[Misc] Team Bike or Team Van?

[Stat Brother]

Cycle law is outdated and needs revising.

Does it, all laws of the road apply to all vehicles and users.

Can you legislate for the common sense needed around lights and clothing?

If you start imposing tax/insurance legislation on cyclists, the second thing, after cheering, all committed motorists will do is plea for the law to be repealed.
That is assuming they were able to move from their stationary car, having been sat in a traffic jam for approximately 5 years.

 

[neilbard]

You are correct sir, but cycle law is very flimsy indeed, a cyclists is not legally obliged to use a cycle lane or wear a protective helmet or put their lights on when its foggy or adverse weather,

Highway Code Rule 66: States that cyclists should never ride more than two abreast and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding around bends.

It is perfectly legal for cyclists to ride side by side on most roads. It may however be sensible to cycle in single file on narrow roads or where a car is attempting to overtake.

Also VED is still a tax and it generates billions of pounds each year for the government.

Cycle law is outdated and needs revising.

What is outdated and needs revising, far more than cycle law, is some people's attitude towards people who ride bikes.

Really so you think it is ok that a cyclist is not legally bound to wear a protective helmet on todays busy roads?

 

[Superphil]

It's called Vehicle Excise Duty, not road tax. It is based on emissions of CO2.

For cars registered before 1 March 2001 the excise duty is based on engine size (£140 for vehicles with a capacity of less than 1549 cc, £225 for vehicles with larger engines). For vehicles registered on or after 1 March 2001 charges are based on theoretical CO2 emission rates per kilometre.

Yet when you go to pay your 'excise duty' the website calls it tax

You can't blame people for calling it tax, when even the people who demand it from you call it tax.

https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-tax

 

[Bold Seagull]

Yet when you go to pay your 'excise duty' the website calls it tax

You can't blame people for calling it tax, when even the people who demand it from you call it tax.

https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-tax

It's calling it 'road tax' that is incorrect, as if it's a tax to use the road. I don't think anyone is disputing it's a tax!

 

[pb21]

Really so you think it is ok that a cyclist is not legally bound to wear a protective helmet on todays busy roads?

Why do you think, based on my assertion above, that I think that?

 

[Superphil]

It's calling it 'road tax' that is incorrect, as if it's a tax to use the road. I don't think anyone is disputing it's a tax!

As I said, it's an old chestnut and hardly fair to criticise people who call it tax rather than excise duty. But if it makes them feel better about themselves then so be it.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Really so you think it is ok that a cyclist is not legally bound to wear a protective helmet on todays busy roads?

It should remain a choice. You said it 'busy roads', congested town centres, rising obesity, if only there was a simple solution to solve those things by encouraging people to do something and make it safer to do, easier to do. Not add more legislation.

I wear a helmet, but bloodyhell, it ain't going to do much other than a bit of a fall or a collision at under 20mph. You don't make roads safer legislating safety gear, you do it by investing in infrastructure which numerous countries have shown pays you back ten fold in reducing congestion, improving health etc.

 

[neilbard]

Does it, all laws of the road apply to all vehicles and users.

Can you legislate for the common sense needed around lights and clothing?

If you start imposing tax/insurance legislation on cyclists, the second thing, after cheering, all committed motorists will do is plea for the law to be repealed.
That is assuming they were able to move from their stationary car, having been sat in a traffic jam for approximately 5 years.

Yes but common sense in some people Cyclists and Motorists alike just isn't apparent. All road users need to be safe.

You sound like an experienced cyclists and motorist and use common courtesy as well as little self preservation when out cycling,

I occasionally cycle and know how dangerous it can be, In the clip from the OP it isn't great to watch, the van driver is obviously at fault and could have killed the cyclist.

Thing is you will never be able to legislate against idiots on the road.

What I do find amazing is cycle lanes cost millions of pounds to install and cyclists are not legally bound to use them.

 

[Bold Seagull]

As I said, it's an old chestnut and hardly fair to criticise people who call it tax rather than excise duty. But if it makes them feel better about themselves then so be it.

No, you miss the point, its not the difference between calling it a tax or a duty, it's the difference between calling it a Road Tax or a Vehicle Emmisions Tax. Very different. A driver cannot say you don't pay road tax because neither does any vehicle emitting under 100g/km.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Yes but common sense in some people Cyclists and Motorists alike just isn't apparent. All road users need to be safe.

You sound like an experienced cyclists and motorist and use common courtesy as well as little self preservation when out cycling,

I occasionally cycle and know how dangerous it can be, In the clip from the OP it isn't great to watch, the van driver is obviously at fault and could have killed the cyclist.

Thing is you will never be able to legislate against idiots on the road.

What I do find amazing is cycle lanes cost millions of pounds to install and cyclists are not legally bound to use them.

Seriously, the cycle lanes around Brighton and many towns are well used - but not extensive enough and fit for purpose for complusory use legislation - not a chance. They often mix with pedestrians, involve getting in and off the bike, disappear altogether. You make a cycling infrastructure like they do in Holland, Belgium, Denmark etc. you wouldn't need to legislate; they'd be rammed!

 

[Lord Bracknell]

As I said, it's an old chestnut and hardly fair to criticise people who call it tax rather than excise duty. But if it makes them feel better about themselves then so be it.

My criticism is directed towards people who incorrectly try to associate paying the tax with an entitlement to use the roads that is greater than the entitlement that non-payers of the tax have.

 

[neilbard]

Seriously, the cycle lanes around Brighton and many towns are well used - but not extensive enough and fit for purpose for complusory use legislation - not a chance. They often mix with pedestrians, involve getting in and off the bike, disappear altogether. You make a cycling infrastructure like they do in Holland, Belgium, Denmark etc. you wouldn't need to legislate; they'd be rammed!

I didn't say they were unused did I? And I agree with you the infrastructure needs to be improved in many towns and cities.

 

[Stat Brother]

Seriously, the cycle lanes around Brighton and many towns are well used - but not extensive enough and fit for purpose for complusory use legislation - not a chance. They often mix with pedestrians, involve getting in and off the bike, disappear altogether. You make a cycling infrastructure like they do in Holland, Belgium, Denmark etc. you wouldn't need to legislate; they'd be rammed!

Or Southsea!!

 

[Superphil]

My criticism is directed towards people who incorrectly try to associate paying the tax with an entitlement to use the roads that is greater than the entitlement that non-payers of the tax have.

If you don't pay it, are you still entitled to drive your car on the road?

 

[Lord Bracknell]

What I do find amazing is cycle lanes cost millions of pounds to install and cyclists are not legally bound to use them.

SOME (not all) cycle lanes are very badly designed. Just painting a line at the edge of a busy road to "create" a so-called cycle lane that shares space with car parking space, and only allowing one metre of width to be allocated to the cyclist, is NOT providing a safe space for cyclists.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

If you don't pay it, are you still entitled to drive your car on the road?

The van driver in the video that started this thread off didn't pay the tax on his van. It was paid by his employer, who has decided that the driver is no longer entitled to drive the company's vehicles.

Seems fair enough to me.

 

[Bold Seagull]

If you don't pay it, are you still entitled to drive your car on the road?

Yes, if your car omits 100g/km or less Co2.

 

[neilbard]

SOME (not all) cycle lanes are very badly designed. Just painting a line at the edge of a busy road to "create" a so-called cycle lane that shares space with car parking space, and only allowing one metre of width to be allocated to the cyclist, is NOT providing a safe space for cyclists.

I agree with you and local councils and governments should be doing more but where are the funds to improve the infrastructures going to come from.

 

[Carrot Cruncher]

As I said, it's an old chestnut and hardly fair to criticise people who call it tax rather than excise duty. But if it makes them feel better about themselves then so be it.

People who call it tax are the people who call it road tax rather than emissions tax, so yes, they are effing stupid.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

I agree with you and local councils and governments should be doing more but where are the funds to improve the infrastructures going to come from.

From general taxation, obviously. It's a political decision, but there are options. Higher income tax would load the costs on to workers. Higher VAT would hit family budgets. Higher corporation taxes would have an effect on businesses. You might even contemplate cutting defence spending.

What is really needed is for politicians to stop being frightened of saying that taxes are a good thing.