Cycle Roundabouts
- Thread starter Lickashot
- Start date
Then it's just like their belief that cyclists can't ride two abreast......sadly wrong.
The Road Fund Tax was wound up in 1955. Hypothecation, whereby the income for the Road Fund came from VED, finished in 1936.
Unless you were paying tax 84 years ago you've never paid for the roads through VED.
There is of course a counter-argument that says it is motor vehicle drivers who are "parasitic". The first section of motorway was opened in 1958, so after the end of the Road Fund Tax. Yet cyclists (nor pedestrians....nor sheep, horses, etc) don't get to benefit from motorways, despite paying for them.
Last edited:
So, if we assess how much of the road network has (at one time) been built by taxes on motorists and how much by a tax on cyclists, who should perhaps feel they intrinsically 'own' the network ? Who is to say that nothing was put aside for the fund ? It may be that the Preston Bypass - first section of motorway, did not benefit. I am sure James Drake had a few connections !
By the way, if you are correct and RFT died in 1955, I have paid for the road network and its all MINE !
Stretching it a bit I know but this argument is between friends?
Finally, cyclists can ride wo abreast but not on wiggly country roads, according to the Highway Code which is only 'Guidance' anyway.
I think you’ll find that The Highway Code is very much not “only Guidance anyway”.
As it states:
“Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence.
Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.”
You might want to give it a little more credence in future, to be on the safe side.
There is also a principle in English common law that “Everything which is not forbidden is allowed”.
So in the absence of legislation that forbids riding two (or three, four, or even more) abreast on “wiggly lanes” - or indeed any roads where cycling is allowed - the reality is that there is no legal limit. So when you see those cyclists in a group riding two abreast remember that all they’re doing is being kind to motorists and following the “guidance” in The Highway Code.
Regarding your Road Fund Tax, unless you we’re paying it back 1936 there’s equal likelihood that what you really own is a dedicated cycle lane
As it states:
“Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence.
Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.”
You might want to give it a little more credence in future, to be on the safe side.
There is also a principle in English common law that “Everything which is not forbidden is allowed”.
So in the absence of legislation that forbids riding two (or three, four, or even more) abreast on “wiggly lanes” - or indeed any roads where cycling is allowed - the reality is that there is no legal limit. So when you see those cyclists in a group riding two abreast remember that all they’re doing is being kind to motorists and following the “guidance” in The Highway Code.
Regarding your Road Fund Tax, unless you we’re paying it back 1936 there’s equal likelihood that what you really own is a dedicated cycle lane
I don't doubt it for a second - but they are no more correct for being many as they would be if they were only few.
Not sure what to make of this, other than it was a hypothecated tax to pay for roads, presuambly suitable for motor traffic (which of course includes buses and lorries), and now it isn't. So that's that, surely?
Deer-forests are another matter altogether.
Back to my original assertion - the asset has not been paid for by motorists any more than by other tax-payers. They have to pay a tax to use it because they have no common-law right to do so, and that's that. The fact that they have to pay makes many of them think they have a right to use it, whereas in truth the fact that they have to pay shows that they have no right (as such) to do so.
Cyclists were cycling long before motor traffic was blocking and eroding the highways and polluting the country with noise and smoke. They were not, and are still not, taxed because they do neither of those things. The mere fact that motorists now outnumber cyclists on most roads should not cause their skewed and billious opinions to be given more weight than those of the gentle and inoffensive cyclist. It seems profoundly unenglish to take the side of the noisy, brash, vulgar and noisome machine and its user over the benign and discrete human-powered two-wheeler.
Quite so.
Not quite so - correct - e.g everyone has a common law right to use the highway - Highways Act 1980. (to pass and repass). Later qualified to certain uses but based on its use for getting from a to b. Only private highways may be dedicated with certain restriction, which are limited.
Cyclists were only cycling until they could become motorists (1817 v 1880) - it is 'vogue' now to cycle, for health and because its deemed and supported as a cheap and sustainable form of transport.
That doesnt include lycra wearing eco-warriors who damn everything they personally are not doing - I'm happy to say the last bit is as fictitous as the last bit of your post, starting with the sentence with "bilious" in it !
I'm not sure that you can be said to have a 'right' to drive a motor-vehicle on the public highway if you need a document (driving licence, in this case) permitting you to do so? The two things seem in complete opposition, no?
Certainly everyone has a right to pass and repass the highway in a non-motorised manner.
I shall have to re-read the entire thread. I think I've mistakenly come to the conclusion that it was mainly motorists damning things that they personally were not doing, and the provison being made for those who do such things, because they are perceived as getting in the way of their tearing noisily about the place in the motors. And then claiming that because feel that they pay for the roads, everyone else should keep the hell off them, damn their eyes!
never heard so much tripe in my life.I'm not sure that you can be said to have a 'right' to drive a motor-vehicle on the public highway if you need a document (driving licence, in this case) permitting you to do so? The two things seem in complete opposition, no?
Certainly everyone has a right to pass and repass the highway in a non-motorised manner.
I shall have to re-read the entire thread. I think I've mistakenly come to the conclusion that it was mainly motorists damning things that they personally were not doing, and the provison being made for those who do such things, because they are perceived as getting in the way of their tearing noisily about the place in the motors. And then claiming that because feel that they pay for the roads, everyone else should keep the hell off them, damn their eyes!
If you dont have the right to drive a car,because you need a licence, then you dont have the right to carry and use a firearm, because you have to have a licence.
Cyclist do emit pollution, from the tryes and brakes.they emit pollution both in the manufacture of the cycle itself and with the increase in electric bikes, , the travel from were they are made, to the shop etc. and recharging, etc, so dont think they are carbon neutral, they are polluters.
I dont have anything against cyclists, I feel sorry for them just as I feel sorry for any addicts, as the constant need for an adrelanine rush by cycling, just makes me smile as I pass them.
You are wrong there. We do have a right to carry and use a firearm, but not to drive a car on public roads. That's why it's called a Firearms Certificate, not a Firearms Licence. The law says that, provided we satisfy certain criteria (in the interests of public safety), a FAC shall be granted. Not maybe, or perhaps, or subject to passing a test, but shall.
A bit different from applying for a provisional licence, learning to drive, passing a theory test, passing a practical test, getting a driving licence, insurance, road tax, etc etc. You don't have an automatic right to drive a car on a public highway, even if you're a good chap worthy of being trusted with firearms.
Last edited:
Dont you need to pass a Police Background check, and a medical, and you dont actually have to have passed a driving test to drive on the roads in the UK.
And if you need me to explain that to you just let me know
My point was that to say you dont have the right to drive on a public road, because you need a licence, is tripe.in answer to dalua's comments in #167
And if you need me to explain that to you just let me know
My point was that to say you dont have the right to drive on a public road, because you need a licence, is tripe.in answer to dalua's comments in #167
This very common misunderstanding rather puts us as firearms owners on the back foot.
Just to recap:
there is no fundamental right in law to drive a car on the highway - that is why you need a licence to do so.
there is a funamental right in law to own and use firearms - that is why you apply for a certificate of fitness to exercise the right. There are no 'licences' relating to firearms ownership in the UK.
You're absolutely correct, of course. It's just that the amount of pollution per mile is so unmeasurably small compared that of internal combustion vehicles in every domain quoted that it hardly seems bothering with - added to which there is no fuel consumption. Electric bikes are another matter in that regard, of course - but even their consumption is minute compared to an electric car.
'Carbon neutral' as a phrase suggests concern with global warming. My arguments are mainly to do with aesthetics - noise, smoke etc., which to me are of more immediate concern.
It's clear that you are a relaxed and considerate driver, and for some reason perceive all cyclists to be suicidally-reckless adrenaline-junkies. As a relaxed commuting cyclist, I am more inclined to notice the motorists who fall into that second category! When I'm being a relaxed and considerate driver, I just take the traffic as it comes and deal with it appropriately. You can't control what other road-users are up to - you can only do your best to keep everyone as safe as possible however you're using the roads.
Last edited:
Either way, it's a lot easier to get a FAC or SGC than it is to get a full driving licence. Crikey, there isn't even a minimum age requirement for a SGC!
I guess it boils down to the fact that people in cars pose a far greater risk to public safety than either people with firearms or people on bicycles!
glasshalffull
Well-Known Member
And that is indeed the Crux of the matter, it's all down to the individual. Bit of nonce goes a long way. Try not to cycle during rush hour unless you commute, don't ride two abreast of you're holding up the traffic, motorists don't make it a sport to see how close to a cyclist you can get whilst overtaking etc etc
I think you meant nouse.
bluesako
Well-Known Member
just come home from my morning walk a brisk 4 mile with the dog, ITS TO HOT, and got to a pedestrian crossing, pressed the button cars stop i start to cross on the green man, yep you guessed it mr eco macho dumbass lycra wearing tosser on two wheels, just runs the red light on the crossing and shouts out at me, effing ole tw**, because i deemed to cross on a PEDESTRIAN CROSSING, but what really ****ed me off was there were two police officers in the queue, so i said to them arnt you going to do anything about the moron cyclist who just ran the red light, sorry mate we are to busy, so i said you want to get off your fat arses and do some policing, they laughed, two fat plods in a car with a load of mcdonalds crap, who couldnt chase a pensioner on a zimmer frame this is why i hate cyclists. bs.
I've seen that kind of deplorable behaviour from motor-drivers and pedestrians as well, as I'm sure you have too.
I think there must be other, more-profound, reasons for your irrational hatred of all cyclists - but fortunately I'm not qualified to attempt to elicit them.
Reading some of the comments here shows we we, as shooters, can never expect people to accept that we should be allowed to hunt and own firearms based on arguments of logic and reason. Personally, I find it quite disheartening that a group of people who are so used to being subject to others seeking to regulate our pastimes, and for some livelihoods, out of existence are so keen on recommending it for others.
Yes, some cyclists are utter PITAs who seem to use eco credentials to excuse a sense of total entitlement but my experience of motorists does not suggest they are any more rule abiding, they just break other (commonly less visible) rules. I have lost count of the number of drivers I see using mobiles, I overtook someone the other day who was trying to pull on to a motorway whilst at the same time sending a text. On another occasion, I saw someone with an iPad on their dashboard having a video call whilst driving. As for speed limits, try sticking to the 30mph limit where I live in Birmingham and see how long you manage before someone aggressively tailgates you.
It is exactly the same sort of logic which says cyclists should be regulated to the same (or according to some people an even higher) level the car drivers which is used to say that we should be banned from owning guns, or that the regulations around any kind of live quarry shooting should be so stringent that only a professional would ever be able to comply with them.
In reality, compulsory insurance would mostly just pay for a couple of fender benders as the incidence of serious injury cased by bikes is very low (I am not saying non-existent but low enough that I do not feel compulsory insurance should be forced). As for road tax, as others have so well explained, it would be set at £0 under the current system so would simply be another government bureaucracy which depletes taxpayers funds not adds to them. Would licensing really improve standards? A bike hardly needs much formal training to use properly (unlike a motor vehicle) and anyway, it is not as though car licenses are so effective that we do not see accidents or rule breaking from motorists.
How would those commenting on here feel about having to have compulsory training before being allowed a FAC/SGC? How about having to pay the full cost of your FAC application/renewal (as in what it costs for the police to administer the system)? Maybe hunting licenses and compulsory training? Whilst we're at it, compulsory third party insurance in case a shot goes awry. All of these could be justified in the same way that cycling licensing etc is justified, i.e. it might, possibly, help ensure competence, reduce wildlife crime or allow someone to be compensated if injured. I'm sure most of us would answer that it would actually achieve very little but would place an unwarranted burden on people enjoying a legal and legitimate activity. If that is your view then please explain why that sort of balancing act ought not to be extended to cyclists.
What it seems to come down to is some people do not like cyclists (which is fine, its a free country) but seeking to regulate them out of existence is the same thing that Packham et al are currently trying with shooting and which we, quite understandably, feel aggrieved about. My own take on the role of government regulation is that it should be limited only to that strictly needed to protect the public from the misbehaviour of others. Even once some restriction is justified, it should then be limited to only that necessary to protect the public from the misbehaviour.
Yes, some cyclists are utter PITAs who seem to use eco credentials to excuse a sense of total entitlement but my experience of motorists does not suggest they are any more rule abiding, they just break other (commonly less visible) rules. I have lost count of the number of drivers I see using mobiles, I overtook someone the other day who was trying to pull on to a motorway whilst at the same time sending a text. On another occasion, I saw someone with an iPad on their dashboard having a video call whilst driving. As for speed limits, try sticking to the 30mph limit where I live in Birmingham and see how long you manage before someone aggressively tailgates you.
It is exactly the same sort of logic which says cyclists should be regulated to the same (or according to some people an even higher) level the car drivers which is used to say that we should be banned from owning guns, or that the regulations around any kind of live quarry shooting should be so stringent that only a professional would ever be able to comply with them.
In reality, compulsory insurance would mostly just pay for a couple of fender benders as the incidence of serious injury cased by bikes is very low (I am not saying non-existent but low enough that I do not feel compulsory insurance should be forced). As for road tax, as others have so well explained, it would be set at £0 under the current system so would simply be another government bureaucracy which depletes taxpayers funds not adds to them. Would licensing really improve standards? A bike hardly needs much formal training to use properly (unlike a motor vehicle) and anyway, it is not as though car licenses are so effective that we do not see accidents or rule breaking from motorists.
How would those commenting on here feel about having to have compulsory training before being allowed a FAC/SGC? How about having to pay the full cost of your FAC application/renewal (as in what it costs for the police to administer the system)? Maybe hunting licenses and compulsory training? Whilst we're at it, compulsory third party insurance in case a shot goes awry. All of these could be justified in the same way that cycling licensing etc is justified, i.e. it might, possibly, help ensure competence, reduce wildlife crime or allow someone to be compensated if injured. I'm sure most of us would answer that it would actually achieve very little but would place an unwarranted burden on people enjoying a legal and legitimate activity. If that is your view then please explain why that sort of balancing act ought not to be extended to cyclists.
What it seems to come down to is some people do not like cyclists (which is fine, its a free country) but seeking to regulate them out of existence is the same thing that Packham et al are currently trying with shooting and which we, quite understandably, feel aggrieved about. My own take on the role of government regulation is that it should be limited only to that strictly needed to protect the public from the misbehaviour of others. Even once some restriction is justified, it should then be limited to only that necessary to protect the public from the misbehaviour.
I actually think its based on the fact that we shooters are heavily regulated and live within character boundaries, that we resent those who are students of militancy, carelessness, selfishness, drunkenness, uninsured, antisocial behaviour and so on, as this would put our ownership of firearms at risk.
Whereas those who do these things and cyclists, get away without any such serious sanction.
Off with his wheels !!!!
caorach
Well-Known Member
It is a while since I've looked at the precise figures so this is out of date by some years but the motorist paid somewhere around £36 - £40 billion per year in tax directly relating to motor vehicles - so fuel, tax on new cars etc. A proportion of this was spent on roads and transport and the rest went into the big pot that paid for the NHS etc. It is, therefore, quite clear that motorists are not parasitic in any why but they actually subsidise other areas of society. This ignores the indirect impact of having an effective and efficient road system on the economy such as allowing business to operate, people to travel as tourists to more remote areas sustaining an economy there, people travelling to stalking even.
