Red light for Brighton and Hove cyclists (From The Argus)

peterthomas wrote:
Well done Argus - it is totally unacceptable and frankly, inexplicable, that cyclists flaunt the laws of the road as they do. They should pay road tax, be insured and get prosecuted - as a motorist would - if they committ traffic offences - which by the way most of them do on a daily if not hourly basis. Ask the questions - why are prosecutions not forthcoming - the numbers quoted above are pitiful, and demonstrative of a system that for reasons that I certainly can't fathom, treats cyclists as some sort of endangered species.

peterthomas wrote:
What is road tax? asks High Wire - forget the pedantic terminology point scoring - the answer is simple - road tax - or car/vehicle tax if it soothes your anxieties - is a lot of money!!!

Fercri Sakes wrote:
Can The Argus tell us how many car drivers were prosecuted for stopping inside advanced cycle zones at traffic lights this last year? You should get down to the Drive/Church Road or Church Road/Holland Road junction and take a count of these law breakers too seeing as cars are much more dangerous. You'll see professional drivers such as bus drivers and cab drivers all blatently breaking the law.

We can all get a council tax reduction if they started to fine these drivers for breaking the law this way. This should bring in at least £5m, help save a few lives and the cash can be split between the council and the police.

cheekybloke wrote:
Same rules apply?

All pedestrians who walk on cycle lanes to be fined then?

All cars who park on cycle lanes to be fined then? Evening Argus : Go and check out Dyke Road Avenue for example...

All cars/buses who stop in cycle area to be fined then?

Fair's fair.

Fercri Sakes wrote:

Fercri Sakes wrote:
Can The Argus tell us how many car drivers were prosecuted for stopping inside advanced cycle zones at traffic lights this last year? You should get down to the Drive/Church Road or Church Road/Holland Road junction and take a count of these law breakers too seeing as cars are much more dangerous. You'll see professional drivers such as bus drivers and cab drivers all blatently breaking the law.

We can all get a council tax reduction if they started to fine these drivers for breaking the law this way. This should bring in at least £5m, help save a few lives and the cash can be split between the council and the police.

Actually Argus please do this research at a few junctions in Brighton & Hove and work out whether it would raise more money by fining the cyclists who go through reds compared to drivers who park in the Advance Cycle Zones.

It may reduce the boring driver v cyclist vitriol here which if it continues could end up costing lives.

Let's see the numbers!

Fight_Back wrote:

Fercri Sakes wrote:

Fercri Sakes wrote:
Can The Argus tell us how many car drivers were prosecuted for stopping inside advanced cycle zones at traffic lights this last year? You should get down to the Drive/Church Road or Church Road/Holland Road junction and take a count of these law breakers too seeing as cars are much more dangerous. You'll see professional drivers such as bus drivers and cab drivers all blatently breaking the law.

We can all get a council tax reduction if they started to fine these drivers for breaking the law this way. This should bring in at least £5m, help save a few lives and the cash can be split between the council and the police.

Actually Argus please do this research at a few junctions in Brighton & Hove and work out whether it would raise more money by fining the cyclists who go through reds compared to drivers who park in the Advance Cycle Zones.

It may reduce the boring driver v cyclist vitriol here which if it continues could end up costing lives.

Let's see the numbers!

As far as I'm aware those advanced zones are advisory only and not listed in the Highway Code. That means it's not illegal to ignore them so not possible to fine people for doing so. Feel free to provide the evidence that suggests they are enforceable ?

High Wire wrote:

peterthomas wrote:
What is road tax? asks High Wire - forget the pedantic terminology point scoring - the answer is simple - road tax - or car/vehicle tax if it soothes your anxieties - is a lot of money!!!

It's nothing to do with pedantry or point scoring - if you're going to make suggestions just make sensible ones and stop repeating the same old rubbish.

If you pay taxes then you pay towards the roads.

But whilst your head's still in the clouds, how would you collect your 'road tax' from a 14 year old? And what marginal costs created by cyclists would you spend it on? And when would you apply this to people with prams...?

gusset snatcher wrote:
what's more baffling in brighton is being stuck by a red light with no other cars in the adjacent lanes then when some appear they are red lighted and you are given the green.... also, pedestrians that cannot cross a road unless given the all clear by a light when there isn't a car or cyclist to be seen for miles...... are all these sets of traffic lights really needed when a roundabout will do

specialized wrote:
i go through red lights all the time. i think of myself more like a pedestrian rather than a road vehicle. i can't really hurt anyone and i alway check to make sure it safe. in the same regard i don't wait for the green man to cross the road when on foot.

this isn't really that much of a problem for others- if i choose to go through a red light or cross without the green man then its my own fault if something happens.

some drivers will get angry no matter what cyclists do- they seem to get really annoyed when we overtake them which i find crazy- and they use their cars to threaten the cyclist- thats the real problem with angry (bully) car drivers.

Hoarder12345444 wrote:
As well as this the massive numbers of idiots on bikes with no lights on around Brighton is shocking. You see it every day. Can it be that hard to go and buy some lights for your bike if you insist of biking every day in the dark? It's a bloody menace. I hoot and shout at them because I can barely see them. They put themselves at risk but also motorists who hit them too. They are a real menace. Seems to be a Brighton trend, I would 8 out of 10 cyclists quite happily cycle with no lights on.

Mr. Mann. wrote:

gusset snatcher wrote: what's more baffling in brighton is being stuck by a red light with no other cars in the adjacent lanes then when some appear they are red lighted and you are given the green.... also, pedestrians that cannot cross a road unless given the all clear by a light when there isn't a car or cyclist to be seen for miles...... are all these sets of traffic lights really needed when a roundabout will do

Yeah those pedestrians who press the button and wait for the light to signal that they can go safely are a right nuisance - who do they think they are?! Using the same logic - a road user should just jump a red light at a pedestrian crossing if there isn't a pedestrian waiting to cross. Get out of the gene pool gusset snatcher and go sniff some panties,

spa301 wrote:

Mr. Mann. wrote:

gusset snatcher wrote: what's more baffling in brighton is being stuck by a red light with no other cars in the adjacent lanes then when some appear they are red lighted and you are given the green.... also, pedestrians that cannot cross a road unless given the all clear by a light when there isn't a car or cyclist to be seen for miles...... are all these sets of traffic lights really needed when a roundabout will do

Yeah those pedestrians who press the button and wait for the light to signal that they can go safely are a right nuisance - who do they think they are?! Using the same logic - a road user should just jump a red light at a pedestrian crossing if there isn't a pedestrian waiting to cross. Get out of the gene pool gusset snatcher and go sniff some panties,

gusset snatcher; I completely agree with your comments.

Mr Mann; cannot understand your comments and unnecessary abuse. You come across as a complete prat.

olebut wrote:
Cyclists should pay road tax have a registration number clearly visible (as they I believe have to in Holland) and carry insurance.
They are road users and as such should pay for the use of the roads and be insured as other road users have to be.
As an ex lorry driver the number of cyclists I saw especially at dusk, with out lights or reflective clothing , ignoring red lights and indeed the general rules of the road beggers belief. I am not against cyclists just against the arrogance and stupidity of ( probably a relatively small) number who get the rest a bad name and indeed are a danger to themselves and others.

olebut wrote:
Cyclists should pay road tax have a registration number clearly visible (as they I believe have to in Holland) and carry insurance.
They are road users and as such should pay for the use of the roads and be insured as other road users have to be.
As an ex lorry driver the number of cyclists I saw especially at dusk, with out lights or reflective clothing , ignoring red lights and indeed the general rules of the road beggers belief. I am not against cyclists just against the arrogance and stupidity of ( probably a relatively small) number who get the rest a bad name and indeed are a danger to themselves and others.

specialized wrote:

High Wire wrote:

peterthomas wrote:
What is road tax? asks High Wire - forget the pedantic terminology point scoring - the answer is simple - road tax - or car/vehicle tax if it soothes your anxieties - is a lot of money!!!

It's nothing to do with pedantry or point scoring - if you're going to make suggestions just make sensible ones and stop repeating the same old rubbish.

If you pay taxes then you pay towards the roads.

But whilst your head's still in the clouds, how would you collect your 'road tax' from a 14 year old? And what marginal costs created by cyclists would you spend it on? And when would you apply this to people with prams...?

i have 2 cars and 3 bikes and pay all my taxes thank you very much.

cyclists aren't the devil in disguise, there is no need to fear them

peterthomas wrote:

specialized wrote:

High Wire wrote:

peterthomas wrote:
What is road tax? asks High Wire - forget the pedantic terminology point scoring - the answer is simple - road tax - or car/vehicle tax if it soothes your anxieties - is a lot of money!!!

It's nothing to do with pedantry or point scoring - if you're going to make suggestions just make sensible ones and stop repeating the same old rubbish.

If you pay taxes then you pay towards the roads.

But whilst your head's still in the clouds, how would you collect your 'road tax' from a 14 year old? And what marginal costs created by cyclists would you spend it on? And when would you apply this to people with prams...?

i have 2 cars and 3 bikes and pay all my taxes thank you very much.

cyclists aren't the devil in disguise, there is no need to fear them

Hi Guys - where to start really - you wouldn't be collecting tax from a 14 year old, as you quite rightly pointed out vehicle tax is just that - not a tax on the user - so a bike tax would be a tax on the bike - simple really and hardly classifiable as "the same old rubbish"? A good use of any revenues forthcoming from our noble cycling community would be to contribute to the obscenely expensive and almost pointless cycle lanes - pointless because a high percentage of cyclists go where they please as demonstrated by the vast majority of posts on this issue. Next - I can't remebe when I last saw someone with a pram in the middle of the road or running a red light. And a hearty well done to specialzed who pays all his/her required taxes - stunning stuff - in case you hadn't noticed there aren't any tasex on bikes which is the whole point being made. Why should one group of road users be - unregistered/uninsur

ed/pay no specific road usage tax/blatantly flaunt road regulations and remain unpunished - 31 convistions in 12 months and the Argus photograph 42 contraventions in 1 hour - I rest my case. And to all the "cars speed/park on cycle lanes etc etc" brigade.....you are absolutely correct - but car drivers get "nicked" because they exist in "the system" and are therefore identifiable. And comment of the year award to specialized who "goes through red lights all the time, but always check that it's safe" - very sensible but it's hardly the point is it!!

peterthomas wrote:

specialized wrote:

High Wire wrote:

peterthomas wrote:
What is road tax? asks High Wire - forget the pedantic terminology point scoring - the answer is simple - road tax - or car/vehicle tax if it soothes your anxieties - is a lot of money!!!

It's nothing to do with pedantry or point scoring - if you're going to make suggestions just make sensible ones and stop repeating the same old rubbish.

If you pay taxes then you pay towards the roads.

But whilst your head's still in the clouds, how would you collect your 'road tax' from a 14 year old? And what marginal costs created by cyclists would you spend it on? And when would you apply this to people with prams...?

i have 2 cars and 3 bikes and pay all my taxes thank you very much.

cyclists aren't the devil in disguise, there is no need to fear them

Hi Guys - where to start really - you wouldn't be collecting tax from a 14 year old, as you quite rightly pointed out vehicle tax is just that - not a tax on the user - so a bike tax would be a tax on the bike - simple really and hardly classifiable as "the same old rubbish"? A good use of any revenues forthcoming from our noble cycling community would be to contribute to the obscenely expensive and almost pointless cycle lanes - pointless because a high percentage of cyclists go where they please as demonstrated by the vast majority of posts on this issue. Next - I can't remebe when I last saw someone with a pram in the middle of the road or running a red light. And a hearty well done to specialzed who pays all his/her required taxes - stunning stuff - in case you hadn't noticed there aren't any tasex on bikes which is the whole point being made. Why should one group of road users be - unregistered/uninsur

ed/pay no specific road usage tax/blatantly flaunt road regulations and remain unpunished - 31 convistions in 12 months and the Argus photograph 42 contraventions in 1 hour - I rest my case. And to all the "cars speed/park on cycle lanes etc etc" brigade.....you are absolutely correct - but car drivers get "nicked" because they exist in "the system" and are therefore identifiable. And comment of the year award to specialized who "goes through red lights all the time, but always check that it's safe" - very sensible but it's hardly the point is it!!

cheekybloke wrote:
Same rules apply?

All pedestrians who walk on cycle lanes to be fined then?

All cars who park on cycle lanes to be fined then? Evening Argus : Go and check out Dyke Road Avenue for example...

All cars/buses who stop in cycle area to be fined then?

Fair's fair.

Zorniza wrote:

cheekybloke wrote:
Same rules apply?

All pedestrians who walk on cycle lanes to be fined then?

All cars who park on cycle lanes to be fined then? Evening Argus : Go and check out Dyke Road Avenue for example...

All cars/buses who stop in cycle area to be fined then?

Fair's fair.

Typical. This article is about irresponsible cyclists - don't change the subject (unless you are a politician of course.)

Must say I never heard of fines for cyclists. What a good idea. A daily occurance jumping the red light AND no front light in the dark. Is there a fine for that too?

Of course there are other things wrong in the city, and people but don't bring them all now please, Just admit that it is very wrong for cyclists to barge down the road throwing a wobly at the rest of the public, especially pedestrians..And especially on the sea front. Most of the time I walk in fear of tredding on their patch but come the give way signs on the prom, never saw a single one stop. Did anyone?

So dear cyclist - have you nocied that this is a city not the mountain track. In a city there are lots of competing interests. Admittedly you have a better chance of getting through unhurt on your bike than I if I was in your way. Is this why you do it? Might rules ey? How about a little cooperation?

Stop at the lights lady/man (seen them all)? And if you do not want to be tarred with the same brush then accept that fines are a good way to alert the deserving lot - are they the majority of cyclists?

Looks like it to me. Did not need the Argus to tell me, but they certainly needed telling. And still have a cheek to defend this sort of behaviour.

Perseus wrote:
Every single working day, I spot over 30 examples of vehicle drivers driving on pavements in one hour. Put the article in perspective. Once a day (or more) I will spot a car jumping a red light and that is far more dangerous. In the same time cyclists jumping the same light will be about two.

Andy R wrote:

Perseus wrote:
Every single working day, I spot over 30 examples of vehicle drivers driving on pavements in one hour. Put the article in perspective. Once a day (or more) I will spot a car jumping a red light and that is far more dangerous. In the same time cyclists jumping the same light will be about two.

...and as I stated earlier, cars on the roads after dark with NO lights on is a daily (or rather nightly occurrence) in Brighton and Hove.

MaryBale wrote:
I almost want to pull over and thank a law-abiding cyclist when I see one.

I live on Lewes Road and the number of cyclists brazenly endangering pedestrians by cycling on the pavement and sailing through red lights at pedestrian crossings infuriates me.
I am both a cyclist AND a driver and always treat a cyclist on the road with care and respect when driving, but FAR TOO MANY cyclists have no idea how dangerous they are to other road users - especially pedestrians - either that, or they simply don't care. Shame on the many cyclists commenting here who fail to condemn their selfish and dangerous peers.

MaryBale wrote:
I almost want to pull over and thank a law-abiding cyclist when I see one.

I live on Lewes Road and the number of cyclists brazenly endangering pedestrians by cycling on the pavement and sailing through red lights at pedestrian crossings infuriates me.
I am both a cyclist AND a driver and always treat a cyclist on the road with care and respect when driving, but FAR TOO MANY cyclists have no idea how dangerous they are to other road users - especially pedestrians - either that, or they simply don't care. Shame on the many cyclists commenting here who fail to condemn their selfish and dangerous peers.

menowhere wrote:
it seems common on these story's for cyclists defense to be to attack drivers.

Brightonscouse2 wrote:

peterthomas wrote:

specialized wrote:

High Wire wrote:

peterthomas wrote:
What is road tax? asks High Wire - forget the pedantic terminology point scoring - the answer is simple - road tax - or car/vehicle tax if it soothes your anxieties - is a lot of money!!!

It's nothing to do with pedantry or point scoring - if you're going to make suggestions just make sensible ones and stop repeating the same old rubbish.

If you pay taxes then you pay towards the roads.

But whilst your head's still in the clouds, how would you collect your 'road tax' from a 14 year old? And what marginal costs created by cyclists would you spend it on? And when would you apply this to people with prams...?

i have 2 cars and 3 bikes and pay all my taxes thank you very much.

cyclists aren't the devil in disguise, there is no need to fear them

Hi Guys - where to start really - you wouldn't be collecting tax from a 14 year old, as you quite rightly pointed out vehicle tax is just that - not a tax on the user - so a bike tax would be a tax on the bike - simple really and hardly classifiable as "the same old rubbish"? A good use of any revenues forthcoming from our noble cycling community would be to contribute to the obscenely expensive and almost pointless cycle lanes - pointless because a high percentage of cyclists go where they please as demonstrated by the vast majority of posts on this issue. Next - I can't remebe when I last saw someone with a pram in the middle of the road or running a red light. And a hearty well done to specialzed who pays all his/her required taxes - stunning stuff - in case you hadn't noticed there aren't any tasex on bikes which is the whole point being made. Why should one group of road users be - unregistered/uninsur


ed/pay no specific road usage tax/blatantly flaunt road regulations and remain unpunished - 31 convistions in 12 months and the Argus photograph 42 contraventions in 1 hour - I rest my case. And to all the "cars speed/park on cycle lanes etc etc" brigade.....you are absolutely correct - but car drivers get "nicked" because they exist in "the system" and are therefore identifiable. And comment of the year award to specialized who "goes through red lights all the time, but always check that it's safe" - very sensible but it's hardly the point is it!!

Peter

A few points. It's been mentioned already but, cyclists pay the same amount of tax to use/maintain the roads as motorists do. Your point about cyclists not paying 'specific road usage tax' is redundant. Also in a time where motorists are complaining about increases congestion. Do you think imposing a further tax on an alternative mode of transport would be wise? Would it not be counter productive?

peterthomas wrote:

Brightonscouse2 wrote:

peterthomas wrote:

specialized wrote:

High Wire wrote:

peterthomas wrote:
What is road tax? asks High Wire - forget the pedantic terminology point scoring - the answer is simple - road tax - or car/vehicle tax if it soothes your anxieties - is a lot of money!!!

It's nothing to do with pedantry or point scoring - if you're going to make suggestions just make sensible ones and stop repeating the same old rubbish.

If you pay taxes then you pay towards the roads.

But whilst your head's still in the clouds, how would you collect your 'road tax' from a 14 year old? And what marginal costs created by cyclists would you spend it on? And when would you apply this to people with prams...?

i have 2 cars and 3 bikes and pay all my taxes thank you very much.

cyclists aren't the devil in disguise, there is no need to fear them

Hi Guys - where to start really - you wouldn't be collecting tax from a 14 year old, as you quite rightly pointed out vehicle tax is just that - not a tax on the user - so a bike tax would be a tax on the bike - simple really and hardly classifiable as "the same old rubbish"? A good use of any revenues forthcoming from our noble cycling community would be to contribute to the obscenely expensive and almost pointless cycle lanes - pointless because a high percentage of cyclists go where they please as demonstrated by the vast majority of posts on this issue. Next - I can't remebe when I last saw someone with a pram in the middle of the road or running a red light. And a hearty well done to specialzed who pays all his/her required taxes - stunning stuff - in case you hadn't noticed there aren't any tasex on bikes which is the whole point being made. Why should one group of road users be - unregistered/uninsur



ed/pay no specific road usage tax/blatantly flaunt road regulations and remain unpunished - 31 convistions in 12 months and the Argus photograph 42 contraventions in 1 hour - I rest my case. And to all the "cars speed/park on cycle lanes etc etc" brigade.....you are absolutely correct - but car drivers get "nicked" because they exist in "the system" and are therefore identifiable. And comment of the year award to specialized who "goes through red lights all the time, but always check that it's safe" - very sensible but it's hardly the point is it!!

Peter

A few points. It's been mentioned already but, cyclists pay the same amount of tax to use/maintain the roads as motorists do. Your point about cyclists not paying 'specific road usage tax' is redundant. Also in a time where motorists are complaining about increases congestion. Do you think imposing a further tax on an alternative mode of transport would be wise? Would it not be counter productive?

Hi - I take the point that the road tax contributions form general taxation are the same but - and this is really very simple - the car driver pays more as a vehicle tax the cyclist does not on his/her usage of the cycle on the road! Crazy thing is, if, as abody cyclists rode in a civilised fashion no one would be bothered? Read the posts above - people are fed up with with the thoughtless, arrogant ( I do it because I will get away with it ) and dangerous behaviour of a large number of cyclists in this city - and. lastly how would a tax on cyclists impact congestion?? And before you quote the wrongdoings of motorists, as I sadi before, they tend to get punished - cyclists do not. What is your view on the 42 who ran red lights as detailed in the article?

peterthomas wrote:

Brightonscouse2 wrote:

peterthomas wrote:

specialized wrote:

High Wire wrote:

peterthomas wrote:
What is road tax? asks High Wire - forget the pedantic terminology point scoring - the answer is simple - road tax - or car/vehicle tax if it soothes your anxieties - is a lot of money!!!

It's nothing to do with pedantry or point scoring - if you're going to make suggestions just make sensible ones and stop repeating the same old rubbish.

If you pay taxes then you pay towards the roads.

But whilst your head's still in the clouds, how would you collect your 'road tax' from a 14 year old? And what marginal costs created by cyclists would you spend it on? And when would you apply this to people with prams...?

i have 2 cars and 3 bikes and pay all my taxes thank you very much.

cyclists aren't the devil in disguise, there is no need to fear them

Hi Guys - where to start really - you wouldn't be collecting tax from a 14 year old, as you quite rightly pointed out vehicle tax is just that - not a tax on the user - so a bike tax would be a tax on the bike - simple really and hardly classifiable as "the same old rubbish"? A good use of any revenues forthcoming from our noble cycling community would be to contribute to the obscenely expensive and almost pointless cycle lanes - pointless because a high percentage of cyclists go where they please as demonstrated by the vast majority of posts on this issue. Next - I can't remebe when I last saw someone with a pram in the middle of the road or running a red light. And a hearty well done to specialzed who pays all his/her required taxes - stunning stuff - in case you hadn't noticed there aren't any tasex on bikes which is the whole point being made. Why should one group of road users be - unregistered/uninsur



ed/pay no specific road usage tax/blatantly flaunt road regulations and remain unpunished - 31 convistions in 12 months and the Argus photograph 42 contraventions in 1 hour - I rest my case. And to all the "cars speed/park on cycle lanes etc etc" brigade.....you are absolutely correct - but car drivers get "nicked" because they exist in "the system" and are therefore identifiable. And comment of the year award to specialized who "goes through red lights all the time, but always check that it's safe" - very sensible but it's hardly the point is it!!

Peter

A few points. It's been mentioned already but, cyclists pay the same amount of tax to use/maintain the roads as motorists do. Your point about cyclists not paying 'specific road usage tax' is redundant. Also in a time where motorists are complaining about increases congestion. Do you think imposing a further tax on an alternative mode of transport would be wise? Would it not be counter productive?

Hi - I take the point that the road tax contributions form general taxation are the same but - and this is really very simple - the car driver pays more as a vehicle tax the cyclist does not on his/her usage of the cycle on the road! Crazy thing is, if, as abody cyclists rode in a civilised fashion no one would be bothered? Read the posts above - people are fed up with with the thoughtless, arrogant ( I do it because I will get away with it ) and dangerous behaviour of a large number of cyclists in this city - and. lastly how would a tax on cyclists impact congestion?? And before you quote the wrongdoings of motorists, as I sadi before, they tend to get punished - cyclists do not. What is your view on the 42 who ran red lights as detailed in the article?

menowhere wrote:
it seems common on these story's for cyclists defense to be to attack drivers.

peterthomas wrote:

Brightonscouse2 wrote:

peterthomas wrote:

specialized wrote:

High Wire wrote:

peterthomas wrote:
What is road tax? asks High Wire - forget the pedantic terminology point scoring - the answer is simple - road tax - or car/vehicle tax if it soothes your anxieties - is a lot of money!!!

It's nothing to do with pedantry or point scoring - if you're going to make suggestions just make sensible ones and stop repeating the same old rubbish.

If you pay taxes then you pay towards the roads.

But whilst your head's still in the clouds, how would you collect your 'road tax' from a 14 year old? And what marginal costs created by cyclists would you spend it on? And when would you apply this to people with prams...?

i have 2 cars and 3 bikes and pay all my taxes thank you very much.

cyclists aren't the devil in disguise, there is no need to fear them

Hi Guys - where to start really - you wouldn't be collecting tax from a 14 year old, as you quite rightly pointed out vehicle tax is just that - not a tax on the user - so a bike tax would be a tax on the bike - simple really and hardly classifiable as "the same old rubbish"? A good use of any revenues forthcoming from our noble cycling community would be to contribute to the obscenely expensive and almost pointless cycle lanes - pointless because a high percentage of cyclists go where they please as demonstrated by the vast majority of posts on this issue. Next - I can't remebe when I last saw someone with a pram in the middle of the road or running a red light. And a hearty well done to specialzed who pays all his/her required taxes - stunning stuff - in case you hadn't noticed there aren't any tasex on bikes which is the whole point being made. Why should one group of road users be - unregistered/uninsur



ed/pay no specific road usage tax/blatantly flaunt road regulations and remain unpunished - 31 convistions in 12 months and the Argus photograph 42 contraventions in 1 hour - I rest my case. And to all the "cars speed/park on cycle lanes etc etc" brigade.....you are absolutely correct - but car drivers get "nicked" because they exist in "the system" and are therefore identifiable. And comment of the year award to specialized who "goes through red lights all the time, but always check that it's safe" - very sensible but it's hardly the point is it!!

Peter

A few points. It's been mentioned already but, cyclists pay the same amount of tax to use/maintain the roads as motorists do. Your point about cyclists not paying 'specific road usage tax' is redundant. Also in a time where motorists are complaining about increases congestion. Do you think imposing a further tax on an alternative mode of transport would be wise? Would it not be counter productive?

Hi - I take the point that the road tax contributions form general taxation are the same but - and this is really very simple - the car driver pays more as a vehicle tax the cyclist does not on his/her usage of the cycle on the road! Crazy thing is, if, as abody cyclists rode in a civilised fashion no one would be bothered? Read the posts above - people are fed up with with the thoughtless, arrogant ( I do it because I will get away with it ) and dangerous behaviour of a large number of cyclists in this city - and. lastly how would a tax on cyclists impact congestion?? And before you quote the wrongdoings of motorists, as I sadi before, they tend to get punished - cyclists do not. What is your view on the 42 who ran red lights as detailed in the article?

StyleCop wrote:

menowhere wrote:
it seems common on these story's for cyclists defense to be to attack drivers.

And vice versa...

ruberducker wrote:
i treat cyclist with contempt,if you wait like me at the red light then i will acknoledge your presence and allow you plenty of room when i pass you.when you jump the lights i will give you about 2 inches..only fair.if you want to be a road user obey the lights...if i hit a car i have insurance,what do cyclist have..

ruberducker wrote:
i treat cyclist with contempt,if you wait like me at the red light then i will acknoledge your presence and allow you plenty of room when i pass you.when you jump the lights i will give you about 2 inches..only fair.if you want to be a road user obey the lights...if i hit a car i have insurance,what do cyclist have..

ruberducker wrote:
i treat cyclist with contempt,if you wait like me at the red light then i will acknoledge your presence and allow you plenty of room when i pass you.when you jump the lights i will give you about 2 inches..only fair.if you want to be a road user obey the lights...if i hit a car i have insurance,what do cyclist have..

Brightonscouse2 wrote:
I've always thought if motorists need a cyclist to be lit up like a Christmas tree. I mean by wearing high viz clothing etc, not by using lights. Perhaps you aren't paying enough attention to the road, and the potential hazards on it.

ruberducker wrote:
i treat cyclist with contempt,if you wait like me at the red light then i will acknoledge your presence and allow you plenty of room when i pass you.when you jump the lights i will give you about 2 inches..only fair.if you want to be a road user obey the lights...if i hit a car i have insurance,what do cyclist have..

Fercri Sakes wrote:

menowhere wrote:
it seems common on these story's for cyclists defense to be to attack drivers.

Or to try and put cyclists' misdemeanours into perspective using facts about road deaths. How dare cyclists use facts to try to add balance to a story!!!

Fight_Back wrote:

Brightonscouse2 wrote:
I've always thought if motorists need a cyclist to be lit up like a Christmas tree. I mean by wearing high viz clothing etc, not by using lights. Perhaps you aren't paying enough attention to the road, and the potential hazards on it.

And I've always thought that if a cyclist can't be bothered to spend a fiver on a high viz vest and a little more on a helmet then they clearly value their life at less than £20 !

Mark63 wrote:

Andy R wrote:

Perseus wrote:
Every single working day, I spot over 30 examples of vehicle drivers driving on pavements in one hour. Put the article in perspective. Once a day (or more) I will spot a car jumping a red light and that is far more dangerous. In the same time cyclists jumping the same light will be about two.

...and as I stated earlier, cars on the roads after dark with NO lights on is a daily (or rather nightly occurrence) in Brighton and Hove.

30 per hour every day? Sounds like you need a hobby Perseus... Why can't cyclists just take the (deserved) flak...?!

High Wire wrote:

peterthomas wrote:
What is road tax? asks High Wire - forget the pedantic terminology point scoring - the answer is simple - road tax - or car/vehicle tax if it soothes your anxieties - is a lot of money!!!

It's nothing to do with pedantry or point scoring - if you're going to make suggestions just make sensible ones and stop repeating the same old rubbish.

If you pay taxes then you pay towards the roads.

But whilst your head's still in the clouds, how would you collect your 'road tax' from a 14 year old? And what marginal costs created by cyclists would you spend it on? And when would you apply this to people with prams...?

Brightonscouse2 wrote:

Fight_Back wrote:

Brightonscouse2 wrote:
I've always thought if motorists need a cyclist to be lit up like a Christmas tree. I mean by wearing high viz clothing etc, not by using lights. Perhaps you aren't paying enough attention to the road, and the potential hazards on it.

And I've always thought that if a cyclist can't be bothered to spend a fiver on a high viz vest and a little more on a helmet then they clearly value their life at less than £20 !

Fight Back

Are you saying you struggle to see a cyclist, with lights, on a street lit urban road?

Ballroom Blitz wrote:
I watched a cyclist run the red light at high speed at the gyratory by Sainsburys Lewes Road. He almost totalled two pedestrians who were crossing the road because the crossing lights said they could. Enough is enough. The police need to target these road using hooligans and fine the hell out of them.

Brightonscouse2 wrote:

Brightonscouse2 wrote:

Fight_Back wrote:

Brightonscouse2 wrote:
I've always thought if motorists need a cyclist to be lit up like a Christmas tree. I mean by wearing high viz clothing etc, not by using lights. Perhaps you aren't paying enough attention to the road, and the potential hazards on it.

And I've always thought that if a cyclist can't be bothered to spend a fiver on a high viz vest and a little more on a helmet then they clearly value their life at less than £20 !

Fight Back

Are you saying you struggle to see a cyclist, with lights, on a street lit urban road?

Fight Back

Sorry that should have been;

Are you saying you struggle to see a cyclist, with lights, on a lit urban road, unless they're wearing high viz?

Brightonscouse2 wrote:

Brightonscouse2 wrote:

Fight_Back wrote:

Brightonscouse2 wrote: I've always thought if motorists need a cyclist to be lit up like a Christmas tree. I mean by wearing high viz clothing etc, not by using lights. Perhaps you aren't paying enough attention to the road, and the potential hazards on it.

And I've always thought that if a cyclist can't be bothered to spend a fiver on a high viz vest and a little more on a helmet then they clearly value their life at less than £20 !

Fight Back Are you saying you struggle to see a cyclist, with lights, on a street lit urban road?

Fight Back Sorry that should have been; Are you saying you struggle to see a cyclist, with lights, on a lit urban road, unless they're wearing high viz?

StyleCop wrote:

Brightonscouse2 wrote:

Brightonscouse2 wrote:

Fight_Back wrote:

Brightonscouse2 wrote: I've always thought if motorists need a cyclist to be lit up like a Christmas tree. I mean by wearing high viz clothing etc, not by using lights. Perhaps you aren't paying enough attention to the road, and the potential hazards on it.

And I've always thought that if a cyclist can't be bothered to spend a fiver on a high viz vest and a little more on a helmet then they clearly value their life at less than £20 !

Fight Back Are you saying you struggle to see a cyclist, with lights, on a street lit urban road?

Fight Back Sorry that should have been; Are you saying you struggle to see a cyclist, with lights, on a lit urban road, unless they're wearing high viz?

I have failed to see many cyclists whilst I've been on foot and/or in car...

Don't be so naive to think that just because they're in a lit street that they are visible.

Against the noise of other road users, particularly with bright lights (i.e. cars) - cyclists can, and often do blend into the backgroudn... especially if they are wearing dark clothing.

This is a well known, well documented fact...just because you have the temerity to suggest you have super human powers of observation - it doesn't mean that everyone is as foolhardy to think they have.

peterthomas wrote:
Well done Argus - it is totally unacceptable and frankly, inexplicable, that cyclists flaunt the laws of the road as they do. They should pay road tax, be insured and get prosecuted - as a motorist would - if they committ traffic offences - which by the way most of them do on a daily if not hourly basis. Ask the questions - why are prosecutions not forthcoming - the numbers quoted above are pitiful, and demonstrative of a system that for reasons that I certainly can't fathom, treats cyclists as some sort of endangered species.

bogs wrote:
However, on many occasions officers will be on foot when an offence is committed and it may not be possible for the officer to stop the cyclist'

On foot, are you joking? The only time you see a real constable on foot is when they are going into a burger bar for 'refs'.

bogs wrote:
However, on many occasions officers will be on foot when an offence is committed and it may not be possible for the officer to stop the cyclist'

On foot, are you joking? The only time you see a real constable on foot is when they are going into a burger bar for 'refs'.

bogs wrote:
However, on many occasions officers will be on foot when an offence is committed and it may not be possible for the officer to stop the cyclist'

On foot, are you joking? The only time you see a real constable on foot is when they are going into a burger bar for 'refs'.

Levent wrote:
I photographed motorists parking on double yellow lines today blocking the visibility of cars coming up elm grove while trying to pull out off the. side streets On a bike you risk death as you can NOT see what's coming up Elm Grove.. Went to the police with the evidence, to be told that it's not their jurisdiction. Maybe when someone gets killed they will FINALLY do something. A cyclist going through a red light when no one is crossing as motorists ignore cyclists when indicating to turn right and it's a police
concern. Typical hypocrisy I would expect from polluting motorists who are too lazy to walk 10 minutes to work!!

NDL wrote:
I think anyone who sees a cyclist go through a red light should challenge them. We could all shout a rude word beginning with W and ending in r.

ArgusReader100 wrote:
And cyclists wonder why they get into accidents! If a car went through a red light it isn't acceptable an heavy penalties can arise therefor more needs to be done on cyclists doing so! I see many cyclists also cycling without helmets...and with headphones in both their ears (how can they possibly hear what's going on around them!!!!) more needs to be done against cyclists road safety...again it wouldn't be acceptable for a driver to be on the phone, why should headphones in both ears blasting out music be any different!!! I bet the greens won't like reading this story from the argus!

Fight_Back wrote:

cheekybloke wrote:
Same rules apply?

All pedestrians who walk on cycle lanes to be fined then?

All cars who park on cycle lanes to be fined then? Evening Argus : Go and check out Dyke Road Avenue for example...

All cars/buses who stop in cycle area to be fined then?

Fair's fair.

Point 1 - it's not an offence for pedestrians to walk in cycle lanes.

Point 2 - where there are double yellow lines on a cycle lane then cars parked there should be fined. It is not an offence to park in the cycle lane on Dyke Road. Don't blame the people who park there, blame the idiot Labour council at the time who didn't bother to put in a proper cycle lane with double yellows.

Treating cyclists and drivers who run a red light the same would indeed be fair so let's see fines for ANYONE who jumps a red light.

Plantpot wrote:

High Wire wrote:

peterthomas wrote:
What is road tax? asks High Wire - forget the pedantic terminology point scoring - the answer is simple - road tax - or car/vehicle tax if it soothes your anxieties - is a lot of money!!!

It's nothing to do with pedantry or point scoring - if you're going to make suggestions just make sensible ones and stop repeating the same old rubbish.

If you pay taxes then you pay towards the roads.

But whilst your head's still in the clouds, how would you collect your 'road tax' from a 14 year old? And what marginal costs created by cyclists would you spend it on? And when would you apply this to people with prams...?

Easy. Just put a tariff on every new bike and the shop can pay it to govt. like VAT. The tariff could be used as an insurance pool or some other fund. It's not difficult.

High Wire wrote:

peterthomas wrote:
What is road tax? asks High Wire - forget the pedantic terminology point scoring - the answer is simple - road tax - or car/vehicle tax if it soothes your anxieties - is a lot of money!!!

It's nothing to do with pedantry or point scoring - if you're going to make suggestions just make sensible ones and stop repeating the same old rubbish.

If you pay taxes then you pay towards the roads.

But whilst your head's still in the clouds, how would you collect your 'road tax' from a 14 year old? And what marginal costs created by cyclists would you spend it on? And when would you apply this to people with prams...?

willy harris wrote:

High Wire wrote:

peterthomas wrote: What is road tax? asks High Wire - forget the pedantic terminology point scoring - the answer is simple - road tax - or car/vehicle tax if it soothes your anxieties - is a lot of money!!!

It's nothing to do with pedantry or point scoring - if you're going to make suggestions just make sensible ones and stop repeating the same old rubbish. If you pay taxes then you pay towards the roads. But whilst your head's still in the clouds, how would you collect your 'road tax' from a 14 year old? And what marginal costs created by cyclists would you spend it on? And when would you apply this to people with prams...?

road tax or road fund license to be exact, is paid by owners of cars lorries buses etc .for the supposed upkeep of said roads highways,and yes it is a lot of money,all tax paid by other means are not for this purpose as you say,as for co;lecting a road fund contribution from 14 year olds,i presume these children have responsible parents??as for your remark regarding prams,,,get a life and dont be silly,

willy harris wrote:

High Wire wrote:

peterthomas wrote: What is road tax? asks High Wire - forget the pedantic terminology point scoring - the answer is simple - road tax - or car/vehicle tax if it soothes your anxieties - is a lot of money!!!

It's nothing to do with pedantry or point scoring - if you're going to make suggestions just make sensible ones and stop repeating the same old rubbish. If you pay taxes then you pay towards the roads. But whilst your head's still in the clouds, how would you collect your 'road tax' from a 14 year old? And what marginal costs created by cyclists would you spend it on? And when would you apply this to people with prams...?

road tax or road fund license to be exact, is paid by owners of cars lorries buses etc .for the supposed upkeep of said roads highways,and yes it is a lot of money,all tax paid by other means are not for this purpose as you say,as for co;lecting a road fund contribution from 14 year olds,i presume these children have responsible parents??as for your remark regarding prams,,,get a life and dont be silly,

voiceofthescoombe wrote:
Actually cyclists would pay the same road tax as electric cars being non polluting would be zero.

Fercri Sakes wrote:

peterthomas wrote:

Brightonscouse2 wrote:

peterthomas wrote:

specialized wrote:

High Wire wrote:

peterthomas wrote:
What is road tax? asks High Wire - forget the pedantic terminology point scoring - the answer is simple - road tax - or car/vehicle tax if it soothes your anxieties - is a lot of money!!!

It's nothing to do with pedantry or point scoring - if you're going to make suggestions just make sensible ones and stop repeating the same old rubbish.

If you pay taxes then you pay towards the roads.

But whilst your head's still in the clouds, how would you collect your 'road tax' from a 14 year old? And what marginal costs created by cyclists would you spend it on? And when would you apply this to people with prams...?

i have 2 cars and 3 bikes and pay all my taxes thank you very much.

cyclists aren't the devil in disguise, there is no need to fear them

Hi Guys - where to start really - you wouldn't be collecting tax from a 14 year old, as you quite rightly pointed out vehicle tax is just that - not a tax on the user - so a bike tax would be a tax on the bike - simple really and hardly classifiable as "the same old rubbish"? A good use of any revenues forthcoming from our noble cycling community would be to contribute to the obscenely expensive and almost pointless cycle lanes - pointless because a high percentage of cyclists go where they please as demonstrated by the vast majority of posts on this issue. Next - I can't remebe when I last saw someone with a pram in the middle of the road or running a red light. And a hearty well done to specialzed who pays all his/her required taxes - stunning stuff - in case you hadn't noticed there aren't any tasex on bikes which is the whole point being made. Why should one group of road users be - unregistered/uninsur




ed/pay no specific road usage tax/blatantly flaunt road regulations and remain unpunished - 31 convistions in 12 months and the Argus photograph 42 contraventions in 1 hour - I rest my case. And to all the "cars speed/park on cycle lanes etc etc" brigade.....you are absolutely correct - but car drivers get "nicked" because they exist in "the system" and are therefore identifiable. And comment of the year award to specialized who "goes through red lights all the time, but always check that it's safe" - very sensible but it's hardly the point is it!!

Peter

A few points. It's been mentioned already but, cyclists pay the same amount of tax to use/maintain the roads as motorists do. Your point about cyclists not paying 'specific road usage tax' is redundant. Also in a time where motorists are complaining about increases congestion. Do you think imposing a further tax on an alternative mode of transport would be wise? Would it not be counter productive?

Hi - I take the point that the road tax contributions form general taxation are the same but - and this is really very simple - the car driver pays more as a vehicle tax the cyclist does not on his/her usage of the cycle on the road! Crazy thing is, if, as abody cyclists rode in a civilised fashion no one would be bothered? Read the posts above - people are fed up with with the thoughtless, arrogant ( I do it because I will get away with it ) and dangerous behaviour of a large number of cyclists in this city - and. lastly how would a tax on cyclists impact congestion?? And before you quote the wrongdoings of motorists, as I sadi before, they tend to get punished - cyclists do not. What is your view on the 42 who ran red lights as detailed in the article?

Wrong, cyclists pay more per mile travelled than car drivers. And we damage the road less.

Maybe you should find all these young thoughtless arrogant cyclists and put them in cars instead? Apparently behind the wheel they become model citizens and have a very low accident rate ;) That would be much better, doh!

puddings3112 wrote:
The article that the Argos should be writing is not whether a few people on bikes jump lights but about the general decline in road traffic standards by all users. In the thirty years that I have been a road user in control of various vehicles (bike, horse, motorbike, car, van and lorries), I have seen the country move from a culture of user responsibility to user rights and with that aggression towards all other users. Everyone else is identified by what they have, or are perceived to have done wrong, along with the many injustices claimed to arise from others actions (which to a greater or lesser extent may be true).
Coupled to this we now have an enforcement culture that relies on electronic systems rather than empowered individuals which further fuels the sense of injustice that only some are targeted for penalisation.
Is there a simple solution - no. Car technology now insulates drivers in a super protected bubble that leaves many oblivious to the outside world (and that is before you even get to the tech distractions now filling cars). Many bike riders have no road experience other than as a pedestrian, having started using a bike without anyone to guide them about the pitfalls and dangers of not adhering to the highway code or even common sense (road safety and cycling proficiency are rarely taught in school now). Commercial vehicle users are GPS tracked by bosses who pressure them to make tight timelines on our crowded roads. Taxi drivers rush around breaking residential speed limits so that they can get the next fare to earn enough money to pay the high charges levied on them.
No doubt an angry, frustrated person will respond to this post just blaming one group of road users, demanding taxation, vengeance and a plague of pubic lice upon them but look at your own road behaviour first. Align yourself with your responsibilities as a road user and encourage others to do the same and you might just find your journey gets a little better

true-brightonian wrote:
@TrevorA, when I say "the days of the motorist are numbered" I am not referring to any revolutionary overthrow of the motoring state, but rather the simple and obvious fact that petrol is a finite resource which is becoming unaffordable due to its scarcity. So the government will then need to find a new source of cash to fill its coffers. And with roads for cars costing about £30 million per mile at the moment (this is the cost for the Bexhill-Hastings autobahn), I don't see that an impoverished Britannia of the future will be able to subsidise motorists for ever and ever. Grow up, do something responsible and get a bike. Stopping at red lights is optional, but recommended.

Weirdorama wrote:
Sorry Argus, you are in a Green Party controlled constituency, cyclists can do no wrong. If a cyclist goes through a red light they were probably being pressured by a big nasty car driver who was daring to go over 10mph down the Lewes Road.

ArgusReader100 wrote:
Do people in the Green Party ever read these comments and take note???!!! If so they need to fix up before they drive visitors away!!!

TrevorA wrote:
Just a personal observation "true Brightonian"- when you and the comrades have smashed the imperialist running dog motorists and driven them off the road. There will not be any money coming in from road tax or duty on petrol. Who do you thing is going to fund your idealistic new cycle world. Like you said - your not paying anything.

BornInBrighton1968 wrote:

ArgusReader100 wrote:
Do people in the Green Party ever read these comments and take note???!!! If so they need to fix up before they drive visitors away!!!

No, they don't. Or if they do, they couldn't care less.

The incompetent Greens will lurch from one crisis to another until either central government removes them power and administers Brighton until a by-election can take place, or the rumoured vote of no confidence to be proposed by Labour and Tories happens.

peterthomas wrote:

Fercri Sakes wrote:

peterthomas wrote:

Brightonscouse2 wrote:

peterthomas wrote:

specialized wrote:

High Wire wrote:

peterthomas wrote:
What is road tax? asks High Wire - forget the pedantic terminology point scoring - the answer is simple - road tax - or car/vehicle tax if it soothes your anxieties - is a lot of money!!!

It's nothing to do with pedantry or point scoring - if you're going to make suggestions just make sensible ones and stop repeating the same old rubbish.

If you pay taxes then you pay towards the roads.

But whilst your head's still in the clouds, how would you collect your 'road tax' from a 14 year old? And what marginal costs created by cyclists would you spend it on? And when would you apply this to people with prams...?

i have 2 cars and 3 bikes and pay all my taxes thank you very much.

cyclists aren't the devil in disguise, there is no need to fear them

Hi Guys - where to start really - you wouldn't be collecting tax from a 14 year old, as you quite rightly pointed out vehicle tax is just that - not a tax on the user - so a bike tax would be a tax on the bike - simple really and hardly classifiable as "the same old rubbish"? A good use of any revenues forthcoming from our noble cycling community would be to contribute to the obscenely expensive and almost pointless cycle lanes - pointless because a high percentage of cyclists go where they please as demonstrated by the vast majority of posts on this issue. Next - I can't remebe when I last saw someone with a pram in the middle of the road or running a red light. And a hearty well done to specialzed who pays all his/her required taxes - stunning stuff - in case you hadn't noticed there aren't any tasex on bikes which is the whole point being made. Why should one group of road users be - unregistered/uninsur





ed/pay no specific road usage tax/blatantly flaunt road regulations and remain unpunished - 31 convistions in 12 months and the Argus photograph 42 contraventions in 1 hour - I rest my case. And to all the "cars speed/park on cycle lanes etc etc" brigade.....you are absolutely correct - but car drivers get "nicked" because they exist in "the system" and are therefore identifiable. And comment of the year award to specialized who "goes through red lights all the time, but always check that it's safe" - very sensible but it's hardly the point is it!!

Peter

A few points. It's been mentioned already but, cyclists pay the same amount of tax to use/maintain the roads as motorists do. Your point about cyclists not paying 'specific road usage tax' is redundant. Also in a time where motorists are complaining about increases congestion. Do you think imposing a further tax on an alternative mode of transport would be wise? Would it not be counter productive?

Hi - I take the point that the road tax contributions form general taxation are the same but - and this is really very simple - the car driver pays more as a vehicle tax the cyclist does not on his/her usage of the cycle on the road! Crazy thing is, if, as abody cyclists rode in a civilised fashion no one would be bothered? Read the posts above - people are fed up with with the thoughtless, arrogant ( I do it because I will get away with it ) and dangerous behaviour of a large number of cyclists in this city - and. lastly how would a tax on cyclists impact congestion?? And before you quote the wrongdoings of motorists, as I sadi before, they tend to get punished - cyclists do not. What is your view on the 42 who ran red lights as detailed in the article?

Wrong, cyclists pay more per mile travelled than car drivers. And we damage the road less.

Maybe you should find all these young thoughtless arrogant cyclists and put them in cars instead? Apparently behind the wheel they become model citizens and have a very low accident rate ;) That would be much better, doh!

Who said the thoughtless cyclists were yourng - and no, if you put them behind the wheel of car they wouldn't become model citizens, but they would become accountable due to having a traceable registration number. Would motorists observe red lights/seed limits ( and I fully accept that not all do anyway! ) if they had no reg plate? Probably far less would - it's the rather grubby "can I get away with it" culture that currently prevails. What is irritating is that whilst cyclists - at present - aren't required to be registered in any way - councils see fit the spend large sums of money on schemes to benefit the cyclist - dedicated lanes/advance traffic lights etc and yet as many of these posts demonstrate a very high number of local cyclists go where they please/when they please, without ligts at night etc etc. And please enlighten me as to which statistic supports te view that cyclists pay more towards roads/per mile than car drivers - it has to be a maningless figure = what if I drove 1 mile a year - I'd still be paying the same vehicle tax - a tax on car - which to repeat myself - isn't mirrored by a comparable tax on a bike! Anyway - let's agree to differ - I know what I see in town every single day and the sooner our system starts to regulate and where applicable punish delinquent cyclists ( along with other delinquent road users of course ) the better!

Brightonscouse2 wrote:
I've always thought if motorists need a cyclist to be lit up like a Christmas tree. I mean by wearing high viz clothing etc, not by using lights. Perhaps you aren't paying enough attention to the road, and the potential hazards on it.

Joshiman wrote:
Common sense at last.Next cyclists need to have insurance and road tax to pay for their cycle lanes and insurance in case they knock a pedestrian over or cause an accident.

Fercri Sakes wrote:

Joshiman wrote:
Common sense at last.Next cyclists need to have insurance and road tax to pay for their cycle lanes and insurance in case they knock a pedestrian over or cause an accident.

Ha, I see you're a bit uniformed.

Cyclists pay as much 'road tax' as any other non-polluting vehicle, £0.

And they pay more towards the roads per mile travelled than car users. If cyclists have been subsidising the countries' drivers for years I think it's about time they finally got a few cycle lanes.

Plantpot wrote:

voiceofthescoombe wrote: Actually cyclists would pay the same road tax as electric cars being non polluting would be zero.

Baffled by this comment. What about the pollution involved in their creation and disposal?

peterthomas wrote:
What is road tax? asks High Wire - forget the pedantic terminology point scoring - the answer is simple - road tax - or car/vehicle tax if it soothes your anxieties - is a lot of money!!!

Fairfax Sakes wrote:
I regularly cycle and also jump red lights. My advice: always check there are no police nearby before doing so. I also know the places they are most likely to hang out e.g. in concealed vehicles so am extra vigilant. Common sense also comes into play- busy junctions, night time etc.

At the end of the day, its only an offence if you get caught!

Fairfax Sakes wrote:
I regularly cycle and also jump red lights. My advice: always check there are no police nearby before doing so. I also know the places they are most likely to hang out e.g. in concealed vehicles so am extra vigilant. Common sense also comes into play- busy junctions, night time etc.

At the end of the day, its only an offence if you get caught!

Fight_Back wrote:

cheekybloke wrote:
Same rules apply?

All pedestrians who walk on cycle lanes to be fined then?

All cars who park on cycle lanes to be fined then? Evening Argus : Go and check out Dyke Road Avenue for example...

All cars/buses who stop in cycle area to be fined then?

Fair's fair.

Point 1 - it's not an offence for pedestrians to walk in cycle lanes.

Point 2 - where there are double yellow lines on a cycle lane then cars parked there should be fined. It is not an offence to park in the cycle lane on Dyke Road. Don't blame the people who park there, blame the idiot Labour council at the time who didn't bother to put in a proper cycle lane with double yellows.

Treating cyclists and drivers who run a red light the same would indeed be fair so let's see fines for ANYONE who jumps a red light.

feistyfaerie wrote:

Brightonscouse2 wrote:
I've always thought if motorists need a cyclist to be lit up like a Christmas tree. I mean by wearing high viz clothing etc, not by using lights. Perhaps you aren't paying enough attention to the road, and the potential hazards on it.

That's just daft. I don't drive but as a passenger in a car where the driver almost hit a cyclist not so long ago I was surprised by just how invisible cyclists can be at night when they have no lights and are wearing dark clothing. He came out of nowhere!
Many years ago I used to ride around with no helmet, no lights, dark clothes, earphones in... and the amount of time I came close to being hit was silly. I had no idea that I could hardly be seen. I was young, invincible and stupid.
If cyclists knew how hard it is to see them, they might think twice about riding around like they own the road.

NDL wrote:
I think anyone who sees a cyclist go through a red light should challenge them. We could all shout a rude word beginning with W and ending in r.

toldsloth wrote:

Brightonscouse2 wrote:
I've always thought if motorists need a cyclist to be lit up like a Christmas tree. I mean by wearing high viz clothing etc, not by using lights. Perhaps you aren't paying enough attention to the road, and the potential hazards on it.

I issue you an invte to spend 30 minutes with me in my car driving around Brighton one evening and perhaps you will rethink your ill - considered comments. I have excellent night vision and drive a modern car with windows which I endeavour to keep nice and clean and I can tell you from bitter experience that it is exceptionally easy to miss a cyclist in dark clothing with no lights and no helmet. I nearly killed somebody at Palmera Square a few weeks ago and I do mean nearly killed - the guy was within 2ft of me mowing him down at right angles. When I used my horn I was told to F**k Off and given the usual hand signal. When I stopped the car and got out to remonstrate with this moron he told me I was overreacting! Admitedly I was somewhat animated and annoyed but the ignorance and stupidity (and a fair amount of adrenaline) was to blame. Hopefully he is reading this and understands that the ONLY reason he is alive today is because of modern technology, good brakes and tyres and sheer luck.
I am confident that had he been wearing something light or even just had lights on his bike, the incident wouldn't have happened and I wouldn't have had to pull the car over to let my blood pressure subside afterwards. I also wouldn't have taken a fair few miles off my brake pads and tyres due to the emergency action.
Fine, don't wear high-vis, don't use lights and keep ignoring the basic law of the road, but DO NOT be suprised if you end up in hospital or the morgue. I for one have no wish to carry the guilt of killing somebody with me for the rest of my life so the least YOU can do is make yourself as visible as possible and behave in accordance with the law.
Before anybody starts, I am a cyclist myself and I NEVER ride at night without lights or reflectve clothing or a helmet. It's just not worth the risk.

cheekybloke wrote:
Brighton & Hove is one of the most densely populated cities in the country. Squashed between the sea and a green belt, traffic and parking is a big problem. So IMHO:

Better and more Cycle Lanes please
A more cycle friendly road policy please.
Less driving , more cycling , where possible.

Cycling is green, free, faster than driving in a city centre, and you don't have to worry about parking. Its also exercise.

( side note: .. and do we really need all those buses? There's normally a queue of about 10 big ugly double deckers chugging away along narrow western road. The bendy buses are dangerous to all other traffic)

PS The section of the cycle lane by the west pier that has been blocked off until next summer, forces all cyclists onto the main road. This is dangerous, and also holds up traffic..

toldsloth wrote:

Brightonscouse2 wrote:
I've always thought if motorists need a cyclist to be lit up like a Christmas tree. I mean by wearing high viz clothing etc, not by using lights. Perhaps you aren't paying enough attention to the road, and the potential hazards on it.

I issue you an invte to spend 30 minutes with me in my car driving around Brighton one evening and perhaps you will rethink your ill - considered comments. I have excellent night vision and drive a modern car with windows which I endeavour to keep nice and clean and I can tell you from bitter experience that it is exceptionally easy to miss a cyclist in dark clothing with no lights and no helmet. I nearly killed somebody at Palmera Square a few weeks ago and I do mean nearly killed - the guy was within 2ft of me mowing him down at right angles. When I used my horn I was told to F**k Off and given the usual hand signal. When I stopped the car and got out to remonstrate with this moron he told me I was overreacting! Admitedly I was somewhat animated and annoyed but the ignorance and stupidity (and a fair amount of adrenaline) was to blame. Hopefully he is reading this and understands that the ONLY reason he is alive today is because of modern technology, good brakes and tyres and sheer luck.
I am confident that had he been wearing something light or even just had lights on his bike, the incident wouldn't have happened and I wouldn't have had to pull the car over to let my blood pressure subside afterwards. I also wouldn't have taken a fair few miles off my brake pads and tyres due to the emergency action.
Fine, don't wear high-vis, don't use lights and keep ignoring the basic law of the road, but DO NOT be suprised if you end up in hospital or the morgue. I for one have no wish to carry the guilt of killing somebody with me for the rest of my life so the least YOU can do is make yourself as visible as possible and behave in accordance with the law.
Before anybody starts, I am a cyclist myself and I NEVER ride at night without lights or reflectve clothing or a helmet. It's just not worth the risk.

BiggerH wrote:

toldsloth wrote:

Brightonscouse2 wrote:
I've always thought if motorists need a cyclist to be lit up like a Christmas tree. I mean by wearing high viz clothing etc, not by using lights. Perhaps you aren't paying enough attention to the road, and the potential hazards on it.

I issue you an invte to spend 30 minutes with me in my car driving around Brighton one evening and perhaps you will rethink your ill - considered comments. I have excellent night vision and drive a modern car with windows which I endeavour to keep nice and clean and I can tell you from bitter experience that it is exceptionally easy to miss a cyclist in dark clothing with no lights and no helmet. I nearly killed somebody at Palmera Square a few weeks ago and I do mean nearly killed - the guy was within 2ft of me mowing him down at right angles. When I used my horn I was told to F**k Off and given the usual hand signal. When I stopped the car and got out to remonstrate with this moron he told me I was overreacting! Admitedly I was somewhat animated and annoyed but the ignorance and stupidity (and a fair amount of adrenaline) was to blame. Hopefully he is reading this and understands that the ONLY reason he is alive today is because of modern technology, good brakes and tyres and sheer luck.
I am confident that had he been wearing something light or even just had lights on his bike, the incident wouldn't have happened and I wouldn't have had to pull the car over to let my blood pressure subside afterwards. I also wouldn't have taken a fair few miles off my brake pads and tyres due to the emergency action.
Fine, don't wear high-vis, don't use lights and keep ignoring the basic law of the road, but DO NOT be suprised if you end up in hospital or the morgue. I for one have no wish to carry the guilt of killing somebody with me for the rest of my life so the least YOU can do is make yourself as visible as possible and behave in accordance with the law.
Before anybody starts, I am a cyclist myself and I NEVER ride at night without lights or reflectve clothing or a helmet. It's just not worth the risk.

quote from above

"Admitedly I was somewhat animated and annoyed but the ignorance and stupidity (and a fair amount of adrenaline) was to blame"

and here lies the problem with so many car drivers

arrogance + large vehicle = dead cyclists

High Wire wrote:

Plantpot wrote:

High Wire wrote:

peterthomas wrote:
What is road tax? asks High Wire - forget the pedantic terminology point scoring - the answer is simple - road tax - or car/vehicle tax if it soothes your anxieties - is a lot of money!!!

It's nothing to do with pedantry or point scoring - if you're going to make suggestions just make sensible ones and stop repeating the same old rubbish.

If you pay taxes then you pay towards the roads.

But whilst your head's still in the clouds, how would you collect your 'road tax' from a 14 year old? And what marginal costs created by cyclists would you spend it on? And when would you apply this to people with prams...?

Easy. Just put a tariff on every new bike and the shop can pay it to govt. like VAT. The tariff could be used as an insurance pool or some other fund. It's not difficult.

To pay for what?

Fercri Sakes wrote:

BornInBrighton1968 wrote:

ArgusReader100 wrote:
Do people in the Green Party ever read these comments and take note???!!! If so they need to fix up before they drive visitors away!!!

No, they don't. Or if they do, they couldn't care less.

The incompetent Greens will lurch from one crisis to another until either central government removes them power and administers Brighton until a by-election can take place, or the rumoured vote of no confidence to be proposed by Labour and Tories happens.

Crisis? I love all this "We're all controlled by Marxists!!" rhetoric from Green haters. Can you people not see what the Tory Government is doing to the country?

And yet all you worry about is a local administration just as adept as the previous ones. And with the cuts all local councils have had they're probably doing much better.

The only differences I see around town between this administration and the previous one are an increase in homelessness. And that is a socioeconomic problem.

And to fix those problems you look at Westminster.

Plantpot wrote:

BiggerH wrote:

toldsloth wrote:

Brightonscouse2 wrote:
I've always thought if motorists need a cyclist to be lit up like a Christmas tree. I mean by wearing high viz clothing etc, not by using lights. Perhaps you aren't paying enough attention to the road, and the potential hazards on it.

I issue you an invte to spend 30 minutes with me in my car driving around Brighton one evening and perhaps you will rethink your ill - considered comments. I have excellent night vision and drive a modern car with windows which I endeavour to keep nice and clean and I can tell you from bitter experience that it is exceptionally easy to miss a cyclist in dark clothing with no lights and no helmet. I nearly killed somebody at Palmera Square a few weeks ago and I do mean nearly killed - the guy was within 2ft of me mowing him down at right angles. When I used my horn I was told to F**k Off and given the usual hand signal. When I stopped the car and got out to remonstrate with this moron he told me I was overreacting! Admitedly I was somewhat animated and annoyed but the ignorance and stupidity (and a fair amount of adrenaline) was to blame. Hopefully he is reading this and understands that the ONLY reason he is alive today is because of modern technology, good brakes and tyres and sheer luck.
I am confident that had he been wearing something light or even just had lights on his bike, the incident wouldn't have happened and I wouldn't have had to pull the car over to let my blood pressure subside afterwards. I also wouldn't have taken a fair few miles off my brake pads and tyres due to the emergency action.
Fine, don't wear high-vis, don't use lights and keep ignoring the basic law of the road, but DO NOT be suprised if you end up in hospital or the morgue. I for one have no wish to carry the guilt of killing somebody with me for the rest of my life so the least YOU can do is make yourself as visible as possible and behave in accordance with the law.
Before anybody starts, I am a cyclist myself and I NEVER ride at night without lights or reflectve clothing or a helmet. It's just not worth the risk.

quote from above

"Admitedly I was somewhat animated and annoyed but the ignorance and stupidity (and a fair amount of adrenaline) was to blame"

and here lies the problem with so many car drivers

arrogance + large vehicle = dead cyclists

I suggest you read the post again for the context of the anger.

Plantpot wrote:

Fercri Sakes wrote:

BornInBrighton1968 wrote:

ArgusReader100 wrote:
Do people in the Green Party ever read these comments and take note???!!! If so they need to fix up before they drive visitors away!!!

No, they don't. Or if they do, they couldn't care less.

The incompetent Greens will lurch from one crisis to another until either central government removes them power and administers Brighton until a by-election can take place, or the rumoured vote of no confidence to be proposed by Labour and Tories happens.

Crisis? I love all this "We're all controlled by Marxists!!" rhetoric from Green haters. Can you people not see what the Tory Government is doing to the country?

And yet all you worry about is a local administration just as adept as the previous ones. And with the cuts all local councils have had they're probably doing much better.

The only differences I see around town between this administration and the previous one are an increase in homelessness. And that is a socioeconomic problem.

And to fix those problems you look at Westminster.

The only thing I see the Tories doing is trying to sort out the enormous financial mess the Labour govt. got us into. The same things that Labour would have to do if they were in power now.

vogon1 wrote:
I wonder how many cyclists would jump the red lights at a level crossing ? I wonder if they'd be so smug if they had a near miss with 400 tonnes of Southerns finest?

cheekybloke wrote:

vogon1 wrote:
I wonder how many cyclists would jump the red lights at a level crossing ? I wonder if they'd be so smug if they had a near miss with 400 tonnes of Southerns finest?

I think there are barriers to prevent that. At least there were last time I checked. What a ridiculous comment.

I wonder how many drivers would take on BA's finest 747 on a runway.

imnotpc wrote:
Why is everyone so bothered about cyclists jumping red lights? Seriously who cares? Its them that are going to come off worse when they get squished flat by a much heavier vehicle lol So let them jump red lights all day is what i say hahahaha but they must remember not to moan about it afterwards.so carry on

vogon1 wrote:
I've decided that I'm going for a drive without my car lights on. I'll also be mounting the pavement, driving through red lights and going the wrong way down St James' St.
Don't worry, I'll be fine. If I hit anyone/thing I've got my car to protect me so I won't get hurt

vogon1 wrote:
I've decided that I'm going for a drive without my car lights on. I'll also be mounting the pavement, driving through red lights and going the wrong way down St James' St.
Don't worry, I'll be fine. If I hit anyone/thing I've got my car to protect me so I won't get hurt

vogon1 wrote:
I've decided that I'm going for a drive without my car lights on. I'll also be mounting the pavement, driving through red lights and going the wrong way down St James' St.
Don't worry, I'll be fine. If I hit anyone/thing I've got my car to protect me so I won't get hurt

BiggerH wrote:

Plantpot wrote:

BiggerH wrote:

toldsloth wrote:

Brightonscouse2 wrote:
I've always thought if motorists need a cyclist to be lit up like a Christmas tree. I mean by wearing high viz clothing etc, not by using lights. Perhaps you aren't paying enough attention to the road, and the potential hazards on it.

I issue you an invte to spend 30 minutes with me in my car driving around Brighton one evening and perhaps you will rethink your ill - considered comments. I have excellent night vision and drive a modern car with windows which I endeavour to keep nice and clean and I can tell you from bitter experience that it is exceptionally easy to miss a cyclist in dark clothing with no lights and no helmet. I nearly killed somebody at Palmera Square a few weeks ago and I do mean nearly killed - the guy was within 2ft of me mowing him down at right angles. When I used my horn I was told to F**k Off and given the usual hand signal. When I stopped the car and got out to remonstrate with this moron he told me I was overreacting! Admitedly I was somewhat animated and annoyed but the ignorance and stupidity (and a fair amount of adrenaline) was to blame. Hopefully he is reading this and understands that the ONLY reason he is alive today is because of modern technology, good brakes and tyres and sheer luck.
I am confident that had he been wearing something light or even just had lights on his bike, the incident wouldn't have happened and I wouldn't have had to pull the car over to let my blood pressure subside afterwards. I also wouldn't have taken a fair few miles off my brake pads and tyres due to the emergency action.
Fine, don't wear high-vis, don't use lights and keep ignoring the basic law of the road, but DO NOT be suprised if you end up in hospital or the morgue. I for one have no wish to carry the guilt of killing somebody with me for the rest of my life so the least YOU can do is make yourself as visible as possible and behave in accordance with the law.
Before anybody starts, I am a cyclist myself and I NEVER ride at night without lights or reflectve clothing or a helmet. It's just not worth the risk.

quote from above

"Admitedly I was somewhat animated and annoyed but the ignorance and stupidity (and a fair amount of adrenaline) was to blame"

and here lies the problem with so many car drivers

arrogance + large vehicle = dead cyclists

I suggest you read the post again for the context of the anger.

looks like what happened is:-

1. somebody did something you didn't like (just your opinion)

2. he swore at you (big wow)

3. you got out of your car and squared up to him

4. you end up losing your rag

as I said earlier - typical car driver

jsomebody wrote:
Will all the people complaining about cyclists not paying vehicle tax, "road tax" or whatever other names for it you invent get it into your heads that what you're paying for your car is a tax based on it's engine size and carbon dioxide emissions.

Even if bicycles were taxed on the same basis, they would pay nothing as they have no engines and no emissions! So yes, I'll gladly pay vehicle excise duty on my bike, as I'd pay precisely nothing for it...

(Which is not the same as saying cyclists don't contribute to the upkeep of roads by the way, since that's paid for out of general taxation...)

vivelavive wrote:

jsomebody wrote:
Will all the people complaining about cyclists not paying vehicle tax, "road tax" or whatever other names for it you invent get it into your heads that what you're paying for your car is a tax based on it's engine size and carbon dioxide emissions.

Even if bicycles were taxed on the same basis, they would pay nothing as they have no engines and no emissions! So yes, I'll gladly pay vehicle excise duty on my bike, as I'd pay precisely nothing for it...

(Which is not the same as saying cyclists don't contribute to the upkeep of roads by the way, since that's paid for out of general taxation...)

Come off it! Surely you're that naive?
If we all woke up tomorrow morning and miraculously all motor vehicles were completely green with zero emissions, you don't honestly believe that we would instantly all be exempt from any form of road duty do you? It is a tax dressed up to look like it's somehow beneficial for us. Coincidentally the vehicles that produce the most emissions tend to be more expensive and therefore belonging to people able to pay more!!
Open your yes to what is really happening around you and try using the little grey cells once in a while!

High Wire wrote:

willy harris wrote:

High Wire wrote:

peterthomas wrote: What is road tax? asks High Wire - forget the pedantic terminology point scoring - the answer is simple - road tax - or car/vehicle tax if it soothes your anxieties - is a lot of money!!!

It's nothing to do with pedantry or point scoring - if you're going to make suggestions just make sensible ones and stop repeating the same old rubbish. If you pay taxes then you pay towards the roads. But whilst your head's still in the clouds, how would you collect your 'road tax' from a 14 year old? And what marginal costs created by cyclists would you spend it on? And when would you apply this to people with prams...?

road tax or road fund license to be exact, is paid by owners of cars lorries buses etc .for the supposed upkeep of said roads highways,and yes it is a lot of money,all tax paid by other means are not for this purpose as you say,as for co;lecting a road fund contribution from 14 year olds,i presume these children have responsible parents??as for your remark regarding prams,,,get a life and dont be silly,

Oh dear - Wiki to the rescue...

"Vehicle tax was introduced in the 1888 budget and the current system of excise duty applying specifically to motor vehicles was introduced in 1920. This excise duty was ring-fenced for road construction and was paid directly into a special Road Fund from 1920 until 1937 after which it was treated as general taxation. Even during this period the majority of the cost of road building and improvement came from general and local taxation due to the tax being too low for the upkeep of the roads."

Frankly, you will find it very difficult to argue that, because a few nutters on bikes run a red light, all cyclists should face a new bike tax.

And by the way, I have a very good life thank you - and I don't think I was the one being silly...

gusset snatcher wrote:
what's more baffling in brighton is being stuck by a red light with no other cars in the adjacent lanes then when some appear they are red lighted and you are given the green.... also, pedestrians that cannot cross a road unless given the all clear by a light when there isn't a car or cyclist to be seen for miles...... are all these sets of traffic lights really needed when a roundabout will do

Somethingsarejustwro
ng wrote:
The real issue is the street drinking, benefit grabbing homeless miscreants who make our town look an eyesore. Followed of course by the squatting scum and then the green party supporters.

Cyclists are fine, let them get on with it!

imnotpc wrote:

High Wire wrote:

willy harris wrote:

High Wire wrote:

peterthomas wrote: What is road tax? asks High Wire - forget the pedantic terminology point scoring - the answer is simple - road tax - or car/vehicle tax if it soothes your anxieties - is a lot of money!!!

It's nothing to do with pedantry or point scoring - if you're going to make suggestions just make sensible ones and stop repeating the same old rubbish. If you pay taxes then you pay towards the roads. But whilst your head's still in the clouds, how would you collect your 'road tax' from a 14 year old? And what marginal costs created by cyclists would you spend it on? And when would you apply this to people with prams...?

road tax or road fund license to be exact, is paid by owners of cars lorries buses etc .for the supposed upkeep of said roads highways,and yes it is a lot of money,all tax paid by other means are not for this purpose as you say,as for co;lecting a road fund contribution from 14 year olds,i presume these children have responsible parents??as for your remark regarding prams,,,get a life and dont be silly,

Oh dear - Wiki to the rescue...

"Vehicle tax was introduced in the 1888 budget and the current system of excise duty applying specifically to motor vehicles was introduced in 1920. This excise duty was ring-fenced for road construction and was paid directly into a special Road Fund from 1920 until 1937 after which it was treated as general taxation. Even during this period the majority of the cost of road building and improvement came from general and local taxation due to the tax being too low for the upkeep of the roads."

Frankly, you will find it very difficult to argue that, because a few nutters on bikes run a red light, all cyclists should face a new bike tax.

And by the way, I have a very good life thank you - and I don't think I was the one being silly...

wiki to the rescue lol oh dear that will be 100% accurate then hahaha Anyway i think the majority have spoken

tom servo wrote:

imnotpc wrote:
Why is everyone so bothered about cyclists jumping red lights? Seriously who cares? Its them that are going to come off worse when they get squished flat by a much heavier vehicle lol So let them jump red lights all day is what i say hahahaha but they must remember not to moan about it afterwards.so carry on

Well I ride a motorbike so if I hit a cyclist in the dark with no lights it's not necessarily them who come worse off...... so yes I do care.

These people saying it's ok for cyclists to jump red lights are idiots. How would people feel if I on my motorbike started deciding what bits of the law I wanted to abide by. I would argue I'm equally as vulnerable on the roads. The difference being of course I have passed a test to ride my bike and I wouldn't ride through a red.... or keep my lights turned off in the dark..... or ride the wrong way up one way streets because I'm not a ****ing idiot.

Brightonscouse2 wrote:

peterthomas wrote:

specialized wrote:

High Wire wrote:

peterthomas wrote:
What is road tax? asks High Wire - forget the pedantic terminology point scoring - the answer is simple - road tax - or car/vehicle tax if it soothes your anxieties - is a lot of money!!!

It's nothing to do with pedantry or point scoring - if you're going to make suggestions just make sensible ones and stop repeating the same old rubbish.

If you pay taxes then you pay towards the roads.

But whilst your head's still in the clouds, how would you collect your 'road tax' from a 14 year old? And what marginal costs created by cyclists would you spend it on? And when would you apply this to people with prams...?

i have 2 cars and 3 bikes and pay all my taxes thank you very much.

cyclists aren't the devil in disguise, there is no need to fear them

Hi Guys - where to start really - you wouldn't be collecting tax from a 14 year old, as you quite rightly pointed out vehicle tax is just that - not a tax on the user - so a bike tax would be a tax on the bike - simple really and hardly classifiable as "the same old rubbish"? A good use of any revenues forthcoming from our noble cycling community would be to contribute to the obscenely expensive and almost pointless cycle lanes - pointless because a high percentage of cyclists go where they please as demonstrated by the vast majority of posts on this issue. Next - I can't remebe when I last saw someone with a pram in the middle of the road or running a red light. And a hearty well done to specialzed who pays all his/her required taxes - stunning stuff - in case you hadn't noticed there aren't any tasex on bikes which is the whole point being made. Why should one group of road users be - unregistered/uninsur


ed/pay no specific road usage tax/blatantly flaunt road regulations and remain unpunished - 31 convistions in 12 months and the Argus photograph 42 contraventions in 1 hour - I rest my case. And to all the "cars speed/park on cycle lanes etc etc" brigade.....you are absolutely correct - but car drivers get "nicked" because they exist in "the system" and are therefore identifiable. And comment of the year award to specialized who "goes through red lights all the time, but always check that it's safe" - very sensible but it's hardly the point is it!!

Peter

A few points. It's been mentioned already but, cyclists pay the same amount of tax to use/maintain the roads as motorists do. Your point about cyclists not paying 'specific road usage tax' is redundant. Also in a time where motorists are complaining about increases congestion. Do you think imposing a further tax on an alternative mode of transport would be wise? Would it not be counter productive?

Rev Dave wrote:
To be fair guys, alot of these comments seem to state "Well a cyclist cant kill someone therefor no harm done to run a few lights here and there" Well im sorry guys but you can and have. Only last years MPs were contemplating introducing a "causing death by dangerous cycling" offence. And of course in 2008, a cyclist denied a charge of dangerous cycling as he rode without due care and attention on the pavement, knocking down and killing a 17 year old girl because he assumed the group of teenagers would get out of "his way".

And then of course there is the subject of insurance. Why is it deemed reasonable that if a car scrapes another car, the insurance companies are informed and a penalty (Higher premiums) follows for both parties, and yet when a cyclist jumps a red light dangerously and hits a car, or doesn't bother looking and damages a car, only the driver has to suffer?

I have nothing against considerate road users, i do have plenty of grief to give to inconsiderate road users. And when was the last time a cyclist had to pay £200+ a year to use the road, pay for a safety MOT check every year? The greenies want to banish cars from Brighton & Hove. So that means no money for roads from motorists cos we're not allowed to use them, no fuel tax for the government, no Insurance Premium Tax and alot of garages, aftermarket specialists and other automotive related businesses forced to bankruptcy!

Until such times as public transport picks me up from my house, allows me to goto work with the required amount of tools, delivers me to building sites and then drops e back off home at the end of the day regardless of the state of my attire, im afraid i will stick to the humble motorists transporting me around.

OldBrightonian wrote:
Well I never! 200+comments on an issue regarding CYCLISTS in the Argus! YES, I cycle..and WALK and use a motorcycle AND Car!. A small ROAD TAX ie £5 for cycles would allow the authorities to ask for some IDENTIFICATION on a bike, a good thing . to stop the IDIOT cyclists, BUT as always the Argus is against cycling!! Try visiting cities where cyclists are given PRIORITY../ie Amsterdam, a MUCH better way of living! I would also ask for LAWS to regulate cyclists to WEAR A HIGHJ VIS VEST - why not? In almost ALL Continental Europe, Car Drivers now carry them in case of brekdown - toomany accidents are the SORRY I DIDN'T SEE YOU - with High Vis VEST - Car Drivers are seen as 'careless drivers' AND cyclists are VISIBLE!

puddings3112 wrote:
The article that the Argos should be writing is not whether a few people on bikes jump lights but about the general decline in road traffic standards by all users. In the thirty years that I have been a road user in control of various vehicles (bike, horse, motorbike, car, van and lorries), I have seen the country move from a culture of user responsibility to user rights and with that aggression towards all other users. Everyone else is identified by what they have, or are perceived to have done wrong, along with the many injustices claimed to arise from others actions (which to a greater or lesser extent may be true). Coupled to this we now have an enforcement culture that relies on electronic systems rather than empowered individuals which further fuels the sense of injustice that only some are targeted for penalisation. Is there a simple solution - no. Car technology now insulates drivers in a super protected bubble that leaves many oblivious to the outside world (and that is before you even get to the tech distractions now filling cars). Many bike riders have no road experience other than as a pedestrian, having started using a bike without anyone to guide them about the pitfalls and dangers of not adhering to the highway code or even common sense (road safety and cycling proficiency are rarely taught in school now). Commercial vehicle users are GPS tracked by bosses who pressure them to make tight timelines on our crowded roads. Taxi drivers rush around breaking residential speed limits so that they can get the next fare to earn enough money to pay the high charges levied on them. No doubt an angry, frustrated person will respond to this post just blaming one group of road users, demanding taxation, vengeance and a plague of pubic lice upon them but look at your own road behaviour first. Align yourself with your responsibilities as a road user and encourage others to do the same and you might just find your journey gets a little better

bogs wrote:
However, on many occasions officers will be on foot when an offence is committed and it may not be possible for the officer to stop the cyclist'

On foot, are you joking? The only time you see a real constable on foot is when they are going into a burger bar for 'refs'.

biker brighton wrote:
wow 31 i am shocked its so many
i saw not long ago a cyclist on pavement
St james street coming down just miss a copper and there was two chating together was just ignored

peterthomas wrote:
Well done Argus - it is totally unacceptable and frankly, inexplicable, that cyclists flaunt the laws of the road as they do. They should pay road tax, be insured and get prosecuted - as a motorist would - if they committ traffic offences - which by the way most of them do on a daily if not hourly basis. Ask the questions - why are prosecutions not forthcoming - the numbers quoted above are pitiful, and demonstrative of a system that for reasons that I certainly can't fathom, treats cyclists as some sort of endangered species.

BiggerH wrote:
statistics I'd like to see published by the Argus are how many cyclists going through red lights actually cause accidents.
Can't be many as surely the police would do something about it.

High Wire wrote:

imnotpc wrote:

High Wire wrote:

willy harris wrote:

High Wire wrote:

peterthomas wrote: What is road tax? asks High Wire - forget the pedantic terminology point scoring - the answer is simple - road tax - or car/vehicle tax if it soothes your anxieties - is a lot of money!!!

It's nothing to do with pedantry or point scoring - if you're going to make suggestions just make sensible ones and stop repeating the same old rubbish. If you pay taxes then you pay towards the roads. But whilst your head's still in the clouds, how would you collect your 'road tax' from a 14 year old? And what marginal costs created by cyclists would you spend it on? And when would you apply this to people with prams...?

road tax or road fund license to be exact, is paid by owners of cars lorries buses etc .for the supposed upkeep of said roads highways,and yes it is a lot of money,all tax paid by other means are not for this purpose as you say,as for co;lecting a road fund contribution from 14 year olds,i presume these children have responsible parents??as for your remark regarding prams,,,get a life and dont be silly,

Oh dear - Wiki to the rescue...

"Vehicle tax was introduced in the 1888 budget and the current system of excise duty applying specifically to motor vehicles was introduced in 1920. This excise duty was ring-fenced for road construction and was paid directly into a special Road Fund from 1920 until 1937 after which it was treated as general taxation. Even during this period the majority of the cost of road building and improvement came from general and local taxation due to the tax being too low for the upkeep of the roads."

Frankly, you will find it very difficult to argue that, because a few nutters on bikes run a red light, all cyclists should face a new bike tax.

And by the way, I have a very good life thank you - and I don't think I was the one being silly...

wiki to the rescue lol oh dear that will be 100% accurate then hahaha Anyway i think the majority have spoken

More accurate that someone banging on (wrongly) about 'road tax' then being plain rude. But Wiki is open to corrections - feel free to correct the bits in this article that you know to be wrong....

High Wire wrote:

imnotpc wrote:

High Wire wrote:

willy harris wrote:

High Wire wrote:

peterthomas wrote: What is road tax? asks High Wire - forget the pedantic terminology point scoring - the answer is simple - road tax - or car/vehicle tax if it soothes your anxieties - is a lot of money!!!

It's nothing to do with pedantry or point scoring - if you're going to make suggestions just make sensible ones and stop repeating the same old rubbish. If you pay taxes then you pay towards the roads. But whilst your head's still in the clouds, how would you collect your 'road tax' from a 14 year old? And what marginal costs created by cyclists would you spend it on? And when would you apply this to people with prams...?

road tax or road fund license to be exact, is paid by owners of cars lorries buses etc .for the supposed upkeep of said roads highways,and yes it is a lot of money,all tax paid by other means are not for this purpose as you say,as for co;lecting a road fund contribution from 14 year olds,i presume these children have responsible parents??as for your remark regarding prams,,,get a life and dont be silly,

Oh dear - Wiki to the rescue...

"Vehicle tax was introduced in the 1888 budget and the current system of excise duty applying specifically to motor vehicles was introduced in 1920. This excise duty was ring-fenced for road construction and was paid directly into a special Road Fund from 1920 until 1937 after which it was treated as general taxation. Even during this period the majority of the cost of road building and improvement came from general and local taxation due to the tax being too low for the upkeep of the roads."

Frankly, you will find it very difficult to argue that, because a few nutters on bikes run a red light, all cyclists should face a new bike tax.

And by the way, I have a very good life thank you - and I don't think I was the one being silly...

wiki to the rescue lol oh dear that will be 100% accurate then hahaha Anyway i think the majority have spoken

More accurate that someone banging on (wrongly) about 'road tax' then being plain rude. But Wiki is open to corrections - feel free to correct the bits in this article that you know to be wrong....

Rev Dave wrote:
To be fair guys, alot of these comments seem to state "Well a cyclist cant kill someone therefor no harm done to run a few lights here and there" Well im sorry guys but you can and have. Only last years MPs were contemplating introducing a "causing death by dangerous cycling" offence. And of course in 2008, a cyclist denied a charge of dangerous cycling as he rode without due care and attention on the pavement, knocking down and killing a 17 year old girl because he assumed the group of teenagers would get out of "his way".

And then of course there is the subject of insurance. Why is it deemed reasonable that if a car scrapes another car, the insurance companies are informed and a penalty (Higher premiums) follows for both parties, and yet when a cyclist jumps a red light dangerously and hits a car, or doesn't bother looking and damages a car, only the driver has to suffer?

I have nothing against considerate road users, i do have plenty of grief to give to inconsiderate road users. And when was the last time a cyclist had to pay £200+ a year to use the road, pay for a safety MOT check every year? The greenies want to banish cars from Brighton & Hove. So that means no money for roads from motorists cos we're not allowed to use them, no fuel tax for the government, no Insurance Premium Tax and alot of garages, aftermarket specialists and other automotive related businesses forced to bankruptcy!

Until such times as public transport picks me up from my house, allows me to goto work with the required amount of tools, delivers me to building sites and then drops e back off home at the end of the day regardless of the state of my attire, im afraid i will stick to the humble motorists transporting me around.