I’m pleased to see some comments on this old blogspot.
The main point I want to make is that my comments and opinions are my own and I don’t expect everyone, or anyone, to agree with them, neither am I in the business of proselytising. The main purpose of this avenue of publication is provide me with an outlet to say the kinds of things which our increasingly politically correct society attempts to deny me.
Please do feel free to comment – for or against- and, provided they are not obscene, or illegal I’ll happily publish them.
One thing I would say about comment is that I don’t appreciate those who choose to take the cowards option of pontificating for the safety of anonymity. If you have an opinion at least be brave enough to “sign-up” to it.
In answer to Kirsten comments on “Sod Your Bike – Mind My Car!:
Yes Kirsten you are correct I am “quite angry”. I am also somewhat surprised by the naivety of your arguments in support of the parasitic lycra clad loonies infesting our fair highways and byways . You state:
“Cyclists pay for the roads - and cycle paths - via income tax and council tax, just like everyone else.” So, are the people who don’t have cycles and are paying the same taxes as cyclists subsidising them? If so why should they? You could, by this argument also state that the group who don’t have a car or a bike are subsidising both, howeveras the motorists ARE paying it’s the cyclists who are getting all the freebies.
“as bikes cause so little wear and tear on the roads, you could argue that actually cyclists are paying far more than their fair share of road costs”
My point was not about ‘wear and tear’ but about the amount of congestion and consequent pollution cyclists cause by clogging up an infrastructure they do not directly contribute toward.
“Are you going to argue that "green" cars should be banned from the roads because they're zero-rated too? “
No – only that they should bear the burden like the rest of us. If you really want to know what I think of the militant Green lobby see my blog http://mistermerlin.blogspot.com/2008/08/eco-warriors-please-dont-represent-me.html
“cyclists are on the road as of right, as are pedestrians and horse-riders.”
With rights come responsibilities. My argument is for cyclists to shoulder their share of their responsibilities not just expect the car drivers to pay for them.
“Roads were actually built to facilitate easier cycling, long before the nation became obsessed with cars.”
I think you will find that history shows that the practical modern cycle and the motor car are virtually contemporary. I’m not sure if you proposition can by supported by the facts? Cycling has almost always been a leisure activity rather than one of the great drivers of commerce and it is the generation of wealth and investment brought about by the motor car which, I would contend, has lead to (and paid for) the development of better, mettled roads.
“As for your remarks about accidents - do you know how many pedestrians have been killed in collisions with cyclists in recent years? Less than 10, and there's nothing to say the cyclist was at fault in all of them, no matter what your own prejudices. Do you know how many pedestrians are killed by cars on the pavement? More than 10 a week. There is a killer on the roads, but it's not cyclists.”
My point was not about the number of accidents caused by either side but that fact that cyclists seem to be increasingly immune from the consequences of their actions. You may note that I only argued for a ban on cyclists “until they are forced into obeying the rules like the rest of us (motorists) and, more importantly, are made to pay for their privilege of sharing the roads with us “
As for my prejudices I am please to say that they remain my own.
3 comments:
This is a fun debate, and quite a good rant that you wrote, if fairly misinformed!
Your point on cyclists being subsidised is wrong - it's drivers who are subsidised. The cost of driving is paid for by all, not just drivers, and it's far more than just a little bit of fuel duty and car tax. With the ~3000 deaths and 300,000 injured persons per year, the real cost to society is much higher than you like to imagine. You conveniently ignore the fact that most cyclists also own at least one car. Are you going to contribute towards a part-refund on their VED when they are riding instead of driving?
Furthermore, you ignore the fact that cyclists are overly represented by high wage earners, paying more tax than the average UK citizen. Cyclists pay their own way, as well as a bit of yours.
Now to cyclists "blocking" the roads. Just imagine all those cyclists chose to drive instead of cycle. Now you'd have gridlock. Instead, you should be grateful to every cyclist out there, because not only are they paying part of your way, but they're reducing congestion too. Just look at the amount of time we (when driving), spend waiting in queues of traffic.
Here in London it's the cars that hold me up, though I don't complain since I respect the need for others' journeys too. Drivers like yourself are usually slower than I am because of the congestion, caused by yourself, for example. I commute outside of rush hour, I'm not a particularly fast cyclist, and I'm still faster than most cars, and a lot faster than the buses. That's why I choose to cycle in London, I don't want to suffer in my car.
I suppose my biggest bugbear with your rant is the whole them vs us approach. It's perfectly matched by the conclusions drawn in TRL 549 [1], and completely ignores that Mr. Toad is present in every section of road user regardless of what sort of transport they are using. It's the new racism/bigotry.
Luckily for all of us most road users, including drivers ;), are actually quite good and kindly people.
I'm glad you enjoy a debate (so do I)and I appreciate your reasoned comments and contributions. However my purpose here was not to start a forum but merely to get things off my chest.
As I said I welcome any and all legitimate comment but please forgive me if, in this context, I treat it as that. My Rants and Wheezes are just that - not deliberate "Agent Provocateurs" to provoke debate.
I am always quite willing to explain the reasoning behind my opinions and views, however as one of the "high wage earners, paying more tax than the average UK citizen" you speak off I have too, at the moment, devote myself to surviving the recession this stupid Soviet government has got us into and spend my time working for living.
Also my sincere commiserations about the fact you have to live in London.
”So, are the people who don’t have cycles and are paying the same taxes as cyclists subsidising them? If so why should they? You could, by this argument also state that the group who don’t have a car or a bike are subsidising both, howeveras the motorists ARE paying it’s the cyclists who are getting all the freebies."
Well, yes, people who pay taxes which pay for roads upkeep but don't use roads at all are subsidising the roads for everyone else. In the same way that people who pay income tax and NI but never ever use the NHS are subsidising it for everyone else. That's how taxes work. We all pay, what we pay is used for everything, and we use the bits we need. It's not a new concept.
"My point was not about ‘wear and tear’ but about the amount of congestion and consequent pollution cyclists cause by clogging up an infrastructure they do not directly contribute toward."
How much pollution do cyclists cause? None. How much congestion do cyclists cause? None. What causes congestion and pollution? Motor vehicles.
"With rights come responsibilities. My argument is for cyclists to shoulder their share of their responsibilities not just expect the car drivers to pay for them."
Already covered. We all pay for roads, just like we all pay for pavements, streetlights, doctors, x-rays, unemployment benefit, teachers, environmental health officers, MPs' expenses...
"I think you will find that history shows that the practical modern cycle and the motor car are virtually contemporary. I’m not sure if you proposition can by supported by the facts? Cycling has almost always been a leisure activity rather than one of the great drivers of commerce and it is the generation of wealth and investment brought about by the motor car which, I would contend, has lead to (and paid for) the development of better, mettled roads."
Roads were mettled, originally, to enable people to cycle more easily and therefore to be more easily able to seek and get to work further away from their homes. Cyclists have always been able to ride on roads without licence because that's what roads were for. Cycling has always been a leisure activity, but by the end of the 19th century it was becoming established as a mode of transport. As cars became more and more commonly used after WWII, roads had to be constructed to cope with additional weight and wear.
"You may note that I only argued for a ban on cyclists “until they are forced into obeying the rules like the rest of us (motorists) and, more importantly, are made to pay for their privilege of sharing the roads with us “"
Cyclists are obliged to obey the law and the Highway Code like every other road user. Yes, some choose not to, just as some motorists choose not to. As already explained, cyclists do pay for the use of the roads via all the taxes they pay. And as already explained, use of the roads is not a privilege for cyclists, it is a right.
Post a Comment