Originally Posted by Kursk (Post 35886234)

Because a house is a necessity and a car isn't. Also, houses don't continuously pollute. :shrug:

Originally Posted by Kursk (Post 35886234)

Because a house is a necessity and a car isn't. Also, houses don't continuously pollute. :shrug:

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 35886247)

For many a car is an absolute necessity......

Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 35886254)

Central heating, water, sewage, electricity. The list of pollutants due to buildings and the building of buildings is almost endless.

Originally Posted by Kursk (Post 35886083)

It's possible to hypothesise ad infinitum.

What happens if a pedestrian steps out in front of a cyclist who is simply riding along? Should all pedestrians have insurance too as the potential perpetrator of accidents?

What about the lethal buggy owner who bashes your ankles and causes you to trip? Insurance?

What about wheelchair users? Are they insured? What if when crossing the road they cause an accident because they move less freely than the ambulant?

Do we need to insure all our kids who are the most unpredictable users of just about everything?

Does my neighbour need insurance in case he drops a paint pot on my head when he's up a ladder?

Insurance benefits the money men. Do you want them to be creaming in policy payments for occurences that seldom happen? We don't do things that way in the UK but we'll end up that way if we're stupid enough.



Most people learn to ride at a young age and get parental training in safety (not just for cycling!). It works. Anyone taking up cycling later will know roads are dangerous and it will be part of their decision as to whether they choose to cycle or not.

What is the stopping distance at 50 mph on a wet road and in potentially icy conditions?

No-one reading this post will know the answer because all that theory is forgotten and because all road conditions cannot be predicted (it won't stop some members scurrying off to the highway code to try and find a smartass answer though!). Cycle training is real-time road experience which is why we need other road users to take special care of our safety. Learning a few metronomic hand signalling skills in a classroom won't protect us nor will it make good cyclists out of bad ones.

Protective clothing will protect you if you fall off your motorbike at speed. Protective clothing will not protect a cyclist hit by a car, lorry or van. Especially those little plastic helmets that can cause rotational neck injury; the jury is still out on that one.

Bike MOT - bicycles are simple machines, easily maintained. Do you remember the first time you had a bike for christmas or whatever? Was the occasion ruined because your Dad forgot its MOT, or rider insurance, or its pedal tax, or because he forgot your kevlar body restraint, helmet, gauntlets, shinguards, chest brace and condom? Cycling is supposed to be fun and healthy. We need people to cycle so let's not make it harder.

See above re insurance but, also, did you ever ride someone's else's bike to the shops? Would you have preferred to walk because you didn't have the required insurance? Would you like to miss out on riding in deserted country lanes because you don't have insurance and all the other paraphernalia? All that stuff will discourage cycling and that is crazy.

I know bikes and cars don't mix but I wish someone (and this is not aimed at you) would come up with workable alternatives instead of bleating that "bikes get in my way" all the time. Besides, you ride a motorbike...who most endangers you, cyclists or car drivers? I know the answer to that one: extra training for motorists. :D

I'm throttling back; ride safe mate!:)

Originally Posted by Hom3r (Post 35886365)

Wheelchair users don't ride in the road without lights nor do they jump red lights.

Originally Posted by Hom3r (Post 35886365)

Plus cyclist pay nothing to drive on the roads.

Originally Posted by Hom3r (Post 35886365)

Personally any cyclist that break the law of the road should be treated as car drivers, which should include points on any driving licence and hit 12 point like driver bye bye licence.

Originally Posted by Hom3r (Post 35886365)

After all when a cyclists starts a argument with a car he will lose every single time.

Originally Posted by Kursk (Post 35886377)

Cyclists do pay to use the roads; roads are maintained through general taxation. In fact, there is no road tax paid by anyone as such, there is a tax on vehicle emissions and bicycles don't emit anything toxic (the riders might!) so cyclists contribute in the same way as motorists. How many times...

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35886394)

ouch

Shocking moment a cyclist riding OUTSIDE a bike lane is sent flying after ploughing into a trailer as driver turns across his path - so who is in the right?



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...r-Dee-Why.html

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35886386)

You know the only person that calls it vehicle emissions tax is the chancellor a couple of times a year in the budget, the rest of the time the treasury call it car tax, the dvla call it car tax, the aa call it car tax as do most other organisations, that being the case it's not unfair for other vehicles to pay to use the facility of roads, as for insurance, do horsey types pay insurance? You are right about the road tax though, abolished in 1937, I doubt there's many that remember paying it and if there are I'd question whether they should still be on the road

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23694438

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35886394)

ouch

Shocking moment a cyclist riding OUTSIDE a bike lane is sent flying after ploughing into a trailer as driver turns across his path - so who is in the right?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...r-Dee-Why.html

Originally Posted by Kursk (Post 35886398)

The 'car tax' for small cars is £0. How much do you think cyclists should pay?


Use of Cycle lanes is not mandatory (nor is the use of pavements by pedestrians for that matter) especially those full of parked cars.
It's clear the car has misjudged crossing the main thoroughfare with that trailer thing attached.

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35886399)

£140 min from April

Originally Posted by Kursk (Post 35886401)

Based on emissions and bikes don't emit papa titchy:)

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35886403)

no but but cyclists blow out some hot air ;)

there should be a Lycra tax that would sort it .

Originally Posted by Kursk (Post 35886404)

It was only a matter of time before frustrated fellow posters sought that refuge:D

A Lycra tax will ruin your cross-dressing weekends.