I'm a poor student
And as such, I spend quite a lot of my time cycling various places. It's free and it's good exercise. I do also drive, so I know all the traffic laws and obey them. I don't cut people up, I never jump red lights even if I really, really want to, I don't ride on the pavement unless there's no-one on it and I think the road is getting very dangerous (double lines of parked cars at night etc.) and I'll happily pull over for a bit if I seem to be obstructing traffic. If I feel I'm too tired to cycle at a decent speed on the road, I'll get off and walk for a bit rather than move at 5mph in the middle of the road.

To me, this stuff is just how I should behave, and I don't know why some cyclists behave as if they own the road. But taxes, tests and licences? No. Maybe a quick CBT style course for people without driving licences but the rest is just very, very silly. My bike doesn't emit anything or damage the roads, so I'm damned if I'm paying car tax. I can do just about fuck all damage to most other vehicles on the road, so I'm damned if I'm getting insured. If I want to take out personal insurance, that's my lookout. I don't.
( MatJ LOOK, Wed 28 Apr 2010, 15:59, 1 reply)

Hahahahaha
Cyclists hurt a lot of pedestrians each year, and as such, should be insured against doing so, and have to get a license that can be revoked and thus prevent them legally cycling if they're caught so many times breaking the law. Cyclists use the road, so they should pay road tax proportionately.

Why on earth should cyclists be exempt from being treated like any other road user?

This is a prime example of why people think cyclists are twats - they genuinely think they're above the law, and that they SHOULD be above the law.

Maybe if cyclists had to behave like other road users, they'd have a bit of respect for the road.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Wed 28 Apr 2010, 16:16, closed)

I actually think insaurance is not a bad idea...
However, licensing is bollocks. I would be tempted to say that if you jump a red on a bike, you should get points on your drivers licence, like you can get your licence taken away fro cycling drunk. However, this would never work, in practice, as it would be a huge bain to enforce.

As for tax, if I were to start paying road tax, on my bike, I would demand that the edges of roads were cleaned on a daily basis, to keep my tyres from punctures, that cycle lanes didn't get left to be pot-holed, and there was a cycle lane at the edge of every road. As this is not going to happen, and would cost far more than people would be prepared to pay, I think we just ignore taxing bikes.
(The Kwyjibo A big, dumb, balding North American ape., Wed 28 Apr 2010, 16:40, closed)

That sounds perfickly reasonable about the sides of the roads.
But the whole "it would never happen" mentality is wrong. If the Martin Luther Kings or Emily Pankhursts had thought like that we'd still have black people as slaves, women wouldn't have the vote, and being gay would be illegal.

I also reject your objection to the licence. It would be easy to enforce. Just get coppers on bikes to enforce it.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Wed 28 Apr 2010, 16:57, closed)

All right
You, a pedestrian, should be paying pavement tax.
( MatJ LOOK, Wed 28 Apr 2010, 16:59, closed)

I do.
It's called income tax.

I also pay tax on the train journeys I make into work, to subsidise their paying of tax for the wear on the track that they use, who pay tax on the ground they use.

No problem.

So you agree with me.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Wed 28 Apr 2010, 17:09, closed)

I do pay road tax in any case
As I said in my post, I also drive. I have spent thousands on being able to do so. I pay ridiculously large amounts to continue doing so. I would be quite happy not to use roads and rather to use tracks and paths. In fact, living in the country, I frequently do. It so happens that the roads are more convienient and as I already pay toward their upkeep as a driver, I don't see why I should pay more to cycle on them.

Are you seriously suggesting that you're going to ban people from cycling because they can't afford your myriad taxes and licences when one reason a lot of people cycle is that they can't afford all that stuff for a car?

I can, in a way, see where you're coming from and there have been days when I've thought along similar lines, but I think that in the end cycling is not in the same category as driving. You can go out on a bike for exercise, fresh air, you can go and see your friends at age 13 rather than walk... I think that all the licences and taxes wouldn't cut down on dickhead cyclists - if they're serious cyclists then they'll probably pay the fees anyway - but it would hurt a lot of people (particularly young people, old people and poor people) for whom a car just isn't practical.
( MatJ LOOK, Wed 28 Apr 2010, 17:33, closed)

I'm not for one moment suggestion that the fees be the same PRICE as those for a car.
Proportionate, is all. Numberplates for the cycles, tax, license, etc. Sure - make the minimum age 13 and lower the insurance the older/less points on the license. Likewise, points on license = higher tax.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Wed 28 Apr 2010, 17:43, closed)

You are suggesting a minimum age for riding a bike?!

(The Kwyjibo A big, dumb, balding North American ape., Wed 28 Apr 2010, 21:07, closed)

Why not? There's a minimum age for driving all other vehicles.

( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Thu 29 Apr 2010, 8:43, closed)