£94m but no change in attitude.....?

Motorised vehicles pay a tax to use the roads because of the wear and tear they cause; said roads being built for horse-drawn traffic, and cyclists enjoying the same categorisation as horses...

..ergo, cyclists have more right to be on the roads than cars!

Having said that, I thought I was going to witness a tragedy of one kind or another this morning; anyone who knows the Balcombe Road between Worth and the left turn for Turners Hill will appreciate the potential for danger along that stretch of road...

...today a cyclist had just crested the hill before the drop down to the Cowdray PH when a rapidly approaching car overtook him; considering the car in front of me was level with the approaching cyclist at the time, and had he not swerved to the nearside in time, the overtaking car was a good three feet our side of the (solid) white line!

How everyone got away with that one I do not know!

Whilst cyclists have every right to be on the road there are some I just would not use! :|

highlandsflyer":39tw1sfv said:

I have never heard of a cyclist being abused on the basis they should be on a cycle path.

Click to expand...

Well there's a fair selection of examples on youtube....

I can assure you, it does go on.

highlandsflyer":39tw1sfv said:

Really don't know why your experience should trump mine.

Click to expand...

I'm not saying it should? I merely made my point, and questioned yours.

<shrug> Isn't the first line of your post, kind of implying that your experience should trump mine?

I realise you are very much in favour of cycle paths, and don't really want to hear anything against them - and in fairness, I'm not out-and-out against them. If they were truly a panacea, I'd embrace them with open arms. I'm still not sure I'd embrace what would be implied, though - effectively giving up realistic claim to actually cycle on the road.

Problem is, they're not a panacea, they're not even a very naughty boy. And they're not likely to be a panacea in the future, because nobody is about to spend, sorry "invest" that sort of money. With that in mind, for the foreseeable - albeit eroded in most ways - cyclists will at many instances, have to cohabit on the roads. Therefore, addressing attitudes and the problems betwixt some drivers and cyclists truly does need addressing - not just for good form - but because life and limb, as opposed to a bit of panel and paintwork damage, is at stake.

I got shouted at for being on a cycle path once, cant win either way

Don't worry, in 50 or so years when the motorists have wasted all the oil driving their kids to school in 4x4s that only do 12mpg in town, we'll have the roads to ourselves, or at least the kids that were driven to school will. Sadly, I will probably miss out on this cycling utopia along the terrible wars for what remains of the planets dwindling natural resources on a planet with 10 billion or more people on it.

Happy days. :?

Perhaps Carlton Reid's book Roads were not built for cars should be given away in schools with the giddy bible, or with a likeability course, or a prov driving license.

BBC still covering the road tax debate, and apparently the woman who tweeted on hitting cyclist is in court but with the term "road tax" dropped pre WWII :roll: .............

BBC: Is there any such thing as 'road tax'? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23694438

vehicle excise duty - it pays for the pollution cars produce

legrandefromage":1zj6df03 said:

vehicle excise duty - it pays for the pollution cars produce

Click to expand...

it may say snickers on the wrapper but some people still think of it as a marathon; and even the Treasury had to be "educated" on the new green flavour of the coloured (not tax) disk

The tax revenue gets used anywhere, pollution is a good publicity cause and allows different rates.

The excise duty is on the sale of certain goods.but the cars already been sold, what's the tax disc buying?

The dvla etc. Will use the term vehicle tax.

We could have 1% vehicle excise duty at time of sale, even on our 2 wheeled vehicles, to be ring fenced on roads, cycle paths, infrastructure, bikeability and highway code for car, bike, pedestrians in schools.

We would have vehicle emissions duty, the disc, for pollutants to be used for clean up and healthcare.

Neil":24ik1epi said:

I realise you are very much in favour of cycle paths, and don't really want to hear anything against them..

..the problems betwixt some drivers and cyclists truly does need addressing

Click to expand...

You don't need to start with suggestions I have a blinkered view on this. No one reasonably would conclude I cannot appreciate the whole argument. I would be quite happy to see cars banned from most city centre areas and restricted to 10mph in areas where there is a mix of pedestrians, cyclists and such. I happen to favour complete separation where possible. I don't agree increasing separation will automatically result in drivers polarising to the view cyclists should not be on the road. Even if it does that is a problem to be dealt with rather than a reason not to go ahead with creating more safe discrete cycle ways. For the foreseeable future of course cars and bicycles will share most of the network.

Addressing the attitudes of drivers is not an alternative to providing more safe cycle routes. It is something that should be done in parallel. However, no amount of attitude changing will make travelling along a busy carriageway where the average speed of traffic is 50+ safe for cyclists.

For those scenarios most intelligent and reasonable people would see the need for separation.