Speed limits: 40mph plan for country roads

[SleeperService]

Similar objections were raised when compulsory helmets were introduced for motorcyclists and they turned out to be wrong.

Depends how you look at it. Fewer died, a lot more ended up living with severe mental disabilities. I don't consider that 'working' except to offer an escape clause for people's conscience. 'Well it could have been worse he could have died'.

I've actually heard that with my own ears after somebody had reversed straight out of their drive into traffic on a main road. Smacked a motorbike across the road into a cyclist. Fortunately I didn't see the accident but I REALLY don't want to be a lorry driver anymore....

[Little John]

Similar objections were raised when compulsory helmets were introduced for motorcyclists and they turned out to be wrong.

Depends how you look at it. Fewer died, a lot more ended up living with severe mental disabilities. I don't consider that 'working' except to offer an escape clause for people's conscience. 'Well it could have been worse he could have died'.

I've actually heard that with my own ears after somebody had reversed straight out of their drive into traffic on a main road. Smacked a motorbike across the road into a cyclist. Fortunately I didn't see the accident but I REALLY don't want to be a lorry driver anymore....

Yep, I agree with that.

For me, the liberty of people to act should only really be curtailed insofar as it directly or indirectly affects other people (though the burden of proof should be greater when the consequence is indirect). The compulsory wearing of helmets has always hovered uncomfortably on the line for me. There is certainly no direct consequence to others if a cyclist decides to risk splattering their heads on the pavement like an egg.

Then there is the issue of brain damage, as you say. I don't actually know the numbers. But, if it turned out that the total cost of treating cyclists who had been in RTAs was greater when they are wearing helmets as opposed to when they were not wearing helmets (due to more of them surviving with long term debilitating illness), then even the indirect rule of consequences to others (due to the rest of us having to pay for their healthcare costs) breaks down.

In other words, if the main reason for making cyclists wear helmets was merely a paternalistic desire by the state to protect cyclists then the state should have no business in deciding that. The only exception might be for kids since they are below the age at which they can make an informed decision for themselves.

[RogueMale]

Actually, I cannot argue with the logic here. If cars users are are subject to a specialist tax for using the road and all taxpayers are centrally taxed for using the pavement, there is no logical argument for not subjecting cyclists to a specialist tax for using the roads. However, such a tax should be absolutely minuscule to represent the minuscule wear and tear on the roads that cyclists cause. It's purpose for existence would be, in my view, more of a symbolic and moral one than for any other purpose.

VED? Some cars are exempt. Bicycles would be exempt because they're zero emission. (Actually, net negative emission.)

In terms of preferential rights of way, again, the logic would dictate that the more dangerous user should always give way to the less dangerous user. Thus, cars, give way to cyclists and cyclists give way to pedestrians.

Ceteris paribus I have no problem with this.

In terms of compulsory insurance. I think the current arrangements are correct. This is because between pedestrians/cyclists/car users, car users are the only one's whop represent a significant risk of major injury or death to others.

The current situation is presumably if a bicyclist is liable, they pay for the damage. If insured, their insurance pays, otherwise it comes out of their own pocket.

In terms of compulsory training and the passing of a test to obtain the right to use the highway, again, I think this is currently about right for the same reasons I cited for insurance. Though, I suppose I could just about be persuaded of the need for compulsory training for cyclists without the need for a test in order to obtain the right to use a highway.

But only just.

The current system works reasonably well. However, there are some people on bikes who ride them without regard for other road users. They're generally young. Perhaps it's they who give the impression some drivers have that everyone who rides a bike is a nuisance. As they're already disregarding the law, they'll disregard any new laws including compulsory traiing or a cycling test. It's already illegai and I'd like to see the police pull them over and at least give them a ticking off. I encounter bad driving far more often than I encounter bad cycling, though.

If JSD's proposals were to be enacted, the result would be a sharp reduction in the number of people bothering to ride bicycles. I suspect that's the intention of those who propose such schemes.

As regards dangers to pedestrians from bicyclists, see http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopModules/Ar ... &mid=13641 for recent stats.

[biffvernon]

Death by falling on flat surface 2450

Beware flat surfaces.

[JavaScriptDonkey]

Similar objections were raised when compulsory helmets were introduced for motorcyclists and they turned out to be wrong.

Depends how you look at it. Fewer died, a lot more ended up living with severe mental disabilities. I don't consider that 'working' except to offer an escape clause for people's conscience. 'Well it could have been worse he could have died'.

I've actually heard that with my own ears after somebody had reversed straight out of their drive into traffic on a main road. Smacked a motorbike across the road into a cyclist. Fortunately I didn't see the accident but I REALLY don't want to be a lorry driver anymore....

I spent a couple of years as a motorcycle courier and from my experience your argument is facile.

I have been on the receiving end of this sort of nonsense driving more times than I care to remember. People saving themselves a small inconvenience but getting others to pay for it with their lives.

I am alive today because I was wearing a helmet. It's primary task is to prevent a fractured skull. It's secondary job is to keep what remains of your skull in one piece if it get's fractured.

Drivers that reverse out in to traffic with out due care should be charged with manslaughter. A few 15 year sentences will cure people of the habit.

You do have the right to ride a motorbike without wearing a helmet just not on public roads. Shared space, shared responsibility.

[JavaScriptDonkey]

.
As regards dangers to pedestrians from bicyclists, see http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopModules/Ar ... &mid=13641 for recent stats.

But surely, you might ask, all those tearaway cyclists in London must be causing a lot of injuries, even if not actually killing people? Well, over the last ten years, motor vehicles have been injuring pedestrians on London’s footways at a rate of 447 a year (250 in collisions with cars, 197 with other vehicles). The figure for cycle collisions is ten: that’s just 2% of the total.

Biased much?

I would hazard a guess the cyclists in London cover a lot less than 2% of the total mileage travelled by all vehicles so it would suggest that as a group cyclists in London are more likely to conflict with pedestrians than motorists are.

That the outcome is likely to be less horrific is not in question.

[rue_d_etropal]

JavaScriptDonkey said

Drivers that reverse out in to traffic with out due care should be charged with manslaughter. A few 15 year sentences will cure people of the habit.

One way to stop this might also to make it compulsory to reverse into parking places in car parks. It won't be good news for supermarkets as they would have to re-design their car parks with less spaces so people can get to their cars easier.
The speeds in car parks might not be high enough, but there are some narrow misses, and drivers think it the norm to reverse out into traffic. Get them out of the habit and they would be less likely to do it here the risks are higher.
Unfortunately supermarkets are more interested in getting people parked up and in their shops as quickly as possible. Along with other damaging activities supermarkets need to look at their responsibilities, rather than their profit sheet.

[bigjim]

Actually, I cannot argue with the logic here. If cars users are are subject to a specialist tax for using the road and all taxpayers are centrally taxed for using the pavement, there is no logical argument for not subjecting cyclists to a specialist tax for using the roads. However, such a tax should be absolutely minuscule to represent the minuscule wear and tear on the roads that cyclists cause. It's purpose for existence would be, in my view, more of a symbolic and moral one than for any other purpose.

The VED that most car owners pay is not ring fenced for spending on roads. Rather, it goes into the same treasury pot that our income tax, VAT etc. also go into. Money for road maintenance is either stumped up by local councils or through the Highways Agency, coming out of the treasury pot. Therefore, one could argue that we all pay for the roads whether we run a car or not. Besides, a minuscule tax on bicycles would end up costing more through administration costs than it would actually raise so what would be the point? And if Toyota Prius owners are exempt from paying VED then why charge cyclists?

[Little John]

Actually, I cannot argue with the logic here. If cars users are are subject to a specialist tax for using the road and all taxpayers are centrally taxed for using the pavement, there is no logical argument for not subjecting cyclists to a specialist tax for using the roads. However, such a tax should be absolutely minuscule to represent the minuscule wear and tear on the roads that cyclists cause. It's purpose for existence would be, in my view, more of a symbolic and moral one than for any other purpose.

The VED that most car owners pay is not ring fenced for spending on roads. Rather, it goes into the same treasury pot that our income tax, VAT etc. also go into. Money for road maintenance is either stumped up by local councils or through the Highways Agency, coming out of the treasury pot. Therefore, one could argue that we all pay for the roads whether we run a car or not. Besides, a minuscule tax on bicycles would end up costing more through administration costs than it would actually raise so what would be the point? And if Toyota Prius owners are exempt from paying VED then why charge cyclists?

Whether or not the money from car tax goes directly or indirectly to the highway budget is immaterial. It is collected and it goes into the overall budget, of which a part is, indeed the public highways. The tax is justified on the basis that cars consume resources in a specific way, namely the degradation of the highways. It therefore logically follows that, in principle, any users of those highways should be subject to a tax based on that use. I say this independently of whether or not I agree with such a specific consumption tax. What I am saying is that it is logically inconsistent not to apply the principle to all users. Otherwise, the application of such a tax is entirely arbitrary and without any logical consistency. Why not tax people with noses whose length exceeds a predetermined number of centimetres?

[Pepperman]

Actually, I cannot argue with the logic here. If cars users are are subject to a specialist tax for using the road and all taxpayers are centrally taxed for using the pavement, there is no logical argument for not subjecting cyclists to a specialist tax for using the roads. However, such a tax should be absolutely minuscule to represent the minuscule wear and tear on the roads that cyclists cause. It's purpose for existence would be, in my view, more of a symbolic and moral one than for any other purpose.

We are all taxed for the roads as it all comes out of general taxation / council tax (depending on the road). VED is a tax on vehicle emissions, not on road access.

[EDIT: I see you've replied to a comment above. My point still stands though]

Regarding discussions on legislation cycle helmets, I encourage everyone to read the blog posts here:

http://waronthemotorist.wordpress.com/2 ... one-place/

They neatly summarise the (poor) state of research in this area.

[Little John]

Actually, I cannot argue with the logic here. If cars users are are subject to a specialist tax for using the road and all taxpayers are centrally taxed for using the pavement, there is no logical argument for not subjecting cyclists to a specialist tax for using the roads. However, such a tax should be absolutely minuscule to represent the minuscule wear and tear on the roads that cyclists cause. It's purpose for existence would be, in my view, more of a symbolic and moral one than for any other purpose.

We are all taxed for the roads as it all comes out of general taxation / council tax (depending on the road). VED is a tax on vehicle emissions, not on road access.

[EDIT: I see you've replied to a comment above. My point still stands though]

Regarding discussions on legislation cycle helmets, I encourage everyone to read the blog posts here:

http://waronthemotorist.wordpress.com/2 ... one-place/

They neatly summarise the (poor) state of research in this area.

If it is a tax on emissions only, then I'm happy to concede the point.

[adam2]

Vehicle excise tax, commonly called road tax, used to be a tax on virtually all power driven vehicles, not an emmisions tax.

Now that various reduced emmision vehicles are exempt, it could reasonably be argued that it has become an emisions tax.
In which case it should be abolished, not extended.

We already have an emisions tax, called excise duty on petrol and diesel, not paid by electric vehicles or cycles.
Electric vehicles do of course pay VAT on the electricity used to charge them.

Cyclists have to pay VAT on the cost of the cycle and on spare parts.

I feel that we already have enough rules, regulations, and taxes, and well paid aouthorities enforcing these.
I am in favour of less governmemt, not more, and for this reson would not support any additional fees, taxes, charges, levies or the like on cycles.

Many cyclists ride very badly, but there are already laws against that.

[JavaScriptDonkey]

I was proposing the tax disk, charged at a miniscule level, to be a visual indicator of valid registration, insurance and MoT.

You can set the rate at zero if you like but it doesn't obviate the need for licenses, safety checks and 3rd party insurance when using cycles in public spaces.

(Edited to Add)

Although just because VED is an emissions tax for motorised vehicles is not of itself a valid reason why cyclists shouldn't pay a tax to contribute towards the upkeep of the cycle lanes built specifically for them.

[RenewableCandy]

The cycle lanes are *not* built specifically for me. Firstly, people park their cars and vans all over them, and open their doors into them. Secondly, if I want to be seen (and hence not squashed) by drivers going about their lawful business I often have to get right out of the cycle lane and into the road. A fee-paying cycling community would have every right to get bolshie about the poor levels of provision for cyclists on UK roads. Which is probably why HMG are happy they remain in a non-fee-paying state

Most people already have liability insurance, whether with their motor insurance, mortgage or whatever. It's silly making cyclists have it when they only damage about 5 1/2 people per year. And how would this proposed system deal with cyclists who haven't come of age yet?

[Little John]

The cycle lanes are *not* built specifically for me. Firstly, people park their cars and vans all over them, and open their doors into them. Secondly, if I want to be seen (and hence not squashed) by drivers going about their lawful business I often have to get right out of the cycle lane and into the road. A fee-paying cycling community would have every right to get bolshie about the poor levels of provision for cyclists on UK roads. Which is probably why HMG are happy they remain in a non-fee-paying state

Most people already have liability insurance, whether with their motor insurance, mortgage or whatever. It's silly making cyclists have it when they only damage about 5 1/2 people per year. And how would this proposed system deal with cyclists who haven't come of age yet?

Regarding cycle lanes; I don't actually use them when cycling. I think they are bloody dangerous to be honest. They end up trapping the cyclist right up to the kerb, the most dangerous place to be for a cyclist. Also, they have a nasty habit in York of simply stopping all of sudden where you then find yourself being cut up by cars that now don’t expect you to come out into the lane proper. I simply cycle 1/3 of the way out from the kerb to the middle of the road. Whether that is in the so-called "cycle lane" or not is completely immaterial to me.