with you, but such poor-quality trolling deserves no better.

[JoeLeg]

Passiflora Wrote:

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

> JoeLeg Wrote:

>

> Lame business you got going on?

>

> I'm not a teenager but you sound like you are.

Like I say, lame.

(Sorry, wasn?t aware no one over the age of 19 is allowed to use that word.)

[rendelharris]

JoeLeg Wrote:

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

> Like I say, lame.

>

> (Sorry, wasn?t aware no one over the age of 19 is

> allowed to use that word.)

"O most lame and impotent conclusion!" - Shakespeare, Othello - think you're in alright company Joe.

[Ampersand]

Passiflora Wrote:

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

> Can't be bothered to click on some link.

>

> Somebody just told me to F off earlier back but

> not bothered really.

>

> As usual, Rendal et al turns the thread around to

> their own advantage and assumes I'm a 'she'

>

> Totally laughable response by some!

>

> Get on your bike!

Oh dear. How embarrassing for you. Another thread you have started that you have been comprehensively owned on.

[James Barber]

Perhaps a negative tax - pay people to cycle - as the benefits to the and wider society are so profound.

https://www.cyclinguk.org/campaigning/views-and-briefings/cycling-and-economy

[edcam]

Well cars don't need this technology, they have numberplates and many (though not enough)lights have cameras, which would be useless when it comes to bikes. I'm up for anything that makes all road users more responsible.

rendelharris Wrote:

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

>

> I trust you also wish that cars were fitted with

> the same technology to clock them jumping red

> lights (

[rendelharris]

edcam Wrote:

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

> Well cars don't need this technology, they have

> numberplates and many (though not enough)lights

> have cameras

You'd be surprised how few traffic lights do have them; according to t'internet, the only junctions with red light cameras anywhere near this neighbourhood are the Village Way/ED Grove junctions and the Champion/DK Hill junction. The little cameras on top of traffic lights are just for traffic management, not enforcement - red light cameras require a complex setup of below-tarmac sensors and so are costly and troublesome to set up, which explains their rarity.

[Passiflora]

Ampersand Wrote:

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

> Passiflora Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Can't be bothered to click on some link.

> >

> > Somebody just told me to F off earlier back but

> > not bothered really.

> >

> > As usual, Rendal et al turns the thread around

> to

> > their own advantage and assumes I'm a 'she'

> >

> > Totally laughable response by some!

> >

> > Get on your bike!

>

> Oh dear. How embarrassing for you. Another thread

> you have started that you have been

> comprehensively owned on.

Not embarrassed at all but thanks for replying.

Rendel has gone into Shakesperian mode so let him get on his bike!

[rendelharris]

Passiflora Wrote:

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

> Not embarrassed at all but thanks for replying.

>

> Rendel has gone into Shakesperian mode so let him

> get on his bike!

It wasn't funny the first time you tried that and it's failed again. You really have got nothing to offer, have you? I'd cut your losses and bow out if I were you, and next time you want to try your hand at Daily Mail style trolling at least have some sort of plan to cope with the fact that the majority of responses disagree with you - above and beyond making remarks that just make you look even more foolish.

[Blah Blah]

Trolling aside, and yes it is 'that' obvious Passiflora, if we wee to impose tax and other charges on the right to cycle, it would not only remove the last free from of transport for many people, but it would also discourage people from cycling.

Just on lights etc, the Police do stop cycists in targeted road operations to check lights etc. It has happened to me several times when I had a front light that wasn't really bright enough. I think there would also be sense in giving out free hi-vis vests to cyclists too - still use my free one from the Prudential Ride weekend I last went on.

I absolutely agree with the sentiment that some cyclists do little to maximise their chances of being seen clearly at night, but the way to address that is through education.

Compulsory use of helmets is a controversial topic. My own experience is that drivers seem to exercise more care overtaking when I am wearing no helmet, but having said that, most of the time I do wear one.

On insurance, I do have it, for lots of reasons, but I think it would be regressive to legally require it and potentially messy in that you would quickly end up with a system where it becomes more expensive for young people and those who have made claims, in the same way vehicle insurance operates. That seems to defeat any purpose to me, is practically unenforceable and would not be cost effective either.

Anyway, it's a sunny day, and I'm off for a free ride ;)

[malumbu]

Yes in deed a nice day to be on your bike. Shame as the traffic is lighter there's no stopping most drivers doing 35 - 40 (Forest Hill to Sydenham). I politely asked someone to give cyclists more room, and a pedestrian on the other side of the road told me to 'fuggin drive'. That's an interesting insult (I assume it was an insult not some advice) - was it and of you on this site? And I had done a special 'can you give cyclists a bit more room please' with a nice tone, not patronising or moral high ground or sweary).

[jimlad48]

I would look for a mandatory cycling test, in same way as driving test is mandatory - and L plates too for those that have yet to pass it.

I would also look for mandatory cyclist registration number on bikes to enable easy identification of cyclists who break the Highway code. I think this may make the attitudes more accountable.

Said as someone who within the last week has been threatened with a beating up by a cyclist for politely asking them to ride on the road, not the pavement.

[Blah Blah]

So you are basically calling for registration plates?

Most children do the cycling proficiency test. But again, L plates? Seriously?

We are not talking about cars here so completely pointless to treat cycles in the same way.

If someone threatens anyone, that is not because they are a cyclist, but because they are an ass.

[exdulwicher]

I would look for a mandatory cycling test, in same way as driving test is mandatory - and L plates too for those that have yet to pass it.

I would also look for mandatory cyclist registration number on bikes to enable easy identification of cyclists who break the Highway code. I think this may make the attitudes more accountable.

Yep - that works SO well with the million or so uninsured vehicles; 700,000 untaxed (although I admit that a lot of those are probably double counted); and people driving while DQ'd:

https://www.mib.org.uk/media-centre/news/2016/july/police-seize-the-uk-s-15-millionth-uninsured-vehicle-as-drivers-continue-to-flout-insurance-laws/

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/nov/16/untaxed-vehicles-uk-trebles-tax-disc-abolition-vehicle-excise-duty-dvla

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38887951

Here's a test. Phone the police and report a driving transgression - speeding, RLJ, using a mobile phone - and give them the registration plate.

What do you think will happen? I'll tell you now - absolutely nothing. They'll do nothing without evidence and even with it, there'll be enough loopholes and it'll be considered so minor (ie no-one died) that literally nothing will be done. You only have to look at how spectacularly awful driving can be (in fact, people can be killed) and the driver can still be found not guilty.

Remember this one:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-40134629

Pretty clear cut case of driving without due care & attention (maybe even dangerous driving), injuries caused - no prosecution. "Just an accident". Oopsy.

So please tell me exactly what issues you expect number plates on bikes to solve?

Every single time number plates, insurance, cycle tax etc come up (Ken and Boris both mentioned number plates as possibilities when they were London Mayors) and it's been shot down in flames repeatedly as costing more than it would bring in, solving nothing and generally being completely unworkable.

And you can read the BikeBiz article that I linked to in a previous post. You know, if FACTS aren't too inconvenient for you.