A plea from a cyclist...

[bi0boy]

ok maybe pedestrians as well as cyclists should also be obliged to carry lights, and so should deer, fallen trees etc... however there will always be some who remain unlit, and as a motorist, if you can't see them within your stopping distance, then you are either going to fast, or are unfit to drive.

 

[UnderOpenSky]

Many pedestrians walk in the road, for example, when they are crossing it, or in the countryside where there are no pavements (or street lights). I quite frequently read stories about people being hit and killed while walking home at night along country roads. The fact is, if you can't stop in time to avoid hitting unlit things in the road in front of you, then you are driving too fast for the conditions and your ability to percieve hazards.

Please tell me how you are meant to miss some stupid twat who serves in front of you with no warning. If you want to use the roads, then play by the fucking rules. I didn't hit him anyhow, just did £65 worth of damage

Out of intrest do you drive or are you just talking out your arse? Would you feel the same if a car was unlit?

I'm also a cyclist so I do show respect to all other users, but some people are just twats. If I don't have lights then I stay of the road. One has to wonder if these people who are killed walking along country roads were pissed and weaving around all the over the place - I have seen that plenty when camping and coming back from pub.

 

[UnderOpenSky]

I really can't belive people are defending those with no lights. When I used to go walking at night on roads, at least one of our party would ware a high vis vest. Case that the motorist is always wrong? At least you have to have a test, unlike any numpty who wants to get on a bike and seems to think that the rules of the road do no apply.

 

[Pingu]

actually on unlit country lanes probably not a bad idea to say to people "carry a torch you muppet".

i think thre needs to be a bit of perspective here.

if you are barreling down a narrow country road at night at 70 mph then yes you are a tit

but if you are a pedestrian walkingalong same road wearing dark clothing and not carrying a light then i feel its fair to say they are a bit of a tit too.

ditto cyclists\horse riders\llamma convoys etc.

if its dark make sure you can be seen. Its your life take some responsibility for keeping it intact.

 

[bi0boy]

Of course it would be nice if every road user had lights but the fact is they don't. I am just making the point that you can't expect every hazard to be conveniently illuminated for you. If unilluminated hazards are such a problem, then I suggest either your driving style or your vision is at fault.

 

[UnderOpenSky]

Of course it would be nice if every road user had lights but the fact is they don't. I am just making the point that you can't expect every hazard to be conveniently illuminated for you. If unilluminated hazards are such a problem, then I suggest either your driving style or your vision is at fault.

Well to be honest its not my problem, I know who would win if I hit a bike, its their problem. Maybe next time I shouldn't dodge when an idiot wobbles in front of me? It would cost me less. Even if you don't think so, hitting somebody without lights would give me a resonable defense with the police.

Edited to add: If people couldn't care less about their own saftey then why should I?

 

[bi0boy]

So if a child uses a pedestrian crossing after the lights have changed without a care for their own safety would you deliberately run them over, using the 'reasonable defence' that the lights were green for you?

When driving a motor vehicle you have a responsibility to protect those more vulnerable/naive/stupid than you. You do not have a right to deliberately endanger those who you deem to be acting inappropriately.

It's arrogant selfish tossers like you who cause the majority of road accidents, and shouldn't be allowed to drive at all IMO.

 

[UnderOpenSky]

What did I say in my past posts about?

A I swerved and avoided him doing damage to my car

B I am also a cyclist so have respect for those that cycle responsibly.

Pedestrian crossings you have notice of, so can take resonable care. There is not much you can do about idiots who have no regard for their own personal saftey who serve in front of you. Do you drive or do you just have a chip on your shoulder?

 

[Pingu]

Of course it would be nice if every road user had lights but the fact is they don't. I am just making the point that you can't expect every hazard to be conveniently illuminated for you. If unilluminated hazards are such a problem, then I suggest either your driving style or your vision is at fault.

are you a relative of tobys?

 

[George & Bill]

Yes, specifically motor vehicles. For the upgrading & maintenance of roads for all road users. Anyone disputing that has no argument at all.

is it not also the case that this tax provides insufficient revenue to repair the damage done by the roadusers from which it is collected, and that far from subsidising cyclists' use of the road, motorists are themselves subsidised from general taxation (as admitedly are cyclists, if by a smaller amount)?

 

[UnderOpenSky]

is it not also the case that this tax provides insufficient revenue to repair the damage done by the roadusers from which it is collected, and that far from subsidising cyclists' use of the road, motorists are themselves subsidised from general taxation (as admitedly are cyclists, if by a smaller amount)?

Probably, but if you take into account how much we pay for fuel, then it would be a lot higher.

 

[George & Bill]

Wish I could mate. If you only knew how far from the truth you are. I drive a £400 vauxhall cavalier, but if you can show me how to get four kayaks on the roof and 4 peoples camping gear for a weekend in a tiny car or even better public transport then I will be impressed. I go through absolute hell to keep that thing on the road with all the costs that come with a car. However I need to so that I can finish my qualifications so I can get a job when I leave uni.

You seem to have some sterotypes built up about car drivers, not everybody lives in London and has access to brilliant public transport.

permit me to explain; when the government says that it intends to 'reduce emissions', it doesn't just mean extinguishing the state-owned burning tyre heaps set up in the 1980s for the purpose of increasing our islands' insufficient temperature; it also refers to using the influence it has over private individuals and enterprises to discourage them from causing polution. By taxing your high-emissions car more than they would a low-emissions model, they might be encouraging you to reduce your emissions, if your circumstances permited this. This would certainly appear to consitute 'reducing polution', albeit as part of a lacklustre overall effort.

 

[George & Bill]

Probably, but if you take into account how much we pay for fuel, then it would be a lot higher.

let me put it in clearer terms:

as a motorist, you recieve a net subsidy from general taxation, which is not available to cyclists or other less damaging road users

 

[UnderOpenSky]

Well bikes are pretty cheap to run arn't they. Think the only thing I have had to buy for it some oil in 8 years. Never been charged to use one on a road so don't quite understand why I would need subsidising.

Whilst I agree that putting up prices oftern decreases usage of a good, petrol is fairly price inelastic, so people will stomach it and cut back on other items. If it means that I don't get to drink so much beer so I can go climbing, I cut back my drinking.

Out of intrest where do you get the figures that I am subsidised. I'm not disputing them, just intrested.

 

[George & Bill]

80 years ago, if you asked someone if it was dangerous or irresponsible to ride a pedal cycle down a country lane with no illumination, I suspect they would have looked at you funny, as if to say 'what's dangerous about it?'. As long as the cyclist is looking where he is going, he should be able to avoid hitting trees/people, and even if he did, it is unlikely that anyone would be killed.

The basic fact is that road deaths arrived with the car. One might argue that as a society we have accepted car use and must therefore accept that it is our responsibility to make car use reasonable safe, even when it isn't us driving. But one might equally argue that legislative support for the motor industry has meant that people using older, inherently safe modes of transport have been forced to protect themselves from the car, and it has come to be seen that it is they who are acting dangerously if they fail to do so. It doesn't seem that unreasonable to me to suggest that we got it wrong from the start, and that car use should have been forced to fit in with the existing human landscape, and not the human landscape to adapt to the needs of the car.

(edit: sorry, that was obviously on a different strand)

 

[UnderOpenSky]

Ok, fair enough....now what do we do about it now we have landscapes that make cars so darn usefull? I think a lot more effort needs to be put in to town planning, locating houses near shops, schools and workplaces. We also need to see masive improvments in public transport and subsidise to make it more appealing.

Staying with my parents at the moment in Northampton and everytime I come home it amazes me the amount of new houses on the edge of town. Houses that will need cars to do almost anything. Contrast to where I live in Lincoln where everything is walking distance and I never have to use my car.

Where did you get your figures re me as a motorist being subserdised?

 

[George & Bill]

Well bikes are pretty cheap to run arn't they. Think the only thing I have had to buy for it some oil in 8 years. Never been charged to use one on a road so don't quite understand why I would need subsidising.

umm, well it costs money to build roads, and bicycles do cause a very small but nonetheless not nonexistant amount of wear and tear, so insofar as cyclists are not taxed for road use, they are subsidised. However, although motorists do pay additional tax for road use and via petrol, the deficit between what they pay and what they cost is greater than in the case of the cyclist, and one would therefore say that they are more heavily subsidised. Hence it would not be totally unreasonable for me to say "i'm subsidising you, so i'll ride without lights if i feel like it!".

Whilst I agree that putting up prices oftern decreases usage of a good, petrol is fairly price inelastic, so people will stomach it and cut back on other items. If it means that I don't get to drink so much beer so I can go climbing, I cut back my drinking.

Out of intrest where do you get the figures that I am subsidised. I'm not disputing them, just intrested.

If you want we can agree that I will find figures demonstrating car subsidy if you find figures demonstrating that there is no significant correlation between the degree to which a particular catagory of car is taxed and its popularity.

 

[George & Bill]

Ok, fair enough....now what do we do about it now we have landscapes that make cars so darn usefull? I think a lot more effort needs to be put in to town planning, locating houses near shops, schools and workplaces. We also need to see masive improvments in public transport and subsidise to make it more appealing.

Staying with my parents at the moment in Northampton and everytime I come home it amazes me the amount of new houses on the edge of town. Houses that will need cars to do almost anything. Contrast to where I live in Lincoln where everything is walking distance and I never have to use my car.

well car existance per se is not problematic in the respect we're discussing, what is problematic are the expectations drivers such as you have of cyclists and pedestrians around you. You can drive your car around as much as you like as long as you don't expect me as a pedestrian or cyclist to modify my behavious in order to compensate for the threat you are creating.

 

[UnderOpenSky]

I'm of out so will write a longer reply tommorow. However my point re lights is that of personal saftey. You might not like that roads are dangerous places, but they are, therefore take some responsiblity for your saftey. Fact is bikes at night are hard to see.

I see it as a greater sympton of our blame society. Ride without lights if you want, but don't go blame the motorist who hits you if you serve in front of them. If you want to spice up your life with some danger, have you every thought of climbing? Like I said I ride a bike as well, I ride and drive like everybody else on the road is trying to kill me. From what I've seen, I don't think I'm far wrong.

 

[George & Bill]

a) I do use lights, since I value my safety on roads that have been usurped by the motorcar

b) do you not accept or just not understand what I have said regarding the rights and responsibilities associated with the various modes of travel?

(edit: that is to say, blame goes both ways; you might feel it unfair of me to blame you for hitting my swerving, unlit cycle, but I might also feel it unfair of you to blame me for simply riding a bicycle - which is not dangerous in itself - in an absent minded fashion down a country lane, simply because you consider it your right to propel a 1-tonne metal box down the same country lane at a speed that prevents it from safely avoiding unforeseen obsicals...

 

[tommers]

Yes, specifically motor vehicles. For the upgrading & maintenance of roads for all road users. Anyone disputing that has no argument at all.

where do you get the "for the upgrading and maintenance of roads" bit from?

are you saying that it is kept seperately?

wikipedia doesn't say anything about that.

neither does the government

of course a cyclist gives a rather different argument, but one that somebody was alluding to before....

 

[pogofish]

where do you get the "for the upgrading and maintenance of roads" bit from?

IIRC, the DVLA history of its road tax, plus a general history of the road/road tax system I read somewhere. Identification & upkeep/upgrade were the primary intentions of the tax:

Consequently, The Motor Car Act 1903 introduced measures to help identify vehicles and their drivers. All motor vehicles were to be registered, and to display registration marks in a prominent position. All drivers were to be licensed annually. County Councils and County Borough Councils were made Registration and Licensing Authorities; the vehicle registration fee was twenty shillings and the drivers licence fee was five shillings The Bill also raised the speed limit to 20mph, with a limit of 10mph by the Local Government Boards, and introduced heavy fines for speeding and reckless driving (the offenders could now be identified more easily). Fines were also introduced for driving unlicensed vehicles.

The growing popularity of motor vehicles continued to take its toll on the road network, which clearly needed greater investment. The Finance Act 1908 passed responsibility for collecting the revenue from Excise Licensing from the Commissioners for the Inland Revenue to the County and County Borough Councils. A 3d tax was also levied on a gallon of petrol. In 1909, the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act provided for grants to local authorities for approved highway works. The Finance Act 1909 - 10 based vehicle taxation on the horsepower of the vehicle (and so it remained until 1949), and stated that the revenue would be used for road improvements only.

http://www.dvla.gov.uk/histm_l/introof.htm

The govt seems more than a little unclear about just how they divvy-up the funds as well. Last time I looked, even their own figures from the different depts concerned were highly contradictory.

 

[tommers]

IIRC, the DVLA history of its road tax, plus a general history of the road/road tax system I read somewhere. Identification & upkeep/upgrade were the primary intentions of the tax:



http://www.dvla.gov.uk/histm_l/introof.htm

The govt seems more than a little unclear about just how they divvy-up the funds as well. Last time I looked, even their own figures from the different depts concerned were highly contradictory.

like I said, all goes into the pot for tornado fighter bombers!

I suppose it all comes down to the fact that it is a vehicle tax, not a tax for using the road, although the proceeds may (or may not) be used to maintain the roads. therefore people who shout at me that i should pay road tax are idiots.

 

[pogofish]

like I said, all goes into the pot for tornado fighter bombers!
therefore people who shout at me that i should pay road tax are idiots.

Exactly, on both!