Vandals target top cycling event in New Forest

Cyclists in the New Forest at the weekend

Cyclists in the New Forest at the weekend

First published in News
Last updated
Daily Echo: Photograph of the Author by , Senior Reporter

THE safety of hundreds of cyclists was threatened during a major sports event when drawing pins were thrown on to the road and more than 1,000 route signs vandalised.

Organisers of UK Cycling’s New Forest Spring Sportive were forced to take drastic action at the start of the twoday event when the participants were put in jeopardy by the reckless actions of the vandals.

Marshals had to sweep up the tacks off the road in Boldre – but some tyres were still punctured.

And event organisers also found that more than 1,000 direction and safety signs had been removed or defaced, forcing safety teams to replace them before the 1,850 cyclists set off.

Heavy rain added to the organisers’ problems, forcing them to cancel the second day as the hosting field in Brockenhurst became waterlogged.

Martin Barden, director of UK Cycling, said there were no injuries but he was “appalled” at the action of the vandals.

He said: “A small minority of people have taken to vigilante lengths to stop the events. Their behaviour is unacceptable.

“[They] have tried to ruin the day for everyone and tried to endanger cyclists.

“Luckily that hasn’t happened, due to sheer luck, but the attempt to injure a cyclist has been there.

“I think it is appalling. It’s all been reported to the police.

“It is a very small-minded type of attitude. If we hadn’t been on top of it, it could have caused serious harm.”

Mr Barden added that some cars were also being driven at slow speeds, causing a slow-moving roadblock.

But he said that most cyclists were unaware of any problems and that many had enjoyed the day, despite the weather.

He also said that the majority of the New Forest resi-dents were welcoming to the cyclists for the fifth annual event.

The event had attracted criticism in the week leading up to it, with some residents of the New Forest claiming that cyclists were an increasing nuisance as they flocked to the park to enjoy its breathtaking views.

Mr Barden said that the number of participants had been kept low out of respect to those living there.

“We could have had 10,000 people here but we reduced the figures. We did it consciously to be considerate to the local residents. The same courtesy has not been extended the other way, in some parts,” he added.

Ian Wild, chairman of Boldre Parish Council, said he thought that the vandals’ actions were “reprehensible”.

“It could have caused accidents and could have potentially been very serious.

Anyone who cycled over the tacks could have been injured. If someone had done that, that’s reprehensible,” he said.

Over an 86-mile circuit cyclists were able to visit Lymington, Brockenhurst, Lyndhurst, Landford, Hale, Godshill, Hyde and Sway. There was also a shorter route of 58 miles.

Earlier this week Dr Julian Lewis, MP for New Forest East, wrote to transport minister Norman Baker calling for a formal licensing system for cycle events to be introduced.

He was unavailable for further comment yesterday.

Before the weekend’s event, a spokesman for the New Forest Equestrian Association said that there was a big risk to horses and riders from such events, especially when cyclists came up quickly and silently from behind.

Mr Barden said that the Forest ride event would now be rescheduled for later in the year.

Comments (441)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:13am Mon 15 Apr 13

saint61 says...

Bas@~rds
Bas@~rds saint61
  • Score: 0

7:49am Mon 15 Apr 13

cyclejim says...

A repeat of my post from last night on the other article (before this one was published). Seems more apt here.

A friend of mine was cycling in the forest today, nothing to do with the event, on his way to work. His wheel caught one of a number of tacks thrown onto that particular part of road, which blew his tyre and caused him fall and break his collar bone. I hope whoever did that is satisfied. Who has been causing the real danger on forest roads this weekend?
A repeat of my post from last night on the other article (before this one was published). Seems more apt here. A friend of mine was cycling in the forest today, nothing to do with the event, on his way to work. His wheel caught one of a number of tacks thrown onto that particular part of road, which blew his tyre and caused him fall and break his collar bone. I hope whoever did that is satisfied. Who has been causing the real danger on forest roads this weekend? cyclejim
  • Score: 0

7:52am Mon 15 Apr 13

iNewForest.co.uk says...

Very sad to hear of this. Especially so, since it appears someone broke a collarbone yesterday as a result of these tacks: http://www.dailyecho
.co.uk/news/10354337
.Controversial_New_F
orest_cycling_event_
rained_off/

If this is true, then I think the people that were against the ride need to get together quickly and work out who did it, before others do. These tacks have caused bodily harm, they could have killed. They could have hurt the stock too. This is appalling. We do not want a witch hunt in the Forest nor retaliation from other mindless individuals. Please lets pull together, stop pointing fingers and find out who exactly are the real menace to the Forest.
Very sad to hear of this. Especially so, since it appears someone broke a collarbone yesterday as a result of these tacks: http://www.dailyecho .co.uk/news/10354337 .Controversial_New_F orest_cycling_event_ rained_off/ If this is true, then I think the people that were against the ride need to get together quickly and work out who did it, before others do. These tacks have caused bodily harm, they could have killed. They could have hurt the stock too. This is appalling. We do not want a witch hunt in the Forest nor retaliation from other mindless individuals. Please lets pull together, stop pointing fingers and find out who exactly are the real menace to the Forest. iNewForest.co.uk
  • Score: 0

7:55am Mon 15 Apr 13

solomum says...

cyclejim wrote:
A repeat of my post from last night on the other article (before this one was published). Seems more apt here.

A friend of mine was cycling in the forest today, nothing to do with the event, on his way to work. His wheel caught one of a number of tacks thrown onto that particular part of road, which blew his tyre and caused him fall and break his collar bone. I hope whoever did that is satisfied. Who has been causing the real danger on forest roads this weekend?
The same people that moan about lack of safety are the ones who cause the dangers. They are despicable and if found should be charged with grievious bodily harm of anyone who was injured.
[quote][p][bold]cyclejim[/bold] wrote: A repeat of my post from last night on the other article (before this one was published). Seems more apt here. A friend of mine was cycling in the forest today, nothing to do with the event, on his way to work. His wheel caught one of a number of tacks thrown onto that particular part of road, which blew his tyre and caused him fall and break his collar bone. I hope whoever did that is satisfied. Who has been causing the real danger on forest roads this weekend?[/p][/quote]The same people that moan about lack of safety are the ones who cause the dangers. They are despicable and if found should be charged with grievious bodily harm of anyone who was injured. solomum
  • Score: 0

8:06am Mon 15 Apr 13

iNewForest.co.uk says...

cyclejim wrote:
A repeat of my post from last night on the other article (before this one was published). Seems more apt here.

A friend of mine was cycling in the forest today, nothing to do with the event, on his way to work. His wheel caught one of a number of tacks thrown onto that particular part of road, which blew his tyre and caused him fall and break his collar bone. I hope whoever did that is satisfied. Who has been causing the real danger on forest roads this weekend?
I wish your friend a speedy recovery. Where did this happen?
[quote][p][bold]cyclejim[/bold] wrote: A repeat of my post from last night on the other article (before this one was published). Seems more apt here. A friend of mine was cycling in the forest today, nothing to do with the event, on his way to work. His wheel caught one of a number of tacks thrown onto that particular part of road, which blew his tyre and caused him fall and break his collar bone. I hope whoever did that is satisfied. Who has been causing the real danger on forest roads this weekend?[/p][/quote]I wish your friend a speedy recovery. Where did this happen? iNewForest.co.uk
  • Score: 0

8:12am Mon 15 Apr 13

S Pance says...

Safety is obviously paramount and I hope they catch whoever is doing this.

Hope your friend is OK.
Safety is obviously paramount and I hope they catch whoever is doing this. Hope your friend is OK. S Pance
  • Score: 0

8:14am Mon 15 Apr 13

saint61 says...

DOCTOR LEWIS, I HOPE YOUR PLEASED WITH YOURSELF
DOCTOR LEWIS, I HOPE YOUR PLEASED WITH YOURSELF saint61
  • Score: 0

8:20am Mon 15 Apr 13

foresthorse says...

saint61 wrote:
DOCTOR LEWIS, I HOPE YOUR PLEASED WITH YOURSELF
Gosh, it was Dr Lewis, was it? The mindless vandal!
[quote][p][bold]saint61[/bold] wrote: DOCTOR LEWIS, I HOPE YOUR PLEASED WITH YOURSELF[/p][/quote]Gosh, it was Dr Lewis, was it? The mindless vandal! foresthorse
  • Score: 0

8:46am Mon 15 Apr 13

Taskforce 141 says...

do the people of the forest really want more people in cars, rather than being green and cycling? How stupid are they?

Also i would like to point out that you do not own the forest and it is for EVERYONE'S enjoyment!
do the people of the forest really want more people in cars, rather than being green and cycling? How stupid are they? Also i would like to point out that you do not own the forest and it is for EVERYONE'S enjoyment! Taskforce 141
  • Score: 0

8:54am Mon 15 Apr 13

saint61 says...

foresthorse wrote:
saint61 wrote: DOCTOR LEWIS, I HOPE YOUR PLEASED WITH YOURSELF
Gosh, it was Dr Lewis, was it? The mindless vandal!
His coments were the catalyst for this vandalism
[quote][p][bold]foresthorse[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]saint61[/bold] wrote: DOCTOR LEWIS, I HOPE YOUR PLEASED WITH YOURSELF[/p][/quote]Gosh, it was Dr Lewis, was it? The mindless vandal![/p][/quote]His coments were the catalyst for this vandalism saint61
  • Score: 0

9:19am Mon 15 Apr 13

foresthorse says...

saint61 wrote:
foresthorse wrote:
saint61 wrote: DOCTOR LEWIS, I HOPE YOUR PLEASED WITH YOURSELF
Gosh, it was Dr Lewis, was it? The mindless vandal!
His coments were the catalyst for this vandalism
No they weren't. He merely suggested, mirroring the concerns of constituents which, I guess, is his job, that the future of unlicensed rides needs further scrutiny. I think you'll find it was vandals who were the catalyst for the vandalism.
[quote][p][bold]saint61[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]foresthorse[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]saint61[/bold] wrote: DOCTOR LEWIS, I HOPE YOUR PLEASED WITH YOURSELF[/p][/quote]Gosh, it was Dr Lewis, was it? The mindless vandal![/p][/quote]His coments were the catalyst for this vandalism[/p][/quote]No they weren't. He merely suggested, mirroring the concerns of constituents which, I guess, is his job, that the future of unlicensed rides needs further scrutiny. I think you'll find it was vandals who were the catalyst for the vandalism. foresthorse
  • Score: 0

9:24am Mon 15 Apr 13

AFrustratedCyclist says...

Dr Julian Lewis, Anita Sibley\Grisham Hail from VizzitNewForest.com and as usual the Echo and associated papers (Salisburys etc) for supporting their anti-Cycling nonsense!

I hope you all all proud of yourselves, you are all complicit in whipping up a hyperbole of nonsense facts to the point where a number of you feel the need to go out of your way to ruin others enjoyment and threaten their safety and cause actual bodily harm!

I sincerely hope the police take it seriously and get to the bottom on who was involved and takes some real action against them.
Dr Julian Lewis, Anita Sibley\Grisham Hail from VizzitNewForest.com and as usual the Echo and associated papers (Salisburys etc) for supporting their anti-Cycling nonsense! I hope you all all proud of yourselves, you are all complicit in whipping up a hyperbole of nonsense facts to the point where a number of you feel the need to go out of your way to ruin others enjoyment and threaten their safety and cause actual bodily harm! I sincerely hope the police take it seriously and get to the bottom on who was involved and takes some real action against them. AFrustratedCyclist
  • Score: 0

9:35am Mon 15 Apr 13

General Grievance says...

As a New forest resident I am embarrased to think that people will read about such dangerous and cowardly actions by a mindless minority and associate the area with them in the future. I participate in events of this nature regularly and the article here outlines an attitude locally that could not contrast more to the warm welcome in other parts of the country to large cycling / running events. Cannot begin to comprehend the rationale of those involved but while this may put some cyclists off attending events again, they will also be put off returning as visitors / tourists or for business. The timing of the letter from Julian Lewis was ill considered as was the daft sensational reporting on this site which no doubt contributed to the poor feeling locally. If a cyclist, pedestrian, horse or motorist has been injured as a result of the vandalism then I wish them a speedy recovery on behalf of the majority of local residents.
As a New forest resident I am embarrased to think that people will read about such dangerous and cowardly actions by a mindless minority and associate the area with them in the future. I participate in events of this nature regularly and the article here outlines an attitude locally that could not contrast more to the warm welcome in other parts of the country to large cycling / running events. Cannot begin to comprehend the rationale of those involved but while this may put some cyclists off attending events again, they will also be put off returning as visitors / tourists or for business. The timing of the letter from Julian Lewis was ill considered as was the daft sensational reporting on this site which no doubt contributed to the poor feeling locally. If a cyclist, pedestrian, horse or motorist has been injured as a result of the vandalism then I wish them a speedy recovery on behalf of the majority of local residents. General Grievance
  • Score: 0

9:45am Mon 15 Apr 13

Norwegian Saint says...

OK... I am happy for the cyclists to have their fun with well organised events BUT...
While living in my old home village of Beaulieu I was travelling across the forest when a F'ing stupid MAMIL (middle aged man in lycra) was on MY side of the road causing me to take evasive action. I did report this to the event organisers. It probably would have been my fault if I had taken the MAMIL out, terrible dangerous cycling and (I hope the guy reads this) that is why the MAMILs are getting a bad name! If I was in that "race" I would have caught him up and reported him. Innocent cyclists get killed but idiots like that one deserve to be. (yes, it might be harsh to say but I was driving safely, on the correct side and not speeding and only just kept my car on the road)
OK... I am happy for the cyclists to have their fun with well organised events BUT... While living in my old home village of Beaulieu I was travelling across the forest when a F'ing stupid MAMIL (middle aged man in lycra) was on MY side of the road causing me to take evasive action. I did report this to the event organisers. It probably would have been my fault if I had taken the MAMIL out, terrible dangerous cycling and (I hope the guy reads this) that is why the MAMILs are getting a bad name! If I was in that "race" I would have caught him up and reported him. Innocent cyclists get killed but idiots like that one deserve to be. (yes, it might be harsh to say but I was driving safely, on the correct side and not speeding and only just kept my car on the road) Norwegian Saint
  • Score: 0

9:48am Mon 15 Apr 13

AFrustratedCyclist says...

and the most ironic thing about all of it is, Anita Sibley\Grisham Hail from VizzitNewForest.com which seems to be all about encouraging people into the New Forest, she has done the complete opposite!

I'm a Forest resident too and had friends come to the event who stayed in a local B&B ate and drank in local pubs and we all had nice lunch at a local pub before the went home too.

I hope the people paying her for this "service" realise what exactly it is she has been clearly heavily involved in and what a disservice she has actually done them and all local people and businesses.
and the most ironic thing about all of it is, Anita Sibley\Grisham Hail from VizzitNewForest.com which seems to be all about encouraging people into the New Forest, she has done the complete opposite! I'm a Forest resident too and had friends come to the event who stayed in a local B&B ate and drank in local pubs and we all had nice lunch at a local pub before the went home too. I hope the people paying her for this "service" realise what exactly it is she has been clearly heavily involved in and what a disservice she has actually done them and all local people and businesses. AFrustratedCyclist
  • Score: 0

9:53am Mon 15 Apr 13

jimbojones1000 says...

I love the horse comment, if anything needs licensing its horse riding, the dangers of a 700kg animal being ridden by anyone who fancies it on the public road are bordering on insane.

I don't remember ever slowly driving or cycling past a horse and looking at it thinking, i know exactly what your going to do, while it snorts and bucks eyes wide, chomping on its bit.

You wouldn't be to worried about your children when a bunch of cyclist approach down the road, but when you see a teenage girl the size of a large dog aboard some beast of dubious origin travelling along with seemingly little room or control in the event of something unforeseen happening, I usually grab them and climb the nearest tree!
And half my family ride the brutes!
I love the horse comment, if anything needs licensing its horse riding, the dangers of a 700kg animal being ridden by anyone who fancies it on the public road are bordering on insane. I don't remember ever slowly driving or cycling past a horse and looking at it thinking, i know exactly what your going to do, while it snorts and bucks eyes wide, chomping on its bit. You wouldn't be to worried about your children when a bunch of cyclist approach down the road, but when you see a teenage girl the size of a large dog aboard some beast of dubious origin travelling along with seemingly little room or control in the event of something unforeseen happening, I usually grab them and climb the nearest tree! And half my family ride the brutes! jimbojones1000
  • Score: 0

9:57am Mon 15 Apr 13

AFrustratedCyclist says...

@Norwegian Saint says...

there are idiots in all walks of life and that guy was one of them. Don't let a tiny minority of cyclists ruin it for the thousands of good one.

I could subsistent car for bike\cyclist in your comments above and find many people myself included that had had that happen to them

But for some perspective, 120 cyclist killed last year, the majority because of a motorist. 60-70 animals killed in the forest each year by motorists.

Motorists killed by Cyclists 0
Animals in the forest killed by Cyclists 0

So if anything need more control or banning it's Cars! But that is not practical or sensible. So lets just keep some perspective with these facts in mind and stop the Hyberbol about cycling in the forest. It's for everyone to enjoy.

Yes events they need to be sensible and managed well but by the sounds of it Wiggle did that fantastical well with briefings and by involving well in advance all of the relivant authorities
@Norwegian Saint says... there are idiots in all walks of life and that guy was one of them. Don't let a tiny minority of cyclists ruin it for the thousands of good one. I could subsistent car for bike\cyclist in your comments above and find many people myself included that had had that happen to them But for some perspective, 120 cyclist killed last year, the majority because of a motorist. 60-70 animals killed in the forest each year by motorists. Motorists killed by Cyclists 0 Animals in the forest killed by Cyclists 0 So if anything need more control or banning it's Cars! But that is not practical or sensible. So lets just keep some perspective with these facts in mind and stop the Hyberbol about cycling in the forest. It's for everyone to enjoy. Yes events they need to be sensible and managed well but by the sounds of it Wiggle did that fantastical well with briefings and by involving well in advance all of the relivant authorities AFrustratedCyclist
  • Score: 0

10:18am Mon 15 Apr 13

mr.southampton says...

It's unbelievable that rather than embracing these events and seeing them as the economic boon they undoubtedly are that New Forest residents seem to be taking the 'get orf my land' approach.
It's unbelievable that rather than embracing these events and seeing them as the economic boon they undoubtedly are that New Forest residents seem to be taking the 'get orf my land' approach. mr.southampton
  • Score: 0

10:22am Mon 15 Apr 13

sburman says...

I remember, with anger, the mass cycling event in Southampton City center last year. what a pain in the Backs*ide that was. Why they had to snarl up a busy city centre with their bikes I really don't kow.

Still the Tacks on the road was more than a bit naughty, there could still be some of them araound for days.

I did like the rolling, slow road block though.
I remember, with anger, the mass cycling event in Southampton City center last year. what a pain in the Backs*ide that was. Why they had to snarl up a busy city centre with their bikes I really don't kow. Still the Tacks on the road was more than a bit naughty, there could still be some of them araound for days. I did like the rolling, slow road block though. sburman
  • Score: 0

10:29am Mon 15 Apr 13

Sotonians_lets_pull_together says...

Absolutely no excuse for vandals, and no excuse for people removing signs.

But I cannot understand why such events are permitted on the roads.

Whether single file signs were removed or not, participants would have been told to cycle in single file. Having driven through the area when the event was ongoing (I had no idea it would be on) there were plenty of cyclists who were not cycling in single file. Even more frustrating for drivers, there was a cycle path alongside the road that none of these cyclists was using. Surely it would make sense if cyclists were required to use the cycle path where one is available?

It seemed to me a significant hazard, as there were vehicles passing in both directions, as well as many cyclists on both sides of the same road. They seemed to often be in groups, not just two side by side, let alone the single file which they had been told to cycle in.

It seemed that there were a lot of frustrated drivers trying to get through, most of which were patient, but some of which were not - it was not pleasant to see, or drive through.

I would certainly not want to participate in such a mass cycling event, as I would feel I was risking life and limb.

Surely either roads should be closed for such events, or they should be held on racetracks.

Cars are not permitted to race on public roads, it would invalidate their insurance.

It would seem sensible to require cyclists to have insurance to cycle on the roads, and for this to be invalidated by racing on open public roads.

It should be an offence for cyclists to race on the public highway in the same way that it would be for any car driver.

Such events should have to be licensed by councils, and in my view, applications should be rejected in all but very occasional circumstances.

It is also a great shame that so many cyclists abuse the cycle network in the New Forest, cycling over the open forest and carving up footpaths that are NOT cycle tracks.

There is no problem with individual cyclists using the roads or cycle paths, and using them respectfully, but mass events (whether on the new forest cycle path network) or roads) are disruptive to normal users, and should only be permitted very occasionally and under strict controls.

I am all for people having exercise, but they do not need to take it at the inconvenience of everyone else, ganging together and obstructing the roads.

These cyclists reminded me of the lorry drivers protesting the fuel duty and deliberately clogging up the roads.
Absolutely no excuse for vandals, and no excuse for people removing signs. But I cannot understand why such events are permitted on the roads. Whether single file signs were removed or not, participants would have been told to cycle in single file. Having driven through the area when the event was ongoing (I had no idea it would be on) there were plenty of cyclists who were not cycling in single file. Even more frustrating for drivers, there was a cycle path alongside the road that none of these cyclists was using. Surely it would make sense if cyclists were required to use the cycle path where one is available? It seemed to me a significant hazard, as there were vehicles passing in both directions, as well as many cyclists on both sides of the same road. They seemed to often be in groups, not just two side by side, let alone the single file which they had been told to cycle in. It seemed that there were a lot of frustrated drivers trying to get through, most of which were patient, but some of which were not - it was not pleasant to see, or drive through. I would certainly not want to participate in such a mass cycling event, as I would feel I was risking life and limb. Surely either roads should be closed for such events, or they should be held on racetracks. Cars are not permitted to race on public roads, it would invalidate their insurance. It would seem sensible to require cyclists to have insurance to cycle on the roads, and for this to be invalidated by racing on open public roads. It should be an offence for cyclists to race on the public highway in the same way that it would be for any car driver. Such events should have to be licensed by councils, and in my view, applications should be rejected in all but very occasional circumstances. It is also a great shame that so many cyclists abuse the cycle network in the New Forest, cycling over the open forest and carving up footpaths that are NOT cycle tracks. There is no problem with individual cyclists using the roads or cycle paths, and using them respectfully, but mass events (whether on the new forest cycle path network) or roads) are disruptive to normal users, and should only be permitted very occasionally and under strict controls. I am all for people having exercise, but they do not need to take it at the inconvenience of everyone else, ganging together and obstructing the roads. These cyclists reminded me of the lorry drivers protesting the fuel duty and deliberately clogging up the roads. Sotonians_lets_pull_together
  • Score: 0

10:34am Mon 15 Apr 13

Frank28 says...

I noticed there were a lot of cyclists who had received punctures. If this peaceful event is going to be ruined by nimby residents; then if the race continues next year, then all cyclists must take out accident and liability insurance, and the Police must ensure the safety of the route. A motorcyclist driving over nails or tacks left on the road, could easily lose control of his machine.
I noticed there were a lot of cyclists who had received punctures. If this peaceful event is going to be ruined by nimby residents; then if the race continues next year, then all cyclists must take out accident and liability insurance, and the Police must ensure the safety of the route. A motorcyclist driving over nails or tacks left on the road, could easily lose control of his machine. Frank28
  • Score: 0

10:38am Mon 15 Apr 13

Norwegian Saint says...

@the frustrated cyclist...

I am trying to point out that it is not always the car drivers fault with deaths and I am glad that I stayed on the road or it may have been Cyclist 1 Norwegian Saint 0!

One thing my Norwegian Girlfriend could not believe over there was the lack of any cycle paths, there are purpose built cycle paths out here, and the norwegians only have 3million cars... in the whole country!

Maybe drivers would stop moaning if the cyclists pay a small tax?
@the frustrated cyclist... I am trying to point out that it is not always the car drivers fault with deaths and I am glad that I stayed on the road or it may have been Cyclist 1 Norwegian Saint 0! One thing my Norwegian Girlfriend could not believe over there was the lack of any cycle paths, there are purpose built cycle paths out here, and the norwegians only have 3million cars... in the whole country! Maybe drivers would stop moaning if the cyclists pay a small tax? Norwegian Saint
  • Score: 0

10:45am Mon 15 Apr 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

Looks like some of the residents of the New Forest think they live in Royston Vasey.

This was shameful behaviour and should be used as an example of anti-cycle prejudice in parliamentary transport debates.
Looks like some of the residents of the New Forest think they live in Royston Vasey. This was shameful behaviour and should be used as an example of anti-cycle prejudice in parliamentary transport debates. Shoebury_Cyclist
  • Score: 0

10:54am Mon 15 Apr 13

CharlieOxbridge says...

Regardless of whom do what and I once saw a man in lycra do this and dangerous car driver do that.
.
Once again it is a small *minority* from both sides spoiling it for *everybody*.
.
This was a cowardly act and I hope they get caught and strongly punished what an absolutely mindless thing to do.
.
What we are missing from any society today as that respect for one-another and consideration for other people. Is it really that flippen difficult to either as a cyclist not ride in the middle of the road and as a car driver give somebody more than an inch when you pass them? Fed up with hearing these stupid childish arguments about paying road TAX and all the other BS.
.
I would say that one day someone will be seriously or injured or killed but that already happens on weekly basis.
.
FOR CRYING OUT LOUD GROW UP!
Regardless of whom do what and I once saw a man in lycra do this and dangerous car driver do that. . Once again it is a small *minority* from both sides spoiling it for *everybody*. . This was a cowardly act and I hope they get caught and strongly punished what an absolutely mindless thing to do. . What we are missing from any society today as that respect for one-another and consideration for other people. Is it really that flippen difficult to either as a cyclist not ride in the middle of the road and as a car driver give somebody more than an inch when you pass them? Fed up with hearing these stupid childish arguments about paying road TAX and all the other BS. . I would say that one day someone will be seriously or injured or killed but that already happens on weekly basis. . FOR CRYING OUT LOUD GROW UP! CharlieOxbridge
  • Score: 0

11:03am Mon 15 Apr 13

elvisimo says...

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together
wrote:
Absolutely no excuse for vandals, and no excuse for people removing signs.

But I cannot understand why such events are permitted on the roads.

Whether single file signs were removed or not, participants would have been told to cycle in single file. Having driven through the area when the event was ongoing (I had no idea it would be on) there were plenty of cyclists who were not cycling in single file. Even more frustrating for drivers, there was a cycle path alongside the road that none of these cyclists was using. Surely it would make sense if cyclists were required to use the cycle path where one is available?

It seemed to me a significant hazard, as there were vehicles passing in both directions, as well as many cyclists on both sides of the same road. They seemed to often be in groups, not just two side by side, let alone the single file which they had been told to cycle in.

It seemed that there were a lot of frustrated drivers trying to get through, most of which were patient, but some of which were not - it was not pleasant to see, or drive through.

I would certainly not want to participate in such a mass cycling event, as I would feel I was risking life and limb.

Surely either roads should be closed for such events, or they should be held on racetracks.

Cars are not permitted to race on public roads, it would invalidate their insurance.

It would seem sensible to require cyclists to have insurance to cycle on the roads, and for this to be invalidated by racing on open public roads.

It should be an offence for cyclists to race on the public highway in the same way that it would be for any car driver.

Such events should have to be licensed by councils, and in my view, applications should be rejected in all but very occasional circumstances.

It is also a great shame that so many cyclists abuse the cycle network in the New Forest, cycling over the open forest and carving up footpaths that are NOT cycle tracks.

There is no problem with individual cyclists using the roads or cycle paths, and using them respectfully, but mass events (whether on the new forest cycle path network) or roads) are disruptive to normal users, and should only be permitted very occasionally and under strict controls.

I am all for people having exercise, but they do not need to take it at the inconvenience of everyone else, ganging together and obstructing the roads.

These cyclists reminded me of the lorry drivers protesting the fuel duty and deliberately clogging up the roads.
take a chill pill and a bit of care when you are on the road. I don't see that one event should really cause you that much inconvenience.

Anything that brings in business should be encouraged.
[quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: Absolutely no excuse for vandals, and no excuse for people removing signs. But I cannot understand why such events are permitted on the roads. Whether single file signs were removed or not, participants would have been told to cycle in single file. Having driven through the area when the event was ongoing (I had no idea it would be on) there were plenty of cyclists who were not cycling in single file. Even more frustrating for drivers, there was a cycle path alongside the road that none of these cyclists was using. Surely it would make sense if cyclists were required to use the cycle path where one is available? It seemed to me a significant hazard, as there were vehicles passing in both directions, as well as many cyclists on both sides of the same road. They seemed to often be in groups, not just two side by side, let alone the single file which they had been told to cycle in. It seemed that there were a lot of frustrated drivers trying to get through, most of which were patient, but some of which were not - it was not pleasant to see, or drive through. I would certainly not want to participate in such a mass cycling event, as I would feel I was risking life and limb. Surely either roads should be closed for such events, or they should be held on racetracks. Cars are not permitted to race on public roads, it would invalidate their insurance. It would seem sensible to require cyclists to have insurance to cycle on the roads, and for this to be invalidated by racing on open public roads. It should be an offence for cyclists to race on the public highway in the same way that it would be for any car driver. Such events should have to be licensed by councils, and in my view, applications should be rejected in all but very occasional circumstances. It is also a great shame that so many cyclists abuse the cycle network in the New Forest, cycling over the open forest and carving up footpaths that are NOT cycle tracks. There is no problem with individual cyclists using the roads or cycle paths, and using them respectfully, but mass events (whether on the new forest cycle path network) or roads) are disruptive to normal users, and should only be permitted very occasionally and under strict controls. I am all for people having exercise, but they do not need to take it at the inconvenience of everyone else, ganging together and obstructing the roads. These cyclists reminded me of the lorry drivers protesting the fuel duty and deliberately clogging up the roads.[/p][/quote]take a chill pill and a bit of care when you are on the road. I don't see that one event should really cause you that much inconvenience. Anything that brings in business should be encouraged. elvisimo
  • Score: 0

11:04am Mon 15 Apr 13

elvisimo says...

sburman wrote:
I remember, with anger, the mass cycling event in Southampton City center last year. what a pain in the Backs*ide that was. Why they had to snarl up a busy city centre with their bikes I really don't kow.

Still the Tacks on the road was more than a bit naughty, there could still be some of them araound for days.

I did like the rolling, slow road block though.
it was a few hours on a Sunday - the quietest day of the week.
[quote][p][bold]sburman[/bold] wrote: I remember, with anger, the mass cycling event in Southampton City center last year. what a pain in the Backs*ide that was. Why they had to snarl up a busy city centre with their bikes I really don't kow. Still the Tacks on the road was more than a bit naughty, there could still be some of them araound for days. I did like the rolling, slow road block though.[/p][/quote]it was a few hours on a Sunday - the quietest day of the week. elvisimo
  • Score: -1

11:17am Mon 15 Apr 13

HerbieGreen says...

All this anger directed at cyclists does the New Forest no credit whatsoever - it portrays it as a small minded area that cannot understand why a boom in a healthy activity should be allowed to affect their lives by occasionally slowing them down in their 4X4s. These are public roads and cyclists have as much right to use them as any other vehicle, or in fact horse. Also the argument that cyclists 'don't pay road tax' is erroneous, especially when considering horses don't pay either. I have to put up with cars strangling my area, coming to park all over our verges to go shopping locally, and have no say in that!!
All this anger directed at cyclists does the New Forest no credit whatsoever - it portrays it as a small minded area that cannot understand why a boom in a healthy activity should be allowed to affect their lives by occasionally slowing them down in their 4X4s. These are public roads and cyclists have as much right to use them as any other vehicle, or in fact horse. Also the argument that cyclists 'don't pay road tax' is erroneous, especially when considering horses don't pay either. I have to put up with cars strangling my area, coming to park all over our verges to go shopping locally, and have no say in that!! HerbieGreen
  • Score: 0

11:18am Mon 15 Apr 13

Ginger_cyclist says...

Norwegian Saint wrote:
OK... I am happy for the cyclists to have their fun with well organised events BUT...
While living in my old home village of Beaulieu I was travelling across the forest when a F'ing stupid MAMIL (middle aged man in lycra) was on MY side of the road causing me to take evasive action. I did report this to the event organisers. It probably would have been my fault if I had taken the MAMIL out, terrible dangerous cycling and (I hope the guy reads this) that is why the MAMILs are getting a bad name! If I was in that "race" I would have caught him up and reported him. Innocent cyclists get killed but idiots like that one deserve to be. (yes, it might be harsh to say but I was driving safely, on the correct side and not speeding and only just kept my car on the road)
Were they going the wrong way? if not then don't complain, if they were then I totally agree that it's that sort of riding that gives the majority a bad name and gets people killed.
[quote][p][bold]Norwegian Saint[/bold] wrote: OK... I am happy for the cyclists to have their fun with well organised events BUT... While living in my old home village of Beaulieu I was travelling across the forest when a F'ing stupid MAMIL (middle aged man in lycra) was on MY side of the road causing me to take evasive action. I did report this to the event organisers. It probably would have been my fault if I had taken the MAMIL out, terrible dangerous cycling and (I hope the guy reads this) that is why the MAMILs are getting a bad name! If I was in that "race" I would have caught him up and reported him. Innocent cyclists get killed but idiots like that one deserve to be. (yes, it might be harsh to say but I was driving safely, on the correct side and not speeding and only just kept my car on the road)[/p][/quote]Were they going the wrong way? if not then don't complain, if they were then I totally agree that it's that sort of riding that gives the majority a bad name and gets people killed. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

11:22am Mon 15 Apr 13

Sotonians_lets_pull_together says...

elvismo

Of course people should take care on the road, and that goes for any road user, car, cyclist, horserider etc.

It is patently nonsense that anything that is good for business should be encouraged. I could come up with examples, but I am sure you can do this yourself.

I also doubt that this event was good for business. It would have put a lot of residents off driving that day, and a lot of visitors would have avoided the area if they knew what disruption they would have been facing.

Seeing cyclists two abreast or more in groups on both carriageways on quite narrow but fast two way roads in the forest this saturday was simply ridiculous, and does no favours to the cycling lobby.
elvismo Of course people should take care on the road, and that goes for any road user, car, cyclist, horserider etc. It is patently nonsense that anything that is good for business should be encouraged. I could come up with examples, but I am sure you can do this yourself. I also doubt that this event was good for business. It would have put a lot of residents off driving that day, and a lot of visitors would have avoided the area if they knew what disruption they would have been facing. Seeing cyclists two abreast or more in groups on both carriageways on quite narrow but fast two way roads in the forest this saturday was simply ridiculous, and does no favours to the cycling lobby. Sotonians_lets_pull_together
  • Score: 0

11:22am Mon 15 Apr 13

Ginger_cyclist says...

sburman wrote:
I remember, with anger, the mass cycling event in Southampton City center last year. what a pain in the Backs*ide that was. Why they had to snarl up a busy city centre with their bikes I really don't kow.

Still the Tacks on the road was more than a bit naughty, there could still be some of them araound for days.

I did like the rolling, slow road block though.
What was wrong with the skyride? I found it enjoyable, plus it was on a Saturday so it would be less disruptive, you should try it.
[quote][p][bold]sburman[/bold] wrote: I remember, with anger, the mass cycling event in Southampton City center last year. what a pain in the Backs*ide that was. Why they had to snarl up a busy city centre with their bikes I really don't kow. Still the Tacks on the road was more than a bit naughty, there could still be some of them araound for days. I did like the rolling, slow road block though.[/p][/quote]What was wrong with the skyride? I found it enjoyable, plus it was on a Saturday so it would be less disruptive, you should try it. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

11:24am Mon 15 Apr 13

HerbieGreen says...

sburman wrote:
I remember, with anger, the mass cycling event in Southampton City center last year. what a pain in the Backs*ide that was. Why they had to snarl up a busy city centre with their bikes I really don't kow.

Still the Tacks on the road was more than a bit naughty, there could still be some of them araound for days.

I did like the rolling, slow road block though.
I remember, with anger, the choking 4X4s that line our road every week day taking 'Johnny' and 'Samantha' to their private school at the end of our road, the cars driven down the pavement, the abuse I get for wnating to exit my own property, or the swearing I get when I ask one of them to honour the yellow lines, or even the zigzags outside the school for the safety of their own children - these are the people who complain about cyclists once in a while causing a snarl up - look at you own lives and the over-use of your cars and get some balance back you idiots!!
[quote][p][bold]sburman[/bold] wrote: I remember, with anger, the mass cycling event in Southampton City center last year. what a pain in the Backs*ide that was. Why they had to snarl up a busy city centre with their bikes I really don't kow. Still the Tacks on the road was more than a bit naughty, there could still be some of them araound for days. I did like the rolling, slow road block though.[/p][/quote]I remember, with anger, the choking 4X4s that line our road every week day taking 'Johnny' and 'Samantha' to their private school at the end of our road, the cars driven down the pavement, the abuse I get for wnating to exit my own property, or the swearing I get when I ask one of them to honour the yellow lines, or even the zigzags outside the school for the safety of their own children - these are the people who complain about cyclists once in a while causing a snarl up - look at you own lives and the over-use of your cars and get some balance back you idiots!! HerbieGreen
  • Score: 0

11:24am Mon 15 Apr 13

Torchie1 says...

elvisimo wrote:
sburman wrote:
I remember, with anger, the mass cycling event in Southampton City center last year. what a pain in the Backs*ide that was. Why they had to snarl up a busy city centre with their bikes I really don't kow.

Still the Tacks on the road was more than a bit naughty, there could still be some of them araound for days.

I did like the rolling, slow road block though.
it was a few hours on a Sunday - the quietest day of the week.
The lead article refers to "more than 1,000 route signs vandalised. " which "Martin Barden, director of UK Cycling" seems happy to agree with as it suits his argument. I find it difficult to believe that every sign was 'got at' but the number quoted in relation to the number of participants is about 1-2 and if the number of signs that weren't 'got at' is added on, how many signs were actually put up? There's a perfectly adequate system of road signs that millions of tourists use every year and if the event wanted to take advantage of the " breathtaking views" why did they feel it necessary to spoil the scenery with 1000+ signs for participants who weren't racing and could have used a map to navigate the route? Perhaps the protesters weren't actually annoyed by the participants but with all of the unnecessary signage they brought with them for their event?
[quote][p][bold]elvisimo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sburman[/bold] wrote: I remember, with anger, the mass cycling event in Southampton City center last year. what a pain in the Backs*ide that was. Why they had to snarl up a busy city centre with their bikes I really don't kow. Still the Tacks on the road was more than a bit naughty, there could still be some of them araound for days. I did like the rolling, slow road block though.[/p][/quote]it was a few hours on a Sunday - the quietest day of the week.[/p][/quote]The lead article refers to "more than 1,000 route signs vandalised. " which "Martin Barden, director of UK Cycling" seems happy to agree with as it suits his argument. I find it difficult to believe that every sign was 'got at' but the number quoted in relation to the number of participants is about 1-2 and if the number of signs that weren't 'got at' is added on, how many signs were actually put up? There's a perfectly adequate system of road signs that millions of tourists use every year and if the event wanted to take advantage of the " breathtaking views" why did they feel it necessary to spoil the scenery with 1000+ signs for participants who weren't racing and could have used a map to navigate the route? Perhaps the protesters weren't actually annoyed by the participants but with all of the unnecessary signage they brought with them for their event? Torchie1
  • Score: 0

11:28am Mon 15 Apr 13

Echo reporter says...

Cyclejim, we are very sorry to hear about your friend's injuries. Please could we arrange some time to speak with him? Please contact us on 023 8042 4498

cyclejim wrote:
A repeat of my post from last night on the other article (before this one was published). Seems more apt here.

A friend of mine was cycling in the forest today, nothing to do with the event, on his way to work. His wheel caught one of a number of tacks thrown onto that particular part of road, which blew his tyre and caused him fall and break his collar bone. I hope whoever did that is satisfied. Who has been causing the real danger on forest roads this weekend?
Cyclejim, we are very sorry to hear about your friend's injuries. Please could we arrange some time to speak with him? Please contact us on 023 8042 4498 cyclejim wrote: A repeat of my post from last night on the other article (before this one was published). Seems more apt here. A friend of mine was cycling in the forest today, nothing to do with the event, on his way to work. His wheel caught one of a number of tacks thrown onto that particular part of road, which blew his tyre and caused him fall and break his collar bone. I hope whoever did that is satisfied. Who has been causing the real danger on forest roads this weekend? Echo reporter
  • Score: 0

11:28am Mon 15 Apr 13

Sotonians_lets_pull_together says...

Ginger_cyclist

You are clearly so unreasonably biased in favour of cyclists to make your views almost pointless.

How can you say to Norwegian Saint "Were they going the wrong way? if not then don't complain" when it is obvious to any sane unbiased reader that he was talking about a cyclist on the wrong side of the road , which by definition means they were riding the wrong way!

I am fully in favour of cyclists cycling, they just need to do it safety, respectfully, and should be licensed taxed and insured. God knows, the country could do with the tax revenue, the roads would be a lot safer, and the police would be able to enforce the existing laws where cyclists break them (as it is almost impossible to do so unless the cyclist has to have a license plate).
Ginger_cyclist You are clearly so unreasonably biased in favour of cyclists to make your views almost pointless. How can you say to Norwegian Saint "Were they going the wrong way? if not then don't complain" when it is obvious to any sane unbiased reader that he was talking about a cyclist on the wrong side of the road [he says he was on the correct side himself], which by definition means they were riding the wrong way! I am fully in favour of cyclists cycling, they just need to do it safety, respectfully, and should be licensed taxed and insured. God knows, the country could do with the tax revenue, the roads would be a lot safer, and the police would be able to enforce the existing laws where cyclists break them (as it is almost impossible to do so unless the cyclist has to have a license plate). Sotonians_lets_pull_together
  • Score: 0

11:34am Mon 15 Apr 13

Sotonians_lets_pull_together says...

Torchie,
I saw plenty of 40mph signs taking the road speed down from 60, but I didnt see a single sign telling the cyclists to stay in single file.

Signs or not, the cyclists should know to do this as it is in the highway code. The road I was on with busy, with many cars and cyclists on both sides going in opposite directions, and over half of the cyclists I saw did not have the sense to cyle in single file in this particularly challenging and potentially hazardous situation.

To be honest a lot of the cyclists seemed to be cucling well away from the side of road, and it made me wonder whether they were trying to block cars going past and make it more hazardous, even though the road was straight.

If the cyclists had kept in to the side of the road and were in single file there would have been no hazard.
Torchie, I saw plenty of 40mph signs taking the road speed down from 60, but I didnt see a single sign telling the cyclists to stay in single file. Signs or not, the cyclists should know to do this as it is in the highway code. The road I was on with busy, with many cars and cyclists on both sides going in opposite directions, and over half of the cyclists I saw did not have the sense to cyle in single file in this particularly challenging and potentially hazardous situation. To be honest a lot of the cyclists seemed to be cucling well away from the side of road, and it made me wonder whether they were trying to block cars going past and make it more hazardous, even though the road was straight. If the cyclists had kept in to the side of the road and were in single file there would have been no hazard. Sotonians_lets_pull_together
  • Score: 0

11:35am Mon 15 Apr 13

Sotonians_lets_pull_together says...

apols for the typo
apols for the typo Sotonians_lets_pull_together
  • Score: 0

11:36am Mon 15 Apr 13

HerbieGreen says...

Further to just tacks and signs being sabotage, actually intimidation has been reported - "at a particularly isolated part of the forest a threatening group of men gathered across the centre of the road, pushing at cyclists as we went through the middle of group, bemoaning ‘mass cycling events in our forest’. I note the local MP, Dr Julian Lewis has been less quick to jump to condemnation of this type of dangerous behaviour than he was of peaceful and harmless cyclists bringing money into the area at a time when tourism numbers are down sharply thanks to our terrible winter weather! Having stoked up so much of the outrage, I presume he is keeping his head down..." - I hope the New Forest feels really proud of itself - hopefully the perpetrators will be singled out and prosecuted by the local police, if they have any honour or traction in the area!!
Further to just tacks and signs being sabotage, actually intimidation has been reported - "at a particularly isolated part of the forest a threatening group of men gathered across the centre of the road, pushing at cyclists as we went through the middle of group, bemoaning ‘mass cycling events in our forest’. I note the local MP, Dr Julian Lewis has been less quick to jump to condemnation of this type of dangerous behaviour than he was of peaceful and harmless cyclists bringing money into the area at a time when tourism numbers are down sharply thanks to our terrible winter weather! Having stoked up so much of the outrage, I presume he is keeping his head down..." - I hope the New Forest feels really proud of itself - hopefully the perpetrators will be singled out and prosecuted by the local police, if they have any honour or traction in the area!! HerbieGreen
  • Score: 0

11:38am Mon 15 Apr 13

Mike_D says...

"Seeing cyclists two abreast or more in groups on both carriageways on quite narrow but fast two way roads in the forest this saturday was simply ridiculous, and does no favours to the cycling lobby."

Where are these "narrow but fast two-way roads in the Forest"? There's a blanket 40mph speed limit except for the main roads, which are not narrow. And 40mph is still a limit, not a target -- 40mph is inappropriately fast on many of them.

Of course there are some inconsiderate cyclists, just as there are inconsiderate motorists. There's an excellent chance that they're actually the same people, there aren't many cyclists who never drive. The difference is in their ability to harm others, which is extremely low in the case of the cyclist and prodigious in the case of the motorist.
"Seeing cyclists two abreast or more in groups on both carriageways on quite narrow but fast two way roads in the forest this saturday was simply ridiculous, and does no favours to the cycling lobby." Where are these "narrow but fast two-way roads in the Forest"? There's a blanket 40mph speed limit except for the main roads, which are not narrow. And 40mph is still a limit, not a target -- 40mph is inappropriately fast on many of them. Of course there are some inconsiderate cyclists, just as there are inconsiderate motorists. There's an excellent chance that they're actually the same people, there aren't many cyclists who never drive. The difference is in their ability to harm others, which is extremely low in the case of the cyclist and prodigious in the case of the motorist. Mike_D
  • Score: 0

11:38am Mon 15 Apr 13

Sotonians_lets_pull_together says...

Hold on a second, wasnt this event unlicensed?

If it was unlicensed, then surely they had no license to put up signage? Or had such signage been approved by the council, verderers, forestry commission, park authority or police?

Was it removed by officials because they were basically littering?
Hold on a second, wasnt this event unlicensed? If it was unlicensed, then surely they had no license to put up signage? Or had such signage been approved by the council, verderers, forestry commission, park authority or police? Was it removed by officials because they were basically littering? Sotonians_lets_pull_together
  • Score: 0

11:39am Mon 15 Apr 13

Ginger_cyclist says...

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together
wrote:
Absolutely no excuse for vandals, and no excuse for people removing signs.

But I cannot understand why such events are permitted on the roads.

Whether single file signs were removed or not, participants would have been told to cycle in single file. Having driven through the area when the event was ongoing (I had no idea it would be on) there were plenty of cyclists who were not cycling in single file. Even more frustrating for drivers, there was a cycle path alongside the road that none of these cyclists was using. Surely it would make sense if cyclists were required to use the cycle path where one is available?

It seemed to me a significant hazard, as there were vehicles passing in both directions, as well as many cyclists on both sides of the same road. They seemed to often be in groups, not just two side by side, let alone the single file which they had been told to cycle in.

It seemed that there were a lot of frustrated drivers trying to get through, most of which were patient, but some of which were not - it was not pleasant to see, or drive through.

I would certainly not want to participate in such a mass cycling event, as I would feel I was risking life and limb.

Surely either roads should be closed for such events, or they should be held on racetracks.

Cars are not permitted to race on public roads, it would invalidate their insurance.

It would seem sensible to require cyclists to have insurance to cycle on the roads, and for this to be invalidated by racing on open public roads.

It should be an offence for cyclists to race on the public highway in the same way that it would be for any car driver.

Such events should have to be licensed by councils, and in my view, applications should be rejected in all but very occasional circumstances.

It is also a great shame that so many cyclists abuse the cycle network in the New Forest, cycling over the open forest and carving up footpaths that are NOT cycle tracks.

There is no problem with individual cyclists using the roads or cycle paths, and using them respectfully, but mass events (whether on the new forest cycle path network) or roads) are disruptive to normal users, and should only be permitted very occasionally and under strict controls.

I am all for people having exercise, but they do not need to take it at the inconvenience of everyone else, ganging together and obstructing the roads.

These cyclists reminded me of the lorry drivers protesting the fuel duty and deliberately clogging up the roads.
Actually, they don't have to ride single file if they feel it's not safe, they do NOT have to use any cycle paths as they are legally road traffic, they get released in groups, also a large mass of cyclists is easier to see than a long, thin single file of them, it's also safer to pass them then as you have to be on the other side of the road for less time to overtake them, it WASN'T a race, there weren't even prizes for the fastest riders, most of those cyclist would have been British Cycling members and would therefore have the third party insurance that comes with it which covers for such events as well, if it was a race which it wasn't, they would need a different membership with different insurance that wouldn't cover them when in public but for when they're racing, they already are in a way, licensed by the local authorities because they would need permission before organising it, that "so many cyclists" is really just a minority but I agree it's still a shame that so few can cause problems for the rest, they aren't disruptive in such rural areas, they don't happen that often, they are under strict controls already and they don't gang together to obstruct the road, if that were true then no one would be able to get by them at all, so your points about the event/s, are invalid.
[quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: Absolutely no excuse for vandals, and no excuse for people removing signs. But I cannot understand why such events are permitted on the roads. Whether single file signs were removed or not, participants would have been told to cycle in single file. Having driven through the area when the event was ongoing (I had no idea it would be on) there were plenty of cyclists who were not cycling in single file. Even more frustrating for drivers, there was a cycle path alongside the road that none of these cyclists was using. Surely it would make sense if cyclists were required to use the cycle path where one is available? It seemed to me a significant hazard, as there were vehicles passing in both directions, as well as many cyclists on both sides of the same road. They seemed to often be in groups, not just two side by side, let alone the single file which they had been told to cycle in. It seemed that there were a lot of frustrated drivers trying to get through, most of which were patient, but some of which were not - it was not pleasant to see, or drive through. I would certainly not want to participate in such a mass cycling event, as I would feel I was risking life and limb. Surely either roads should be closed for such events, or they should be held on racetracks. Cars are not permitted to race on public roads, it would invalidate their insurance. It would seem sensible to require cyclists to have insurance to cycle on the roads, and for this to be invalidated by racing on open public roads. It should be an offence for cyclists to race on the public highway in the same way that it would be for any car driver. Such events should have to be licensed by councils, and in my view, applications should be rejected in all but very occasional circumstances. It is also a great shame that so many cyclists abuse the cycle network in the New Forest, cycling over the open forest and carving up footpaths that are NOT cycle tracks. There is no problem with individual cyclists using the roads or cycle paths, and using them respectfully, but mass events (whether on the new forest cycle path network) or roads) are disruptive to normal users, and should only be permitted very occasionally and under strict controls. I am all for people having exercise, but they do not need to take it at the inconvenience of everyone else, ganging together and obstructing the roads. These cyclists reminded me of the lorry drivers protesting the fuel duty and deliberately clogging up the roads.[/p][/quote]Actually, they don't have to ride single file if they feel it's not safe, they do NOT have to use any cycle paths as they are legally road traffic, they get released in groups, also a large mass of cyclists is easier to see than a long, thin single file of them, it's also safer to pass them then as you have to be on the other side of the road for less time to overtake them, it WASN'T a race, there weren't even prizes for the fastest riders, most of those cyclist would have been British Cycling members and would therefore have the third party insurance that comes with it which covers for such events as well, if it was a race which it wasn't, they would need a different membership with different insurance that wouldn't cover them when in public but for when they're racing, they already are in a way, licensed by the local authorities because they would need permission before organising it, that "so many cyclists" is really just a minority but I agree it's still a shame that so few can cause problems for the rest, they aren't disruptive in such rural areas, they don't happen that often, they are under strict controls already and they don't gang together to obstruct the road, if that were true then no one would be able to get by them at all, so your points about the event/s, are invalid. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -1

11:40am Mon 15 Apr 13

Ginger_cyclist says...

Frank28 wrote:
I noticed there were a lot of cyclists who had received punctures. If this peaceful event is going to be ruined by nimby residents; then if the race continues next year, then all cyclists must take out accident and liability insurance, and the Police must ensure the safety of the route. A motorcyclist driving over nails or tacks left on the road, could easily lose control of his machine.
Though I agree with your comment, I must correct you because it wasn't a race.
[quote][p][bold]Frank28[/bold] wrote: I noticed there were a lot of cyclists who had received punctures. If this peaceful event is going to be ruined by nimby residents; then if the race continues next year, then all cyclists must take out accident and liability insurance, and the Police must ensure the safety of the route. A motorcyclist driving over nails or tacks left on the road, could easily lose control of his machine.[/p][/quote]Though I agree with your comment, I must correct you because it wasn't a race. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

11:40am Mon 15 Apr 13

-stiv- says...

Norwegian Saint wrote:
OK... I am happy for the cyclists to have their fun with well organised events BUT...
While living in my old home village of Beaulieu I was travelling across the forest when a F'ing stupid MAMIL (middle aged man in lycra) was on MY side of the road causing me to take evasive action. I did report this to the event organisers. It probably would have been my fault if I had taken the MAMIL out, terrible dangerous cycling and (I hope the guy reads this) that is why the MAMILs are getting a bad name! If I was in that "race" I would have caught him up and reported him. Innocent cyclists get killed but idiots like that one deserve to be. (yes, it might be harsh to say but I was driving safely, on the correct side and not speeding and only just kept my car on the road)
I was cycling the other day and a motorist nearly killed me x1000.

Flesh vs Steel. Steel wins every time.
[quote][p][bold]Norwegian Saint[/bold] wrote: OK... I am happy for the cyclists to have their fun with well organised events BUT... While living in my old home village of Beaulieu I was travelling across the forest when a F'ing stupid MAMIL (middle aged man in lycra) was on MY side of the road causing me to take evasive action. I did report this to the event organisers. It probably would have been my fault if I had taken the MAMIL out, terrible dangerous cycling and (I hope the guy reads this) that is why the MAMILs are getting a bad name! If I was in that "race" I would have caught him up and reported him. Innocent cyclists get killed but idiots like that one deserve to be. (yes, it might be harsh to say but I was driving safely, on the correct side and not speeding and only just kept my car on the road)[/p][/quote]I was cycling the other day and a motorist nearly killed me x1000. Flesh vs Steel. Steel wins every time. -stiv-
  • Score: 0

11:42am Mon 15 Apr 13

Sotonians_lets_pull_together says...

Mike_D,
I am talking about main roads, that were normally 60, but taken down from 60 to 40 for the event.

I agree, there would have been no hazard if the cyclists were in single file, as the roads are safe enough to take this.

However, if you have cyclists that are not in single file, on BOTH sides of the road simultaneously, then that made those roads feel pretty narrow that day I can tell you.

I drove with a caution and respect toward the other road users, though I saw many cyclists cycling without respect for other road users, and many impatient drivers.

I did wonder whether I would be hearing about deaths at the event afterwards, seeing how the roads seemed to be that day.
Mike_D, I am talking about main roads, that were normally 60, but taken down from 60 to 40 for the event. I agree, there would have been no hazard if the cyclists were in single file, as the roads are safe enough to take this. However, if you have cyclists that are not in single file, on BOTH sides of the road simultaneously, then that made those roads feel pretty narrow that day I can tell you. I drove with a caution and respect toward the other road users, though I saw many cyclists cycling without respect for other road users, and many impatient drivers. I did wonder whether I would be hearing about deaths at the event afterwards, seeing how the roads seemed to be that day. Sotonians_lets_pull_together
  • Score: 0

11:44am Mon 15 Apr 13

Ginger_cyclist says...

CharlieOxbridge wrote:
Regardless of whom do what and I once saw a man in lycra do this and dangerous car driver do that.
.
Once again it is a small *minority* from both sides spoiling it for *everybody*.
.
This was a cowardly act and I hope they get caught and strongly punished what an absolutely mindless thing to do.
.
What we are missing from any society today as that respect for one-another and consideration for other people. Is it really that flippen difficult to either as a cyclist not ride in the middle of the road and as a car driver give somebody more than an inch when you pass them? Fed up with hearing these stupid childish arguments about paying road TAX and all the other BS.
.
I would say that one day someone will be seriously or injured or killed but that already happens on weekly basis.
.
FOR CRYING OUT LOUD GROW UP!
While I also agree in the most part with this, I must point out that it is encouraged by the DfT and many organisations such as the AA to ride "in the middle of the road" or in the middle of the lane which is the real spot that cyclists should be in, this because it's the safest place for us to be as it is also where we are most likely to be seen.
[quote][p][bold]CharlieOxbridge[/bold] wrote: Regardless of whom do what and I once saw a man in lycra do this and dangerous car driver do that. . Once again it is a small *minority* from both sides spoiling it for *everybody*. . This was a cowardly act and I hope they get caught and strongly punished what an absolutely mindless thing to do. . What we are missing from any society today as that respect for one-another and consideration for other people. Is it really that flippen difficult to either as a cyclist not ride in the middle of the road and as a car driver give somebody more than an inch when you pass them? Fed up with hearing these stupid childish arguments about paying road TAX and all the other BS. . I would say that one day someone will be seriously or injured or killed but that already happens on weekly basis. . FOR CRYING OUT LOUD GROW UP![/p][/quote]While I also agree in the most part with this, I must point out that it is encouraged by the DfT and many organisations such as the AA to ride "in the middle of the road" or in the middle of the lane which is the real spot that cyclists should be in, this because it's the safest place for us to be as it is also where we are most likely to be seen. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

11:45am Mon 15 Apr 13

Sotonians_lets_pull_together says...

Ginger_cyclist,
Interesting if it wasnt officially a race.

I wonder how many of the participants treat it as a race though, how many record their times, how many race their friends, or whether even there are lists of unofficial race times out there on cycling forums by people who have their own races within such "non-race events".
Ginger_cyclist, Interesting if it wasnt officially a race. I wonder how many of the participants treat it as a race though, how many record their times, how many race their friends, or whether even there are lists of unofficial race times out there on cycling forums by people who have their own races within such "non-race events". Sotonians_lets_pull_together
  • Score: 0

11:50am Mon 15 Apr 13

sburman says...

HerbieGreen wrote:
sburman wrote:
I remember, with anger, the mass cycling event in Southampton City center last year. what a pain in the Backs*ide that was. Why they had to snarl up a busy city centre with their bikes I really don't kow.

Still the Tacks on the road was more than a bit naughty, there could still be some of them araound for days.

I did like the rolling, slow road block though.
I remember, with anger, the choking 4X4s that line our road every week day taking 'Johnny' and 'Samantha' to their private school at the end of our road, the cars driven down the pavement, the abuse I get for wnating to exit my own property, or the swearing I get when I ask one of them to honour the yellow lines, or even the zigzags outside the school for the safety of their own children - these are the people who complain about cyclists once in a while causing a snarl up - look at you own lives and the over-use of your cars and get some balance back you idiots!!
Point 1. - I drive a little Kia CeeD
Point 2. - My children always walked to school
Point 3 - That Sunday I was trying to get to the Thai festival in Mayflower Park and it took nearly on hour from Eastleigh.
Point 4 – Look a the Photo at the top of this Echo article, notice all the cyclists in single file
I feel that if the a large minority of cyclists who flout all road using rules where subject to same rules of law ( ie. Courts, fines, loss a licence etc. ) as car drivers life for all would be better
You do have a real point though on Parking outside schools at drop off/Pick up times.
By the way, you forgot to mention Cash Point Cripples
[quote][p][bold]HerbieGreen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sburman[/bold] wrote: I remember, with anger, the mass cycling event in Southampton City center last year. what a pain in the Backs*ide that was. Why they had to snarl up a busy city centre with their bikes I really don't kow. Still the Tacks on the road was more than a bit naughty, there could still be some of them araound for days. I did like the rolling, slow road block though.[/p][/quote]I remember, with anger, the choking 4X4s that line our road every week day taking 'Johnny' and 'Samantha' to their private school at the end of our road, the cars driven down the pavement, the abuse I get for wnating to exit my own property, or the swearing I get when I ask one of them to honour the yellow lines, or even the zigzags outside the school for the safety of their own children - these are the people who complain about cyclists once in a while causing a snarl up - look at you own lives and the over-use of your cars and get some balance back you idiots!![/p][/quote]Point 1. - I drive a little Kia CeeD Point 2. - My children always walked to school Point 3 - That Sunday I was trying to get to the Thai festival in Mayflower Park and it took nearly on hour from Eastleigh. Point 4 – Look a the Photo at the top of this Echo article, notice all the cyclists in single file I feel that if the a large minority of cyclists who flout all road using rules where subject to same rules of law ( ie. Courts, fines, loss a licence etc. ) as car drivers life for all would be better You do have a real point though on Parking outside schools at drop off/Pick up times. By the way, you forgot to mention Cash Point Cripples sburman
  • Score: 0

11:51am Mon 15 Apr 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

http://bit.ly/17B0cJ
O

'nuff said.
http://bit.ly/17B0cJ O 'nuff said. Shoebury_Cyclist
  • Score: 0

11:52am Mon 15 Apr 13

Torchie1 says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Sotonians_lets_pull_

together
wrote:
Absolutely no excuse for vandals, and no excuse for people removing signs.

But I cannot understand why such events are permitted on the roads.

Whether single file signs were removed or not, participants would have been told to cycle in single file. Having driven through the area when the event was ongoing (I had no idea it would be on) there were plenty of cyclists who were not cycling in single file. Even more frustrating for drivers, there was a cycle path alongside the road that none of these cyclists was using. Surely it would make sense if cyclists were required to use the cycle path where one is available?

It seemed to me a significant hazard, as there were vehicles passing in both directions, as well as many cyclists on both sides of the same road. They seemed to often be in groups, not just two side by side, let alone the single file which they had been told to cycle in.

It seemed that there were a lot of frustrated drivers trying to get through, most of which were patient, but some of which were not - it was not pleasant to see, or drive through.

I would certainly not want to participate in such a mass cycling event, as I would feel I was risking life and limb.

Surely either roads should be closed for such events, or they should be held on racetracks.

Cars are not permitted to race on public roads, it would invalidate their insurance.

It would seem sensible to require cyclists to have insurance to cycle on the roads, and for this to be invalidated by racing on open public roads.

It should be an offence for cyclists to race on the public highway in the same way that it would be for any car driver.

Such events should have to be licensed by councils, and in my view, applications should be rejected in all but very occasional circumstances.

It is also a great shame that so many cyclists abuse the cycle network in the New Forest, cycling over the open forest and carving up footpaths that are NOT cycle tracks.

There is no problem with individual cyclists using the roads or cycle paths, and using them respectfully, but mass events (whether on the new forest cycle path network) or roads) are disruptive to normal users, and should only be permitted very occasionally and under strict controls.

I am all for people having exercise, but they do not need to take it at the inconvenience of everyone else, ganging together and obstructing the roads.

These cyclists reminded me of the lorry drivers protesting the fuel duty and deliberately clogging up the roads.
Actually, they don't have to ride single file if they feel it's not safe, they do NOT have to use any cycle paths as they are legally road traffic, they get released in groups, also a large mass of cyclists is easier to see than a long, thin single file of them, it's also safer to pass them then as you have to be on the other side of the road for less time to overtake them, it WASN'T a race, there weren't even prizes for the fastest riders, most of those cyclist would have been British Cycling members and would therefore have the third party insurance that comes with it which covers for such events as well, if it was a race which it wasn't, they would need a different membership with different insurance that wouldn't cover them when in public but for when they're racing, they already are in a way, licensed by the local authorities because they would need permission before organising it, that "so many cyclists" is really just a minority but I agree it's still a shame that so few can cause problems for the rest, they aren't disruptive in such rural areas, they don't happen that often, they are under strict controls already and they don't gang together to obstruct the road, if that were true then no one would be able to get by them at all, so your points about the event/s, are invalid.
You are quite correct when you say that riders don't have to ride in single file but the car drivers who have been condemned for the 'rolling road block' can drive at a speed of their choice up the local speed limit, but they seem to be receiving negative comments from the cycling fraternity one of whom points out that the speed limit is not a target.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: Absolutely no excuse for vandals, and no excuse for people removing signs. But I cannot understand why such events are permitted on the roads. Whether single file signs were removed or not, participants would have been told to cycle in single file. Having driven through the area when the event was ongoing (I had no idea it would be on) there were plenty of cyclists who were not cycling in single file. Even more frustrating for drivers, there was a cycle path alongside the road that none of these cyclists was using. Surely it would make sense if cyclists were required to use the cycle path where one is available? It seemed to me a significant hazard, as there were vehicles passing in both directions, as well as many cyclists on both sides of the same road. They seemed to often be in groups, not just two side by side, let alone the single file which they had been told to cycle in. It seemed that there were a lot of frustrated drivers trying to get through, most of which were patient, but some of which were not - it was not pleasant to see, or drive through. I would certainly not want to participate in such a mass cycling event, as I would feel I was risking life and limb. Surely either roads should be closed for such events, or they should be held on racetracks. Cars are not permitted to race on public roads, it would invalidate their insurance. It would seem sensible to require cyclists to have insurance to cycle on the roads, and for this to be invalidated by racing on open public roads. It should be an offence for cyclists to race on the public highway in the same way that it would be for any car driver. Such events should have to be licensed by councils, and in my view, applications should be rejected in all but very occasional circumstances. It is also a great shame that so many cyclists abuse the cycle network in the New Forest, cycling over the open forest and carving up footpaths that are NOT cycle tracks. There is no problem with individual cyclists using the roads or cycle paths, and using them respectfully, but mass events (whether on the new forest cycle path network) or roads) are disruptive to normal users, and should only be permitted very occasionally and under strict controls. I am all for people having exercise, but they do not need to take it at the inconvenience of everyone else, ganging together and obstructing the roads. These cyclists reminded me of the lorry drivers protesting the fuel duty and deliberately clogging up the roads.[/p][/quote]Actually, they don't have to ride single file if they feel it's not safe, they do NOT have to use any cycle paths as they are legally road traffic, they get released in groups, also a large mass of cyclists is easier to see than a long, thin single file of them, it's also safer to pass them then as you have to be on the other side of the road for less time to overtake them, it WASN'T a race, there weren't even prizes for the fastest riders, most of those cyclist would have been British Cycling members and would therefore have the third party insurance that comes with it which covers for such events as well, if it was a race which it wasn't, they would need a different membership with different insurance that wouldn't cover them when in public but for when they're racing, they already are in a way, licensed by the local authorities because they would need permission before organising it, that "so many cyclists" is really just a minority but I agree it's still a shame that so few can cause problems for the rest, they aren't disruptive in such rural areas, they don't happen that often, they are under strict controls already and they don't gang together to obstruct the road, if that were true then no one would be able to get by them at all, so your points about the event/s, are invalid.[/p][/quote]You are quite correct when you say that riders don't have to ride in single file but the car drivers who have been condemned for the 'rolling road block' can drive at a speed of their choice up the local speed limit, but they seem to be receiving negative comments from the cycling fraternity one of whom points out that the speed limit is not a target. Torchie1
  • Score: 0

11:53am Mon 15 Apr 13

Sotonians_lets_pull_together says...

Ginger Cyclist,

Sorry, the points are not invalid just because you dont like them

If so many of these cyclists have insurance and are regulated, then it will be a short and useful step to make sure they all have to have number plates, be taxed and insured.

Then people could photograph the cyclists that are breaking the law and action could be taken, they could be prosecuted and barred from such events.

Indeed it would be helpful if they all had to be wearing participant numbers, as again, photographs and video footage could be used to get such cyclists barred from similar events. I dont know if they were wearing event participant numbers, I didnt look to see, but I dont recall that they were.

For this event as I understand it cyclists were told by the organisers to be respectful to other road users, keep in, and cycle in single file.

A good proportion of them did not seem to be doing this.
Ginger Cyclist, Sorry, the points are not invalid just because you dont like them If so many of these cyclists have insurance and are regulated, then it will be a short and useful step to make sure they all have to have number plates, be taxed and insured. Then people could photograph the cyclists that are breaking the law and action could be taken, they could be prosecuted and barred from such events. Indeed it would be helpful if they all had to be wearing participant numbers, as again, photographs and video footage could be used to get such cyclists barred from similar events. I dont know if they were wearing event participant numbers, I didnt look to see, but I dont recall that they were. For this event as I understand it cyclists were told by the organisers to be respectful to other road users, keep in, and cycle in single file. A good proportion of them did not seem to be doing this. Sotonians_lets_pull_together
  • Score: 0

11:53am Mon 15 Apr 13

Mike_D says...

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together
wrote:
Mike_D,
I am talking about main roads, that were normally 60, but taken down from 60 to 40 for the event.

I agree, there would have been no hazard if the cyclists were in single file, as the roads are safe enough to take this.

However, if you have cyclists that are not in single file, on BOTH sides of the road simultaneously, then that made those roads feel pretty narrow that day I can tell you.

I drove with a caution and respect toward the other road users, though I saw many cyclists cycling without respect for other road users, and many impatient drivers.

I did wonder whether I would be hearing about deaths at the event afterwards, seeing how the roads seemed to be that day.
So not inherently narrow roads, then? And in fact not fast either, given the temporary 40mph limit. As others have commented, for a given number of cyclists it's much easier to pass them if they're two abreast than in single file, you're on the opposite side of the road for less time.

As far as I can see from the route, the only significant stretch of main road was about three miles of the A337 south of Lyndhurst, and that was only used in one direction. The only stretch of road used in both directions was about a mile of minor road passing under the A31. Which bit are you referring to?
[quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: Mike_D, I am talking about main roads, that were normally 60, but taken down from 60 to 40 for the event. I agree, there would have been no hazard if the cyclists were in single file, as the roads are safe enough to take this. However, if you have cyclists that are not in single file, on BOTH sides of the road simultaneously, then that made those roads feel pretty narrow that day I can tell you. I drove with a caution and respect toward the other road users, though I saw many cyclists cycling without respect for other road users, and many impatient drivers. I did wonder whether I would be hearing about deaths at the event afterwards, seeing how the roads seemed to be that day.[/p][/quote]So not inherently narrow roads, then? And in fact not fast either, given the temporary 40mph limit. As others have commented, for a given number of cyclists it's much easier to pass them if they're two abreast than in single file, you're on the opposite side of the road for less time. As far as I can see from the route, the only significant stretch of main road was about three miles of the A337 south of Lyndhurst, and that was only used in one direction. The only stretch of road used in both directions was about a mile of minor road passing under the A31. Which bit are you referring to? Mike_D
  • Score: 0

11:56am Mon 15 Apr 13

Torchie1 says...

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together
wrote:
Ginger_cyclist,
Interesting if it wasnt officially a race.

I wonder how many of the participants treat it as a race though, how many record their times, how many race their friends, or whether even there are lists of unofficial race times out there on cycling forums by people who have their own races within such "non-race events".
http://www.ukcycling
events.co.uk/rider-t
imes/nf_wss_nf_sprin
g_saturday.pdf
[quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: Ginger_cyclist, Interesting if it wasnt officially a race. I wonder how many of the participants treat it as a race though, how many record their times, how many race their friends, or whether even there are lists of unofficial race times out there on cycling forums by people who have their own races within such "non-race events".[/p][/quote]http://www.ukcycling events.co.uk/rider-t imes/nf_wss_nf_sprin g_saturday.pdf Torchie1
  • Score: 0

11:57am Mon 15 Apr 13

Gooby! says...

How on earth will this amount or even many more cyclists have any effect on any of the inbred genetic waste that vandalised this event?

1800 cyclist leaving the start in small bunches would equate to about 20 cyclists per mile of the 86 mile course.
The cycle is practically noisless and produces no emissions. With an average speed of 17-25 mph, it is slower than cars and presents no hazard to wildlife.

Even at a low speed of 18mph, a sudden puncture in the front tyre could cause major injuries. These cretins need to be caught and punished to the fullest extent of the law.

These morons have been bleating to the forrest councils and MP's to ban any type of event in the forest and have been (mostly) treated with the utter contempt they deserve. Because they cant get thier way they resort to dangerous levels of vandalism.

This has mostly been stirred up by the rather vile Anita Gresham-Hale who made up anti cycling posters while her smiling other face takes money from local cycling firms for advertising on her web site.

The mentality of these ignorant nutters is far beyond any logic. They scream ruddy blue murder that speed litis are to high and speeding vehicles are killing precious wildlife. If a car or more precicly thier car is held up for a few seconds by a cyclist, it is the end of thier forest. Perhaps they would prefer it if all the cyclists drove thier cars along the route.

Before the event we had a rather idiotic release from an MP stating that cyclists case untold injury and hazard to horses and wildlife. The Forest Journal warned of "Carnage". The Echo warned us that locals would die because ambulances would be delayed. Bystanders would be trampled by horses fleeing in a stampede of terror and the wildlife would be decimated.

What is the upshot - nothing. No horses were hurt in the running of this event. No bystanders were hurt in the running of this event. It seems a cyclist (not involved in the event) has been badly hurt with a broken colar bone after his bike hit tacks.
How on earth will this amount or even many more cyclists have any effect on any of the inbred genetic waste that vandalised this event? 1800 cyclist leaving the start in small bunches would equate to about 20 cyclists per mile of the 86 mile course. The cycle is practically noisless and produces no emissions. With an average speed of 17-25 mph, it is slower than cars and presents no hazard to wildlife. Even at a low speed of 18mph, a sudden puncture in the front tyre could cause major injuries. These cretins need to be caught and punished to the fullest extent of the law. These morons have been bleating to the forrest councils and MP's to ban any type of event in the forest and have been (mostly) treated with the utter contempt they deserve. Because they cant get thier way they resort to dangerous levels of vandalism. This has mostly been stirred up by the rather vile Anita Gresham-Hale who made up anti cycling posters while her smiling other face takes money from local cycling firms for advertising on her web site. The mentality of these ignorant nutters is far beyond any logic. They scream ruddy blue murder that speed litis are to high and speeding vehicles are killing precious wildlife. If a car or more precicly thier car is held up for a few seconds by a cyclist, it is the end of thier forest. Perhaps they would prefer it if all the cyclists drove thier cars along the route. Before the event we had a rather idiotic release from an MP stating that cyclists case untold injury and hazard to horses and wildlife. The Forest Journal warned of "Carnage". The Echo warned us that locals would die because ambulances would be delayed. Bystanders would be trampled by horses fleeing in a stampede of terror and the wildlife would be decimated. What is the upshot - nothing. No horses were hurt in the running of this event. No bystanders were hurt in the running of this event. It seems a cyclist (not involved in the event) has been badly hurt with a broken colar bone after his bike hit tacks. Gooby!
  • Score: 0

12:00pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Ginger_cyclist says...

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together
wrote:
Ginger_cyclist

You are clearly so unreasonably biased in favour of cyclists to make your views almost pointless.

How can you say to Norwegian Saint "Were they going the wrong way? if not then don't complain" when it is obvious to any sane unbiased reader that he was talking about a cyclist on the wrong side of the road , which by definition means they were riding the wrong way!

I am fully in favour of cyclists cycling, they just need to do it safety, respectfully, and should be licensed taxed and insured. God knows, the country could do with the tax revenue, the roads would be a lot safer, and the police would be able to enforce the existing laws where cyclists break them (as it is almost impossible to do so unless the cyclist has to have a license plate).
No, I'm really not and I can say it because they didn't specify, also, licencing cycling would be detrimental to it, it would increase rates of obesity as it would put people off of cycling and it wouldn't be possible to enforce, it's already hard enough with all the cars on the road and that's just with licenced drivers, what sort of tax are you suggesting to put on top of all the VAT that cyclists pay on parts along with income tax and for most, VED on their cars along with council tax? If you were thinking "road tax" then sorry, it's dead, abolished in 1937 and replaced with VED which is emissions based meaning that it would be free for cyclists, much the same as it is with electric vehicles, hybrids and cars that produce less than 100g/km of CO2, ah insurance, did you know that most cyclists these days are members of British cycling and therefore have insurance already? I doubt it, no, the roads wouldn't be safer as there would still be morons who put us in danger, the police are already proving they can enforce the law where a small minority of cyclists are concerned and number plates would further reduces numbers of cyclists.
[quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: Ginger_cyclist You are clearly so unreasonably biased in favour of cyclists to make your views almost pointless. How can you say to Norwegian Saint "Were they going the wrong way? if not then don't complain" when it is obvious to any sane unbiased reader that he was talking about a cyclist on the wrong side of the road [he says he was on the correct side himself], which by definition means they were riding the wrong way! I am fully in favour of cyclists cycling, they just need to do it safety, respectfully, and should be licensed taxed and insured. God knows, the country could do with the tax revenue, the roads would be a lot safer, and the police would be able to enforce the existing laws where cyclists break them (as it is almost impossible to do so unless the cyclist has to have a license plate).[/p][/quote]No, I'm really not and I can say it because they didn't specify, also, licencing cycling would be detrimental to it, it would increase rates of obesity as it would put people off of cycling and it wouldn't be possible to enforce, it's already hard enough with all the cars on the road and that's just with licenced drivers, what sort of tax are you suggesting to put on top of all the VAT that cyclists pay on parts along with income tax and for most, VED on their cars along with council tax? If you were thinking "road tax" then sorry, it's dead, abolished in 1937 and replaced with VED which is emissions based meaning that it would be free for cyclists, much the same as it is with electric vehicles, hybrids and cars that produce less than 100g/km of CO2, ah insurance, did you know that most cyclists these days are members of British cycling and therefore have insurance already? I doubt it, no, the roads wouldn't be safer as there would still be morons who put us in danger, the police are already proving they can enforce the law where a small minority of cyclists are concerned and number plates would further reduces numbers of cyclists. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

12:03pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Sotonians_lets_pull_together says...

Ginger Cyclist,

It is a good point made by a cyclist that most cyclists are drivers too.

In which case it should be required that anyone who has ever been in possession of a driving license should have a number plate on their vehicle when they go on the road in any vehicle, whether car, moped, mobility scooter, bicycle, tricycle, motorbike, and they should be insured to do so. Not showing a number plate should be an offence. This number plate should be tied to the driver and not the vehicle where the vehicle does not itself need to be registered, eg for bikes.

This would perhaps be a useful way to transition to complete licencing of cyclists. Just because previous decisions went a different way decades ago, doesnt mean it is not about time for these matters to be revisited.

Drivers should be able to lose their no claims bonus or get points on their driving license for offences as a cyclist - eg running red lights, cycling on the pavement, cycling the wrong way down a one way street.

It would also be a good way of picking up drunk cyclists. If a driver loses their license as a driver, they should still have to show a number plate when on a bike, which means police could run a plate check if they see a particularly wobbly bicycle and are concerned about drink cycling.
Ginger Cyclist, It is a good point made by a cyclist that most cyclists are drivers too. In which case it should be required that anyone who has ever been in possession of a driving license should have a number plate on their vehicle when they go on the road in any vehicle, whether car, moped, mobility scooter, bicycle, tricycle, motorbike, and they should be insured to do so. Not showing a number plate should be an offence. This number plate should be tied to the driver and not the vehicle where the vehicle does not itself need to be registered, eg for bikes. This would perhaps be a useful way to transition to complete licencing of cyclists. Just because previous decisions went a different way decades ago, doesnt mean it is not about time for these matters to be revisited. Drivers should be able to lose their no claims bonus or get points on their driving license for offences as a cyclist - eg running red lights, cycling on the pavement, cycling the wrong way down a one way street. It would also be a good way of picking up drunk cyclists. If a driver loses their license as a driver, they should still have to show a number plate when on a bike, which means police could run a plate check if they see a particularly wobbly bicycle and are concerned about drink cycling. Sotonians_lets_pull_together
  • Score: 0

12:05pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Franks Tank says...

So 2000 cyclists come to the forest for a day out and see signs ripped down and tacks spread across the road.
What, I ask you, do you think the impression they took away with them was?
What do you think they are now telling their friend, family and work colleges about their experiences?
Where do you think all these people might reconsider coming for their holiday later in the year?
I hope the proprietors of the small businesses, guest houses, tea rooms and pubs will still be happy to shake the hand of these parochial nimbys during the low season.
New tourist slogan for the Forest should be "COME TO THE NEW FOREST, BRITAINS UNFRIENDLY NATIONAL PARK".
So 2000 cyclists come to the forest for a day out and see signs ripped down and tacks spread across the road. What, I ask you, do you think the impression they took away with them was? What do you think they are now telling their friend, family and work colleges about their experiences? Where do you think all these people might reconsider coming for their holiday later in the year? I hope the proprietors of the small businesses, guest houses, tea rooms and pubs will still be happy to shake the hand of these parochial nimbys during the low season. New tourist slogan for the Forest should be "COME TO THE NEW FOREST, BRITAINS UNFRIENDLY NATIONAL PARK". Franks Tank
  • Score: 0

12:05pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Franks Tank says...

+++STOP PRESS+++STOP PRESS+++STOP PRESS+++
More than 2000 cars are expected to bring Lyndurst to a standstill and turn it into a "no go zone" every weekend throughout the summer.
Anyone else see this story?
+++STOP PRESS+++STOP PRESS+++STOP PRESS+++ More than 2000 cars are expected to bring Lyndurst to a standstill and turn it into a "no go zone" every weekend throughout the summer. Anyone else see this story? Franks Tank
  • Score: 0

12:06pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together
wrote:
Ginger Cyclist,

Sorry, the points are not invalid just because you dont like them

If so many of these cyclists have insurance and are regulated, then it will be a short and useful step to make sure they all have to have number plates, be taxed and insured.

Then people could photograph the cyclists that are breaking the law and action could be taken, they could be prosecuted and barred from such events.

Indeed it would be helpful if they all had to be wearing participant numbers, as again, photographs and video footage could be used to get such cyclists barred from similar events. I dont know if they were wearing event participant numbers, I didnt look to see, but I dont recall that they were.

For this event as I understand it cyclists were told by the organisers to be respectful to other road users, keep in, and cycle in single file.

A good proportion of them did not seem to be doing this.
Taxed? Taxed for what?
[quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: Ginger Cyclist, Sorry, the points are not invalid just because you dont like them If so many of these cyclists have insurance and are regulated, then it will be a short and useful step to make sure they all have to have number plates, be taxed and insured. Then people could photograph the cyclists that are breaking the law and action could be taken, they could be prosecuted and barred from such events. Indeed it would be helpful if they all had to be wearing participant numbers, as again, photographs and video footage could be used to get such cyclists barred from similar events. I dont know if they were wearing event participant numbers, I didnt look to see, but I dont recall that they were. For this event as I understand it cyclists were told by the organisers to be respectful to other road users, keep in, and cycle in single file. A good proportion of them did not seem to be doing this.[/p][/quote]Taxed? Taxed for what? Shoebury_Cyclist
  • Score: 0

12:08pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Ginger_cyclist says...

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together
wrote:
Ginger_cyclist,
Interesting if it wasnt officially a race.

I wonder how many of the participants treat it as a race though, how many record their times, how many race their friends, or whether even there are lists of unofficial race times out there on cycling forums by people who have their own races within such "non-race events".
Well, you are timed on these events but times aren't published by the organisers, they are given to the riders at the end as a personal target to beat, so really, they only ever race themselves but as with anything, a tiny minority will put those times online as if they were racing and to challenge others to "race" the clock to beat their time, no doubt people also time themselves at the skyride events and do the same, it's obviously not a race yet they treat it like one, so yes, there is in all probability, a tiny handful of riders who are like that.
[quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: Ginger_cyclist, Interesting if it wasnt officially a race. I wonder how many of the participants treat it as a race though, how many record their times, how many race their friends, or whether even there are lists of unofficial race times out there on cycling forums by people who have their own races within such "non-race events".[/p][/quote]Well, you are timed on these events but times aren't published by the organisers, they are given to the riders at the end as a personal target to beat, so really, they only ever race themselves but as with anything, a tiny minority will put those times online as if they were racing and to challenge others to "race" the clock to beat their time, no doubt people also time themselves at the skyride events and do the same, it's obviously not a race yet they treat it like one, so yes, there is in all probability, a tiny handful of riders who are like that. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

12:08pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Jesus_02 says...

Norwegian Saint wrote:
OK... I am happy for the cyclists to have their fun with well organised events BUT... While living in my old home village of Beaulieu I was travelling across the forest when a F'ing stupid MAMIL (middle aged man in lycra) was on MY side of the road causing me to take evasive action. I did report this to the event organisers. It probably would have been my fault if I had taken the MAMIL out, terrible dangerous cycling and (I hope the guy reads this) that is why the MAMILs are getting a bad name! If I was in that "race" I would have caught him up and reported him. Innocent cyclists get killed but idiots like that one deserve to be. (yes, it might be harsh to say but I was driving safely, on the correct side and not speeding and only just kept my car on the road)
You need to get a little perspective here

There are idiots in all walks of life and among 1800 people there is bound to be at least one.

I know its frustrating but there is also the possibility that the guy has just made a mistake.

Giving people names may seem clever but TBH honest it makes your point look less credible
[quote][p][bold]Norwegian Saint[/bold] wrote: OK... I am happy for the cyclists to have their fun with well organised events BUT... While living in my old home village of Beaulieu I was travelling across the forest when a F'ing stupid MAMIL (middle aged man in lycra) was on MY side of the road causing me to take evasive action. I did report this to the event organisers. It probably would have been my fault if I had taken the MAMIL out, terrible dangerous cycling and (I hope the guy reads this) that is why the MAMILs are getting a bad name! If I was in that "race" I would have caught him up and reported him. Innocent cyclists get killed but idiots like that one deserve to be. (yes, it might be harsh to say but I was driving safely, on the correct side and not speeding and only just kept my car on the road)[/p][/quote]You need to get a little perspective here There are idiots in all walks of life and among 1800 people there is bound to be at least one. I know its frustrating but there is also the possibility that the guy has just made a mistake. Giving people names may seem clever but TBH honest it makes your point look less credible Jesus_02
  • Score: 0

12:10pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Sotonians_lets_pull_together says...

Ginger_Cyclist,

Licencing cycling would not lead to obesity - that is a ridiculous argument.

Those who are no safe on our roads and considerate to other road users should not be on them, full stop.

Anyone who cannot get a license to cycle could get an exercise bike and cycle in their living room, walk, or go to the gym.

Drivers initially rebelled against the idea of complusory licences, road, tax, making drink driving illegal. These were all good measures.

Cycling in time will also be reformed and regulated.

How many criminals do you see wearing black, and hoodies, cycling round with no lights, using their bikes for quick getaways from burglaries, arson, vandalism, muggings etc.

Too many!

Police should be able to pick up any cyclist riding without lights, or a license plate, and confiscate the bike and crush it.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Cyclists are citizens too, and must take full account of the responsibilities of citizenship, as well as the rights.
Ginger_Cyclist, Licencing cycling would not lead to obesity - that is a ridiculous argument. Those who are no safe on our roads and considerate to other road users should not be on them, full stop. Anyone who cannot get a license to cycle could get an exercise bike and cycle in their living room, walk, or go to the gym. Drivers initially rebelled against the idea of complusory licences, road, tax, making drink driving illegal. These were all good measures. Cycling in time will also be reformed and regulated. How many criminals do you see wearing black, and hoodies, cycling round with no lights, using their bikes for quick getaways from burglaries, arson, vandalism, muggings etc. Too many! Police should be able to pick up any cyclist riding without lights, or a license plate, and confiscate the bike and crush it. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Cyclists are citizens too, and must take full account of the responsibilities of citizenship, as well as the rights. Sotonians_lets_pull_together
  • Score: 0

12:10pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Ginger_cyclist says...

Torchie1 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Sotonians_lets_pull_


together
wrote:
Absolutely no excuse for vandals, and no excuse for people removing signs.

But I cannot understand why such events are permitted on the roads.

Whether single file signs were removed or not, participants would have been told to cycle in single file. Having driven through the area when the event was ongoing (I had no idea it would be on) there were plenty of cyclists who were not cycling in single file. Even more frustrating for drivers, there was a cycle path alongside the road that none of these cyclists was using. Surely it would make sense if cyclists were required to use the cycle path where one is available?

It seemed to me a significant hazard, as there were vehicles passing in both directions, as well as many cyclists on both sides of the same road. They seemed to often be in groups, not just two side by side, let alone the single file which they had been told to cycle in.

It seemed that there were a lot of frustrated drivers trying to get through, most of which were patient, but some of which were not - it was not pleasant to see, or drive through.

I would certainly not want to participate in such a mass cycling event, as I would feel I was risking life and limb.

Surely either roads should be closed for such events, or they should be held on racetracks.

Cars are not permitted to race on public roads, it would invalidate their insurance.

It would seem sensible to require cyclists to have insurance to cycle on the roads, and for this to be invalidated by racing on open public roads.

It should be an offence for cyclists to race on the public highway in the same way that it would be for any car driver.

Such events should have to be licensed by councils, and in my view, applications should be rejected in all but very occasional circumstances.

It is also a great shame that so many cyclists abuse the cycle network in the New Forest, cycling over the open forest and carving up footpaths that are NOT cycle tracks.

There is no problem with individual cyclists using the roads or cycle paths, and using them respectfully, but mass events (whether on the new forest cycle path network) or roads) are disruptive to normal users, and should only be permitted very occasionally and under strict controls.

I am all for people having exercise, but they do not need to take it at the inconvenience of everyone else, ganging together and obstructing the roads.

These cyclists reminded me of the lorry drivers protesting the fuel duty and deliberately clogging up the roads.
Actually, they don't have to ride single file if they feel it's not safe, they do NOT have to use any cycle paths as they are legally road traffic, they get released in groups, also a large mass of cyclists is easier to see than a long, thin single file of them, it's also safer to pass them then as you have to be on the other side of the road for less time to overtake them, it WASN'T a race, there weren't even prizes for the fastest riders, most of those cyclist would have been British Cycling members and would therefore have the third party insurance that comes with it which covers for such events as well, if it was a race which it wasn't, they would need a different membership with different insurance that wouldn't cover them when in public but for when they're racing, they already are in a way, licensed by the local authorities because they would need permission before organising it, that "so many cyclists" is really just a minority but I agree it's still a shame that so few can cause problems for the rest, they aren't disruptive in such rural areas, they don't happen that often, they are under strict controls already and they don't gang together to obstruct the road, if that were true then no one would be able to get by them at all, so your points about the event/s, are invalid.
You are quite correct when you say that riders don't have to ride in single file but the car drivers who have been condemned for the 'rolling road block' can drive at a speed of their choice up the local speed limit, but they seem to be receiving negative comments from the cycling fraternity one of whom points out that the speed limit is not a target.
But it's true, speed limits aren't targets and as has been said, 40 is still unsuitable for some of the forest roads, also, it's not a road block if the cars can still use the other side of the road to overtake which they should do any way.
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: Absolutely no excuse for vandals, and no excuse for people removing signs. But I cannot understand why such events are permitted on the roads. Whether single file signs were removed or not, participants would have been told to cycle in single file. Having driven through the area when the event was ongoing (I had no idea it would be on) there were plenty of cyclists who were not cycling in single file. Even more frustrating for drivers, there was a cycle path alongside the road that none of these cyclists was using. Surely it would make sense if cyclists were required to use the cycle path where one is available? It seemed to me a significant hazard, as there were vehicles passing in both directions, as well as many cyclists on both sides of the same road. They seemed to often be in groups, not just two side by side, let alone the single file which they had been told to cycle in. It seemed that there were a lot of frustrated drivers trying to get through, most of which were patient, but some of which were not - it was not pleasant to see, or drive through. I would certainly not want to participate in such a mass cycling event, as I would feel I was risking life and limb. Surely either roads should be closed for such events, or they should be held on racetracks. Cars are not permitted to race on public roads, it would invalidate their insurance. It would seem sensible to require cyclists to have insurance to cycle on the roads, and for this to be invalidated by racing on open public roads. It should be an offence for cyclists to race on the public highway in the same way that it would be for any car driver. Such events should have to be licensed by councils, and in my view, applications should be rejected in all but very occasional circumstances. It is also a great shame that so many cyclists abuse the cycle network in the New Forest, cycling over the open forest and carving up footpaths that are NOT cycle tracks. There is no problem with individual cyclists using the roads or cycle paths, and using them respectfully, but mass events (whether on the new forest cycle path network) or roads) are disruptive to normal users, and should only be permitted very occasionally and under strict controls. I am all for people having exercise, but they do not need to take it at the inconvenience of everyone else, ganging together and obstructing the roads. These cyclists reminded me of the lorry drivers protesting the fuel duty and deliberately clogging up the roads.[/p][/quote]Actually, they don't have to ride single file if they feel it's not safe, they do NOT have to use any cycle paths as they are legally road traffic, they get released in groups, also a large mass of cyclists is easier to see than a long, thin single file of them, it's also safer to pass them then as you have to be on the other side of the road for less time to overtake them, it WASN'T a race, there weren't even prizes for the fastest riders, most of those cyclist would have been British Cycling members and would therefore have the third party insurance that comes with it which covers for such events as well, if it was a race which it wasn't, they would need a different membership with different insurance that wouldn't cover them when in public but for when they're racing, they already are in a way, licensed by the local authorities because they would need permission before organising it, that "so many cyclists" is really just a minority but I agree it's still a shame that so few can cause problems for the rest, they aren't disruptive in such rural areas, they don't happen that often, they are under strict controls already and they don't gang together to obstruct the road, if that were true then no one would be able to get by them at all, so your points about the event/s, are invalid.[/p][/quote]You are quite correct when you say that riders don't have to ride in single file but the car drivers who have been condemned for the 'rolling road block' can drive at a speed of their choice up the local speed limit, but they seem to be receiving negative comments from the cycling fraternity one of whom points out that the speed limit is not a target.[/p][/quote]But it's true, speed limits aren't targets and as has been said, 40 is still unsuitable for some of the forest roads, also, it's not a road block if the cars can still use the other side of the road to overtake which they should do any way. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

12:12pm Mon 15 Apr 13

redsnapper says...

Solid proof that some Forest residents are as bad as the American rednecks.
Solid proof that some Forest residents are as bad as the American rednecks. redsnapper
  • Score: 0

12:13pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Sotonians_lets_pull_together says...

Shoebury_Cyclist,

All road users who use vehicles on the road should have to pass a test, pay road tax and be insured, and the vehicle should have a licence plate that uniquely identifies the vehicle, the driver, or both.

The government could do with the tax revenue, and the roads would be far safer.
Shoebury_Cyclist, All road users who use vehicles on the road should have to pass a test, pay road tax and be insured, and the vehicle should have a licence plate that uniquely identifies the vehicle, the driver, or both. The government could do with the tax revenue, and the roads would be far safer. Sotonians_lets_pull_together
  • Score: 0

12:14pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together
wrote:
Ginger_Cyclist,

Licencing cycling would not lead to obesity - that is a ridiculous argument.

Those who are no safe on our roads and considerate to other road users should not be on them, full stop.

Anyone who cannot get a license to cycle could get an exercise bike and cycle in their living room, walk, or go to the gym.

Drivers initially rebelled against the idea of complusory licences, road, tax, making drink driving illegal. These were all good measures.

Cycling in time will also be reformed and regulated.

How many criminals do you see wearing black, and hoodies, cycling round with no lights, using their bikes for quick getaways from burglaries, arson, vandalism, muggings etc.

Too many!

Police should be able to pick up any cyclist riding without lights, or a license plate, and confiscate the bike and crush it.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Cyclists are citizens too, and must take full account of the responsibilities of citizenship, as well as the rights.
Cyclist like pedestrians and horse riders, have an automatic right to use the public highway. Drivers of large metal powered machinery do not, they have to be licenced to show they are competent to use deadly machinery in a public place.

That is why we need a licence to use a car, but a licence is not required to use a bicycle, walk, or ride a horse.
[quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: Ginger_Cyclist, Licencing cycling would not lead to obesity - that is a ridiculous argument. Those who are no safe on our roads and considerate to other road users should not be on them, full stop. Anyone who cannot get a license to cycle could get an exercise bike and cycle in their living room, walk, or go to the gym. Drivers initially rebelled against the idea of complusory licences, road, tax, making drink driving illegal. These were all good measures. Cycling in time will also be reformed and regulated. How many criminals do you see wearing black, and hoodies, cycling round with no lights, using their bikes for quick getaways from burglaries, arson, vandalism, muggings etc. Too many! Police should be able to pick up any cyclist riding without lights, or a license plate, and confiscate the bike and crush it. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Cyclists are citizens too, and must take full account of the responsibilities of citizenship, as well as the rights.[/p][/quote]Cyclist like pedestrians and horse riders, have an automatic right to use the public highway. Drivers of large metal powered machinery do not, they have to be licenced to show they are competent to use deadly machinery in a public place. That is why we need a licence to use a car, but a licence is not required to use a bicycle, walk, or ride a horse. Shoebury_Cyclist
  • Score: 0

12:17pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Sotonians_lets_pull_together says...

Ginger_cyclist
"But it's true, speed limits aren't targets and as has been said, 40 is still unsuitable for some of the forest roads, also, it's not a road block if the cars can still use the other side of the road to overtake which they should do any way."

Of course speed limits are not targets, but it seems that too many of these cyclists were ignoring the direction of the organisers to keep in, and to cycle in single file, and be considerate to other road users.

If people wanted to participate in this event, they should have been respectful to the wishes of the organisers, even if they were not compelled by law to do so.

I just think that they should have been compelled to do so by law too!
Ginger_cyclist "But it's true, speed limits aren't targets and as has been said, 40 is still unsuitable for some of the forest roads, also, it's not a road block if the cars can still use the other side of the road to overtake which they should do any way." Of course speed limits are not targets, but it seems that too many of these cyclists were ignoring the direction of the organisers to keep in, and to cycle in single file, and be considerate to other road users. If people wanted to participate in this event, they should have been respectful to the wishes of the organisers, even if they were not compelled by law to do so. I just think that they should have been compelled to do so by law too! Sotonians_lets_pull_together
  • Score: 0

12:17pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Mike_D says...

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together
wrote:
Ginger_Cyclist,

Licencing cycling would not lead to obesity - that is a ridiculous argument.

Those who are no safe on our roads and considerate to other road users should not be on them, full stop.

Anyone who cannot get a license to cycle could get an exercise bike and cycle in their living room, walk, or go to the gym.

Drivers initially rebelled against the idea of complusory licences, road, tax, making drink driving illegal. These were all good measures.

Cycling in time will also be reformed and regulated.

How many criminals do you see wearing black, and hoodies, cycling round with no lights, using their bikes for quick getaways from burglaries, arson, vandalism, muggings etc.

Too many!

Police should be able to pick up any cyclist riding without lights, or a license plate, and confiscate the bike and crush it.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Cyclists are citizens too, and must take full account of the responsibilities of citizenship, as well as the rights.
Now you're just being silly. What the hell has mugging got to do with anything?

Your assertion that bikes should be crushed reveals your true colours. You're clearly not interested in anything resembling a sensible debate, preferring lunatic ranting.

Have a good day.
[quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: Ginger_Cyclist, Licencing cycling would not lead to obesity - that is a ridiculous argument. Those who are no safe on our roads and considerate to other road users should not be on them, full stop. Anyone who cannot get a license to cycle could get an exercise bike and cycle in their living room, walk, or go to the gym. Drivers initially rebelled against the idea of complusory licences, road, tax, making drink driving illegal. These were all good measures. Cycling in time will also be reformed and regulated. How many criminals do you see wearing black, and hoodies, cycling round with no lights, using their bikes for quick getaways from burglaries, arson, vandalism, muggings etc. Too many! Police should be able to pick up any cyclist riding without lights, or a license plate, and confiscate the bike and crush it. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Cyclists are citizens too, and must take full account of the responsibilities of citizenship, as well as the rights.[/p][/quote]Now you're just being silly. What the hell has mugging got to do with anything? Your assertion that bikes should be crushed reveals your true colours. You're clearly not interested in anything resembling a sensible debate, preferring lunatic ranting. Have a good day. Mike_D
  • Score: 0

12:18pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Ginger_cyclist says...

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together
wrote:
Ginger Cyclist,

Sorry, the points are not invalid just because you dont like them

If so many of these cyclists have insurance and are regulated, then it will be a short and useful step to make sure they all have to have number plates, be taxed and insured.

Then people could photograph the cyclists that are breaking the law and action could be taken, they could be prosecuted and barred from such events.

Indeed it would be helpful if they all had to be wearing participant numbers, as again, photographs and video footage could be used to get such cyclists barred from similar events. I dont know if they were wearing event participant numbers, I didnt look to see, but I dont recall that they were.

For this event as I understand it cyclists were told by the organisers to be respectful to other road users, keep in, and cycle in single file.

A good proportion of them did not seem to be doing this.
Again, number plates would have no place on a bike, it's hard enough to find space for lights on some bikes, let alone a number plate, but what tax? Go on, name it. Again, most cyclists already ARE insured, they already can get cyclists prosecuted, they just don't realise it, these events (except skyride due to it being an open to all through the day event) already give participants numbers and also put timing and possibly tracking chips in their helmets, most were respectable to other road users, they did ride single file when SAFE to do so, they don't HAVE to stay single file if they feel it isn't safe to do so.
[quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: Ginger Cyclist, Sorry, the points are not invalid just because you dont like them If so many of these cyclists have insurance and are regulated, then it will be a short and useful step to make sure they all have to have number plates, be taxed and insured. Then people could photograph the cyclists that are breaking the law and action could be taken, they could be prosecuted and barred from such events. Indeed it would be helpful if they all had to be wearing participant numbers, as again, photographs and video footage could be used to get such cyclists barred from similar events. I dont know if they were wearing event participant numbers, I didnt look to see, but I dont recall that they were. For this event as I understand it cyclists were told by the organisers to be respectful to other road users, keep in, and cycle in single file. A good proportion of them did not seem to be doing this.[/p][/quote]Again, number plates would have no place on a bike, it's hard enough to find space for lights on some bikes, let alone a number plate, but what tax? Go on, name it. Again, most cyclists already ARE insured, they already can get cyclists prosecuted, they just don't realise it, these events (except skyride due to it being an open to all through the day event) already give participants numbers and also put timing and possibly tracking chips in their helmets, most were respectable to other road users, they did ride single file when SAFE to do so, they don't HAVE to stay single file if they feel it isn't safe to do so. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

12:19pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together
wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist,

All road users who use vehicles on the road should have to pass a test, pay road tax and be insured, and the vehicle should have a licence plate that uniquely identifies the vehicle, the driver, or both.

The government could do with the tax revenue, and the roads would be far safer.
There is no such thing as 'road tax'. There is Vehicle Excise Duty, which is a tax on CO2 emissions or engine size depending on the age of the vehicle. Bicycles are zero emission vehicles, and as such would be exempt from VED were it to be levied on them, however, the cost of administering those millions of free tax disk for the millions of bicycles in the UK would have to be added to the cost of VED for vehicles which qualify to pay it.

Also at what age would you propose this tax be levied? The toddler on their pushalong? The five year old with stabilisers? perhaps the eight year old on their BMX?
[quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: Shoebury_Cyclist, All road users who use vehicles on the road should have to pass a test, pay road tax and be insured, and the vehicle should have a licence plate that uniquely identifies the vehicle, the driver, or both. The government could do with the tax revenue, and the roads would be far safer.[/p][/quote]There is no such thing as 'road tax'. There is Vehicle Excise Duty, which is a tax on CO2 emissions or engine size depending on the age of the vehicle. Bicycles are zero emission vehicles, and as such would be exempt from VED were it to be levied on them, however, the cost of administering those millions of free tax disk for the millions of bicycles in the UK would have to be added to the cost of VED for vehicles which qualify to pay it. Also at what age would you propose this tax be levied? The toddler on their pushalong? The five year old with stabilisers? perhaps the eight year old on their BMX? Shoebury_Cyclist
  • Score: 0

12:21pm Mon 15 Apr 13

elvisimo says...

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together
wrote:
Ginger_cyclist
"But it's true, speed limits aren't targets and as has been said, 40 is still unsuitable for some of the forest roads, also, it's not a road block if the cars can still use the other side of the road to overtake which they should do any way."

Of course speed limits are not targets, but it seems that too many of these cyclists were ignoring the direction of the organisers to keep in, and to cycle in single file, and be considerate to other road users.

If people wanted to participate in this event, they should have been respectful to the wishes of the organisers, even if they were not compelled by law to do so.

I just think that they should have been compelled to do so by law too!
prozac
[quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: Ginger_cyclist "But it's true, speed limits aren't targets and as has been said, 40 is still unsuitable for some of the forest roads, also, it's not a road block if the cars can still use the other side of the road to overtake which they should do any way." Of course speed limits are not targets, but it seems that too many of these cyclists were ignoring the direction of the organisers to keep in, and to cycle in single file, and be considerate to other road users. If people wanted to participate in this event, they should have been respectful to the wishes of the organisers, even if they were not compelled by law to do so. I just think that they should have been compelled to do so by law too![/p][/quote]prozac elvisimo
  • Score: 0

12:21pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Sotonians_lets_pull_together says...

Shoebury_Cyclist,

There are laws that apply to cyclists too, and then are some guidelines which should be given the power of law as too many cyclists see the lack of law as a license to ignore the guidelines when they choose.

Because there are so many dangerous and cyclists on our roads, and because so many criminals use cyclists to move around and escape undetected, the time has come to bring cycling into line with other vehicle use on the roads, and require complusory tests, licence plates and insurance.

I also believe where cyclists are drivers, this should be linked to the driving licence, so inconsiderate cycling could lead to licenses being revoked to drive as well as cycle.
Shoebury_Cyclist, There are laws that apply to cyclists too, and then are some guidelines which should be given the power of law as too many cyclists see the lack of law as a license to ignore the guidelines when they choose. Because there are so many dangerous and cyclists on our roads, and because so many criminals use cyclists to move around and escape undetected, the time has come to bring cycling into line with other vehicle use on the roads, and require complusory tests, licence plates and insurance. I also believe where cyclists are drivers, this should be linked to the driving licence, so inconsiderate cycling could lead to licenses being revoked to drive as well as cycle. Sotonians_lets_pull_together
  • Score: 0

12:23pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Jesus_02 says...

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together
wrote:
Ginger Cyclist, It is a good point made by a cyclist that most cyclists are drivers too. In which case it should be required that anyone who has ever been in possession of a driving license should have a number plate on their vehicle when they go on the road in any vehicle, whether car, moped, mobility scooter, bicycle, tricycle, motorbike, and they should be insured to do so. Not showing a number plate should be an offence. This number plate should be tied to the driver and not the vehicle where the vehicle does not itself need to be registered, eg for bikes. This would perhaps be a useful way to transition to complete licencing of cyclists. Just because previous decisions went a different way decades ago, doesnt mean it is not about time for these matters to be revisited. Drivers should be able to lose their no claims bonus or get points on their driving license for offences as a cyclist - eg running red lights, cycling on the pavement, cycling the wrong way down a one way street. It would also be a good way of picking up drunk cyclists. If a driver loses their license as a driver, they should still have to show a number plate when on a bike, which means police could run a plate check if they see a particularly wobbly bicycle and are concerned about drink cycling.
My 5 year old has just learned...Should I get him taxed..

People realy put a great deal of faith in licencing but its amazing how little "more experienced" divers know about the highway code.

My suggestion. Bring back road tax. Charge EVERYONE that uses the road a basic £15 and make part of the process the completion of an online test that challenges the some peoples assumpstions of what correct road use is.

I am tired of people list things they have seen cyclist do wrong and have to sit in traffic behind people that have just pulled over and parked on Double Yellows and assume that by putting thier Hazards on its fine.

People parking on the pavement is a peeve as well especiialy if you actually have to cross with a push chair.

Then there is the "running the red lights issue". Everyone goes on about that but what gets me angry is when Im crossing the road as a predestrian and I am beeped by a very load horn because the lights have changed while I am crossing. Amber means "when it is safe to do so"

People who turn right before turning left in normal cars can be extreamly dangerous as can people that create a second lane on Thomas Lewis Way when going round the corner by Empress Road. They do it both ways and there is only 1 lane untill they get to the lights.

Then there are people that drive at 30 down residential roads with cars parked on both side...Yes its legal, but the highway code states that your speed should be based on safety of the road you travel. A small child stepping out from behind a car wouldn't have a chance.

My point is not that Drivers are worse than Cyclists, or Pedestrians or whatever. Its just that the level of understanding of the rules of the road is diabolical and they are routinly broken by everyone
[quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: Ginger Cyclist, It is a good point made by a cyclist that most cyclists are drivers too. In which case it should be required that anyone who has ever been in possession of a driving license should have a number plate on their vehicle when they go on the road in any vehicle, whether car, moped, mobility scooter, bicycle, tricycle, motorbike, and they should be insured to do so. Not showing a number plate should be an offence. This number plate should be tied to the driver and not the vehicle where the vehicle does not itself need to be registered, eg for bikes. This would perhaps be a useful way to transition to complete licencing of cyclists. Just because previous decisions went a different way decades ago, doesnt mean it is not about time for these matters to be revisited. Drivers should be able to lose their no claims bonus or get points on their driving license for offences as a cyclist - eg running red lights, cycling on the pavement, cycling the wrong way down a one way street. It would also be a good way of picking up drunk cyclists. If a driver loses their license as a driver, they should still have to show a number plate when on a bike, which means police could run a plate check if they see a particularly wobbly bicycle and are concerned about drink cycling.[/p][/quote]My 5 year old has just learned...Should I get him taxed.. People realy put a great deal of faith in licencing but its amazing how little "more experienced" divers know about the highway code. My suggestion. Bring back road tax. Charge EVERYONE that uses the road a basic £15 and make part of the process the completion of an online test that challenges the some peoples assumpstions of what correct road use is. I am tired of people list things they have seen cyclist do wrong and have to sit in traffic behind people that have just pulled over and parked on Double Yellows and assume that by putting thier Hazards on its fine. People parking on the pavement is a peeve as well especiialy if you actually have to cross with a push chair. Then there is the "running the red lights issue". Everyone goes on about that but what gets me angry is when Im crossing the road as a predestrian and I am beeped by a very load horn because the lights have changed while I am crossing. Amber means "when it is safe to do so" People who turn right before turning left in normal cars can be extreamly dangerous as can people that create a second lane on Thomas Lewis Way when going round the corner by Empress Road. They do it both ways and there is only 1 lane untill they get to the lights. Then there are people that drive at 30 down residential roads with cars parked on both side...Yes its legal, but the highway code states that your speed should be based on safety of the road you travel. A small child stepping out from behind a car wouldn't have a chance. My point is not that Drivers are worse than Cyclists, or Pedestrians or whatever. Its just that the level of understanding of the rules of the road is diabolical and they are routinly broken by everyone Jesus_02
  • Score: 0

12:23pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Sotonians_lets_pull_together says...

However, as I said above, just because cycling should be regulated, it does not mean that individuals should take matters into their own hands and act as vandals, vigilantes or saboteurs.

Such action is despicable.
However, as I said above, just because cycling should be regulated, it does not mean that individuals should take matters into their own hands and act as vandals, vigilantes or saboteurs. Such action is despicable. Sotonians_lets_pull_together
  • Score: 0

12:24pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Gooby! says...

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together
wrote:
Ginger_Cyclist,

Licencing cycling would not lead to obesity - that is a ridiculous argument.

Those who are no safe on our roads and considerate to other road users should not be on them, full stop.

Anyone who cannot get a license to cycle could get an exercise bike and cycle in their living room, walk, or go to the gym.

Drivers initially rebelled against the idea of complusory licences, road, tax, making drink driving illegal. These were all good measures.

Cycling in time will also be reformed and regulated.

How many criminals do you see wearing black, and hoodies, cycling round with no lights, using their bikes for quick getaways from burglaries, arson, vandalism, muggings etc.

Too many!

Police should be able to pick up any cyclist riding without lights, or a license plate, and confiscate the bike and crush it.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Cyclists are citizens too, and must take full account of the responsibilities of citizenship, as well as the rights.
Facinating - the incredible lack of insight and understanding of reprocussions by one person. It must take a lot of practice to have such unfounded and poorly thought out opinions.

Let me get this straight.
Unregulated cycling is to blame for criminal activities? How about all the well regulated cars used in criminal activities?

It is already against the law to cycle at night without lights. This has no bearing on the sportive. Perhaps if you see a cyclist at night without lights you could call your local police officer who will come and uphold the law.

All cyclists cycle with out a licence plate because you do not need to licence a cycle. Licencing cycles is stupid and short sighted. For a start it would cost £billions to set up the infrastructure to record the licence details. The upshot would mean many millions of under 16's who use thier cycle to get to school would be criminalised. What cycles would you register? My mountain bike has never ever seen a road. Would that need registering? My 4 year old son has a small bike would that need registering? At 4, he is one of those "hateful cyclists on the pavement" Should we register my daughters ballance bike? if that is the case then scooters would need to be registered.

If cycles are to be registerd then Horses should be too. It is only fair and history shows the amount of crime that has been executed from a horse.
[quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: Ginger_Cyclist, Licencing cycling would not lead to obesity - that is a ridiculous argument. Those who are no safe on our roads and considerate to other road users should not be on them, full stop. Anyone who cannot get a license to cycle could get an exercise bike and cycle in their living room, walk, or go to the gym. Drivers initially rebelled against the idea of complusory licences, road, tax, making drink driving illegal. These were all good measures. Cycling in time will also be reformed and regulated. How many criminals do you see wearing black, and hoodies, cycling round with no lights, using their bikes for quick getaways from burglaries, arson, vandalism, muggings etc. Too many! Police should be able to pick up any cyclist riding without lights, or a license plate, and confiscate the bike and crush it. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Cyclists are citizens too, and must take full account of the responsibilities of citizenship, as well as the rights.[/p][/quote]Facinating - the incredible lack of insight and understanding of reprocussions by one person. It must take a lot of practice to have such unfounded and poorly thought out opinions. Let me get this straight. Unregulated cycling is to blame for criminal activities? How about all the well regulated cars used in criminal activities? It is already against the law to cycle at night without lights. This has no bearing on the sportive. Perhaps if you see a cyclist at night without lights you could call your local police officer who will come and uphold the law. All cyclists cycle with out a licence plate because you do not need to licence a cycle. Licencing cycles is stupid and short sighted. For a start it would cost £billions to set up the infrastructure to record the licence details. The upshot would mean many millions of under 16's who use thier cycle to get to school would be criminalised. What cycles would you register? My mountain bike has never ever seen a road. Would that need registering? My 4 year old son has a small bike would that need registering? At 4, he is one of those "hateful cyclists on the pavement" Should we register my daughters ballance bike? if that is the case then scooters would need to be registered. If cycles are to be registerd then Horses should be too. It is only fair and history shows the amount of crime that has been executed from a horse. Gooby!
  • Score: 0

12:24pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Ginger_cyclist says...

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together
wrote:
Ginger Cyclist,

It is a good point made by a cyclist that most cyclists are drivers too.

In which case it should be required that anyone who has ever been in possession of a driving license should have a number plate on their vehicle when they go on the road in any vehicle, whether car, moped, mobility scooter, bicycle, tricycle, motorbike, and they should be insured to do so. Not showing a number plate should be an offence. This number plate should be tied to the driver and not the vehicle where the vehicle does not itself need to be registered, eg for bikes.

This would perhaps be a useful way to transition to complete licencing of cyclists. Just because previous decisions went a different way decades ago, doesnt mean it is not about time for these matters to be revisited.

Drivers should be able to lose their no claims bonus or get points on their driving license for offences as a cyclist - eg running red lights, cycling on the pavement, cycling the wrong way down a one way street.

It would also be a good way of picking up drunk cyclists. If a driver loses their license as a driver, they should still have to show a number plate when on a bike, which means police could run a plate check if they see a particularly wobbly bicycle and are concerned about drink cycling.
Let me get this straight, are you trying to imply that ALL road users should be licensed, taxed and insured? So pedestrians, wheelchair users, children, pushchairs, disabled people and blind people with guide dogs should be licensed, taxed and insured too? Dream on buddy.
[quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: Ginger Cyclist, It is a good point made by a cyclist that most cyclists are drivers too. In which case it should be required that anyone who has ever been in possession of a driving license should have a number plate on their vehicle when they go on the road in any vehicle, whether car, moped, mobility scooter, bicycle, tricycle, motorbike, and they should be insured to do so. Not showing a number plate should be an offence. This number plate should be tied to the driver and not the vehicle where the vehicle does not itself need to be registered, eg for bikes. This would perhaps be a useful way to transition to complete licencing of cyclists. Just because previous decisions went a different way decades ago, doesnt mean it is not about time for these matters to be revisited. Drivers should be able to lose their no claims bonus or get points on their driving license for offences as a cyclist - eg running red lights, cycling on the pavement, cycling the wrong way down a one way street. It would also be a good way of picking up drunk cyclists. If a driver loses their license as a driver, they should still have to show a number plate when on a bike, which means police could run a plate check if they see a particularly wobbly bicycle and are concerned about drink cycling.[/p][/quote]Let me get this straight, are you trying to imply that ALL road users should be licensed, taxed and insured? So pedestrians, wheelchair users, children, pushchairs, disabled people and blind people with guide dogs should be licensed, taxed and insured too? Dream on buddy. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

12:24pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Jesus_02 says...

I dont expect my % year old to use the road BTW!
I dont expect my % year old to use the road BTW! Jesus_02
  • Score: 0

12:26pm Mon 15 Apr 13

HerbieGreen says...

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together
wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist,

All road users who use vehicles on the road should have to pass a test, pay road tax and be insured, and the vehicle should have a licence plate that uniquely identifies the vehicle, the driver, or both.

The government could do with the tax revenue, and the roads would be far safer.
There is no such thing as 'Road Tax' (since 1947) - it is a vehicle excise duty, paid only by the most polluting vehicles - horses, cycles, electric cars, etc. are exempt, becuase they do no pollute and cause those extra costs and wear and tear. Roads are mostly paid for by our council and income tax, only 2.4% comes from VED. Therefore cyclists pay for the small amount of road they use, and the small wear and tear they cause, several times over compared with car drivers, actually subsidising the car driver every time they ride their bike rather than driving! Unless of course they are drivers too, and they pay VED but save the nation by cycling some of their journeys.
[quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: Shoebury_Cyclist, All road users who use vehicles on the road should have to pass a test, pay road tax and be insured, and the vehicle should have a licence plate that uniquely identifies the vehicle, the driver, or both. The government could do with the tax revenue, and the roads would be far safer.[/p][/quote]There is no such thing as 'Road Tax' (since 1947) - it is a vehicle excise duty, paid only by the most polluting vehicles - horses, cycles, electric cars, etc. are exempt, becuase they do no pollute and cause those extra costs and wear and tear. Roads are mostly paid for by our council and income tax, only 2.4% comes from VED. Therefore cyclists pay for the small amount of road they use, and the small wear and tear they cause, several times over compared with car drivers, actually subsidising the car driver every time they ride their bike rather than driving! Unless of course they are drivers too, and they pay VED but save the nation by cycling some of their journeys. HerbieGreen
  • Score: 0

12:26pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Ginger_cyclist says...

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together
wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist,

All road users who use vehicles on the road should have to pass a test, pay road tax and be insured, and the vehicle should have a licence plate that uniquely identifies the vehicle, the driver, or both.

The government could do with the tax revenue, and the roads would be far safer.
What the hell is road tax? because it DOESN'T EXIST!!!! It was abolished in 1937 and it ISN'T coming back.
[quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: Shoebury_Cyclist, All road users who use vehicles on the road should have to pass a test, pay road tax and be insured, and the vehicle should have a licence plate that uniquely identifies the vehicle, the driver, or both. The government could do with the tax revenue, and the roads would be far safer.[/p][/quote]What the hell is road tax? because it DOESN'T EXIST!!!! It was abolished in 1937 and it ISN'T coming back. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

12:28pm Mon 15 Apr 13

HerbieGreen says...

Gooby! wrote:
Sotonians_lets_pull_

together
wrote:
Ginger_Cyclist,

Licencing cycling would not lead to obesity - that is a ridiculous argument.

Those who are no safe on our roads and considerate to other road users should not be on them, full stop.

Anyone who cannot get a license to cycle could get an exercise bike and cycle in their living room, walk, or go to the gym.

Drivers initially rebelled against the idea of complusory licences, road, tax, making drink driving illegal. These were all good measures.

Cycling in time will also be reformed and regulated.

How many criminals do you see wearing black, and hoodies, cycling round with no lights, using their bikes for quick getaways from burglaries, arson, vandalism, muggings etc.

Too many!

Police should be able to pick up any cyclist riding without lights, or a license plate, and confiscate the bike and crush it.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Cyclists are citizens too, and must take full account of the responsibilities of citizenship, as well as the rights.
Facinating - the incredible lack of insight and understanding of reprocussions by one person. It must take a lot of practice to have such unfounded and poorly thought out opinions.

Let me get this straight.
Unregulated cycling is to blame for criminal activities? How about all the well regulated cars used in criminal activities?

It is already against the law to cycle at night without lights. This has no bearing on the sportive. Perhaps if you see a cyclist at night without lights you could call your local police officer who will come and uphold the law.

All cyclists cycle with out a licence plate because you do not need to licence a cycle. Licencing cycles is stupid and short sighted. For a start it would cost £billions to set up the infrastructure to record the licence details. The upshot would mean many millions of under 16's who use thier cycle to get to school would be criminalised. What cycles would you register? My mountain bike has never ever seen a road. Would that need registering? My 4 year old son has a small bike would that need registering? At 4, he is one of those "hateful cyclists on the pavement" Should we register my daughters ballance bike? if that is the case then scooters would need to be registered.

If cycles are to be registerd then Horses should be too. It is only fair and history shows the amount of crime that has been executed from a horse.
Stand and deliver!! :-)
[quote][p][bold]Gooby![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: Ginger_Cyclist, Licencing cycling would not lead to obesity - that is a ridiculous argument. Those who are no safe on our roads and considerate to other road users should not be on them, full stop. Anyone who cannot get a license to cycle could get an exercise bike and cycle in their living room, walk, or go to the gym. Drivers initially rebelled against the idea of complusory licences, road, tax, making drink driving illegal. These were all good measures. Cycling in time will also be reformed and regulated. How many criminals do you see wearing black, and hoodies, cycling round with no lights, using their bikes for quick getaways from burglaries, arson, vandalism, muggings etc. Too many! Police should be able to pick up any cyclist riding without lights, or a license plate, and confiscate the bike and crush it. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Cyclists are citizens too, and must take full account of the responsibilities of citizenship, as well as the rights.[/p][/quote]Facinating - the incredible lack of insight and understanding of reprocussions by one person. It must take a lot of practice to have such unfounded and poorly thought out opinions. Let me get this straight. Unregulated cycling is to blame for criminal activities? How about all the well regulated cars used in criminal activities? It is already against the law to cycle at night without lights. This has no bearing on the sportive. Perhaps if you see a cyclist at night without lights you could call your local police officer who will come and uphold the law. All cyclists cycle with out a licence plate because you do not need to licence a cycle. Licencing cycles is stupid and short sighted. For a start it would cost £billions to set up the infrastructure to record the licence details. The upshot would mean many millions of under 16's who use thier cycle to get to school would be criminalised. What cycles would you register? My mountain bike has never ever seen a road. Would that need registering? My 4 year old son has a small bike would that need registering? At 4, he is one of those "hateful cyclists on the pavement" Should we register my daughters ballance bike? if that is the case then scooters would need to be registered. If cycles are to be registerd then Horses should be too. It is only fair and history shows the amount of crime that has been executed from a horse.[/p][/quote]Stand and deliver!! :-) HerbieGreen
  • Score: 0

12:28pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Sotonians_lets_pull_together says...

Jesus_02,

I dont think that 5 year old should be allowed to cycle on the road, so no, he/she would not need to be taxed as they would not be able to cycle on the road.

There would be ways of making allowances for children.

We could start it by keeping those under 16 exempt from licensing, and see how it went from there, and then bringing the age down where licensing was required.

Up to 14 maybe a cycling proficiency test may be enough to get a provisional license.

Anyone who has a driving licence should be held to a higher standard, and require insurance, a number plate, etc, as they should know better. I dont see any reason why a driver should not get three points on thir license for running a red light on a bike, when they know how dangerous it is for themselves and other road users from their experiences as a driver.
Jesus_02, I dont think that 5 year old should be allowed to cycle on the road, so no, he/she would not need to be taxed as they would not be able to cycle on the road. There would be ways of making allowances for children. We could start it by keeping those under 16 exempt from licensing, and see how it went from there, and then bringing the age down where licensing was required. Up to 14 maybe a cycling proficiency test may be enough to get a provisional license. Anyone who has a driving licence should be held to a higher standard, and require insurance, a number plate, etc, as they should know better. I dont see any reason why a driver should not get three points on thir license for running a red light on a bike, when they know how dangerous it is for themselves and other road users from their experiences as a driver. Sotonians_lets_pull_together
  • Score: 0

12:28pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together
wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist,

There are laws that apply to cyclists too, and then are some guidelines which should be given the power of law as too many cyclists see the lack of law as a license to ignore the guidelines when they choose.

Because there are so many dangerous and cyclists on our roads, and because so many criminals use cyclists to move around and escape undetected, the time has come to bring cycling into line with other vehicle use on the roads, and require complusory tests, licence plates and insurance.

I also believe where cyclists are drivers, this should be linked to the driving licence, so inconsiderate cycling could lead to licenses being revoked to drive as well as cycle.
The great majority of cyclists are also fully licenced drivers. When cycling I have insurance cover through the CTC, my life insurance, and my household contents insurance.

As for registering bicycles, that has been tried in numerous countries and proved far too costly. And again at what age would you propose licence plates become compulsory? The toddler on their pushalong? The five year old with stabilisers? perhaps the eight year old on their BMX? Maybe the thirteen year old doing his paper round?

There are far more dangerous drivers on the road than dangerous cyclists, many thousands who have killed, some more than once. The yearly death toll from dangerous drivers is approximately 2000 people. The yearly death toll from dangerous cyclists is approximately 0.

I think you need to get a sense of proportion and see the real danger on our roads: dangerous, speeding, texting, drunk, drugged, selfish, inconsiderate, uninsured, untaxed, un-MOTd, unlicenced,
[quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: Shoebury_Cyclist, There are laws that apply to cyclists too, and then are some guidelines which should be given the power of law as too many cyclists see the lack of law as a license to ignore the guidelines when they choose. Because there are so many dangerous and cyclists on our roads, and because so many criminals use cyclists to move around and escape undetected, the time has come to bring cycling into line with other vehicle use on the roads, and require complusory tests, licence plates and insurance. I also believe where cyclists are drivers, this should be linked to the driving licence, so inconsiderate cycling could lead to licenses being revoked to drive as well as cycle.[/p][/quote]The great majority of cyclists are also fully licenced drivers. When cycling I have insurance cover through the CTC, my life insurance, and my household contents insurance. As for registering bicycles, that has been tried in numerous countries and proved far too costly. And again at what age would you propose licence plates become compulsory? The toddler on their pushalong? The five year old with stabilisers? perhaps the eight year old on their BMX? Maybe the thirteen year old doing his paper round? There are far more dangerous drivers on the road than dangerous cyclists, many thousands who have killed, some more than once. The yearly death toll from dangerous drivers is approximately 2000 people. The yearly death toll from dangerous cyclists is approximately 0. I think you need to get a sense of proportion and see the real danger on our roads: dangerous, speeding, texting, drunk, drugged, selfish, inconsiderate, uninsured, untaxed, un-MOTd, unlicenced, Shoebury_Cyclist
  • Score: 0

12:28pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Ginger_cyclist says...

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together
wrote:
Ginger_Cyclist,

Licencing cycling would not lead to obesity - that is a ridiculous argument.

Those who are no safe on our roads and considerate to other road users should not be on them, full stop.

Anyone who cannot get a license to cycle could get an exercise bike and cycle in their living room, walk, or go to the gym.

Drivers initially rebelled against the idea of complusory licences, road, tax, making drink driving illegal. These were all good measures.

Cycling in time will also be reformed and regulated.

How many criminals do you see wearing black, and hoodies, cycling round with no lights, using their bikes for quick getaways from burglaries, arson, vandalism, muggings etc.

Too many!

Police should be able to pick up any cyclist riding without lights, or a license plate, and confiscate the bike and crush it.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Cyclists are citizens too, and must take full account of the responsibilities of citizenship, as well as the rights.
Licensing WOULD lead to higher rates of obesity due to lower numbers of cyclists.
[quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: Ginger_Cyclist, Licencing cycling would not lead to obesity - that is a ridiculous argument. Those who are no safe on our roads and considerate to other road users should not be on them, full stop. Anyone who cannot get a license to cycle could get an exercise bike and cycle in their living room, walk, or go to the gym. Drivers initially rebelled against the idea of complusory licences, road, tax, making drink driving illegal. These were all good measures. Cycling in time will also be reformed and regulated. How many criminals do you see wearing black, and hoodies, cycling round with no lights, using their bikes for quick getaways from burglaries, arson, vandalism, muggings etc. Too many! Police should be able to pick up any cyclist riding without lights, or a license plate, and confiscate the bike and crush it. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Cyclists are citizens too, and must take full account of the responsibilities of citizenship, as well as the rights.[/p][/quote]Licensing WOULD lead to higher rates of obesity due to lower numbers of cyclists. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

12:32pm Mon 15 Apr 13

HerbieGreen says...

This is all about people living in the country thinking that they have a god-given right to have it all to themselves - well, I live in a town and what if I had the attitude that all those that came from the country in their cars should not be allowed to choke up my town when they come in for the shopping trips? Get some balance - you own your property, and have the same rights to the roads around you as everyone else - learn to share!!
This is all about people living in the country thinking that they have a god-given right to have it all to themselves - well, I live in a town and what if I had the attitude that all those that came from the country in their cars should not be allowed to choke up my town when they come in for the shopping trips? Get some balance - you own your property, and have the same rights to the roads around you as everyone else - learn to share!! HerbieGreen
  • Score: 0

12:32pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Torchie1 says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Sotonians_lets_pull_

together
wrote:
Ginger_cyclist,
Interesting if it wasnt officially a race.

I wonder how many of the participants treat it as a race though, how many record their times, how many race their friends, or whether even there are lists of unofficial race times out there on cycling forums by people who have their own races within such "non-race events".
Well, you are timed on these events but times aren't published by the organisers, they are given to the riders at the end as a personal target to beat, so really, they only ever race themselves but as with anything, a tiny minority will put those times online as if they were racing and to challenge others to "race" the clock to beat their time, no doubt people also time themselves at the skyride events and do the same, it's obviously not a race yet they treat it like one, so yes, there is in all probability, a tiny handful of riders who are like that.
Wrong once again. A couple of clicks on the organisers website will take you to a pdf showing approximately 1800 individual names, times, standards and 'race numbers'. http://www.ukcycling
events.co.uk/rider-t
imes/nf_wss_nf_sprin
g_saturday.pdf
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: Ginger_cyclist, Interesting if it wasnt officially a race. I wonder how many of the participants treat it as a race though, how many record their times, how many race their friends, or whether even there are lists of unofficial race times out there on cycling forums by people who have their own races within such "non-race events".[/p][/quote]Well, you are timed on these events but times aren't published by the organisers, they are given to the riders at the end as a personal target to beat, so really, they only ever race themselves but as with anything, a tiny minority will put those times online as if they were racing and to challenge others to "race" the clock to beat their time, no doubt people also time themselves at the skyride events and do the same, it's obviously not a race yet they treat it like one, so yes, there is in all probability, a tiny handful of riders who are like that.[/p][/quote]Wrong once again. A couple of clicks on the organisers website will take you to a pdf showing approximately 1800 individual names, times, standards and 'race numbers'. http://www.ukcycling events.co.uk/rider-t imes/nf_wss_nf_sprin g_saturday.pdf Torchie1
  • Score: 0

12:33pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Sotonians_lets_pull_together says...

Ginger_Cyclist,

Even if that were the case (obesity may increase somewhat - which I disagree with - people would simply pass the test and get a licence), it is not sufficient argument for allowing cyclists to endanger themselves and other road users, which is the inevitable result if the law is unenforceable because cyclists are not licensed, taxed and insured.

I would prefer that cyclists who could not get a license or lost their licence because they are not safe on the roads be at risk of putting on a few pounds rather than kill themselves or someone else.
Ginger_Cyclist, Even if that were the case (obesity may increase somewhat - which I disagree with - people would simply pass the test and get a licence), it is not sufficient argument for allowing cyclists to endanger themselves and other road users, which is the inevitable result if the law is unenforceable because cyclists are not licensed, taxed and insured. I would prefer that cyclists who could not get a license or lost their licence because they are not safe on the roads be at risk of putting on a few pounds rather than kill themselves or someone else. Sotonians_lets_pull_together
  • Score: 0

12:33pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Ginger_cyclist says...

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together
wrote:
Ginger_cyclist
"But it's true, speed limits aren't targets and as has been said, 40 is still unsuitable for some of the forest roads, also, it's not a road block if the cars can still use the other side of the road to overtake which they should do any way."

Of course speed limits are not targets, but it seems that too many of these cyclists were ignoring the direction of the organisers to keep in, and to cycle in single file, and be considerate to other road users.

If people wanted to participate in this event, they should have been respectful to the wishes of the organisers, even if they were not compelled by law to do so.

I just think that they should have been compelled to do so by law too!
Doesn't change the fact that cyclists DON'T legally have to ride single file, we don't even have to legally stay over by the gutter, as myself and another have said, a group of cyclists is easier and safer to overtake than a long train of cyclists as it means less time spent on the other side of the road overtaking.
[quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: Ginger_cyclist "But it's true, speed limits aren't targets and as has been said, 40 is still unsuitable for some of the forest roads, also, it's not a road block if the cars can still use the other side of the road to overtake which they should do any way." Of course speed limits are not targets, but it seems that too many of these cyclists were ignoring the direction of the organisers to keep in, and to cycle in single file, and be considerate to other road users. If people wanted to participate in this event, they should have been respectful to the wishes of the organisers, even if they were not compelled by law to do so. I just think that they should have been compelled to do so by law too![/p][/quote]Doesn't change the fact that cyclists DON'T legally have to ride single file, we don't even have to legally stay over by the gutter, as myself and another have said, a group of cyclists is easier and safer to overtake than a long train of cyclists as it means less time spent on the other side of the road overtaking. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

12:34pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Sotonians_lets_pull_together says...

Torchie1

Interesting - I did not "know" it would be the case, but logic and common sense told me that it would found to be the case if someone bothered to look.

Thanks for looking.
Torchie1 Interesting - I did not "know" it would be the case, but logic and common sense told me that it would found to be the case if someone bothered to look. Thanks for looking. Sotonians_lets_pull_together
  • Score: 0

12:36pm Mon 15 Apr 13

good-gosh says...

Drivers intolerant of cyclists should hand back their licences (today). They are mentally unfit.
Drivers intolerant of cyclists should hand back their licences (today). They are mentally unfit. good-gosh
  • Score: 0

12:38pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Sotonians_lets_pull_together says...

Ginger_Cyclist,

Good glad, you are starting to realise that you are wrong, and that the cyclists that were causing an obstruction by ignoring the organisers requests to cycle in singhle file put both themselves and others at hazard.

They also put at risk the ability to hold such events in the future, and make such events more likely to be regulated or banned.

They also make put the spotlight on poor cycling, and bring attention to the need to revisit whether cyclists over 16 should be compelled to be licensed, taxed and insured.

I believe anyone in control of a vehicle on the roads should be licensed, taxed and insured.
Ginger_Cyclist, Good glad, you are starting to realise that you are wrong, and that the cyclists that were causing an obstruction by ignoring the organisers requests to cycle in singhle file put both themselves and others at hazard. They also put at risk the ability to hold such events in the future, and make such events more likely to be regulated or banned. They also make put the spotlight on poor cycling, and bring attention to the need to revisit whether cyclists over 16 should be compelled to be licensed, taxed and insured. I believe anyone in control of a vehicle on the roads should be licensed, taxed and insured. Sotonians_lets_pull_together
  • Score: 0

12:39pm Mon 15 Apr 13

HerbieGreen says...

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together
wrote:
Ginger_Cyclist,

Even if that were the case (obesity may increase somewhat - which I disagree with - people would simply pass the test and get a licence), it is not sufficient argument for allowing cyclists to endanger themselves and other road users, which is the inevitable result if the law is unenforceable because cyclists are not licensed, taxed and insured.

I would prefer that cyclists who could not get a license or lost their licence because they are not safe on the roads be at risk of putting on a few pounds rather than kill themselves or someone else.
It is true - obesity increases if you make it harder for people to 'just get on a bike'. In Australia they brought in a helmet law, which may save a fraction of people who have a head injury - most fatal crashes involve a vehicel impact of over 30mph which a helmet is useless to protect against. So cycle usage has dropped by over 20% where the law is enforced - the health bill in a decade or so will be through the roof.
[quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: Ginger_Cyclist, Even if that were the case (obesity may increase somewhat - which I disagree with - people would simply pass the test and get a licence), it is not sufficient argument for allowing cyclists to endanger themselves and other road users, which is the inevitable result if the law is unenforceable because cyclists are not licensed, taxed and insured. I would prefer that cyclists who could not get a license or lost their licence because they are not safe on the roads be at risk of putting on a few pounds rather than kill themselves or someone else.[/p][/quote]It is true - obesity increases if you make it harder for people to 'just get on a bike'. In Australia they brought in a helmet law, which may save a fraction of people who have a head injury - most fatal crashes involve a vehicel impact of over 30mph which a helmet is useless to protect against. So cycle usage has dropped by over 20% where the law is enforced - the health bill in a decade or so will be through the roof. HerbieGreen
  • Score: 0

12:41pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together
wrote:
Ginger_Cyclist,

Even if that were the case (obesity may increase somewhat - which I disagree with - people would simply pass the test and get a licence), it is not sufficient argument for allowing cyclists to endanger themselves and other road users, which is the inevitable result if the law is unenforceable because cyclists are not licensed, taxed and insured.

I would prefer that cyclists who could not get a license or lost their licence because they are not safe on the roads be at risk of putting on a few pounds rather than kill themselves or someone else.
In the early 90s in Australia they brought in helmet compulsion. Immediately 95% of children who had perviously cycled to school stopped doing so.

Australia is now in the midst of an obesity epidemic as those children have grown up not getting exercise, and their children have not used bicycles.


The same would happen here. Introduce expensive restrictions on cycling and people will stop cycling, use their cars more. Obesity rates, heart disease, diabetes will all increase, adding pressure to the national health budget.
[quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: Ginger_Cyclist, Even if that were the case (obesity may increase somewhat - which I disagree with - people would simply pass the test and get a licence), it is not sufficient argument for allowing cyclists to endanger themselves and other road users, which is the inevitable result if the law is unenforceable because cyclists are not licensed, taxed and insured. I would prefer that cyclists who could not get a license or lost their licence because they are not safe on the roads be at risk of putting on a few pounds rather than kill themselves or someone else.[/p][/quote]In the early 90s in Australia they brought in helmet compulsion. Immediately 95% of children who had perviously cycled to school stopped doing so. Australia is now in the midst of an obesity epidemic as those children have grown up not getting exercise, and their children have not used bicycles. The same would happen here. Introduce expensive restrictions on cycling and people will stop cycling, use their cars more. Obesity rates, heart disease, diabetes will all increase, adding pressure to the national health budget. Shoebury_Cyclist
  • Score: 0

12:41pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Ginger_cyclist says...

Torchie1 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Sotonians_lets_pull_


together
wrote:
Ginger_cyclist,
Interesting if it wasnt officially a race.

I wonder how many of the participants treat it as a race though, how many record their times, how many race their friends, or whether even there are lists of unofficial race times out there on cycling forums by people who have their own races within such "non-race events".
Well, you are timed on these events but times aren't published by the organisers, they are given to the riders at the end as a personal target to beat, so really, they only ever race themselves but as with anything, a tiny minority will put those times online as if they were racing and to challenge others to "race" the clock to beat their time, no doubt people also time themselves at the skyride events and do the same, it's obviously not a race yet they treat it like one, so yes, there is in all probability, a tiny handful of riders who are like that.
Wrong once again. A couple of clicks on the organisers website will take you to a pdf showing approximately 1800 individual names, times, standards and 'race numbers'. http://www.ukcycling

events.co.uk/rider-t

imes/nf_wss_nf_sprin

g_saturday.pdf
Doesn't change the fact that it wasn't a race as they have stated several times along with the local authority on their own website.
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: Ginger_cyclist, Interesting if it wasnt officially a race. I wonder how many of the participants treat it as a race though, how many record their times, how many race their friends, or whether even there are lists of unofficial race times out there on cycling forums by people who have their own races within such "non-race events".[/p][/quote]Well, you are timed on these events but times aren't published by the organisers, they are given to the riders at the end as a personal target to beat, so really, they only ever race themselves but as with anything, a tiny minority will put those times online as if they were racing and to challenge others to "race" the clock to beat their time, no doubt people also time themselves at the skyride events and do the same, it's obviously not a race yet they treat it like one, so yes, there is in all probability, a tiny handful of riders who are like that.[/p][/quote]Wrong once again. A couple of clicks on the organisers website will take you to a pdf showing approximately 1800 individual names, times, standards and 'race numbers'. http://www.ukcycling events.co.uk/rider-t imes/nf_wss_nf_sprin g_saturday.pdf[/p][/quote]Doesn't change the fact that it wasn't a race as they have stated several times along with the local authority on their own website. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

12:42pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Dave Juson says...

A modest proposal.
I think most true lovers of the New Forest would agree that all private motor vehicles should restricted, west of the A326, to the A326 itself, the A35 and A37. And, further, a 18 mph limit placed on those roads and on the public transport and commercial vehicles using the minor byways. How fast do you need to drive through beautiful countryside?
Visitors and those wishing to reside off the beaten track could then walk, cycle and ride horses in comparative safety. We would be spared the all to frequent sight of the corpses of deer, ponies and other Forest wildlife littering the verges.
A modest proposal. I think most true lovers of the New Forest would agree that all private motor vehicles should restricted, west of the A326, to the A326 itself, the A35 and A37. And, further, a 18 mph limit placed on those roads and on the public transport and commercial vehicles using the minor byways. How fast do you need to drive through beautiful countryside? Visitors and those wishing to reside off the beaten track could then walk, cycle and ride horses in comparative safety. We would be spared the all to frequent sight of the corpses of deer, ponies and other Forest wildlife littering the verges. Dave Juson
  • Score: 0

12:43pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together
wrote:
Ginger_Cyclist,

Good glad, you are starting to realise that you are wrong, and that the cyclists that were causing an obstruction by ignoring the organisers requests to cycle in singhle file put both themselves and others at hazard.

They also put at risk the ability to hold such events in the future, and make such events more likely to be regulated or banned.

They also make put the spotlight on poor cycling, and bring attention to the need to revisit whether cyclists over 16 should be compelled to be licensed, taxed and insured.

I believe anyone in control of a vehicle on the roads should be licensed, taxed and insured.
Interesting you object to cyclists in the New Forest but don't object to hundreds of thousands of visitors in cars causing congestion, pollution, running down wildlife etc.

You have a very warped sense of priority.
[quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: Ginger_Cyclist, Good glad, you are starting to realise that you are wrong, and that the cyclists that were causing an obstruction by ignoring the organisers requests to cycle in singhle file put both themselves and others at hazard. They also put at risk the ability to hold such events in the future, and make such events more likely to be regulated or banned. They also make put the spotlight on poor cycling, and bring attention to the need to revisit whether cyclists over 16 should be compelled to be licensed, taxed and insured. I believe anyone in control of a vehicle on the roads should be licensed, taxed and insured.[/p][/quote]Interesting you object to cyclists in the New Forest but don't object to hundreds of thousands of visitors in cars causing congestion, pollution, running down wildlife etc. You have a very warped sense of priority. Shoebury_Cyclist
  • Score: 0

12:45pm Mon 15 Apr 13

aljerram says...

http://www.dailyecho
.co.uk/news/10354043
.City_gripped_by_roa
d_chaos/?ref=ms

No bikes in sight!
http://www.dailyecho .co.uk/news/10354043 .City_gripped_by_roa d_chaos/?ref=ms No bikes in sight! aljerram
  • Score: 0

12:47pm Mon 15 Apr 13

adamello says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Sotonians_lets_pull_

together
wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist,

All road users who use vehicles on the road should have to pass a test, pay road tax and be insured, and the vehicle should have a licence plate that uniquely identifies the vehicle, the driver, or both.

The government could do with the tax revenue, and the roads would be far safer.
What the hell is road tax? because it DOESN'T EXIST!!!! It was abolished in 1937 and it ISN'T coming back.
I'd be happy for cyclists to pay the same amount of Vehicle Tax as a car.. based on exhaust emissions.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: Shoebury_Cyclist, All road users who use vehicles on the road should have to pass a test, pay road tax and be insured, and the vehicle should have a licence plate that uniquely identifies the vehicle, the driver, or both. The government could do with the tax revenue, and the roads would be far safer.[/p][/quote]What the hell is road tax? because it DOESN'T EXIST!!!! It was abolished in 1937 and it ISN'T coming back.[/p][/quote]I'd be happy for cyclists to pay the same amount of Vehicle Tax as a car.. based on exhaust emissions. adamello
  • Score: 0

12:47pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Sotonians_lets_pull_together says...

Jesus_02

re your five your old and my comment I do not believe that 5 year olds should be allowed to cycle on the road. I dont believe any children younger than 9 should be allowed to cycle on the road. Children between 9 and 14 could use the cycling proficiency test, perhaps, and above 14, or 16, could be compelled to be licensed taxes and insured. This could be trialled for a few years with a view to whether more controls should be brought in for 9-14/16 year olds. I think the Police would find it massively helpful in solving and preventing crime. If bikes had to be marked with the license number of the cyclist, it could also help bikes get returned to their owners.

"Young children (up to the age of 9) can’t judge distance in the same way as adults. They don’t know how fast a car or bike is going, and how long they have to cross the road."

http://capt.org.uk/s

afety-advice/staying

-safe-when-youre-out

-and-about
Jesus_02 re your five your old and my comment I do not believe that 5 year olds should be allowed to cycle on the road. I dont believe any children younger than 9 should be allowed to cycle on the road. Children between 9 and 14 could use the cycling proficiency test, perhaps, and above 14, or 16, could be compelled to be licensed taxes and insured. This could be trialled for a few years with a view to whether more controls should be brought in for 9-14/16 year olds. I think the Police would find it massively helpful in solving and preventing crime. If bikes had to be marked with the license number of the cyclist, it could also help bikes get returned to their owners. "Young children (up to the age of 9) can’t judge distance in the same way as adults. They don’t know how fast a car or bike is going, and how long they have to cross the road." http://capt.org.uk/s afety-advice/staying -safe-when-youre-out -and-about Sotonians_lets_pull_together
  • Score: 0

12:47pm Mon 15 Apr 13

HerbieGreen says...

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Sotonians_lets_pull_

together
wrote:
Ginger_Cyclist,

Good glad, you are starting to realise that you are wrong, and that the cyclists that were causing an obstruction by ignoring the organisers requests to cycle in singhle file put both themselves and others at hazard.

They also put at risk the ability to hold such events in the future, and make such events more likely to be regulated or banned.

They also make put the spotlight on poor cycling, and bring attention to the need to revisit whether cyclists over 16 should be compelled to be licensed, taxed and insured.

I believe anyone in control of a vehicle on the roads should be licensed, taxed and insured.
Interesting you object to cyclists in the New Forest but don't object to hundreds of thousands of visitors in cars causing congestion, pollution, running down wildlife etc.

You have a very warped sense of priority.
Precisely - these arguments are all a way to cover up the fact that people want to use the area for what they want in the way they want without recognising that others have a right to use the forest in another way!
[quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: Ginger_Cyclist, Good glad, you are starting to realise that you are wrong, and that the cyclists that were causing an obstruction by ignoring the organisers requests to cycle in singhle file put both themselves and others at hazard. They also put at risk the ability to hold such events in the future, and make such events more likely to be regulated or banned. They also make put the spotlight on poor cycling, and bring attention to the need to revisit whether cyclists over 16 should be compelled to be licensed, taxed and insured. I believe anyone in control of a vehicle on the roads should be licensed, taxed and insured.[/p][/quote]Interesting you object to cyclists in the New Forest but don't object to hundreds of thousands of visitors in cars causing congestion, pollution, running down wildlife etc. You have a very warped sense of priority.[/p][/quote]Precisely - these arguments are all a way to cover up the fact that people want to use the area for what they want in the way they want without recognising that others have a right to use the forest in another way! HerbieGreen
  • Score: 0

12:48pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Ginger_cyclist says...

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together
wrote:
Ginger_Cyclist,

Good glad, you are starting to realise that you are wrong, and that the cyclists that were causing an obstruction by ignoring the organisers requests to cycle in singhle file put both themselves and others at hazard.

They also put at risk the ability to hold such events in the future, and make such events more likely to be regulated or banned.

They also make put the spotlight on poor cycling, and bring attention to the need to revisit whether cyclists over 16 should be compelled to be licensed, taxed and insured.

I believe anyone in control of a vehicle on the roads should be licensed, taxed and insured.
Nope, most of them were NOT causing an obstruction ,no more than a tractor would, I mean consider this, would you rather overtake a long line of tractors, or pass them as individual vehicles? Personally I would rather overtake them individually for safety and licensing, taxing and compulsory insurance WOULD lead to increases in obesity, just look at places that made helmets compulsory, they're in an obesity crisis, now look at the Netherlands where cyclists have free reign to ride pretty much everywhere, it is unlikely you'd find an obese Dutch, Norwegian,Dane or Belgian.
[quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: Ginger_Cyclist, Good glad, you are starting to realise that you are wrong, and that the cyclists that were causing an obstruction by ignoring the organisers requests to cycle in singhle file put both themselves and others at hazard. They also put at risk the ability to hold such events in the future, and make such events more likely to be regulated or banned. They also make put the spotlight on poor cycling, and bring attention to the need to revisit whether cyclists over 16 should be compelled to be licensed, taxed and insured. I believe anyone in control of a vehicle on the roads should be licensed, taxed and insured.[/p][/quote]Nope, most of them were NOT causing an obstruction ,no more than a tractor would, I mean consider this, would you rather overtake a long line of tractors, or pass them as individual vehicles? Personally I would rather overtake them individually for safety and licensing, taxing and compulsory insurance WOULD lead to increases in obesity, just look at places that made helmets compulsory, they're in an obesity crisis, now look at the Netherlands where cyclists have free reign to ride pretty much everywhere, it is unlikely you'd find an obese Dutch, Norwegian,Dane or Belgian. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

12:49pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Sotonians_lets_pull_together says...

Ginger -cyclist

Whatever you want to call it, a tax should be introduced for cylists who want to cycle on the roads.

Call it vehicle excise duty, call it road tax, call it bicycle tax.

I dont care what you call it , if it rolls along the road, tax it, license it and insure it ;-)
Ginger -cyclist Whatever you want to call it, a tax should be introduced for cylists who want to cycle on the roads. Call it vehicle excise duty, call it road tax, call it bicycle tax. I dont care what you call it , if it rolls along the road, tax it, license it and insure it ;-) Sotonians_lets_pull_together
  • Score: 0

12:49pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Ginger_cyclist says...

Dave Juson wrote:
A modest proposal.
I think most true lovers of the New Forest would agree that all private motor vehicles should restricted, west of the A326, to the A326 itself, the A35 and A37. And, further, a 18 mph limit placed on those roads and on the public transport and commercial vehicles using the minor byways. How fast do you need to drive through beautiful countryside?
Visitors and those wishing to reside off the beaten track could then walk, cycle and ride horses in comparative safety. We would be spared the all to frequent sight of the corpses of deer, ponies and other Forest wildlife littering the verges.
This would get my vote.
[quote][p][bold]Dave Juson[/bold] wrote: A modest proposal. I think most true lovers of the New Forest would agree that all private motor vehicles should restricted, west of the A326, to the A326 itself, the A35 and A37. And, further, a 18 mph limit placed on those roads and on the public transport and commercial vehicles using the minor byways. How fast do you need to drive through beautiful countryside? Visitors and those wishing to reside off the beaten track could then walk, cycle and ride horses in comparative safety. We would be spared the all to frequent sight of the corpses of deer, ponies and other Forest wildlife littering the verges.[/p][/quote]This would get my vote. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

12:51pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together
wrote:
Ginger -cyclist

Whatever you want to call it, a tax should be introduced for cylists who want to cycle on the roads.

Call it vehicle excise duty, call it road tax, call it bicycle tax.

I dont care what you call it , if it rolls along the road, tax it, license it and insure it ;-)
No-one in the UK is taxed to use roads, why should cyclists be the only ones to be taxed?
[quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: Ginger -cyclist Whatever you want to call it, a tax should be introduced for cylists who want to cycle on the roads. Call it vehicle excise duty, call it road tax, call it bicycle tax. I dont care what you call it , if it rolls along the road, tax it, license it and insure it ;-)[/p][/quote]No-one in the UK is taxed to use roads, why should cyclists be the only ones to be taxed? Shoebury_Cyclist
  • Score: 0

12:52pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Ginger_cyclist says...

adamello wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Sotonians_lets_pull_


together
wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist,

All road users who use vehicles on the road should have to pass a test, pay road tax and be insured, and the vehicle should have a licence plate that uniquely identifies the vehicle, the driver, or both.

The government could do with the tax revenue, and the roads would be far safer.
What the hell is road tax? because it DOESN'T EXIST!!!! It was abolished in 1937 and it ISN'T coming back.
I'd be happy for cyclists to pay the same amount of Vehicle Tax as a car.. based on exhaust emissions.
So that would be... Oh, £0... Yeah, I'd be happy to pay that too. :)
[quote][p][bold]adamello[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: Shoebury_Cyclist, All road users who use vehicles on the road should have to pass a test, pay road tax and be insured, and the vehicle should have a licence plate that uniquely identifies the vehicle, the driver, or both. The government could do with the tax revenue, and the roads would be far safer.[/p][/quote]What the hell is road tax? because it DOESN'T EXIST!!!! It was abolished in 1937 and it ISN'T coming back.[/p][/quote]I'd be happy for cyclists to pay the same amount of Vehicle Tax as a car.. based on exhaust emissions.[/p][/quote]So that would be... Oh, £0... Yeah, I'd be happy to pay that too. :) Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

12:53pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Sotonians_lets_pull_together says...

Ginger-cyclist

ridiculous bringing tractors into it. we are talking about a cycling event, and how too mant of the cyclists ignored both the highway code, and the instructions of the event organisers.

Having got it wrong several times, you are now just trying to muddy the waters even more.

You could not hold an event for 1800 tractors, if such an event could take place, it should be subject to license, and I would vote against that licence being approved too.

It would also be pretty inconvenient if they were ignoring the highway code, but having registration numbers, being taxed and licenced, they could be pretty quickly pulled over and prosecuted.
Ginger-cyclist ridiculous bringing tractors into it. we are talking about a cycling event, and how too mant of the cyclists ignored both the highway code, and the instructions of the event organisers. Having got it wrong several times, you are now just trying to muddy the waters even more. You could not hold an event for 1800 tractors, if such an event could take place, it should be subject to license, and I would vote against that licence being approved too. It would also be pretty inconvenient if they were ignoring the highway code, but having registration numbers, being taxed and licenced, they could be pretty quickly pulled over and prosecuted. Sotonians_lets_pull_together
  • Score: 0

12:54pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Ginger_cyclist says...

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together
wrote:
Ginger -cyclist

Whatever you want to call it, a tax should be introduced for cylists who want to cycle on the roads.

Call it vehicle excise duty, call it road tax, call it bicycle tax.

I dont care what you call it , if it rolls along the road, tax it, license it and insure it ;-)
Nope, it shouldn't because they do so much less harm than motor vehicles, also, cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders have a LEGAL right to use the road without such things as tax, licenses and insurance.
[quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: Ginger -cyclist Whatever you want to call it, a tax should be introduced for cylists who want to cycle on the roads. Call it vehicle excise duty, call it road tax, call it bicycle tax. I dont care what you call it , if it rolls along the road, tax it, license it and insure it ;-)[/p][/quote]Nope, it shouldn't because they do so much less harm than motor vehicles, also, cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders have a LEGAL right to use the road without such things as tax, licenses and insurance. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

1:03pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Sotonians_lets_pull_together says...

I think maybe £50 to take an official cycling test

£40 for personal number plate to be linked to your license number, not the bike, to be displayed at all times

A road tax for cyclists to go towards the costs of providers the roads and improving the network of cylcing paths £50 per year.

Compulsory insurance for cyclists, linked to the person, not the bike.

Then we could expect to see cyclists being pulled over and breath tested, pulled over for running red lights, cycling on the pavement, cycling without lights on, cycling with due care and attention to aother road users, cycling too close to the vehicle in front.

And of course points on the license, fines, and time in jail for persistent offenders.

Just think how much money this would raised to improve roads and cycle networks, how the fines would help support the costs of the police, how much crime this would prevent (any potential thief in a hoody on a bike in dark clothes late at night with no registration could be pulled over, and the bike confiscated and sold or crushed ), how much crime would be detected (how many valuable bikes would be returned to owners), how this would improve police detection and conviction rates, so many benefits.
I think maybe £50 to take an official cycling test £40 for personal number plate to be linked to your license number, not the bike, to be displayed at all times A road tax for cyclists to go towards the costs of providers the roads and improving the network of cylcing paths £50 per year. Compulsory insurance for cyclists, linked to the person, not the bike. Then we could expect to see cyclists being pulled over and breath tested, pulled over for running red lights, cycling on the pavement, cycling without lights on, cycling with due care and attention to aother road users, cycling too close to the vehicle in front. And of course points on the license, fines, and time in jail for persistent offenders. Just think how much money this would raised to improve roads and cycle networks, how the fines would help support the costs of the police, how much crime this would prevent (any potential thief in a hoody on a bike in dark clothes late at night with no registration could be pulled over, and the bike confiscated and sold or crushed [after checking whether it was stolen and possibly returned]), how much crime would be detected (how many valuable bikes would be returned to owners), how this would improve police detection and conviction rates, so many benefits. Sotonians_lets_pull_together
  • Score: 0

1:04pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together
wrote:
I think maybe £50 to take an official cycling test

£40 for personal number plate to be linked to your license number, not the bike, to be displayed at all times

A road tax for cyclists to go towards the costs of providers the roads and improving the network of cylcing paths £50 per year.

Compulsory insurance for cyclists, linked to the person, not the bike.

Then we could expect to see cyclists being pulled over and breath tested, pulled over for running red lights, cycling on the pavement, cycling without lights on, cycling with due care and attention to aother road users, cycling too close to the vehicle in front.

And of course points on the license, fines, and time in jail for persistent offenders.

Just think how much money this would raised to improve roads and cycle networks, how the fines would help support the costs of the police, how much crime this would prevent (any potential thief in a hoody on a bike in dark clothes late at night with no registration could be pulled over, and the bike confiscated and sold or crushed ), how much crime would be detected (how many valuable bikes would be returned to owners), how this would improve police detection and conviction rates, so many benefits.
You are a fool.
[quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: I think maybe £50 to take an official cycling test £40 for personal number plate to be linked to your license number, not the bike, to be displayed at all times A road tax for cyclists to go towards the costs of providers the roads and improving the network of cylcing paths £50 per year. Compulsory insurance for cyclists, linked to the person, not the bike. Then we could expect to see cyclists being pulled over and breath tested, pulled over for running red lights, cycling on the pavement, cycling without lights on, cycling with due care and attention to aother road users, cycling too close to the vehicle in front. And of course points on the license, fines, and time in jail for persistent offenders. Just think how much money this would raised to improve roads and cycle networks, how the fines would help support the costs of the police, how much crime this would prevent (any potential thief in a hoody on a bike in dark clothes late at night with no registration could be pulled over, and the bike confiscated and sold or crushed [after checking whether it was stolen and possibly returned]), how much crime would be detected (how many valuable bikes would be returned to owners), how this would improve police detection and conviction rates, so many benefits.[/p][/quote]You are a fool. Shoebury_Cyclist
  • Score: 0

1:07pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together
wrote:
I think maybe £50 to take an official cycling test

£40 for personal number plate to be linked to your license number, not the bike, to be displayed at all times

A road tax for cyclists to go towards the costs of providers the roads and improving the network of cylcing paths £50 per year.

Compulsory insurance for cyclists, linked to the person, not the bike.

Then we could expect to see cyclists being pulled over and breath tested, pulled over for running red lights, cycling on the pavement, cycling without lights on, cycling with due care and attention to aother road users, cycling too close to the vehicle in front.

And of course points on the license, fines, and time in jail for persistent offenders.

Just think how much money this would raised to improve roads and cycle networks, how the fines would help support the costs of the police, how much crime this would prevent (any potential thief in a hoody on a bike in dark clothes late at night with no registration could be pulled over, and the bike confiscated and sold or crushed ), how much crime would be detected (how many valuable bikes would be returned to owners), how this would improve police detection and conviction rates, so many benefits.
How about a black box in every car that records acceleration, speed, braking force, location etc. and sends a report of any speeding, red light running or dangerous driving to the police automatically?
Add in an automatic three month ban for using a phone while driving, a minimum five year ban for drink/drug driving, and automatic ten years jail for any driver that kills.

That all sounds reasonable to me.

Oh by the way, I'm a driver as well as a cyclist.
[quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: I think maybe £50 to take an official cycling test £40 for personal number plate to be linked to your license number, not the bike, to be displayed at all times A road tax for cyclists to go towards the costs of providers the roads and improving the network of cylcing paths £50 per year. Compulsory insurance for cyclists, linked to the person, not the bike. Then we could expect to see cyclists being pulled over and breath tested, pulled over for running red lights, cycling on the pavement, cycling without lights on, cycling with due care and attention to aother road users, cycling too close to the vehicle in front. And of course points on the license, fines, and time in jail for persistent offenders. Just think how much money this would raised to improve roads and cycle networks, how the fines would help support the costs of the police, how much crime this would prevent (any potential thief in a hoody on a bike in dark clothes late at night with no registration could be pulled over, and the bike confiscated and sold or crushed [after checking whether it was stolen and possibly returned]), how much crime would be detected (how many valuable bikes would be returned to owners), how this would improve police detection and conviction rates, so many benefits.[/p][/quote]How about a black box in every car that records acceleration, speed, braking force, location etc. and sends a report of any speeding, red light running or dangerous driving to the police automatically? Add in an automatic three month ban for using a phone while driving, a minimum five year ban for drink/drug driving, and automatic ten years jail for any driver that kills. That all sounds reasonable to me. Oh by the way, I'm a driver as well as a cyclist. Shoebury_Cyclist
  • Score: 0

1:07pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Sotonians_lets_pull_together says...

"Doesn't change the fact that it wasn't a race as they have stated several times along with the local authority on their own website."

If it looks a like a race, and people cycle like they are in a race, and they record their times, and they compare their times, whether someone calls it an official race or not, if any reasonable outsider looking at it would probably consider it a race, then perhaps a judge would too.

Maybe the angle to tackle this is that to question whether people are holding a race, whether such a race would need approval and licensing, and different insurance, etc, and whether if a judge decided it was a race, whether it is legal.

Perhaps we need to ensure that all cyclists are licenced taxed and insured to be able to regulate this, which is another argument along with many others for doing this.
"Doesn't change the fact that it wasn't a race as they have stated several times along with the local authority on their own website." If it looks a like a race, and people cycle like they are in a race, and they record their times, and they compare their times, whether someone calls it an official race or not, if any reasonable outsider looking at it would probably consider it a race, then perhaps a judge would too. Maybe the angle to tackle this is that to question whether people are holding a race, whether such a race would need approval and licensing, and different insurance, etc, and whether if a judge decided it was a race, whether it is legal. Perhaps we need to ensure that all cyclists are licenced taxed and insured to be able to regulate this, which is another argument along with many others for doing this. Sotonians_lets_pull_together
  • Score: 0

1:09pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Sotonians_lets_pull_together says...

Shoebury_cyclist,
Drivers were just as much against having to take a test when that was introduced.

Doesnt mean it isnt a good idea :-)
Shoebury_cyclist, Drivers were just as much against having to take a test when that was introduced. Doesnt mean it isnt a good idea :-) Sotonians_lets_pull_together
  • Score: 0

1:11pm Mon 15 Apr 13

AFrustratedCyclist says...

Sotonians_lets_pull_

Lets ban or licence legs too while we're at it, a lot of crime is performed by people on foot after all

Idiot!
Sotonians_lets_pull_ Lets ban or licence legs too while we're at it, a lot of crime is performed by people on foot after all Idiot! AFrustratedCyclist
  • Score: 0

1:13pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Sotonians_lets_pull_together says...

Shoebury Cyclist

The black boxes probably will be in cars before long.

When they bring in per mile road pricing, a lot of those things could well come in toom lie it or not.

Many teenagers already take on such boxes in order to cut the cost of their insurance.

The possibilities of raising revenue are too attractive to ignore for governments that are running big deficits.
Shoebury Cyclist The black boxes probably will be in cars before long. When they bring in per mile road pricing, a lot of those things could well come in toom lie it or not. Many teenagers already take on such boxes in order to cut the cost of their insurance. The possibilities of raising revenue are too attractive to ignore for governments that are running big deficits. Sotonians_lets_pull_together
  • Score: 0

1:18pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Gooby! says...

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together
wrote:
Ginger -cyclist

Whatever you want to call it, a tax should be introduced for cylists who want to cycle on the roads.

Call it vehicle excise duty, call it road tax, call it bicycle tax.

I dont care what you call it , if it rolls along the road, tax it, license it and insure it ;-)
Why?
What good would it do?
Do you know?
[quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: Ginger -cyclist Whatever you want to call it, a tax should be introduced for cylists who want to cycle on the roads. Call it vehicle excise duty, call it road tax, call it bicycle tax. I dont care what you call it , if it rolls along the road, tax it, license it and insure it ;-)[/p][/quote]Why? What good would it do? Do you know? Gooby!
  • Score: 0

1:18pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Sotonians_lets_pull_together says...

AFrustrated cyclist

Cyclists benefit from roads, they are in many accidents,they cause quite a few too, there are many cases where the law is broken which are currently uneforced because a police officer seeing a cyclist run a red light cannot take a licence plate number, and cycles can nip off down an alley a car cant follow down.

There are a significant amount of cycling offences, and criminals often use them to get away, because they can less readily be identified and chased.

Licencing would go a long way to solving both problems and raise a lot of money to boot.
AFrustrated cyclist Cyclists benefit from roads, they are in many accidents,they cause quite a few too, there are many cases where the law is broken which are currently uneforced because a police officer seeing a cyclist run a red light cannot take a licence plate number, and cycles can nip off down an alley a car cant follow down. There are a significant amount of cycling offences, and criminals often use them to get away, because they can less readily be identified and chased. Licencing would go a long way to solving both problems and raise a lot of money to boot. Sotonians_lets_pull_together
  • Score: 0

1:18pm Mon 15 Apr 13

elvisimo says...

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together
wrote:
I think maybe £50 to take an official cycling test

£40 for personal number plate to be linked to your license number, not the bike, to be displayed at all times

A road tax for cyclists to go towards the costs of providers the roads and improving the network of cylcing paths £50 per year.

Compulsory insurance for cyclists, linked to the person, not the bike.

Then we could expect to see cyclists being pulled over and breath tested, pulled over for running red lights, cycling on the pavement, cycling without lights on, cycling with due care and attention to aother road users, cycling too close to the vehicle in front.

And of course points on the license, fines, and time in jail for persistent offenders.

Just think how much money this would raised to improve roads and cycle networks, how the fines would help support the costs of the police, how much crime this would prevent (any potential thief in a hoody on a bike in dark clothes late at night with no registration could be pulled over, and the bike confiscated and sold or crushed ), how much crime would be detected (how many valuable bikes would be returned to owners), how this would improve police detection and conviction rates, so many benefits.
Do you seriously think that the cost of creating your er interesting proposal would be offset by 2% of the uk road users that cycling represents.

You then expect our police force to chase after/ run random checks/ breathe test etc etc. Do you not follow the news? are you unaware of the current economic climate?

I think the police have enough problems with motorists? 95% of whom admit speeding. In fact, if you want to really make roads safer look at the last figures published by the DOT regarding deaths and accidents on roads, causes, average speed etc. Slightly more of a problem that the fraction of the 2% of road users that seem to cause you such distress.
[quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: I think maybe £50 to take an official cycling test £40 for personal number plate to be linked to your license number, not the bike, to be displayed at all times A road tax for cyclists to go towards the costs of providers the roads and improving the network of cylcing paths £50 per year. Compulsory insurance for cyclists, linked to the person, not the bike. Then we could expect to see cyclists being pulled over and breath tested, pulled over for running red lights, cycling on the pavement, cycling without lights on, cycling with due care and attention to aother road users, cycling too close to the vehicle in front. And of course points on the license, fines, and time in jail for persistent offenders. Just think how much money this would raised to improve roads and cycle networks, how the fines would help support the costs of the police, how much crime this would prevent (any potential thief in a hoody on a bike in dark clothes late at night with no registration could be pulled over, and the bike confiscated and sold or crushed [after checking whether it was stolen and possibly returned]), how much crime would be detected (how many valuable bikes would be returned to owners), how this would improve police detection and conviction rates, so many benefits.[/p][/quote]Do you seriously think that the cost of creating your er interesting proposal would be offset by 2% of the uk road users that cycling represents. You then expect our police force to chase after/ run random checks/ breathe test etc etc. Do you not follow the news? are you unaware of the current economic climate? I think the police have enough problems with motorists? 95% of whom admit speeding. In fact, if you want to really make roads safer look at the last figures published by the DOT regarding deaths and accidents on roads, causes, average speed etc. Slightly more of a problem that the fraction of the 2% of road users that seem to cause you such distress. elvisimo
  • Score: 0

1:19pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together
wrote:
Shoebury_cyclist,
Drivers were just as much against having to take a test when that was introduced.

Doesnt mean it isnt a good idea :-)
Drivers and cyclists are the same people. How are you not getting that?


Oh and by the way, roads were first hard surfaced for bicycles, not for cars.

Cyclists were here first, not drivers.
[quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: Shoebury_cyclist, Drivers were just as much against having to take a test when that was introduced. Doesnt mean it isnt a good idea :-)[/p][/quote]Drivers and cyclists are the same people. How are you not getting that? Oh and by the way, roads were first hard surfaced for bicycles, not for cars. Cyclists were here first, not drivers. Shoebury_Cyclist
  • Score: 0

1:21pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Sotonians_lets_pull_together says...

Gooby!

Tax raising of iteslef is enough of a reason. What good does it do to tax you through VAT when you buy your bike? That is already a tax on cycling.

I am just suggesting that cyclists need to be treated with equality and respect

That includes the right to have to take a test, the right to have to display a license plate, the right to be caught when you commit an offence, the right to pay taxes to help fund the road network, the cycle path network, and our glorious nation.

No representation without taxation!
Gooby! Tax raising of iteslef is enough of a reason. What good does it do to tax you through VAT when you buy your bike? That is already a tax on cycling. I am just suggesting that cyclists need to be treated with equality and respect That includes the right to have to take a test, the right to have to display a license plate, the right to be caught when you commit an offence, the right to pay taxes to help fund the road network, the cycle path network, and our glorious nation. No representation without taxation! Sotonians_lets_pull_together
  • Score: 0

1:23pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Gooby! says...

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together
wrote:
AFrustrated cyclist

Cyclists benefit from roads, they are in many accidents,they cause quite a few too, there are many cases where the law is broken which are currently uneforced because a police officer seeing a cyclist run a red light cannot take a licence plate number, and cycles can nip off down an alley a car cant follow down.

There are a significant amount of cycling offences, and criminals often use them to get away, because they can less readily be identified and chased.

Licencing would go a long way to solving both problems and raise a lot of money to boot.
How would it raise money?. The licence cost for a cycle would have to be minimal. A few pennies to a few pounds. It would be un-enforceable as there is no age limit on minors using the road to cycle.
The infrastructure to administer such a sceme would cost £billions to put into place.

Well done for thinking it through. Top marks.
[quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: AFrustrated cyclist Cyclists benefit from roads, they are in many accidents,they cause quite a few too, there are many cases where the law is broken which are currently uneforced because a police officer seeing a cyclist run a red light cannot take a licence plate number, and cycles can nip off down an alley a car cant follow down. There are a significant amount of cycling offences, and criminals often use them to get away, because they can less readily be identified and chased. Licencing would go a long way to solving both problems and raise a lot of money to boot.[/p][/quote]How would it raise money?. The licence cost for a cycle would have to be minimal. A few pennies to a few pounds. It would be un-enforceable as there is no age limit on minors using the road to cycle. The infrastructure to administer such a sceme would cost £billions to put into place. Well done for thinking it through. Top marks. Gooby!
  • Score: 0

1:27pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Sotonians_lets_pull_together says...

Shoebury Cyclist,

Yes, I know many cyclists and drivers are the same people.

That is a strength in the argumenyt not a weakness.

The more major license would take priority.

If you have a driving licence, you would automatically be linked to your cycling licence, most children would get a cycling license, at say 14. Best if you would only have one licence, and when you add driving onto it, it would just be another class.

This would mean children would be likely to better and more responsible drivers at 17 too, when they later take a car driving test.

If you then as a cyclist run a red light, you would receive three points on your license, which covers you as a car driver, as a cyclist, as motor bike rider, whatever.

It would put up the cost of your insurance on every vehicle you drive/ride

Suddenly I think we would see some much better cycling out there!
Shoebury Cyclist, Yes, I know many cyclists and drivers are the same people. That is a strength in the argumenyt not a weakness. The more major license would take priority. If you have a driving licence, you would automatically be linked to your cycling licence, most children would get a cycling license, at say 14. Best if you would only have one licence, and when you add driving onto it, it would just be another class. This would mean children would be likely to better and more responsible drivers at 17 too, when they later take a car driving test. If you then as a cyclist run a red light, you would receive three points on your license, which covers you as a car driver, as a cyclist, as motor bike rider, whatever. It would put up the cost of your insurance on every vehicle you drive/ride Suddenly I think we would see some much better cycling out there! Sotonians_lets_pull_together
  • Score: 0

1:30pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Sotonians_lets_pull_together says...

Gooby!

Just because there isnt an age limit for cycling on the road now, doesnt mean that there shouldnt be one.

Noone under 9 should be cycling on the roads.

They shouldnt be crossing a road on their own, let alone cycling.

"Young children (up to the age of 9) can’t judge distance in the same way as adults. They don’t know how fast a car or bike is going, and how long they have to cross the road."

http://capt.org.uk/s
afety-advice/staying
-safe-when-youre-out
-and-about
Gooby! Just because there isnt an age limit for cycling on the road now, doesnt mean that there shouldnt be one. Noone under 9 should be cycling on the roads. They shouldnt be crossing a road on their own, let alone cycling. "Young children (up to the age of 9) can’t judge distance in the same way as adults. They don’t know how fast a car or bike is going, and how long they have to cross the road." http://capt.org.uk/s afety-advice/staying -safe-when-youre-out -and-about Sotonians_lets_pull_together
  • Score: 0

1:32pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Ginger_cyclist says...

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together
wrote:
Ginger-cyclist

ridiculous bringing tractors into it. we are talking about a cycling event, and how too mant of the cyclists ignored both the highway code, and the instructions of the event organisers.

Having got it wrong several times, you are now just trying to muddy the waters even more.

You could not hold an event for 1800 tractors, if such an event could take place, it should be subject to license, and I would vote against that licence being approved too.

It would also be pretty inconvenient if they were ignoring the highway code, but having registration numbers, being taxed and licenced, they could be pretty quickly pulled over and prosecuted.
Errr... You do know what agriculture fairs and stuff are don't you? Because they have large numbers of tractors involved that are all driven to the event, you know what, your level of stupidity is so high, that you're the only person who has ever achieved it.
[quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: Ginger-cyclist ridiculous bringing tractors into it. we are talking about a cycling event, and how too mant of the cyclists ignored both the highway code, and the instructions of the event organisers. Having got it wrong several times, you are now just trying to muddy the waters even more. You could not hold an event for 1800 tractors, if such an event could take place, it should be subject to license, and I would vote against that licence being approved too. It would also be pretty inconvenient if they were ignoring the highway code, but having registration numbers, being taxed and licenced, they could be pretty quickly pulled over and prosecuted.[/p][/quote]Errr... You do know what agriculture fairs and stuff are don't you? Because they have large numbers of tractors involved that are all driven to the event, you know what, your level of stupidity is so high, that you're the only person who has ever achieved it. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

1:34pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Sotonians_lets_pull_together says...

elvisimo,

Police do take steps to catch and proscute car crime. That is because it counts in their figures, and the revenue raised makes it worthwhile

Cyclists should be fined just as much as a driver for running a red light.

The vehicles they potentially collide with or endanger, or cause to swerve have to be licensed and accountable, it is a nonsense that they should not be.

If cyclists were already compulsorily taxed licensed and insured there would be an outcry if people suggested deregulating it, and quite rightly too!
elvisimo, Police do take steps to catch and proscute car crime. That is because it counts in their figures, and the revenue raised makes it worthwhile Cyclists should be fined just as much as a driver for running a red light. The vehicles they potentially collide with or endanger, or cause to swerve have to be licensed and accountable, it is a nonsense that they should not be. If cyclists were already compulsorily taxed licensed and insured there would be an outcry if people suggested deregulating it, and quite rightly too! Sotonians_lets_pull_together
  • Score: 0

1:35pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Torchie1 says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Sotonians_lets_pull_



together
wrote:
Ginger_cyclist,
Interesting if it wasnt officially a race.

I wonder how many of the participants treat it as a race though, how many record their times, how many race their friends, or whether even there are lists of unofficial race times out there on cycling forums by people who have their own races within such "non-race events".
Well, you are timed on these events but times aren't published by the organisers, they are given to the riders at the end as a personal target to beat, so really, they only ever race themselves but as with anything, a tiny minority will put those times online as if they were racing and to challenge others to "race" the clock to beat their time, no doubt people also time themselves at the skyride events and do the same, it's obviously not a race yet they treat it like one, so yes, there is in all probability, a tiny handful of riders who are like that.
Wrong once again. A couple of clicks on the organisers website will take you to a pdf showing approximately 1800 individual names, times, standards and 'race numbers'. http://www.ukcycling


events.co.uk/rider-t


imes/nf_wss_nf_sprin


g_saturday.pdf
Doesn't change the fact that it wasn't a race as they have stated several times along with the local authority on their own website.
I'm quoting the organisers 'Wiggle' website which is available for all to see. I'm not interpretting their wording 'race number', I'm simply repeating it verbatim. The same website does call the event a 'sportive' to avoid having to conform to extra rules imposed on a 'race' as the desecration of the road signs is being called 'high jinks' to avoid any charges of vandalism.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: Ginger_cyclist, Interesting if it wasnt officially a race. I wonder how many of the participants treat it as a race though, how many record their times, how many race their friends, or whether even there are lists of unofficial race times out there on cycling forums by people who have their own races within such "non-race events".[/p][/quote]Well, you are timed on these events but times aren't published by the organisers, they are given to the riders at the end as a personal target to beat, so really, they only ever race themselves but as with anything, a tiny minority will put those times online as if they were racing and to challenge others to "race" the clock to beat their time, no doubt people also time themselves at the skyride events and do the same, it's obviously not a race yet they treat it like one, so yes, there is in all probability, a tiny handful of riders who are like that.[/p][/quote]Wrong once again. A couple of clicks on the organisers website will take you to a pdf showing approximately 1800 individual names, times, standards and 'race numbers'. http://www.ukcycling events.co.uk/rider-t imes/nf_wss_nf_sprin g_saturday.pdf[/p][/quote]Doesn't change the fact that it wasn't a race as they have stated several times along with the local authority on their own website.[/p][/quote]I'm quoting the organisers 'Wiggle' website which is available for all to see. I'm not interpretting their wording 'race number', I'm simply repeating it verbatim. The same website does call the event a 'sportive' to avoid having to conform to extra rules imposed on a 'race' as the desecration of the road signs is being called 'high jinks' to avoid any charges of vandalism. Torchie1
  • Score: 0

1:37pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Mike_D says...

I had planned to stay out of this, but Sotonians_lets_pull_
together really is the comedy gift that keeps on giving.

"I am just suggesting that cyclists need to be treated with equality and respect"

No you're not. You're a selfish cyclist-hating idiot. The key point you (presumably intentionally) refuse to grasp is that motor vehicles require a license to operate because they're potentially very dangerous to other road users. You may have noticed that it's considerably harder to obtain a license to drive an articulated truck or double-decker bus than it is for a moped. This is in direct proportion to the potential amount of damage or injury those vehicles could cause if operated incompetently or irresponsibly. The reason you can just hop on a bike and ride it is because, apart from under spectacularly rare and unlikely circumstances, the only person at risk is you. Cyclists are the most vulnerable road users, they deserve to have the law stacked in their favour.
I had planned to stay out of this, but Sotonians_lets_pull_ together really is the comedy gift that keeps on giving. "I am just suggesting that cyclists need to be treated with equality and respect" No you're not. You're a selfish cyclist-hating idiot. The key point you (presumably intentionally) refuse to grasp is that motor vehicles require a license to operate because they're potentially very dangerous to other road users. You may have noticed that it's considerably harder to obtain a license to drive an articulated truck or double-decker bus than it is for a moped. This is in direct proportion to the potential amount of damage or injury those vehicles could cause if operated incompetently or irresponsibly. The reason you can just hop on a bike and ride it is because, apart from under spectacularly rare and unlikely circumstances, the only person at risk is you. Cyclists are the most vulnerable road users, they deserve to have the law stacked in their favour. Mike_D
  • Score: 0

1:39pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Ginger_cyclist says...

Torchie1 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Sotonians_lets_pull_




together
wrote:
Ginger_cyclist,
Interesting if it wasnt officially a race.

I wonder how many of the participants treat it as a race though, how many record their times, how many race their friends, or whether even there are lists of unofficial race times out there on cycling forums by people who have their own races within such "non-race events".
Well, you are timed on these events but times aren't published by the organisers, they are given to the riders at the end as a personal target to beat, so really, they only ever race themselves but as with anything, a tiny minority will put those times online as if they were racing and to challenge others to "race" the clock to beat their time, no doubt people also time themselves at the skyride events and do the same, it's obviously not a race yet they treat it like one, so yes, there is in all probability, a tiny handful of riders who are like that.
Wrong once again. A couple of clicks on the organisers website will take you to a pdf showing approximately 1800 individual names, times, standards and 'race numbers'. http://www.ukcycling



events.co.uk/rider-t



imes/nf_wss_nf_sprin



g_saturday.pdf
Doesn't change the fact that it wasn't a race as they have stated several times along with the local authority on their own website.
I'm quoting the organisers 'Wiggle' website which is available for all to see. I'm not interpretting their wording 'race number', I'm simply repeating it verbatim. The same website does call the event a 'sportive' to avoid having to conform to extra rules imposed on a 'race' as the desecration of the road signs is being called 'high jinks' to avoid any charges of vandalism.
And riders would have been told to not treat it as a race, the majority of whom would have listened.
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: Ginger_cyclist, Interesting if it wasnt officially a race. I wonder how many of the participants treat it as a race though, how many record their times, how many race their friends, or whether even there are lists of unofficial race times out there on cycling forums by people who have their own races within such "non-race events".[/p][/quote]Well, you are timed on these events but times aren't published by the organisers, they are given to the riders at the end as a personal target to beat, so really, they only ever race themselves but as with anything, a tiny minority will put those times online as if they were racing and to challenge others to "race" the clock to beat their time, no doubt people also time themselves at the skyride events and do the same, it's obviously not a race yet they treat it like one, so yes, there is in all probability, a tiny handful of riders who are like that.[/p][/quote]Wrong once again. A couple of clicks on the organisers website will take you to a pdf showing approximately 1800 individual names, times, standards and 'race numbers'. http://www.ukcycling events.co.uk/rider-t imes/nf_wss_nf_sprin g_saturday.pdf[/p][/quote]Doesn't change the fact that it wasn't a race as they have stated several times along with the local authority on their own website.[/p][/quote]I'm quoting the organisers 'Wiggle' website which is available for all to see. I'm not interpretting their wording 'race number', I'm simply repeating it verbatim. The same website does call the event a 'sportive' to avoid having to conform to extra rules imposed on a 'race' as the desecration of the road signs is being called 'high jinks' to avoid any charges of vandalism.[/p][/quote]And riders would have been told to not treat it as a race, the majority of whom would have listened. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

1:39pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Sotonians_lets_pull_together says...

Ginger-cylcist,

yes, havin been proved wrong on a number of counts, as I said, you are trying to muddy the waters with nonsense about tractors.

You dont get tractor road races of 1800 vehicles running through the forest, and if it was proposed it would be blocked by the police on safety grounds.

There are things like Blandford Steam fair which are a horrendous disruption. If people wish to argue that Blandford is too big an disruptive I would probably agree with them. I would imagine that organisers work with police to minimise disruption when the vehicles make their way to and from the ground.
I for one avoid the area as I know how disruptive it is.

Feel free to continue to muddy the waters if you wish to distract further from what a good idea it is to make sure all cyclists are licensed taxed and insured.
Ginger-cylcist, yes, havin been proved wrong on a number of counts, as I said, you are trying to muddy the waters with nonsense about tractors. You dont get tractor road races of 1800 vehicles running through the forest, and if it was proposed it would be blocked by the police on safety grounds. There are things like Blandford Steam fair which are a horrendous disruption. If people wish to argue that Blandford is too big an disruptive I would probably agree with them. I would imagine that organisers work with police to minimise disruption when the vehicles make their way to and from the ground. I for one avoid the area as I know how disruptive it is. Feel free to continue to muddy the waters if you wish to distract further from what a good idea it is to make sure all cyclists are licensed taxed and insured. Sotonians_lets_pull_together
  • Score: 0

1:40pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Ginger_cyclist says...

Mike_D wrote:
I had planned to stay out of this, but Sotonians_lets_pull_

together really is the comedy gift that keeps on giving.

"I am just suggesting that cyclists need to be treated with equality and respect"

No you're not. You're a selfish cyclist-hating idiot. The key point you (presumably intentionally) refuse to grasp is that motor vehicles require a license to operate because they're potentially very dangerous to other road users. You may have noticed that it's considerably harder to obtain a license to drive an articulated truck or double-decker bus than it is for a moped. This is in direct proportion to the potential amount of damage or injury those vehicles could cause if operated incompetently or irresponsibly. The reason you can just hop on a bike and ride it is because, apart from under spectacularly rare and unlikely circumstances, the only person at risk is you. Cyclists are the most vulnerable road users, they deserve to have the law stacked in their favour.
I wouldn't bother, they are at such a height in stupidity, that not even another stupid person could argue with them.
[quote][p][bold]Mike_D[/bold] wrote: I had planned to stay out of this, but Sotonians_lets_pull_ together really is the comedy gift that keeps on giving. "I am just suggesting that cyclists need to be treated with equality and respect" No you're not. You're a selfish cyclist-hating idiot. The key point you (presumably intentionally) refuse to grasp is that motor vehicles require a license to operate because they're potentially very dangerous to other road users. You may have noticed that it's considerably harder to obtain a license to drive an articulated truck or double-decker bus than it is for a moped. This is in direct proportion to the potential amount of damage or injury those vehicles could cause if operated incompetently or irresponsibly. The reason you can just hop on a bike and ride it is because, apart from under spectacularly rare and unlikely circumstances, the only person at risk is you. Cyclists are the most vulnerable road users, they deserve to have the law stacked in their favour.[/p][/quote]I wouldn't bother, they are at such a height in stupidity, that not even another stupid person could argue with them. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

1:45pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Sotonians_lets_pull_together says...

Quite right Torchie.

Perhaps the law re cycle races need to be tightened up so that anything that looks like a race, takes place on the roads, and has over a certain number of participants has to be considered a race by default.

I dont personally think it is right that events such as this one dont get considered a race, and what ever rules , regulations, laws or guidelines that allow this need to be changed.

A race that is unlicenced should b a crime for both the organisers and participants.

If the cyclists had to have their cycling on roads and cycling offences linked to their driving license they could be fined, given points, and potentially even banned from driving (and therefore of course, cycling).
Quite right Torchie. Perhaps the law re cycle races need to be tightened up so that anything that looks like a race, takes place on the roads, and has over a certain number of participants has to be considered a race by default. I dont personally think it is right that events such as this one dont get considered a race, and what ever rules , regulations, laws or guidelines that allow this need to be changed. A race that is unlicenced should b a crime for both the organisers and participants. If the cyclists had to have their cycling on roads and cycling offences linked to their driving license they could be fined, given points, and potentially even banned from driving (and therefore of course, cycling). Sotonians_lets_pull_together
  • Score: 0

1:46pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

Mike_D wrote:
I had planned to stay out of this, but Sotonians_lets_pull_

together really is the comedy gift that keeps on giving.

"I am just suggesting that cyclists need to be treated with equality and respect"

No you're not. You're a selfish cyclist-hating idiot. The key point you (presumably intentionally) refuse to grasp is that motor vehicles require a license to operate because they're potentially very dangerous to other road users. You may have noticed that it's considerably harder to obtain a license to drive an articulated truck or double-decker bus than it is for a moped. This is in direct proportion to the potential amount of damage or injury those vehicles could cause if operated incompetently or irresponsibly. The reason you can just hop on a bike and ride it is because, apart from under spectacularly rare and unlikely circumstances, the only person at risk is you. Cyclists are the most vulnerable road users, they deserve to have the law stacked in their favour.
Hear hear.
[quote][p][bold]Mike_D[/bold] wrote: I had planned to stay out of this, but Sotonians_lets_pull_ together really is the comedy gift that keeps on giving. "I am just suggesting that cyclists need to be treated with equality and respect" No you're not. You're a selfish cyclist-hating idiot. The key point you (presumably intentionally) refuse to grasp is that motor vehicles require a license to operate because they're potentially very dangerous to other road users. You may have noticed that it's considerably harder to obtain a license to drive an articulated truck or double-decker bus than it is for a moped. This is in direct proportion to the potential amount of damage or injury those vehicles could cause if operated incompetently or irresponsibly. The reason you can just hop on a bike and ride it is because, apart from under spectacularly rare and unlikely circumstances, the only person at risk is you. Cyclists are the most vulnerable road users, they deserve to have the law stacked in their favour.[/p][/quote]Hear hear. Shoebury_Cyclist
  • Score: 0

1:47pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Dave Juson says...

I think you are wrong there Ginger Cyclist. In fact, I’d hazard that they could spend all day violently agreeing with each other.
I think you are wrong there Ginger Cyclist. In fact, I’d hazard that they could spend all day violently agreeing with each other. Dave Juson
  • Score: 0

1:48pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Mike_D says...

Mm. As Mark Twain apparently said, "Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."

And with that, I'm out.
Mm. As Mark Twain apparently said, "Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience." And with that, I'm out. Mike_D
  • Score: 0

1:48pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together
wrote:
Quite right Torchie.

Perhaps the law re cycle races need to be tightened up so that anything that looks like a race, takes place on the roads, and has over a certain number of participants has to be considered a race by default.

I dont personally think it is right that events such as this one dont get considered a race, and what ever rules , regulations, laws or guidelines that allow this need to be changed.

A race that is unlicenced should b a crime for both the organisers and participants.

If the cyclists had to have their cycling on roads and cycling offences linked to their driving license they could be fined, given points, and potentially even banned from driving (and therefore of course, cycling).
In that case we have to clamp down on every driver using a motorway or dual carriageway, because nearly all of them 'look like they're racing' to me.
[quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: Quite right Torchie. Perhaps the law re cycle races need to be tightened up so that anything that looks like a race, takes place on the roads, and has over a certain number of participants has to be considered a race by default. I dont personally think it is right that events such as this one dont get considered a race, and what ever rules , regulations, laws or guidelines that allow this need to be changed. A race that is unlicenced should b a crime for both the organisers and participants. If the cyclists had to have their cycling on roads and cycling offences linked to their driving license they could be fined, given points, and potentially even banned from driving (and therefore of course, cycling).[/p][/quote]In that case we have to clamp down on every driver using a motorway or dual carriageway, because nearly all of them 'look like they're racing' to me. Shoebury_Cyclist
  • Score: 0

1:53pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Ginger_cyclist says...

Dave Juson wrote:
I think you are wrong there Ginger Cyclist. In fact, I’d hazard that they could spend all day violently agreeing with each other.
You're probably right.
[quote][p][bold]Dave Juson[/bold] wrote: I think you are wrong there Ginger Cyclist. In fact, I’d hazard that they could spend all day violently agreeing with each other.[/p][/quote]You're probably right. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

1:53pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Sotonians_lets_pull_together says...

Mike_D,

Cyclists always choose not to get how dangerous they are when they break the law

Put it this way.

If a cyclist ran a red light at a junction, people would brake.

If the only chance to avoid killing a cyclist pulling out in front of me was to swerve, many would do so, even into the path of other traffic, as the cyclist is the one without a big metal suit to protect them.

Even if it meant the driver was at risk of death and injury to do so, many people would rather hit a car than a cyclist.

Not all people would think that the cyclist was an idiot and deserved to die.

Even if the car driver swerved and just hit a curb, a sideways impact at 15mph can be sufficient to cause a car to roll, which could lead to the occupants of that or other vehicles coming to significant harm.

Is it right that cyclists are able to zip about ignoring the law and highway code and putting others at risk with impunity, nver getting caught, nver being subject to compulsory education, to points on a license, to fines,to bans, to jail?

Of course not. Cyclits deserve respect of course. They deserve equality.

But cyclists must take responsibility for what that means and accept that the responsible cyclists need to accept licensing, taxing and insurance for the sake of everyone, because a minority of cyclists are stupifd and dangerous, in the same way that car drivers have to.
Mike_D, Cyclists always choose not to get how dangerous they are when they break the law Put it this way. If a cyclist ran a red light at a junction, people would brake. If the only chance to avoid killing a cyclist pulling out in front of me was to swerve, many would do so, even into the path of other traffic, as the cyclist is the one without a big metal suit to protect them. Even if it meant the driver was at risk of death and injury to do so, many people would rather hit a car than a cyclist. Not all people would think that the cyclist was an idiot and deserved to die. Even if the car driver swerved and just hit a curb, a sideways impact at 15mph can be sufficient to cause a car to roll, which could lead to the occupants of that or other vehicles coming to significant harm. Is it right that cyclists are able to zip about ignoring the law and highway code and putting others at risk with impunity, nver getting caught, nver being subject to compulsory education, to points on a license, to fines,to bans, to jail? Of course not. Cyclits deserve respect of course. They deserve equality. But cyclists must take responsibility for what that means and accept that the responsible cyclists need to accept licensing, taxing and insurance for the sake of everyone, because a minority of cyclists are stupifd and dangerous, in the same way that car drivers have to. Sotonians_lets_pull_together
  • Score: 0

1:55pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together
wrote:
Mike_D,

Cyclists always choose not to get how dangerous they are when they break the law

Put it this way.

If a cyclist ran a red light at a junction, people would brake.

If the only chance to avoid killing a cyclist pulling out in front of me was to swerve, many would do so, even into the path of other traffic, as the cyclist is the one without a big metal suit to protect them.

Even if it meant the driver was at risk of death and injury to do so, many people would rather hit a car than a cyclist.

Not all people would think that the cyclist was an idiot and deserved to die.

Even if the car driver swerved and just hit a curb, a sideways impact at 15mph can be sufficient to cause a car to roll, which could lead to the occupants of that or other vehicles coming to significant harm.

Is it right that cyclists are able to zip about ignoring the law and highway code and putting others at risk with impunity, nver getting caught, nver being subject to compulsory education, to points on a license, to fines,to bans, to jail?

Of course not. Cyclits deserve respect of course. They deserve equality.

But cyclists must take responsibility for what that means and accept that the responsible cyclists need to accept licensing, taxing and insurance for the sake of everyone, because a minority of cyclists are stupifd and dangerous, in the same way that car drivers have to.
If you have to 'swerve' to avoid a cyclist then it is your driving at fault, through driving too close to the cyclist, or driving to fast, or not adequately anticipating other road users.
[quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: Mike_D, Cyclists always choose not to get how dangerous they are when they break the law Put it this way. If a cyclist ran a red light at a junction, people would brake. If the only chance to avoid killing a cyclist pulling out in front of me was to swerve, many would do so, even into the path of other traffic, as the cyclist is the one without a big metal suit to protect them. Even if it meant the driver was at risk of death and injury to do so, many people would rather hit a car than a cyclist. Not all people would think that the cyclist was an idiot and deserved to die. Even if the car driver swerved and just hit a curb, a sideways impact at 15mph can be sufficient to cause a car to roll, which could lead to the occupants of that or other vehicles coming to significant harm. Is it right that cyclists are able to zip about ignoring the law and highway code and putting others at risk with impunity, nver getting caught, nver being subject to compulsory education, to points on a license, to fines,to bans, to jail? Of course not. Cyclits deserve respect of course. They deserve equality. But cyclists must take responsibility for what that means and accept that the responsible cyclists need to accept licensing, taxing and insurance for the sake of everyone, because a minority of cyclists are stupifd and dangerous, in the same way that car drivers have to.[/p][/quote]If you have to 'swerve' to avoid a cyclist then it is your driving at fault, through driving too close to the cyclist, or driving to fast, or not adequately anticipating other road users. Shoebury_Cyclist
  • Score: 0

1:56pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Ginger_cyclist says...

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Sotonians_lets_pull_

together
wrote:
Quite right Torchie.

Perhaps the law re cycle races need to be tightened up so that anything that looks like a race, takes place on the roads, and has over a certain number of participants has to be considered a race by default.

I dont personally think it is right that events such as this one dont get considered a race, and what ever rules , regulations, laws or guidelines that allow this need to be changed.

A race that is unlicenced should b a crime for both the organisers and participants.

If the cyclists had to have their cycling on roads and cycling offences linked to their driving license they could be fined, given points, and potentially even banned from driving (and therefore of course, cycling).
In that case we have to clamp down on every driver using a motorway or dual carriageway, because nearly all of them 'look like they're racing' to me.
But they are racing, racing each other to the next junction, it's dangerous, we should make a separate licence for motorways for each type of vehicle allowed on the motorways even though it would be pointless and cost too much... I wonder who that sounds like?
[quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: Quite right Torchie. Perhaps the law re cycle races need to be tightened up so that anything that looks like a race, takes place on the roads, and has over a certain number of participants has to be considered a race by default. I dont personally think it is right that events such as this one dont get considered a race, and what ever rules , regulations, laws or guidelines that allow this need to be changed. A race that is unlicenced should b a crime for both the organisers and participants. If the cyclists had to have their cycling on roads and cycling offences linked to their driving license they could be fined, given points, and potentially even banned from driving (and therefore of course, cycling).[/p][/quote]In that case we have to clamp down on every driver using a motorway or dual carriageway, because nearly all of them 'look like they're racing' to me.[/p][/quote]But they are racing, racing each other to the next junction, it's dangerous, we should make a separate licence for motorways for each type of vehicle allowed on the motorways even though it would be pointless and cost too much... I wonder who that sounds like? Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

2:01pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Sotonians_lets_pull_together says...

Shoebury Cyclist -

what nonsense.

I am givign you a sitiation where a car driving is driving safely and responsibly through a green light and a cyclist runs a red light to go straight in the path of the car.

This happens every day.

Many cyclists get killed this way - they must do, there are that many of them that do it!

Most of the time people brake.

Sometimes drivers will swerve either instinctively or to preserve the life of the idiot that has just cycled straight out in front of them.

In a proportion of cases these drivers will end up being in accidents with other vehicles, despite the cyclist being long gone.

If that was a driver, they would be subject to points, a ban, fines, jail etc.

It shouldnt be any different for cyclists, but there will never be effective enforcement until cyclists are licensed taxed and insured by law.
Shoebury Cyclist - what nonsense. I am givign you a sitiation where a car driving is driving safely and responsibly through a green light and a cyclist runs a red light to go straight in the path of the car. This happens every day. Many cyclists get killed this way - they must do, there are that many of them that do it! Most of the time people brake. Sometimes drivers will swerve either instinctively or to preserve the life of the idiot that has just cycled straight out in front of them. In a proportion of cases these drivers will end up being in accidents with other vehicles, despite the cyclist being long gone. If that was a driver, they would be subject to points, a ban, fines, jail etc. It shouldnt be any different for cyclists, but there will never be effective enforcement until cyclists are licensed taxed and insured by law. Sotonians_lets_pull_together
  • Score: 0

2:03pm Mon 15 Apr 13

binghammac says...

Go away cyclists and leave the New Forest in peace. The residents do not want you lot here.
Go away cyclists and leave the New Forest in peace. The residents do not want you lot here. binghammac
  • Score: 0

2:04pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Sotonians_lets_pull_together says...

Ginger & Shoebury,

A police officer and a witness can proseccute any driver for acting without due care and attention, and driving dangerously.

People can get pulled over for driving like its a race track, and do.

I have no problem with that, just saying that cyclists need equality, and the same laws that apply o them should be enforceable. That would require licensing, taxation, insurance.
Ginger & Shoebury, A police officer and a witness can proseccute any driver for acting without due care and attention, and driving dangerously. People can get pulled over for driving like its a race track, and do. I have no problem with that, just saying that cyclists need equality, and the same laws that apply o them should be enforceable. That would require licensing, taxation, insurance. Sotonians_lets_pull_together
  • Score: 0

2:09pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Ginger_cyclist says...

binghammac wrote:
Go away cyclists and leave the New Forest in peace. The residents do not want you lot here.
So you'd rather have loud, deadly, polluting vehicles moving at 40+mph through the forest killing animals and possibly locals? Great one, great way to protect the area... NOT!!!
[quote][p][bold]binghammac[/bold] wrote: Go away cyclists and leave the New Forest in peace. The residents do not want you lot here.[/p][/quote]So you'd rather have loud, deadly, polluting vehicles moving at 40+mph through the forest killing animals and possibly locals? Great one, great way to protect the area... NOT!!! Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

2:09pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Sotonians_lets_pull_together says...

binghammac,


I take issue with that, I would suggest the residents have nothing against cyclists that follow the highway code and are considerate to other road users.

While most probably wouldnt be in favour of big events like this being held on the roads, and I would agree with them, if the cyclists were compelled by law to cycle in single file, and should typically keep in to the inside (depending of course on the condition of the road surface) to allow other road users to make reasonable and safe progress (at peril of being charged with cycling without due consideration to other road users if they do not), then there would probably be much better support.
binghammac, I take issue with that, I would suggest the residents have nothing against cyclists that follow the highway code and are considerate to other road users. While most probably wouldnt be in favour of big events like this being held on the roads, and I would agree with them, if the cyclists were compelled by law to cycle in single file, and should typically keep in to the inside (depending of course on the condition of the road surface) to allow other road users to make reasonable and safe progress (at peril of being charged with cycling without due consideration to other road users if they do not), then there would probably be much better support. Sotonians_lets_pull_together
  • Score: 0

2:10pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Inform Al says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Sotonians_lets_pull_


together
wrote:
Quite right Torchie.

Perhaps the law re cycle races need to be tightened up so that anything that looks like a race, takes place on the roads, and has over a certain number of participants has to be considered a race by default.

I dont personally think it is right that events such as this one dont get considered a race, and what ever rules , regulations, laws or guidelines that allow this need to be changed.

A race that is unlicenced should b a crime for both the organisers and participants.

If the cyclists had to have their cycling on roads and cycling offences linked to their driving license they could be fined, given points, and potentially even banned from driving (and therefore of course, cycling).
In that case we have to clamp down on every driver using a motorway or dual carriageway, because nearly all of them 'look like they're racing' to me.
But they are racing, racing each other to the next junction, it's dangerous, we should make a separate licence for motorways for each type of vehicle allowed on the motorways even though it would be pointless and cost too much... I wonder who that sounds like?
Putting tacks on the road was a stupid and cowardly thing to do but I had to chuckle at the thought of slow moving cars holding up cyclists. Wish I had the patience to drive that slow.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: Quite right Torchie. Perhaps the law re cycle races need to be tightened up so that anything that looks like a race, takes place on the roads, and has over a certain number of participants has to be considered a race by default. I dont personally think it is right that events such as this one dont get considered a race, and what ever rules , regulations, laws or guidelines that allow this need to be changed. A race that is unlicenced should b a crime for both the organisers and participants. If the cyclists had to have their cycling on roads and cycling offences linked to their driving license they could be fined, given points, and potentially even banned from driving (and therefore of course, cycling).[/p][/quote]In that case we have to clamp down on every driver using a motorway or dual carriageway, because nearly all of them 'look like they're racing' to me.[/p][/quote]But they are racing, racing each other to the next junction, it's dangerous, we should make a separate licence for motorways for each type of vehicle allowed on the motorways even though it would be pointless and cost too much... I wonder who that sounds like?[/p][/quote]Putting tacks on the road was a stupid and cowardly thing to do but I had to chuckle at the thought of slow moving cars holding up cyclists. Wish I had the patience to drive that slow. Inform Al
  • Score: 0

2:11pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Sotonians_lets_pull_together says...

"Ginger_cyclist says...
2:09pm Mon 15 Apr 13

So you'd rather have loud, deadly, polluting vehicles moving at 40+mph through the forest killing animals and possibly locals? Great one, great way to protect the area... NOT!!!"

I do not agree with binghammac, but your comment is ridiculous. There are speed limits in the forest, and locals are fully in favour of them being enforced, for the safety of cyclists, livestock, wildlife and other drivers.
"Ginger_cyclist says... 2:09pm Mon 15 Apr 13 So you'd rather have loud, deadly, polluting vehicles moving at 40+mph through the forest killing animals and possibly locals? Great one, great way to protect the area... NOT!!!" I do not agree with binghammac, but your comment is ridiculous. There are speed limits in the forest, and locals are fully in favour of them being enforced, for the safety of cyclists, livestock, wildlife and other drivers. Sotonians_lets_pull_together
  • Score: 0

2:14pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Ellwood says...

@ Sotonians_lets_pull_
together ............hear hear! Well argued points throughout this debate.... fair play to you.
@ Sotonians_lets_pull_ together ............hear hear! Well argued points throughout this debate.... fair play to you. Ellwood
  • Score: 0

2:15pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Sotonians_lets_pull_together says...

Thanks Ellwood
Thanks Ellwood Sotonians_lets_pull_together
  • Score: 0

2:16pm Mon 15 Apr 13

redsnapper says...

The argument for taxation is ridiculous, with the huge proven incompetence of central and local government in applying taxes or even setting up the registration of a new revenue source the cost to the hugely incompetent exchequer would be 100% more than revenue.

As for the selfish Forest NIMBYS on this site get on your bike and join the fun and stop being such miseries.
The argument for taxation is ridiculous, with the huge proven incompetence of central and local government in applying taxes or even setting up the registration of a new revenue source the cost to the hugely incompetent exchequer would be 100% more than revenue. As for the selfish Forest NIMBYS on this site get on your bike and join the fun and stop being such miseries. redsnapper
  • Score: 0

2:21pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Sotonians_lets_pull_together says...

redsnapper,

Just because there is an argument for things to be done more efficiently and cost effectively by local and national government, does not mean that those things are not necesssarily worth doing at all.

By that token the government, health service, police, army, councils etc should all shut up shop just because they are inefficient.

No, they do need to get involved and engage in the problems and deliver solutions and services, they just need to do it well.
redsnapper, Just because there is an argument for things to be done more efficiently and cost effectively by local and national government, does not mean that those things are not necesssarily worth doing at all. By that token the government, health service, police, army, councils etc should all shut up shop just because they are inefficient. No, they do need to get involved and engage in the problems and deliver solutions and services, they just need to do it well. Sotonians_lets_pull_together
  • Score: 0

2:21pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Ginger_cyclist says...

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together
wrote:
Ginger & Shoebury,

A police officer and a witness can proseccute any driver for acting without due care and attention, and driving dangerously.

People can get pulled over for driving like its a race track, and do.

I have no problem with that, just saying that cyclists need equality, and the same laws that apply o them should be enforceable. That would require licensing, taxation, insurance.
Actually, cyclists often do get pulled for such stuff, several helmet cam cyclists have documented it, even a local has got it on video and has also documented the police ignoring an unlit MOTORIST.
[quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: Ginger & Shoebury, A police officer and a witness can proseccute any driver for acting without due care and attention, and driving dangerously. People can get pulled over for driving like its a race track, and do. I have no problem with that, just saying that cyclists need equality, and the same laws that apply o them should be enforceable. That would require licensing, taxation, insurance.[/p][/quote]Actually, cyclists often do get pulled for such stuff, several helmet cam cyclists have documented it, even a local has got it on video and has also documented the police ignoring an unlit MOTORIST. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

2:24pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Ginger_cyclist says...

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together
wrote:
"Ginger_cyclist says...
2:09pm Mon 15 Apr 13

So you'd rather have loud, deadly, polluting vehicles moving at 40+mph through the forest killing animals and possibly locals? Great one, great way to protect the area... NOT!!!"

I do not agree with binghammac, but your comment is ridiculous. There are speed limits in the forest, and locals are fully in favour of them being enforced, for the safety of cyclists, livestock, wildlife and other drivers.
A minority of drivers don't stay at or below those limits though so my comment isn't all too ridiculous and yes I have witnessed it happen.
[quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: "Ginger_cyclist says... 2:09pm Mon 15 Apr 13 So you'd rather have loud, deadly, polluting vehicles moving at 40+mph through the forest killing animals and possibly locals? Great one, great way to protect the area... NOT!!!" I do not agree with binghammac, but your comment is ridiculous. There are speed limits in the forest, and locals are fully in favour of them being enforced, for the safety of cyclists, livestock, wildlife and other drivers.[/p][/quote]A minority of drivers don't stay at or below those limits though so my comment isn't all too ridiculous and yes I have witnessed it happen. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

2:25pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Ginger_cyclist says...

Ellwood wrote:
@ Sotonians_lets_pull_

together ............hear hear! Well argued points throughout this debate.... fair play to you.
Why? They're talking out of their arse like any anti- cycling campaigner does.
[quote][p][bold]Ellwood[/bold] wrote: @ Sotonians_lets_pull_ together ............hear hear! Well argued points throughout this debate.... fair play to you.[/p][/quote]Why? They're talking out of their arse like any anti- cycling campaigner does. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

2:26pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Sotonians_lets_pull_together says...

Ginger_cyclist,
Of course sometimes cyclists get pulled over, noone is denying that

There are also motoritsts who break the law and dont get caught, noone is denying that.


The simple fact is that unless cyclists have number plates, licenses and are taxed and insured, they will never pay the full cost of cycling on the roads, or the cost of investing in a cycle network, police will have a hard job catching fining and prosecuting them and banning poor cyclists from the roads, police will have a hard job preventing and detecting bicycle theft (which is a significant drain on their resources and a significant problem for cyclists), and they will have a tough job preventing criminals from using bikes to move around quickly, commit crime and evade detection.
Ginger_cyclist, Of course sometimes cyclists get pulled over, noone is denying that There are also motoritsts who break the law and dont get caught, noone is denying that. The simple fact is that unless cyclists have number plates, licenses and are taxed and insured, they will never pay the full cost of cycling on the roads, or the cost of investing in a cycle network, police will have a hard job catching fining and prosecuting them and banning poor cyclists from the roads, police will have a hard job preventing and detecting bicycle theft (which is a significant drain on their resources and a significant problem for cyclists), and they will have a tough job preventing criminals from using bikes to move around quickly, commit crime and evade detection. Sotonians_lets_pull_together
  • Score: 0

2:32pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Gooby! says...

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together
wrote:
Gooby!

Just because there isnt an age limit for cycling on the road now, doesnt mean that there shouldnt be one.

Noone under 9 should be cycling on the roads.

They shouldnt be crossing a road on their own, let alone cycling.

"Young children (up to the age of 9) can’t judge distance in the same way as adults. They don’t know how fast a car or bike is going, and how long they have to cross the road."

http://capt.org.uk/s

afety-advice/staying

-safe-when-youre-out

-and-about
So at age 14 you have to get a cycle licence but at age 9 you are medically able to ride. What happens to all the ten year olds who want to ride to school? Do we just give them a criminal record?

You quote and talk a lot but your manifesto is plain rubbish.

Where would the money for this cycle licence sceme come from? Do you have a successful model of full road licening to copy? No, I didnt think so. That is because every other first world country is trying to promote cycling and active use of cycles to make thier societies better.

Lets look at a successful model. The dutch. Cycling is many times more popular, dedicated infrastructure is provided from segregated cycle paths to restrictions on motoring in town centers and large areas to park your bike. This has lowered carbon emissions. It has made people more healthy and excersise is taken by a large proportion of society. Cyclists do not need a licence. They do not undergo training. They cycle with the family from a very young age.

The use of cycles should be encouraged and not deterred by old fuddy duddy "I own the road" idiots.
[quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: Gooby! Just because there isnt an age limit for cycling on the road now, doesnt mean that there shouldnt be one. Noone under 9 should be cycling on the roads. They shouldnt be crossing a road on their own, let alone cycling. "Young children (up to the age of 9) can’t judge distance in the same way as adults. They don’t know how fast a car or bike is going, and how long they have to cross the road." http://capt.org.uk/s afety-advice/staying -safe-when-youre-out -and-about[/p][/quote]So at age 14 you have to get a cycle licence but at age 9 you are medically able to ride. What happens to all the ten year olds who want to ride to school? Do we just give them a criminal record? You quote and talk a lot but your manifesto is plain rubbish. Where would the money for this cycle licence sceme come from? Do you have a successful model of full road licening to copy? No, I didnt think so. That is because every other first world country is trying to promote cycling and active use of cycles to make thier societies better. Lets look at a successful model. The dutch. Cycling is many times more popular, dedicated infrastructure is provided from segregated cycle paths to restrictions on motoring in town centers and large areas to park your bike. This has lowered carbon emissions. It has made people more healthy and excersise is taken by a large proportion of society. Cyclists do not need a licence. They do not undergo training. They cycle with the family from a very young age. The use of cycles should be encouraged and not deterred by old fuddy duddy "I own the road" idiots. Gooby!
  • Score: 0

2:32pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Ginger_cyclist says...

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together
wrote:
Ginger_cyclist,
Of course sometimes cyclists get pulled over, noone is denying that

There are also motoritsts who break the law and dont get caught, noone is denying that.


The simple fact is that unless cyclists have number plates, licenses and are taxed and insured, they will never pay the full cost of cycling on the roads, or the cost of investing in a cycle network, police will have a hard job catching fining and prosecuting them and banning poor cyclists from the roads, police will have a hard job preventing and detecting bicycle theft (which is a significant drain on their resources and a significant problem for cyclists), and they will have a tough job preventing criminals from using bikes to move around quickly, commit crime and evade detection.
Yet we do pay the full cost because of morons, licensing, taxing and compulsory insurance would just make things worse, as I said it would make cycling harder to get into and would therefore lead to an increase in the rate of obesity and there is a way of people recovering stolen bikes, it's called a frame number, normally etched or stamped into the bottom bracket shell, it is specific to each bicycle, if owner recorded that number, they could pass it on to police who could then check any bikes they recover.
[quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: Ginger_cyclist, Of course sometimes cyclists get pulled over, noone is denying that There are also motoritsts who break the law and dont get caught, noone is denying that. The simple fact is that unless cyclists have number plates, licenses and are taxed and insured, they will never pay the full cost of cycling on the roads, or the cost of investing in a cycle network, police will have a hard job catching fining and prosecuting them and banning poor cyclists from the roads, police will have a hard job preventing and detecting bicycle theft (which is a significant drain on their resources and a significant problem for cyclists), and they will have a tough job preventing criminals from using bikes to move around quickly, commit crime and evade detection.[/p][/quote]Yet we do pay the full cost because of morons, licensing, taxing and compulsory insurance would just make things worse, as I said it would make cycling harder to get into and would therefore lead to an increase in the rate of obesity and there is a way of people recovering stolen bikes, it's called a frame number, normally etched or stamped into the bottom bracket shell, it is specific to each bicycle, if owner recorded that number, they could pass it on to police who could then check any bikes they recover. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

2:32pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Inform Al says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Sotonians_lets_pull_

together
wrote:
"Ginger_cyclist says...
2:09pm Mon 15 Apr 13

So you'd rather have loud, deadly, polluting vehicles moving at 40+mph through the forest killing animals and possibly locals? Great one, great way to protect the area... NOT!!!"

I do not agree with binghammac, but your comment is ridiculous. There are speed limits in the forest, and locals are fully in favour of them being enforced, for the safety of cyclists, livestock, wildlife and other drivers.
A minority of drivers don't stay at or below those limits though so my comment isn't all too ridiculous and yes I have witnessed it happen.
I used to regularly drive an HGV through the New Forest to a drop in Sway. I never exceeded 40 mph, in fact some of the time I judged that speed to be too fast, however I saw the same cars regularly doing stupid speeds in the area and at least two of the culprits I knew to be Sway residents.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: "Ginger_cyclist says... 2:09pm Mon 15 Apr 13 So you'd rather have loud, deadly, polluting vehicles moving at 40+mph through the forest killing animals and possibly locals? Great one, great way to protect the area... NOT!!!" I do not agree with binghammac, but your comment is ridiculous. There are speed limits in the forest, and locals are fully in favour of them being enforced, for the safety of cyclists, livestock, wildlife and other drivers.[/p][/quote]A minority of drivers don't stay at or below those limits though so my comment isn't all too ridiculous and yes I have witnessed it happen.[/p][/quote]I used to regularly drive an HGV through the New Forest to a drop in Sway. I never exceeded 40 mph, in fact some of the time I judged that speed to be too fast, however I saw the same cars regularly doing stupid speeds in the area and at least two of the culprits I knew to be Sway residents. Inform Al
  • Score: 0

2:33pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Ginger_cyclist says...

Gooby! wrote:
Sotonians_lets_pull_

together
wrote:
Gooby!

Just because there isnt an age limit for cycling on the road now, doesnt mean that there shouldnt be one.

Noone under 9 should be cycling on the roads.

They shouldnt be crossing a road on their own, let alone cycling.

"Young children (up to the age of 9) can’t judge distance in the same way as adults. They don’t know how fast a car or bike is going, and how long they have to cross the road."

http://capt.org.uk/s


afety-advice/staying


-safe-when-youre-out


-and-about
So at age 14 you have to get a cycle licence but at age 9 you are medically able to ride. What happens to all the ten year olds who want to ride to school? Do we just give them a criminal record?

You quote and talk a lot but your manifesto is plain rubbish.

Where would the money for this cycle licence sceme come from? Do you have a successful model of full road licening to copy? No, I didnt think so. That is because every other first world country is trying to promote cycling and active use of cycles to make thier societies better.

Lets look at a successful model. The dutch. Cycling is many times more popular, dedicated infrastructure is provided from segregated cycle paths to restrictions on motoring in town centers and large areas to park your bike. This has lowered carbon emissions. It has made people more healthy and excersise is taken by a large proportion of society. Cyclists do not need a licence. They do not undergo training. They cycle with the family from a very young age.

The use of cycles should be encouraged and not deterred by old fuddy duddy "I own the road" idiots.
Hear hear.
[quote][p][bold]Gooby![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: Gooby! Just because there isnt an age limit for cycling on the road now, doesnt mean that there shouldnt be one. Noone under 9 should be cycling on the roads. They shouldnt be crossing a road on their own, let alone cycling. "Young children (up to the age of 9) can’t judge distance in the same way as adults. They don’t know how fast a car or bike is going, and how long they have to cross the road." http://capt.org.uk/s afety-advice/staying -safe-when-youre-out -and-about[/p][/quote]So at age 14 you have to get a cycle licence but at age 9 you are medically able to ride. What happens to all the ten year olds who want to ride to school? Do we just give them a criminal record? You quote and talk a lot but your manifesto is plain rubbish. Where would the money for this cycle licence sceme come from? Do you have a successful model of full road licening to copy? No, I didnt think so. That is because every other first world country is trying to promote cycling and active use of cycles to make thier societies better. Lets look at a successful model. The dutch. Cycling is many times more popular, dedicated infrastructure is provided from segregated cycle paths to restrictions on motoring in town centers and large areas to park your bike. This has lowered carbon emissions. It has made people more healthy and excersise is taken by a large proportion of society. Cyclists do not need a licence. They do not undergo training. They cycle with the family from a very young age. The use of cycles should be encouraged and not deterred by old fuddy duddy "I own the road" idiots.[/p][/quote]Hear hear. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

2:37pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Gooby! says...

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together
wrote:
Ginger_cyclist,
Of course sometimes cyclists get pulled over, noone is denying that

There are also motoritsts who break the law and dont get caught, noone is denying that.


The simple fact is that unless cyclists have number plates, licenses and are taxed and insured, they will never pay the full cost of cycling on the roads, or the cost of investing in a cycle network, police will have a hard job catching fining and prosecuting them and banning poor cyclists from the roads, police will have a hard job preventing and detecting bicycle theft (which is a significant drain on their resources and a significant problem for cyclists), and they will have a tough job preventing criminals from using bikes to move around quickly, commit crime and evade detection.
What? do you have any understanding of how the roads are funded?
Roads are not paid for by motorists, they are paid for from the council tax and from central government subsidies.

Why dont you demand a pedestrian tax? It follows the same logic, they have a dedicated infrastructure of paths and crossing facilities. Better still a shoe tax is apropriate. Lets say shoes over junior size 5 should have a large tax imposed because kids over 9years old can use the road unattended and under 9 parents should have to licence children for the damage caused to paths. (please note I am being as sarcastic as I can be)
[quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: Ginger_cyclist, Of course sometimes cyclists get pulled over, noone is denying that There are also motoritsts who break the law and dont get caught, noone is denying that. The simple fact is that unless cyclists have number plates, licenses and are taxed and insured, they will never pay the full cost of cycling on the roads, or the cost of investing in a cycle network, police will have a hard job catching fining and prosecuting them and banning poor cyclists from the roads, police will have a hard job preventing and detecting bicycle theft (which is a significant drain on their resources and a significant problem for cyclists), and they will have a tough job preventing criminals from using bikes to move around quickly, commit crime and evade detection.[/p][/quote]What? do you have any understanding of how the roads are funded? Roads are not paid for by motorists, they are paid for from the council tax and from central government subsidies. Why dont you demand a pedestrian tax? It follows the same logic, they have a dedicated infrastructure of paths and crossing facilities. Better still a shoe tax is apropriate. Lets say shoes over junior size 5 should have a large tax imposed because kids over 9years old can use the road unattended and under 9 parents should have to licence children for the damage caused to paths. (please note I am being as sarcastic as I can be) Gooby!
  • Score: 0

2:37pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Ginger_cyclist says...

Inform Al wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Sotonians_lets_pull_


together
wrote:
"Ginger_cyclist says...
2:09pm Mon 15 Apr 13

So you'd rather have loud, deadly, polluting vehicles moving at 40+mph through the forest killing animals and possibly locals? Great one, great way to protect the area... NOT!!!"

I do not agree with binghammac, but your comment is ridiculous. There are speed limits in the forest, and locals are fully in favour of them being enforced, for the safety of cyclists, livestock, wildlife and other drivers.
A minority of drivers don't stay at or below those limits though so my comment isn't all too ridiculous and yes I have witnessed it happen.
I used to regularly drive an HGV through the New Forest to a drop in Sway. I never exceeded 40 mph, in fact some of the time I judged that speed to be too fast, however I saw the same cars regularly doing stupid speeds in the area and at least two of the culprits I knew to be Sway residents.
My point and the points of others proven, 40mph is sometimes too fast for forest roads and that there are a minority of morons who go a lot faster and presumably never get caught since they repeat over and over.
[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: "Ginger_cyclist says... 2:09pm Mon 15 Apr 13 So you'd rather have loud, deadly, polluting vehicles moving at 40+mph through the forest killing animals and possibly locals? Great one, great way to protect the area... NOT!!!" I do not agree with binghammac, but your comment is ridiculous. There are speed limits in the forest, and locals are fully in favour of them being enforced, for the safety of cyclists, livestock, wildlife and other drivers.[/p][/quote]A minority of drivers don't stay at or below those limits though so my comment isn't all too ridiculous and yes I have witnessed it happen.[/p][/quote]I used to regularly drive an HGV through the New Forest to a drop in Sway. I never exceeded 40 mph, in fact some of the time I judged that speed to be too fast, however I saw the same cars regularly doing stupid speeds in the area and at least two of the culprits I knew to be Sway residents.[/p][/quote]My point and the points of others proven, 40mph is sometimes too fast for forest roads and that there are a minority of morons who go a lot faster and presumably never get caught since they repeat over and over. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

2:37pm Mon 15 Apr 13

SO45 says...

I had experience of this cycle event (it's not a race, it is never advertised as a race) at the weekend.

I was trying to get to see my parents, forgetting the race was on. I came across cyclists riding in some cases 5 abreast and in some cases riding more than 1 abreast on either side of the roads.

This made manourvering the car around them difficult and dangerous. Even on the 40 mph roads in the forest, they are quite narrow in some places and full of bends.

I then went to turn right, waited patiently for the on coming cyclists to pass (I was in no hurry - well couldn't have been if I tried). Some of the oncoming cyclists acknowledged me by raising their hands. It was the cyclists on the same side of the road that got me! One kicked my car and shouted 'Get a move on, your causing a hold up' and another went by and grabbed my wing mirror! I had left them plenty of room to get around me.

I am actually all for these type of events, however I think cyclicsts and residents of the forest, both four legged and two would probably be able to enjoy it more if they did made it an official race and closed all the roads down! 80+ miles covers a lot of the forest, small roads and main. A cycle event and Saturday traffic (especially with the market on in Lymington) just do not mix.
I had experience of this cycle event (it's not a race, it is never advertised as a race) at the weekend. I was trying to get to see my parents, forgetting the race was on. I came across cyclists riding in some cases 5 abreast and in some cases riding more than 1 abreast on either side of the roads. This made manourvering the car around them difficult and dangerous. Even on the 40 mph roads in the forest, they are quite narrow in some places and full of bends. I then went to turn right, waited patiently for the on coming cyclists to pass (I was in no hurry - well couldn't have been if I tried). Some of the oncoming cyclists acknowledged me by raising their hands. It was the cyclists on the same side of the road that got me! One kicked my car and shouted 'Get a move on, your causing a hold up' and another went by and grabbed my wing mirror! I had left them plenty of room to get around me. I am actually all for these type of events, however I think cyclicsts and residents of the forest, both four legged and two would probably be able to enjoy it more if they did made it an official race and closed all the roads down! 80+ miles covers a lot of the forest, small roads and main. A cycle event and Saturday traffic (especially with the market on in Lymington) just do not mix. SO45
  • Score: 0

2:39pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Ginger_cyclist says...

Gooby! wrote:
Sotonians_lets_pull_

together
wrote:
Ginger_cyclist,
Of course sometimes cyclists get pulled over, noone is denying that

There are also motoritsts who break the law and dont get caught, noone is denying that.


The simple fact is that unless cyclists have number plates, licenses and are taxed and insured, they will never pay the full cost of cycling on the roads, or the cost of investing in a cycle network, police will have a hard job catching fining and prosecuting them and banning poor cyclists from the roads, police will have a hard job preventing and detecting bicycle theft (which is a significant drain on their resources and a significant problem for cyclists), and they will have a tough job preventing criminals from using bikes to move around quickly, commit crime and evade detection.
What? do you have any understanding of how the roads are funded?
Roads are not paid for by motorists, they are paid for from the council tax and from central government subsidies.

Why dont you demand a pedestrian tax? It follows the same logic, they have a dedicated infrastructure of paths and crossing facilities. Better still a shoe tax is apropriate. Lets say shoes over junior size 5 should have a large tax imposed because kids over 9years old can use the road unattended and under 9 parents should have to licence children for the damage caused to paths. (please note I am being as sarcastic as I can be)
*Applauds* Well said.
[quote][p][bold]Gooby![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: Ginger_cyclist, Of course sometimes cyclists get pulled over, noone is denying that There are also motoritsts who break the law and dont get caught, noone is denying that. The simple fact is that unless cyclists have number plates, licenses and are taxed and insured, they will never pay the full cost of cycling on the roads, or the cost of investing in a cycle network, police will have a hard job catching fining and prosecuting them and banning poor cyclists from the roads, police will have a hard job preventing and detecting bicycle theft (which is a significant drain on their resources and a significant problem for cyclists), and they will have a tough job preventing criminals from using bikes to move around quickly, commit crime and evade detection.[/p][/quote]What? do you have any understanding of how the roads are funded? Roads are not paid for by motorists, they are paid for from the council tax and from central government subsidies. Why dont you demand a pedestrian tax? It follows the same logic, they have a dedicated infrastructure of paths and crossing facilities. Better still a shoe tax is apropriate. Lets say shoes over junior size 5 should have a large tax imposed because kids over 9years old can use the road unattended and under 9 parents should have to licence children for the damage caused to paths. (please note I am being as sarcastic as I can be)[/p][/quote]*Applauds* Well said. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

2:40pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Torchie1 says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Sotonians_lets_pull_





together
wrote:
Ginger_cyclist,
Interesting if it wasnt officially a race.

I wonder how many of the participants treat it as a race though, how many record their times, how many race their friends, or whether even there are lists of unofficial race times out there on cycling forums by people who have their own races within such "non-race events".
Well, you are timed on these events but times aren't published by the organisers, they are given to the riders at the end as a personal target to beat, so really, they only ever race themselves but as with anything, a tiny minority will put those times online as if they were racing and to challenge others to "race" the clock to beat their time, no doubt people also time themselves at the skyride events and do the same, it's obviously not a race yet they treat it like one, so yes, there is in all probability, a tiny handful of riders who are like that.
Wrong once again. A couple of clicks on the organisers website will take you to a pdf showing approximately 1800 individual names, times, standards and 'race numbers'. http://www.ukcycling




events.co.uk/rider-t




imes/nf_wss_nf_sprin




g_saturday.pdf
Doesn't change the fact that it wasn't a race as they have stated several times along with the local authority on their own website.
I'm quoting the organisers 'Wiggle' website which is available for all to see. I'm not interpretting their wording 'race number', I'm simply repeating it verbatim. The same website does call the event a 'sportive' to avoid having to conform to extra rules imposed on a 'race' as the desecration of the road signs is being called 'high jinks' to avoid any charges of vandalism.
And riders would have been told to not treat it as a race, the majority of whom would have listened.
If it wasn't a race why did the organisers erect well over 1000 signs to make the course idiot proof, and record everyone's time which the participants felt was important. If the idea was to appreciate the 'breathtaking scenery' it would be better achieved at a leisurely pace using the same signs and maps that millions of tourists navigate with every year. I'm not sure which is more amusing, the event not being a race but everyone wanting to know how fast their time was or the suggestion that the motorist has to accept being held up by bicycles but slow moving cars are considered a rolling road block. I would suggest that anyone involved in opposing these events will be ticking off the days until June 1st when they see how easily you have risen to the bait.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: Ginger_cyclist, Interesting if it wasnt officially a race. I wonder how many of the participants treat it as a race though, how many record their times, how many race their friends, or whether even there are lists of unofficial race times out there on cycling forums by people who have their own races within such "non-race events".[/p][/quote]Well, you are timed on these events but times aren't published by the organisers, they are given to the riders at the end as a personal target to beat, so really, they only ever race themselves but as with anything, a tiny minority will put those times online as if they were racing and to challenge others to "race" the clock to beat their time, no doubt people also time themselves at the skyride events and do the same, it's obviously not a race yet they treat it like one, so yes, there is in all probability, a tiny handful of riders who are like that.[/p][/quote]Wrong once again. A couple of clicks on the organisers website will take you to a pdf showing approximately 1800 individual names, times, standards and 'race numbers'. http://www.ukcycling events.co.uk/rider-t imes/nf_wss_nf_sprin g_saturday.pdf[/p][/quote]Doesn't change the fact that it wasn't a race as they have stated several times along with the local authority on their own website.[/p][/quote]I'm quoting the organisers 'Wiggle' website which is available for all to see. I'm not interpretting their wording 'race number', I'm simply repeating it verbatim. The same website does call the event a 'sportive' to avoid having to conform to extra rules imposed on a 'race' as the desecration of the road signs is being called 'high jinks' to avoid any charges of vandalism.[/p][/quote]And riders would have been told to not treat it as a race, the majority of whom would have listened.[/p][/quote]If it wasn't a race why did the organisers erect well over 1000 signs to make the course idiot proof, and record everyone's time which the participants felt was important. If the idea was to appreciate the 'breathtaking scenery' it would be better achieved at a leisurely pace using the same signs and maps that millions of tourists navigate with every year. I'm not sure which is more amusing, the event not being a race but everyone wanting to know how fast their time was or the suggestion that the motorist has to accept being held up by bicycles but slow moving cars are considered a rolling road block. I would suggest that anyone involved in opposing these events will be ticking off the days until June 1st when they see how easily you have risen to the bait. Torchie1
  • Score: 0

2:41pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Inform Al says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Gooby! wrote:
Sotonians_lets_pull_


together
wrote:
Gooby!

Just because there isnt an age limit for cycling on the road now, doesnt mean that there shouldnt be one.

Noone under 9 should be cycling on the roads.

They shouldnt be crossing a road on their own, let alone cycling.

"Young children (up to the age of 9) can’t judge distance in the same way as adults. They don’t know how fast a car or bike is going, and how long they have to cross the road."

http://capt.org.uk/s



afety-advice/staying



-safe-when-youre-out



-and-about
So at age 14 you have to get a cycle licence but at age 9 you are medically able to ride. What happens to all the ten year olds who want to ride to school? Do we just give them a criminal record?

You quote and talk a lot but your manifesto is plain rubbish.

Where would the money for this cycle licence sceme come from? Do you have a successful model of full road licening to copy? No, I didnt think so. That is because every other first world country is trying to promote cycling and active use of cycles to make thier societies better.

Lets look at a successful model. The dutch. Cycling is many times more popular, dedicated infrastructure is provided from segregated cycle paths to restrictions on motoring in town centers and large areas to park your bike. This has lowered carbon emissions. It has made people more healthy and excersise is taken by a large proportion of society. Cyclists do not need a licence. They do not undergo training. They cycle with the family from a very young age.

The use of cycles should be encouraged and not deterred by old fuddy duddy "I own the road" idiots.
Hear hear.
In my younger days I regularly cycled in London and even now as an old fuddy duddy I respect the right of those that wish to cucle and give them a good wide gap when overtaking. I would however say that when this old fuddy duddy used to cycle in London I never rode side by side with a friend if there was traffic about, apart from this being inconsiderate it could have been downright dangerous and I do have an allergy to pain. By the same token, when overtaking side by side cretins the gap is reduced by about the width taken up by a cyclist as I still move out by the same distance.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gooby![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: Gooby! Just because there isnt an age limit for cycling on the road now, doesnt mean that there shouldnt be one. Noone under 9 should be cycling on the roads. They shouldnt be crossing a road on their own, let alone cycling. "Young children (up to the age of 9) can’t judge distance in the same way as adults. They don’t know how fast a car or bike is going, and how long they have to cross the road." http://capt.org.uk/s afety-advice/staying -safe-when-youre-out -and-about[/p][/quote]So at age 14 you have to get a cycle licence but at age 9 you are medically able to ride. What happens to all the ten year olds who want to ride to school? Do we just give them a criminal record? You quote and talk a lot but your manifesto is plain rubbish. Where would the money for this cycle licence sceme come from? Do you have a successful model of full road licening to copy? No, I didnt think so. That is because every other first world country is trying to promote cycling and active use of cycles to make thier societies better. Lets look at a successful model. The dutch. Cycling is many times more popular, dedicated infrastructure is provided from segregated cycle paths to restrictions on motoring in town centers and large areas to park your bike. This has lowered carbon emissions. It has made people more healthy and excersise is taken by a large proportion of society. Cyclists do not need a licence. They do not undergo training. They cycle with the family from a very young age. The use of cycles should be encouraged and not deterred by old fuddy duddy "I own the road" idiots.[/p][/quote]Hear hear.[/p][/quote]In my younger days I regularly cycled in London and even now as an old fuddy duddy I respect the right of those that wish to cucle and give them a good wide gap when overtaking. I would however say that when this old fuddy duddy used to cycle in London I never rode side by side with a friend if there was traffic about, apart from this being inconsiderate it could have been downright dangerous and I do have an allergy to pain. By the same token, when overtaking side by side cretins the gap is reduced by about the width taken up by a cyclist as I still move out by the same distance. Inform Al
  • Score: 0

2:41pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Sotonians_lets_pull_together says...

If bikes could be pulled over if not displaying a registration plate, and maybe had to be chipped with RF technology so they could be traced, then crinimals would have a tougher time of it.

I have seen thieves cycling along a road trying car door handles, leaving bikes by a property before attempting to break in before the police were called, escaping by bike after breaking in and setting off alarms... etc

There are plenty of examples of criminals using bikes to evade detection, a couple of minutes turned up a few examples:

http://www.thisissta
ffordshire.co.uk/CCT
V-shows-moment-cycli
ng-arsonist-set-VIDE
O/story-15098792-det
ail/story.html

http://www.ellesmere
portpioneer.co.uk/el
lesmere-port-news/lo
cal-ellesmere-port-n
ews/2008/09/17/armed
-robber-escaped-by-b
ike-55940-21831909/

http://news.bbc.co.u
k/1/hi/8155039.stm

http://www.whtimes.c
o.uk/news/bicycling_
burglars_steal_jewel
lery_from_norwich_ho
me_1_1018101

http://www.yorkpress
.co.uk/news/8121795.
Chase_by_River_Ouse_
after_bag_theft/

http://www.independe
nt.co.uk/news/uk/two
-car-bombs-end-ira-w
eek-of-publicity-155
6545.html

http://www.leamingto
ncourier.co.uk/news/
local/teenage-son-ch
ased-away-house-burg
lar-1-1064560
If bikes could be pulled over if not displaying a registration plate, and maybe had to be chipped with RF technology so they could be traced, then crinimals would have a tougher time of it. I have seen thieves cycling along a road trying car door handles, leaving bikes by a property before attempting to break in before the police were called, escaping by bike after breaking in and setting off alarms... etc There are plenty of examples of criminals using bikes to evade detection, a couple of minutes turned up a few examples: http://www.thisissta ffordshire.co.uk/CCT V-shows-moment-cycli ng-arsonist-set-VIDE O/story-15098792-det ail/story.html http://www.ellesmere portpioneer.co.uk/el lesmere-port-news/lo cal-ellesmere-port-n ews/2008/09/17/armed -robber-escaped-by-b ike-55940-21831909/ http://news.bbc.co.u k/1/hi/8155039.stm http://www.whtimes.c o.uk/news/bicycling_ burglars_steal_jewel lery_from_norwich_ho me_1_1018101 http://www.yorkpress .co.uk/news/8121795. Chase_by_River_Ouse_ after_bag_theft/ http://www.independe nt.co.uk/news/uk/two -car-bombs-end-ira-w eek-of-publicity-155 6545.html http://www.leamingto ncourier.co.uk/news/ local/teenage-son-ch ased-away-house-burg lar-1-1064560 Sotonians_lets_pull_together
  • Score: 0

2:43pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Ginger_cyclist says...

SO45 wrote:
I had experience of this cycle event (it's not a race, it is never advertised as a race) at the weekend.

I was trying to get to see my parents, forgetting the race was on. I came across cyclists riding in some cases 5 abreast and in some cases riding more than 1 abreast on either side of the roads.

This made manourvering the car around them difficult and dangerous. Even on the 40 mph roads in the forest, they are quite narrow in some places and full of bends.

I then went to turn right, waited patiently for the on coming cyclists to pass (I was in no hurry - well couldn't have been if I tried). Some of the oncoming cyclists acknowledged me by raising their hands. It was the cyclists on the same side of the road that got me! One kicked my car and shouted 'Get a move on, your causing a hold up' and another went by and grabbed my wing mirror! I had left them plenty of room to get around me.

I am actually all for these type of events, however I think cyclicsts and residents of the forest, both four legged and two would probably be able to enjoy it more if they did made it an official race and closed all the roads down! 80+ miles covers a lot of the forest, small roads and main. A cycle event and Saturday traffic (especially with the market on in Lymington) just do not mix.
Ahh, there's that minority that ruins it for the majority, at least you were being considerate, no doubt they would have been less likely to do it with me there due to my 2 cameras.
[quote][p][bold]SO45[/bold] wrote: I had experience of this cycle event (it's not a race, it is never advertised as a race) at the weekend. I was trying to get to see my parents, forgetting the race was on. I came across cyclists riding in some cases 5 abreast and in some cases riding more than 1 abreast on either side of the roads. This made manourvering the car around them difficult and dangerous. Even on the 40 mph roads in the forest, they are quite narrow in some places and full of bends. I then went to turn right, waited patiently for the on coming cyclists to pass (I was in no hurry - well couldn't have been if I tried). Some of the oncoming cyclists acknowledged me by raising their hands. It was the cyclists on the same side of the road that got me! One kicked my car and shouted 'Get a move on, your causing a hold up' and another went by and grabbed my wing mirror! I had left them plenty of room to get around me. I am actually all for these type of events, however I think cyclicsts and residents of the forest, both four legged and two would probably be able to enjoy it more if they did made it an official race and closed all the roads down! 80+ miles covers a lot of the forest, small roads and main. A cycle event and Saturday traffic (especially with the market on in Lymington) just do not mix.[/p][/quote]Ahh, there's that minority that ruins it for the majority, at least you were being considerate, no doubt they would have been less likely to do it with me there due to my 2 cameras. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

2:43pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Sotonians_lets_pull_together says...

Inform Al,

No I previously said, an cycle proficiency test and a provisional license would be fine for 9-14 year olds, with a view to reviewing the system after a few years
Inform Al, No I previously said, an cycle proficiency test and a provisional license would be fine for 9-14 year olds, with a view to reviewing the system after a few years Sotonians_lets_pull_together
  • Score: 0

2:44pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Gooby! says...

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together
wrote:
Ginger_cyclist,
Of course sometimes cyclists get pulled over, noone is denying that

There are also motoritsts who break the law and dont get caught, noone is denying that.


The simple fact is that unless cyclists have number plates, licenses and are taxed and insured, they will never pay the full cost of cycling on the roads, or the cost of investing in a cycle network, police will have a hard job catching fining and prosecuting them and banning poor cyclists from the roads, police will have a hard job preventing and detecting bicycle theft (which is a significant drain on their resources and a significant problem for cyclists), and they will have a tough job preventing criminals from using bikes to move around quickly, commit crime and evade detection.
But criminals also use "highly regulated" cars as transport. They also evade detection. I have yet to see a report of a bank raid getaway vehicle being a Raleigh Race bike.

Oh yeah there was that fuel station heist on "Police Camera" where the thief tore off on his carrera MTB. Oh lets not forget the jewlery heist, the thief ran past the motorbike and jumped on a Halfords special offer bike.

What planet are you from?
[quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: Ginger_cyclist, Of course sometimes cyclists get pulled over, noone is denying that There are also motoritsts who break the law and dont get caught, noone is denying that. The simple fact is that unless cyclists have number plates, licenses and are taxed and insured, they will never pay the full cost of cycling on the roads, or the cost of investing in a cycle network, police will have a hard job catching fining and prosecuting them and banning poor cyclists from the roads, police will have a hard job preventing and detecting bicycle theft (which is a significant drain on their resources and a significant problem for cyclists), and they will have a tough job preventing criminals from using bikes to move around quickly, commit crime and evade detection.[/p][/quote]But criminals also use "highly regulated" cars as transport. They also evade detection. I have yet to see a report of a bank raid getaway vehicle being a Raleigh Race bike. Oh yeah there was that fuel station heist on "Police Camera" where the thief tore off on his carrera MTB. Oh lets not forget the jewlery heist, the thief ran past the motorbike and jumped on a Halfords special offer bike. What planet are you from? Gooby!
  • Score: 0

2:48pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Gooby! says...

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together
wrote:
If bikes could be pulled over if not displaying a registration plate, and maybe had to be chipped with RF technology so they could be traced, then crinimals would have a tougher time of it.

I have seen thieves cycling along a road trying car door handles, leaving bikes by a property before attempting to break in before the police were called, escaping by bike after breaking in and setting off alarms... etc

There are plenty of examples of criminals using bikes to evade detection, a couple of minutes turned up a few examples:

http://www.thisissta

ffordshire.co.uk/CCT

V-shows-moment-cycli

ng-arsonist-set-VIDE

O/story-15098792-det

ail/story.html

http://www.ellesmere

portpioneer.co.uk/el

lesmere-port-news/lo

cal-ellesmere-port-n

ews/2008/09/17/armed

-robber-escaped-by-b

ike-55940-21831909/

http://news.bbc.co.u

k/1/hi/8155039.stm

http://www.whtimes.c

o.uk/news/bicycling_

burglars_steal_jewel

lery_from_norwich_ho

me_1_1018101

http://www.yorkpress

.co.uk/news/8121795.

Chase_by_River_Ouse_

after_bag_theft/

http://www.independe

nt.co.uk/news/uk/two

-car-bombs-end-ira-w

eek-of-publicity-155

6545.html

http://www.leamingto

ncourier.co.uk/news/

local/teenage-son-ch

ased-away-house-burg

lar-1-1064560
Wow - we could do the same for shoes, then all the shop lifters could be caught from thier pedestrian licences.
[quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: If bikes could be pulled over if not displaying a registration plate, and maybe had to be chipped with RF technology so they could be traced, then crinimals would have a tougher time of it. I have seen thieves cycling along a road trying car door handles, leaving bikes by a property before attempting to break in before the police were called, escaping by bike after breaking in and setting off alarms... etc There are plenty of examples of criminals using bikes to evade detection, a couple of minutes turned up a few examples: http://www.thisissta ffordshire.co.uk/CCT V-shows-moment-cycli ng-arsonist-set-VIDE O/story-15098792-det ail/story.html http://www.ellesmere portpioneer.co.uk/el lesmere-port-news/lo cal-ellesmere-port-n ews/2008/09/17/armed -robber-escaped-by-b ike-55940-21831909/ http://news.bbc.co.u k/1/hi/8155039.stm http://www.whtimes.c o.uk/news/bicycling_ burglars_steal_jewel lery_from_norwich_ho me_1_1018101 http://www.yorkpress .co.uk/news/8121795. Chase_by_River_Ouse_ after_bag_theft/ http://www.independe nt.co.uk/news/uk/two -car-bombs-end-ira-w eek-of-publicity-155 6545.html http://www.leamingto ncourier.co.uk/news/ local/teenage-son-ch ased-away-house-burg lar-1-1064560[/p][/quote]Wow - we could do the same for shoes, then all the shop lifters could be caught from thier pedestrian licences. Gooby!
  • Score: 0

2:48pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Ginger_cyclist says...

Inform Al wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Gooby! wrote:
Sotonians_lets_pull_



together
wrote:
Gooby!

Just because there isnt an age limit for cycling on the road now, doesnt mean that there shouldnt be one.

Noone under 9 should be cycling on the roads.

They shouldnt be crossing a road on their own, let alone cycling.

"Young children (up to the age of 9) can’t judge distance in the same way as adults. They don’t know how fast a car or bike is going, and how long they have to cross the road."

http://capt.org.uk/s




afety-advice/staying




-safe-when-youre-out




-and-about
So at age 14 you have to get a cycle licence but at age 9 you are medically able to ride. What happens to all the ten year olds who want to ride to school? Do we just give them a criminal record?

You quote and talk a lot but your manifesto is plain rubbish.

Where would the money for this cycle licence sceme come from? Do you have a successful model of full road licening to copy? No, I didnt think so. That is because every other first world country is trying to promote cycling and active use of cycles to make thier societies better.

Lets look at a successful model. The dutch. Cycling is many times more popular, dedicated infrastructure is provided from segregated cycle paths to restrictions on motoring in town centers and large areas to park your bike. This has lowered carbon emissions. It has made people more healthy and excersise is taken by a large proportion of society. Cyclists do not need a licence. They do not undergo training. They cycle with the family from a very young age.

The use of cycles should be encouraged and not deterred by old fuddy duddy "I own the road" idiots.
Hear hear.
In my younger days I regularly cycled in London and even now as an old fuddy duddy I respect the right of those that wish to cucle and give them a good wide gap when overtaking. I would however say that when this old fuddy duddy used to cycle in London I never rode side by side with a friend if there was traffic about, apart from this being inconsiderate it could have been downright dangerous and I do have an allergy to pain. By the same token, when overtaking side by side cretins the gap is reduced by about the width taken up by a cyclist as I still move out by the same distance.
Maybe the gap is reduced but by moving out of lane to overtake, you are still overtaking properly, it's when motorists feel they can push through in the same lane that gets cyclists annoyed.
[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gooby![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: Gooby! Just because there isnt an age limit for cycling on the road now, doesnt mean that there shouldnt be one. Noone under 9 should be cycling on the roads. They shouldnt be crossing a road on their own, let alone cycling. "Young children (up to the age of 9) can’t judge distance in the same way as adults. They don’t know how fast a car or bike is going, and how long they have to cross the road." http://capt.org.uk/s afety-advice/staying -safe-when-youre-out -and-about[/p][/quote]So at age 14 you have to get a cycle licence but at age 9 you are medically able to ride. What happens to all the ten year olds who want to ride to school? Do we just give them a criminal record? You quote and talk a lot but your manifesto is plain rubbish. Where would the money for this cycle licence sceme come from? Do you have a successful model of full road licening to copy? No, I didnt think so. That is because every other first world country is trying to promote cycling and active use of cycles to make thier societies better. Lets look at a successful model. The dutch. Cycling is many times more popular, dedicated infrastructure is provided from segregated cycle paths to restrictions on motoring in town centers and large areas to park your bike. This has lowered carbon emissions. It has made people more healthy and excersise is taken by a large proportion of society. Cyclists do not need a licence. They do not undergo training. They cycle with the family from a very young age. The use of cycles should be encouraged and not deterred by old fuddy duddy "I own the road" idiots.[/p][/quote]Hear hear.[/p][/quote]In my younger days I regularly cycled in London and even now as an old fuddy duddy I respect the right of those that wish to cucle and give them a good wide gap when overtaking. I would however say that when this old fuddy duddy used to cycle in London I never rode side by side with a friend if there was traffic about, apart from this being inconsiderate it could have been downright dangerous and I do have an allergy to pain. By the same token, when overtaking side by side cretins the gap is reduced by about the width taken up by a cyclist as I still move out by the same distance.[/p][/quote]Maybe the gap is reduced but by moving out of lane to overtake, you are still overtaking properly, it's when motorists feel they can push through in the same lane that gets cyclists annoyed. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

2:51pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Sotonians_lets_pull_together says...

Gooby,
Drivers of course pay towards the roads, they pay fuel duty, vat on cars, mot, for the tax disc every year, and in future we will be paying per mile to drive along them, more and more new road projects will be toll roads, and of course they pay their normal taxes. Drivers pay a mix of direct and indirect taxation.

All I am saying is that the mix for how cyclists contribute in taxes towards the road network should be skewed much more in favour of direct taxation also.

As cars get greener, and go electric, too many are already exempt from the congestion charge and the licence disc - or get reduced rates.

We will be going to a per mile system, and when it comes in cyclists should be paying per mile too.
Gooby, Drivers of course pay towards the roads, they pay fuel duty, vat on cars, mot, for the tax disc every year, and in future we will be paying per mile to drive along them, more and more new road projects will be toll roads, and of course they pay their normal taxes. Drivers pay a mix of direct and indirect taxation. All I am saying is that the mix for how cyclists contribute in taxes towards the road network should be skewed much more in favour of direct taxation also. As cars get greener, and go electric, too many are already exempt from the congestion charge and the licence disc - or get reduced rates. We will be going to a per mile system, and when it comes in cyclists should be paying per mile too. Sotonians_lets_pull_together
  • Score: 0

2:53pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Ginger_cyclist says...

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together
wrote:
If bikes could be pulled over if not displaying a registration plate, and maybe had to be chipped with RF technology so they could be traced, then crinimals would have a tougher time of it.

I have seen thieves cycling along a road trying car door handles, leaving bikes by a property before attempting to break in before the police were called, escaping by bike after breaking in and setting off alarms... etc

There are plenty of examples of criminals using bikes to evade detection, a couple of minutes turned up a few examples:

http://www.thisissta

ffordshire.co.uk/CCT

V-shows-moment-cycli

ng-arsonist-set-VIDE

O/story-15098792-det

ail/story.html

http://www.ellesmere

portpioneer.co.uk/el

lesmere-port-news/lo

cal-ellesmere-port-n

ews/2008/09/17/armed

-robber-escaped-by-b

ike-55940-21831909/

http://news.bbc.co.u

k/1/hi/8155039.stm

http://www.whtimes.c

o.uk/news/bicycling_

burglars_steal_jewel

lery_from_norwich_ho

me_1_1018101

http://www.yorkpress

.co.uk/news/8121795.

Chase_by_River_Ouse_

after_bag_theft/

http://www.independe

nt.co.uk/news/uk/two

-car-bombs-end-ira-w

eek-of-publicity-155

6545.html

http://www.leamingto

ncourier.co.uk/news/

local/teenage-son-ch

ased-away-house-burg

lar-1-1064560
You know, if they're thieves then that bike is most likely stolen as well, just like those using cars, probably stole the car they use so measures that you speak of, would have no effect as even the most simple thief knows not to use a vehicle that can be traced back to them.
[quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: If bikes could be pulled over if not displaying a registration plate, and maybe had to be chipped with RF technology so they could be traced, then crinimals would have a tougher time of it. I have seen thieves cycling along a road trying car door handles, leaving bikes by a property before attempting to break in before the police were called, escaping by bike after breaking in and setting off alarms... etc There are plenty of examples of criminals using bikes to evade detection, a couple of minutes turned up a few examples: http://www.thisissta ffordshire.co.uk/CCT V-shows-moment-cycli ng-arsonist-set-VIDE O/story-15098792-det ail/story.html http://www.ellesmere portpioneer.co.uk/el lesmere-port-news/lo cal-ellesmere-port-n ews/2008/09/17/armed -robber-escaped-by-b ike-55940-21831909/ http://news.bbc.co.u k/1/hi/8155039.stm http://www.whtimes.c o.uk/news/bicycling_ burglars_steal_jewel lery_from_norwich_ho me_1_1018101 http://www.yorkpress .co.uk/news/8121795. Chase_by_River_Ouse_ after_bag_theft/ http://www.independe nt.co.uk/news/uk/two -car-bombs-end-ira-w eek-of-publicity-155 6545.html http://www.leamingto ncourier.co.uk/news/ local/teenage-son-ch ased-away-house-burg lar-1-1064560[/p][/quote]You know, if they're thieves then that bike is most likely stolen as well, just like those using cars, probably stole the car they use so measures that you speak of, would have no effect as even the most simple thief knows not to use a vehicle that can be traced back to them. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

2:54pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Dave Juson says...

Mike_D wrote:
Mm. As Mark Twain apparently said, "Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."

And with that, I'm out.
I'm with you. It's getting Pythonesque without the wit.
It appears these Jeremy Clarkson types just want to turn the entire planet into an endless suburb ovrcast with smog.
[quote][p][bold]Mike_D[/bold] wrote: Mm. As Mark Twain apparently said, "Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience." And with that, I'm out.[/p][/quote]I'm with you. It's getting Pythonesque without the wit. It appears these Jeremy Clarkson types just want to turn the entire planet into an endless suburb ovrcast with smog. Dave Juson
  • Score: 0

2:55pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Dave Juson says...

Mike_D wrote:
Mm. As Mark Twain apparently said, "Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."

And with that, I'm out.
I'm with you. It's getting Pythonesque without the wit.
It appears these Jeremy Clarkson types just want to turn the entire planet into an endless suburb ovrcast with smog.
[quote][p][bold]Mike_D[/bold] wrote: Mm. As Mark Twain apparently said, "Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience." And with that, I'm out.[/p][/quote]I'm with you. It's getting Pythonesque without the wit. It appears these Jeremy Clarkson types just want to turn the entire planet into an endless suburb ovrcast with smog. Dave Juson
  • Score: 0

2:56pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Ginger_cyclist says...

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together
wrote:
Gooby,
Drivers of course pay towards the roads, they pay fuel duty, vat on cars, mot, for the tax disc every year, and in future we will be paying per mile to drive along them, more and more new road projects will be toll roads, and of course they pay their normal taxes. Drivers pay a mix of direct and indirect taxation.

All I am saying is that the mix for how cyclists contribute in taxes towards the road network should be skewed much more in favour of direct taxation also.

As cars get greener, and go electric, too many are already exempt from the congestion charge and the licence disc - or get reduced rates.

We will be going to a per mile system, and when it comes in cyclists should be paying per mile too.
Wrong, most of that money is spent on higher priority things such as health and education, only about 12% is spent on the roads, the rest of the money comes from council tax and other, general taxes, in fact, it's local authorities that maintain the local roads within their boundaries, so most of the money spent on them is council tax.
[quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: Gooby, Drivers of course pay towards the roads, they pay fuel duty, vat on cars, mot, for the tax disc every year, and in future we will be paying per mile to drive along them, more and more new road projects will be toll roads, and of course they pay their normal taxes. Drivers pay a mix of direct and indirect taxation. All I am saying is that the mix for how cyclists contribute in taxes towards the road network should be skewed much more in favour of direct taxation also. As cars get greener, and go electric, too many are already exempt from the congestion charge and the licence disc - or get reduced rates. We will be going to a per mile system, and when it comes in cyclists should be paying per mile too.[/p][/quote]Wrong, most of that money is spent on higher priority things such as health and education, only about 12% is spent on the roads, the rest of the money comes from council tax and other, general taxes, in fact, it's local authorities that maintain the local roads within their boundaries, so most of the money spent on them is council tax. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

2:56pm Mon 15 Apr 13

1989CL says...

binghammac wrote:
Go away cyclists and leave the New Forest in peace. The residents do not want you lot here.
My love - I live in the New Forest and as such will use it to do what the hell I want. At the moment I am in training for a Charity Bike Event and raising money for numouros charities and I'll be damned if any of the money/help from these charities goes to the likes of you when you need it! ...

The New Forest is my Back garden and I welcome all cyclists, walkers, runners, picnic-ers, horse-riding, car events (at Beaulieu) - It's not owned by the likes of you, therefore you have no say who uses it!

I wonder how these snotty people who have nothing better to do and probably complain to the BBC over shows that are aired - would like it if we set out to damage their property, put pins in their car tyres and damage their house signs?....
[quote][p][bold]binghammac[/bold] wrote: Go away cyclists and leave the New Forest in peace. The residents do not want you lot here.[/p][/quote]My love - I live in the New Forest and as such will use it to do what the hell I want. At the moment I am in training for a Charity Bike Event and raising money for numouros charities and I'll be damned if any of the money/help from these charities goes to the likes of you when you need it! ... The New Forest is my Back garden and I welcome all cyclists, walkers, runners, picnic-ers, horse-riding, car events (at Beaulieu) - It's not owned by the likes of you, therefore you have no say who uses it! I wonder how these snotty people who have nothing better to do and probably complain to the BBC over shows that are aired - would like it if we set out to damage their property, put pins in their car tyres and damage their house signs?.... 1989CL
  • Score: 0

2:57pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Sotonians_lets_pull_together says...

"Ginger Cyclist

Maybe the gap is reduced but by moving out of lane to overtake, you are still overtaking properly, it's when motorists feel they can push through in the same lane that gets cyclists annoyed."

Actually the gap shouldnt be reduced, the car should always give a safe distance between the cyclist and the car, it shouldnt change if there are two cyclists, the car needs to pull out even wider to overtake safely.

It the driver cant give the same gap, they should not overtake.

This is why it was such a hazard at the weekend, as you had cyclists two or more abreast on both sides of the road, and drivers were trying to find gaps to overtake in safely, which was challenging and difficult.

I dont blame the drivers for feeling frustrated when the cyclists were ignoring the instructions of the race organisers to cycle in single file.

That is very selfish of those cyclists, not just to the drivers, but also to the other cyclists, as they put events like this at risk of being regulated out of existence, which would be a loss for all the cyclists concerned, even if many locals wouldnt shed too many tears.
"Ginger Cyclist Maybe the gap is reduced but by moving out of lane to overtake, you are still overtaking properly, it's when motorists feel they can push through in the same lane that gets cyclists annoyed." Actually the gap shouldnt be reduced, the car should always give a safe distance between the cyclist and the car, it shouldnt change if there are two cyclists, the car needs to pull out even wider to overtake safely. It the driver cant give the same gap, they should not overtake. This is why it was such a hazard at the weekend, as you had cyclists two or more abreast on both sides of the road, and drivers were trying to find gaps to overtake in safely, which was challenging and difficult. I dont blame the drivers for feeling frustrated when the cyclists were ignoring the instructions of the race organisers to cycle in single file. That is very selfish of those cyclists, not just to the drivers, but also to the other cyclists, as they put events like this at risk of being regulated out of existence, which would be a loss for all the cyclists concerned, even if many locals wouldnt shed too many tears. Sotonians_lets_pull_together
  • Score: 0

2:59pm Mon 15 Apr 13

HerbieGreen says...

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together
wrote:
Mike_D,

Cyclists always choose not to get how dangerous they are when they break the law

Put it this way.

If a cyclist ran a red light at a junction, people would brake.

If the only chance to avoid killing a cyclist pulling out in front of me was to swerve, many would do so, even into the path of other traffic, as the cyclist is the one without a big metal suit to protect them.

Even if it meant the driver was at risk of death and injury to do so, many people would rather hit a car than a cyclist.

Not all people would think that the cyclist was an idiot and deserved to die.

Even if the car driver swerved and just hit a curb, a sideways impact at 15mph can be sufficient to cause a car to roll, which could lead to the occupants of that or other vehicles coming to significant harm.

Is it right that cyclists are able to zip about ignoring the law and highway code and putting others at risk with impunity, nver getting caught, nver being subject to compulsory education, to points on a license, to fines,to bans, to jail?

Of course not. Cyclits deserve respect of course. They deserve equality.

But cyclists must take responsibility for what that means and accept that the responsible cyclists need to accept licensing, taxing and insurance for the sake of everyone, because a minority of cyclists are stupifd and dangerous, in the same way that car drivers have to.
This has all come a long way from the issue of some criminal activity by a few in the New Forest, wishing to disrupt a perfectly legal event. If you have a beef with the event, use the official channels to make that known - as I have to about the abysmal parking, driving and abuse from motorists using our road! I don't take to putting traps out for cars or taking all the traffic signs down!

You're talking about such a minority of incidents here though - infringements by cyclists are far outweighed by motorists - 4% of all red-light jumping are cyclists, 71% motorists (the rest split between lorries, motorcycles and so on). Very few cases of accident involving a car and a bicycle are the fault of the cyclist. There are anecdotal incidents that annoy motorists, but they choose to ignore the fact that most infringements are by motorists, and use the arguments of bad cyclists as a smoke screen.
[quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: Mike_D, Cyclists always choose not to get how dangerous they are when they break the law Put it this way. If a cyclist ran a red light at a junction, people would brake. If the only chance to avoid killing a cyclist pulling out in front of me was to swerve, many would do so, even into the path of other traffic, as the cyclist is the one without a big metal suit to protect them. Even if it meant the driver was at risk of death and injury to do so, many people would rather hit a car than a cyclist. Not all people would think that the cyclist was an idiot and deserved to die. Even if the car driver swerved and just hit a curb, a sideways impact at 15mph can be sufficient to cause a car to roll, which could lead to the occupants of that or other vehicles coming to significant harm. Is it right that cyclists are able to zip about ignoring the law and highway code and putting others at risk with impunity, nver getting caught, nver being subject to compulsory education, to points on a license, to fines,to bans, to jail? Of course not. Cyclits deserve respect of course. They deserve equality. But cyclists must take responsibility for what that means and accept that the responsible cyclists need to accept licensing, taxing and insurance for the sake of everyone, because a minority of cyclists are stupifd and dangerous, in the same way that car drivers have to.[/p][/quote]This has all come a long way from the issue of some criminal activity by a few in the New Forest, wishing to disrupt a perfectly legal event. If you have a beef with the event, use the official channels to make that known - as I have to about the abysmal parking, driving and abuse from motorists using our road! I don't take to putting traps out for cars or taking all the traffic signs down! You're talking about such a minority of incidents here though - infringements by cyclists are far outweighed by motorists - 4% of all red-light jumping are cyclists, 71% motorists (the rest split between lorries, motorcycles and so on). Very few cases of accident involving a car and a bicycle are the fault of the cyclist. There are anecdotal incidents that annoy motorists, but they choose to ignore the fact that most infringements are by motorists, and use the arguments of bad cyclists as a smoke screen. HerbieGreen
  • Score: 0

3:01pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Sotonians_lets_pull_together says...

Lol Ginger, what you mean is right. Some of our taxes indirect and direct, go towards road.

Cyclists get away with not paying much at the moment, and in the future I hope that will change.

Of course, as governments need to raise revenue to pay for everything else, the more people cycle, the more likely it is that this will happen.

It will be increasingly more important with austerity and a huge deficit for people to pay for what they use - whether that is drivers or cyclists. As cyclists currently dont pay much, they will be an easy target, particularly when pence per mile road pricing comes in.
Lol Ginger, what you mean is right. Some of our taxes indirect and direct, go towards road. Cyclists get away with not paying much at the moment, and in the future I hope that will change. Of course, as governments need to raise revenue to pay for everything else, the more people cycle, the more likely it is that this will happen. It will be increasingly more important with austerity and a huge deficit for people to pay for what they use - whether that is drivers or cyclists. As cyclists currently dont pay much, they will be an easy target, particularly when pence per mile road pricing comes in. Sotonians_lets_pull_together
  • Score: 0

3:03pm Mon 15 Apr 13

lovetheladies says...

foresthorse wrote:
saint61 wrote:
foresthorse wrote:
saint61 wrote: DOCTOR LEWIS, I HOPE YOUR PLEASED WITH YOURSELF
Gosh, it was Dr Lewis, was it? The mindless vandal!
His coments were the catalyst for this vandalism
No they weren't. He merely suggested, mirroring the concerns of constituents which, I guess, is his job, that the future of unlicensed rides needs further scrutiny. I think you'll find it was vandals who were the catalyst for the vandalism.
Er vandalism more like locals!!!! plus foresthorse vandals don't usually cause grevious bodily harm,,,, Mentality of these forest 6 finger families.
[quote][p][bold]foresthorse[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]saint61[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]foresthorse[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]saint61[/bold] wrote: DOCTOR LEWIS, I HOPE YOUR PLEASED WITH YOURSELF[/p][/quote]Gosh, it was Dr Lewis, was it? The mindless vandal![/p][/quote]His coments were the catalyst for this vandalism[/p][/quote]No they weren't. He merely suggested, mirroring the concerns of constituents which, I guess, is his job, that the future of unlicensed rides needs further scrutiny. I think you'll find it was vandals who were the catalyst for the vandalism.[/p][/quote]Er vandalism more like locals!!!! plus foresthorse vandals don't usually cause grevious bodily harm,,,, Mentality of these forest 6 finger families. lovetheladies
  • Score: 0

3:04pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Gooby! says...

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together
wrote:
Gooby,
Drivers of course pay towards the roads, they pay fuel duty, vat on cars, mot, for the tax disc every year, and in future we will be paying per mile to drive along them, more and more new road projects will be toll roads, and of course they pay their normal taxes. Drivers pay a mix of direct and indirect taxation.

All I am saying is that the mix for how cyclists contribute in taxes towards the road network should be skewed much more in favour of direct taxation also.

As cars get greener, and go electric, too many are already exempt from the congestion charge and the licence disc - or get reduced rates.

We will be going to a per mile system, and when it comes in cyclists should be paying per mile too.
Sorry, You pay fuel duty to buy fuel. How you use it is your right. Fuel duty does not pay for roads.
You pay VAT on cars... well you also pay VAT on a Cycle, what is your point?
You are regulated into buying a MOT for your car. You obtain an MOT from the garage. MOT's do not pay for roads.
You do not buy a tax disk. You buy Vehicle Excise duty. This is charged at a rate of C02 your chosen car produces. A cycle produces ZERO C02 and is charged accordingly at a rate of £0.

There is no direct taxation for the roads. as I have stated before and you seem to like to ignore any fact that disrupts your ignorant little bubble, roads are paid for from council tax. A disproportionate amount of council expenditure is on roads and not on cycling infrastructure.

Even if your twisted logic was correct (which it isnt), I have 3 cars. Doesnt that give me a larger right to the road than say someone with one car? or due to the tax I spend on 3 cars, I should be able to ride my bike any place I like? How many cars do you have? Is it less than me? Well you can get out of my way - it is my road!
[quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: Gooby, Drivers of course pay towards the roads, they pay fuel duty, vat on cars, mot, for the tax disc every year, and in future we will be paying per mile to drive along them, more and more new road projects will be toll roads, and of course they pay their normal taxes. Drivers pay a mix of direct and indirect taxation. All I am saying is that the mix for how cyclists contribute in taxes towards the road network should be skewed much more in favour of direct taxation also. As cars get greener, and go electric, too many are already exempt from the congestion charge and the licence disc - or get reduced rates. We will be going to a per mile system, and when it comes in cyclists should be paying per mile too.[/p][/quote]Sorry, You pay fuel duty to buy fuel. How you use it is your right. Fuel duty does not pay for roads. You pay VAT on cars... well you also pay VAT on a Cycle, what is your point? You are regulated into buying a MOT for your car. You obtain an MOT from the garage. MOT's do not pay for roads. You do not buy a tax disk. You buy Vehicle Excise duty. This is charged at a rate of C02 your chosen car produces. A cycle produces ZERO C02 and is charged accordingly at a rate of £0. There is no direct taxation for the roads. as I have stated before and you seem to like to ignore any fact that disrupts your ignorant little bubble, roads are paid for from council tax. A disproportionate amount of council expenditure is on roads and not on cycling infrastructure. Even if your twisted logic was correct (which it isnt), I have 3 cars. Doesnt that give me a larger right to the road than say someone with one car? or due to the tax I spend on 3 cars, I should be able to ride my bike any place I like? How many cars do you have? Is it less than me? Well you can get out of my way - it is my road! Gooby!
  • Score: 0

3:05pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Inform Al says...

HerbieGreen wrote:
Sotonians_lets_pull_

together
wrote:
Mike_D,

Cyclists always choose not to get how dangerous they are when they break the law

Put it this way.

If a cyclist ran a red light at a junction, people would brake.

If the only chance to avoid killing a cyclist pulling out in front of me was to swerve, many would do so, even into the path of other traffic, as the cyclist is the one without a big metal suit to protect them.

Even if it meant the driver was at risk of death and injury to do so, many people would rather hit a car than a cyclist.

Not all people would think that the cyclist was an idiot and deserved to die.

Even if the car driver swerved and just hit a curb, a sideways impact at 15mph can be sufficient to cause a car to roll, which could lead to the occupants of that or other vehicles coming to significant harm.

Is it right that cyclists are able to zip about ignoring the law and highway code and putting others at risk with impunity, nver getting caught, nver being subject to compulsory education, to points on a license, to fines,to bans, to jail?

Of course not. Cyclits deserve respect of course. They deserve equality.

But cyclists must take responsibility for what that means and accept that the responsible cyclists need to accept licensing, taxing and insurance for the sake of everyone, because a minority of cyclists are stupifd and dangerous, in the same way that car drivers have to.
This has all come a long way from the issue of some criminal activity by a few in the New Forest, wishing to disrupt a perfectly legal event. If you have a beef with the event, use the official channels to make that known - as I have to about the abysmal parking, driving and abuse from motorists using our road! I don't take to putting traps out for cars or taking all the traffic signs down!

You're talking about such a minority of incidents here though - infringements by cyclists are far outweighed by motorists - 4% of all red-light jumping are cyclists, 71% motorists (the rest split between lorries, motorcycles and so on). Very few cases of accident involving a car and a bicycle are the fault of the cyclist. There are anecdotal incidents that annoy motorists, but they choose to ignore the fact that most infringements are by motorists, and use the arguments of bad cyclists as a smoke screen.
Whilst your percentages may be about right, it is an unfortunate probability that a greater percentage of cyclists jump lights than that of cars.
[quote][p][bold]HerbieGreen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: Mike_D, Cyclists always choose not to get how dangerous they are when they break the law Put it this way. If a cyclist ran a red light at a junction, people would brake. If the only chance to avoid killing a cyclist pulling out in front of me was to swerve, many would do so, even into the path of other traffic, as the cyclist is the one without a big metal suit to protect them. Even if it meant the driver was at risk of death and injury to do so, many people would rather hit a car than a cyclist. Not all people would think that the cyclist was an idiot and deserved to die. Even if the car driver swerved and just hit a curb, a sideways impact at 15mph can be sufficient to cause a car to roll, which could lead to the occupants of that or other vehicles coming to significant harm. Is it right that cyclists are able to zip about ignoring the law and highway code and putting others at risk with impunity, nver getting caught, nver being subject to compulsory education, to points on a license, to fines,to bans, to jail? Of course not. Cyclits deserve respect of course. They deserve equality. But cyclists must take responsibility for what that means and accept that the responsible cyclists need to accept licensing, taxing and insurance for the sake of everyone, because a minority of cyclists are stupifd and dangerous, in the same way that car drivers have to.[/p][/quote]This has all come a long way from the issue of some criminal activity by a few in the New Forest, wishing to disrupt a perfectly legal event. If you have a beef with the event, use the official channels to make that known - as I have to about the abysmal parking, driving and abuse from motorists using our road! I don't take to putting traps out for cars or taking all the traffic signs down! You're talking about such a minority of incidents here though - infringements by cyclists are far outweighed by motorists - 4% of all red-light jumping are cyclists, 71% motorists (the rest split between lorries, motorcycles and so on). Very few cases of accident involving a car and a bicycle are the fault of the cyclist. There are anecdotal incidents that annoy motorists, but they choose to ignore the fact that most infringements are by motorists, and use the arguments of bad cyclists as a smoke screen.[/p][/quote]Whilst your percentages may be about right, it is an unfortunate probability that a greater percentage of cyclists jump lights than that of cars. Inform Al
  • Score: 0

3:08pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Sotonians_lets_pull_together says...

Herbie,
Once cyclists are taxed, licenced a nd insured, however many or few are doing it, they can be caught and fined, and banned from cycling to stop them doing it again, which would be a GOOD THING.

I believe a lot more are doing it than you think. I see vast numbers of cyclists going round without lights. It would be good if that was 3 points on a licence and a £60 fine for a start!

However, it would be worth it for so many different reasons, catching thugs, thieves, muggers, burglars, arsonists, and vandals, helping defray the costs of developing and maintainin the road and cycle network, it would be a big boost to the insurance industry, which would help people's pensions.

No reasonable person could not see the advantages.

It is pure naked self interest which makes cyclists so anti being licenced taxed and insured. They dont want to pay to use the roads, and they dont want to get caught and punished when they cycle without lights, they run red lights, cycle on pavements, etc.
Herbie, Once cyclists are taxed, licenced a nd insured, however many or few are doing it, they can be caught and fined, and banned from cycling to stop them doing it again, which would be a GOOD THING. I believe a lot more are doing it than you think. I see vast numbers of cyclists going round without lights. It would be good if that was 3 points on a licence and a £60 fine for a start! However, it would be worth it for so many different reasons, catching thugs, thieves, muggers, burglars, arsonists, and vandals, helping defray the costs of developing and maintainin the road and cycle network, it would be a big boost to the insurance industry, which would help people's pensions. No reasonable person could not see the advantages. It is pure naked self interest which makes cyclists so anti being licenced taxed and insured. They dont want to pay to use the roads, and they dont want to get caught and punished when they cycle without lights, they run red lights, cycle on pavements, etc. Sotonians_lets_pull_together
  • Score: 0

3:11pm Mon 15 Apr 13

LittleMissM says...

Norwegian Saint wrote:
@the frustrated cyclist... I am trying to point out that it is not always the car drivers fault with deaths and I am glad that I stayed on the road or it may have been Cyclist 1 Norwegian Saint 0! One thing my Norwegian Girlfriend could not believe over there was the lack of any cycle paths, there are purpose built cycle paths out here, and the norwegians only have 3million cars... in the whole country! Maybe drivers would stop moaning if the cyclists pay a small tax?
The large majority of cyclists do pay tax, just like everyone else.

As with everything, there are good examples and bad examples on both sides, but nothing excuses putting people's lives in danger. And as others have pointed out, it's not just the cyclists who could have been affected by this (and I really hope the person with the broken collarbone is able to make a quick recovery) but also motorcyclists and other road users. I've punctured at speed going downhill and it was truly scary experience, the idea that someone is out there deliberately trying to make that happen is horrifying and I'd hope the authorities take it very seriously indeed.
[quote][p][bold]Norwegian Saint[/bold] wrote: @the frustrated cyclist... I am trying to point out that it is not always the car drivers fault with deaths and I am glad that I stayed on the road or it may have been Cyclist 1 Norwegian Saint 0! One thing my Norwegian Girlfriend could not believe over there was the lack of any cycle paths, there are purpose built cycle paths out here, and the norwegians only have 3million cars... in the whole country! Maybe drivers would stop moaning if the cyclists pay a small tax?[/p][/quote]The large majority of cyclists do pay tax, just like everyone else. As with everything, there are good examples and bad examples on both sides, but nothing excuses putting people's lives in danger. And as others have pointed out, it's not just the cyclists who could have been affected by this (and I really hope the person with the broken collarbone is able to make a quick recovery) but also motorcyclists and other road users. I've punctured at speed going downhill and it was truly scary experience, the idea that someone is out there deliberately trying to make that happen is horrifying and I'd hope the authorities take it very seriously indeed. LittleMissM
  • Score: 0

3:12pm Mon 15 Apr 13

andysub60 says...

There's lots of talk about how disruptive the event was going to be for road users. A bit like the New Forest Show is during the working week in the summer...and all the tourists that pour into New Forest. Perhaps we should ban the New Forest Show, campsites, hotels, not allow anyone else to visit and enjoy the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty...very narrow minded
There's lots of talk about how disruptive the event was going to be for road users. A bit like the New Forest Show is during the working week in the summer...and all the tourists that pour into New Forest. Perhaps we should ban the New Forest Show, campsites, hotels, not allow anyone else to visit and enjoy the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty...very narrow minded andysub60
  • Score: 0

3:12pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Sotonians_lets_pull_together says...

Gooby,
You are kidding yourself if you think there is no taxation for roads, and that governments do not consider it important that road use at least pays for itself through direct and indirect taxes.

It is because so many people are paying less to use roads, whether cycling or low emission cars that the governments have so keen to move towards a pay per mile road pricing model

Dont worry, before long you will end up paying more for it one way or another :-)
Gooby, You are kidding yourself if you think there is no taxation for roads, and that governments do not consider it important that road use at least pays for itself through direct and indirect taxes. It is because so many people are paying less to use roads, whether cycling or low emission cars that the governments have so keen to move towards a pay per mile road pricing model Dont worry, before long you will end up paying more for it one way or another :-) Sotonians_lets_pull_together
  • Score: 0

3:13pm Mon 15 Apr 13

elvisimo says...

Inform Al wrote:
HerbieGreen wrote:
Sotonians_lets_pull_


together
wrote:
Mike_D,

Cyclists always choose not to get how dangerous they are when they break the law

Put it this way.

If a cyclist ran a red light at a junction, people would brake.

If the only chance to avoid killing a cyclist pulling out in front of me was to swerve, many would do so, even into the path of other traffic, as the cyclist is the one without a big metal suit to protect them.

Even if it meant the driver was at risk of death and injury to do so, many people would rather hit a car than a cyclist.

Not all people would think that the cyclist was an idiot and deserved to die.

Even if the car driver swerved and just hit a curb, a sideways impact at 15mph can be sufficient to cause a car to roll, which could lead to the occupants of that or other vehicles coming to significant harm.

Is it right that cyclists are able to zip about ignoring the law and highway code and putting others at risk with impunity, nver getting caught, nver being subject to compulsory education, to points on a license, to fines,to bans, to jail?

Of course not. Cyclits deserve respect of course. They deserve equality.

But cyclists must take responsibility for what that means and accept that the responsible cyclists need to accept licensing, taxing and insurance for the sake of everyone, because a minority of cyclists are stupifd and dangerous, in the same way that car drivers have to.
This has all come a long way from the issue of some criminal activity by a few in the New Forest, wishing to disrupt a perfectly legal event. If you have a beef with the event, use the official channels to make that known - as I have to about the abysmal parking, driving and abuse from motorists using our road! I don't take to putting traps out for cars or taking all the traffic signs down!

You're talking about such a minority of incidents here though - infringements by cyclists are far outweighed by motorists - 4% of all red-light jumping are cyclists, 71% motorists (the rest split between lorries, motorcycles and so on). Very few cases of accident involving a car and a bicycle are the fault of the cyclist. There are anecdotal incidents that annoy motorists, but they choose to ignore the fact that most infringements are by motorists, and use the arguments of bad cyclists as a smoke screen.
Whilst your percentages may be about right, it is an unfortunate probability that a greater percentage of cyclists jump lights than that of cars.
supposition
[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HerbieGreen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: Mike_D, Cyclists always choose not to get how dangerous they are when they break the law Put it this way. If a cyclist ran a red light at a junction, people would brake. If the only chance to avoid killing a cyclist pulling out in front of me was to swerve, many would do so, even into the path of other traffic, as the cyclist is the one without a big metal suit to protect them. Even if it meant the driver was at risk of death and injury to do so, many people would rather hit a car than a cyclist. Not all people would think that the cyclist was an idiot and deserved to die. Even if the car driver swerved and just hit a curb, a sideways impact at 15mph can be sufficient to cause a car to roll, which could lead to the occupants of that or other vehicles coming to significant harm. Is it right that cyclists are able to zip about ignoring the law and highway code and putting others at risk with impunity, nver getting caught, nver being subject to compulsory education, to points on a license, to fines,to bans, to jail? Of course not. Cyclits deserve respect of course. They deserve equality. But cyclists must take responsibility for what that means and accept that the responsible cyclists need to accept licensing, taxing and insurance for the sake of everyone, because a minority of cyclists are stupifd and dangerous, in the same way that car drivers have to.[/p][/quote]This has all come a long way from the issue of some criminal activity by a few in the New Forest, wishing to disrupt a perfectly legal event. If you have a beef with the event, use the official channels to make that known - as I have to about the abysmal parking, driving and abuse from motorists using our road! I don't take to putting traps out for cars or taking all the traffic signs down! You're talking about such a minority of incidents here though - infringements by cyclists are far outweighed by motorists - 4% of all red-light jumping are cyclists, 71% motorists (the rest split between lorries, motorcycles and so on). Very few cases of accident involving a car and a bicycle are the fault of the cyclist. There are anecdotal incidents that annoy motorists, but they choose to ignore the fact that most infringements are by motorists, and use the arguments of bad cyclists as a smoke screen.[/p][/quote]Whilst your percentages may be about right, it is an unfortunate probability that a greater percentage of cyclists jump lights than that of cars.[/p][/quote]supposition elvisimo
  • Score: 0

3:15pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Gooby! says...

Inform Al wrote:
HerbieGreen wrote:
Sotonians_lets_pull_


together
wrote:
Mike_D,

Cyclists always choose not to get how dangerous they are when they break the law

Put it this way.

If a cyclist ran a red light at a junction, people would brake.

If the only chance to avoid killing a cyclist pulling out in front of me was to swerve, many would do so, even into the path of other traffic, as the cyclist is the one without a big metal suit to protect them.

Even if it meant the driver was at risk of death and injury to do so, many people would rather hit a car than a cyclist.

Not all people would think that the cyclist was an idiot and deserved to die.

Even if the car driver swerved and just hit a curb, a sideways impact at 15mph can be sufficient to cause a car to roll, which could lead to the occupants of that or other vehicles coming to significant harm.

Is it right that cyclists are able to zip about ignoring the law and highway code and putting others at risk with impunity, nver getting caught, nver being subject to compulsory education, to points on a license, to fines,to bans, to jail?

Of course not. Cyclits deserve respect of course. They deserve equality.

But cyclists must take responsibility for what that means and accept that the responsible cyclists need to accept licensing, taxing and insurance for the sake of everyone, because a minority of cyclists are stupifd and dangerous, in the same way that car drivers have to.
This has all come a long way from the issue of some criminal activity by a few in the New Forest, wishing to disrupt a perfectly legal event. If you have a beef with the event, use the official channels to make that known - as I have to about the abysmal parking, driving and abuse from motorists using our road! I don't take to putting traps out for cars or taking all the traffic signs down!

You're talking about such a minority of incidents here though - infringements by cyclists are far outweighed by motorists - 4% of all red-light jumping are cyclists, 71% motorists (the rest split between lorries, motorcycles and so on). Very few cases of accident involving a car and a bicycle are the fault of the cyclist. There are anecdotal incidents that annoy motorists, but they choose to ignore the fact that most infringements are by motorists, and use the arguments of bad cyclists as a smoke screen.
Whilst your percentages may be about right, it is an unfortunate probability that a greater percentage of cyclists jump lights than that of cars.
But they seem not to come to any harm.

If they jump a light and come to no harm and no ones journey is disrupted or any danger resulting from jumping a red light is caused then why get upset?

it seems that you are jealous that the cyclist got away with it.
[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HerbieGreen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: Mike_D, Cyclists always choose not to get how dangerous they are when they break the law Put it this way. If a cyclist ran a red light at a junction, people would brake. If the only chance to avoid killing a cyclist pulling out in front of me was to swerve, many would do so, even into the path of other traffic, as the cyclist is the one without a big metal suit to protect them. Even if it meant the driver was at risk of death and injury to do so, many people would rather hit a car than a cyclist. Not all people would think that the cyclist was an idiot and deserved to die. Even if the car driver swerved and just hit a curb, a sideways impact at 15mph can be sufficient to cause a car to roll, which could lead to the occupants of that or other vehicles coming to significant harm. Is it right that cyclists are able to zip about ignoring the law and highway code and putting others at risk with impunity, nver getting caught, nver being subject to compulsory education, to points on a license, to fines,to bans, to jail? Of course not. Cyclits deserve respect of course. They deserve equality. But cyclists must take responsibility for what that means and accept that the responsible cyclists need to accept licensing, taxing and insurance for the sake of everyone, because a minority of cyclists are stupifd and dangerous, in the same way that car drivers have to.[/p][/quote]This has all come a long way from the issue of some criminal activity by a few in the New Forest, wishing to disrupt a perfectly legal event. If you have a beef with the event, use the official channels to make that known - as I have to about the abysmal parking, driving and abuse from motorists using our road! I don't take to putting traps out for cars or taking all the traffic signs down! You're talking about such a minority of incidents here though - infringements by cyclists are far outweighed by motorists - 4% of all red-light jumping are cyclists, 71% motorists (the rest split between lorries, motorcycles and so on). Very few cases of accident involving a car and a bicycle are the fault of the cyclist. There are anecdotal incidents that annoy motorists, but they choose to ignore the fact that most infringements are by motorists, and use the arguments of bad cyclists as a smoke screen.[/p][/quote]Whilst your percentages may be about right, it is an unfortunate probability that a greater percentage of cyclists jump lights than that of cars.[/p][/quote]But they seem not to come to any harm. If they jump a light and come to no harm and no ones journey is disrupted or any danger resulting from jumping a red light is caused then why get upset? it seems that you are jealous that the cyclist got away with it. Gooby!
  • Score: 0

3:15pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Sotonians_lets_pull_together says...

Once the cars are green, the bikes will be less distinctive, and just another form of green road use, ripe for taxation ;-)

"Vehicle tax will be replaced by pay-as-you drive tolls,Transport Minister Norman Baker has predicted.

He warned that a projected fall in Treasury fuel revenues and the growth in electric and greener cars made a new road pricing system inevitable.

Mr Baker said the scrapping of excise duty and a cut in fuel taxes would be evened out by new charges monitored by a 'black box' in the vehicles."

http://www.dailymail
.co.uk/news/article-
2207374/Road-tax-fac
ing-axe--celebrate-l
ikely-replaced-pay-d
rive-tolls.html
Once the cars are green, the bikes will be less distinctive, and just another form of green road use, ripe for taxation ;-) "Vehicle tax will be replaced by pay-as-you drive tolls,Transport Minister Norman Baker has predicted. He warned that a projected fall in Treasury fuel revenues and the growth in electric and greener cars made a new road pricing system inevitable. Mr Baker said the scrapping of excise duty and a cut in fuel taxes would be evened out by new charges monitored by a 'black box' in the vehicles." http://www.dailymail .co.uk/news/article- 2207374/Road-tax-fac ing-axe--celebrate-l ikely-replaced-pay-d rive-tolls.html Sotonians_lets_pull_together
  • Score: 0

3:16pm Mon 15 Apr 13

HerbieGreen says...

Inform Al wrote:
HerbieGreen wrote:
Sotonians_lets_pull_


together
wrote:
Mike_D,

Cyclists always choose not to get how dangerous they are when they break the law

Put it this way.

If a cyclist ran a red light at a junction, people would brake.

If the only chance to avoid killing a cyclist pulling out in front of me was to swerve, many would do so, even into the path of other traffic, as the cyclist is the one without a big metal suit to protect them.

Even if it meant the driver was at risk of death and injury to do so, many people would rather hit a car than a cyclist.

Not all people would think that the cyclist was an idiot and deserved to die.

Even if the car driver swerved and just hit a curb, a sideways impact at 15mph can be sufficient to cause a car to roll, which could lead to the occupants of that or other vehicles coming to significant harm.

Is it right that cyclists are able to zip about ignoring the law and highway code and putting others at risk with impunity, nver getting caught, nver being subject to compulsory education, to points on a license, to fines,to bans, to jail?

Of course not. Cyclits deserve respect of course. They deserve equality.

But cyclists must take responsibility for what that means and accept that the responsible cyclists need to accept licensing, taxing and insurance for the sake of everyone, because a minority of cyclists are stupifd and dangerous, in the same way that car drivers have to.
This has all come a long way from the issue of some criminal activity by a few in the New Forest, wishing to disrupt a perfectly legal event. If you have a beef with the event, use the official channels to make that known - as I have to about the abysmal parking, driving and abuse from motorists using our road! I don't take to putting traps out for cars or taking all the traffic signs down!

You're talking about such a minority of incidents here though - infringements by cyclists are far outweighed by motorists - 4% of all red-light jumping are cyclists, 71% motorists (the rest split between lorries, motorcycles and so on). Very few cases of accident involving a car and a bicycle are the fault of the cyclist. There are anecdotal incidents that annoy motorists, but they choose to ignore the fact that most infringements are by motorists, and use the arguments of bad cyclists as a smoke screen.
Whilst your percentages may be about right, it is an unfortunate probability that a greater percentage of cyclists jump lights than that of cars.
Quite possibly - the consequence of a car jumping red lights is infinitely more dangerous for other road users, and the number of times motorists cause accidents when jumping red lights is far higher, as they do so at greater speed and with less ability to judge the situation. I don't condone anyone jumping red lights, but the heavier and faster the vehicle the more heinous a crime it should be.
[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HerbieGreen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: Mike_D, Cyclists always choose not to get how dangerous they are when they break the law Put it this way. If a cyclist ran a red light at a junction, people would brake. If the only chance to avoid killing a cyclist pulling out in front of me was to swerve, many would do so, even into the path of other traffic, as the cyclist is the one without a big metal suit to protect them. Even if it meant the driver was at risk of death and injury to do so, many people would rather hit a car than a cyclist. Not all people would think that the cyclist was an idiot and deserved to die. Even if the car driver swerved and just hit a curb, a sideways impact at 15mph can be sufficient to cause a car to roll, which could lead to the occupants of that or other vehicles coming to significant harm. Is it right that cyclists are able to zip about ignoring the law and highway code and putting others at risk with impunity, nver getting caught, nver being subject to compulsory education, to points on a license, to fines,to bans, to jail? Of course not. Cyclits deserve respect of course. They deserve equality. But cyclists must take responsibility for what that means and accept that the responsible cyclists need to accept licensing, taxing and insurance for the sake of everyone, because a minority of cyclists are stupifd and dangerous, in the same way that car drivers have to.[/p][/quote]This has all come a long way from the issue of some criminal activity by a few in the New Forest, wishing to disrupt a perfectly legal event. If you have a beef with the event, use the official channels to make that known - as I have to about the abysmal parking, driving and abuse from motorists using our road! I don't take to putting traps out for cars or taking all the traffic signs down! You're talking about such a minority of incidents here though - infringements by cyclists are far outweighed by motorists - 4% of all red-light jumping are cyclists, 71% motorists (the rest split between lorries, motorcycles and so on). Very few cases of accident involving a car and a bicycle are the fault of the cyclist. There are anecdotal incidents that annoy motorists, but they choose to ignore the fact that most infringements are by motorists, and use the arguments of bad cyclists as a smoke screen.[/p][/quote]Whilst your percentages may be about right, it is an unfortunate probability that a greater percentage of cyclists jump lights than that of cars.[/p][/quote]Quite possibly - the consequence of a car jumping red lights is infinitely more dangerous for other road users, and the number of times motorists cause accidents when jumping red lights is far higher, as they do so at greater speed and with less ability to judge the situation. I don't condone anyone jumping red lights, but the heavier and faster the vehicle the more heinous a crime it should be. HerbieGreen
  • Score: 0

3:18pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Sotonians_lets_pull_together says...

Gooby

I am not jealous of any fool that runs a red light, but I would be happy to see them prosecuted for recklessly endangering the property and lives of others.

Rather too many cyclists die on our roads. I would prefer to see them fined, banned from the road or in jail, rather than in coffins.
Gooby I am not jealous of any fool that runs a red light, but I would be happy to see them prosecuted for recklessly endangering the property and lives of others. Rather too many cyclists die on our roads. I would prefer to see them fined, banned from the road or in jail, rather than in coffins. Sotonians_lets_pull_together
  • Score: 0

3:18pm Mon 15 Apr 13

elvisimo says...

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together
wrote:
Herbie,
Once cyclists are taxed, licenced a nd insured, however many or few are doing it, they can be caught and fined, and banned from cycling to stop them doing it again, which would be a GOOD THING.

I believe a lot more are doing it than you think. I see vast numbers of cyclists going round without lights. It would be good if that was 3 points on a licence and a £60 fine for a start!

However, it would be worth it for so many different reasons, catching thugs, thieves, muggers, burglars, arsonists, and vandals, helping defray the costs of developing and maintainin the road and cycle network, it would be a big boost to the insurance industry, which would help people's pensions.

No reasonable person could not see the advantages.

It is pure naked self interest which makes cyclists so anti being licenced taxed and insured. They dont want to pay to use the roads, and they dont want to get caught and punished when they cycle without lights, they run red lights, cycle on pavements, etc.
I ask again - who on earth will pay for and police this????

I did not realise there was such a heinous bike borne crime epidemic? Arsonists, muggers - how about mass murderers, corporate criminals, bigamists and people who are cruel to animals.

Your comments are probably the most ill thought out and comical that have appeared on this site, although I suppose it could be a spoof account?
[quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: Herbie, Once cyclists are taxed, licenced a nd insured, however many or few are doing it, they can be caught and fined, and banned from cycling to stop them doing it again, which would be a GOOD THING. I believe a lot more are doing it than you think. I see vast numbers of cyclists going round without lights. It would be good if that was 3 points on a licence and a £60 fine for a start! However, it would be worth it for so many different reasons, catching thugs, thieves, muggers, burglars, arsonists, and vandals, helping defray the costs of developing and maintainin the road and cycle network, it would be a big boost to the insurance industry, which would help people's pensions. No reasonable person could not see the advantages. It is pure naked self interest which makes cyclists so anti being licenced taxed and insured. They dont want to pay to use the roads, and they dont want to get caught and punished when they cycle without lights, they run red lights, cycle on pavements, etc.[/p][/quote]I ask again - who on earth will pay for and police this???? I did not realise there was such a heinous bike borne crime epidemic? Arsonists, muggers - how about mass murderers, corporate criminals, bigamists and people who are cruel to animals. Your comments are probably the most ill thought out and comical that have appeared on this site, although I suppose it could be a spoof account? elvisimo
  • Score: 0

3:20pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Gooby! says...

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together
wrote:
Gooby,
You are kidding yourself if you think there is no taxation for roads, and that governments do not consider it important that road use at least pays for itself through direct and indirect taxes.

It is because so many people are paying less to use roads, whether cycling or low emission cars that the governments have so keen to move towards a pay per mile road pricing model

Dont worry, before long you will end up paying more for it one way or another :-)
Do you not read what is written. Is your social worker out of the room? Is she not explaining it to you?

By the current model of taxation, roads are funded by your local authority.

If you are making a point on the vandalisation of a cycling sportive in the new forest by dreaming about Tax and road funding some time 20 years in the future then you are truly dealing with beads.

Call her back in (your social worker) and perhaps she can read this slowly to you. Better still, step away from the keyboard and go back to Jeremy Kyle and your copy of the Mail.
[quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: Gooby, You are kidding yourself if you think there is no taxation for roads, and that governments do not consider it important that road use at least pays for itself through direct and indirect taxes. It is because so many people are paying less to use roads, whether cycling or low emission cars that the governments have so keen to move towards a pay per mile road pricing model Dont worry, before long you will end up paying more for it one way or another :-)[/p][/quote]Do you not read what is written. Is your social worker out of the room? Is she not explaining it to you? By the current model of taxation, roads are funded by your local authority. If you are making a point on the vandalisation of a cycling sportive in the new forest by dreaming about Tax and road funding some time 20 years in the future then you are truly dealing with beads. Call her back in (your social worker) and perhaps she can read this slowly to you. Better still, step away from the keyboard and go back to Jeremy Kyle and your copy of the Mail. Gooby!
  • Score: 0

3:25pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Gooby! says...

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together
wrote:
Gooby

I am not jealous of any fool that runs a red light, but I would be happy to see them prosecuted for recklessly endangering the property and lives of others.

Rather too many cyclists die on our roads. I would prefer to see them fined, banned from the road or in jail, rather than in coffins.
Jail for running a red light? Not even shara law is that crazy.


The scary thing is you are allowed to vote. Luckily only once.

Perhaps all the negative revenue from bike licencing could build the extra jails required. There is plenty of space in the new forest, perhaps we could erect the new prisons there?
[quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: Gooby I am not jealous of any fool that runs a red light, but I would be happy to see them prosecuted for recklessly endangering the property and lives of others. Rather too many cyclists die on our roads. I would prefer to see them fined, banned from the road or in jail, rather than in coffins.[/p][/quote]Jail for running a red light? Not even shara law is that crazy. The scary thing is you are allowed to vote. Luckily only once. Perhaps all the negative revenue from bike licencing could build the extra jails required. There is plenty of space in the new forest, perhaps we could erect the new prisons there? Gooby!
  • Score: 0

3:27pm Mon 15 Apr 13

lovetheladies says...

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together
wrote:
Lol Ginger, what you mean is right. Some of our taxes indirect and direct, go towards road. Cyclists get away with not paying much at the moment, and in the future I hope that will change. Of course, as governments need to raise revenue to pay for everything else, the more people cycle, the more likely it is that this will happen. It will be increasingly more important with austerity and a huge deficit for people to pay for what they use - whether that is drivers or cyclists. As cyclists currently dont pay much, they will be an easy target, particularly when pence per mile road pricing comes in.
Do you have mental health issues son!!???
[quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: Lol Ginger, what you mean is right. Some of our taxes indirect and direct, go towards road. Cyclists get away with not paying much at the moment, and in the future I hope that will change. Of course, as governments need to raise revenue to pay for everything else, the more people cycle, the more likely it is that this will happen. It will be increasingly more important with austerity and a huge deficit for people to pay for what they use - whether that is drivers or cyclists. As cyclists currently dont pay much, they will be an easy target, particularly when pence per mile road pricing comes in.[/p][/quote]Do you have mental health issues son!!??? lovetheladies
  • Score: 0

3:28pm Mon 15 Apr 13

S Pance says...

saint61 wrote:
foresthorse wrote:
saint61 wrote: DOCTOR LEWIS, I HOPE YOUR PLEASED WITH YOURSELF
Gosh, it was Dr Lewis, was it? The mindless vandal!
His coments were the catalyst for this vandalism
See the comments relating to other article. A cyclist essentially admitted that they, as a group, deliberately block vehicles from passing.

Things are not as one sided as you would have people believe. Whilst the vandalism is obviously wrong, it appears that cyclists go out of their way to antagonise other road users simply because "they can".

It's not an excuse for this vandalism but you can understand perhaps why people are getting wound up.
[quote][p][bold]saint61[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]foresthorse[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]saint61[/bold] wrote: DOCTOR LEWIS, I HOPE YOUR PLEASED WITH YOURSELF[/p][/quote]Gosh, it was Dr Lewis, was it? The mindless vandal![/p][/quote]His coments were the catalyst for this vandalism[/p][/quote]See the comments relating to other article. A cyclist essentially admitted that they, as a group, deliberately block vehicles from passing. Things are not as one sided as you would have people believe. Whilst the vandalism is obviously wrong, it appears that cyclists go out of their way to antagonise other road users simply because "they can". It's not an excuse for this vandalism but you can understand perhaps why people are getting wound up. S Pance
  • Score: 0

3:30pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Sotonians_lets_pull_together says...

Gooby,

"the consequence of a car jumping red lights is infinitely more dangerous for other road users, and the number of times motorists cause accidents when jumping red lights is far higher, as they do so at greater speed and with less ability to judge the situation. I don't condone anyone jumping red lights, but the heavier and faster the vehicle the more heinous a crime it should be."

What you say is nonsense, as by running a red light you potentially cause other large heavy dangerous vehicles to brake or take avoiding action. The driver may hit you, or hit someone else. People may die, or innocent people may be unjustly jailed for the stupidity of a cyclist who may be long gone from the scene. Justice doesnt always get the right person, and innocent people can end up in jail. One day it could be you as a driver in that position, knowing that you did nothing wrong, there was nothing else you could have done, but with your life on hold wondering whether you will be jailed for something which was not your responsibility.

You could be the one killing a cyclist, the cyclist mangled under your wheels, nothing you could do, but you could be tormented foreever by the images, waking up at night with post traumatic stress, guilt that you cannot stop yourself from feeling, despite there having been nothing you could have done.

Lives could be ruined, families lose parents either killed or jailed because some little oik didnt care about running a red light across a busy junction.

That is a disgraceful attitude and one completely without insight for the consequences.

Have I painted a clear enough picture for you? Perhaps you should ask the police if you could attend a few RTA's and then you may not treat such reckless endangerment of life so trivially.

And bearing this in mind, some people say that drivers should be held responsible WHATEVER the circumstances! Too many cyclists are irresponsible as it is, without giving them a get out of jail free card. We are almost there now because they are not licensed taxed and insured.
Gooby, "the consequence of a car jumping red lights is infinitely more dangerous for other road users, and the number of times motorists cause accidents when jumping red lights is far higher, as they do so at greater speed and with less ability to judge the situation. I don't condone anyone jumping red lights, but the heavier and faster the vehicle the more heinous a crime it should be." What you say is nonsense, as by running a red light you potentially cause other large heavy dangerous vehicles to brake or take avoiding action. The driver may hit you, or hit someone else. People may die, or innocent people may be unjustly jailed for the stupidity of a cyclist who may be long gone from the scene. Justice doesnt always get the right person, and innocent people can end up in jail. One day it could be you as a driver in that position, knowing that you did nothing wrong, there was nothing else you could have done, but with your life on hold wondering whether you will be jailed for something which was not your responsibility. You could be the one killing a cyclist, the cyclist mangled under your wheels, nothing you could do, but you could be tormented foreever by the images, waking up at night with post traumatic stress, guilt that you cannot stop yourself from feeling, despite there having been nothing you could have done. Lives could be ruined, families lose parents either killed or jailed because some little oik didnt care about running a red light across a busy junction. That is a disgraceful attitude and one completely without insight for the consequences. Have I painted a clear enough picture for you? Perhaps you should ask the police if you could attend a few RTA's and then you may not treat such reckless endangerment of life so trivially. And bearing this in mind, some people say that drivers should be held responsible WHATEVER the circumstances! Too many cyclists are irresponsible as it is, without giving them a get out of jail free card. We are almost there now because they are not licensed taxed and insured. Sotonians_lets_pull_together
  • Score: 0

3:34pm Mon 15 Apr 13

S Pance says...

When the event is re-run, I think the organisers should make it COMPULSORY that each and every rider wears a unique number. That way, any that act like an arse can be reported, banned from future events or reported to the Police.

If all cyclists are as law abiding as certain people say, I can see no possible grounds for objection whatsoever.

So, would the cycling fraternity agree to this?
When the event is re-run, I think the organisers should make it COMPULSORY that each and every rider wears a unique number. That way, any that act like an arse can be reported, banned from future events or reported to the Police. If all cyclists are as law abiding as certain people say, I can see no possible grounds for objection whatsoever. So, would the cycling fraternity agree to this? S Pance
  • Score: 0

3:34pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Inform Al says...

elvisimo wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
HerbieGreen wrote:
Sotonians_lets_pull_



together
wrote:
Mike_D,

Cyclists always choose not to get how dangerous they are when they break the law

Put it this way.

If a cyclist ran a red light at a junction, people would brake.

If the only chance to avoid killing a cyclist pulling out in front of me was to swerve, many would do so, even into the path of other traffic, as the cyclist is the one without a big metal suit to protect them.

Even if it meant the driver was at risk of death and injury to do so, many people would rather hit a car than a cyclist.

Not all people would think that the cyclist was an idiot and deserved to die.

Even if the car driver swerved and just hit a curb, a sideways impact at 15mph can be sufficient to cause a car to roll, which could lead to the occupants of that or other vehicles coming to significant harm.

Is it right that cyclists are able to zip about ignoring the law and highway code and putting others at risk with impunity, nver getting caught, nver being subject to compulsory education, to points on a license, to fines,to bans, to jail?

Of course not. Cyclits deserve respect of course. They deserve equality.

But cyclists must take responsibility for what that means and accept that the responsible cyclists need to accept licensing, taxing and insurance for the sake of everyone, because a minority of cyclists are stupifd and dangerous, in the same way that car drivers have to.
This has all come a long way from the issue of some criminal activity by a few in the New Forest, wishing to disrupt a perfectly legal event. If you have a beef with the event, use the official channels to make that known - as I have to about the abysmal parking, driving and abuse from motorists using our road! I don't take to putting traps out for cars or taking all the traffic signs down!

You're talking about such a minority of incidents here though - infringements by cyclists are far outweighed by motorists - 4% of all red-light jumping are cyclists, 71% motorists (the rest split between lorries, motorcycles and so on). Very few cases of accident involving a car and a bicycle are the fault of the cyclist. There are anecdotal incidents that annoy motorists, but they choose to ignore the fact that most infringements are by motorists, and use the arguments of bad cyclists as a smoke screen.
Whilst your percentages may be about right, it is an unfortunate probability that a greater percentage of cyclists jump lights than that of cars.
supposition
Hence the word probability
[quote][p][bold]elvisimo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HerbieGreen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: Mike_D, Cyclists always choose not to get how dangerous they are when they break the law Put it this way. If a cyclist ran a red light at a junction, people would brake. If the only chance to avoid killing a cyclist pulling out in front of me was to swerve, many would do so, even into the path of other traffic, as the cyclist is the one without a big metal suit to protect them. Even if it meant the driver was at risk of death and injury to do so, many people would rather hit a car than a cyclist. Not all people would think that the cyclist was an idiot and deserved to die. Even if the car driver swerved and just hit a curb, a sideways impact at 15mph can be sufficient to cause a car to roll, which could lead to the occupants of that or other vehicles coming to significant harm. Is it right that cyclists are able to zip about ignoring the law and highway code and putting others at risk with impunity, nver getting caught, nver being subject to compulsory education, to points on a license, to fines,to bans, to jail? Of course not. Cyclits deserve respect of course. They deserve equality. But cyclists must take responsibility for what that means and accept that the responsible cyclists need to accept licensing, taxing and insurance for the sake of everyone, because a minority of cyclists are stupifd and dangerous, in the same way that car drivers have to.[/p][/quote]This has all come a long way from the issue of some criminal activity by a few in the New Forest, wishing to disrupt a perfectly legal event. If you have a beef with the event, use the official channels to make that known - as I have to about the abysmal parking, driving and abuse from motorists using our road! I don't take to putting traps out for cars or taking all the traffic signs down! You're talking about such a minority of incidents here though - infringements by cyclists are far outweighed by motorists - 4% of all red-light jumping are cyclists, 71% motorists (the rest split between lorries, motorcycles and so on). Very few cases of accident involving a car and a bicycle are the fault of the cyclist. There are anecdotal incidents that annoy motorists, but they choose to ignore the fact that most infringements are by motorists, and use the arguments of bad cyclists as a smoke screen.[/p][/quote]Whilst your percentages may be about right, it is an unfortunate probability that a greater percentage of cyclists jump lights than that of cars.[/p][/quote]supposition[/p][/quote]Hence the word probability Inform Al
  • Score: 0

3:43pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Sotonians_lets_pull_together says...

Gooby,

"By the current model of taxation, roads are funded by your local authority."

In part, but who funds the local authority, some of that money comes from government, and local authorities yes raise local taxes, but only by the authority of government. The local authority is only a local government taxing and service commissioning agency after all.

There is a mix of direct and indirect taxation, and roads come out of that pot. There are all sorts of road costs, whether it be building, lighting, repairs, buying the land when the roads are built, emergency services, etc etc etc. There are many direct and indirect costs of the road network, and not all are met by the local authority.

For a start the Highways Agency manages the trunk roads in England. These include almost all motorways in England and many of the long distance rural ‘A’ roads.
Gooby, "By the current model of taxation, roads are funded by your local authority." In part, but who funds the local authority, some of that money comes from government, and local authorities yes raise local taxes, but only by the authority of government. The local authority is only a local government taxing and service commissioning agency after all. There is a mix of direct and indirect taxation, and roads come out of that pot. There are all sorts of road costs, whether it be building, lighting, repairs, buying the land when the roads are built, emergency services, etc etc etc. There are many direct and indirect costs of the road network, and not all are met by the local authority. For a start the Highways Agency manages the trunk roads in England. These include almost all motorways in England and many of the long distance rural ‘A’ roads. Sotonians_lets_pull_together
  • Score: 0

3:52pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Gooby! says...

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together
wrote:
Gooby,

"By the current model of taxation, roads are funded by your local authority."

In part, but who funds the local authority, some of that money comes from government, and local authorities yes raise local taxes, but only by the authority of government. The local authority is only a local government taxing and service commissioning agency after all.

There is a mix of direct and indirect taxation, and roads come out of that pot. There are all sorts of road costs, whether it be building, lighting, repairs, buying the land when the roads are built, emergency services, etc etc etc. There are many direct and indirect costs of the road network, and not all are met by the local authority.

For a start the Highways Agency manages the trunk roads in England. These include almost all motorways in England and many of the long distance rural ‘A’ roads.
So by that logic, motorists pay more in taxes both directly and indirectly therefore they have more right to care from the tax payer funded NHS?

If you pay more in tax, that is your stupif fault for not getting on your bike and paying less.

Paying more tax does not increase your rights to anything. You have a one single vote and the address of your MP. Same as me and same as any other road user.

The rights and wrongs of the road are laid out in the hiway code.
[quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: Gooby, "By the current model of taxation, roads are funded by your local authority." In part, but who funds the local authority, some of that money comes from government, and local authorities yes raise local taxes, but only by the authority of government. The local authority is only a local government taxing and service commissioning agency after all. There is a mix of direct and indirect taxation, and roads come out of that pot. There are all sorts of road costs, whether it be building, lighting, repairs, buying the land when the roads are built, emergency services, etc etc etc. There are many direct and indirect costs of the road network, and not all are met by the local authority. For a start the Highways Agency manages the trunk roads in England. These include almost all motorways in England and many of the long distance rural ‘A’ roads.[/p][/quote]So by that logic, motorists pay more in taxes both directly and indirectly therefore they have more right to care from the tax payer funded NHS? If you pay more in tax, that is your stupif fault for not getting on your bike and paying less. Paying more tax does not increase your rights to anything. You have a one single vote and the address of your MP. Same as me and same as any other road user. The rights and wrongs of the road are laid out in the hiway code. Gooby!
  • Score: 0

4:01pm Mon 15 Apr 13

kingnotail says...

How pathetic; the inbred, selfish bumpkins of the New Forest don't get their own way, so they resort to Guerilla tactics.

Disgraceful, but hardly unexpected.
How pathetic; the inbred, selfish bumpkins of the New Forest don't get their own way, so they resort to Guerilla tactics. Disgraceful, but hardly unexpected. kingnotail
  • Score: 0

4:03pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Gooby! says...

@Sotonians

Sorry - I forgot to add "Self righteous, arrogant, ill informed, moronic, small minded cretin from the inbred and shallow end of the genetic pool"

We contribute taxes into society. It does not buy us rights over anything or anyone. It allows those we vote for to provide us with the services that are deemed to the benefit of the citizens.

I am pretty sure I pay more tax than many. It give me no rights over any of you and nor do I expect it to or want it to.

Roads are funded by your local authority and for the most part your council tax. They are not owned by motorists. They dont even have a right to use the roads and what legal ind licencing concessions granted to a motorist can be denied by a court.

Cyclists do actually have a right to use the road, as do pedestrians as thier use does not depend upon a licence or conditional upon excises paid.
@Sotonians Sorry - I forgot to add "Self righteous, arrogant, ill informed, moronic, small minded cretin from the inbred and shallow end of the genetic pool" We contribute taxes into society. It does not buy us rights over anything or anyone. It allows those we vote for to provide us with the services that are deemed to the benefit of the citizens. I am pretty sure I pay more tax than many. It give me no rights over any of you and nor do I expect it to or want it to. Roads are funded by your local authority and for the most part your council tax. They are not owned by motorists. They dont even have a right to use the roads and what legal ind licencing concessions granted to a motorist can be denied by a court. Cyclists do actually have a right to use the road, as do pedestrians as thier use does not depend upon a licence or conditional upon excises paid. Gooby!
  • Score: 0

4:03pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Sotonians_lets_pull_together says...

No, in time, I believe it would make sense for cyclists to be taxed, the benefits are numerous as outlined above, not least the fact that the more tax is raised, either directly or indirectly, the more it can maintain services / dig the economy out of the deficit.

We need more people paying more tax. Cyclists that can afford fancy lycra and fancy carbon fibre bikes can clearly afford a few quid for a licence, a test and a number plate, and some insurance.

I am only advocating responsible cycling. After all, if cyclists are not committing offences, they shoudnt worry about being traceable.

If cyclists paid for licence plates and tests, they could also demand a much better cycle network, and give their lobby much more legitimacy.

It would help responsible cyclists.

As far as I see it it is only selfish people without a sense of citizenship and responsibility who would oppose cyclists being licenced taxed and insured.

Of course no one likes having to pay more, but everything costs money, and cyclists should do their bit.
No, in time, I believe it would make sense for cyclists to be taxed, the benefits are numerous as outlined above, not least the fact that the more tax is raised, either directly or indirectly, the more it can maintain services / dig the economy out of the deficit. We need more people paying more tax. Cyclists that can afford fancy lycra and fancy carbon fibre bikes can clearly afford a few quid for a licence, a test and a number plate, and some insurance. I am only advocating responsible cycling. After all, if cyclists are not committing offences, they shoudnt worry about being traceable. If cyclists paid for licence plates and tests, they could also demand a much better cycle network, and give their lobby much more legitimacy. It would help responsible cyclists. As far as I see it it is only selfish people without a sense of citizenship and responsibility who would oppose cyclists being licenced taxed and insured. Of course no one likes having to pay more, but everything costs money, and cyclists should do their bit. Sotonians_lets_pull_together
  • Score: 0

4:11pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together
wrote:
No, in time, I believe it would make sense for cyclists to be taxed, the benefits are numerous as outlined above, not least the fact that the more tax is raised, either directly or indirectly, the more it can maintain services / dig the economy out of the deficit.

We need more people paying more tax. Cyclists that can afford fancy lycra and fancy carbon fibre bikes can clearly afford a few quid for a licence, a test and a number plate, and some insurance.

I am only advocating responsible cycling. After all, if cyclists are not committing offences, they shoudnt worry about being traceable.

If cyclists paid for licence plates and tests, they could also demand a much better cycle network, and give their lobby much more legitimacy.

It would help responsible cyclists.

As far as I see it it is only selfish people without a sense of citizenship and responsibility who would oppose cyclists being licenced taxed and insured.

Of course no one likes having to pay more, but everything costs money, and cyclists should do their bit.
But Vehicle Excise Duty is a POLLUTION tax, bicycles DO NOT POLLUTE, and therefore would be exempt, just like zero emission cars, electric cars and very low emission cars.
Why should cyclists be taxed to use roads when NO-ONE else is taxed to use roads?

Seems to me you're just an anti-cycling bigot. Or maybe you never learned to ride a bike. Whatever, you need to take that chip off your shoulder.

And you haven't answered my previous point: Why don't you have a problem with the hundreds of thousands of people who drive into the New Forest bringing pollution, traffic jams, and running down and killing thousands of animals every year?
[quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: No, in time, I believe it would make sense for cyclists to be taxed, the benefits are numerous as outlined above, not least the fact that the more tax is raised, either directly or indirectly, the more it can maintain services / dig the economy out of the deficit. We need more people paying more tax. Cyclists that can afford fancy lycra and fancy carbon fibre bikes can clearly afford a few quid for a licence, a test and a number plate, and some insurance. I am only advocating responsible cycling. After all, if cyclists are not committing offences, they shoudnt worry about being traceable. If cyclists paid for licence plates and tests, they could also demand a much better cycle network, and give their lobby much more legitimacy. It would help responsible cyclists. As far as I see it it is only selfish people without a sense of citizenship and responsibility who would oppose cyclists being licenced taxed and insured. Of course no one likes having to pay more, but everything costs money, and cyclists should do their bit.[/p][/quote]But Vehicle Excise Duty is a POLLUTION tax, bicycles DO NOT POLLUTE, and therefore would be exempt, just like zero emission cars, electric cars and very low emission cars. Why should cyclists be taxed to use roads when NO-ONE else is taxed to use roads? Seems to me you're just an anti-cycling bigot. Or maybe you never learned to ride a bike. Whatever, you need to take that chip off your shoulder. And you haven't answered my previous point: Why don't you have a problem with the hundreds of thousands of people who drive into the New Forest bringing pollution, traffic jams, and running down and killing thousands of animals every year? Shoebury_Cyclist
  • Score: 0

4:12pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Forest Resident says...

Whilst strongly condemning the insignificant minority of mindless criminal saboteurs they have most likely done us (cyclists) a favour in the long term, those individuals such as Julian Lewis MP have undoubtedly fuelled the unjustified hatred of cyclists leading to these unwelcome acts of vandalism, having now adopted utter silence they will most likely remain doing so for fear of being inextricably linked with this criminal act. Long live unrestricted cycling on the roads of the New Forest!
Whilst strongly condemning the insignificant minority of mindless criminal saboteurs they have most likely done us (cyclists) a favour in the long term, those individuals such as Julian Lewis MP have undoubtedly fuelled the unjustified hatred of cyclists leading to these unwelcome acts of vandalism, having now adopted utter silence they will most likely remain doing so for fear of being inextricably linked with this criminal act. Long live unrestricted cycling on the roads of the New Forest! Forest Resident
  • Score: 0

4:16pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Gooby! says...

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together
wrote:
No, in time, I believe it would make sense for cyclists to be taxed, the benefits are numerous as outlined above, not least the fact that the more tax is raised, either directly or indirectly, the more it can maintain services / dig the economy out of the deficit.

We need more people paying more tax. Cyclists that can afford fancy lycra and fancy carbon fibre bikes can clearly afford a few quid for a licence, a test and a number plate, and some insurance.

I am only advocating responsible cycling. After all, if cyclists are not committing offences, they shoudnt worry about being traceable.

If cyclists paid for licence plates and tests, they could also demand a much better cycle network, and give their lobby much more legitimacy.

It would help responsible cyclists.

As far as I see it it is only selfish people without a sense of citizenship and responsibility who would oppose cyclists being licenced taxed and insured.

Of course no one likes having to pay more, but everything costs money, and cyclists should do their bit.
It isnt the cyclists fault the economy is in the toilet.

How about the banks? Why not go to the source of the problem?

We dont need any more tax, we need not to waste the tax the government raises.

We can afford nice equipment because we choose compromises in other aspects of our life. We pay tax on it at point of purchase. The tax is a percentage of the cost. As in all purchases.

If you want to go and give your money to the government then please do so.

What would help responsible cyclists is people not selectivly ignoring the law.

Why on earth are you saying the cyclists can pay for the economy? Even the very rare thing of a cyclist without a car pays council tax and therefore pays for the roads. They pay direct and indirect tax on wages/salary and purchases thefore paying for the roads. What does a cyclist get? The occasional 3ft wide strip down one side and dodging cars while they pollute the air we breath while we cycle?

Go back to your base opinions in the Daily Mail.
[quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: No, in time, I believe it would make sense for cyclists to be taxed, the benefits are numerous as outlined above, not least the fact that the more tax is raised, either directly or indirectly, the more it can maintain services / dig the economy out of the deficit. We need more people paying more tax. Cyclists that can afford fancy lycra and fancy carbon fibre bikes can clearly afford a few quid for a licence, a test and a number plate, and some insurance. I am only advocating responsible cycling. After all, if cyclists are not committing offences, they shoudnt worry about being traceable. If cyclists paid for licence plates and tests, they could also demand a much better cycle network, and give their lobby much more legitimacy. It would help responsible cyclists. As far as I see it it is only selfish people without a sense of citizenship and responsibility who would oppose cyclists being licenced taxed and insured. Of course no one likes having to pay more, but everything costs money, and cyclists should do their bit.[/p][/quote]It isnt the cyclists fault the economy is in the toilet. How about the banks? Why not go to the source of the problem? We dont need any more tax, we need not to waste the tax the government raises. We can afford nice equipment because we choose compromises in other aspects of our life. We pay tax on it at point of purchase. The tax is a percentage of the cost. As in all purchases. If you want to go and give your money to the government then please do so. What would help responsible cyclists is people not selectivly ignoring the law. Why on earth are you saying the cyclists can pay for the economy? Even the very rare thing of a cyclist without a car pays council tax and therefore pays for the roads. They pay direct and indirect tax on wages/salary and purchases thefore paying for the roads. What does a cyclist get? The occasional 3ft wide strip down one side and dodging cars while they pollute the air we breath while we cycle? Go back to your base opinions in the Daily Mail. Gooby!
  • Score: 0

4:16pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Rob Apostrophe says...

Cyclists are a road hazard when riding en masse. If they wish to ride in large groups, I would suggest a closed circuit.

Even solitary cyclists are often are a hazard. Many cyclists fail to observe the highway code through their selfish desire to avoid the inconvenience of traffic lights etc. Selfish and inconsiderate road users. Any cyclists caught riding two abreast should be fined or preferably given a lengthy gaol term.
They should also be punished for not following the highway code, not using protective head gear or failing to have insurance to cover the cost of accidents they cause.
Cyclists are a road hazard when riding en masse. If they wish to ride in large groups, I would suggest a closed circuit. Even solitary cyclists are often are a hazard. Many cyclists fail to observe the highway code through their selfish desire to avoid the inconvenience of traffic lights etc. Selfish and inconsiderate road [ab]users. Any cyclists caught riding two abreast should be fined or preferably given a lengthy gaol term. They should also be punished for not following the highway code, not using protective head gear or failing to have insurance to cover the cost of accidents they cause. Rob Apostrophe
  • Score: 1

4:18pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together
wrote:
Gooby,

"By the current model of taxation, roads are funded by your local authority."

In part, but who funds the local authority, some of that money comes from government, and local authorities yes raise local taxes, but only by the authority of government. The local authority is only a local government taxing and service commissioning agency after all.

There is a mix of direct and indirect taxation, and roads come out of that pot. There are all sorts of road costs, whether it be building, lighting, repairs, buying the land when the roads are built, emergency services, etc etc etc. There are many direct and indirect costs of the road network, and not all are met by the local authority.

For a start the Highways Agency manages the trunk roads in England. These include almost all motorways in England and many of the long distance rural ‘A’ roads.
You clearly have no clue.

Roads are paid for out of general taxation. That means Council Tax, income tax, VAT, tobacco duty, alcohol duty, and every other tax that goes to the Exchequer.
Out of that pot the government allocates an amount for the national transport budget, and out of that an amount is allocated to roads.


Cyclists and pedestrians pay all of those taxes just like anyone else.

If you pay a lot of VED on your car that is your own fault, if you want to pay less get a less polluting car.

Vehicle Excise Duty, and fuel duty, are LIFESTYLE taxes, just like alcohol and tobacco duty, and as such are almost entirely avoidable if you use a less polluting and more fuel efficient vehicle.

If you choose not to, then that is entirely your own fault and no-one else's.
[quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: Gooby, "By the current model of taxation, roads are funded by your local authority." In part, but who funds the local authority, some of that money comes from government, and local authorities yes raise local taxes, but only by the authority of government. The local authority is only a local government taxing and service commissioning agency after all. There is a mix of direct and indirect taxation, and roads come out of that pot. There are all sorts of road costs, whether it be building, lighting, repairs, buying the land when the roads are built, emergency services, etc etc etc. There are many direct and indirect costs of the road network, and not all are met by the local authority. For a start the Highways Agency manages the trunk roads in England. These include almost all motorways in England and many of the long distance rural ‘A’ roads.[/p][/quote]You clearly have no clue. Roads are paid for out of general taxation. That means Council Tax, income tax, VAT, tobacco duty, alcohol duty, and every other tax that goes to the Exchequer. Out of that pot the government allocates an amount for the national transport budget, and out of that an amount is allocated to roads. Cyclists and pedestrians pay all of those taxes just like anyone else. If you pay a lot of VED on your car that is your own fault, if you want to pay less get a less polluting car. Vehicle Excise Duty, and fuel duty, are LIFESTYLE taxes, just like alcohol and tobacco duty, and as such are almost entirely avoidable if you use a less polluting and more fuel efficient vehicle. If you choose not to, then that is entirely your own fault and no-one else's. Shoebury_Cyclist
  • Score: 0

4:20pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

Rob Apostrophe wrote:
Cyclists are a road hazard when riding en masse. If they wish to ride in large groups, I would suggest a closed circuit.

Even solitary cyclists are often are a hazard. Many cyclists fail to observe the highway code through their selfish desire to avoid the inconvenience of traffic lights etc. Selfish and inconsiderate road users. Any cyclists caught riding two abreast should be fined or preferably given a lengthy gaol term.
They should also be punished for not following the highway code, not using protective head gear or failing to have insurance to cover the cost of accidents they cause.
Drivers are a road hazard when driving en masse. If they wish to drive in large groups, I would suggest a closed circuit. Even solitary drivers are often a hazard. Many drivers fail to observe the highway code through their selfish desire to avoid the inconvenience of traffic lights etc. Selfish and inconsiderate road users. Any drivers caught driving two abreast should be fined or preferably given a lengthy gaol term. They should also be punished for not following the highway code, not using protective head gear or failing to have insurance to cover the cost of accidents they cause.


Easy to generalise isn't it?


Oh and by the way, cycle helmets are not compulsory in the UK.
[quote][p][bold]Rob Apostrophe[/bold] wrote: Cyclists are a road hazard when riding en masse. If they wish to ride in large groups, I would suggest a closed circuit. Even solitary cyclists are often are a hazard. Many cyclists fail to observe the highway code through their selfish desire to avoid the inconvenience of traffic lights etc. Selfish and inconsiderate road [ab]users. Any cyclists caught riding two abreast should be fined or preferably given a lengthy gaol term. They should also be punished for not following the highway code, not using protective head gear or failing to have insurance to cover the cost of accidents they cause.[/p][/quote]Drivers are a road hazard when driving en masse. If they wish to drive in large groups, I would suggest a closed circuit. Even solitary drivers are often a hazard. Many drivers fail to observe the highway code through their selfish desire to avoid the inconvenience of traffic lights etc. Selfish and inconsiderate road [ab]users. Any drivers caught driving two abreast should be fined or preferably given a lengthy gaol term. They should also be punished for not following the highway code, not using protective head gear or failing to have insurance to cover the cost of accidents they cause. Easy to generalise isn't it? Oh and by the way, cycle helmets are not compulsory in the UK. Shoebury_Cyclist
  • Score: 0

4:22pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Sotonians_lets_pull_together says...

NO Gooby, drivers give enough already in taxes

I want cyclists to give more in taxes, as I believe cyclists would readily pay more in order to cycle if it meant better cycle networks, better education of cyclists, less cyclists being killed and injured on the roads, poor cyclists that give cyclists a bad name being prosecuted, drunk cyclists being removed from the roads, criminals that use bikes to commit crime and escape uncaught being hampered in ability to do so without standing out from responsible legal cyclists.

Surely as a responsible citizen and member of the cycling community you can see the benefits?

Just think of the lives saved!
NO Gooby, drivers give enough already in taxes I want cyclists to give more in taxes, as I believe cyclists would readily pay more in order to cycle if it meant better cycle networks, better education of cyclists, less cyclists being killed and injured on the roads, poor cyclists that give cyclists a bad name being prosecuted, drunk cyclists being removed from the roads, criminals that use bikes to commit crime and escape uncaught being hampered in ability to do so without standing out from responsible legal cyclists. Surely as a responsible citizen and member of the cycling community you can see the benefits? Just think of the lives saved! Sotonians_lets_pull_together
  • Score: 0

4:23pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together
wrote:
NO Gooby, drivers give enough already in taxes

I want cyclists to give more in taxes, as I believe cyclists would readily pay more in order to cycle if it meant better cycle networks, better education of cyclists, less cyclists being killed and injured on the roads, poor cyclists that give cyclists a bad name being prosecuted, drunk cyclists being removed from the roads, criminals that use bikes to commit crime and escape uncaught being hampered in ability to do so without standing out from responsible legal cyclists.

Surely as a responsible citizen and member of the cycling community you can see the benefits?

Just think of the lives saved!
You clearly have no clue.

Roads are paid for out of general taxation. That means Council Tax, income tax, VAT, tobacco duty, alcohol duty, and every other tax that goes to the Exchequer.
Out of that pot the government allocates an amount for the national transport budget, and out of that an amount is allocated to roads.


Cyclists and pedestrians pay all of those taxes just like anyone else.

If you pay a lot of VED on your car that is your own fault, if you want to pay less get a less polluting car.

Vehicle Excise Duty, and fuel duty, are LIFESTYLE taxes, just like alcohol and tobacco duty, and as such are almost entirely avoidable if you use a less polluting and more fuel efficient vehicle.

If you choose not to, then that is entirely your own fault and no-one else's.
[quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: NO Gooby, drivers give enough already in taxes I want cyclists to give more in taxes, as I believe cyclists would readily pay more in order to cycle if it meant better cycle networks, better education of cyclists, less cyclists being killed and injured on the roads, poor cyclists that give cyclists a bad name being prosecuted, drunk cyclists being removed from the roads, criminals that use bikes to commit crime and escape uncaught being hampered in ability to do so without standing out from responsible legal cyclists. Surely as a responsible citizen and member of the cycling community you can see the benefits? Just think of the lives saved![/p][/quote]You clearly have no clue. Roads are paid for out of general taxation. That means Council Tax, income tax, VAT, tobacco duty, alcohol duty, and every other tax that goes to the Exchequer. Out of that pot the government allocates an amount for the national transport budget, and out of that an amount is allocated to roads. Cyclists and pedestrians pay all of those taxes just like anyone else. If you pay a lot of VED on your car that is your own fault, if you want to pay less get a less polluting car. Vehicle Excise Duty, and fuel duty, are LIFESTYLE taxes, just like alcohol and tobacco duty, and as such are almost entirely avoidable if you use a less polluting and more fuel efficient vehicle. If you choose not to, then that is entirely your own fault and no-one else's. Shoebury_Cyclist
  • Score: 0

4:23pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Forest Resident says...

Fellow cyclists, may I politely recommend disengaging with cretinous contributors hell bent on taxing/licensing/adm
inistrating cyclists off of the roads. Even this current pathetic government wouldn't dare dream of such measures, it is simply unfeasible, uneconomical, unenforceable, and downright unnecessary. So in summary, don't argue with stupid drivers, just smile and wave at them as you freely cruise past on your bicycle whilst they are paying their premium for the privilege of being stuck in congested traffic and enduring increased journey times.
Fellow cyclists, may I politely recommend disengaging with cretinous contributors hell bent on taxing/licensing/adm inistrating cyclists off of the roads. Even this current pathetic government wouldn't dare dream of such measures, it is simply unfeasible, uneconomical, unenforceable, and downright unnecessary. So in summary, don't argue with stupid drivers, just smile and wave at them as you freely cruise past on your bicycle whilst they are paying their premium for the privilege of being stuck in congested traffic and enduring increased journey times. Forest Resident
  • Score: 0

4:27pm Mon 15 Apr 13

lovetheladies says...

Forest Resident wrote:
Whilst strongly condemning the insignificant minority of mindless criminal saboteurs they have most likely done us (cyclists) a favour in the long term, those individuals such as Julian Lewis MP have undoubtedly fuelled the unjustified hatred of cyclists leading to these unwelcome acts of vandalism, having now adopted utter silence they will most likely remain doing so for fear of being inextricably linked with this criminal act. Long live unrestricted cycling on the roads of the New Forest!
And may it be short lived in the New Forest for the culprits!!
[quote][p][bold]Forest Resident[/bold] wrote: Whilst strongly condemning the insignificant minority of mindless criminal saboteurs they have most likely done us (cyclists) a favour in the long term, those individuals such as Julian Lewis MP have undoubtedly fuelled the unjustified hatred of cyclists leading to these unwelcome acts of vandalism, having now adopted utter silence they will most likely remain doing so for fear of being inextricably linked with this criminal act. Long live unrestricted cycling on the roads of the New Forest![/p][/quote]And may it be short lived in the New Forest for the culprits!! lovetheladies
  • Score: 0

4:27pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Sotonians_lets_pull_together says...

Shoebury,

You miss the point yes taxes on smoking and driving are sold as life style taxes that people can choose to avoid, but in reality they are taxes that people find it hard to avoid and so are good revenue raisers for the government, and are things that people can pay for whether they are tax payers or not, on benefits or not.

As less people smoke, and cars get greener, green cars and transport will be taxed more as the government still needs to raise the money.

They will target people who can afford to pay, and/r those who cannot avoid doing the activity that wll be taxed.

Yep, if they could tax you for breathing they would - you already get taxed for drinking by the litre.... and your sewerage tracks that cost too...

Ultimately, for society to work, people need to be taxed. A mix of direct and idnirect taxation is needed to make sure everyone gets to pay.
Shoebury, You miss the point yes taxes on smoking and driving are sold as life style taxes that people can choose to avoid, but in reality they are taxes that people find it hard to avoid and so are good revenue raisers for the government, and are things that people can pay for whether they are tax payers or not, on benefits or not. As less people smoke, and cars get greener, green cars and transport will be taxed more as the government still needs to raise the money. They will target people who can afford to pay, and/r those who cannot avoid doing the activity that wll be taxed. Yep, if they could tax you for breathing they would - you already get taxed for drinking by the litre.... and your sewerage tracks that cost too... Ultimately, for society to work, people need to be taxed. A mix of direct and idnirect taxation is needed to make sure everyone gets to pay. Sotonians_lets_pull_together
  • Score: 0

4:31pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Sotonians_lets_pull_together says...

Forest Resident,

No, I wouldnt want cyclists taxed on the roads, I want them cycling and paying tax for insurance, licences, and paying per mile they cycle.

Taxation measure make nothing if they so so extreme as to stop people doing the activity.

Reasonable and persistent taxation is what we need, for all transport users.
Forest Resident, No, I wouldnt want cyclists taxed on the roads, I want them cycling and paying tax for insurance, licences, and paying per mile they cycle. Taxation measure make nothing if they so so extreme as to stop people doing the activity. Reasonable and persistent taxation is what we need, for all transport users. Sotonians_lets_pull_together
  • Score: 0

4:32pm Mon 15 Apr 13

HerbieGreen says...

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together
wrote:
Gooby,

"the consequence of a car jumping red lights is infinitely more dangerous for other road users, and the number of times motorists cause accidents when jumping red lights is far higher, as they do so at greater speed and with less ability to judge the situation. I don't condone anyone jumping red lights, but the heavier and faster the vehicle the more heinous a crime it should be."

What you say is nonsense, as by running a red light you potentially cause other large heavy dangerous vehicles to brake or take avoiding action. The driver may hit you, or hit someone else. People may die, or innocent people may be unjustly jailed for the stupidity of a cyclist who may be long gone from the scene. Justice doesnt always get the right person, and innocent people can end up in jail. One day it could be you as a driver in that position, knowing that you did nothing wrong, there was nothing else you could have done, but with your life on hold wondering whether you will be jailed for something which was not your responsibility.

You could be the one killing a cyclist, the cyclist mangled under your wheels, nothing you could do, but you could be tormented foreever by the images, waking up at night with post traumatic stress, guilt that you cannot stop yourself from feeling, despite there having been nothing you could have done.

Lives could be ruined, families lose parents either killed or jailed because some little oik didnt care about running a red light across a busy junction.

That is a disgraceful attitude and one completely without insight for the consequences.

Have I painted a clear enough picture for you? Perhaps you should ask the police if you could attend a few RTA's and then you may not treat such reckless endangerment of life so trivially.

And bearing this in mind, some people say that drivers should be held responsible WHATEVER the circumstances! Too many cyclists are irresponsible as it is, without giving them a get out of jail free card. We are almost there now because they are not licensed taxed and insured.
You seem to miss the bit where I say 'I don't condone anyone jumping red lights'! Willfully, I'd suggest, just so you can continue your argument!! The fact is that most cyclists who run red lights do so when there is nothing coming or there is the possibility to filter left (something legal in the US) without causing an issue. Again I don't condone this, it's against the law and should be punished. However, if you look at the evidence from council/police traffic light cameras, motorists jump red lights usually by accelerating to dash through, and therefore have little time to properly scan the scene. They cause by far the most dangerous accidents of any red light jumping. This is still a red herring taking us away from the issue of the ridiculous action of a few to sabotage a cycle event - they are no better than delinquent vandals.
[quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: Gooby, "the consequence of a car jumping red lights is infinitely more dangerous for other road users, and the number of times motorists cause accidents when jumping red lights is far higher, as they do so at greater speed and with less ability to judge the situation. I don't condone anyone jumping red lights, but the heavier and faster the vehicle the more heinous a crime it should be." What you say is nonsense, as by running a red light you potentially cause other large heavy dangerous vehicles to brake or take avoiding action. The driver may hit you, or hit someone else. People may die, or innocent people may be unjustly jailed for the stupidity of a cyclist who may be long gone from the scene. Justice doesnt always get the right person, and innocent people can end up in jail. One day it could be you as a driver in that position, knowing that you did nothing wrong, there was nothing else you could have done, but with your life on hold wondering whether you will be jailed for something which was not your responsibility. You could be the one killing a cyclist, the cyclist mangled under your wheels, nothing you could do, but you could be tormented foreever by the images, waking up at night with post traumatic stress, guilt that you cannot stop yourself from feeling, despite there having been nothing you could have done. Lives could be ruined, families lose parents either killed or jailed because some little oik didnt care about running a red light across a busy junction. That is a disgraceful attitude and one completely without insight for the consequences. Have I painted a clear enough picture for you? Perhaps you should ask the police if you could attend a few RTA's and then you may not treat such reckless endangerment of life so trivially. And bearing this in mind, some people say that drivers should be held responsible WHATEVER the circumstances! Too many cyclists are irresponsible as it is, without giving them a get out of jail free card. We are almost there now because they are not licensed taxed and insured.[/p][/quote]You seem to miss the bit where I say 'I don't condone anyone jumping red lights'! Willfully, I'd suggest, just so you can continue your argument!! The fact is that most cyclists who run red lights do so when there is nothing coming or there is the possibility to filter left (something legal in the US) without causing an issue. Again I don't condone this, it's against the law and should be punished. However, if you look at the evidence from council/police traffic light cameras, motorists jump red lights usually by accelerating to dash through, and therefore have little time to properly scan the scene. They cause by far the most dangerous accidents of any red light jumping. This is still a red herring taking us away from the issue of the ridiculous action of a few to sabotage a cycle event - they are no better than delinquent vandals. HerbieGreen
  • Score: 0

4:35pm Mon 15 Apr 13

HerbieGreen says...

S Pance wrote:
When the event is re-run, I think the organisers should make it COMPULSORY that each and every rider wears a unique number. That way, any that act like an arse can be reported, banned from future events or reported to the Police.

If all cyclists are as law abiding as certain people say, I can see no possible grounds for objection whatsoever.

So, would the cycling fraternity agree to this?
Each rider did and always does have a unique number on the handlebars - easily identifiable - you were obviously not even there!! Stop writing about something which you know nothing about!
[quote][p][bold]S Pance[/bold] wrote: When the event is re-run, I think the organisers should make it COMPULSORY that each and every rider wears a unique number. That way, any that act like an arse can be reported, banned from future events or reported to the Police. If all cyclists are as law abiding as certain people say, I can see no possible grounds for objection whatsoever. So, would the cycling fraternity agree to this?[/p][/quote]Each rider did and always does have a unique number on the handlebars - easily identifiable - you were obviously not even there!! Stop writing about something which you know nothing about! HerbieGreen
  • Score: 0

4:38pm Mon 15 Apr 13

HerbieGreen says...

Rob Apostrophe wrote:
Cyclists are a road hazard when riding en masse. If they wish to ride in large groups, I would suggest a closed circuit.

Even solitary cyclists are often are a hazard. Many cyclists fail to observe the highway code through their selfish desire to avoid the inconvenience of traffic lights etc. Selfish and inconsiderate road users. Any cyclists caught riding two abreast should be fined or preferably given a lengthy gaol term.
They should also be punished for not following the highway code, not using protective head gear or failing to have insurance to cover the cost of accidents they cause.
Ha ha ha - cyclists are a hazard when riding en masse - very rarely! Surely you can see that the most hazardous thing out there on the roads are the cars - if you can't even grasp that there is no hope! You just deflect the attention to cyclists to detract from the fact that the most antisocial thing on our roads are the bad car drivers - a small minority, but one you are defending!
[quote][p][bold]Rob Apostrophe[/bold] wrote: Cyclists are a road hazard when riding en masse. If they wish to ride in large groups, I would suggest a closed circuit. Even solitary cyclists are often are a hazard. Many cyclists fail to observe the highway code through their selfish desire to avoid the inconvenience of traffic lights etc. Selfish and inconsiderate road [ab]users. Any cyclists caught riding two abreast should be fined or preferably given a lengthy gaol term. They should also be punished for not following the highway code, not using protective head gear or failing to have insurance to cover the cost of accidents they cause.[/p][/quote]Ha ha ha - cyclists are a hazard when riding en masse - very rarely! Surely you can see that the most hazardous thing out there on the roads are the cars - if you can't even grasp that there is no hope! You just deflect the attention to cyclists to detract from the fact that the most antisocial thing on our roads are the bad car drivers - a small minority, but one you are defending! HerbieGreen
  • Score: 0

4:44pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Sotonians_lets_pull_together says...

Herbie, would be good if they had numbers on their back, not just their handlebars.
Herbie, would be good if they had numbers on their back, not just their handlebars. Sotonians_lets_pull_together
  • Score: 0

4:46pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Sotonians_lets_pull_together says...

Herbie,
Of course there are bad drivers. They are taxed and licenced and insured, and there are methods in place to deal identify and catch, punish and educate offenders

There are also bad cyclists, but I cant say the same for them.
Herbie, Of course there are bad drivers. They are taxed and licenced and insured, and there are methods in place to deal identify and catch, punish and educate offenders There are also bad cyclists, but I cant say the same for them. Sotonians_lets_pull_together
  • Score: 0

4:47pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Gooby! says...

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together
wrote:
NO Gooby, drivers give enough already in taxes

I want cyclists to give more in taxes, as I believe cyclists would readily pay more in order to cycle if it meant better cycle networks, better education of cyclists, less cyclists being killed and injured on the roads, poor cyclists that give cyclists a bad name being prosecuted, drunk cyclists being removed from the roads, criminals that use bikes to commit crime and escape uncaught being hampered in ability to do so without standing out from responsible legal cyclists.

Surely as a responsible citizen and member of the cycling community you can see the benefits?

Just think of the lives saved!
The lives of cyclists are put at risk by drivers.

Go and educate them better.

Why on earth should a cyclist pay more tax? We pay the same taxes and so far we have recieved very little. Motorists get dedicated road infrastructure. Pedestrians get dedicated path infrastructure. Cyclists get 10m length 3ft wide along a road that stops at a junction when a cyclist needs the most assistance. We don't damage the roads. We don't cause congestion. We don't pollute. In fact why don't we get a tax break? We are less of a drain on the state and NHS because we are more healthy. We require less legislation to control and less to enforce.
[quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: NO Gooby, drivers give enough already in taxes I want cyclists to give more in taxes, as I believe cyclists would readily pay more in order to cycle if it meant better cycle networks, better education of cyclists, less cyclists being killed and injured on the roads, poor cyclists that give cyclists a bad name being prosecuted, drunk cyclists being removed from the roads, criminals that use bikes to commit crime and escape uncaught being hampered in ability to do so without standing out from responsible legal cyclists. Surely as a responsible citizen and member of the cycling community you can see the benefits? Just think of the lives saved![/p][/quote]The lives of cyclists are put at risk by drivers. Go and educate them better. Why on earth should a cyclist pay more tax? We pay the same taxes and so far we have recieved very little. Motorists get dedicated road infrastructure. Pedestrians get dedicated path infrastructure. Cyclists get 10m length 3ft wide along a road that stops at a junction when a cyclist needs the most assistance. We don't damage the roads. We don't cause congestion. We don't pollute. In fact why don't we get a tax break? We are less of a drain on the state and NHS because we are more healthy. We require less legislation to control and less to enforce. Gooby!
  • Score: 0

4:47pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together
wrote:
Herbie, would be good if they had numbers on their back, not just their handlebars.
Is that so you can see their numbers as they pass you while you sit in your traffic jam burning money?
[quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: Herbie, would be good if they had numbers on their back, not just their handlebars.[/p][/quote]Is that so you can see their numbers as they pass you while you sit in your traffic jam burning money? Shoebury_Cyclist
  • Score: 0

4:51pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Sotonians_lets_pull_together says...

lol Shoebury,

You take it so personally, when all I am advocating is responsible cycling, and paying for the roads you use.

I am in favour of cyclists! If cyclists end up paying per mile cycled which could be the way it goes for all road users (car users too), the more of us out there cycling (responsibly and considerately) the better!
lol Shoebury, You take it so personally, when all I am advocating is responsible cycling, and paying for the roads you use. I am in favour of cyclists! If cyclists end up paying per mile cycled which could be the way it goes for all road users (car users too), the more of us out there cycling (responsibly and considerately) the better! Sotonians_lets_pull_together
  • Score: 0

4:56pm Mon 15 Apr 13

HerbieGreen says...

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together
wrote:
Herbie,
Of course there are bad drivers. They are taxed and licenced and insured, and there are methods in place to deal identify and catch, punish and educate offenders

There are also bad cyclists, but I cant say the same for them.
There's a good reason for the disparity - 2 people have been killed by cyclists in the last 18 years - 100s of 1000s have been killed by motorists. Cyclists cause less injuries to others than people with prams - are we to tax, licence and insure pram pushers?
[quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: Herbie, Of course there are bad drivers. They are taxed and licenced and insured, and there are methods in place to deal identify and catch, punish and educate offenders There are also bad cyclists, but I cant say the same for them.[/p][/quote]There's a good reason for the disparity - 2 people have been killed by cyclists in the last 18 years - 100s of 1000s have been killed by motorists. Cyclists cause less injuries to others than people with prams - are we to tax, licence and insure pram pushers? HerbieGreen
  • Score: 0

4:56pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together
wrote:
lol Shoebury,

You take it so personally, when all I am advocating is responsible cycling, and paying for the roads you use.

I am in favour of cyclists! If cyclists end up paying per mile cycled which could be the way it goes for all road users (car users too), the more of us out there cycling (responsibly and considerately) the better!
I already pay for the roads I use, via council tax, income tax, VAT etc.
[quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: lol Shoebury, You take it so personally, when all I am advocating is responsible cycling, and paying for the roads you use. I am in favour of cyclists! If cyclists end up paying per mile cycled which could be the way it goes for all road users (car users too), the more of us out there cycling (responsibly and considerately) the better![/p][/quote]I already pay for the roads I use, via council tax, income tax, VAT etc. Shoebury_Cyclist
  • Score: 0

5:00pm Mon 15 Apr 13

RaraBLDN says...

I wanted to comment as a first time visitor to the New Forest and somebody who actually participated in the sportive on Saturday morning.

To correct a few comments, for the 4.5 hours it took me to complete the route, for the most part cyclists were in single file - there were some sections where I moved out to overtake when it was safe, and with looking behind to check no motor vehicles were approaching. In the same way I would do on any ride either during my London commute or social rides on country lanes in any part of the country.

The organisers briefed us all thoroughly before the event and at the start and there were "Ride in Single File" signs at regular intervals along the ride.

There was very little interaction with traffic as very quiet roads were chosen. I was overtaken by a handful of vehicles and in the most part respectively. I don't believe I held anybody in a car up. At one point there was an ambulance coming up with blues on as we were leaving the event on the A337, all the cyclists I saw, stopped and moved up onto the grass verges help facilitate it coming through.

What has shocked me more is the extremely unfriendly reception that greeted us and now pervades the event. I had never visited the New Forest and my Partner and I made it into a weekend by checking into a local campsite although the extremely bad weather forced us to pack up and return home on Saturday afternoon.

We spent some money with local retailers and really enjoyed the event and beautiful countryside. However, we are put off from returning for future trips by the attitude displayed by the protestors and comments on forums such as this.

Cycling is a fast growing industry and has defied the recent economic slowdown. We personally have 6 bikes (in addition to two cars we pay £400 per year to tax). They cost us £3750 with £750 paid in VAT. In addition we spend in excess of £500 (£100 VAT contribution) on cycling gear per year and much of that via Wiggle who are based in Portsmouth - providing income and employment not too far away from the New Forest.

We probably won't come back to the New Forest cycling, and will go spend our money elsewhere in the country. As I'm sure many of my co-cyclists who attending the event will as well.
I wanted to comment as a first time visitor to the New Forest and somebody who actually participated in the sportive on Saturday morning. To correct a few comments, for the 4.5 hours it took me to complete the route, for the most part cyclists were in single file - there were some sections where I moved out to overtake when it was safe, and with looking behind to check no motor vehicles were approaching. In the same way I would do on any ride either during my London commute or social rides on country lanes in any part of the country. The organisers briefed us all thoroughly before the event and at the start and there were "Ride in Single File" signs at regular intervals along the ride. There was very little interaction with traffic as very quiet roads were chosen. I was overtaken by a handful of vehicles and in the most part respectively. I don't believe I held anybody in a car up. At one point there was an ambulance coming up with blues on as we were leaving the event on the A337, all the cyclists I saw, stopped and moved up onto the grass verges help facilitate it coming through. What has shocked me more is the extremely unfriendly reception that greeted us and now pervades the event. I had never visited the New Forest and my Partner and I made it into a weekend by checking into a local campsite although the extremely bad weather forced us to pack up and return home on Saturday afternoon. We spent some money with local retailers and really enjoyed the event and beautiful countryside. However, we are put off from returning for future trips by the attitude displayed by the protestors and comments on forums such as this. Cycling is a fast growing industry and has defied the recent economic slowdown. We personally have 6 bikes (in addition to two cars we pay £400 per year to tax). They cost us £3750 with £750 paid in VAT. In addition we spend in excess of £500 (£100 VAT contribution) on cycling gear per year and much of that via Wiggle who are based in Portsmouth - providing income and employment not too far away from the New Forest. We probably won't come back to the New Forest cycling, and will go spend our money elsewhere in the country. As I'm sure many of my co-cyclists who attending the event will as well. RaraBLDN
  • Score: 0

5:03pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Sotonians_lets_pull_together says...

Gooby

"Why on earth should a cyclist pay more tax? We pay the same taxes and so far we have recieved very little. Motorists get dedicated road infrastructure. Pedestrians get dedicated path infrastructure.

Cyclists get 10m length 3ft wide along a road that stops at a junction when a cyclist needs the most assistance. We don't damage the roads. We don't cause congestion. We don't pollute. In fact why don't we get a tax break? We are less of a drain on the state and NHS because we are more healthy. We require less legislation to control and less to enforce."

You miss the point that taxation isnt fair. People that never get sick pay for hospitals, pay national insurance all their lives, and then dont get treated because they are economically worthless when they are judged too old by the medical establishment. People who never have children pay for schools, people who never commit crime pay for prisons, people who never miss a days work pay for millions on benefits, I could go on and on.

Yet government seems to have missed the fact that cyclists dont pay much to cycle on the roads, other than VAT on their gear. Yes of course you pay your normal taxes, but when you get on your bike, it doesnt cost you anything more tax wise to roll over that nice expensive tarmac, even though drivers are paying into government coffers every mile they drive through vat on petrol and and fuel duty.

As others have said, as cars get greener, and even emission free, the government will look to make up the shortfall in revenues, and anything with wheels on the roads will lead government ministers to look longingly at it as a little cash cow. Yes cars will be more likely to be in the firing line, but a big change like that would leave people argiung for a new settlement, making sure all vehicle users pay, whether on bikes, electric bikes, mobility scooters - as otherwise everyone would switch to free means of transport and the government coffers would be bare...

When government comes up with a good wheeze on what people can be made to pay for next, they tend to implement it. I think cycling is ripe for such taxation, for the reasons I have outlined. I think a very good case can be made, which is hard to be argued against, without cyclists looking petty and self interested.

More taxation would benefit cyclists as well as cost money, as there would bound to be some cycle network improvements to go with it.
Gooby "Why on earth should a cyclist pay more tax? We pay the same taxes and so far we have recieved very little. Motorists get dedicated road infrastructure. Pedestrians get dedicated path infrastructure. Cyclists get 10m length 3ft wide along a road that stops at a junction when a cyclist needs the most assistance. We don't damage the roads. We don't cause congestion. We don't pollute. In fact why don't we get a tax break? We are less of a drain on the state and NHS because we are more healthy. We require less legislation to control and less to enforce." You miss the point that taxation isnt fair. People that never get sick pay for hospitals, pay national insurance all their lives, and then dont get treated because they are economically worthless when they are judged too old by the medical establishment. People who never have children pay for schools, people who never commit crime pay for prisons, people who never miss a days work pay for millions on benefits, I could go on and on. Yet government seems to have missed the fact that cyclists dont pay much to cycle on the roads, other than VAT on their gear. Yes of course you pay your normal taxes, but when you get on your bike, it doesnt cost you anything more tax wise to roll over that nice expensive tarmac, even though drivers are paying into government coffers every mile they drive through vat on petrol and and fuel duty. As others have said, as cars get greener, and even emission free, the government will look to make up the shortfall in revenues, and anything with wheels on the roads will lead government ministers to look longingly at it as a little cash cow. Yes cars will be more likely to be in the firing line, but a big change like that would leave people argiung for a new settlement, making sure all vehicle users pay, whether on bikes, electric bikes, mobility scooters - as otherwise everyone would switch to free means of transport and the government coffers would be bare... When government comes up with a good wheeze on what people can be made to pay for next, they tend to implement it. I think cycling is ripe for such taxation, for the reasons I have outlined. I think a very good case can be made, which is hard to be argued against, without cyclists looking petty and self interested. More taxation would benefit cyclists as well as cost money, as there would bound to be some cycle network improvements to go with it. Sotonians_lets_pull_together
  • Score: 0

5:04pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Gooby! says...

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together
wrote:
lol Shoebury,

You take it so personally, when all I am advocating is responsible cycling, and paying for the roads you use.

I am in favour of cyclists! If cyclists end up paying per mile cycled which could be the way it goes for all road users (car users too), the more of us out there cycling (responsibly and considerately) the better!
How many time do you need to be told before your social worker explains it to you.

Cyclists do pay taxes. These contribute to the roads.
[quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: lol Shoebury, You take it so personally, when all I am advocating is responsible cycling, and paying for the roads you use. I am in favour of cyclists! If cyclists end up paying per mile cycled which could be the way it goes for all road users (car users too), the more of us out there cycling (responsibly and considerately) the better![/p][/quote]How many time do you need to be told before your social worker explains it to you. Cyclists do pay taxes. These contribute to the roads. Gooby!
  • Score: 0

5:08pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together
wrote:
Gooby

"Why on earth should a cyclist pay more tax? We pay the same taxes and so far we have recieved very little. Motorists get dedicated road infrastructure. Pedestrians get dedicated path infrastructure.

Cyclists get 10m length 3ft wide along a road that stops at a junction when a cyclist needs the most assistance. We don't damage the roads. We don't cause congestion. We don't pollute. In fact why don't we get a tax break? We are less of a drain on the state and NHS because we are more healthy. We require less legislation to control and less to enforce."

You miss the point that taxation isnt fair. People that never get sick pay for hospitals, pay national insurance all their lives, and then dont get treated because they are economically worthless when they are judged too old by the medical establishment. People who never have children pay for schools, people who never commit crime pay for prisons, people who never miss a days work pay for millions on benefits, I could go on and on.

Yet government seems to have missed the fact that cyclists dont pay much to cycle on the roads, other than VAT on their gear. Yes of course you pay your normal taxes, but when you get on your bike, it doesnt cost you anything more tax wise to roll over that nice expensive tarmac, even though drivers are paying into government coffers every mile they drive through vat on petrol and and fuel duty.

As others have said, as cars get greener, and even emission free, the government will look to make up the shortfall in revenues, and anything with wheels on the roads will lead government ministers to look longingly at it as a little cash cow. Yes cars will be more likely to be in the firing line, but a big change like that would leave people argiung for a new settlement, making sure all vehicle users pay, whether on bikes, electric bikes, mobility scooters - as otherwise everyone would switch to free means of transport and the government coffers would be bare...

When government comes up with a good wheeze on what people can be made to pay for next, they tend to implement it. I think cycling is ripe for such taxation, for the reasons I have outlined. I think a very good case can be made, which is hard to be argued against, without cyclists looking petty and self interested.

More taxation would benefit cyclists as well as cost money, as there would bound to be some cycle network improvements to go with it.
You really are quite dim aren't you.

NO-OE in the UK pays tax to 'be on the roads'.
[quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: Gooby "Why on earth should a cyclist pay more tax? We pay the same taxes and so far we have recieved very little. Motorists get dedicated road infrastructure. Pedestrians get dedicated path infrastructure. Cyclists get 10m length 3ft wide along a road that stops at a junction when a cyclist needs the most assistance. We don't damage the roads. We don't cause congestion. We don't pollute. In fact why don't we get a tax break? We are less of a drain on the state and NHS because we are more healthy. We require less legislation to control and less to enforce." You miss the point that taxation isnt fair. People that never get sick pay for hospitals, pay national insurance all their lives, and then dont get treated because they are economically worthless when they are judged too old by the medical establishment. People who never have children pay for schools, people who never commit crime pay for prisons, people who never miss a days work pay for millions on benefits, I could go on and on. Yet government seems to have missed the fact that cyclists dont pay much to cycle on the roads, other than VAT on their gear. Yes of course you pay your normal taxes, but when you get on your bike, it doesnt cost you anything more tax wise to roll over that nice expensive tarmac, even though drivers are paying into government coffers every mile they drive through vat on petrol and and fuel duty. As others have said, as cars get greener, and even emission free, the government will look to make up the shortfall in revenues, and anything with wheels on the roads will lead government ministers to look longingly at it as a little cash cow. Yes cars will be more likely to be in the firing line, but a big change like that would leave people argiung for a new settlement, making sure all vehicle users pay, whether on bikes, electric bikes, mobility scooters - as otherwise everyone would switch to free means of transport and the government coffers would be bare... When government comes up with a good wheeze on what people can be made to pay for next, they tend to implement it. I think cycling is ripe for such taxation, for the reasons I have outlined. I think a very good case can be made, which is hard to be argued against, without cyclists looking petty and self interested. More taxation would benefit cyclists as well as cost money, as there would bound to be some cycle network improvements to go with it.[/p][/quote]You really are quite dim aren't you. NO-OE in the UK pays tax to 'be on the roads'. Shoebury_Cyclist
  • Score: 0

5:11pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Gooby! says...

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together
wrote:
Gooby

"Why on earth should a cyclist pay more tax? We pay the same taxes and so far we have recieved very little. Motorists get dedicated road infrastructure. Pedestrians get dedicated path infrastructure.

Cyclists get 10m length 3ft wide along a road that stops at a junction when a cyclist needs the most assistance. We don't damage the roads. We don't cause congestion. We don't pollute. In fact why don't we get a tax break? We are less of a drain on the state and NHS because we are more healthy. We require less legislation to control and less to enforce."

You miss the point that taxation isnt fair. People that never get sick pay for hospitals, pay national insurance all their lives, and then dont get treated because they are economically worthless when they are judged too old by the medical establishment. People who never have children pay for schools, people who never commit crime pay for prisons, people who never miss a days work pay for millions on benefits, I could go on and on.

Yet government seems to have missed the fact that cyclists dont pay much to cycle on the roads, other than VAT on their gear. Yes of course you pay your normal taxes, but when you get on your bike, it doesnt cost you anything more tax wise to roll over that nice expensive tarmac, even though drivers are paying into government coffers every mile they drive through vat on petrol and and fuel duty.

As others have said, as cars get greener, and even emission free, the government will look to make up the shortfall in revenues, and anything with wheels on the roads will lead government ministers to look longingly at it as a little cash cow. Yes cars will be more likely to be in the firing line, but a big change like that would leave people argiung for a new settlement, making sure all vehicle users pay, whether on bikes, electric bikes, mobility scooters - as otherwise everyone would switch to free means of transport and the government coffers would be bare...

When government comes up with a good wheeze on what people can be made to pay for next, they tend to implement it. I think cycling is ripe for such taxation, for the reasons I have outlined. I think a very good case can be made, which is hard to be argued against, without cyclists looking petty and self interested.

More taxation would benefit cyclists as well as cost money, as there would bound to be some cycle network improvements to go with it.
At this point in time the government is so keen to get more people on bikes through the cycle to work sceme you can buy a bike basically tax free.

Cycling combats the main societal problems and the government is keen to get more cyclists.

Technically there is no way to charge a cyclist by the mile.

Your thinking is from the darkest days of the Mail.
[quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: Gooby "Why on earth should a cyclist pay more tax? We pay the same taxes and so far we have recieved very little. Motorists get dedicated road infrastructure. Pedestrians get dedicated path infrastructure. Cyclists get 10m length 3ft wide along a road that stops at a junction when a cyclist needs the most assistance. We don't damage the roads. We don't cause congestion. We don't pollute. In fact why don't we get a tax break? We are less of a drain on the state and NHS because we are more healthy. We require less legislation to control and less to enforce." You miss the point that taxation isnt fair. People that never get sick pay for hospitals, pay national insurance all their lives, and then dont get treated because they are economically worthless when they are judged too old by the medical establishment. People who never have children pay for schools, people who never commit crime pay for prisons, people who never miss a days work pay for millions on benefits, I could go on and on. Yet government seems to have missed the fact that cyclists dont pay much to cycle on the roads, other than VAT on their gear. Yes of course you pay your normal taxes, but when you get on your bike, it doesnt cost you anything more tax wise to roll over that nice expensive tarmac, even though drivers are paying into government coffers every mile they drive through vat on petrol and and fuel duty. As others have said, as cars get greener, and even emission free, the government will look to make up the shortfall in revenues, and anything with wheels on the roads will lead government ministers to look longingly at it as a little cash cow. Yes cars will be more likely to be in the firing line, but a big change like that would leave people argiung for a new settlement, making sure all vehicle users pay, whether on bikes, electric bikes, mobility scooters - as otherwise everyone would switch to free means of transport and the government coffers would be bare... When government comes up with a good wheeze on what people can be made to pay for next, they tend to implement it. I think cycling is ripe for such taxation, for the reasons I have outlined. I think a very good case can be made, which is hard to be argued against, without cyclists looking petty and self interested. More taxation would benefit cyclists as well as cost money, as there would bound to be some cycle network improvements to go with it.[/p][/quote]At this point in time the government is so keen to get more people on bikes through the cycle to work sceme you can buy a bike basically tax free. Cycling combats the main societal problems and the government is keen to get more cyclists. Technically there is no way to charge a cyclist by the mile. Your thinking is from the darkest days of the Mail. Gooby!
  • Score: 0

5:12pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Sotonians_lets_pull_together says...

RaraBLDN,

That would probably cheer some local residents, but I for one applaud the responsible cyclists, and am outraged at the vandals who allegedly removed signs, and put tacks down.

Great to have you as visitors, but that doesnt mean that people shouldnt speak out against the irresponsible cyclists that were not cycling in single file.

I also deplore the cyclists who trespass on the open forest and dont stick to the cycle paths, which is an ever increasing problem.

I also advocate cyclists being better policed and regulated, and paying more taxes to fund this.

I drove some of the course (not by intent) and saw no signs about single file, and a lot of cyclists who were not in single file, and the 60 mile an hour road which had been cut to 40, felt more like driving along the ornamental drive when it was busy than driving along a main trunk road. Drivers were weaving around all over the place to get round the clumps of cyclists.

Maybe they didnt put single file signs on trunk roads, but the trunk roads I saw certainly needed them.

If I knew an event like that was going on in future, I would as a driver want to complete avoid the course, although if it was an 86 mile course, I dont know how practical that would have been.
RaraBLDN, That would probably cheer some local residents, but I for one applaud the responsible cyclists, and am outraged at the vandals who allegedly removed signs, and put tacks down. Great to have you as visitors, but that doesnt mean that people shouldnt speak out against the irresponsible cyclists that were not cycling in single file. I also deplore the cyclists who trespass on the open forest and dont stick to the cycle paths, which is an ever increasing problem. I also advocate cyclists being better policed and regulated, and paying more taxes to fund this. I drove some of the course (not by intent) and saw no signs about single file, and a lot of cyclists who were not in single file, and the 60 mile an hour road which had been cut to 40, felt more like driving along the ornamental drive when it was busy than driving along a main trunk road. Drivers were weaving around all over the place to get round the clumps of cyclists. Maybe they didnt put single file signs on trunk roads, but the trunk roads I saw certainly needed them. If I knew an event like that was going on in future, I would as a driver want to complete avoid the course, although if it was an 86 mile course, I dont know how practical that would have been. Sotonians_lets_pull_together
  • Score: 0

5:13pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Torchie1 says...

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Sotonians_lets_pull_

together
wrote:
NO Gooby, drivers give enough already in taxes

I want cyclists to give more in taxes, as I believe cyclists would readily pay more in order to cycle if it meant better cycle networks, better education of cyclists, less cyclists being killed and injured on the roads, poor cyclists that give cyclists a bad name being prosecuted, drunk cyclists being removed from the roads, criminals that use bikes to commit crime and escape uncaught being hampered in ability to do so without standing out from responsible legal cyclists.

Surely as a responsible citizen and member of the cycling community you can see the benefits?

Just think of the lives saved!
You clearly have no clue.

Roads are paid for out of general taxation. That means Council Tax, income tax, VAT, tobacco duty, alcohol duty, and every other tax that goes to the Exchequer.
Out of that pot the government allocates an amount for the national transport budget, and out of that an amount is allocated to roads.


Cyclists and pedestrians pay all of those taxes just like anyone else.

If you pay a lot of VED on your car that is your own fault, if you want to pay less get a less polluting car.

Vehicle Excise Duty, and fuel duty, are LIFESTYLE taxes, just like alcohol and tobacco duty, and as such are almost entirely avoidable if you use a less polluting and more fuel efficient vehicle.

If you choose not to, then that is entirely your own fault and no-one else's.
I agree with you that paying a high rate of VED is down to the individual. A little thought before buying a car could see you with a pre 1973 model that falls in to a VED free bracket (same as a bicycle without worrying about exhaust emissions) or a pre 1960 model that doesn't have to be submitted for the annual MOT inspection either. Both classes generally benefit from rock bottom insurance premiums as well. Look after the vehicle and it will almost certainly sell for more than you bought it for without any tax liability on the gain. If you want something modern then look at the low volume high performance models that don't have to provide emissions figures and are grouped together in Taxation Class 11' irrespective of engine size. Jeremy Clarksons 5 litre supercharged Ford GT was in this class as are road rockets like Noble, and certain Lotus models. The emissions related VED like most other things can be side-stepped, a bit like calling a race a Sportive.
[quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: NO Gooby, drivers give enough already in taxes I want cyclists to give more in taxes, as I believe cyclists would readily pay more in order to cycle if it meant better cycle networks, better education of cyclists, less cyclists being killed and injured on the roads, poor cyclists that give cyclists a bad name being prosecuted, drunk cyclists being removed from the roads, criminals that use bikes to commit crime and escape uncaught being hampered in ability to do so without standing out from responsible legal cyclists. Surely as a responsible citizen and member of the cycling community you can see the benefits? Just think of the lives saved![/p][/quote]You clearly have no clue. Roads are paid for out of general taxation. That means Council Tax, income tax, VAT, tobacco duty, alcohol duty, and every other tax that goes to the Exchequer. Out of that pot the government allocates an amount for the national transport budget, and out of that an amount is allocated to roads. Cyclists and pedestrians pay all of those taxes just like anyone else. If you pay a lot of VED on your car that is your own fault, if you want to pay less get a less polluting car. Vehicle Excise Duty, and fuel duty, are LIFESTYLE taxes, just like alcohol and tobacco duty, and as such are almost entirely avoidable if you use a less polluting and more fuel efficient vehicle. If you choose not to, then that is entirely your own fault and no-one else's.[/p][/quote]I agree with you that paying a high rate of VED is down to the individual. A little thought before buying a car could see you with a pre 1973 model that falls in to a VED free bracket (same as a bicycle without worrying about exhaust emissions) or a pre 1960 model that doesn't have to be submitted for the annual MOT inspection either. Both classes generally benefit from rock bottom insurance premiums as well. Look after the vehicle and it will almost certainly sell for more than you bought it for without any tax liability on the gain. If you want something modern then look at the low volume high performance models that don't have to provide emissions figures and are grouped together in Taxation Class 11' irrespective of engine size. Jeremy Clarksons 5 litre supercharged Ford GT was in this class as are road rockets like Noble, and certain Lotus models. The emissions related VED like most other things can be side-stepped, a bit like calling a race a Sportive. Torchie1
  • Score: 0

5:15pm Mon 15 Apr 13

George4th says...

RaraBLDN wrote:
I wanted to comment as a first time visitor to the New Forest and somebody who actually participated in the sportive on Saturday morning.

To correct a few comments, for the 4.5 hours it took me to complete the route, for the most part cyclists were in single file - there were some sections where I moved out to overtake when it was safe, and with looking behind to check no motor vehicles were approaching. In the same way I would do on any ride either during my London commute or social rides on country lanes in any part of the country.

The organisers briefed us all thoroughly before the event and at the start and there were "Ride in Single File" signs at regular intervals along the ride.

There was very little interaction with traffic as very quiet roads were chosen. I was overtaken by a handful of vehicles and in the most part respectively. I don't believe I held anybody in a car up. At one point there was an ambulance coming up with blues on as we were leaving the event on the A337, all the cyclists I saw, stopped and moved up onto the grass verges help facilitate it coming through.

What has shocked me more is the extremely unfriendly reception that greeted us and now pervades the event. I had never visited the New Forest and my Partner and I made it into a weekend by checking into a local campsite although the extremely bad weather forced us to pack up and return home on Saturday afternoon.

We spent some money with local retailers and really enjoyed the event and beautiful countryside. However, we are put off from returning for future trips by the attitude displayed by the protestors and comments on forums such as this.

Cycling is a fast growing industry and has defied the recent economic slowdown. We personally have 6 bikes (in addition to two cars we pay £400 per year to tax). They cost us £3750 with £750 paid in VAT. In addition we spend in excess of £500 (£100 VAT contribution) on cycling gear per year and much of that via Wiggle who are based in Portsmouth - providing income and employment not too far away from the New Forest.

We probably won't come back to the New Forest cycling, and will go spend our money elsewhere in the country. As I'm sure many of my co-cyclists who attending the event will as well.
Very fair comment, and well put.
[quote][p][bold]RaraBLDN[/bold] wrote: I wanted to comment as a first time visitor to the New Forest and somebody who actually participated in the sportive on Saturday morning. To correct a few comments, for the 4.5 hours it took me to complete the route, for the most part cyclists were in single file - there were some sections where I moved out to overtake when it was safe, and with looking behind to check no motor vehicles were approaching. In the same way I would do on any ride either during my London commute or social rides on country lanes in any part of the country. The organisers briefed us all thoroughly before the event and at the start and there were "Ride in Single File" signs at regular intervals along the ride. There was very little interaction with traffic as very quiet roads were chosen. I was overtaken by a handful of vehicles and in the most part respectively. I don't believe I held anybody in a car up. At one point there was an ambulance coming up with blues on as we were leaving the event on the A337, all the cyclists I saw, stopped and moved up onto the grass verges help facilitate it coming through. What has shocked me more is the extremely unfriendly reception that greeted us and now pervades the event. I had never visited the New Forest and my Partner and I made it into a weekend by checking into a local campsite although the extremely bad weather forced us to pack up and return home on Saturday afternoon. We spent some money with local retailers and really enjoyed the event and beautiful countryside. However, we are put off from returning for future trips by the attitude displayed by the protestors and comments on forums such as this. Cycling is a fast growing industry and has defied the recent economic slowdown. We personally have 6 bikes (in addition to two cars we pay £400 per year to tax). They cost us £3750 with £750 paid in VAT. In addition we spend in excess of £500 (£100 VAT contribution) on cycling gear per year and much of that via Wiggle who are based in Portsmouth - providing income and employment not too far away from the New Forest. We probably won't come back to the New Forest cycling, and will go spend our money elsewhere in the country. As I'm sure many of my co-cyclists who attending the event will as well.[/p][/quote]Very fair comment, and well put. George4th
  • Score: 0

5:15pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Sotonians_lets_pull_together says...

Gooby

"At this point in time the government is so keen to get more people on bikes through the cycle to work sceme you can buy a bike basically tax free."

Maybe that is a sweetener for the short term.

Give them free bikes, get them all cycling, then tax them later...

...its not as if they will be able to argue they havent been subsidised all these years, after all we were giving them free bikes!

;-)
Gooby "At this point in time the government is so keen to get more people on bikes through the cycle to work sceme you can buy a bike basically tax free." Maybe that is a sweetener for the short term. Give them free bikes, get them all cycling, then tax them later... ...its not as if they will be able to argue they havent been subsidised all these years, after all we were giving them free bikes! ;-) Sotonians_lets_pull_together
  • Score: 0

5:18pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Sotonians_lets_pull_together says...

Torchie1,

quite ;-)
Torchie1, quite ;-) Sotonians_lets_pull_together
  • Score: 0

5:20pm Mon 15 Apr 13

S Pance says...

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Sotonians_lets_pull_

together
wrote:
No, in time, I believe it would make sense for cyclists to be taxed, the benefits are numerous as outlined above, not least the fact that the more tax is raised, either directly or indirectly, the more it can maintain services / dig the economy out of the deficit.

We need more people paying more tax. Cyclists that can afford fancy lycra and fancy carbon fibre bikes can clearly afford a few quid for a licence, a test and a number plate, and some insurance.

I am only advocating responsible cycling. After all, if cyclists are not committing offences, they shoudnt worry about being traceable.

If cyclists paid for licence plates and tests, they could also demand a much better cycle network, and give their lobby much more legitimacy.

It would help responsible cyclists.

As far as I see it it is only selfish people without a sense of citizenship and responsibility who would oppose cyclists being licenced taxed and insured.

Of course no one likes having to pay more, but everything costs money, and cyclists should do their bit.
But Vehicle Excise Duty is a POLLUTION tax, bicycles DO NOT POLLUTE, and therefore would be exempt, just like zero emission cars, electric cars and very low emission cars.
Why should cyclists be taxed to use roads when NO-ONE else is taxed to use roads?

Seems to me you're just an anti-cycling bigot. Or maybe you never learned to ride a bike. Whatever, you need to take that chip off your shoulder.

And you haven't answered my previous point: Why don't you have a problem with the hundreds of thousands of people who drive into the New Forest bringing pollution, traffic jams, and running down and killing thousands of animals every year?
What you conveniently fail to point out is that whilst electric vehicles are taxed at zero rate, they are still obliged by law to carry a tax disk, mot, number plate and insurance. Oh, and the driver is obliged to be licenced, too.

Why are cyclists against the same thing for bikes? Hmmmm?
[quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: No, in time, I believe it would make sense for cyclists to be taxed, the benefits are numerous as outlined above, not least the fact that the more tax is raised, either directly or indirectly, the more it can maintain services / dig the economy out of the deficit. We need more people paying more tax. Cyclists that can afford fancy lycra and fancy carbon fibre bikes can clearly afford a few quid for a licence, a test and a number plate, and some insurance. I am only advocating responsible cycling. After all, if cyclists are not committing offences, they shoudnt worry about being traceable. If cyclists paid for licence plates and tests, they could also demand a much better cycle network, and give their lobby much more legitimacy. It would help responsible cyclists. As far as I see it it is only selfish people without a sense of citizenship and responsibility who would oppose cyclists being licenced taxed and insured. Of course no one likes having to pay more, but everything costs money, and cyclists should do their bit.[/p][/quote]But Vehicle Excise Duty is a POLLUTION tax, bicycles DO NOT POLLUTE, and therefore would be exempt, just like zero emission cars, electric cars and very low emission cars. Why should cyclists be taxed to use roads when NO-ONE else is taxed to use roads? Seems to me you're just an anti-cycling bigot. Or maybe you never learned to ride a bike. Whatever, you need to take that chip off your shoulder. And you haven't answered my previous point: Why don't you have a problem with the hundreds of thousands of people who drive into the New Forest bringing pollution, traffic jams, and running down and killing thousands of animals every year?[/p][/quote]What you conveniently fail to point out is that whilst electric vehicles are taxed at zero rate, they are still obliged by law to carry a tax disk, mot, number plate and insurance. Oh, and the driver is obliged to be licenced, too. Why are cyclists against the same thing for bikes? Hmmmm? S Pance
  • Score: 0

5:28pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

S Pance wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Sotonians_lets_pull_


together
wrote:
No, in time, I believe it would make sense for cyclists to be taxed, the benefits are numerous as outlined above, not least the fact that the more tax is raised, either directly or indirectly, the more it can maintain services / dig the economy out of the deficit.

We need more people paying more tax. Cyclists that can afford fancy lycra and fancy carbon fibre bikes can clearly afford a few quid for a licence, a test and a number plate, and some insurance.

I am only advocating responsible cycling. After all, if cyclists are not committing offences, they shoudnt worry about being traceable.

If cyclists paid for licence plates and tests, they could also demand a much better cycle network, and give their lobby much more legitimacy.

It would help responsible cyclists.

As far as I see it it is only selfish people without a sense of citizenship and responsibility who would oppose cyclists being licenced taxed and insured.

Of course no one likes having to pay more, but everything costs money, and cyclists should do their bit.
But Vehicle Excise Duty is a POLLUTION tax, bicycles DO NOT POLLUTE, and therefore would be exempt, just like zero emission cars, electric cars and very low emission cars.
Why should cyclists be taxed to use roads when NO-ONE else is taxed to use roads?

Seems to me you're just an anti-cycling bigot. Or maybe you never learned to ride a bike. Whatever, you need to take that chip off your shoulder.

And you haven't answered my previous point: Why don't you have a problem with the hundreds of thousands of people who drive into the New Forest bringing pollution, traffic jams, and running down and killing thousands of animals every year?
What you conveniently fail to point out is that whilst electric vehicles are taxed at zero rate, they are still obliged by law to carry a tax disk, mot, number plate and insurance. Oh, and the driver is obliged to be licenced, too.

Why are cyclists against the same thing for bikes? Hmmmm?
Drivers have to be licenced to use a dangerous vehicle in a public place because their mode of transport can easily kill.
Bicycles are not dangerous vehicles and anyone can use one for free (excluding the cost of purchase and maintenance).

And regarding your claim that cyclists are subsidised. They most certainly are not. The most heavily subsidised form of transport is the car. It costs each man woman and child in Europe, whether they drive or not, over £600 each per year to subsidise motorists.
[quote][p][bold]S Pance[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: No, in time, I believe it would make sense for cyclists to be taxed, the benefits are numerous as outlined above, not least the fact that the more tax is raised, either directly or indirectly, the more it can maintain services / dig the economy out of the deficit. We need more people paying more tax. Cyclists that can afford fancy lycra and fancy carbon fibre bikes can clearly afford a few quid for a licence, a test and a number plate, and some insurance. I am only advocating responsible cycling. After all, if cyclists are not committing offences, they shoudnt worry about being traceable. If cyclists paid for licence plates and tests, they could also demand a much better cycle network, and give their lobby much more legitimacy. It would help responsible cyclists. As far as I see it it is only selfish people without a sense of citizenship and responsibility who would oppose cyclists being licenced taxed and insured. Of course no one likes having to pay more, but everything costs money, and cyclists should do their bit.[/p][/quote]But Vehicle Excise Duty is a POLLUTION tax, bicycles DO NOT POLLUTE, and therefore would be exempt, just like zero emission cars, electric cars and very low emission cars. Why should cyclists be taxed to use roads when NO-ONE else is taxed to use roads? Seems to me you're just an anti-cycling bigot. Or maybe you never learned to ride a bike. Whatever, you need to take that chip off your shoulder. And you haven't answered my previous point: Why don't you have a problem with the hundreds of thousands of people who drive into the New Forest bringing pollution, traffic jams, and running down and killing thousands of animals every year?[/p][/quote]What you conveniently fail to point out is that whilst electric vehicles are taxed at zero rate, they are still obliged by law to carry a tax disk, mot, number plate and insurance. Oh, and the driver is obliged to be licenced, too. Why are cyclists against the same thing for bikes? Hmmmm?[/p][/quote]Drivers have to be licenced to use a dangerous vehicle in a public place because their mode of transport can easily kill. Bicycles are not dangerous vehicles and anyone can use one for free (excluding the cost of purchase and maintenance). And regarding your claim that cyclists are subsidised. They most certainly are not. The most heavily subsidised form of transport is the car. It costs each man woman and child in Europe, whether they drive or not, over £600 each per year to subsidise motorists. Shoebury_Cyclist
  • Score: 0

5:32pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Sotonians_lets_pull_together says...

"Bicycles are not dangerous vehicles"

Nonsense, as anyone who has had numerous bikes run red lights at junctions across the road in front of them can testify to.
"Bicycles are not dangerous vehicles" Nonsense, as anyone who has had numerous bikes run red lights at junctions across the road in front of them can testify to. Sotonians_lets_pull_together
  • Score: 0

5:41pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Sotonians_lets_pull_together says...

"Technically there is no way to charge a cyclist by the mile"

Dont worry, people are out there working on road pricing technologies, and how they can bill people. With the range of vehicles increasing and classification getting murkier with different emission free options that will be around, whether electric cars, electric bikes, scooters, mobility vehicles etc, I would be surprised if pushbikes dont get caught in the trawl for taxes.

OK, one suggestion on how it could work...

In the future all cyclists should be compelled to wear a helmet by law.

The helmet could then contain a unique passively powered chip (maybe RF, maybe some other technology) that could be interrogated by roadside road pricing boxes, and they can be billed in the same way that drivers will probably be.

Two certainties in life, death and taxes.
"Technically there is no way to charge a cyclist by the mile" Dont worry, people are out there working on road pricing technologies, and how they can bill people. With the range of vehicles increasing and classification getting murkier with different emission free options that will be around, whether electric cars, electric bikes, scooters, mobility vehicles etc, I would be surprised if pushbikes dont get caught in the trawl for taxes. OK, one suggestion on how it could work... In the future all cyclists should be compelled to wear a helmet by law. The helmet could then contain a unique passively powered chip (maybe RF, maybe some other technology) that could be interrogated by roadside road pricing boxes, and they can be billed in the same way that drivers will probably be. Two certainties in life, death and taxes. Sotonians_lets_pull_together
  • Score: 0

5:43pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together
wrote:
"Technically there is no way to charge a cyclist by the mile"

Dont worry, people are out there working on road pricing technologies, and how they can bill people. With the range of vehicles increasing and classification getting murkier with different emission free options that will be around, whether electric cars, electric bikes, scooters, mobility vehicles etc, I would be surprised if pushbikes dont get caught in the trawl for taxes.

OK, one suggestion on how it could work...

In the future all cyclists should be compelled to wear a helmet by law.

The helmet could then contain a unique passively powered chip (maybe RF, maybe some other technology) that could be interrogated by roadside road pricing boxes, and they can be billed in the same way that drivers will probably be.

Two certainties in life, death and taxes.
Helmet compulsion causes obesity, heart disease and diabetes. It has been tried in Australia, and people just stopped cycling and used their cars instead. Australia is now one of the most obese nations on the planet.
[quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: "Technically there is no way to charge a cyclist by the mile" Dont worry, people are out there working on road pricing technologies, and how they can bill people. With the range of vehicles increasing and classification getting murkier with different emission free options that will be around, whether electric cars, electric bikes, scooters, mobility vehicles etc, I would be surprised if pushbikes dont get caught in the trawl for taxes. OK, one suggestion on how it could work... In the future all cyclists should be compelled to wear a helmet by law. The helmet could then contain a unique passively powered chip (maybe RF, maybe some other technology) that could be interrogated by roadside road pricing boxes, and they can be billed in the same way that drivers will probably be. Two certainties in life, death and taxes.[/p][/quote]Helmet compulsion causes obesity, heart disease and diabetes. It has been tried in Australia, and people just stopped cycling and used their cars instead. Australia is now one of the most obese nations on the planet. Shoebury_Cyclist
  • Score: 0

5:54pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Sotonians_lets_pull_together says...

Shoebury_Cyclist,

"Helmet compulsion causes obesity, heart disease and diabetes. It has been tried in Australia, and people just stopped cycling and used their cars instead"

Rubbish spouted by people who dont like wearing helmets because they dont think it looks cool, or because it messes up their hair.

They still expect to be patched up by the NHS though when they come of their bike and crack their head open.

I also point out that all the cyclists I saw taking part on Saturday were wearing helmets as are all those in the photo at the head of this article.

More proof if proof were needed that many cyclists will argue against anything that doesnt benefit their what they believe is their narrow self interest, even if we want to stop them cracking their heads open on kerbstones and dying, and surely this is in their interest too.

I remember a kid who lived nearby who died falling off his bike doing just that - tragic - do you think you would see his family arguing against compulsory cycle helmets?
Shoebury_Cyclist, "Helmet compulsion causes obesity, heart disease and diabetes. It has been tried in Australia, and people just stopped cycling and used their cars instead" Rubbish spouted by people who dont like wearing helmets because they dont think it looks cool, or because it messes up their hair. They still expect to be patched up by the NHS though when they come of their bike and crack their head open. I also point out that all the cyclists I saw taking part on Saturday were wearing helmets as are all those in the photo at the head of this article. More proof if proof were needed that many cyclists will argue against anything that doesnt benefit their what they believe is their narrow self interest, even if we want to stop them cracking their heads open on kerbstones and dying, and surely this is in their interest too. I remember a kid who lived nearby who died falling off his bike doing just that - tragic - do you think you would see his family arguing against compulsory cycle helmets? Sotonians_lets_pull_together
  • Score: 0

6:01pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together
wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist,

"Helmet compulsion causes obesity, heart disease and diabetes. It has been tried in Australia, and people just stopped cycling and used their cars instead"

Rubbish spouted by people who dont like wearing helmets because they dont think it looks cool, or because it messes up their hair.

They still expect to be patched up by the NHS though when they come of their bike and crack their head open.

I also point out that all the cyclists I saw taking part on Saturday were wearing helmets as are all those in the photo at the head of this article.

More proof if proof were needed that many cyclists will argue against anything that doesnt benefit their what they believe is their narrow self interest, even if we want to stop them cracking their heads open on kerbstones and dying, and surely this is in their interest too.

I remember a kid who lived nearby who died falling off his bike doing just that - tragic - do you think you would see his family arguing against compulsory cycle helmets?
It isn't rubbish at all. It's what actually happened in Australia.

But don't take my word for it, here's the evidence:

http://www.cyclehelm
ets.org/1193.html
[quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: Shoebury_Cyclist, "Helmet compulsion causes obesity, heart disease and diabetes. It has been tried in Australia, and people just stopped cycling and used their cars instead" Rubbish spouted by people who dont like wearing helmets because they dont think it looks cool, or because it messes up their hair. They still expect to be patched up by the NHS though when they come of their bike and crack their head open. I also point out that all the cyclists I saw taking part on Saturday were wearing helmets as are all those in the photo at the head of this article. More proof if proof were needed that many cyclists will argue against anything that doesnt benefit their what they believe is their narrow self interest, even if we want to stop them cracking their heads open on kerbstones and dying, and surely this is in their interest too. I remember a kid who lived nearby who died falling off his bike doing just that - tragic - do you think you would see his family arguing against compulsory cycle helmets?[/p][/quote]It isn't rubbish at all. It's what actually happened in Australia. But don't take my word for it, here's the evidence: http://www.cyclehelm ets.org/1193.html Shoebury_Cyclist
  • Score: 0

6:02pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

Oh, you might also want to take a look at the Netherlands and Denmark where most people cycle, no-one wears helmets, and they have extremely low obesity, heart disease, and diabetes rates.
Oh, you might also want to take a look at the Netherlands and Denmark where most people cycle, no-one wears helmets, and they have extremely low obesity, heart disease, and diabetes rates. Shoebury_Cyclist
  • Score: 0

6:08pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

Cycle helmets are designed to withstand a fall from a stationary standing position. They are not designed for high speed impacts.

The gold standard for helmet certification is the Snell B-90A standard. See the Snell standard for cycle helmets, you need to read section E4.3 here:

http://www.smf.org/s
tandards/b/b90astd
Cycle helmets are designed to withstand a fall from a stationary standing position. They are not designed for high speed impacts. The gold standard for helmet certification is the Snell B-90A standard. See the Snell standard for cycle helmets, you need to read section E4.3 here: http://www.smf.org/s tandards/b/b90astd Shoebury_Cyclist
  • Score: 0

6:10pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Norwegian Saint says...

Jesus_02 wrote:
Norwegian Saint wrote:
OK... I am happy for the cyclists to have their fun with well organised events BUT... While living in my old home village of Beaulieu I was travelling across the forest when a F'ing stupid MAMIL (middle aged man in lycra) was on MY side of the road causing me to take evasive action. I did report this to the event organisers. It probably would have been my fault if I had taken the MAMIL out, terrible dangerous cycling and (I hope the guy reads this) that is why the MAMILs are getting a bad name! If I was in that "race" I would have caught him up and reported him. Innocent cyclists get killed but idiots like that one deserve to be. (yes, it might be harsh to say but I was driving safely, on the correct side and not speeding and only just kept my car on the road)
You need to get a little perspective here

There are idiots in all walks of life and among 1800 people there is bound to be at least one.

I know its frustrating but there is also the possibility that the guy has just made a mistake.

Giving people names may seem clever but TBH honest it makes your point look less credible
Says "Jesus the second!"
MAMILs was a term from the British public... not me (but thought it was funny!)
I drove and I cycled while living in the forest, IF the event was organised correctly and the idiots are left behind then go for it, have a nice safe time but I am saying that not all drivers are at fault and that certain MAMIL should not be on a bike!
(From an earlier question, yes the racers were coming towards me)

One thing we must all agree on is the tacks on the road... not only for humans but the animals! The person who did this is pathetic!
[quote][p][bold]Jesus_02[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Norwegian Saint[/bold] wrote: OK... I am happy for the cyclists to have their fun with well organised events BUT... While living in my old home village of Beaulieu I was travelling across the forest when a F'ing stupid MAMIL (middle aged man in lycra) was on MY side of the road causing me to take evasive action. I did report this to the event organisers. It probably would have been my fault if I had taken the MAMIL out, terrible dangerous cycling and (I hope the guy reads this) that is why the MAMILs are getting a bad name! If I was in that "race" I would have caught him up and reported him. Innocent cyclists get killed but idiots like that one deserve to be. (yes, it might be harsh to say but I was driving safely, on the correct side and not speeding and only just kept my car on the road)[/p][/quote]You need to get a little perspective here There are idiots in all walks of life and among 1800 people there is bound to be at least one. I know its frustrating but there is also the possibility that the guy has just made a mistake. Giving people names may seem clever but TBH honest it makes your point look less credible[/p][/quote]Says "Jesus the second!" MAMILs was a term from the British public... not me (but thought it was funny!) I drove and I cycled while living in the forest, IF the event was organised correctly and the idiots are left behind then go for it, have a nice safe time but I am saying that not all drivers are at fault and that certain MAMIL should not be on a bike! (From an earlier question, yes the racers were coming towards me) One thing we must all agree on is the tacks on the road... not only for humans but the animals! The person who did this is pathetic! Norwegian Saint
  • Score: 0

6:12pm Mon 15 Apr 13

State of the nation says...

Genuinely saddened by the situation and these comments.

I cycle regularly and visit the New Forest either on my own or in a group of two to five. I also drive a car in and around the area.

We try to respect the roads and may cycle two by two to chat but alway tuck in if cars approach. Have been tooted once or twice and raised a hand to acknowledge. We grab a coffee or a pint and chat to anyone who wants to. Also, exchanging a hello or two when passing the locals shows most don't have a problem with cyclists or visitors.

Have done one event or sportive and won't do another. These are just a way for the organisers to make a living and I can imagine why mass cyclists cause concern for locals. That said most groups thin out quickly enough.

I really hope these actions are down to one or two people and we can all enjoy the Forest roads.
Genuinely saddened by the situation and these comments. I cycle regularly and visit the New Forest either on my own or in a group of two to five. I also drive a car in and around the area. We try to respect the roads and may cycle two by two to chat but alway tuck in if cars approach. Have been tooted once or twice and raised a hand to acknowledge. We grab a coffee or a pint and chat to anyone who wants to. Also, exchanging a hello or two when passing the locals shows most don't have a problem with cyclists or visitors. Have done one event or sportive and won't do another. These are just a way for the organisers to make a living and I can imagine why mass cyclists cause concern for locals. That said most groups thin out quickly enough. I really hope these actions are down to one or two people and we can all enjoy the Forest roads. State of the nation
  • Score: 0

6:14pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Ginger_cyclist says...

S Pance wrote:
When the event is re-run, I think the organisers should make it COMPULSORY that each and every rider wears a unique number. That way, any that act like an arse can be reported, banned from future events or reported to the Police.

If all cyclists are as law abiding as certain people say, I can see no possible grounds for objection whatsoever.

So, would the cycling fraternity agree to this?
It already IS compulsory to wear a unique number at the event, if you look closely in the picture above, you may see green bit on the front of the bikes with NUMBERS on them.
[quote][p][bold]S Pance[/bold] wrote: When the event is re-run, I think the organisers should make it COMPULSORY that each and every rider wears a unique number. That way, any that act like an arse can be reported, banned from future events or reported to the Police. If all cyclists are as law abiding as certain people say, I can see no possible grounds for objection whatsoever. So, would the cycling fraternity agree to this?[/p][/quote]It already IS compulsory to wear a unique number at the event, if you look closely in the picture above, you may see green bit on the front of the bikes with NUMBERS on them. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

6:19pm Mon 15 Apr 13

S Pance says...

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
S Pance wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Sotonians_lets_pull_



together
wrote:
No, in time, I believe it would make sense for cyclists to be taxed, the benefits are numerous as outlined above, not least the fact that the more tax is raised, either directly or indirectly, the more it can maintain services / dig the economy out of the deficit.

We need more people paying more tax. Cyclists that can afford fancy lycra and fancy carbon fibre bikes can clearly afford a few quid for a licence, a test and a number plate, and some insurance.

I am only advocating responsible cycling. After all, if cyclists are not committing offences, they shoudnt worry about being traceable.

If cyclists paid for licence plates and tests, they could also demand a much better cycle network, and give their lobby much more legitimacy.

It would help responsible cyclists.

As far as I see it it is only selfish people without a sense of citizenship and responsibility who would oppose cyclists being licenced taxed and insured.

Of course no one likes having to pay more, but everything costs money, and cyclists should do their bit.
But Vehicle Excise Duty is a POLLUTION tax, bicycles DO NOT POLLUTE, and therefore would be exempt, just like zero emission cars, electric cars and very low emission cars.
Why should cyclists be taxed to use roads when NO-ONE else is taxed to use roads?

Seems to me you're just an anti-cycling bigot. Or maybe you never learned to ride a bike. Whatever, you need to take that chip off your shoulder.

And you haven't answered my previous point: Why don't you have a problem with the hundreds of thousands of people who drive into the New Forest bringing pollution, traffic jams, and running down and killing thousands of animals every year?
What you conveniently fail to point out is that whilst electric vehicles are taxed at zero rate, they are still obliged by law to carry a tax disk, mot, number plate and insurance. Oh, and the driver is obliged to be licenced, too.

Why are cyclists against the same thing for bikes? Hmmmm?
Drivers have to be licenced to use a dangerous vehicle in a public place because their mode of transport can easily kill.
Bicycles are not dangerous vehicles and anyone can use one for free (excluding the cost of purchase and maintenance).

And regarding your claim that cyclists are subsidised. They most certainly are not. The most heavily subsidised form of transport is the car. It costs each man woman and child in Europe, whether they drive or not, over £600 each per year to subsidise motorists.
After compulsory helmets were introduced in Australia the number of cycling fatalities FELL by 16%. Fact.

Of course, you didn't want to mention that, did you?
[quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]S Pance[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: No, in time, I believe it would make sense for cyclists to be taxed, the benefits are numerous as outlined above, not least the fact that the more tax is raised, either directly or indirectly, the more it can maintain services / dig the economy out of the deficit. We need more people paying more tax. Cyclists that can afford fancy lycra and fancy carbon fibre bikes can clearly afford a few quid for a licence, a test and a number plate, and some insurance. I am only advocating responsible cycling. After all, if cyclists are not committing offences, they shoudnt worry about being traceable. If cyclists paid for licence plates and tests, they could also demand a much better cycle network, and give their lobby much more legitimacy. It would help responsible cyclists. As far as I see it it is only selfish people without a sense of citizenship and responsibility who would oppose cyclists being licenced taxed and insured. Of course no one likes having to pay more, but everything costs money, and cyclists should do their bit.[/p][/quote]But Vehicle Excise Duty is a POLLUTION tax, bicycles DO NOT POLLUTE, and therefore would be exempt, just like zero emission cars, electric cars and very low emission cars. Why should cyclists be taxed to use roads when NO-ONE else is taxed to use roads? Seems to me you're just an anti-cycling bigot. Or maybe you never learned to ride a bike. Whatever, you need to take that chip off your shoulder. And you haven't answered my previous point: Why don't you have a problem with the hundreds of thousands of people who drive into the New Forest bringing pollution, traffic jams, and running down and killing thousands of animals every year?[/p][/quote]What you conveniently fail to point out is that whilst electric vehicles are taxed at zero rate, they are still obliged by law to carry a tax disk, mot, number plate and insurance. Oh, and the driver is obliged to be licenced, too. Why are cyclists against the same thing for bikes? Hmmmm?[/p][/quote]Drivers have to be licenced to use a dangerous vehicle in a public place because their mode of transport can easily kill. Bicycles are not dangerous vehicles and anyone can use one for free (excluding the cost of purchase and maintenance). And regarding your claim that cyclists are subsidised. They most certainly are not. The most heavily subsidised form of transport is the car. It costs each man woman and child in Europe, whether they drive or not, over £600 each per year to subsidise motorists.[/p][/quote]After compulsory helmets were introduced in Australia the number of cycling fatalities FELL by 16%. Fact. Of course, you didn't want to mention that, did you? S Pance
  • Score: 0

6:24pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Ginger_cyclist says...

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together
wrote:
Herbie,
Of course there are bad drivers. They are taxed and licenced and insured, and there are methods in place to deal identify and catch, punish and educate offenders

There are also bad cyclists, but I cant say the same for them.
Bad drivers don't always have VED, licenses or insurance, remember that before the next time you try saying all of them do.
[quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: Herbie, Of course there are bad drivers. They are taxed and licenced and insured, and there are methods in place to deal identify and catch, punish and educate offenders There are also bad cyclists, but I cant say the same for them.[/p][/quote]Bad drivers don't always have VED, licenses or insurance, remember that before the next time you try saying all of them do. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

6:26pm Mon 15 Apr 13

westhantsboy says...

Disgusting. The offence of causing danger to road users is made out as well as damage to property. Hope someone has the balls to shop whoever did this. Pathetic, small minded , sad individuals with no lives or interests apart from themselves. I am a forest resident, driver and cyclist. I hope those responsible are suitably embarrased by their actions - damage to signs and road surfaces, theft or damage of signs and spray paint damage to road surfaces. Pathetic, the lot of you. Hopefully they will receive a visit from the Old Bill soon asking them to explain. Hope the guy with broken collar bone recovers, finds out who did it and then sues them for every penny. Unlikely I know but wish them well. This has made me really angry and if they do another event then ive a good mind to enter it as a show of support.
Disgusting. The offence of causing danger to road users is made out as well as damage to property. Hope someone has the balls to shop whoever did this. Pathetic, small minded , sad individuals with no lives or interests apart from themselves. I am a forest resident, driver and cyclist. I hope those responsible are suitably embarrased by their actions - damage to signs and road surfaces, theft or damage of signs and spray paint damage to road surfaces. Pathetic, the lot of you. Hopefully they will receive a visit from the Old Bill soon asking them to explain. Hope the guy with broken collar bone recovers, finds out who did it and then sues them for every penny. Unlikely I know but wish them well. This has made me really angry and if they do another event then ive a good mind to enter it as a show of support. westhantsboy
  • Score: 0

6:28pm Mon 15 Apr 13

S Pance says...

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
S Pance wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Sotonians_lets_pull_



together
wrote:
No, in time, I believe it would make sense for cyclists to be taxed, the benefits are numerous as outlined above, not least the fact that the more tax is raised, either directly or indirectly, the more it can maintain services / dig the economy out of the deficit.

We need more people paying more tax. Cyclists that can afford fancy lycra and fancy carbon fibre bikes can clearly afford a few quid for a licence, a test and a number plate, and some insurance.

I am only advocating responsible cycling. After all, if cyclists are not committing offences, they shoudnt worry about being traceable.

If cyclists paid for licence plates and tests, they could also demand a much better cycle network, and give their lobby much more legitimacy.

It would help responsible cyclists.

As far as I see it it is only selfish people without a sense of citizenship and responsibility who would oppose cyclists being licenced taxed and insured.

Of course no one likes having to pay more, but everything costs money, and cyclists should do their bit.
But Vehicle Excise Duty is a POLLUTION tax, bicycles DO NOT POLLUTE, and therefore would be exempt, just like zero emission cars, electric cars and very low emission cars.
Why should cyclists be taxed to use roads when NO-ONE else is taxed to use roads?

Seems to me you're just an anti-cycling bigot. Or maybe you never learned to ride a bike. Whatever, you need to take that chip off your shoulder.

And you haven't answered my previous point: Why don't you have a problem with the hundreds of thousands of people who drive into the New Forest bringing pollution, traffic jams, and running down and killing thousands of animals every year?
What you conveniently fail to point out is that whilst electric vehicles are taxed at zero rate, they are still obliged by law to carry a tax disk, mot, number plate and insurance. Oh, and the driver is obliged to be licenced, too.

Why are cyclists against the same thing for bikes? Hmmmm?
Drivers have to be licenced to use a dangerous vehicle in a public place because their mode of transport can easily kill.
Bicycles are not dangerous vehicles and anyone can use one for free (excluding the cost of purchase and maintenance).

And regarding your claim that cyclists are subsidised. They most certainly are not. The most heavily subsidised form of transport is the car. It costs each man woman and child in Europe, whether they drive or not, over £600 each per year to subsidise motorists.
It's interesting to note that the 'data' to which the anti-helmet brigade refers has been found to be scientifically flawed! It failed to meet the Bradford Hill criteria too and thus has been rubbished by scientists.
[quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]S Pance[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: No, in time, I believe it would make sense for cyclists to be taxed, the benefits are numerous as outlined above, not least the fact that the more tax is raised, either directly or indirectly, the more it can maintain services / dig the economy out of the deficit. We need more people paying more tax. Cyclists that can afford fancy lycra and fancy carbon fibre bikes can clearly afford a few quid for a licence, a test and a number plate, and some insurance. I am only advocating responsible cycling. After all, if cyclists are not committing offences, they shoudnt worry about being traceable. If cyclists paid for licence plates and tests, they could also demand a much better cycle network, and give their lobby much more legitimacy. It would help responsible cyclists. As far as I see it it is only selfish people without a sense of citizenship and responsibility who would oppose cyclists being licenced taxed and insured. Of course no one likes having to pay more, but everything costs money, and cyclists should do their bit.[/p][/quote]But Vehicle Excise Duty is a POLLUTION tax, bicycles DO NOT POLLUTE, and therefore would be exempt, just like zero emission cars, electric cars and very low emission cars. Why should cyclists be taxed to use roads when NO-ONE else is taxed to use roads? Seems to me you're just an anti-cycling bigot. Or maybe you never learned to ride a bike. Whatever, you need to take that chip off your shoulder. And you haven't answered my previous point: Why don't you have a problem with the hundreds of thousands of people who drive into the New Forest bringing pollution, traffic jams, and running down and killing thousands of animals every year?[/p][/quote]What you conveniently fail to point out is that whilst electric vehicles are taxed at zero rate, they are still obliged by law to carry a tax disk, mot, number plate and insurance. Oh, and the driver is obliged to be licenced, too. Why are cyclists against the same thing for bikes? Hmmmm?[/p][/quote]Drivers have to be licenced to use a dangerous vehicle in a public place because their mode of transport can easily kill. Bicycles are not dangerous vehicles and anyone can use one for free (excluding the cost of purchase and maintenance). And regarding your claim that cyclists are subsidised. They most certainly are not. The most heavily subsidised form of transport is the car. It costs each man woman and child in Europe, whether they drive or not, over £600 each per year to subsidise motorists.[/p][/quote]It's interesting to note that the 'data' to which the anti-helmet brigade refers has been found to be scientifically flawed! It failed to meet the Bradford Hill criteria too and thus has been rubbished by scientists. S Pance
  • Score: 0

6:31pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Stnana says...

Just a point the photo in the Echo is quite clearly marked as taken on the A35 ,the main road from Southampton to Bournemouth, and appears to show cyclists NOT in single file.
Just a point the photo in the Echo is quite clearly marked as taken on the A35 ,the main road from Southampton to Bournemouth, and appears to show cyclists NOT in single file. Stnana
  • Score: 0

6:34pm Mon 15 Apr 13

ispywithmylitleeye says...

sburman wrote:
I remember, with anger, the mass cycling event in Southampton City center last year. what a pain in the Backs*ide that was. Why they had to snarl up a busy city centre with their bikes I really don't kow.

Still the Tacks on the road was more than a bit naughty, there could still be some of them araound for days.

I did like the rolling, slow road block though.
The rolling road block is just as STUPID. Instead of having small groups of riders on he road huge groups of riders to bunch up. This in turns makes everyone complain about large groups of cyclist. Also putting cyclists in danger. Something the idiots creating slow the road blocks created in the first place. Classic.
[quote][p][bold]sburman[/bold] wrote: I remember, with anger, the mass cycling event in Southampton City center last year. what a pain in the Backs*ide that was. Why they had to snarl up a busy city centre with their bikes I really don't kow. Still the Tacks on the road was more than a bit naughty, there could still be some of them araound for days. I did like the rolling, slow road block though.[/p][/quote]The rolling road block is just as STUPID. Instead of having small groups of riders on he road huge groups of riders to bunch up. This in turns makes everyone complain about large groups of cyclist. Also putting cyclists in danger. Something the idiots creating slow the road blocks created in the first place. Classic. ispywithmylitleeye
  • Score: 0

6:36pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Ginger_cyclist says...

S Pance wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
S Pance wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Sotonians_lets_pull_




together
wrote:
No, in time, I believe it would make sense for cyclists to be taxed, the benefits are numerous as outlined above, not least the fact that the more tax is raised, either directly or indirectly, the more it can maintain services / dig the economy out of the deficit.

We need more people paying more tax. Cyclists that can afford fancy lycra and fancy carbon fibre bikes can clearly afford a few quid for a licence, a test and a number plate, and some insurance.

I am only advocating responsible cycling. After all, if cyclists are not committing offences, they shoudnt worry about being traceable.

If cyclists paid for licence plates and tests, they could also demand a much better cycle network, and give their lobby much more legitimacy.

It would help responsible cyclists.

As far as I see it it is only selfish people without a sense of citizenship and responsibility who would oppose cyclists being licenced taxed and insured.

Of course no one likes having to pay more, but everything costs money, and cyclists should do their bit.
But Vehicle Excise Duty is a POLLUTION tax, bicycles DO NOT POLLUTE, and therefore would be exempt, just like zero emission cars, electric cars and very low emission cars.
Why should cyclists be taxed to use roads when NO-ONE else is taxed to use roads?

Seems to me you're just an anti-cycling bigot. Or maybe you never learned to ride a bike. Whatever, you need to take that chip off your shoulder.

And you haven't answered my previous point: Why don't you have a problem with the hundreds of thousands of people who drive into the New Forest bringing pollution, traffic jams, and running down and killing thousands of animals every year?
What you conveniently fail to point out is that whilst electric vehicles are taxed at zero rate, they are still obliged by law to carry a tax disk, mot, number plate and insurance. Oh, and the driver is obliged to be licenced, too.

Why are cyclists against the same thing for bikes? Hmmmm?
Drivers have to be licenced to use a dangerous vehicle in a public place because their mode of transport can easily kill.
Bicycles are not dangerous vehicles and anyone can use one for free (excluding the cost of purchase and maintenance).

And regarding your claim that cyclists are subsidised. They most certainly are not. The most heavily subsidised form of transport is the car. It costs each man woman and child in Europe, whether they drive or not, over £600 each per year to subsidise motorists.
After compulsory helmets were introduced in Australia the number of cycling fatalities FELL by 16%. Fact.

Of course, you didn't want to mention that, did you?
That's because 90% of people over no longer wanted to cycle because they didn't have a choice on whether they wanted to wear a helmet or not, also, as previously mentioned, a cycle helmet is only designed to withstand impacts at low speeds, at the most they can withstand 10 to 15mph impacts and that's for a high quality lid.
[quote][p][bold]S Pance[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]S Pance[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: No, in time, I believe it would make sense for cyclists to be taxed, the benefits are numerous as outlined above, not least the fact that the more tax is raised, either directly or indirectly, the more it can maintain services / dig the economy out of the deficit. We need more people paying more tax. Cyclists that can afford fancy lycra and fancy carbon fibre bikes can clearly afford a few quid for a licence, a test and a number plate, and some insurance. I am only advocating responsible cycling. After all, if cyclists are not committing offences, they shoudnt worry about being traceable. If cyclists paid for licence plates and tests, they could also demand a much better cycle network, and give their lobby much more legitimacy. It would help responsible cyclists. As far as I see it it is only selfish people without a sense of citizenship and responsibility who would oppose cyclists being licenced taxed and insured. Of course no one likes having to pay more, but everything costs money, and cyclists should do their bit.[/p][/quote]But Vehicle Excise Duty is a POLLUTION tax, bicycles DO NOT POLLUTE, and therefore would be exempt, just like zero emission cars, electric cars and very low emission cars. Why should cyclists be taxed to use roads when NO-ONE else is taxed to use roads? Seems to me you're just an anti-cycling bigot. Or maybe you never learned to ride a bike. Whatever, you need to take that chip off your shoulder. And you haven't answered my previous point: Why don't you have a problem with the hundreds of thousands of people who drive into the New Forest bringing pollution, traffic jams, and running down and killing thousands of animals every year?[/p][/quote]What you conveniently fail to point out is that whilst electric vehicles are taxed at zero rate, they are still obliged by law to carry a tax disk, mot, number plate and insurance. Oh, and the driver is obliged to be licenced, too. Why are cyclists against the same thing for bikes? Hmmmm?[/p][/quote]Drivers have to be licenced to use a dangerous vehicle in a public place because their mode of transport can easily kill. Bicycles are not dangerous vehicles and anyone can use one for free (excluding the cost of purchase and maintenance). And regarding your claim that cyclists are subsidised. They most certainly are not. The most heavily subsidised form of transport is the car. It costs each man woman and child in Europe, whether they drive or not, over £600 each per year to subsidise motorists.[/p][/quote]After compulsory helmets were introduced in Australia the number of cycling fatalities FELL by 16%. Fact. Of course, you didn't want to mention that, did you?[/p][/quote]That's because 90% of people over no longer wanted to cycle because they didn't have a choice on whether they wanted to wear a helmet or not, also, as previously mentioned, a cycle helmet is only designed to withstand impacts at low speeds, at the most they can withstand 10 to 15mph impacts and that's for a high quality lid. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

6:39pm Mon 15 Apr 13

ispywithmylitleeye says...

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together
wrote:
Absolutely no excuse for vandals, and no excuse for people removing signs.

But I cannot understand why such events are permitted on the roads.

Whether single file signs were removed or not, participants would have been told to cycle in single file. Having driven through the area when the event was ongoing (I had no idea it would be on) there were plenty of cyclists who were not cycling in single file. Even more frustrating for drivers, there was a cycle path alongside the road that none of these cyclists was using. Surely it would make sense if cyclists were required to use the cycle path where one is available?

It seemed to me a significant hazard, as there were vehicles passing in both directions, as well as many cyclists on both sides of the same road. They seemed to often be in groups, not just two side by side, let alone the single file which they had been told to cycle in.

It seemed that there were a lot of frustrated drivers trying to get through, most of which were patient, but some of which were not - it was not pleasant to see, or drive through.

I would certainly not want to participate in such a mass cycling event, as I would feel I was risking life and limb.

Surely either roads should be closed for such events, or they should be held on racetracks.

Cars are not permitted to race on public roads, it would invalidate their insurance.

It would seem sensible to require cyclists to have insurance to cycle on the roads, and for this to be invalidated by racing on open public roads.

It should be an offence for cyclists to race on the public highway in the same way that it would be for any car driver.

Such events should have to be licensed by councils, and in my view, applications should be rejected in all but very occasional circumstances.

It is also a great shame that so many cyclists abuse the cycle network in the New Forest, cycling over the open forest and carving up footpaths that are NOT cycle tracks.

There is no problem with individual cyclists using the roads or cycle paths, and using them respectfully, but mass events (whether on the new forest cycle path network) or roads) are disruptive to normal users, and should only be permitted very occasionally and under strict controls.

I am all for people having exercise, but they do not need to take it at the inconvenience of everyone else, ganging together and obstructing the roads.

These cyclists reminded me of the lorry drivers protesting the fuel duty and deliberately clogging up the roads.
Same applies to horses and wheelchair users i hope. By the way they are NOT your roads. They belong to everyone that pays TAX
[quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: Absolutely no excuse for vandals, and no excuse for people removing signs. But I cannot understand why such events are permitted on the roads. Whether single file signs were removed or not, participants would have been told to cycle in single file. Having driven through the area when the event was ongoing (I had no idea it would be on) there were plenty of cyclists who were not cycling in single file. Even more frustrating for drivers, there was a cycle path alongside the road that none of these cyclists was using. Surely it would make sense if cyclists were required to use the cycle path where one is available? It seemed to me a significant hazard, as there were vehicles passing in both directions, as well as many cyclists on both sides of the same road. They seemed to often be in groups, not just two side by side, let alone the single file which they had been told to cycle in. It seemed that there were a lot of frustrated drivers trying to get through, most of which were patient, but some of which were not - it was not pleasant to see, or drive through. I would certainly not want to participate in such a mass cycling event, as I would feel I was risking life and limb. Surely either roads should be closed for such events, or they should be held on racetracks. Cars are not permitted to race on public roads, it would invalidate their insurance. It would seem sensible to require cyclists to have insurance to cycle on the roads, and for this to be invalidated by racing on open public roads. It should be an offence for cyclists to race on the public highway in the same way that it would be for any car driver. Such events should have to be licensed by councils, and in my view, applications should be rejected in all but very occasional circumstances. It is also a great shame that so many cyclists abuse the cycle network in the New Forest, cycling over the open forest and carving up footpaths that are NOT cycle tracks. There is no problem with individual cyclists using the roads or cycle paths, and using them respectfully, but mass events (whether on the new forest cycle path network) or roads) are disruptive to normal users, and should only be permitted very occasionally and under strict controls. I am all for people having exercise, but they do not need to take it at the inconvenience of everyone else, ganging together and obstructing the roads. These cyclists reminded me of the lorry drivers protesting the fuel duty and deliberately clogging up the roads.[/p][/quote]Same applies to horses and wheelchair users i hope. By the way they are NOT your roads. They belong to everyone that pays TAX ispywithmylitleeye
  • Score: 0

6:42pm Mon 15 Apr 13

S Pance says...

UKIP want to introduce a "cycledisk" registration system in the UK, to prove that cyclists have third party insurance and to discourage the sort of behaviour we have seen.

I'll be voting UKIP and would encourage all other motorists to do so, too.
UKIP want to introduce a "cycledisk" registration system in the UK, to prove that cyclists have third party insurance and to discourage the sort of behaviour we have seen. I'll be voting UKIP and would encourage all other motorists to do so, too. S Pance
  • Score: 0

6:43pm Mon 15 Apr 13

ispywithmylitleeye says...

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together
wrote:
Torchie,
I saw plenty of 40mph signs taking the road speed down from 60, but I didnt see a single sign telling the cyclists to stay in single file.

Signs or not, the cyclists should know to do this as it is in the highway code. The road I was on with busy, with many cars and cyclists on both sides going in opposite directions, and over half of the cyclists I saw did not have the sense to cyle in single file in this particularly challenging and potentially hazardous situation.

To be honest a lot of the cyclists seemed to be cucling well away from the side of road, and it made me wonder whether they were trying to block cars going past and make it more hazardous, even though the road was straight.

If the cyclists had kept in to the side of the road and were in single file there would have been no hazard.
You do know it's not in the highway code don't you?
[quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: Torchie, I saw plenty of 40mph signs taking the road speed down from 60, but I didnt see a single sign telling the cyclists to stay in single file. Signs or not, the cyclists should know to do this as it is in the highway code. The road I was on with busy, with many cars and cyclists on both sides going in opposite directions, and over half of the cyclists I saw did not have the sense to cyle in single file in this particularly challenging and potentially hazardous situation. To be honest a lot of the cyclists seemed to be cucling well away from the side of road, and it made me wonder whether they were trying to block cars going past and make it more hazardous, even though the road was straight. If the cyclists had kept in to the side of the road and were in single file there would have been no hazard.[/p][/quote]You do know it's not in the highway code don't you? ispywithmylitleeye
  • Score: 0

7:02pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Ginger_cyclist says...

ispywithmylitleeye wrote:
Sotonians_lets_pull_

together
wrote:
Torchie,
I saw plenty of 40mph signs taking the road speed down from 60, but I didnt see a single sign telling the cyclists to stay in single file.

Signs or not, the cyclists should know to do this as it is in the highway code. The road I was on with busy, with many cars and cyclists on both sides going in opposite directions, and over half of the cyclists I saw did not have the sense to cyle in single file in this particularly challenging and potentially hazardous situation.

To be honest a lot of the cyclists seemed to be cucling well away from the side of road, and it made me wonder whether they were trying to block cars going past and make it more hazardous, even though the road was straight.

If the cyclists had kept in to the side of the road and were in single file there would have been no hazard.
You do know it's not in the highway code don't you?
Don't forget what is in the highwaycode, such as the fact cyclists may need to cycle away from the curb and that motorists should give as much room as possible when overtaking.
[quote][p][bold]ispywithmylitleeye[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: Torchie, I saw plenty of 40mph signs taking the road speed down from 60, but I didnt see a single sign telling the cyclists to stay in single file. Signs or not, the cyclists should know to do this as it is in the highway code. The road I was on with busy, with many cars and cyclists on both sides going in opposite directions, and over half of the cyclists I saw did not have the sense to cyle in single file in this particularly challenging and potentially hazardous situation. To be honest a lot of the cyclists seemed to be cucling well away from the side of road, and it made me wonder whether they were trying to block cars going past and make it more hazardous, even though the road was straight. If the cyclists had kept in to the side of the road and were in single file there would have been no hazard.[/p][/quote]You do know it's not in the highway code don't you?[/p][/quote]Don't forget what is in the highwaycode, such as the fact cyclists may need to cycle away from the curb and that motorists should give as much room as possible when overtaking. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

7:15pm Mon 15 Apr 13

ispywithmylitleeye says...

adamello wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Sotonians_lets_pull_


together
wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist,

All road users who use vehicles on the road should have to pass a test, pay road tax and be insured, and the vehicle should have a licence plate that uniquely identifies the vehicle, the driver, or both.

The government could do with the tax revenue, and the roads would be far safer.
What the hell is road tax? because it DOESN'T EXIST!!!! It was abolished in 1937 and it ISN'T coming back.
I'd be happy for cyclists to pay the same amount of Vehicle Tax as a car.. based on exhaust emissions.
Not so sure about that. I get terrible wind when cycling and drinking High 5
[quote][p][bold]adamello[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: Shoebury_Cyclist, All road users who use vehicles on the road should have to pass a test, pay road tax and be insured, and the vehicle should have a licence plate that uniquely identifies the vehicle, the driver, or both. The government could do with the tax revenue, and the roads would be far safer.[/p][/quote]What the hell is road tax? because it DOESN'T EXIST!!!! It was abolished in 1937 and it ISN'T coming back.[/p][/quote]I'd be happy for cyclists to pay the same amount of Vehicle Tax as a car.. based on exhaust emissions.[/p][/quote]Not so sure about that. I get terrible wind when cycling and drinking High 5 ispywithmylitleeye
  • Score: 0

7:27pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

S Pance wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
S Pance wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Sotonians_lets_pull_




together
wrote:
No, in time, I believe it would make sense for cyclists to be taxed, the benefits are numerous as outlined above, not least the fact that the more tax is raised, either directly or indirectly, the more it can maintain services / dig the economy out of the deficit.

We need more people paying more tax. Cyclists that can afford fancy lycra and fancy carbon fibre bikes can clearly afford a few quid for a licence, a test and a number plate, and some insurance.

I am only advocating responsible cycling. After all, if cyclists are not committing offences, they shoudnt worry about being traceable.

If cyclists paid for licence plates and tests, they could also demand a much better cycle network, and give their lobby much more legitimacy.

It would help responsible cyclists.

As far as I see it it is only selfish people without a sense of citizenship and responsibility who would oppose cyclists being licenced taxed and insured.

Of course no one likes having to pay more, but everything costs money, and cyclists should do their bit.
But Vehicle Excise Duty is a POLLUTION tax, bicycles DO NOT POLLUTE, and therefore would be exempt, just like zero emission cars, electric cars and very low emission cars.
Why should cyclists be taxed to use roads when NO-ONE else is taxed to use roads?

Seems to me you're just an anti-cycling bigot. Or maybe you never learned to ride a bike. Whatever, you need to take that chip off your shoulder.

And you haven't answered my previous point: Why don't you have a problem with the hundreds of thousands of people who drive into the New Forest bringing pollution, traffic jams, and running down and killing thousands of animals every year?
What you conveniently fail to point out is that whilst electric vehicles are taxed at zero rate, they are still obliged by law to carry a tax disk, mot, number plate and insurance. Oh, and the driver is obliged to be licenced, too.

Why are cyclists against the same thing for bikes? Hmmmm?
Drivers have to be licenced to use a dangerous vehicle in a public place because their mode of transport can easily kill.
Bicycles are not dangerous vehicles and anyone can use one for free (excluding the cost of purchase and maintenance).

And regarding your claim that cyclists are subsidised. They most certainly are not. The most heavily subsidised form of transport is the car. It costs each man woman and child in Europe, whether they drive or not, over £600 each per year to subsidise motorists.
After compulsory helmets were introduced in Australia the number of cycling fatalities FELL by 16%. Fact.

Of course, you didn't want to mention that, did you?
Yes, because the number of people cycling fell by 80%. Not because people were wearing helmets.
[quote][p][bold]S Pance[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]S Pance[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: No, in time, I believe it would make sense for cyclists to be taxed, the benefits are numerous as outlined above, not least the fact that the more tax is raised, either directly or indirectly, the more it can maintain services / dig the economy out of the deficit. We need more people paying more tax. Cyclists that can afford fancy lycra and fancy carbon fibre bikes can clearly afford a few quid for a licence, a test and a number plate, and some insurance. I am only advocating responsible cycling. After all, if cyclists are not committing offences, they shoudnt worry about being traceable. If cyclists paid for licence plates and tests, they could also demand a much better cycle network, and give their lobby much more legitimacy. It would help responsible cyclists. As far as I see it it is only selfish people without a sense of citizenship and responsibility who would oppose cyclists being licenced taxed and insured. Of course no one likes having to pay more, but everything costs money, and cyclists should do their bit.[/p][/quote]But Vehicle Excise Duty is a POLLUTION tax, bicycles DO NOT POLLUTE, and therefore would be exempt, just like zero emission cars, electric cars and very low emission cars. Why should cyclists be taxed to use roads when NO-ONE else is taxed to use roads? Seems to me you're just an anti-cycling bigot. Or maybe you never learned to ride a bike. Whatever, you need to take that chip off your shoulder. And you haven't answered my previous point: Why don't you have a problem with the hundreds of thousands of people who drive into the New Forest bringing pollution, traffic jams, and running down and killing thousands of animals every year?[/p][/quote]What you conveniently fail to point out is that whilst electric vehicles are taxed at zero rate, they are still obliged by law to carry a tax disk, mot, number plate and insurance. Oh, and the driver is obliged to be licenced, too. Why are cyclists against the same thing for bikes? Hmmmm?[/p][/quote]Drivers have to be licenced to use a dangerous vehicle in a public place because their mode of transport can easily kill. Bicycles are not dangerous vehicles and anyone can use one for free (excluding the cost of purchase and maintenance). And regarding your claim that cyclists are subsidised. They most certainly are not. The most heavily subsidised form of transport is the car. It costs each man woman and child in Europe, whether they drive or not, over £600 each per year to subsidise motorists.[/p][/quote]After compulsory helmets were introduced in Australia the number of cycling fatalities FELL by 16%. Fact. Of course, you didn't want to mention that, did you?[/p][/quote]Yes, because the number of people cycling fell by 80%. Not because people were wearing helmets. Shoebury_Cyclist
  • Score: 0

7:34pm Mon 15 Apr 13

elvisimo says...

S Pance wrote:
UKIP want to introduce a "cycledisk" registration system in the UK, to prove that cyclists have third party insurance and to discourage the sort of behaviour we have seen.

I'll be voting UKIP and would encourage all other motorists to do so, too.
Hilarious. I have heard of some interesting reasons for voting for UKIP, normally from arm chair racists but if this is the sort of thing a political party needs to say to get your toe then we live in a very sad society. Apparently the BNP are going to hand out free ice creams on Sundays. They get my vote and I encourage any other ice cream lovers to vote te same way.
[quote][p][bold]S Pance[/bold] wrote: UKIP want to introduce a "cycledisk" registration system in the UK, to prove that cyclists have third party insurance and to discourage the sort of behaviour we have seen. I'll be voting UKIP and would encourage all other motorists to do so, too.[/p][/quote]Hilarious. I have heard of some interesting reasons for voting for UKIP, normally from arm chair racists but if this is the sort of thing a political party needs to say to get your toe then we live in a very sad society. Apparently the BNP are going to hand out free ice creams on Sundays. They get my vote and I encourage any other ice cream lovers to vote te same way. elvisimo
  • Score: 0

7:35pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Stnana says...

Stnana wrote:
Just a point the photo in the Echo is quite clearly marked as taken on the A35 ,the main road from Southampton to Bournemouth, and appears to show cyclists NOT in single file.
Just to make it clear they look 3 abreast on a main road into Southampton on a day when thousands were trying to get into Southampton for a Saints match. Has anyone else looked at the times these non racers achieved, suggest you do. £28 a day for a bike ride round the forest ! Why would you pay for something locals do every day for nothing.
[quote][p][bold]Stnana[/bold] wrote: Just a point the photo in the Echo is quite clearly marked as taken on the A35 ,the main road from Southampton to Bournemouth, and appears to show cyclists NOT in single file.[/p][/quote]Just to make it clear they look 3 abreast on a main road into Southampton on a day when thousands were trying to get into Southampton for a Saints match. Has anyone else looked at the times these non racers achieved, suggest you do. £28 a day for a bike ride round the forest ! Why would you pay for something locals do every day for nothing. Stnana
  • Score: 0

7:37pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Torchie1 says...

ispywithmylitleeye wrote:
sburman wrote:
I remember, with anger, the mass cycling event in Southampton City center last year. what a pain in the Backs*ide that was. Why they had to snarl up a busy city centre with their bikes I really don't kow.

Still the Tacks on the road was more than a bit naughty, there could still be some of them araound for days.

I did like the rolling, slow road block though.
The rolling road block is just as STUPID. Instead of having small groups of riders on he road huge groups of riders to bunch up. This in turns makes everyone complain about large groups of cyclist. Also putting cyclists in danger. Something the idiots creating slow the road blocks created in the first place. Classic.
What you don't seem to be aware of is that the prevailing speed limit, be it 30mph or 40mph is a limit not a target and motorists may exercise their right to travel at any speed up to that limit. If it's not convenient for the cyclists they should overtake.
[quote][p][bold]ispywithmylitleeye[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sburman[/bold] wrote: I remember, with anger, the mass cycling event in Southampton City center last year. what a pain in the Backs*ide that was. Why they had to snarl up a busy city centre with their bikes I really don't kow. Still the Tacks on the road was more than a bit naughty, there could still be some of them araound for days. I did like the rolling, slow road block though.[/p][/quote]The rolling road block is just as STUPID. Instead of having small groups of riders on he road huge groups of riders to bunch up. This in turns makes everyone complain about large groups of cyclist. Also putting cyclists in danger. Something the idiots creating slow the road blocks created in the first place. Classic.[/p][/quote]What you don't seem to be aware of is that the prevailing speed limit, be it 30mph or 40mph is a limit not a target and motorists may exercise their right to travel at any speed up to that limit. If it's not convenient for the cyclists they should overtake. Torchie1
  • Score: 0

7:41pm Mon 15 Apr 13

S Pance says...

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
S Pance wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Sotonians_lets_pull_



together
wrote:
No, in time, I believe it would make sense for cyclists to be taxed, the benefits are numerous as outlined above, not least the fact that the more tax is raised, either directly or indirectly, the more it can maintain services / dig the economy out of the deficit.

We need more people paying more tax. Cyclists that can afford fancy lycra and fancy carbon fibre bikes can clearly afford a few quid for a licence, a test and a number plate, and some insurance.

I am only advocating responsible cycling. After all, if cyclists are not committing offences, they shoudnt worry about being traceable.

If cyclists paid for licence plates and tests, they could also demand a much better cycle network, and give their lobby much more legitimacy.

It would help responsible cyclists.

As far as I see it it is only selfish people without a sense of citizenship and responsibility who would oppose cyclists being licenced taxed and insured.

Of course no one likes having to pay more, but everything costs money, and cyclists should do their bit.
But Vehicle Excise Duty is a POLLUTION tax, bicycles DO NOT POLLUTE, and therefore would be exempt, just like zero emission cars, electric cars and very low emission cars.
Why should cyclists be taxed to use roads when NO-ONE else is taxed to use roads?

Seems to me you're just an anti-cycling bigot. Or maybe you never learned to ride a bike. Whatever, you need to take that chip off your shoulder.

And you haven't answered my previous point: Why don't you have a problem with the hundreds of thousands of people who drive into the New Forest bringing pollution, traffic jams, and running down and killing thousands of animals every year?
What you conveniently fail to point out is that whilst electric vehicles are taxed at zero rate, they are still obliged by law to carry a tax disk, mot, number plate and insurance. Oh, and the driver is obliged to be licenced, too.

Why are cyclists against the same thing for bikes? Hmmmm?
Drivers have to be licenced to use a dangerous vehicle in a public place because their mode of transport can easily kill.
Bicycles are not dangerous vehicles and anyone can use one for free (excluding the cost of purchase and maintenance).

And regarding your claim that cyclists are subsidised. They most certainly are not. The most heavily subsidised form of transport is the car. It costs each man woman and child in Europe, whether they drive or not, over £600 each per year to subsidise motorists.
Where did I claim they were 'subsidised'??!
[quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]S Pance[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: No, in time, I believe it would make sense for cyclists to be taxed, the benefits are numerous as outlined above, not least the fact that the more tax is raised, either directly or indirectly, the more it can maintain services / dig the economy out of the deficit. We need more people paying more tax. Cyclists that can afford fancy lycra and fancy carbon fibre bikes can clearly afford a few quid for a licence, a test and a number plate, and some insurance. I am only advocating responsible cycling. After all, if cyclists are not committing offences, they shoudnt worry about being traceable. If cyclists paid for licence plates and tests, they could also demand a much better cycle network, and give their lobby much more legitimacy. It would help responsible cyclists. As far as I see it it is only selfish people without a sense of citizenship and responsibility who would oppose cyclists being licenced taxed and insured. Of course no one likes having to pay more, but everything costs money, and cyclists should do their bit.[/p][/quote]But Vehicle Excise Duty is a POLLUTION tax, bicycles DO NOT POLLUTE, and therefore would be exempt, just like zero emission cars, electric cars and very low emission cars. Why should cyclists be taxed to use roads when NO-ONE else is taxed to use roads? Seems to me you're just an anti-cycling bigot. Or maybe you never learned to ride a bike. Whatever, you need to take that chip off your shoulder. And you haven't answered my previous point: Why don't you have a problem with the hundreds of thousands of people who drive into the New Forest bringing pollution, traffic jams, and running down and killing thousands of animals every year?[/p][/quote]What you conveniently fail to point out is that whilst electric vehicles are taxed at zero rate, they are still obliged by law to carry a tax disk, mot, number plate and insurance. Oh, and the driver is obliged to be licenced, too. Why are cyclists against the same thing for bikes? Hmmmm?[/p][/quote]Drivers have to be licenced to use a dangerous vehicle in a public place because their mode of transport can easily kill. Bicycles are not dangerous vehicles and anyone can use one for free (excluding the cost of purchase and maintenance). And regarding your claim that cyclists are subsidised. They most certainly are not. The most heavily subsidised form of transport is the car. It costs each man woman and child in Europe, whether they drive or not, over £600 each per year to subsidise motorists.[/p][/quote]Where did I claim they were 'subsidised'??! S Pance
  • Score: 0

7:50pm Mon 15 Apr 13

ispywithmylitleeye says...

S Pance wrote:
When the event is re-run, I think the organisers should make it COMPULSORY that each and every rider wears a unique number. That way, any that act like an arse can be reported, banned from future events or reported to the Police.

If all cyclists are as law abiding as certain people say, I can see no possible grounds for objection whatsoever.

So, would the cycling fraternity agree to this?
They do wear number. If you enter you have a number on the front of your bike.
[quote][p][bold]S Pance[/bold] wrote: When the event is re-run, I think the organisers should make it COMPULSORY that each and every rider wears a unique number. That way, any that act like an arse can be reported, banned from future events or reported to the Police. If all cyclists are as law abiding as certain people say, I can see no possible grounds for objection whatsoever. So, would the cycling fraternity agree to this?[/p][/quote]They do wear number. If you enter you have a number on the front of your bike. ispywithmylitleeye
  • Score: 0

7:51pm Mon 15 Apr 13

Ginger_cyclist says...

ispywithmylitleeye wrote:
adamello wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Sotonians_lets_pull_



together
wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist,

All road users who use vehicles on the road should have to pass a test, pay road tax and be insured, and the vehicle should have a licence plate that uniquely identifies the vehicle, the driver, or both.

The government could do with the tax revenue, and the roads would be far safer.
What the hell is road tax? because it DOESN'T EXIST!!!! It was abolished in 1937 and it ISN'T coming back.
I'd be happy for cyclists to pay the same amount of Vehicle Tax as a car.. based on exhaust emissions.
Not so sure about that. I get terrible wind when cycling and drinking High 5
Tell me about it, reminds me, I need to get some more of that stuff, it helps you lose weight while riding.
[quote][p][bold]ispywithmylitleeye[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]adamello[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: Shoebury_Cyclist, All road users who use vehicles on the road should have to pass a test, pay road tax and be insured, and the vehicle should have a licence plate that uniquely identifies the vehicle, the driver, or both. The government could do with the tax revenue, and the roads would be far safer.[/p][/quote]What the hell is road tax? because it DOESN'T EXIST!!!! It was abolished in 1937 and it ISN'T coming back.[/p][/quote]I'd be happy for cyclists to pay the same amount of Vehicle Tax as a car.. based on exhaust emissions.[/p][/quote]Not so sure about that. I get terrible wind when cycling and drinking High 5[/p][/quote]Tell me about it, reminds me, I need to get some more of that stuff, it helps you lose weight while riding. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

8:00pm Mon 15 Apr 13

ispywithmylitleeye says...

Well that's an hour of my life i will never get back.
#
Well that's an hour of my life i will never get back. # ispywithmylitleeye
  • Score: 0

8:05pm Mon 15 Apr 13

vinswheels says...

I wrote the following to our local MP (Lymington) and sent it to him on Sat night. I was due to ride the route on Sunday, and was disappointed that it had been postponed. We did however ride with 'out of town' friends for 40 miles and came across many friendly horse riders and car drivers, where the respect and courteousness was mutual.

"Dear Sir,

I feel compelled to write to you as I feel that I am being treated as a second-class citizen in my own constituency. My rights to move freely around the New Forest have already been taken away, as I am not allowed to ride my mountain bike off track within the Forest, even though there is no evidence to show any detrimental effect to the Forest, however, shod horses, horse riders, walkers and their dogs are permitted this basic Human Right. Now I feel that I am under attack for trying to ride my non-polluting push bike on the road!

The Wiggle cycle event today (April 13th 2013) was beset with some non-cycle lovers removing, stealing and destroying route signage, and even worse, tacks had been thrown randomly on the roads of the cycle route with an endeavour to puncture cycle tyres. I am unaware of any disastrous effects from this, but it does take only one blow-out to fall off, skid and possibly hit an on coming car. I really don’t want to die doing what I love, because of some immature and totally unnecessary behavior, to leave four young girls without a mother.

There appears to be a negative sentiment towards cyclists in the Forest, citing a recent one in the New Forest Post (Thursday April 11 2013) where a fellow MP, Dr. Julian Lewis has called for the curbing and controlling of cycling events. Such published articles only enhance these negative views.

We live in a tourist destination, government bodies are encouraging people to get out of their cars and onto their bikes, we should be welcoming these people, with a view to being The place to come and to ride your bike in southern England.

I am, and quite a few local cyclists are, beginning to feel somewhat exasperated at being effectively rebuked for simply wanting to enjoy The New Forest, exercise, and encourage others to bring their buying power here, in the form of staying in local B&Bs and purchasing goods and services from local b