Because they seem to be the ones agitating for change. It's a new model - if you want something find a way to pay for it.Why should cyclists be singled out and expected to pay all the costs towards the a publicly provided infrastructure?
I haven't proposed extending the model outside the bounds of the topic under discussion. Maybe you ned to start a new thread.To extend the same ring-fencing logic you propose to motorists would see a large increase in the charges they face,
So in your opinion it is always the motorist who is at fault when a cyclist dies or is injured in a road traffic incident. Does poor cycling, lack of knowledge of the appropriate safety measures, traffic rules, badly maintained bikes, thrill-seeking behaviour, drunkenness, drug-taking by cyclists never, ever contribute to their own death or injury?Why won't they? Again, the only thing killing cyclists is drivers. If the cycling environment is unsafe, that's because other traffic is breaking the law, why not focus on that?. If you're so worried about Chubby & Rotund, then maybe banning all motorised traffic is the only workable solution. Other countries have demonstrated that licensing has no discernible impact on cyclist safety, in fact the single biggest factor in reduced injuries and fatalities is to increase the numbers cycling.
Seeing supermarket bags hanging in trees and hedge-rows is now a rarity I would suggest. If the disappearance of the freebie plastic bags has stimulated sales of a paid-for alternative product, that has to be good. Plastic bag tax a success? I like to think so.Was the plastic bag levy a success? The propagandists will tell you it was. Yet sales of otherwise useless bin liners have gone through the roof since its introduction.
The pub trade collapse has been blamed on multiple factors; enforcement of the drink-driving laws, high cost of alcohol, drinking at home and so on. I think that's the reality, multiple factors coming into play. To blame it exclusively on the ban on smoking seems to imply pubs were for smoking in rather than drinking in.As for the smoking ban. The pub trade has literally collapsed since its introduction.
So in your opinion it is always the motorist who is at fault when a cyclist dies or is injured in a road traffic incident.
Does poor cycling, lack of knowledge of the appropriate safety measures, traffic rules, badly maintained bikes, thrill-seeking behaviour, drunkenness, drug-taking by cyclists never, ever contribute to their own death or injury?
If cyclists want change, they pay by direct taxation on bikes / cycling. They have already been the beneficiaries of the governments' bike to work scheme; maybe it's time to reverse that benefit.
I don't know is the short and obvious answer. How many cyclists are there on our public roads? Thanks to Katie Melua & Mike Batt I know how many bicycles there are in Beijing, but that's the only cycle census I know of.How much do you think that revenue is currently worth? How much would a licensing system cost to run (remember, it'll cost more to run that it takes in.) How much would a license cost? How much will the testing system cost to set up and run? What will policing of the system cost,
If Little Johhny is out in the public roadway on his tricycle, his parents should be in court.and include in that the extra burden on the courts system for taking little Johhny to court for not having a lisence for his tricycle.
Read my post. I was writing about a single pedestrian and his safety not pedestrians generally.But you said earlier that it was 'fairly obvious' that pedestrians weren't road users, now you're saying they can use roads, but only legally allowed do so on well lit roads, and must wear high vis???? So not allowed on country roads? Where's the hig-vis law?
If Little Johhny is out in the public roadway on his tricycle, his parents should be in court.
Read my post. I was writing about a single pedestrian and his safety not pedestrians generally.
Pedestrians use footpaths and as such are not "road-users" which I thought was fairly obvious, but maybe not...
I’d like to see cyclists stopped by the police for cycling without lights at night, for cycling through red lights, for changing lanes dangerously, for cycling on footpaths in order to get around traffic etc.
Terrysgirlee: I would agree with that if the road markings were sensibly placed, but often it looks like a trainee has decided on where is overtaking or not.
Inner city cars and buses aren't actually going faster than bikes, just playing leapfrog from one stop light to the next. Getting buses to respect bike riders's space (and remaining in lane behind them where appropriate) wouldn't hurt traffic flow much in the inner city.I can see why we need to bring in this regulation, but I just don't see how it can be done practically. Take the quays, for example. The bus lanes in the mornings have more cyclists in them than buses (and nothing wrong with that). But if DB drivers need to give cyclists at least 2 meters (the width of the bike + 1.5m) then it will effectively move the buses completely out of the bus lanes and in to regular traffic.
I'd like to see a bunch of stationary cyclists behind the stop line at a red light. I'd then like to hear them roar at the cyclist who break that stop line / red light.I’d like to see cyclists stopped by the police for cycling without lights at night, for cycling through red lights, for changing lanes dangerously, for cycling on footpaths in order to get around traffic etc.
I'd like to see a bunch of stationary cyclists behind the stop line at a red light. I'd then like to hear them roar at the cyclist who break that stop line / red light.
Until the cycling lobby starts demanding better behavior from it's own members, I'm not sure how much respect or support we can expect from other road users.
I've seen(heard) plenty of motorists blow horns/ flash lights at other drivers who break red lights.There's no such reaction from other drivers for speeding or red light breaking, or pedestrians for those crossing at junctions against a red light. I'm not sure you can reasonably expect the same people to suddenly develop some form of social conscience once on a bike. Change will only come when there's proper enforcement, of all rules.
I've seen(heard) plenty of motorists blow horns/ flash lights at other drivers who break red lights.
When I cycle I never see a negative reaction from other cyclists to their fellow cyclists who behave dangerously.
Most of us who cycle also drive. I dislike the zealots on both sides.I've made my disgust known to other cyclists that break lights etc. Ruining it for the rest of us.
If only the anti-cycling brigade realized that more bikes means less cars and less traffic.
Most of us who cycle also drive. I dislike the zealots on both sides.
I agree. I also dislike intolerant people.I dislike inconsiderate people whether on a bike or in a car.
Motorcyclists, moped drivers and other road users must obtain a driving licence by sitting an exam about the rules of the road and by displaying proficiency in controlling their vehicles in normal usage. It has never made one whit of sense to me that the most vulnerable of all road users, the pedal cyclist, can take to the road with zero knowledge and no training. Put cyclists through the same training and testing as other road users and also test their bikes for legal compliance regularly. Use the fund to raise the standards of cycling and cycle safety.
You seem to think that the danger to cyclists is from other cyclists. It's not - it's from motorists. You can put as many hoops as you like in front of cyclists - that won't stop them getting killed by motorists. You're looking in the wrong place if you want to improve safety.Training, licensing and a safe cycling infrastructure might (just might) encourage Mumsie to put chubby Cedric and rotund Rita on bicycles rather than into the back-seats of the massive SUV she uses to taxi them around. And safer cycling of course is the positive outcome, safety first and foremost. You can't blame Mumsie for using the SUV if she believes the public roads aren't safe for her little cyclists.
Actually, I agree with you here. Little point in adding unenforceable laws when just about every motorist on the road breaks the speed limit every time they drive.Thanks for that but the crux of the matter is, given that we already have lots of un-policed separation measure in place, what point is there in having yet another unenforceable, un-policed distance enshrined in legislation? What does it change, apart from the cost associated with drafting and approval and printing? Will it make the roads one whit safer for cyclists? Will it prevent a single cyclist vs. car, truck, bus incident? Why bother?
I'd like to see a bunch of stationary cyclists behind the stop line at a red light. I'd then like to hear them roar at the cyclist who break that stop line / red light.
Until the cycling lobby starts demanding better behavior from it's own members, I'm not sure how much respect or support we can expect from other road users.