No...
...Cyclists think that the rules of the road -- as specified for cars -- do not apply to them, since they are a different legal class of vehicle and the statutory law governing them is very different.

By the road traffic act, car drivers are legally bound to drive with "reasonable consideration to other road users"; cyclists are not. In a very strict sense, cyclists are right: the rules of the road do not apply to them. There is an offence of dangerous cycling, but the the requirements for it are similar to those for dangerous driving and in many circumstances, simply going through a red light wouldn't qualify. Of course blowing through a red light crossing a dual carriageway at 70mph and causing traffic to swerve around you probably would, but most cyclists (at least those who are still alive) do not go that far.

Still, the fact that there is no law against being an arsehole doesn't necessarily mean that you should go out and act like the biggest cockwad you can be.

As a cyclist, I treat red lights like a stop sign: i.e., stop, give way to other traffic, then go if I'm sure there's nothing coming. Works pretty well for me and the only people who get pissed off are people who are chippy about bikes being on the road anyway.
(Mr T, Wed 4 Aug 2010, 11:22, 3 replies)

Eeeee-xactly.
(Pete_G, Wed 4 Aug 2010, 11:27, closed)

Interesting point, and well-presented.
In response, I suggest that cyclists should be bound to all laws of the road, VERY similar to cars, and as such should pay road tax, insurance, and be registered and covered by the DVLA, etc.

Likewise, they should be punished as car drivers are for breaking said laws.

Where's my hat? Oh - here it is.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Wed 4 Aug 2010, 11:31, closed)

I can see the point of registering bikes... but road tax and insurance? seriously? If you cycled that long then you must like bikes a bit. One of the best things about them is that you don't have to go through the bollocks that makes car ownership such a nightmare. They should be trying to turn people towards cycling not repel them.
(Pete_G, Wed 4 Aug 2010, 12:29, closed)

Road tax - yes - cycle lanes don't build themselves (well, they do at the mo, but they should be funded at least in part by cyclists)
Insurance - hell yes. In case of hitting pedestrians, other cyclists, damaging cars, etc. Registration likewise for the same reasons - if someone jumps a red light, you can get their number and report them.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Wed 4 Aug 2010, 12:33, closed)

Copy Holland should be the mantra! Fund the cycle lanes out of the money the NHS saves from not having to treat as much heart disease. I wouldn't pay for the cycle lanes unless they were actually separate from the road everywhere anyway, as until that is the case you're no safer on them than you are on the road. I pay car tax to upkeep the roads, as do most people who ride bikes.
(Pete_G, Wed 4 Aug 2010, 12:42, closed)

So basically
"I'm not going to help unless they start it and do it my way".

Seems about right.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Wed 4 Aug 2010, 12:46, closed)

like I say I already pay car tax. That should cover a bit of paint on the roads that gets ignored anyway.
(Pete_G, Wed 4 Aug 2010, 12:59, closed)

I already pay council tax.
Shouldn't I have to pay car tax if I get a car?
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Wed 4 Aug 2010, 13:04, closed)

This would be well and good
if more than a tiny fraction of existing Vehicle Excise Duty (no such thing as 'road tax') went towards building and maintaining roads, which it conspicuously doesn't. It goes into a central pot, and roads are maintained from a council's budget. Charging cyclists for a cycle lane makes about as much sense as charging pedestrians for the pavement.
( Happy Phantom has been to Hastings, Brighton, and Eastbourne too, Wed 4 Aug 2010, 13:03, closed)

Pedestrians do pay for the pavement. Council tax.

( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Wed 4 Aug 2010, 13:09, closed)

Some of that Council Tax is also spent on road maintenence....
...well, not round our way so much.
(Bicycle Repairman "you're also a bit of a wanker", Wed 4 Aug 2010, 13:11, closed)

See below discussion on Vehicle Excise Duty.

( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Wed 4 Aug 2010, 13:16, closed)

And likewise, cyclists already pay for cycle lanes - the point being, neither should have to pay extra. It's probably in everyone's best interest - not just the cyclists' - for cyclists to be moved from the roads onto designated paths.

VED is a bit of a spurious argument, as it's chargeable only to a specific type of vehicle, and has pretty much nothing to do with building/maintaining the highways.
( Happy Phantom has been to Hastings, Brighton, and Eastbourne too, Wed 4 Aug 2010, 13:19, closed)

Pedestrians pay for cycle lanes, but don't use them.
Cyclists choose to use them, so they should pay more, in order to upkeep them.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Wed 4 Aug 2010, 13:23, closed)

Ergo cyclists also pay for cycle lanes...
...because some of us cyclists pay Council Tax too.

My Council Taxes also help pay for road maintenence, but I would stop short at walking down the middle of the road simply because my Council Tax receipts help maintain it.
(Bicycle Repairman "you're also a bit of a wanker", Wed 4 Aug 2010, 13:26, closed)

No no - its about choice - choose to do something, pay more:
Motorists pay extra beyond their council tax (VED or whatever) because they want to motor (fair enough) and thus use the roads more heavily.

Cyclists should pay extra beyond their council tax (VED/CED whatever you want to call it) because they want to cycle and thus use the roads more heavily.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Wed 4 Aug 2010, 13:30, closed)

But by the same logic, so should an individual walking through a pedestrianised zone.
A moot point, but the bulk of my cycling is offroad on towpaths and bridleways, which are maintained by councils and private landowners.

Given that I share these byways with ramblers and horseriders, does that mean that ramblers and horseriders should pay a levy too?
(Bicycle Repairman "you're also a bit of a wanker", Wed 4 Aug 2010, 13:35, closed)

See below - ticket or tax.

( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Wed 4 Aug 2010, 13:41, closed)

You're entitled to your opinion
but it seems to be borne more out of spite than logic.
(Bicycle Repairman "you're also a bit of a wanker", Wed 4 Aug 2010, 13:44, closed)

Not spiteful, though I will own cyclists - as evinced in this thread - do tend to think they're above the law, which is fucking annoying.
I just don't think this pedestrian/road-goer hybrid should exist any longer. I think the delineation should be much, much clearer - as it is for cars - and the rules enforced likewise.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Wed 4 Aug 2010, 13:50, closed)

Are you suggesting that public money should only be spent on amenities which have 100% uptake within the community? Or that you should recieve a reduced tax burden if you choose not to use a publically-funded service?

Whether pavement/road users take direct advantage of the cycle lane or not (I use all three, albeit not simultaneously) - they still reap a discernable benefit from having them built.
( Happy Phantom has been to Hastings, Brighton, and Eastbourne too, Wed 4 Aug 2010, 13:39, closed)

Yes. Yes I think I am.
Whenever using any other form of transport, one is expected to subsidise the infrastructure of that transport - by paying the ticket or the tax.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Wed 4 Aug 2010, 13:41, closed)

Unless you're on foot in a pedestrainised zone...

(Bicycle Repairman "you're also a bit of a wanker", Wed 4 Aug 2010, 13:46, closed)

No - I've said already
That's paid for.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Wed 4 Aug 2010, 13:49, closed)

But so is a coat of green paint denoting a cycle path, not to mention a bridleway
I may be being particularly stupid, but I fail to see what taxing a cycle every year would achieve that simply cranking up the level of on the spot fines for red light jumping cyclists wouldn't.
(Bicycle Repairman "you're also a bit of a wanker", Wed 4 Aug 2010, 14:18, closed)

It would make people think twice about just getting on a bike and buggering about in town, just as one does a car.
It wouldn't disuade people to any significant degree - people who want to ride will ride, just as they do with cars.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Wed 4 Aug 2010, 14:21, closed)

Erm..... How?
Surely the risk of a high fine would disuade more cyclists from jumping red lights than they would if they paid for an annual license?

Anyway, the idea is to get more people to jump on bikes and travel short distances, no?
(Bicycle Repairman "you're also a bit of a wanker", Wed 4 Aug 2010, 14:25, closed)

I think if you had to go through the rigmarole of paperwork and pay insurance
you'd have a hell of a lot more respect for bike-riding.

But as for encouraging people to ride bikes - not from me - I don't care how you get to work - I'm certainly not one of those "environment" poseurs, I just think that however you do get to work, you should obey the rules of the road.

I don't charge the barriers on the tube because I'm going a shorter distance than others. I don't expect cyclists to expect to be able to break the laws because they don't like some of them.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Wed 4 Aug 2010, 14:28, closed)

Hmm
Does paying Vehicle Excise Duty stop boy racers from driving their souped up Corsas in an antisocial fashion?

I'm not an environment poseur either - I pay over the odds for a bike frame manufactured in Taiwan and shipped halfway round the world, that I've maintained and built up in my own time and at considerable expense. Plus I love cycling too.

You won't see me jumping red lights or cycling on the pavement.
(Bicycle Repairman "you're also a bit of a wanker", Wed 4 Aug 2010, 14:32, closed)

No obviously it won't completely stop twats being twats.
But I'm sure a bit of regulation, legal enforcement, and personal and financial accountability would stop couriers being so, and likewise the vast majority of cyclists.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Wed 4 Aug 2010, 14:35, closed)

Then perhaps better enforcement of on the spot fines at traffic lights would achieve the same ends, no?

(Bicycle Repairman "you're also a bit of a wanker", Wed 4 Aug 2010, 14:35, closed)

And taxes. I think the taxes would make bike ownership, distribution and acceptance
far more respected - like that of a car. Owning a stolen car anywhere beyond Chavland is not cool or acceptable, and those who own and use cars are expected and respected for using and respecting the rules of the road.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Wed 4 Aug 2010, 14:42, closed)

I assume you're a driver?
Has Vehicle Excise Duty disuaded you from speeding?

As a cyclist I can give plenty of examples of bad driving where drivers have failed to uphold the rules of the road, despite obviously paying a levy to use it.

[edit]

Taxes are already levied on the distribution and sale of bicycles, in the forms of import duty and VAT.
(Bicycle Repairman "you're also a bit of a wanker", Wed 4 Aug 2010, 14:50, closed)

I'm not a driver, no.
But I won't object to paying my dues and respecting the rules of the road if/when I become one if/when I move out of Mordor.

Taxes are already levied on imported cars.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Wed 4 Aug 2010, 14:54, closed)

Back to my first point. Car drivers getting out of cars and onto bikes benefits the remaining car drivers, so they should pay for it.
(Pete_G, Wed 4 Aug 2010, 13:52, closed)

People dying means more resources for the rest, so funerals should be paid for by everyone else.

( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Wed 4 Aug 2010, 14:25, closed)

Er, they are. People pay for the extra, above-bog-standard bells-and-whistles, like a decent coffin, a moving service, triangular sandwiches for the reception, and so forth. But the basics are free, if you choose (/are left with no option but) to avail yourself of the service.

If one concludes that the niceties you pay for pay for to make your loved one's funeral specifically tailored to him/her are analogous to the tarmac and road furniture used to make the public highway more specifically tailored for cars, we're essentially in agreement that the basics are free, and you pay for the extras.
( Happy Phantom has been to Hastings, Brighton, and Eastbourne too, Wed 4 Aug 2010, 14:39, closed)

Hmm.
Alright - we'll call it a draw.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Wed 4 Aug 2010, 14:41, closed)

Horse tax, anyone?

Anyway. The public highways are exactly that - highways, for the use of the public, which - other than the odd turnpike here and there - have historically not incurred a direct cost for users. On my mountain bike, I do not require the modifications to the public highways which are demanded by cars - I can live without all your newfangled fancy tarmacadamised surfacing and whatnot. Car users are paying extra due to the significant cost of rendering public highways - free for other forms of transport, which have every right to use them - suitable for their transit. And because it's a fantastic source of revenue for central government.
( Happy Phantom has been to Hastings, Brighton, and Eastbourne too, Wed 4 Aug 2010, 13:53, closed)

Pedant Content
There's no such thing as Road Tax

There's Vehicle Excise Duty and Fuel Duty. Receipts from both of these levies far exceed the total expenditure on transport though.

I'm against the idea of taxing cyclists, but I do think compulsory proficiency testing at school age is a good idea.
(Bicycle Repairman "you're also a bit of a wanker", Wed 4 Aug 2010, 13:06, closed)

I think a license should be earned just like with a car.
And I don't see why they shouldn't pay VED - they already pay fuel tax so yes - that's fine.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Wed 4 Aug 2010, 13:10, closed)

I had to do the proficiency test at school
are you telling me kids these days don't have to?
( emvee cruor deo cruoris, Wed 4 Aug 2010, 14:51, closed)

According to Stop At Red - run by cyclists for cyclists - you're wrong
"A bicycle is classed as a vehicle like any other. Everyone knows that this leads to absurdities and anomalies in the way that the law is applied to cyclists in practice. Cycle campaigners are lobbying hard to remedy this; but politicians are unlikely to sign up to enhancing the legal status of an unpopular group of lawbreaking social outcasts."
www.stopatred.org/why.php

[edit]Actually just read this: www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/Cyclists/index.htm
( emvee cruor deo cruoris, Wed 4 Aug 2010, 11:35, closed)

Excellent campaign
I've just signed up to the Stop At Red pledge, very good idea; I shall now stop going through red lights and jumping the green at all.
(Sir Itchalot has a very self-referential signature, Wed 4 Aug 2010, 12:14, closed)

Exactly the problem.
What needs to happen is Cycle police just like traffic police, and to come down hard on cyclists who jump the lights.

Cyclists should have to hold a license, and be subject to the same penalties as all other road traffic.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Wed 4 Aug 2010, 12:16, closed)

In London Village it's on the increase:
www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/apr/16/police-cyclists-red-lights

Mainly because people are starting to get so fed up with it; city police have to respond to "community concerns" and RLJ tends to wind up just about everybody.
( emvee cruor deo cruoris, Wed 4 Aug 2010, 12:19, closed)

The wording of the law is "mechanically propelled vehicle"
However, in the eyes of the law, muscle power is not mechanical. Bicycles are legally defined as:
"bicycle" means a two-wheeled vehicle that is propelled solely by the muscular energy of the person on that vehicle by means of pedals and has not been constructed or adapted for propulsion by mechanical power;

As an engineer, this makes me cringe. It's saying:
A bicycle is a biomechanically-propelled vehicle that is not mechanically propelled. Although the statute is merely a clarification of case law which had previously determined that a pedal cycle is not an MPV.

Find the statute here:
www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2003/20031101.htm
(Mr T, Wed 4 Aug 2010, 12:46, closed)

I'd like to see a fine contested on such, though.
Just for the sheer joy of watching the cyclist get crushed.

FFS. "I didn't strangle them, my hands did!"
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Wed 4 Aug 2010, 12:49, closed)

See, all I'm hearing is "Waaaaah, I want to break the law and I think I should be allowed to"
www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/Cyclists/index.htm

Please direct me to the section of the highway code that allows cyclists to jump red lights.
( emvee cruor deo cruoris, Wed 4 Aug 2010, 14:45, closed)