"They've paid for it as much as any motorist." No they haven't - because they don't have to be taxed and insured, as car owners and motorbike riders do,
OK they pay for the roads out of general taxes. I suspect you see liability insurance for the much higher possibility of harm as paying for the roads. Or the VED as paying for the roads when it's excuse duty for the use of a carbon emitting vehicle.
As to liability insurance. Many cyclists have it too. Indeed its quite possible you do through your house insurance. Check your small print as it's a freebie often in the policy of many big insurers. Then there's liability insurance through the national bodies many cyclists are in.
Even without liability cover of they've been shown to be liable then it'll come out of their assets. The reason motorists have to have insurance is simply that they have a high vehicle capable of causing such harm that it could quite reasonably cost the driver more than they've got. It's rare for cyclists to cause that level of harm.
As to licence that's a peculiarity of transport legislation. Cyclists are carriages as tested in law from the 1800s. However the 1970s I believe saw wide ranging laws regarding transport by road. In that legislation it was reinforced that motorised had to be licensed but the bicycle was left with the original rights to passage on the highways. So motorised vehicles had to be licenced users and the vehicle registered. If you don't like that it's what you're MPs voted for so take it up with them.
As to other matters like maintenance, well we'll have to agree i disagree that there is an issue there especially since there's so many heavy vehicles on the road with valid MOTs but are still dangerous. I've heard it said before that the mot is the minimum and just means it's just about safe at the time of the test. How many motorists check their vehicles out for safety before driving? It's something I do every time I ride a bike but have never done so on my car or van. So perhaps look to your own vehicle for maintenance issues and proof it's safe. Mot isn't proof it's paperwork valid when issued and not afterwards.
'...Mot isn't proof it's paperwork valid when issued and not afterwards. ...'
That's true of any check, test or exam isn't it? And equally as true of your own checks on your bike. No matter how frequent you make the checks, the same is true. So it all comes down to practicalities doesn't it?
Just look at the bank accounts of RSPCA comapared to NSPCC . I remember hearting Stephen Fry say ( so it must be true ) that the Devon Donkey Sanctuary gets more in donation in a year then The Terrence Higgins Trust. Clearly abandoned , unwanted donkeys are more important to many than those living with HIV and AIDS .
In the UK, about a quarter of charity donations go to animal charities in any given year. The rest goes to people. There are far more 'human' charities, so that money is divided into smaller chunks, so it's easy to pick a couple of individual charities and say 'look how much more goes to the animals'. But overall, it's heavily in favour of the people. And in the UK, taxes are spent on the welfare of people. None goes to animals. I don't like the RSPCA as an organisation, I dislike its methods and its priorities, so I don't defend it. But just to be clear, both the NSPCC and the RSPCA received about £100m in donations and legacies last year. The RSPCA edged it, but not by much.
I have no idea about people harassing the government officials over Nowzad. People behave badly, it doesn't surprise me. The bigger picture though is that the western governments created a terrible mess and people (and animals) suffered, are suffering, will suffer as a result. One bloke working in a charity didn't do it. He was the last British citizen to get out, after all the UK flights had ended. No British flights made way for his charter plane. The Americans have ended their evacuation 24 hours ahead of their deadline. Clearly, his one flight didn't get in their way, either. The UK government said they would not prioritise animals over people. But that's exactly what they did do, isn't it? They said he could take his cats and dogs but not his staff. That wasn't his choice.
Gardening on the edge of Exmoor, in Devon
“It's still magic even if you know how it's done.”
I don’t like cyclist on the roads, but then if you lived in a country area with narrow lanes and no passing places you’d understand why. Car tax doesn’t pay for road repairs, that comes out of council tax money.
You'd get agreement with my other half. She's in full agreement with that. However the only solution to that is an independent national cycle network. There's a precedent to that, it's called roads. Perhaps if they stopped new road building and spent it on a national cycle network to take cyclists off the road. BTW cyclists were there first just saying.
BTW the above wasn't serious. However in the North East they do have a big network of cycling provision where the cycle paths are away from roads. It's actually surprising and impressive for the UK. A good model for the rest of the UK I suppose.
Look this confrontational approach to road sharing isn't great. As is using the minority to criticise the majority who are responsible. There's a phrase some utilitarian cyclists use. POB or People On a Bike. I don't like it but it's in the mould of BSO (bicycle shaped object for very cheap and nasty bikes). It's a catchall phrase for everyone who rides very occasionally and don't really know how to ride safely on British roads and cycleways. To people who commute by bike because they have to save money using cheapest bike they can get and who generally ignore rules if it delays them. Basically people riding bikes in a manner likely to cause conflict between other road and even footway users. They're a minority but some areas have more of them than others.
Other problem cyclists are road gangs on a club ride. Usually weekend warriors riding in a manner that's actually best way for safety and other users but most drivers do not know this. Basically all the road safety experts, road safety organisations and car rescue companies like RAC say that for larger groups of cyclists riding 2 abreast is best practice. Since drivers are supposed to overtake as if cyclists take up car sized space the 2 abreast makes the length that cars have to overtake shorter and hence safer for all.
Is another area of misunderstanding. Cyclists are getting advice to ride one way when the general public thinks they should ride another. It is this understanding gap that also causes issues.
You’re absolutely right Joe, ride two abreast and treat them as a car, so there are vans and lorries driving across Cornwall on the country lanes in 2nd gear puffing out smoke pollution. There no chance to overtake them and they seem oblivious to the passing places because once they get into motion they can’t stop.
Gardening on the wild, windy west side of Dartmoor.
Should lorries be going down those very narrow cornish roads with passing places? They legally can but from my visits to that county most are just rat runs that could be easily avoided.
However there's also the time compression motorists experience when behind cyclists. It seems 20 minutes compresses into 20 seconds before motorists can overtake cyclists in their mind. It's the "how dare you be on the road and hold me up! " attitude.
But if I read you right, cyclists should not be allowed out on the roads. What about old people driving slowly? Or learner drivers? They all hold the experienced drivers up too. Of course ban those slow pokes and you'll not get the next generation of drivers.
This is classic prejudice. You're allowed to exist on the roads if you're the right sort.
Posts
As to liability insurance. Many cyclists have it too. Indeed its quite possible you do through your house insurance. Check your small print as it's a freebie often in the policy of many big insurers. Then there's liability insurance through the national bodies many cyclists are in.
Even without liability cover of they've been shown to be liable then it'll come out of their assets. The reason motorists have to have insurance is simply that they have a high vehicle capable of causing such harm that it could quite reasonably cost the driver more than they've got. It's rare for cyclists to cause that level of harm.
As to licence that's a peculiarity of transport legislation. Cyclists are carriages as tested in law from the 1800s. However the 1970s I believe saw wide ranging laws regarding transport by road. In that legislation it was reinforced that motorised had to be licensed but the bicycle was left with the original rights to passage on the highways. So motorised vehicles had to be licenced users and the vehicle registered. If you don't like that it's what you're MPs voted for so take it up with them.
As to other matters like maintenance, well we'll have to agree i disagree that there is an issue there especially since there's so many heavy vehicles on the road with valid MOTs but are still dangerous. I've heard it said before that the mot is the minimum and just means it's just about safe at the time of the test. How many motorists check their vehicles out for safety before driving? It's something I do every time I ride a bike but have never done so on my car or van. So perhaps look to your own vehicle for maintenance issues and proof it's safe. Mot isn't proof it's paperwork valid when issued and not afterwards.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqtBHiZOUZM
I have no idea about people harassing the government officials over Nowzad. People behave badly, it doesn't surprise me. The bigger picture though is that the western governments created a terrible mess and people (and animals) suffered, are suffering, will suffer as a result. One bloke working in a charity didn't do it. He was the last British citizen to get out, after all the UK flights had ended. No British flights made way for his charter plane. The Americans have ended their evacuation 24 hours ahead of their deadline. Clearly, his one flight didn't get in their way, either. The UK government said they would not prioritise animals over people. But that's exactly what they did do, isn't it? They said he could take his cats and dogs but not his staff. That wasn't his choice.
“It's still magic even if you know how it's done.”
BTW the above wasn't serious. However in the North East they do have a big network of cycling provision where the cycle paths are away from roads. It's actually surprising and impressive for the UK. A good model for the rest of the UK I suppose.
Look this confrontational approach to road sharing isn't great. As is using the minority to criticise the majority who are responsible. There's a phrase some utilitarian cyclists use. POB or People On a Bike. I don't like it but it's in the mould of BSO (bicycle shaped object for very cheap and nasty bikes). It's a catchall phrase for everyone who rides very occasionally and don't really know how to ride safely on British roads and cycleways. To people who commute by bike because they have to save money using cheapest bike they can get and who generally ignore rules if it delays them. Basically people riding bikes in a manner likely to cause conflict between other road and even footway users. They're a minority but some areas have more of them than others.
Other problem cyclists are road gangs on a club ride. Usually weekend warriors riding in a manner that's actually best way for safety and other users but most drivers do not know this. Basically all the road safety experts, road safety organisations and car rescue companies like RAC say that for larger groups of cyclists riding 2 abreast is best practice. Since drivers are supposed to overtake as if cyclists take up car sized space the 2 abreast makes the length that cars have to overtake shorter and hence safer for all.
Is another area of misunderstanding. Cyclists are getting advice to ride one way when the general public thinks they should ride another. It is this understanding gap that also causes issues.
Obey traffic signals
Keep to the left unless turning right
Use hand signals to indicate your intention
How hard is that?
However there's also the time compression motorists experience when behind cyclists. It seems 20 minutes compresses into 20 seconds before motorists can overtake cyclists in their mind. It's the "how dare you be on the road and hold me up! " attitude.
But if I read you right, cyclists should not be allowed out on the roads. What about old people driving slowly? Or learner drivers? They all hold the experienced drivers up too. Of course ban those slow pokes and you'll not get the next generation of drivers.
This is classic prejudice. You're allowed to exist on the roads if you're the right sort.