Why don't you own an electric bike?

[Board Game Geek]

Actually, yes, I did forget pedestrians. They use the road / pavement as well.

[TimberWolf]

I can understand shared use pavements and off road cycle tracks for kids going to school, or for very nervous adults, but if you really want to get anywhere on a bike you use the road.

You seem to be looking at this through the eyes of a hardened cyclist, or have exceptionally quiet roads in your town/city. Many city main roads are far too dangerous and off-limits for the mainstream user IMO, by which I mean people that might be attracted out of their cars and onto bikes, and especially not for use by children or older people; and women And a few city centre roads are just lethal for cyclists and which even hardcore cyclists should think twice about using. The latter cyclists are probably a menace to cars using those roads.

[dang65]

I didn't think road tax was based on the amount of wear and tear a vehicle causes to the road.

Well, as far as I know, it's based on the CO2 emisions of the vehicle, but I guess it's assumed that a bigger vehicle with higher CO2 emisions will also cause more road damage, make more noise, take up more room, be more dangerous in accidents, be more powerful and prone to speeding etc.

One might compare this to the way that water charges are applied, according to the rateable value of a property. It is assumed that a property with a high rateable value will be large and have more people using water, will have a big garden, maybe a swimming pool etc. Of course, if there was one old dear living in a rambling old house with an overgrown wilderness for a garden, they could request a water meter. But a driver of a large car with very high VED can reduce their costs by simply not driving it much, using the fuel gauge as the equivalent of a water meter.

Whatever standard you believe VED to be based on, bicycles would be excluded because they wouldn't have any impact - no CO2 (yeah, yeah rider exhales, I know), no road damage, no noise, no smell, no congestion.

Anyway, cycling is about freedom. Driving is about comfort and luxury. Have your comfort and luxury if you want, but don't try and impose it on cyclists. It's like trying to impose Royal Ascot dress code and etiquette onto a Sunday League football game.

[Churchill]

Anyway, cycling is about freedom. Driving is about comfort and luxury. Have your comfort and luxury if you want, but don't try and impose it on cyclists. It's like trying to impose Royal Ascot dress code and etiquette onto a Sunday League football game.

What a load of bollocks!

Driving is about freedom, arriving where you want, when you want over large distances if required.

VED is about income generation.

The CO2 and congestion arguments are excuses used to instill a false justification for the charges and taxes.

[dang65]

You seem to be looking at this through the eyes of a hardened cyclist, or have exceptionally quiet roads in your town/city.

It's true that I've been cycling for a long time, and I do understand that roads appear dangerous to a lot of people. I'm just saying that the fact is that they aren't particularly dangerous, really, if you can overcome that fear. You have to look out for yourself, but you do that in the kitchen or when you're doing some DIY (which I believe both incur more injuries and deaths than cycling does).

The vast majority of car drivers are very considerate to cyclists, and the vast majority of roads have plenty of room for cyclists and motor vehicles to share without any conflict. A lot of regular cyclists get more wound up about red light jumpers (RLJs) and pavement cyclists than other road users do. We know how badly it reflects on all of us, and how it changes other road users' approach to us. It's odd that car drivers don't feel the same about each other. You get cross at another driver for cutting you up, or not indicating, but you're not bothered that that behaviour reflects badly on all car drivers and makes cyclists angry at all of you, even the considerate and law abiding ones.

[Churchill]

I think he forgot pedestrians. Dogs and cats too. And horses.

What about hedgehogs, foxes, badgers and assorted other potential roadkill? Assuming it makes it across the road that is...

[TimberWolf]

It's true that I've been cycling for a long time, and I do understand that roads appear dangerous to a lot of people. I'm just saying that the fact is that they aren't particularly dangerous, really, if you can overcome that fear. You have to look out for yourself, but you do that in the kitchen or when you're doing some DIY (which I believe both incur more injuries and deaths than cycling does).

The vast majority of car drivers are very considerate to cyclists, and the vast majority of roads have plenty of room for cyclists and motor vehicles to share without any conflict. A lot of regular cyclists get more wound up about red light jumpers (RLJs) and pavement cyclists than other road users do. We know how badly it reflects on all of us, and how it changes other road users' approach to us. It's odd that car drivers don't feel the same about each other. You get cross at another driver for cutting you up, or not indicating, but you're not bothered that that behaviour reflects badly on all car drivers and makes cyclists angry at all of you, even the considerate and law abiding ones.

I still think you're looking at it from a hard-core cyclists viewpoint. Roads are no place for a mainstream user IMO. Anyway the stats I've seen for kills and serious injuries on UK roads are:

Pedestrians 29K
Cyclists 24K
Motorcyclists 27K
Car 197K

But cyclists likely include a large fit young-male hard-core proportion and things might change drastically if the mainstream started cycling on main roads. For example if the stats are looked at from a 'kills per mile basis', you are 14 times more likely to be killed/seriously hurt on a bicycle than in a car. This may seem like cheating with stats, but it may be an important consideration if cycling were to become more mainstream. I usually use road and pavement. I think the pavement is the best place for bikes in many cases.

[dang65]

What a load of bollocks!

Driving is about freedom, arriving where you want, when you want over large distances if required.

VED is about income generation.

The CO2 and congestion arguments are excuses used to instill a false justification for the charges and taxes.

Do you really find driving to be about freedom? You get stuck in traffic, have to endlessly watch your speed, have to pay enormous amounts of money before you've even moved an inch, and even more if you do move an inch, you have to hunt for somewhere to park your mobile sofa and then you have to pay for the privilege. You have to take a test to be allowed to drive, you have to register your vehicle, you have to insure your vehicle, you have to have your vehicle tested every year, you have to pay duty on your vehicle and display the disc, you have to stop and fill up your vehicle every, what, 300 miles or so?

You've got a bizarre idea of freedom.

Sure, for odd trips to the countryside, or to see relatives a couple of hundred miles away, cars are way more convenient than public transport. But for day to day use around town and getting to work, they're a complete hassle. Certainly compared with a bike.

Do you really deny that cars cause congestion, noise, danger, smell and CO2 emissions? Do you really believe that you shouldn't pay for that? Why should the thousands and thousands of people that don't own a car, or only use theirs on rare occasions, have to put up with your stink with nothing in return? No one's stopping you having your "freedom", but you have to contribute something to the coffers in return.

[DimPrawn]

I think it is good that Socialists like to ride bicycles on the busy dangerous roads. Less of them about to vote at the next election that way.

GET OUT OF MY WAY CYCLIST!

[TimberWolf]

Do you really find driving to be about freedom? You get stuck in traffic, have to endlessly watch your speed, have to pay enormous amounts of money before you've even moved an inch, and even more if you do move an inch, you have to hunt for somewhere to park your mobile sofa and then you have to pay for the privilege. You have to take a test to be allowed to drive, you have to register your vehicle, you have to insure your vehicle, you have to have your vehicle tested every year, you have to pay duty on your vehicle and display the disc, you have to stop and fill up your vehicle every, what, 300 miles or so?

You've got a bizarre idea of freedom.

Sure, for odd trips to the countryside, or to see relatives a couple of hundred miles away, cars are way more convenient than public transport. But for day to day use around town and getting to work, they're a complete hassle. Certainly compared with a bike.

Do you really deny that cars cause congestion, noise, danger, smell and CO2 emissions? Do you really believe that you shouldn't pay for that? Why should the thousands and thousands of people that don't own a car, or only use theirs on rare occasions, have to put up with your stink with nothing in return? No one's stopping you having your "freedom", but you have to contribute something to the coffers in return.

They are little metal prisons.