Red light for Brighton and Hove cyclists

A cyclist going through a red light along Western Road

A cyclist going through a red light along Western Road

First published in News by

Motorists claim that cyclists riding through red lights are a common sight in Brighton and Hove, but only a small number of cyclists are fined every year.

Just 31 cyclists were handed a penalty notice in 2012, yet The Argus spotted 17 cyclists jumping the light in less than one hour when we went out to catch them red-handed.

Neil Vowles reports on the police response to cyclists and motorists ignoring traffic signals and endangering lives.

Fewer than one cyclist a week is punished for riding through red lights in Brighton and Hove.

New figures obtained by The Argus show just 31 cyclists were fined last year for ignoring red lights – a drop of more than 60 per cent in just two years.

Motoring groups claim dozens of cyclists are getting away with breaking the law and that more needs to be done to make bike users more accountable.

Road police claim that manned patrols remained constant in the city, but monitoring of junctions was prioritised against other policing commitments to more serious offences.

'I cycle and I always stop at the lights, but I see people flying by and I just think they are crazy'
Cyclist Lorna Axon

Figures released show that 31 cyclists were handed a £60 penalty notice for passing through a red light in Brighton and Hove in 2012, compared to 86 in 2010.

An investigation by The Argus this week counted 17 cyclists passing through red lights at the junction of Western Road and Montpelier Road, Brighton in less than an hour.

Fines plummet

Of the 42 cyclists seen by our reporter pulling up to a red light at the busy four-way junction, almost half decided to chance oncoming traffic and possible injury.

Figures also show the number of motorists caught out in the city for running red lights has also plummeted, with 319 penalised in 2012 compared to 815 in 2010.

The junction between the A23 Preston Road and Preston Drove is the hot spot for red light jumpers, with almost four in five of all motoring offences in Brighton and Hove recorded there.

Sussex Safer Roads Partnership said that Brighton and Hove City Council roadworks had meant that red light enforcement had not been carried out at several junctions.

Caught on camera

Drivers caught running through lights one second after they turn red captured by a red light camera and checked by a video operator face a £60 fine and three penalty points.

Cyclists seen committing red traffic light offences are dealt with at the time by police officers.

Brighton Neighbourhood Police Team announced yesterday that a crackdown on cyclists was being launched next week in the area around St James’s Street.

The Argus: Naughty cyclist

WESTERN ROAD: Checking for oncoming traffic after running a red light

Cyclist Jean Blaison, of Phoenix Rise in Brighton, was hit with a total fine and costs of £1,000 at Hove Crown Court last month after a judge dismissed the 59-year-old’s third appeal against a £30 fine for travelling the wrong direction down St James’s Street and hitting a pedestrian in July 2011.

PC Elaine Welsh said cyclists travelling the wrong way in St James’s Street is the biggest complaint from local residents and business owners, and officers will be actively looking for those caught ignoring the one-way signs and issuing them with on-the-spot fines.

People’s Parking Protest campaigner Steve Percy said more needed to be done to ensure that cyclists were held to account over the use of the road.

‘No excuses’

He said: “Motorists see cyclists go through red lights every day.

“Cyclists need to be made more accountable when using the road.

“It would have to be introduced nationally, but cyclists should be charged to use the road and made to carry a personal licence.

“I think this lack of accountability certainly doesn’t discourage cyclists from misbehaving, people do it and they know they will get away with it nine times out of ten.”

Mr Percy said that cyclists’ unaccountability “enraged” motorists.

'No penalty'

He said: “If we go through red lights we are fined and get penalty points which could have an impact on my business, but there’s no penalty points for cyclists, even if they are caught.”

Lorna Axon, 29, works at the corner of Montpelier Road and Western Road at the Mad Hatter Café.

She said: “When we walk across from our café to our restaurant, you see them going through all the time.

“I cycle and I always stop at the lights, but I see people flying by and I just think they are crazy.

“There was a girl who came off her bike at this junction recently.

'Tarred with the same brush'

“I don’t go through lights because I don’t want to die, but it does mean that all cyclists get tarred with the same brush.”

Adam Pride from Bricycles said: “There has been quite a lot of negative publicity about cyclists going through red lights, and so maybe cyclist are more wary of that now.

“There are no excuses for jumping a red light.

“Along Old Shoreham Road, we have got advance green lights for cyclists so they can get safely away from cars and we would like to see more of these at certain junctions.”

A Sussex Police spokeswoman said: “Where possible, police officers who witness a cyclist committing a road traffic offence will stop the cyclist and deal with the incident as appropriate.

Priorities balanced

“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.

“In cases where there is particular concern about the behaviour of a cyclist, a description of the cyclist may be circulated to officers and staff who will then check the area for anyone matching the description.

“The work of Sussex Police is about balancing different priorities within our communities, but also ensuring that operational needs are met and resources are targeted accordingly.”

'Enforement issue'

Neil Hopkins, spokesman for the Sussex Safer Roads Partnership, said: “There have been a wide range of roadworks throughout Brighton and Hove in the last few years, and many of these have significantly affected enforcement.

“A small number of other sites have been affected because the red lights have been changed to energy saving LEDs, as opposed to traditional bulbs.

“Patrols conducted by Police and Police Community Support Officers remain constant throughout the city, but monitoring of these junctions is balanced against other policing priorities.

“Vehicles running red lights have the potential to cause catastrophic collisions with pedestrians and other road users, including cyclists.”

See the latest news headlines from The Argus:

More news from The Argus

Follow @brightonargus

The Argus: Daily Echo on Facebook - facebook.com/southerndailyecho Like us on Facebook

The Argus: Google+ Add us to your circles on Google+

Comments (213)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:20pm Wed 9 Jan 13

CeeBee says...

I walk to work through Hove and will see a cyclist go through a red light every morning, without fail. It's also usually when it's my right of way to cross; it's only a matter of time before someone crashes in to me. These cyclists (and I don't include all cyclists in this) are as much a danger to pedestrians as they are to cars and themselves.
I walk to work through Hove and will see a cyclist go through a red light every morning, without fail. It's also usually when it's my right of way to cross; it's only a matter of time before someone crashes in to me. These cyclists (and I don't include all cyclists in this) are as much a danger to pedestrians as they are to cars and themselves. CeeBee
  • Score: 0

1:23pm Wed 9 Jan 13

peterthomas says...

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.
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
  • Score: 0

1:27pm Wed 9 Jan 13

biker brighton says...

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
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 biker brighton
  • Score: 0

1:31pm Wed 9 Jan 13

PJW Brighton says...

There's no excuse for jumping red lights on a bike, but what it is that the Argus has against cyclists? If the Argus stands by the side of the road in any 30 mile an hour zone in Brighton and Hove and counts the number of cars doing more than 30mph, I imagine it would take only a few minutes to exceed the 17 cyclists found here. There are negative article everytime that the Council makes provision for cyclists. When do we get the "Brighton Car in illegal speeding shocker" or "Hove Horror as car stops on double yellow lines for a few minutes" headlines?
There's no excuse for jumping red lights on a bike, but what it is that the Argus has against cyclists? If the Argus stands by the side of the road in any 30 mile an hour zone in Brighton and Hove and counts the number of cars doing more than 30mph, I imagine it would take only a few minutes to exceed the 17 cyclists found here. There are negative article everytime that the Council makes provision for cyclists. When do we get the "Brighton Car in illegal speeding shocker" or "Hove Horror as car stops on double yellow lines for a few minutes" headlines? PJW Brighton
  • Score: 0

1:31pm Wed 9 Jan 13

High Wire says...

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.
What is "road tax" ?
[quote][p][bold]peterthomas[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]What is "road tax" ? High Wire
  • Score: 0

1:32pm Wed 9 Jan 13

RobO. says...

What a surprise to see an anti-cycling story in the Argus. You hardly ever see any of those. Oh, wait a minute...

> "monitoring of these junctions is balanced against other policing priorities"

So - the police have decided that there are far more important things to deal with. Surely they're the ones who should be choosing how to allocate their resources, and not the local press? Perhaps they should spend a bit less of their time investigating muggings or burglary?

It's not right that bikes go through red lights, but unless somehow the police get given huge amounts more cash, they won't be able to give it any more attention. And even if they had more cash, what should they really be spending it on? Given the choice between there being less murderers and rapists on the streets, or less cyclists jumping red lights. I know what I'd rather see.

I look forward to next week's article telling us how many cars the Argus counts going 40mph in the 30 stretch on Lewes Road.
What a surprise to see an anti-cycling story in the Argus. You hardly ever see any of those. Oh, wait a minute... > "monitoring of these junctions is balanced against other policing priorities" So - the police have decided that there are far more important things to deal with. Surely they're the ones who should be choosing how to allocate their resources, and not the local press? Perhaps they should spend a bit less of their time investigating muggings or burglary? It's not right that bikes go through red lights, but unless somehow the police get given huge amounts more cash, they won't be able to give it any more attention. And even if they had more cash, what should they really be spending it on? Given the choice between there being less murderers and rapists on the streets, or less cyclists jumping red lights. I know what I'd rather see. I look forward to next week's article telling us how many cars the Argus counts going 40mph in the 30 stretch on Lewes Road. RobO.
  • Score: 0

1:33pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Poccypoc says...

See them quite often in the Church Road/Sackville Road area of Hove. Quite a few stop at the lights, but several go through reds. Where I can, I pump them, but they just carry on cycling. You can't catch them up because... they quickly go through the next set, too!

The worst and most dangerous example I saw was a cyclist crossing the Hove Park Tavern crossroads on a red, and an HGV, which had right-of-way, had to break. It was last October, at 6pm or so and DARK!

The cyclist was probably some moron trying to get home from work and save a few seconds. I'm not bothered about THEIR safety, but I felt for the HGV driver.

Fine them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!
See them quite often in the Church Road/Sackville Road area of Hove. Quite a few stop at the lights, but several go through reds. Where I can, I pump them, but they just carry on cycling. You can't catch them up because... they quickly go through the next set, too! The worst and most dangerous example I saw was a cyclist crossing the Hove Park Tavern crossroads on a red, and an HGV, which had right-of-way, had to break. It was last October, at 6pm or so and DARK! The cyclist was probably some moron trying to get home from work and save a few seconds. I'm not bothered about THEIR safety, but I felt for the HGV driver. Fine them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!! Poccypoc
  • Score: 0

1:37pm Wed 9 Jan 13

cheekybloke says...

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.
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. cheekybloke
  • Score: 0

1:37pm Wed 9 Jan 13

bogs says...

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'.
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
  • Score: 0

1:40pm Wed 9 Jan 13

peterthomas says...

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!!!
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!!! peterthomas
  • Score: 0

1:41pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Martha Gunn says...

No comment from the Green Party Council. I wonder why.
No comment from the Green Party Council. I wonder why. Martha Gunn
  • Score: 0

1:43pm Wed 9 Jan 13

BiggerH says...

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.
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. BiggerH
  • Score: 0

1:49pm Wed 9 Jan 13

High Wire says...

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...?
[quote][p][bold]peterthomas[/bold] 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!!![/p][/quote]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...? High Wire
  • Score: 0

1:53pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Fercri Sakes says...

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.
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. Fercri Sakes
  • Score: 0

1:53pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Spanners says...

I commute everyday on my bike (currently in the dark as its winter). I obey the road signals, wear a helmet (appreciate this is not a legal requirement mind" and am lit up like a christmas tree

Every day I see helmetless, lightless cyclists skipping red lights and fluanting other road laws. I've taken to shouting at them

I nearly hit a bloke dressed in black with no lights yesterday by the level on the cycle path in pitch dark. Just no way of seeing him.

But then again I also nearly hit an old lady a few days ago who was walking on the cycle path also fully dressed in black/dark blue
I commute everyday on my bike (currently in the dark as its winter). I obey the road signals, wear a helmet (appreciate this is not a legal requirement mind" and am lit up like a christmas tree Every day I see helmetless, lightless cyclists skipping red lights and fluanting other road laws. I've taken to shouting at them I nearly hit a bloke dressed in black with no lights yesterday by the level on the cycle path in pitch dark. Just no way of seeing him. But then again I also nearly hit an old lady a few days ago who was walking on the cycle path also fully dressed in black/dark blue Spanners
  • Score: 0

1:56pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Fercri Sakes says...

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!
[quote][p][bold]Fercri Sakes[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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! Fercri Sakes
  • Score: 0

1:58pm Wed 9 Jan 13

anubis says...

Cheer up, you lot. Following the sham Seven Dials 'consultation', the Scheme about to be imposed upon residents will solve this particular problem overnight.

The Greens REALLY DO want to stop cyclists going through red lights -- so they are removing the lights !!!
(No, I'm NOT kidding !)
Cheer up, you lot. Following the sham Seven Dials 'consultation', the Scheme about to be imposed upon residents will solve this particular problem overnight. The Greens REALLY DO want to stop cyclists going through red lights -- so they are removing the lights !!! (No, I'm NOT kidding !) anubis
  • Score: 0

2:06pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Mr. Mann. says...

Queue the great 2 wheel V 4 wheel debate 2013.

Make cyclists perform hazard perception and theory tests like motorists - after all its the same road we use is it not?

Also registration plates for bikes might be good - if the technology is there to catch the motorists (who can be just as guilty before someone pulls me up on a biased point of view) going through a red light, as little as one second, then surely they could do the same for cyclists with the same fine/penalty points as motorist would. We share the road equally so the punishment should also be the same for motoring community?

Before a cyclist says that the idea of registration plates to track is ridiculous and pointless, ask yourself is it because you are guilty of flouting traffic laws. If you're totally guilt free then it won't really affect you, so you shouldn't have an issue.
Queue the great 2 wheel V 4 wheel debate 2013. Make cyclists perform hazard perception and theory tests like motorists - after all its the same road we use is it not? Also registration plates for bikes might be good - if the technology is there to catch the motorists (who can be just as guilty before someone pulls me up on a biased point of view) going through a red light, as little as one second, then surely they could do the same for cyclists with the same fine/penalty points as motorist would. We share the road equally so the punishment should also be the same for motoring community? Before a cyclist says that the idea of registration plates to track is ridiculous and pointless, ask yourself is it because you are guilty of flouting traffic laws. If you're totally guilt free then it won't really affect you, so you shouldn't have an issue. Mr. Mann.
  • Score: 0

2:07pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Strugg Lynn says...

Funny. Just yesterday as I was nearly knocked down by a residivist pavement cyclist as I walked into the Lewes Road from Bear Road I did wonder whether laws surrounding cyclists mis-use of the roads and pavements had been scrapped. There is so much arrogant disregard of THE LAW and it's plain selfishness on the part of the cyclists who generally respond to a near miss with a one or two fingured salute as they BREAK THE LAW swerving away mindlesly between pedestrians and traffic lights. I do wonder if some of them are actually awake they appear to be so dim. Fine them, fine them, fine them till they get the message. But we know that won't happen. Those cyclists that feel got at, have a go at those that give you all a bad name, not us who are on the receiving end of this behaviour every single day.
Funny. Just yesterday as I was nearly knocked down by a residivist pavement cyclist as I walked into the Lewes Road from Bear Road I did wonder whether laws surrounding cyclists mis-use of the roads and pavements had been scrapped. There is so much arrogant disregard of THE LAW and it's plain selfishness on the part of the cyclists who generally respond to a near miss with a one or two fingured salute as they BREAK THE LAW swerving away mindlesly between pedestrians and traffic lights. I do wonder if some of them are actually awake they appear to be so dim. Fine them, fine them, fine them till they get the message. But we know that won't happen. Those cyclists that feel got at, have a go at those that give you all a bad name, not us who are on the receiving end of this behaviour every single day. Strugg Lynn
  • Score: 0

2:09pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Fight_Back says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]cheekybloke[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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. Fight_Back
  • Score: 0

2:09pm Wed 9 Jan 13

olebut says...

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.
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
  • Score: 0

2:14pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Surely not! says...

I frequently see car drivers jumping red lights. Quite often when I have gone through the lights 'late' I have been followed by two or three other drivers. Sometimes a cyclist will be in my way or performing a dangerous manouevre. Pretty much everyday at least one fellow motorist will do something stupid or dangerous or selfish. To date I have had no damage to my car from cyclists. However fellow motorists have cost me thousands and in one case so has my own stupid driving. Fortunately there have been no serious injuries. Cars are inherently dangerous to others. Cycles are many many many times less dangerous.
I frequently see car drivers jumping red lights. Quite often when I have gone through the lights 'late' I have been followed by two or three other drivers. Sometimes a cyclist will be in my way or performing a dangerous manouevre. Pretty much everyday at least one fellow motorist will do something stupid or dangerous or selfish. To date I have had no damage to my car from cyclists. However fellow motorists have cost me thousands and in one case so has my own stupid driving. Fortunately there have been no serious injuries. Cars are inherently dangerous to others. Cycles are many many many times less dangerous. Surely not!
  • Score: 0

2:14pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Hoarder12345444 says...

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.
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. Hoarder12345444
  • Score: 0

2:16pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Fight_Back says...

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 ?
[quote][p][bold]Fercri Sakes[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fercri Sakes[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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![/p][/quote]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 ? Fight_Back
  • Score: 0

2:20pm Wed 9 Jan 13

High Wire says...

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 ?
Quote: "The DfT said that driving into a bike zone when the lights are red is an offence. It carries a £60 penalty and three points on your driving licence (maximum £1,000 fine if it goes to court). Police have some discretion over which bit of the Road Traffic Act to use, but most likely it will fall under "Failure to comply with a traffic sign or road marking"." (This was a Guardian story some time ago...).
[quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fercri Sakes[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fercri Sakes[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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![/p][/quote]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 ?[/p][/quote]Quote: "The DfT said that driving into a bike zone when the lights are red is an offence. It carries a £60 penalty and three points on your driving licence (maximum £1,000 fine if it goes to court). Police have some discretion over which bit of the Road Traffic Act to use, but most likely it will fall under "Failure to comply with a traffic sign or road marking"." (This was a Guardian story some time ago...). High Wire
  • Score: 0

2:21pm Wed 9 Jan 13

gusset snatcher says...

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
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 gusset snatcher
  • Score: 0

2:25pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Crystal Ball says...

Every so often Karma does take place. Witness the girl on a bicycle who ran a red light on a pedestrian crossing, narrowly missing people on foot. Just past the crossing a van driver opened his door and the girl hit it and went flying across the road. If only she had been down the road 30s later...
Every so often Karma does take place. Witness the girl on a bicycle who ran a red light on a pedestrian crossing, narrowly missing people on foot. Just past the crossing a van driver opened his door and the girl hit it and went flying across the road. If only she had been down the road 30s later... Crystal Ball
  • Score: 0

2:35pm Wed 9 Jan 13

specialized says...

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.
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. specialized
  • Score: 0

2:44pm Wed 9 Jan 13

specialized says...

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
[quote][p][bold]High Wire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peterthomas[/bold] 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!!![/p][/quote]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...?[/p][/quote]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 specialized
  • Score: 0

2:46pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Mr. Mann. says...

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,
[quote][p][bold]gusset snatcher[/bold] 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[/p][/quote]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, Mr. Mann.
  • Score: 0

2:48pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Andy R says...

Don't know what the problem is. I never see any cyclists "flaunting" the rules......

Cars being driven after dark with NO lights on is a daily sight, on the other hand, as is cars at speed on the wrong side of the road overtaking buses which have already started to move of from stops!

Cyclists clearly should not run red lights at junctions, but I see no great issue with them moving off on red from a pelican crossing if it is clear. It's often the safer option.
Don't know what the problem is. I never see any cyclists "flaunting" the rules...... Cars being driven after dark with NO lights on is a daily sight, on the other hand, as is cars at speed on the wrong side of the road overtaking buses which have already started to move of from stops! Cyclists clearly should not run red lights at junctions, but I see no great issue with them moving off on red from a pelican crossing if it is clear. It's often the safer option. Andy R
  • Score: 0

2:52pm Wed 9 Jan 13

kkj says...

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.
What you fail to appreciate is the legal distinction between going through a red light on a bike and crossing as a pedestrian when there is no green man.

One is illegal, the other isn't.

As for your statement that you can't really hurt anyone, the mind boggles!
[quote][p][bold]specialized[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]What you fail to appreciate is the legal distinction between going through a red light on a bike and crossing as a pedestrian when there is no green man. One is illegal, the other isn't. As for your statement that you can't really hurt anyone, the mind boggles! kkj
  • Score: 0

2:56pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Pebbles says...

"A Sussex Police spokeswoman said: “Where possible, police officers who witness a cyclist committing a road traffic offence will stop the cyclist and deal with the incident as appropriate."

Rubbish... I have witnessed many times where the police cannot be bothered to get out of the police car where they have seen a blatant "ninja cyclist" run a red light.

"Priorities balanced

“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"

Rubbish again... firstly.. when was the last time anyone actually saw a foot patrol officer??.

The main trouble is the Greens... they are so anti-car that they have given the "green light" for some cyclists to be arrogant.

I even now believe myself that the police have been told not to act against the cyclist by the Greens.. obviously not true.. but that is the impression I now get.

I am a driver and a cyclist myself and all road users.. and indeed pedestrians ....should obey the rules of the road and act in a courteous way.
"A Sussex Police spokeswoman said: “Where possible, police officers who witness a cyclist committing a road traffic offence will stop the cyclist and deal with the incident as appropriate." Rubbish... I have witnessed many times where the police cannot be bothered to get out of the police car where they have seen a blatant "ninja cyclist" run a red light. "Priorities balanced “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" Rubbish again... firstly.. when was the last time anyone actually saw a foot patrol officer??. The main trouble is the Greens... they are so anti-car that they have given the "green light" for some cyclists to be arrogant. I even now believe myself that the police have been told not to act against the cyclist by the Greens.. obviously not true.. but that is the impression I now get. I am a driver and a cyclist myself and all road users.. and indeed pedestrians ....should obey the rules of the road and act in a courteous way. Pebbles
  • Score: 0

2:56pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Poccypoc says...

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.
Yes! I probably see more of these jokers without lights, or those soppy flashing ones, than I do cyclists going through red lights.

Where I see a rider without lights, and it is safe to do so, I slow down alongside them, wind my window down and say: "Excuse me. PUT SOME BLOODY LIGHTS ON!"
[quote][p][bold]Hoarder12345444[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]Yes! I probably see more of these jokers without lights, or those soppy flashing ones, than I do cyclists going through red lights. Where I see a rider without lights, and it is safe to do so, I slow down alongside them, wind my window down and say: "Excuse me. PUT SOME BLOODY LIGHTS ON!" Poccypoc
  • Score: 0

3:01pm Wed 9 Jan 13

greenpaws says...

Cyclists will cross at red lights just the same as pedestrians do, when the coast is clear. They could of course dismount, go onto the pavement and then push across which is ridiculous if the coast is clear.

I've seen many more cars speed up when the lights are amber and cross when red. This is much more common thank cyclists safely crossing.

Cars are 2 tonnes of metal at dangerous-to-human speeds. Cyclists at junctions are slow and not dangerous.

I find it troubling the Argus only counted the cyclists and not the cars. Outrageous!
Cyclists will cross at red lights just the same as pedestrians do, when the coast is clear. They could of course dismount, go onto the pavement and then push across which is ridiculous if the coast is clear. I've seen many more cars speed up when the lights are amber and cross when red. This is much more common thank cyclists safely crossing. Cars are 2 tonnes of metal at dangerous-to-human speeds. Cyclists at junctions are slow and not dangerous. I find it troubling the Argus only counted the cyclists and not the cars. Outrageous! greenpaws
  • Score: 0

3:07pm Wed 9 Jan 13

PorkBoat says...

Turn the hoses on them!
Turn the hoses on them! PorkBoat
  • Score: 0

3:15pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Heathen Earth says...

Pebbles says...
2:56pm Wed 9 Jan 13

'The main trouble is the Greens... they are so anti-car that they have given the "green light" for some cyclists to be arrogant.'

Of course, it's all the Greens fault, everything bad that's ever happened in Brighton is always the fault of the Greens, and once they loose control of the Council everything will be perfect!

As for WPC Plod, maybe she's too young to remember that Police once had bicycles, need them again by the looks of 'em, some of them have arses as wide as a cycle lane!
Pebbles says... 2:56pm Wed 9 Jan 13 'The main trouble is the Greens... they are so anti-car that they have given the "green light" for some cyclists to be arrogant.' Of course, it's all the Greens fault, everything bad that's ever happened in Brighton is always the fault of the Greens, and once they loose control of the Council everything will be perfect! As for WPC Plod, maybe she's too young to remember that Police once had bicycles, need them again by the looks of 'em, some of them have arses as wide as a cycle lane! Heathen Earth
  • Score: 0

3:16pm Wed 9 Jan 13

spa301 says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]Mr. Mann.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gusset snatcher[/bold] 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[/p][/quote]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,[/p][/quote]gusset snatcher; I completely agree with your comments. Mr Mann; cannot understand your comments and unnecessary abuse. You come across as a complete prat. spa301
  • Score: 0

3:25pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Mr. Mann. says...

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.
If I am a prat for thinking that a pedestrian is correct for waiting to wait for the green man to turn green then I'll gladly accept that comment.

"sniffing panties" was a reference to similarity to both his handle and the area of a pair of underpants.
[quote][p][bold]spa301[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr. Mann.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gusset snatcher[/bold] 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[/p][/quote]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,[/p][/quote]gusset snatcher; I completely agree with your comments. Mr Mann; cannot understand your comments and unnecessary abuse. You come across as a complete prat.[/p][/quote]If I am a prat for thinking that a pedestrian is correct for waiting to wait for the green man to turn green then I'll gladly accept that comment. "sniffing panties" was a reference to similarity to both his handle and the area of a pair of underpants. Mr. Mann.
  • Score: 0

3:28pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Fercri Sakes says...

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.
All cyclists pay the same 'road tax' as drivers. It's called 'Vehicle Excise Duty' and vehicles with low emissions pay £0.00, as do cyclists.

Also per mile travelled cyclists pay much more towards the roads than drivers do. So us cyclists are actually subsidising car drivers believe it or not.

Setting up a registration system is pointless too. It would be very expensive to maintain and would stop adults buying bicycles for their children. You do realise us cyclists would all be out in cars if we weren't on bikes? You actually want more traffic?

The real danger on the streets are cars of course. IIRC no pedstrians on the pavement were killed by cyclists in 2011 but over 140 were killed by drivers. Yes, on pavements, not even crossing the road.

Unfortunately as you can see from the comments here drivers just aren't really that fond of cyclists. No idea if it's envy or hate?
[quote][p][bold]olebut[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]All cyclists pay the same 'road tax' as drivers. It's called 'Vehicle Excise Duty' and vehicles with low emissions pay £0.00, as do cyclists. Also per mile travelled cyclists pay much more towards the roads than drivers do. So us cyclists are actually subsidising car drivers believe it or not. Setting up a registration system is pointless too. It would be very expensive to maintain and would stop adults buying bicycles for their children. You do realise us cyclists would all be out in cars if we weren't on bikes? You actually want more traffic? The real danger on the streets are cars of course. IIRC no pedstrians on the pavement were killed by cyclists in 2011 but over 140 were killed by drivers. Yes, on pavements, not even crossing the road. Unfortunately as you can see from the comments here drivers just aren't really that fond of cyclists. No idea if it's envy or hate? Fercri Sakes
  • Score: 0

3:32pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Fercri Sakes says...

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.
Oh, but I agree about cyclists having lights. Back in my day was a third of the traffic there is now and lights were big and clunky and had big batteries that lasted about a week.

Now there's three times as much traffic so it's much more dangerous out there so lights are a must. Plus they're extremely cheap and just one set of batteries will last you the whole winter.

No excuse for cyclists for not using them.
[quote][p][bold]olebut[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]Oh, but I agree about cyclists having lights. Back in my day was a third of the traffic there is now and lights were big and clunky and had big batteries that lasted about a week. Now there's three times as much traffic so it's much more dangerous out there so lights are a must. Plus they're extremely cheap and just one set of batteries will last you the whole winter. No excuse for cyclists for not using them. Fercri Sakes
  • Score: 0

3:36pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Brightonscouse2 says...

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'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. Brightonscouse2
  • Score: 0

3:36pm Wed 9 Jan 13

peterthomas says...

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!!
[quote][p][bold]specialized[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]High Wire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peterthomas[/bold] 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!!![/p][/quote]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...?[/p][/quote]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[/p][/quote]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
  • Score: 0

3:41pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Barry Trotter says...

Cyclists...
Make them all drive cars then we'd all be much better off.
Cyclists... Make them all drive cars then we'd all be much better off. Barry Trotter
  • Score: 0

3:45pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Fercri Sakes says...

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!!
Quickly: Cyclists pay much more towards the roads than car drivers per mile travelled.

I'll take it you'll now reverse your position on asking cyclists to pay more for the roads and find out how you can contribute more yourself to make up the shortfall?
[quote][p][bold]peterthomas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]specialized[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]High Wire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peterthomas[/bold] 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!!![/p][/quote]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...?[/p][/quote]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[/p][/quote]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!![/p][/quote]Quickly: Cyclists pay much more towards the roads than car drivers per mile travelled. I'll take it you'll now reverse your position on asking cyclists to pay more for the roads and find out how you can contribute more yourself to make up the shortfall? Fercri Sakes
  • Score: 0

3:45pm Wed 9 Jan 13

taman says...

Anti Social behaviour, simple as that
it winds everyone up pedestrians, and motorist alike.... FINE EM !!!!
Anti Social behaviour, simple as that it winds everyone up pedestrians, and motorist alike.... FINE EM !!!! taman
  • Score: 0

3:49pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Brightonscouse2 says...

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?
[quote][p][bold]peterthomas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]specialized[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]High Wire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peterthomas[/bold] 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!!![/p][/quote]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...?[/p][/quote]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[/p][/quote]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!![/p][/quote]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? Brightonscouse2
  • Score: 0

3:56pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Zorniza says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]cheekybloke[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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. Zorniza
  • Score: 0

4:05pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Fercri Sakes says...

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.
I think only one commentator here has 'defended this sort of behavior'. Obviously you're not going to be ignorant and apply that to all cyclists. Are you?

Like I said earlier, in 2011 144 pedestrians were killed by cars after being mowed down on pavements. And none were killed by cyclists, so we do need a bit of perspective.
[quote][p][bold]Zorniza[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cheekybloke[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]I think only one commentator here has 'defended this sort of behavior'. Obviously you're not going to be ignorant and apply that to all cyclists. Are you? Like I said earlier, in 2011 144 pedestrians were killed by cars after being mowed down on pavements. And none were killed by cyclists, so we do need a bit of perspective. Fercri Sakes
  • Score: 0

4:06pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Perseus says...

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.
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. Perseus
  • Score: 0

4:16pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Andy R says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]Perseus[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]...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. Andy R
  • Score: 0

4:17pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Crystal Ball says...

It seems this is not about cyclists per se but general human behaviour and attitude i.e. selfish, inconsiderate, sense-of-entitlement idiots who think nothing of their fellow citizen but only of themselves and the space they occupy, or more accurately considering this subject, the space they want to occupy.

Why do bicycles work so well in, for example, The Netherlands and have the infrastructure to support it as a majority (in the largest cities at least) transport method? Because the cultural attitude to other people is different. There you will find cycle lanes controlled by their own traffic light system that works in conjunction with the cars and trams and there is very little 'abuse' of the system that is, in many ways, there to protect them from the larger and more dangerous vehicles.

A serious shift in attitude is where the root of the problem lies.
It seems this is not about cyclists per se but general human behaviour and attitude i.e. selfish, inconsiderate, sense-of-entitlement idiots who think nothing of their fellow citizen but only of themselves and the space they occupy, or more accurately considering this subject, the space they want to occupy. Why do bicycles work so well in, for example, The Netherlands and have the infrastructure to support it as a majority (in the largest cities at least) transport method? Because the cultural attitude to other people is different. There you will find cycle lanes controlled by their own traffic light system that works in conjunction with the cars and trams and there is very little 'abuse' of the system that is, in many ways, there to protect them from the larger and more dangerous vehicles. A serious shift in attitude is where the root of the problem lies. Crystal Ball
  • Score: 0

4:17pm Wed 9 Jan 13

bluemonday says...

maybe cyclists should just carry a card saying they ride on pavements,run red lights,have no lights,helmet,hi-viz clothing,which states that no blame should be put on anybody else if they are injured while cycling,then we may all be happy
maybe cyclists should just carry a card saying they ride on pavements,run red lights,have no lights,helmet,hi-viz clothing,which states that no blame should be put on anybody else if they are injured while cycling,then we may all be happy bluemonday
  • Score: 0

4:20pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Mark63 says...

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...?!
[quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Perseus[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]...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.[/p][/quote]30 per hour every day? Sounds like you need a hobby Perseus... Why can't cyclists just take the (deserved) flak...?! Mark63
  • Score: 0

4:23pm Wed 9 Jan 13

MaryBale says...

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.
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
  • Score: 0

4:55pm Wed 9 Jan 13

menowhere says...

it seems common on these story's for cyclists defense to be to attack drivers.
it seems common on these story's for cyclists defense to be to attack drivers. menowhere
  • Score: 0

4:58pm Wed 9 Jan 13

runnergirl says...

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.
I too am a cyclist and a motorist and can see arguments from both sides. When I took up cycling a few years ago I resolved (a) always to wear a helmet, (b) never to ride on the pavement and (c) never to jump the lights. It infuriates me when I see other cyclists doing these things because it gives cycling a bad image. On the other hand, drivers can be absolutely horrible to cyclists, come up closely behind them, sound their horn just to make them jump, and be very abusive. It took becoming a cyclist for me to develop more respect for them when behind the wheel. But I wish they would all play by the rules.
[quote][p][bold]MaryBale[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]I too am a cyclist and a motorist and can see arguments from both sides. When I took up cycling a few years ago I resolved (a) always to wear a helmet, (b) never to ride on the pavement and (c) never to jump the lights. It infuriates me when I see other cyclists doing these things because it gives cycling a bad image. On the other hand, drivers can be absolutely horrible to cyclists, come up closely behind them, sound their horn just to make them jump, and be very abusive. It took becoming a cyclist for me to develop more respect for them when behind the wheel. But I wish they would all play by the rules. runnergirl
  • Score: 0

4:59pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Fercri Sakes says...

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.
They're probably not condemning other cyclists as, to put it simply and in perspective, they are far less dangerous than car drivers.

If cyclists killed 144 pedestrians on pavements a year then maybe they could understand the vitriol. But they get the pedestrian's (and your) ire even though statistically you've nothing to fear.

The elephant in the room is the bad driver, but he's not getting any stick from most people here.
[quote][p][bold]MaryBale[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]They're probably not condemning other cyclists as, to put it simply and in perspective, they are far less dangerous than car drivers. If cyclists killed 144 pedestrians on pavements a year then maybe they could understand the vitriol. But they get the pedestrian's (and your) ire even though statistically you've nothing to fear. The elephant in the room is the bad driver, but he's not getting any stick from most people here. Fercri Sakes
  • Score: 0

5:02pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Fercri Sakes says...

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!!!
[quote][p][bold]menowhere[/bold] wrote: it seems common on these story's for cyclists defense to be to attack drivers.[/p][/quote]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!!! Fercri Sakes
  • Score: 0

5:02pm Wed 9 Jan 13

peterthomas says...

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?
[quote][p][bold]Brightonscouse2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peterthomas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]specialized[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]High Wire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peterthomas[/bold] 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!!![/p][/quote]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...?[/p][/quote]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[/p][/quote]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!![/p][/quote]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?[/p][/quote]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
  • Score: 0

5:07pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Paolokent says...

My friend (!) goes through red lights almost every day, as, I'm sure, do millions of other cyclists. It is legally wrong, he agrees, and he would never encourage anyone else to do the same. However, the traffic laws are completely biased towards motorised traffic and were never designed for cyclists. Indeed, it is quite clear from the widespread flouting of the laws by cyclists - and the blindness of the police to this flouting - that the laws are totally inappropriate for cyclists. He believes, and has lived a long life cycling in this way, that a cyclist is much closer to a pedestrian than a car driver, and that he can move around the city efficiently and safely, so long as he gives complete priority to other cars at every junction (regardless of lights) and, of course, to pedestrians on pavements. He even tends to give pedestrians priority on cycle lanes. For him, going through a red light when there is no traffic approaching, even in the distance, is no different from getting off his bike and walking across as a pedestrian. Plus, it's a lot safer when he knows any traffic behind him, i.e. blind, is still at rest, and not chasing his back. The simple unanswerable fact remains that cars kill, and car drivers break the law a zillion times more than cyclists, they speed, they park illegally, they accelerate to catch amber lights, they stop in cycle zones, and they park in cycle lanes. Car drivers need to wise up - if they want to get around the city faster, cheaper, and more healthily, stop whining, get a bike, and be free.
My friend (!) goes through red lights almost every day, as, I'm sure, do millions of other cyclists. It is legally wrong, he agrees, and he would never encourage anyone else to do the same. However, the traffic laws are completely biased towards motorised traffic and were never designed for cyclists. Indeed, it is quite clear from the widespread flouting of the laws by cyclists - and the blindness of the police to this flouting - that the laws are totally inappropriate for cyclists. He believes, and has lived a long life cycling in this way, that a cyclist is much closer to a pedestrian than a car driver, and that he can move around the city efficiently and safely, so long as he gives complete priority to other cars at every junction (regardless of lights) and, of course, to pedestrians on pavements. He even tends to give pedestrians priority on cycle lanes. For him, going through a red light when there is no traffic approaching, even in the distance, is no different from getting off his bike and walking across as a pedestrian. Plus, it's a lot safer when he knows any traffic behind him, i.e. blind, is still at rest, and not chasing his back. The simple unanswerable fact remains that cars kill, and car drivers break the law a zillion times more than cyclists, they speed, they park illegally, they accelerate to catch amber lights, they stop in cycle zones, and they park in cycle lanes. Car drivers need to wise up - if they want to get around the city faster, cheaper, and more healthily, stop whining, get a bike, and be free. Paolokent
  • Score: 0

5:09pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Fercri Sakes says...

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!
[quote][p][bold]peterthomas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brightonscouse2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peterthomas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]specialized[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]High Wire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peterthomas[/bold] 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!!![/p][/quote]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...?[/p][/quote]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[/p][/quote]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!![/p][/quote]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?[/p][/quote]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?[/p][/quote]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! Fercri Sakes
  • Score: 0

5:13pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Spx says...

I go through red lights because I'm trying to get away from you lot!
I go through red lights because I'm trying to get away from you lot! Spx
  • Score: 0

5:18pm Wed 9 Jan 13

NickBtn says...

Huge number of comments but a very depressing debate - there are good and bad cyclists and good and bad motorists

What really frustrates me, as someone who walks, cycles, takes bus and drives, is how this debate has become more polarised and accident rates seem to be going up.

A few years ago, it might have been hoped that a green council would lead to more understanding for and support for cycling and other forms of transport. Instead, perhaps because of the anti-motorist approach the greens have taken (rather than a pro-alternative approach), it's all got much more divided. Such a lost opportunity for all
Huge number of comments but a very depressing debate - there are good and bad cyclists and good and bad motorists What really frustrates me, as someone who walks, cycles, takes bus and drives, is how this debate has become more polarised and accident rates seem to be going up. A few years ago, it might have been hoped that a green council would lead to more understanding for and support for cycling and other forms of transport. Instead, perhaps because of the anti-motorist approach the greens have taken (rather than a pro-alternative approach), it's all got much more divided. Such a lost opportunity for all NickBtn
  • Score: 0

5:20pm Wed 9 Jan 13

John Steed says...

the genuine attentive & responsible cyclist has nothing to fear, and it is reasonable to listen to their opinions and complaints, likewise the responsible motorist
as to the rest, simply nick them all, red light jumpers, one way street bandits, no lights, no brakes fitted, no bell, no reflectors riding on the path, motorists who double park, pavement blockers, speeders etc etc if they break the rules of the road, nickem its the only thing that makes people aware. its only a matter of even handedness, break the laws or dont the choice is yours what ever your transport
the genuine attentive & responsible cyclist has nothing to fear, and it is reasonable to listen to their opinions and complaints, likewise the responsible motorist as to the rest, simply nick them all, red light jumpers, one way street bandits, no lights, no brakes fitted, no bell, no reflectors riding on the path, motorists who double park, pavement blockers, speeders etc etc if they break the rules of the road, nickem its the only thing that makes people aware. its only a matter of even handedness, break the laws or dont the choice is yours what ever your transport John Steed
  • Score: 0

5:23pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Brightonscouse2 says...

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?
Peter

I think you've got your wires crossed here. Everyone pays to use the road via their council tax. This is irrespective of how often you use the roads, how many miles are travailed and the amount of damage your particular vehicle does to the road. You in your car are likely to a) use the road more often, b) travel further on it and c) damage the road more. Yet you pay the same amount of tax that I do as a cyclist. You pay VED for the affect your vehicle has on the environment. Cyclists do not have an affect on the environment, hence they are exempt.

The point about congestion is this. Motorists complain about congestion, and there being too many cars on the road. As a result the government, and local councils, are trying to encourage people to use other forms of transport. How would levying a tax on cyclists encourage people to get out of their cars? Surely it would have a detrimental effect, and congestion would remain, if not get worse.

As for those mentioned in this article. Yes they are wrong for jumping red lights. As are motorists. But polarising an entire group of people, and proposing charging them to cycle, isn't going to solve the problem.

I agree with your point about insurance. But am unsure about the practicality of registration.
[quote][p][bold]peterthomas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brightonscouse2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peterthomas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]specialized[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]High Wire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peterthomas[/bold] 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!!![/p][/quote]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...?[/p][/quote]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[/p][/quote]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!![/p][/quote]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?[/p][/quote]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?[/p][/quote]Peter I think you've got your wires crossed here. Everyone pays to use the road via their council tax. This is irrespective of how often you use the roads, how many miles are travailed and the amount of damage your particular vehicle does to the road. You in your car are likely to a) use the road more often, b) travel further on it and c) damage the road more. Yet you pay the same amount of tax that I do as a cyclist. You pay VED for the affect your vehicle has on the environment. Cyclists do not have an affect on the environment, hence they are exempt. The point about congestion is this. Motorists complain about congestion, and there being too many cars on the road. As a result the government, and local councils, are trying to encourage people to use other forms of transport. How would levying a tax on cyclists encourage people to get out of their cars? Surely it would have a detrimental effect, and congestion would remain, if not get worse. As for those mentioned in this article. Yes they are wrong for jumping red lights. As are motorists. But polarising an entire group of people, and proposing charging them to cycle, isn't going to solve the problem. I agree with your point about insurance. But am unsure about the practicality of registration. Brightonscouse2
  • Score: 0

5:24pm Wed 9 Jan 13

StyleCop says...

menowhere wrote:
it seems common on these story's for cyclists defense to be to attack drivers.
And vice versa...
[quote][p][bold]menowhere[/bold] wrote: it seems common on these story's for cyclists defense to be to attack drivers.[/p][/quote]And vice versa... StyleCop
  • Score: 0

5:24pm Wed 9 Jan 13

High Wire says...

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?
You really are obsessed by taxing bikes. Why would bike taxes improve cyclists adherence to the Highway Code? That adherence is the point of this story isn't it?

To your earlier post, any cyclist buying a bike (let's ignore 'bike to work') IS paying tax on the bike. It's called VAT. And if they pay income tax then the bike is bought out of taxed income.

If you can't understand the previous poster point about congestion, then let me explain...

If I have to pay special bike tax to peddle my way to work (pollution free, keeping fit, and on roads I paid for out of my - up to 60% marginal tax rate - taxes) then I will revert to car ownership. Is me adding another car to the road helpful to you or other road users?

Oh - and at the moment, when I cycle, I dress appropriately, follow the rules of the road and treat others with respect. Create a bike penalty tax and I'll feel that I own the road (a little bit like a lot of vehicle drivers clearly think THEY do).

I get the feeling you just dislike cyclists - hence your fixation with taxes. As I said before, your argument for bike tax could just as easily be applied to prams or dog walkers - so why pick only on cyclists?
[quote][p][bold]peterthomas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brightonscouse2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peterthomas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]specialized[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]High Wire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peterthomas[/bold] 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!!![/p][/quote]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...?[/p][/quote]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[/p][/quote]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!![/p][/quote]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?[/p][/quote]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?[/p][/quote]You really are obsessed by taxing bikes. Why would bike taxes improve cyclists adherence to the Highway Code? That adherence is the point of this story isn't it? To your earlier post, any cyclist buying a bike (let's ignore 'bike to work') IS paying tax on the bike. It's called VAT. And if they pay income tax then the bike is bought out of taxed income. If you can't understand the previous poster point about congestion, then let me explain... If I have to pay special bike tax to peddle my way to work (pollution free, keeping fit, and on roads I paid for out of my - up to 60% marginal tax rate - taxes) then I will revert to car ownership. Is me adding another car to the road helpful to you or other road users? Oh - and at the moment, when I cycle, I dress appropriately, follow the rules of the road and treat others with respect. Create a bike penalty tax and I'll feel that I own the road (a little bit like a lot of vehicle drivers clearly think THEY do). I get the feeling you just dislike cyclists - hence your fixation with taxes. As I said before, your argument for bike tax could just as easily be applied to prams or dog walkers - so why pick only on cyclists? High Wire
  • Score: 0

5:30pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Brightonscouse2 says...

StyleCop wrote:
menowhere wrote:
it seems common on these story's for cyclists defense to be to attack drivers.
And vice versa...
Menowhere

The reason cyclists tend to 'go on the defensive' about stories like this. Is because its a bit like a murderer judging a burglar on his, or her, crimes. Of course the burglar is likely to say 'you can talk'.

I'm not drawing a direct comparison. The above examples were purely used for analogous purposes.
[quote][p][bold]StyleCop[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]menowhere[/bold] wrote: it seems common on these story's for cyclists defense to be to attack drivers.[/p][/quote]And vice versa...[/p][/quote]Menowhere The reason cyclists tend to 'go on the defensive' about stories like this. Is because its a bit like a murderer judging a burglar on his, or her, crimes. Of course the burglar is likely to say 'you can talk'. I'm not drawing a direct comparison. The above examples were purely used for analogous purposes. Brightonscouse2
  • Score: 0

5:45pm Wed 9 Jan 13

StyleCop says...

It seems to me that drivers (of which I'm one) always use their misconception or Vehicle Excise Duty (or "Road Tax") as means to attack the cyclist and cyclists (of which I'm one) favour the "well you speed and jump lights too" - attitude.

The reality is, no one is right or wrong.

We are all products of our environment and culture, and as a culture the UK isn't bike-centric, where-as other cultures, Netherlands, France, India etc... are. And have a respect for bikes.

Which is strange considering we were the nation that invented the "safety" bicycle.

I get irate when, (as a driver) I see cyclists jumping red lights...

However, as a cyclist, I've done that thing, where you arrive at a set off lights, they're on Red, but there's no traffic... so you could get off, and push across, (as a pedestrian) - but that just seems a ridiculous thing to do - so, so long as I've made the necessary safety checks... no cars, no pedestrians... I'll safely get on my way...

Other times, I'm happy to sit there on Red, and wait for the change... depends on the situation...

Now, obviously, if I were to just jump the light arbitrarily, with no thought to my safety or the safety of others, then... quite frankly, I'd be a d1ck...

As a driver, I also get irate when I see cyclists at night, in dark colors w/ no lights, headphones on etc... that's just the individual being foolish - if they get killed or seriously injured by a car not seeing them - then they're to blame for being irrisponsible about their visibilty.

Ultimately, we have to take responsibility for our own actions.

All this talk of licensing bikes to use highways is nonsense... get some perspective please... it's a form of transport, one up from walking.

And for the record, cyclists CAN use pavements, it's NOT "illegal"...

A cyclist can use pavements to avoid danger on a highway or if they're fearful for their own safey - so long as when they are on a pavement, they do so concientiously, under control and with respect to pedestrian traffic (who have right of way) - and, if asked by a Police officer to dismount, then they must abide - whereby they then become a pedestrian.

Cyclists need to be responsible, aware and concientious which requires education and safety schemes (we had RoSPA doing cycling proficiency tests as kids)

And drivers need to show more tolerance in general.

That's the root of the problem.
It seems to me that drivers (of which I'm one) always use their misconception or Vehicle Excise Duty (or "Road Tax") as means to attack the cyclist and cyclists (of which I'm one) favour the "well you speed and jump lights too" - attitude. The reality is, no one is right or wrong. We are all products of our environment and culture, and as a culture the UK isn't bike-centric, where-as other cultures, Netherlands, France, India etc... are. And have a respect for bikes. Which is strange considering we were the nation that invented the "safety" bicycle. I get irate when, (as a driver) I see cyclists jumping red lights... However, as a cyclist, I've done that thing, where you arrive at a set off lights, they're on Red, but there's no traffic... so you could get off, and push across, (as a pedestrian) [which is fine?] - but that just seems a ridiculous thing to do - so, so long as I've made the necessary safety checks... no cars, no pedestrians... I'll safely get on my way... Other times, I'm happy to sit there on Red, and wait for the change... depends on the situation... Now, obviously, if I were to just jump the light arbitrarily, with no thought to my safety or the safety of others, then... quite frankly, I'd be a d1ck... As a driver, I also get irate when I see cyclists at night, in dark colors w/ no lights, headphones on etc... that's just the individual being foolish - if they get killed or seriously injured by a car not seeing them - then they're to blame for being irrisponsible about their visibilty. Ultimately, we have to take responsibility for our own actions. All this talk of licensing bikes to use highways is nonsense... get some perspective please... it's a form of transport, one up from walking. And for the record, cyclists CAN use pavements, it's NOT "illegal"... A cyclist can use pavements to avoid danger on a highway or if they're fearful for their own safey - so long as when they are on a pavement, they do so concientiously, under control and with respect to pedestrian traffic (who have right of way) - and, if asked by a Police officer to dismount, then they must abide - whereby they then become a pedestrian. Cyclists need to be responsible, aware and concientious which requires education and safety schemes (we had RoSPA doing cycling proficiency tests as kids) And drivers need to show more tolerance in general. That's the root of the problem. StyleCop
  • Score: 0

5:46pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Brightonscouse2 says...

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..
How does that attitude help? I can't re-iterate enough that cyclists that jump red lights are in the wrong. But I find it astonishing that you'd risk injuring someone, by giving them 2 inches, and damaging your vehicle. Because that person ran a red light in front of you. The irony is that you mention not having insurance in the same comment.
[quote][p][bold]ruberducker[/bold] 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..[/p][/quote]How does that attitude help? I can't re-iterate enough that cyclists that jump red lights are in the wrong. But I find it astonishing that you'd risk injuring someone, by giving them 2 inches, and damaging your vehicle. Because that person ran a red light in front of you. The irony is that you mention not having insurance in the same comment. Brightonscouse2
  • Score: 0

5:46pm Wed 9 Jan 13

High Wire says...

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..
How old are you? I'm guessing you're 7.

And with an attitude like that, you shouldn't have a license to drive.
[quote][p][bold]ruberducker[/bold] 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..[/p][/quote]How old are you? I'm guessing you're 7. And with an attitude like that, you shouldn't have a license to drive. High Wire
  • Score: 0

5:48pm Wed 9 Jan 13

StyleCop says...

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..
You my friend... have murderous intent... and as such need to seek professional help.

The highway... isn't yours to command as you see fit, it belongs to everybody...

Please show some tolerance and understanding, and perhaps your misanthropy will subside and you;'ll become a better person.
[quote][p][bold]ruberducker[/bold] 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..[/p][/quote]You my friend... have murderous intent... and as such need to seek professional help. The highway... isn't yours to command as you see fit, it belongs to everybody... Please show some tolerance and understanding, and perhaps your misanthropy will subside and you;'ll become a better person. StyleCop
  • Score: 0

5:50pm Wed 9 Jan 13

StyleCop says...

I believe there's a Troll in our midst folks...

Treat it kindly, it may go away.
I believe there's a Troll in our midst folks... Treat it kindly, it may go away. StyleCop
  • Score: 0

5:54pm Wed 9 Jan 13

voiceofthescoombe says...

And thats exactly why theres a problem.
Ruberducker is breaking the highway code and the law because he belives he has the right to enforce his idea of acceptable road use. Your not a cop your a bully and a potential killer.
And thats exactly why theres a problem. Ruberducker is breaking the highway code and the law because he belives he has the right to enforce his idea of acceptable road use. Your not a cop your a bully and a potential killer. voiceofthescoombe
  • Score: 0

6:07pm Wed 9 Jan 13

CivicMan says...

And let's have a total ban on both cyclists AND car drivers with headphones stuck in their ears.
Unbelievably dangerous and stupid.
And let's have a total ban on both cyclists AND car drivers with headphones stuck in their ears. Unbelievably dangerous and stupid. CivicMan
  • Score: 0

6:13pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Fight_Back says...

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 !
[quote][p][bold]Brightonscouse2[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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
  • Score: 0

6:15pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Spx says...

Rubberducker needs to get his pink notebook out and write any offending cyclists description down to pass on to the police (that is all they need for regular offenders), can't use your phone to take a picture because you're talking into it and your hands are busy making a roll-up and eating your McDonalds off your lap! The pumped up cyclist you "skim" might just stop at the next lights but hopefully for you it will be a kid or one of your mates from the Zanzibar
Rubberducker needs to get his pink notebook out and write any offending cyclists description down to pass on to the police (that is all they need for regular offenders), can't use your phone to take a picture because you're talking into it and your hands are busy making a roll-up and eating your McDonalds off your lap! The pumped up cyclist you "skim" might just stop at the next lights but hopefully for you it will be a kid or one of your mates from the Zanzibar Spx
  • Score: 0

6:15pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Ballroom Blitz says...

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.
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. Ballroom Blitz
  • Score: 0

6:18pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Ballroom Blitz says...

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..
He's 100% right.
[quote][p][bold]ruberducker[/bold] 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..[/p][/quote]He's 100% right. Ballroom Blitz
  • Score: 0

6:21pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Fight_Back says...

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!!!
Yes, lets put it into perspective then :

Drivers who break the law should be punished

Cyclists who break the law should be punished

What the effective damage of them breaking the law is irrelevant. Using your argument someone who breaks into an empty house should be let off while someone who breaks into an occupied house shouldn't because the former was less dangerous than the later.

The law is the law and both drivers and cyclists should obey it or be punished.
[quote][p][bold]Fercri Sakes[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]menowhere[/bold] wrote: it seems common on these story's for cyclists defense to be to attack drivers.[/p][/quote]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!!![/p][/quote]Yes, lets put it into perspective then : Drivers who break the law should be punished Cyclists who break the law should be punished What the effective damage of them breaking the law is irrelevant. Using your argument someone who breaks into an empty house should be let off while someone who breaks into an occupied house shouldn't because the former was less dangerous than the later. The law is the law and both drivers and cyclists should obey it or be punished. Fight_Back
  • Score: 0

6:22pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Brightonscouse2 says...

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?
[quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brightonscouse2[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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 ![/p][/quote]Fight Back Are you saying you struggle to see a cyclist, with lights, on a street lit urban road? Brightonscouse2
  • Score: 0

6:23pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Perseus says...

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...?!
I suppose you are one of those silly people that think that cars get onto pavements by magic. They are bang to rights being stopped on pavements.
[quote][p][bold]Mark63[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Perseus[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]...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.[/p][/quote]30 per hour every day? Sounds like you need a hobby Perseus... Why can't cyclists just take the (deserved) flak...?![/p][/quote]I suppose you are one of those silly people that think that cars get onto pavements by magic. They are bang to rights being stopped on pavements. Perseus
  • Score: 0

6:24pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Plantpot says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]High Wire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peterthomas[/bold] 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!!![/p][/quote]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...?[/p][/quote]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. Plantpot
  • Score: 0

6:26pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Brightonscouse2 says...

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?
[quote][p][bold]Brightonscouse2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brightonscouse2[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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 ![/p][/quote]Fight Back Are you saying you struggle to see a cyclist, with lights, on a street lit urban road?[/p][/quote]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
  • Score: 0

6:28pm Wed 9 Jan 13

StyleCop says...

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.
Indeed... if what you say is true and the pedestrians were in danger then yes I would agree that the individual on the bike is irresponsible... and an idiot - no more, no less.

That doesn't mean to say that all road users that use that mode of transport.

And it certainly shouldn't give rise to mob rule and vigilanty reprisals because of what you 'think' you might have witnessed.

As has been said countless times already, the police only have a finite amount of resources - they can't be expected to deal with every minor misdemeanour.

If a user of a vehicle causes and accident or is involved in an accident either by their actions or someone elses, then they must be accountable, either via insurance, legal action or in the case of a death - God... or Dawkins... whomever you choose to worship.
[quote][p][bold]Ballroom Blitz[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]Indeed... if what you say is true and the pedestrians were in danger then yes I would agree that the individual on the bike is irresponsible... and an idiot - no more, no less. That doesn't mean to say that all road users that use that mode of transport. And it certainly shouldn't give rise to mob rule and vigilanty reprisals because of what you 'think' you might have witnessed. As has been said countless times already, the police only have a finite amount of resources - they can't be expected to deal with every minor misdemeanour. If a user of a vehicle causes and accident or is involved in an accident either by their actions or someone elses, then they must be accountable, either via insurance, legal action or in the case of a death - God... or Dawkins... whomever you choose to worship. StyleCop
  • Score: 0

6:31pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Fight_Back says...

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?
No - I'm saying that for such a low cost any cyclist that doesn't take the best care to be seen clearly doesn't value their life very highly. A hi viz vest provides a big highly visible surface area than a light. Why not use both for the sake of a fiver ?
[quote][p][bold]Brightonscouse2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brightonscouse2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brightonscouse2[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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 ![/p][/quote]Fight Back Are you saying you struggle to see a cyclist, with lights, on a street lit urban road?[/p][/quote]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?[/p][/quote]No - I'm saying that for such a low cost any cyclist that doesn't take the best care to be seen clearly doesn't value their life very highly. A hi viz vest provides a big highly visible surface area than a light. Why not use both for the sake of a fiver ? Fight_Back
  • Score: 0

6:31pm Wed 9 Jan 13

StyleCop says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]Brightonscouse2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brightonscouse2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brightonscouse2[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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 ![/p][/quote]Fight Back Are you saying you struggle to see a cyclist, with lights, on a street lit urban road?[/p][/quote]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?[/p][/quote]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. StyleCop
  • Score: 0

6:35pm Wed 9 Jan 13

StyleCop says...

more to the point - in the event of an accident involving a bicyle - at night - the first thing insurers do to establish responsibility (there's that word again) - is to check if the cyclist was wearing had HiVis.

If the answer is no - then they will automatically assume the cyclist was at Fault... regardless of the circumstances.

SO BE WARNED.
more to the point - in the event of an accident involving a bicyle - at night - the first thing insurers do to establish responsibility (there's that word again) - is to check if the cyclist was wearing had HiVis. If the answer is no - then they will automatically assume the cyclist was at Fault... regardless of the circumstances. SO BE WARNED. StyleCop
  • Score: 0

6:39pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Brightonscouse2 says...

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.
But surely there should be a change in attitude as to how much attention the motorist is paying to their surroundings, and potential hazards. The wearing of high viz is a fairly new phenomonen, in comparison to how long people have been driving & cycling. It co-incides with the increased amount of objects a motorist has, that can cause distraction. It used to be the case that lights were sufficient. Now it's lights and high viz. what next, pedestrians wear high viz when crossing the road?

I see demands from motorists, that cyclists should do this or that. But no responsibility taken on their part. All I'm saying is that if a motorist is paying attention, they'll be aware of a cyclist, especially on lit urban roads.
[quote][p][bold]StyleCop[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brightonscouse2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brightonscouse2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brightonscouse2[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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 ![/p][/quote]Fight Back Are you saying you struggle to see a cyclist, with lights, on a street lit urban road?[/p][/quote]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?[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]But surely there should be a change in attitude as to how much attention the motorist is paying to their surroundings, and potential hazards. The wearing of high viz is a fairly new phenomonen, in comparison to how long people have been driving & cycling. It co-incides with the increased amount of objects a motorist has, that can cause distraction. It used to be the case that lights were sufficient. Now it's lights and high viz. what next, pedestrians wear high viz when crossing the road? I see demands from motorists, that cyclists should do this or that. But no responsibility taken on their part. All I'm saying is that if a motorist is paying attention, they'll be aware of a cyclist, especially on lit urban roads. Brightonscouse2
  • Score: 0

6:41pm Wed 9 Jan 13

obrienpeter@gmail.com says...

Ive been waiting for this article to be raised !
All I will say is that it wont be to long till a cyclist is going to be hit whilst going though a red light and who is going to be sympathetic ?
Ive been waiting for this article to be raised ! All I will say is that it wont be to long till a cyclist is going to be hit whilst going though a red light and who is going to be sympathetic ? obrienpeter@gmail.com
  • Score: 0

6:54pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Levent says...

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.
When are you going to stop idiots from walking on CLEARLY IDENTIFIED cycle paths? That's much more dangerous.
Why aren't you ever prosecuted for that??????? As for the "no Road Tax"
Well, I cycle, but own a car that sits
in my garage 90% of the time. So I pay MORE per journey in tax than you do.
Don't judge cyclists by your inability
to see why someone would want to cycle to work. anything else I can correct you on??
[quote][p][bold]peterthomas[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]When are you going to stop idiots from walking on CLEARLY IDENTIFIED cycle paths? That's much more dangerous. Why aren't you ever prosecuted for that??????? As for the "no Road Tax" Well, I cycle, but own a car that sits in my garage 90% of the time. So I pay MORE per journey in tax than you do. Don't judge cyclists by your inability to see why someone would want to cycle to work. anything else I can correct you on?? Levent
  • Score: 0

6:58pm Wed 9 Jan 13

PETE OF QUEENS PARK says...

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'.
Or on the GAY PRIDE parade when they all seem to appear from knowhere
[quote][p][bold]bogs[/bold] 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'.[/p][/quote]Or on the GAY PRIDE parade when they all seem to appear from knowhere PETE OF QUEENS PARK
  • Score: 0

6:58pm Wed 9 Jan 13

PETE OF QUEENS PARK says...

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'.
Or on the GAY PRIDE parade when they all seem to appear from knowhere
[quote][p][bold]bogs[/bold] 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'.[/p][/quote]Or on the GAY PRIDE parade when they all seem to appear from knowhere PETE OF QUEENS PARK
  • Score: 0

7:00pm Wed 9 Jan 13

PETE OF QUEENS PARK says...

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'.
Or on the GAY PRIDE parade when they all seem to appear from knowhere
[quote][p][bold]bogs[/bold] 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'.[/p][/quote]Or on the GAY PRIDE parade when they all seem to appear from knowhere PETE OF QUEENS PARK
  • Score: 0

7:00pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Levent says...

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!!
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!! Levent
  • Score: 0

7:03pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Maxwell's Ghost says...

I am a commuting cyclist and ride 50miles a day. I stop at red lights, obey the highway code, wear high vis at all times and have lots of lights.
I find it bloody irritating when cyclists do not follow the highway code or ride without lights and the worst offenders are those on cycle lanes who seem to think that because they are not in the main traffic they are not subject to the law.
This is bloody dangerous for other cyclists like me who are travelling at about 25mph and come up against a cyclist in dark clothing wandering about the cycle lane in the pitch black.
I would like the police to start taking action against those using the Lewes Road lane where the cyclists travel without lights and then go through the Coombe Road red lights every ten minutes in peak times.
What is the point of building new lanes claiming they will encourage cycling when in fact they are just as dangerous as the road.
A few weeks ago there was an idiot cyclist riding in the cycle lane in the wrong direction and a few weeks before that a gent in a disabled scooter doing the same thing.
If cycle lanes and bad cyclists are not policed, it leaves those of us who are responsible cyclists being hated by other road users.
I would also deal with that bloody bike train where some idiot rides with a bloody ghetto blaster blaring out.
Inconsiderate and rude.
I am a commuting cyclist and ride 50miles a day. I stop at red lights, obey the highway code, wear high vis at all times and have lots of lights. I find it bloody irritating when cyclists do not follow the highway code or ride without lights and the worst offenders are those on cycle lanes who seem to think that because they are not in the main traffic they are not subject to the law. This is bloody dangerous for other cyclists like me who are travelling at about 25mph and come up against a cyclist in dark clothing wandering about the cycle lane in the pitch black. I would like the police to start taking action against those using the Lewes Road lane where the cyclists travel without lights and then go through the Coombe Road red lights every ten minutes in peak times. What is the point of building new lanes claiming they will encourage cycling when in fact they are just as dangerous as the road. A few weeks ago there was an idiot cyclist riding in the cycle lane in the wrong direction and a few weeks before that a gent in a disabled scooter doing the same thing. If cycle lanes and bad cyclists are not policed, it leaves those of us who are responsible cyclists being hated by other road users. I would also deal with that bloody bike train where some idiot rides with a bloody ghetto blaster blaring out. Inconsiderate and rude. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 0

7:10pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Fight_Back says...

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!!
Errr .... parking has long been handed over to the council to enforce while road laws are still the jurisdiction of the police.

It really is quite simple !
[quote][p][bold]Levent[/bold] 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!![/p][/quote]Errr .... parking has long been handed over to the council to enforce while road laws are still the jurisdiction of the police. It really is quite simple ! Fight_Back
  • Score: 0

7:36pm Wed 9 Jan 13

grumblegoat says...

Yawn
Yawn grumblegoat
  • Score: 0

7:53pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Maxwell's Ghost says...

Levant, it is well known in the city that a motorist parking on a double yellow is less likely to get a fine than those parked in a pay-and-display bay.
The city's council-employed traffic wardens monitor bays waiting for people's tickets to expire to issue fines.
They rarely move motorists on who park in cycle lanes, on double yellows or in dangerous or congestion causing areas.
Every day there are about 10 vehicles parked illegally on the Lewes Road cycle lane or on double yellows.
Levant, it is well known in the city that a motorist parking on a double yellow is less likely to get a fine than those parked in a pay-and-display bay. The city's council-employed traffic wardens monitor bays waiting for people's tickets to expire to issue fines. They rarely move motorists on who park in cycle lanes, on double yellows or in dangerous or congestion causing areas. Every day there are about 10 vehicles parked illegally on the Lewes Road cycle lane or on double yellows. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 0

7:54pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Made In Sussex says...

Well done you win the prize for first tediously predictable tit for tat comment directed at motorists..
Well done you win the prize for first tediously predictable tit for tat comment directed at motorists.. Made In Sussex
  • Score: 0

7:58pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Made In Sussex says...

My last post was directed at the 4th post by pjw.. using this site is a nightmare on a mobile ;)
My last post was directed at the 4th post by pjw.. using this site is a nightmare on a mobile ;) Made In Sussex
  • Score: 0

8:18pm Wed 9 Jan 13

posthuman says...

It's funny isn't it...
often, the 2-wheeled are barely visible to motorists ("Sorry mate...I didn't see ya..."!?)
However oddly, the only time cyclist's DO get noticed, is when SOME either ignore an antiquated car-centric road infrastructure or rarely ride on pavements due to the lack of safe cycle provisions!
Harness the behaviour of these individuals, because in the grand scheme of things, those who choose to cycle are not the problem.
It's funny isn't it... often, the 2-wheeled are barely visible to motorists ("Sorry mate...I didn't see ya..."!?) However oddly, the only time cyclist's DO get noticed, is when SOME either ignore an antiquated car-centric road infrastructure or rarely ride on pavements due to the lack of safe cycle provisions! Harness the behaviour of these individuals, because in the grand scheme of things, those who choose to cycle are not the problem. posthuman
  • Score: 0

8:21pm Wed 9 Jan 13

ArgusReader100 says...

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!
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! ArgusReader100
  • Score: 0

8:25pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Somethingsarejustwrong says...

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!
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! Somethingsarejustwrong
  • Score: 0

8:29pm Wed 9 Jan 13

NDL says...

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.
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. NDL
  • Score: 0

8:31pm Wed 9 Jan 13

NDL says...

ps I blame the Greens for everything.
ps I blame the Greens for everything. NDL
  • Score: 0

8:32pm Wed 9 Jan 13

ArgusReader100 says...

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!!!
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!!! ArgusReader100
  • Score: 0

8:32pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Brightonscouse2 says...

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.
Ah yes, why not break one law when you see another infringing a traffic law. That's certainly one way to take the moral high ground.
[quote][p][bold]NDL[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]Ah yes, why not break one law when you see another infringing a traffic law. That's certainly one way to take the moral high ground. Brightonscouse2
  • Score: 0

8:33pm Wed 9 Jan 13

HJarrs says...

Cyclists blah, blah, motorists blah, blah.

Look, this is the usual Argus stir-it-up article to shift a few papers (it works, my partner bought today's rag on the strength of this article!).

We all know that Neil Vowles could have stood at the same junction and the headline could have been 17 motorists on their phones / cyclists without lights / defective vehicles / speeding up as the lights go red / rode on the pavement etc. Cycling is chosen as a headline as it gets the biggest reaction.

The real headline should be to ask why the police have pretty much given up on enforcement and give the preservation of life and prevention of injury such a low priority.

All people should stop at red lights and give pedestrians priority, all should be visible at night for prevention of accidents and for self preservation and the police should occasionally wrap us over the knuckles and pursaude us of the error of our ways.

Anyone take odds that we will have a similar article within...oooh...3 months?
Cyclists blah, blah, motorists blah, blah. Look, this is the usual Argus stir-it-up article to shift a few papers (it works, my partner bought today's rag on the strength of this article!). We all know that Neil Vowles could have stood at the same junction and the headline could have been 17 motorists on their phones / cyclists without lights / defective vehicles / speeding up as the lights go red / rode on the pavement etc. Cycling is chosen as a headline as it gets the biggest reaction. The real headline should be to ask why the police have pretty much given up on enforcement and give the preservation of life and prevention of injury such a low priority. All people should stop at red lights and give pedestrians priority, all should be visible at night for prevention of accidents and for self preservation and the police should occasionally wrap us over the knuckles and pursaude us of the error of our ways. Anyone take odds that we will have a similar article within...oooh...3 months? HJarrs
  • Score: 0

8:36pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Freeloaders says...

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!
This is spot on my friend.About time the law started to deal with them in the same way as motorists.
[quote][p][bold]ArgusReader100[/bold] 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![/p][/quote]This is spot on my friend.About time the law started to deal with them in the same way as motorists. Freeloaders
  • Score: 0

8:40pm Wed 9 Jan 13

ConantheLibrarian says...

As many others here, I drive and have cycled a lot. I now do the latter less, as the roads were (still are) impossible. Cyclists paying a tax would still have to cope with broken glass, abusive drivers, potholes etc.
Many will have suffered a more unpleasant, borderline criminal tendency who get away with far worse. I would support full registration for cyclists, if someone stopped aggressive yobs barging on the pavement on skateboards, BMX bikes that usually have no lights, brakes or often even a seat. I've had many near accidents avoiding these idiots.
As many others here, I drive and have cycled a lot. I now do the latter less, as the roads were (still are) impossible. Cyclists paying a tax would still have to cope with broken glass, abusive drivers, potholes etc. Many will have suffered a more unpleasant, borderline criminal tendency who get away with far worse. I would support full registration for cyclists, if someone stopped aggressive yobs barging on the pavement on skateboards, BMX bikes that usually have no lights, brakes or often even a seat. I've had many near accidents avoiding these idiots. ConantheLibrarian
  • Score: 0

8:40pm Wed 9 Jan 13

HJarrs says...

Also, why did Percy get a comment? I thought he was interested in parking? Is he heading up a red light running protest know as well?
Also, why did Percy get a comment? I thought he was interested in parking? Is he heading up a red light running protest know as well? HJarrs
  • Score: 0

8:52pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Dyno says...

As a (Hopefully) considerate cyclist on the road, I really hate the cyclists who jump traffic lights, dont use lights, cut everyone up ignoring road etiquette.
I hope this gets policed as a large number of cyclists on the roads are a real menace. It also impacts me as a considerate cyclist as drivers assume "Im one of those" so get all the abuse listed about the bad riders on the road when I ask them not to drive 3 inches away from my side.
As a (Hopefully) considerate cyclist on the road, I really hate the cyclists who jump traffic lights, dont use lights, cut everyone up ignoring road etiquette. I hope this gets policed as a large number of cyclists on the roads are a real menace. It also impacts me as a considerate cyclist as drivers assume "Im one of those" so get all the abuse listed about the bad riders on the road when I ask them not to drive 3 inches away from my side. Dyno
  • Score: 0

9:01pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Maxwell's Ghost says...

Has anyone seen the new section of cycle lane on the Lewes Road at Wild Park?
The lane now runs right through the bus stop so anyone getting on and off the bus walks into the bike lane.
It's astonishing. I've never seen anything like it and I've used cycle lanes all over the world.
I bet a tenner someone gets hurt and the council gets slapped with a law suit over the safety of this design.
Has anyone seen the new section of cycle lane on the Lewes Road at Wild Park? The lane now runs right through the bus stop so anyone getting on and off the bus walks into the bike lane. It's astonishing. I've never seen anything like it and I've used cycle lanes all over the world. I bet a tenner someone gets hurt and the council gets slapped with a law suit over the safety of this design. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 0

9:07pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Dyno says...

I think bike registration would be a good thing. Maybe give each bike a mandatory metal badge that screwed to the frame with a number. If involved in an accident at least the pedestrian\driver can quote the bike number for ID. This also means stolen bikes would be easier to trace back to the owner if the serial number was recorded to & on file. I have cycle theft insurance that also includes 3rd party legal cover should I be involved in an accident. Maybe its time to enforce all "Road using" cyclists to need something like this. (Off road cycle lanes, parks, country trails exempt)
I know kids also use the road but parents need to step up and ensure their kids have lights, safety equipment and training before they use the roads, so maybe insurance should be part of the requirements.
A parent wouldn't give their car keys to a 17 year old and say "Go ahead and drive" without insurance, license, training etc. Dont know why they feel its ok for their child to ride a vulnerable bike on the road without lights, helmet, road knowledge.
I think bike registration would be a good thing. Maybe give each bike a mandatory metal badge that screwed to the frame with a number. If involved in an accident at least the pedestrian\driver can quote the bike number for ID. This also means stolen bikes would be easier to trace back to the owner if the serial number was recorded to & on file. I have cycle theft insurance that also includes 3rd party legal cover should I be involved in an accident. Maybe its time to enforce all "Road using" cyclists to need something like this. (Off road cycle lanes, parks, country trails exempt) I know kids also use the road but parents need to step up and ensure their kids have lights, safety equipment and training before they use the roads, so maybe insurance should be part of the requirements. A parent wouldn't give their car keys to a 17 year old and say "Go ahead and drive" without insurance, license, training etc. Dont know why they feel its ok for their child to ride a vulnerable bike on the road without lights, helmet, road knowledge. Dyno
  • Score: 0

9:14pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Poccypoc says...

saw three cyclists driving between Hangleton and central Hove earlier, and then between central Hove and Brighton station.

Cyclist 1: southbound Sackville Road towards the New Church Road lights. Couldn't see if he went through the red light as there was a lorry in the way, but he approached the lights so quickly, I couldn't overtake him in a car!

Cyclist 2: eastbound along Church Road by Tesco. Stopped at the red lights.

Cyclist 3: eastbound by the Grand Avenue lights. Went through busy junction on a red! Pumped him, but he just kept on going. Had I not been turning right into Grand Avenue, I would have said something out the window.
saw three cyclists driving between Hangleton and central Hove earlier, and then between central Hove and Brighton station. Cyclist 1: southbound Sackville Road towards the New Church Road lights. Couldn't see if he went through the red light as there was a lorry in the way, but he approached the lights so quickly, I couldn't overtake him in a car! Cyclist 2: eastbound along Church Road by Tesco. Stopped at the red lights. Cyclist 3: eastbound by the Grand Avenue lights. Went through busy junction on a red! Pumped him, but he just kept on going. Had I not been turning right into Grand Avenue, I would have said something out the window. Poccypoc
  • Score: 0

9:23pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Weirdorama says...

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.
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. Weirdorama
  • Score: 0

9:23pm Wed 9 Jan 13

leec2010 says...

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.
The 'powers that be', locally, tried to set a 'speed limit' for cycle lanes in our area, but found out that they couldn't do so because it's STILL ILLEGAL to cycle on pavements and promenades. Cycle lanes were put there because cyclists wouldn't stop complaining about the roads, so instead they feel that they have the right to run pedestrians down and take away the only walking spaces that they have.
Some cyclists are respectful and careful, but they are regrettably in the minority. Most of them are 'head down and go', whether on the road or pavement, day or night, with or without lights...
[quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cheekybloke[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]The 'powers that be', locally, tried to set a 'speed limit' for cycle lanes in our area, but found out that they couldn't do so because it's STILL ILLEGAL to cycle on pavements and promenades. Cycle lanes were put there because cyclists wouldn't stop complaining about the roads, so instead they feel that they have the right to run pedestrians down and take away the only walking spaces that they have. Some cyclists are respectful and careful, but they are regrettably in the minority. Most of them are 'head down and go', whether on the road or pavement, day or night, with or without lights... leec2010
  • Score: 0

9:26pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Vigilia says...

Earlier this evening, in the dark, I drove from Waitrose to Westbourne Ward in Hove and witnessed five cyclists jump red lights, four others without lights and three controlling their bicycles with one hand whilst talking on mobile phones.

Fellow citizens, this is not a rant against cyclists, it's a heartfelt plea for that tiny minority of cyclists to face up to the reality of safety on our congested roads.
Earlier this evening, in the dark, I drove from Waitrose to Westbourne Ward in Hove and witnessed five cyclists jump red lights, four others without lights and three controlling their bicycles with one hand whilst talking on mobile phones. Fellow citizens, this is not a rant against cyclists, it's a heartfelt plea for that tiny minority of cyclists to face up to the reality of safety on our congested roads. Vigilia
  • Score: 0

10:30pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Maxwell's Ghost says...

and Lucas....she is also an MP for the city.
All our MPs should be supporting law enforcement.
and Lucas....she is also an MP for the city. All our MPs should be supporting law enforcement. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 0

10:54pm Wed 9 Jan 13

TrevorA says...

Pointless to keep squabbling about the issue. People are never going to agree. It is clearly time to mention those terrifying words to cyclists: "Tax", "Insurance", and "Registration".Then you can have all the cycle lanes in the world.
Pointless to keep squabbling about the issue. People are never going to agree. It is clearly time to mention those terrifying words to cyclists: "Tax", "Insurance", and "Registration".Then you can have all the cycle lanes in the world. TrevorA
  • Score: 0

11:01pm Wed 9 Jan 13

upsidedowntuctuc says...

The fact they are cyclists are irrelevant If the law is being broken they should be dealt with FULL STOP.
We also need a law for Jay Walking
The fact they are cyclists are irrelevant If the law is being broken they should be dealt with FULL STOP. We also need a law for Jay Walking upsidedowntuctuc
  • Score: 0

11:04pm Wed 9 Jan 13

High Wire says...

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?
[quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]High Wire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peterthomas[/bold] 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!!![/p][/quote]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...?[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]To pay for what? High Wire
  • Score: 0

11:08pm Wed 9 Jan 13

sussexguy says...

"Brighton Neighbourhood Police Team announced yesterday that a crackdown on cyclists was being launched next week in the area around St James’s Street."

Oh really! Just there? So, it is allright for cyclists to ride dangerously and haphazardly throughout the rest of Brighton and Hove?

It is laughable how this problem has been ignored by the police, while the Greens are constantly encouraging more and more cyclists to pollute the city, with their appalling selfish attitude to pedestrians and other road users.

As for the seafront, it is no longer a place where one can have a quiet, peaceful stroll. Those days disappeared as soon as the council got rid of the inspector who used to walk up and down, ordering cyclists to dismount. And do you ever see the Brighton Neighbourhood Police there? That'll be the day!
"Brighton Neighbourhood Police Team announced yesterday that a crackdown on cyclists was being launched next week in the area around St James’s Street." Oh really! Just there? So, it is allright for cyclists to ride dangerously and haphazardly throughout the rest of Brighton and Hove? It is laughable how this problem has been ignored by the police, while the Greens are constantly encouraging more and more cyclists to pollute the city, with their appalling selfish attitude to pedestrians and other road users. As for the seafront, it is no longer a place where one can have a quiet, peaceful stroll. Those days disappeared as soon as the council got rid of the inspector who used to walk up and down, ordering cyclists to dismount. And do you ever see the Brighton Neighbourhood Police there? That'll be the day! sussexguy
  • Score: 0

11:13pm Wed 9 Jan 13

true-brightonian says...

"Brighton Neighbourhood Police Team announced yesterday that a crackdown on cyclists was being launched next week in the area around St James’s Street."

Hang on, isn't that just next door to Brighton Police Station? You would think the cops could make a better effort and venture all the way into central Brighton if "life-threatening cyclists" were wreaking the havoc that is claimed here. Typical Argus storm in a teacup. BTW, cyclists would be exempt from any so-called "road tax" (aka vehicle excise duty) because they are ZERO EMISSION VEHICLES! The days of the motorist are numbered, get over it.
"Brighton Neighbourhood Police Team announced yesterday that a crackdown on cyclists was being launched next week in the area around St James’s Street." Hang on, isn't that just next door to Brighton Police Station? You would think the cops could make a better effort and venture all the way into central Brighton if "life-threatening cyclists" were wreaking the havoc that is claimed here. Typical Argus storm in a teacup. BTW, cyclists would be exempt from any so-called "road tax" (aka vehicle excise duty) because they are ZERO EMISSION VEHICLES! The days of the motorist are numbered, get over it. true-brightonian
  • Score: 0

11:17pm Wed 9 Jan 13

sussexguy says...

And why has it taken so long for the Argus to make an enquiry about this matter?
And why has it taken so long for the Argus to make an enquiry about this matter? sussexguy
  • Score: 0

11:20pm Wed 9 Jan 13

TrevorA says...

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.
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. TrevorA
  • Score: 0

11:31pm Wed 9 Jan 13

puddings3112 says...

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
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 puddings3112
  • Score: 0

11:36pm Wed 9 Jan 13

true-brightonian says...

@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.
@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. true-brightonian
  • Score: 0

4:50am Thu 10 Jan 13

willy harris says...

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,
[quote][p][bold]High Wire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peterthomas[/bold] 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!!![/p][/quote]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...?[/p][/quote]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
  • Score: 0

7:50am Thu 10 Jan 13

High Wire says...

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...
[quote][p][bold]willy harris[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]High Wire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peterthomas[/bold] 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!!![/p][/quote]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...?[/p][/quote]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,[/p][/quote]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... High Wire
  • Score: 0

7:50am Thu 10 Jan 13

High Wire says...

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...
[quote][p][bold]willy harris[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]High Wire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peterthomas[/bold] 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!!![/p][/quote]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...?[/p][/quote]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,[/p][/quote]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... High Wire
  • Score: 0

8:04am Thu 10 Jan 13

voiceofthescoombe says...

Actually cyclists would pay the same road tax as electric cars being non polluting would be zero.
Actually cyclists would pay the same road tax as electric cars being non polluting would be zero. voiceofthescoombe
  • Score: 0

8:56am Thu 10 Jan 13

Plantpot says...

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?
[quote][p][bold]voiceofthescoombe[/bold] wrote: Actually cyclists would pay the same road tax as electric cars being non polluting would be zero.[/p][/quote]Baffled by this comment. What about the pollution involved in their creation and disposal? Plantpot
  • Score: 0

8:57am Thu 10 Jan 13

peterthomas says...

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!
[quote][p][bold]Fercri Sakes[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peterthomas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brightonscouse2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peterthomas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]specialized[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]High Wire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peterthomas[/bold] 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!!![/p][/quote]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...?[/p][/quote]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[/p][/quote]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!![/p][/quote]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?[/p][/quote]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?[/p][/quote]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![/p][/quote]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! peterthomas
  • Score: 0

9:00am Thu 10 Jan 13

Plantpot says...

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
I have always felt the solution is just for each road user to follow the Highway Code to the letter. Bingo! End of problem.
[quote][p][bold]puddings3112[/bold] 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[/p][/quote]I have always felt the solution is just for each road user to follow the Highway Code to the letter. Bingo! End of problem. Plantpot
  • Score: 0

9:02am Thu 10 Jan 13

Plantpot says...

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.
The days of the motorist aren't numbered. Regardless of whether the car is powered by petrol, diesel, hydrogen or nuclear, there will always be a demand for personal transport.
[quote][p][bold]true-brightonian[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]The days of the motorist aren't numbered. Regardless of whether the car is powered by petrol, diesel, hydrogen or nuclear, there will always be a demand for personal transport. Plantpot
  • Score: 0

9:09am Thu 10 Jan 13

Pete_N says...

The only thing demonstrated by this 'comments' column, is that a large proportion of the 'commenters' cannot write like ordinary civilised human beings. Why allow it to continue?
The only thing demonstrated by this 'comments' column, is that a large proportion of the 'commenters' cannot write like ordinary civilised human beings. Why allow it to continue? Pete_N
  • Score: 0

9:22am Thu 10 Jan 13

Bill in Hanover says...

I am a driver AND a cyclist and have only ever ridden through one red light (a pedestrian crossing where someone deliberately pressed the button as they walked past) but are we drivers just instinctively hating the cyclists who do it regularly, nobody worries in the slightest if a pedestrian walks across a red light and for about 99.9% of the times that cyclists do it, it is perfectly safe. The only thing that bothers me about these cyclists is that the ones who jump red lights are the same ones who 5 minutes later will give a mouthful of abuse to a driver who is stopped in a cycle lane.
I am a driver AND a cyclist and have only ever ridden through one red light (a pedestrian crossing where someone deliberately pressed the button as they walked past) but are we drivers just instinctively hating the cyclists who do it regularly, nobody worries in the slightest if a pedestrian walks across a red light and for about 99.9% of the times that cyclists do it, it is perfectly safe. The only thing that bothers me about these cyclists is that the ones who jump red lights are the same ones who 5 minutes later will give a mouthful of abuse to a driver who is stopped in a cycle lane. Bill in Hanover
  • Score: 0

9:30am Thu 10 Jan 13

BornInBrighton1968 says...

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.
Yes, yes, quite so.

You know, if we all stood together we could get the wretched, incompetent Green Party out of power within a matter of months.

It really could happen!
[quote][p][bold]Weirdorama[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]Yes, yes, quite so. You know, if we all stood together we could get the wretched, incompetent Green Party out of power within a matter of months. It really could happen! BornInBrighton1968
  • Score: 0

9:41am Thu 10 Jan 13

BornInBrighton1968 says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]ArgusReader100[/bold] 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!!![/p][/quote]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. BornInBrighton1968
  • Score: 0

10:09am Thu 10 Jan 13

Fercri Sakes says...

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.
Surely if this happens we won't need to build more roads, we won't need to repair the roads as much, the NHS will save billions each year and we'll need to fight less wars.

Overall I think we'd be quids in.
[quote][p][bold]TrevorA[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]Surely if this happens we won't need to build more roads, we won't need to repair the roads as much, the NHS will save billions each year and we'll need to fight less wars. Overall I think we'd be quids in. Fercri Sakes
  • Score: 0

10:19am Thu 10 Jan 13

Fercri Sakes says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]BornInBrighton1968[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ArgusReader100[/bold] 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!!![/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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. Fercri Sakes
  • Score: 0

10:23am Thu 10 Jan 13

Fercri Sakes says...

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!
So have you never encroached into the Advance Cycle Zones? If not you're one of the 5% of drivers who dont.

Get yourself down to a popular junction and see for yourself!
[quote][p][bold]peterthomas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fercri Sakes[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peterthomas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brightonscouse2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peterthomas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]specialized[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]High Wire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peterthomas[/bold] 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!!![/p][/quote]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...?[/p][/quote]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[/p][/quote]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!![/p][/quote]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?[/p][/quote]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?[/p][/quote]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![/p][/quote]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![/p][/quote]So have you never encroached into the Advance Cycle Zones? If not you're one of the 5% of drivers who dont. Get yourself down to a popular junction and see for yourself! Fercri Sakes
  • Score: 0

10:45am Thu 10 Jan 13

Joshiman says...

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.
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. Joshiman
  • Score: 0

10:46am Thu 10 Jan 13

feistyfaerie says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]Brightonscouse2[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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. feistyfaerie
  • Score: 0

10:54am Thu 10 Jan 13

Fercri Sakes says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]Joshiman[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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. Fercri Sakes
  • Score: 0

10:56am Thu 10 Jan 13

Mayan Turkey says...

Calm down everyone. Helps on it's way.
I think the UN are diverting a peace-keeping task force from some war torn hell hole on the border between Birmingham and Afghanistan.

Perspective is important.

However, I think Cameron and Clegg might be preparing an emergency cabinet meeting.

Lord Knicker upon Twist is to hold an 11 month enquiry.
Calm down everyone. Helps on it's way. I think the UN are diverting a peace-keeping task force from some war torn hell hole on the border between Birmingham and Afghanistan. Perspective is important. However, I think Cameron and Clegg might be preparing an emergency cabinet meeting. Lord Knicker upon Twist is to hold an 11 month enquiry. Mayan Turkey
  • Score: 0

11:07am Thu 10 Jan 13

Number Six says...

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.
If only they did wear a uniform. We might be able to see them. As for non-polluting, the sight of that cyclist's arse dressed like a refugee from a cheap homoerotic fetishist magazine quote polluted my drive to work
[quote][p][bold]Fercri Sakes[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joshiman[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]If only they did wear a uniform. We might be able to see them. As for non-polluting, the sight of that cyclist's arse dressed like a refugee from a cheap homoerotic fetishist magazine quote polluted my drive to work Number Six
  • Score: 0

11:33am Thu 10 Jan 13

MegA69 says...

And how about policing cycling along the seafront too. Every weekend I come across at least one cyclist on the promenade... shameless, but go unchecked.
And how about policing cycling along the seafront too. Every weekend I come across at least one cyclist on the promenade... shameless, but go unchecked. MegA69
  • Score: 0

11:33am Thu 10 Jan 13

MegA69 says...

And how about policing cycling along the seafront too. Every weekend I come across at least one cyclist on the promenade... shameless, but go unchecked.
And how about policing cycling along the seafront too. Every weekend I come across at least one cyclist on the promenade... shameless, but go unchecked. MegA69
  • Score: 0

11:36am Thu 10 Jan 13

cheekybloke says...

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..
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.. cheekybloke
  • Score: 0

11:39am Thu 10 Jan 13

cheekybloke says...

Cyclists should be able to cycle, *slowly* along the promenade. Why shouldn't they be ? Rather than say no cycling whatsoever, wouldnt be better to take a positive approach and ask cyclists to ride slowly and carefully?

Especially In the summer, the cycle lanes are plagued by people walking on them.
Cyclists should be able to cycle, *slowly* along the promenade. Why shouldn't they be ? Rather than say no cycling whatsoever, wouldnt be better to take a positive approach and ask cyclists to ride slowly and carefully? Especially In the summer, the cycle lanes are plagued by people walking on them. cheekybloke
  • Score: 0

11:45am Thu 10 Jan 13

Fairfax Sakes says...

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!
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
  • Score: 0

12:00pm Thu 10 Jan 13

StyleCop says...

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?
Baffled by this comment...? what about the pullution involved in the creation and disposal of motor car?

Clearly there's some impact with making/breaking a bicycle, but to try to and compare it to a car - be it electric or combustion engined is daft.

Unless you were referring to the electric car - in which case, fair point.
[quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]voiceofthescoombe[/bold] wrote: Actually cyclists would pay the same road tax as electric cars being non polluting would be zero.[/p][/quote]Baffled by this comment. What about the pollution involved in their creation and disposal?[/p][/quote]Baffled by this comment...? what about the pullution involved in the creation and disposal of motor car? Clearly there's some impact with making/breaking a bicycle, but to try to and compare it to a car - be it electric or combustion engined is daft. Unless you were referring to the electric car - in which case, fair point. StyleCop
  • Score: 0

12:15pm Thu 10 Jan 13

qm says...

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!!!
and it's hardly correct to call it "road tax" because it goes straight into the Treasury's coffers, not into highway infrastructure . . . .
[quote][p][bold]peterthomas[/bold] 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!!![/p][/quote]and it's hardly correct to call it "road tax" because it goes straight into the Treasury's coffers, not into highway infrastructure . . . . qm
  • Score: 0

12:24pm Thu 10 Jan 13

Mr. Mann. says...

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!
Well done on considering the dangers at the busy junctions and night time etc...

But surely if you don't jump red lights when police officers are looking and you are "extra vigilant" in the places that unmarked cars usually haunt, then you accept that what you are doing is illegal, otherwise you wouldn't take the extra care.

Also, your comment of "its only an offence if you get caught!", 17 cyclists were caught in this article.

There are poor cyclists and poor motorists alike. It's just amusing how many cyclists are showing that they feel certain traffic laws don't really apply to them, because they feel that they have anonymity on this comments section.
[quote][p][bold]Fairfax Sakes[/bold] 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![/p][/quote]Well done on considering the dangers at the busy junctions and night time etc... But surely if you don't jump red lights when police officers are looking and you are "extra vigilant" in the places that unmarked cars usually haunt, then you accept that what you are doing is illegal, otherwise you wouldn't take the extra care. Also, your comment of "its only an offence if you get caught!", 17 cyclists were caught in this article. There are poor cyclists and poor motorists alike. It's just amusing how many cyclists are showing that they feel certain traffic laws don't really apply to them, because they feel that they have anonymity on this comments section. Mr. Mann.
  • Score: 0

12:24pm Thu 10 Jan 13

Mr. Mann. says...

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!
Well done on considering the dangers at the busy junctions and night time etc...

But surely if you don't jump red lights when police officers are looking and you are "extra vigilant" in the places that unmarked cars usually haunt, then you accept that what you are doing is illegal, otherwise you wouldn't take the extra care.

Also, your comment of "its only an offence if you get caught!", 17 cyclists were caught in this article.

There are poor cyclists and poor motorists alike. It's just amusing how many cyclists are showing that they feel certain traffic laws don't really apply to them, because they feel that they have anonymity on this comments section.
[quote][p][bold]Fairfax Sakes[/bold] 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![/p][/quote]Well done on considering the dangers at the busy junctions and night time etc... But surely if you don't jump red lights when police officers are looking and you are "extra vigilant" in the places that unmarked cars usually haunt, then you accept that what you are doing is illegal, otherwise you wouldn't take the extra care. Also, your comment of "its only an offence if you get caught!", 17 cyclists were caught in this article. There are poor cyclists and poor motorists alike. It's just amusing how many cyclists are showing that they feel certain traffic laws don't really apply to them, because they feel that they have anonymity on this comments section. Mr. Mann.
  • Score: 0

12:24pm Thu 10 Jan 13

qm says...

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.
It's not an offence to walk in the road either in fact in this country a pedestrian ALWAYS has right of way (historical law) however you would have to be rather silly to shortcut across the M25 - common sense prevails but not often enough.
If it's not illegal to park in a cycle lane, then there is no point in wasting money in creating one in the first place is there!
As for jumping red lights, the threat of a baton round would do wonders for road discipline (and I say that as a cyclist!)
[quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cheekybloke[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]It's not an offence to walk in the road either in fact in this country a pedestrian ALWAYS has right of way (historical law) however you would have to be rather silly to shortcut across the M25 - common sense prevails but not often enough. If it's not illegal to park in a cycle lane, then there is no point in wasting money in creating one in the first place is there! As for jumping red lights, the threat of a baton round would do wonders for road discipline (and I say that as a cyclist!) qm
  • Score: 0

12:46pm Thu 10 Jan 13

gheese77 says...

I cycle everyday and I stop at red lights but it annoys me when I see someone who doesn't

As for licensing cyclists this wont and shouldnt happen. It would cost a fortune and be an enforcement nightmare
I cycle everyday and I stop at red lights but it annoys me when I see someone who doesn't As for licensing cyclists this wont and shouldnt happen. It would cost a fortune and be an enforcement nightmare gheese77
  • Score: 0

1:05pm Thu 10 Jan 13

Brightonscouse2 says...

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.
Feisty

I appreciate what you are saying, and I advocate cyclists having lights. I find it interesting that the calls for cyclists to wear high viz, co-incides with the increases in distractions available to the driver,mobile phones etc. I agree that a cyclists should make themselves as visible as possible. But equally a motorist has a responsibility to be aware of their surroundings, and potential hazards. I asked earlier will their be calls, from motorists, for pedestrians to wear high viz, when crossing the road?

Someone else made a good point on here earlier. Cyclists are, apparently, invisible to a motorist until they jump a red light or break a traffic law.
[quote][p][bold]feistyfaerie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brightonscouse2[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]Feisty I appreciate what you are saying, and I advocate cyclists having lights. I find it interesting that the calls for cyclists to wear high viz, co-incides with the increases in distractions available to the driver,mobile phones etc. I agree that a cyclists should make themselves as visible as possible. But equally a motorist has a responsibility to be aware of their surroundings, and potential hazards. I asked earlier will their be calls, from motorists, for pedestrians to wear high viz, when crossing the road? Someone else made a good point on here earlier. Cyclists are, apparently, invisible to a motorist until they jump a red light or break a traffic law. Brightonscouse2
  • Score: 0

1:41pm Thu 10 Jan 13

SoupOfficial says...

https://www.gov.uk/r
ules-for-cyclists-59
-to-82

Some highlights:

60 - At night your cycle MUST have white front and red rear lights lit. It MUST also be fitted with a red rear reflector (Law RVLR regs 13, 18 & 24)

64 - You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement. (Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129)

68 - You MUST NOT ride in a dangerous, careless or inconsiderate manner (Law RTA 1988 sects 24, 26, 28, 29 & 30 as amended by RTA 1991)

69 - You MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals. (Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD reg 10(1))

71 - You MUST NOT cross the stop line when the traffic lights are red. Some junctions have an advanced stop line to enable you to wait and position yourself ahead of other traffic (see Rule 178). (Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 36(1))

If you want to argue about something else (tax/excise/duty, dangerous driving, politics, wiping from back to front rather than front to back, etc, etc) please wait for an article to be published that is pertinent to that subject.
https://www.gov.uk/r ules-for-cyclists-59 -to-82 Some highlights: 60 - At night your cycle MUST have white front and red rear lights lit. It MUST also be fitted with a red rear reflector (Law RVLR regs 13, 18 & 24) 64 - You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement. (Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129) 68 - You MUST NOT ride in a dangerous, careless or inconsiderate manner (Law RTA 1988 sects 24, 26, 28, 29 & 30 as amended by RTA 1991) 69 - You MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals. (Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD reg 10(1)) 71 - You MUST NOT cross the stop line when the traffic lights are red. Some junctions have an advanced stop line to enable you to wait and position yourself ahead of other traffic (see Rule 178). (Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 36(1)) If you want to argue about something else (tax/excise/duty, dangerous driving, politics, wiping from back to front rather than front to back, etc, etc) please wait for an article to be published that is pertinent to that subject. SoupOfficial
  • Score: 0

1:44pm Thu 10 Jan 13

chrisso says...

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.
And the same for whenever they see a car speeding - or parking on the pavement, forcing buggies onto the road, as where I live?
[quote][p][bold]NDL[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]And the same for whenever they see a car speeding - or parking on the pavement, forcing buggies onto the road, as where I live? chrisso
  • Score: 0

1:46pm Thu 10 Jan 13

Brightonscouse2 says...

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.
I've never said cyclists should not have lights. Quite the opposite. It's this insistence, and assumption it's law, that cyclists should wear high viz I have a problem with. I think it's convienient it co-incides with the increases in distractions available to motorists.
[quote][p][bold]toldsloth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brightonscouse2[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]I've never said cyclists should not have lights. Quite the opposite. It's this insistence, and assumption it's law, that cyclists should wear high viz I have a problem with. I think it's convienient it co-incides with the increases in distractions available to motorists. Brightonscouse2
  • Score: 0

2:10pm Thu 10 Jan 13

specialized says...

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..
well said
[quote][p][bold]cheekybloke[/bold] 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..[/p][/quote]well said specialized
  • Score: 0

2:38pm Thu 10 Jan 13

BiggerH says...

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
[quote][p][bold]toldsloth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brightonscouse2[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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 BiggerH
  • Score: 0

4:10pm Thu 10 Jan 13

Plantpot says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]BiggerH[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]toldsloth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brightonscouse2[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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[/p][/quote]I suggest you read the post again for the context of the anger. Plantpot
  • Score: 0

4:15pm Thu 10 Jan 13

Plantpot says...

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?
Whatever you like. The cash could go into the general tax fund or be used for insurance. I don't really care.
[quote][p][bold]High Wire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]High Wire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peterthomas[/bold] 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!!![/p][/quote]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...?[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]To pay for what?[/p][/quote]Whatever you like. The cash could go into the general tax fund or be used for insurance. I don't really care. Plantpot
  • Score: 0

4:18pm Thu 10 Jan 13

Plantpot says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]Fercri Sakes[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BornInBrighton1968[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ArgusReader100[/bold] 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!!![/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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. Plantpot
  • Score: 0

4:52pm Thu 10 Jan 13

BiggerH says...

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
[quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BiggerH[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]toldsloth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brightonscouse2[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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[/p][/quote]I suggest you read the post again for the context of the anger.[/p][/quote]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 BiggerH
  • Score: 0

4:56pm Thu 10 Jan 13

vogon1 says...

Ooooh, cyclists in "failure to obey the highway code" shocker. Hold the front page.
Look, if you can't obey the highway code, then don't **** about being shouted at / run over / injured. Take some effin responsibility

.
Ooooh, cyclists in "failure to obey the highway code" shocker. Hold the front page. Look, if you can't obey the highway code, then don't **** about being shouted at / run over / injured. Take some effin responsibility . vogon1
  • Score: 0

5:00pm Thu 10 Jan 13

Fercri Sakes says...

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.
Well lots of people thought that you can't save the economy by sacking three-quarters of a million public sector workers, raising VAT to 20%, and asking millionaires to pay less tax. And they were right. It's just getting worse.

Osbourne is a shambles. Without his inherited wealth he'd be a nobody, probably on the dole queue. It was disgusting to see those Bullingdon Club boys laughing away as they cut benefits for the poorest in society.
[quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fercri Sakes[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BornInBrighton1968[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ArgusReader100[/bold] 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!!![/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]Well lots of people thought that you can't save the economy by sacking three-quarters of a million public sector workers, raising VAT to 20%, and asking millionaires to pay less tax. And they were right. It's just getting worse. Osbourne is a shambles. Without his inherited wealth he'd be a nobody, probably on the dole queue. It was disgusting to see those Bullingdon Club boys laughing away as they cut benefits for the poorest in society. Fercri Sakes
  • Score: 0

5:08pm Thu 10 Jan 13

vogon1 says...

Ooooh, cyclists in "failure to obey the highway code" shocker. Hold the front page.
Look, if you can't obey the highway code, then don't **** about being shouted at / run over / injured. Take some effin responsibility

.
Ooooh, cyclists in "failure to obey the highway code" shocker. Hold the front page. Look, if you can't obey the highway code, then don't **** about being shouted at / run over / injured. Take some effin responsibility . vogon1
  • Score: 0

6:32pm Thu 10 Jan 13

pebble counter says...

Most cyclists I know would risk jumping a red light rather than sit there choking on the fumes of cars waiting at the lights. They'd take a measured look at the risks of doing so, establish there weren't any and just go. They would not do so recklessly, most are very aware that if you hit anything on a bike, pedestrian, traffic bollard, car, wet manhole cover, bottle left in the road etc. you fall off, injuring yourself. This article won't stop me gassing myself at the lights when there is no reason to do so other than a traffic signal there to stop vehicles 6 times wider than me and the bike.
Most cyclists I know would risk jumping a red light rather than sit there choking on the fumes of cars waiting at the lights. They'd take a measured look at the risks of doing so, establish there weren't any and just go. They would not do so recklessly, most are very aware that if you hit anything on a bike, pedestrian, traffic bollard, car, wet manhole cover, bottle left in the road etc. you fall off, injuring yourself. This article won't stop me gassing myself at the lights when there is no reason to do so other than a traffic signal there to stop vehicles 6 times wider than me and the bike. pebble counter
  • Score: 0

7:16pm Thu 10 Jan 13

vogon1 says...

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 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? vogon1
  • Score: 0

7:36pm Thu 10 Jan 13

cheekybloke says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]vogon1[/bold] 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?[/p][/quote]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. cheekybloke
  • Score: 0

7:51pm Thu 10 Jan 13

imnotpc says...

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
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 imnotpc
  • Score: 0

8:21pm Thu 10 Jan 13

vogon1 says...

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.
Not ridiculous in the slightest. Clearly you haven't seen many countryside level crossings.
[quote][p][bold]cheekybloke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]vogon1[/bold] 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?[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]Not ridiculous in the slightest. Clearly you haven't seen many countryside level crossings. vogon1
  • Score: 0

12:10am Fri 11 Jan 13

MrPresident says...

I was sitting in my parked car tonight for just 5 or 6 minutes just up from Brighton marina while I waited to collect someone. In that few minutes I could not beleive what I saw. First a cyclist with no lights and no reflectors. Then a cyclist riding down the road texting with no hands on the handelbars. Before I could utter the words "someone is going to have an accident at this rate", I saw another cyclist without lights get hit by a car that was emerging from a junction. Luckily the car was moving slowly so no-one was badly hurt but something needs to be done about this. Every day that I drive into Brighton I dread it because of the cyclists that do not have a clue how to use the roads properly. As drivers we have to pass a test before we can use the roads. Cyclists should undergo at least a road sense test before being allowed on the road.
I was sitting in my parked car tonight for just 5 or 6 minutes just up from Brighton marina while I waited to collect someone. In that few minutes I could not beleive what I saw. First a cyclist with no lights and no reflectors. Then a cyclist riding down the road texting with no hands on the handelbars. Before I could utter the words "someone is going to have an accident at this rate", I saw another cyclist without lights get hit by a car that was emerging from a junction. Luckily the car was moving slowly so no-one was badly hurt but something needs to be done about this. Every day that I drive into Brighton I dread it because of the cyclists that do not have a clue how to use the roads properly. As drivers we have to pass a test before we can use the roads. Cyclists should undergo at least a road sense test before being allowed on the road. MrPresident
  • Score: 0

12:11am Fri 11 Jan 13

tom servo says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]imnotpc[/bold] 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[/p][/quote]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. tom servo
  • Score: 0

2:11am Fri 11 Jan 13

sedwardsESQ says...

It's their choice of strong words they use when they have almost knocked you half flying on your bum, even that word "SORRY", if you were sorry, they why do it in the first place!
The cycle too fast ( I've been driving at 30 mph and had cycles speed past me on some roads in Brighton, so they can beat the law with everything cause they are green??? and without consequence to public citizen but when they are hit all fricken hell breaks out, nothing make sense apart from a messed up bunch who have not got a clue on an environment they profess to love or even care for and would probably have us all wearing green hats and silver bells round our ankles to here us approach......
It's their choice of strong words they use when they have almost knocked you half flying on your bum, even that word "SORRY", if you were sorry, they why do it in the first place! The cycle too fast ( I've been driving at 30 mph and had cycles speed past me on some roads in Brighton, so they can beat the law with everything cause they are green??? and without consequence to public citizen but when they are hit all fricken hell breaks out, nothing make sense apart from a messed up bunch who have not got a clue on an environment they profess to love or even care for and would probably have us all wearing green hats and silver bells round our ankles to here us approach...... sedwardsESQ
  • Score: 0

2:34am Fri 11 Jan 13

vogon1 says...

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
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
  • Score: 0

8:31am Fri 11 Jan 13

BiggerH says...

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
trouble is that you'll probably only be able to do that once before you're put in jail
[quote][p][bold]vogon1[/bold] 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[/p][/quote]trouble is that you'll probably only be able to do that once before you're put in jail BiggerH
  • Score: 0

10:38am Fri 11 Jan 13

Fercri Sakes says...

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
You wouldn't be the first driver to do that.
[quote][p][bold]vogon1[/bold] 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[/p][/quote]You wouldn't be the first driver to do that. Fercri Sakes
  • Score: 0

11:23am Fri 11 Jan 13

billy goat-gruff says...

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
... because I'm insured! (and I pay road tax)
[quote][p][bold]vogon1[/bold] 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[/p][/quote]... because I'm insured! (and I pay road tax) billy goat-gruff
  • Score: 0

12:35pm Fri 11 Jan 13

toldsloth says...

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
Hang on a minute! Where in my post is there arrogance? I nearly KILLED somebodybecause they were essentially invisible to me. It wasn't my fault, I was positioned correctly on the road and just about to pull out of a junction, the cyclist had no lights, he was wearing dark clothing. How is that arrogance on MY part?
I used my horn and he gave me the finger and swore at me - WTF?. I stopped to inform him in no uncertain terms how close he'd come to going UNDER my car and he accused ME of overreacting. Actually I'm trying to get across to you how close you came to potentially ruining TWO peoples lives!
"drivers arrogance+large vehicle = dead cyclist? Sorry but I just don't get your reasoning!
"somebody did something you didn't like (just your opinion)" WHAT? He was riding on a public road with no lights!!!
[quote][p][bold]BiggerH[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BiggerH[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]toldsloth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brightonscouse2[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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[/p][/quote]I suggest you read the post again for the context of the anger.[/p][/quote]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[/p][/quote]Hang on a minute! Where in my post is there arrogance? I nearly KILLED somebodybecause they were essentially invisible to me. It wasn't my fault, I was positioned correctly on the road and just about to pull out of a junction, the cyclist had no lights, he was wearing dark clothing. How is that arrogance on MY part? I used my horn and he gave me the finger and swore at me - WTF?. I stopped to inform him in no uncertain terms how close he'd come to going UNDER my car and he accused ME of overreacting. Actually I'm trying to get across to you how close you came to potentially ruining TWO peoples lives! "drivers arrogance+large vehicle = dead cyclist? Sorry but I just don't get your reasoning! "somebody did something you didn't like (just your opinion)" WHAT? He was riding on a public road with no lights!!! toldsloth
  • Score: 0

12:42pm Fri 11 Jan 13

jsomebody says...

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...)
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...) jsomebody
  • Score: 0

12:49pm Fri 11 Jan 13

vivelavive says...

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!
[quote][p][bold]jsomebody[/bold] 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...)[/p][/quote]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! vivelavive
  • Score: 0

1:23pm Fri 11 Jan 13

Number Six says...

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!
Ah, the voice of reason. It's time to put a stop to the lie that VED is an emissions tax. It's not. Older cars pay no VED at all, despite not being very clean. The only reason that emissions are used a a basis for a section of engines is because it suits the governent . This week anyway
[quote][p][bold]vivelavive[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jsomebody[/bold] 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...)[/p][/quote]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![/p][/quote]Ah, the voice of reason. It's time to put a stop to the lie that VED is an emissions tax. It's not. Older cars pay no VED at all, despite not being very clean. The only reason that emissions are used a a basis for a section of engines is because it suits the governent . This week anyway Number Six
  • Score: 0

7:36pm Fri 11 Jan 13

Gerry68 says...

Looking forward to reading an article about how many pedestrians are fined for crossing on a red man.
Looking forward to reading an article about how many pedestrians are fined for crossing on a red man. Gerry68
  • Score: 0

7:45pm Fri 11 Jan 13

imnotpc says...

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
[quote][p][bold]High Wire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]willy harris[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]High Wire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peterthomas[/bold] 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!!![/p][/quote]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...?[/p][/quote]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,[/p][/quote]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...[/p][/quote]wiki to the rescue lol oh dear that will be 100% accurate then hahaha Anyway i think the majority have spoken imnotpc
  • Score: 0

9:56pm Fri 11 Jan 13

guitarmanzz says...

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
Im with you gusset snatcher..most of the traffic lights in brighton now have been phased to cause as much tail back as possible...they are a joke..and you are right there should be roundabouts at many of the junctions now or a New road kind of set up where everyone slows down and looks out for each other but no necessarily have to stop for far to long causing unecessary pollution build up...the greens contradict themselves the have made matters worse and caused MORE POLLUTION and jams by their own sword..Muppets :(
[quote][p][bold]gusset snatcher[/bold] 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[/p][/quote]Im with you gusset snatcher..most of the traffic lights in brighton now have been phased to cause as much tail back as possible...they are a joke..and you are right there should be roundabouts at many of the junctions now or a New road kind of set up where everyone slows down and looks out for each other but no necessarily have to stop for far to long causing unecessary pollution build up...the greens contradict themselves the have made matters worse and caused MORE POLLUTION and jams by their own sword..Muppets :( guitarmanzz
  • Score: 0

11:22pm Fri 11 Jan 13

trystero says...

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!
But what if the cyclists are ALSO "street drinking, benefit grabbing homeless miscreants who make our town look an eyesore", "squatting scum" and/or "green party supporters"? Or, for that matter, "students", "foreigners", "incomers", "travellers", "Marxists", "greedy pensioners with free bus passes" and/or "young people"?

As it's clear from all the above posts that ALL cyclists are actually ALL of these things, the only possible solution is that that they should all be rounded up and shot. And then fined.

I blame The Greens.
[quote][p][bold]Somethingsarejustwro ng[/bold] 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![/p][/quote]But what if the cyclists are ALSO "street drinking, benefit grabbing homeless miscreants who make our town look an eyesore", "squatting scum" and/or "green party supporters"? Or, for that matter, "students", "foreigners", "incomers", "travellers", "Marxists", "greedy pensioners with free bus passes" and/or "young people"? As it's clear from all the above posts that ALL cyclists are actually ALL of these things, the only possible solution is that that they should all be rounded up and shot. And then fined. I blame The Greens. trystero
  • Score: 0

11:28pm Fri 11 Jan 13

Rev Dave says...

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.
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. Rev Dave
  • Score: 0

5:43pm Sat 12 Jan 13

High Wire says...

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....
[quote][p][bold]imnotpc[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]High Wire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]willy harris[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]High Wire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peterthomas[/bold] 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!!![/p][/quote]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...?[/p][/quote]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,[/p][/quote]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...[/p][/quote]wiki to the rescue lol oh dear that will be 100% accurate then hahaha Anyway i think the majority have spoken[/p][/quote]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
  • Score: 0

6:41pm Sat 12 Jan 13

sedwardsESQ says...

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.
We do care about cyclist we can't see because they don't have insurance like people that drive vehicles, even Sussex Police agree on same issue, we can't report bad cyclists because either we can't see them or there's nothing to identify them with as on any vehicle!
They are a menace to pedestrians and a pain to road traffic users and if they feel they are hard done by then start paying contributions towards the damages you cause then we the general public might take some interest in your plight.
The responsibility lies upon the doors of the Green Party that make Green without thought of their consequences and history repeating it's self.
[quote][p][bold]tom servo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]imnotpc[/bold] 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[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]We do care about cyclist we can't see because they don't have insurance like people that drive vehicles, even Sussex Police agree on same issue, we can't report bad cyclists because either we can't see them or there's nothing to identify them with as on any vehicle! They are a menace to pedestrians and a pain to road traffic users and if they feel they are hard done by then start paying contributions towards the damages you cause then we the general public might take some interest in your plight. The responsibility lies upon the doors of the Green Party that make Green without thought of their consequences and history repeating it's self. sedwardsESQ
  • Score: 0

7:02pm Sat 12 Jan 13

sedwardsESQ says...

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?
Think every is missing the point altogether, it has nothing to do with road tax, what motorist's and pedestrian's are asking the bike people is, are you prepared to pay insurance in order to pay for any damages you cyclists cause because of your stupidity has a road user's, as like any person whom legally owns a vehicle, ie; whether it be a lorry, bus, motorbike, scooter etc.-and immaterial of age????
[quote][p][bold]Brightonscouse2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peterthomas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]specialized[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]High Wire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peterthomas[/bold] 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!!![/p][/quote]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...?[/p][/quote]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[/p][/quote]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!![/p][/quote]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?[/p][/quote]Think every is missing the point altogether, it has nothing to do with road tax, what motorist's and pedestrian's are asking the bike people is, are you prepared to pay insurance in order to pay for any damages you cyclists cause because of your stupidity has a road user's, as like any person whom legally owns a vehicle, ie; whether it be a lorry, bus, motorbike, scooter etc.-and immaterial of age???? sedwardsESQ
  • Score: 0

7:05pm Sat 12 Jan 13

High Wire says...

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.
"and of course in 2008..." sums it up. You have to go a long way back because cyclists just don't cause the same devastation as cars (2008 was the same year a car driver tragically killed 2 people whilst having a tommy tank at the wheel; if the Argus was so inclined, what hysterical conclusions about all drivers could they draw from that ?)

Very few people (just WUMs?) in this thread have justified cyclists breaking the law. I, like many others, am all for a crackdown on everyone obeying the rules as it would make us ALL safer.

You drive because (it sounds like) you have to - I cycle because it saves me a huge amount of money and gives me buns that can crack walnuts (not a bad thing in Brighton, I can tell you!). I can't justify the cost of a car like you can, but as a cyclist I follow all the rules and all the additional safety measures.

And as a cyclist I realise how vunerable I am (especially if I make a mistake), how bad other road users (of all types) can be and what awful condition our roads are in (apparently I pay nothing towards them so I guess it's up to you to sort this out with your £200 per year ;-) ).

All that said, please don't demonise me for what a minority of cyclists do.

There's a great many of us in the UK and we live in a small space. It's guaranteed that we will irritate each other for a whole lot of reasons. I don't think (good) cycling should really be the cause of a lot of hysterics.

Thank you Argus for creating the harmony we read above (though I'm sure you knew exactly what you were doing).
[quote][p][bold]Rev Dave[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]"and of course in 2008..." sums it up. You have to go a long way back because cyclists just don't cause the same devastation as cars (2008 was the same year a car driver tragically killed 2 people whilst having a tommy tank at the wheel; if the Argus was so inclined, what hysterical conclusions about all drivers could they draw from that ?) Very few people (just WUMs?) in this thread have justified cyclists breaking the law. I, like many others, am all for a crackdown on everyone obeying the rules as it would make us ALL safer. You drive because (it sounds like) you have to - I cycle because it saves me a huge amount of money and gives me buns that can crack walnuts (not a bad thing in Brighton, I can tell you!). I can't justify the cost of a car like you can, but as a cyclist I follow all the rules and all the additional safety measures. And as a cyclist I realise how vunerable I am (especially if I make a mistake), how bad other road users (of all types) can be and what awful condition our roads are in (apparently I pay nothing towards them so I guess it's up to you to sort this out with your £200 per year ;-) ). All that said, please don't demonise me for what a minority of cyclists do. There's a great many of us in the UK and we live in a small space. It's guaranteed that we will irritate each other for a whole lot of reasons. I don't think (good) cycling should really be the cause of a lot of hysterics. Thank you Argus for creating the harmony we read above (though I'm sure you knew exactly what you were doing). High Wire
  • Score: 0

3:44pm Sun 13 Jan 13

Purple55 says...

"The Highways Act 1835 prohibits cycling on a footpath which is "by the side of any road" and "set apart for" use by pedestrians only. If you're caught by a police officer or a community support officer riding on a pedestrian pavement by a road, you can be given a fixed penalty of £30, or prosecuted and fined up to £500 (unless someone is hurt, in which case other offences might apply)."
"The Highways Act 1835 prohibits cycling on a footpath which is "by the side of any road" and "set apart for" use by pedestrians only. If you're caught by a police officer or a community support officer riding on a pedestrian pavement by a road, you can be given a fixed penalty of £30, or prosecuted and fined up to £500 (unless someone is hurt, in which case other offences might apply)." Purple55
  • Score: 0

3:46pm Sun 13 Jan 13

Purple55 says...

Our council could raise a small fortune if they followed the Manchester way: http://menmedia.co.u
k/manchestereveningn
ews/news/s/1588902_h
undreds-fined-as-pol
ice-launch-crackdown
-on-pavement-cyclist
s

http://www.ridingabi
ke.co.uk/html/cyclin
g_myths_busted.html#
CP
Our council could raise a small fortune if they followed the Manchester way: http://menmedia.co.u k/manchestereveningn ews/news/s/1588902_h undreds-fined-as-pol ice-launch-crackdown -on-pavement-cyclist s http://www.ridingabi ke.co.uk/html/cyclin g_myths_busted.html# CP Purple55
  • Score: 0

6:41pm Sun 13 Jan 13

hove dweller says...

Slow news day? This 'research' is like reading a GCSE journalism project.

What would enhance this story would be a comparision of other highway code infractions committed in the same time period at the same junction. Or perhaps analysis of statistics regarding RTA's and traffic offences etc. Perhaps something from ROSPA, or the CTC? - No. Just totally subjective narrative which only serves to give all cyclists a bad name (again). thanks so much argus!
Slow news day? This 'research' is like reading a GCSE journalism project. What would enhance this story would be a comparision of other highway code infractions committed in the same time period at the same junction. Or perhaps analysis of statistics regarding RTA's and traffic offences etc. Perhaps something from ROSPA, or the CTC? - No. Just totally subjective narrative which only serves to give all cyclists a bad name (again). thanks so much argus! hove dweller
  • Score: 0

10:41pm Mon 14 Jan 13

OldBrightonian says...

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!
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! OldBrightonian
  • Score: 0

11:01pm Mon 14 Jan 13

sedwardsESQ says...

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!
Old Brightonian I myself once was a cyclist on the roads of Brighton without co ordination so as a pre historic bike rider I can pity the vehicle user, I believe on occasions I may have even risen my finger in suggestion, I think it was that I could trust drivers more if I drove central reservation rather than being squashed up against the parked vehicles and when I saw lady drivers I dismounted and looked like I was hitch hiking rather than be other their bonnets (line drivers) so can sypavise with you, ahh bless.
[quote][p][bold]OldBrightonian[/bold] 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![/p][/quote]Old Brightonian I myself once was a cyclist on the roads of Brighton without co ordination so as a pre historic bike rider I can pity the vehicle user, I believe on occasions I may have even risen my finger in suggestion, I think it was that I could trust drivers more if I drove central reservation rather than being squashed up against the parked vehicles and when I saw lady drivers I dismounted and looked like I was hitch hiking rather than be other their bonnets (line drivers) so can sypavise with you, ahh bless. sedwardsESQ
  • Score: 0

8:16am Tue 15 Jan 13

DizzyM says...

I'm a cyclist, I'm also a car driver.
I pay council tax, I pay VED, I have insurance, on my car AND my bike.
I totaly support any initiative to rid the streets of anti-social driving whether it be by someone in a motorised vehicle or on a bike.
I applaud the councils stance on targeting RLJ'ers. It is a silly and dangerous act, which tbh only puts the cyclist themselves at risk.
But I have to ask, are they going to post a policeman/woman at every set of lights to catch these riders?
And do you think once they have done this they could then apply the same amount of zeal the 100's of cars illegally parked the length of Dyke Road (& many other streets for that matter) in the cycle lanes?
I'm a cyclist, I'm also a car driver. I pay council tax, I pay VED, I have insurance, on my car AND my bike. I totaly support any initiative to rid the streets of anti-social driving whether it be by someone in a motorised vehicle or on a bike. I applaud the councils stance on targeting RLJ'ers. It is a silly and dangerous act, which tbh only puts the cyclist themselves at risk. But I have to ask, are they going to post a policeman/woman at every set of lights to catch these riders? And do you think once they have done this they could then apply the same amount of zeal the 100's of cars illegally parked the length of Dyke Road (& many other streets for that matter) in the cycle lanes? DizzyM
  • Score: 0

12:31pm Tue 15 Jan 13

aat99 says...

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
top post ! couldn't have better myself .... look in the mirror before criticising others ....
[quote][p][bold]puddings3112[/bold] 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[/p][/quote]top post ! couldn't have better myself .... look in the mirror before criticising others .... aat99
  • Score: 0

6:44pm Tue 15 Jan 13

sedwardsESQ says...

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'.
Used to be a plump copper do Jimmy St and apparently she used to haunt some them food shops (once saw her coming out of forfars scoffing a jam dognut, two bites it was gone), probably bullied them out of business...lol
[quote][p][bold]bogs[/bold] 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'.[/p][/quote]Used to be a plump copper do Jimmy St and apparently she used to haunt some them food shops (once saw her coming out of forfars scoffing a jam dognut, two bites it was gone), probably bullied them out of business...lol sedwardsESQ
  • Score: 0

9:54am Thu 17 Jan 13

Ian Hargreaves says...

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
Police have been told to go easy on cycling on the pavement in recognition that the road can sometimes be a hostile environment for them. They should be giving pedestrians right of way though.

Incidentally, in the past 10 years 700 pedestrians have been killed by drivers while on the pavement while cyclists have killed 4.
[quote][p][bold]biker brighton[/bold] 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[/p][/quote]Police have been told to go easy on cycling on the pavement in recognition that the road can sometimes be a hostile environment for them. They should be giving pedestrians right of way though. Incidentally, in the past 10 years 700 pedestrians have been killed by drivers while on the pavement while cyclists have killed 4. Ian Hargreaves
  • Score: 0

10:15am Thu 17 Jan 13

Ian Hargreaves says...

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.
Road tax, you mean the same tax that Churchill abolished int he 30s? That seams a little unfair to bring it back just for cyclists. He abolished it because he saw a trend towards drivers believing they 'owned' the road, therefore had more rights than cyclists and pedestrians. He was a true visionary in that sense.

There's a chance you meant vehicle excise duty, the tax that based on the emissions output of a vehicle. How much VED do you propose you should charge for the emissions output of a bicycle? DUH! Incindentally, the roads are not paid for entirely from VED, they are also paid for by other duty and general tax. In other words, we ALL pay for the roads.

"Insurance? That's such a waste of time: "In 2009, the most recent year for which figures are available, no pedestrians were killed in Great Britain by cyclists, but 426 died in collisions with motor vehicles out of a total of 2,222 road fatalities". BBC news.

This whole rant against cyclists is just plain bigotry. That is, it's anti minority, not based on any rational only on emotion, and it projects a few peoples' behaviour on the majority. It's about not wanting to share the roads and finding reasons to ban cycling.

This whole perception of cyclists being a menace to society simply can't be true if you read the stats above. Add to this the fact that they don't pollute, ease congestion, and keep people healthy; however, cars have done the opposite.

Let's start publishing real news articles, ones about drivers using mobiles, not stopping at lights (yes, this happens too), speeding, amber-gambling, not using box-junctions correctly, pavement parking, and most importantly, killing people.
[quote][p][bold]peterthomas[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]Road tax, you mean the same tax that Churchill abolished int he 30s? That seams a little unfair to bring it back just for cyclists. He abolished it because he saw a trend towards drivers believing they 'owned' the road, therefore had more rights than cyclists and pedestrians. He was a true visionary in that sense. There's a chance you meant vehicle excise duty, the tax that based on the emissions output of a vehicle. How much VED do you propose you should charge for the emissions output of a bicycle? DUH! Incindentally, the roads are not paid for entirely from VED, they are also paid for by other duty and general tax. In other words, we ALL pay for the roads. "Insurance? That's such a waste of time: "In 2009, the most recent year for which figures are available, no pedestrians were killed in Great Britain by cyclists, but 426 died in collisions with motor vehicles out of a total of 2,222 road fatalities". BBC news. This whole rant against cyclists is just plain bigotry. That is, it's anti minority, not based on any rational only on emotion, and it projects a few peoples' behaviour on the majority. It's about not wanting to share the roads and finding reasons to ban cycling. This whole perception of cyclists being a menace to society simply can't be true if you read the stats above. Add to this the fact that they don't pollute, ease congestion, and keep people healthy; however, cars have done the opposite. Let's start publishing real news articles, ones about drivers using mobiles, not stopping at lights (yes, this happens too), speeding, amber-gambling, not using box-junctions correctly, pavement parking, and most importantly, killing people. Ian Hargreaves
  • Score: 0

7:36pm Sun 20 Jan 13

imnotpc says...

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.
oh that makes it alright then...jeez
[quote][p][bold]BiggerH[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]oh that makes it alright then...jeez imnotpc
  • Score: 0

7:45pm Sat 26 Jan 13

imnotpc says...

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....
lol yawn zzzzzzz
[quote][p][bold]High Wire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]imnotpc[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]High Wire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]willy harris[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]High Wire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peterthomas[/bold] 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!!![/p][/quote]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...?[/p][/quote]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,[/p][/quote]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...[/p][/quote]wiki to the rescue lol oh dear that will be 100% accurate then hahaha Anyway i think the majority have spoken[/p][/quote]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....[/p][/quote]lol yawn zzzzzzz imnotpc
  • Score: 0

7:46pm Sat 26 Jan 13

imnotpc says...

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....
lol yawn zzzzzzz
[quote][p][bold]High Wire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]imnotpc[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]High Wire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]willy harris[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]High Wire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peterthomas[/bold] 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!!![/p][/quote]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...?[/p][/quote]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,[/p][/quote]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...[/p][/quote]wiki to the rescue lol oh dear that will be 100% accurate then hahaha Anyway i think the majority have spoken[/p][/quote]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....[/p][/quote]lol yawn zzzzzzz imnotpc
  • Score: 0

7:50pm Sat 26 Jan 13

imnotpc says...

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.
well done you just said what everyone is thinking.excellent post
[quote][p][bold]Rev Dave[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]well done you just said what everyone is thinking.excellent post imnotpc
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree