Local paper identifies extreme road rage driver as SW London cafe chain owner

Davy1566 wrote:

If cyclists paid road tax (VED) would that make drivers attitudes towards them better? Would drivers suddenly become more courteous to cyclists?

I drive a lorry for a living on London's congested roads and I'm always mindful of other road users especially cyclists & pedestrians as they are very vaulnerable.

I also drive a car which the DVLA take £130 annually off me not to mention the majority of cost of every litre of fuel I purchase is mainly tax which goes to the treasury.

I am also a cyclist so as mentioned above I do pay road tax (VED) as I heavily taxed motorist I sure as heck wouldn't support additional road tax to ride my bike.

As for Mr Abusive loud mouthed 4x4 driver (his ilk are all too common on the roads) he's only apologising because of the potential impact on his business & his family.

He runs his own business so he's not a stupid man, he should try reading the Highway Code

You might think your heavily taxed, but your not taxed nearly enough to pay for the damage you do.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/dec/25/car-pollution-noise-acciden...

I'm sure you'll be able to find some rabid column from the daily mail to refute this

Pay even more tax or pay bills, food etc to keep a roof over my families head......that's a tough one.

I suppose I could cycle the 40 mile round trip to work & back or leave home at 3am and take 3 buses to work.

Maybe buy a humongous rickshaw & trailer to transport the bathrooms I deliver to our customers....will that reduce the damage I do?

psgm wrote:

I'm not going to condone what the driver did, but is the cyclist ANY better? You cannot complain about not having enough cycle lanes then not use them simply because it is inconvenient!

The cycle lanes are there FOR A REASON! If you don't want to use them fine - but then you CANNOT complain about the lack of them!

Maybe if cyclists paid a tax as other road users have to, then more cycle lanes would be made available!

If you look at the video the CYCLIST started the verbal abuse!

You CANNOT have it both ways!

Daily Mail comments section is that way ==================>
You seem to have got lost on the way there from your cave, Mr One-post

Davy1566 wrote:

If cyclists paid road tax (VED) would that make drivers attitudes towards them better? Would drivers suddenly become more courteous to cyclists?

There is a displacement on what the reality is as explained above by others and what some car drivers think.

I think the one area that could resolve a lot of problems is third party insurance for cyclists. Now I get this in reality from my membership of British Cycling. However if you get independently it is a nominal amount of £30 a year as of course we are low risk in that we do not cause the vast majority of accidents.

Would anyone really have an issue with this ?

ianrobo wrote:

I think the one area that could resolve a lot of problems is third party insurance for cyclists.

How that would change anything?

You and Davy1566 would benefit from reading Bez's excellent article that covers this and other related issues:

http://singletrackworld.com/columns/2015/06/bez-them-and-us/

I did read it and an excellent piece it is. The points are totally valid but third party insurance protects everyone IMHO.

ianrobo wrote:

I did read it and an excellent piece it is. The points are totally valid but third party insurance protects everyone IMHO.

one of his totally valid points is that the majority of cyclists *do* have third party insurance

Dave Atkinson wrote:

ianrobo wrote:

I did read it and an excellent piece it is. The points are totally valid but third party insurance protects everyone IMHO.

one of his totally valid points is that the majority of cyclists *do* have third party insurance

I certainly do through British cycling. In this issue though if it was law to have it surely that would abate the anger of others and in reality not cost us a lot ? After all if a cyclist is a cause of a serious accident without it, it could potentially cost a fortune ?

ianrobo wrote:

I did read it and an excellent piece it is. The points are totally valid but third party insurance protects everyone IMHO.

How does it do that?

Are you sure you read the article I linked to?

yes and the issue of 3rd party insurance is different anyway. If you use the road then surely it is sensible to protect yourself in whatever way possible ?

Why would you be against compulsory insurance ? I see no logic in that, after all if you race you need it for example.

ianrobo wrote:

yes and the issue of 3rd party insurance is different anyway. If you use the road then surely it is sensible to protect yourself in whatever way possible ?

Why would you be against compulsory insurance ? I see no logic in that, after all if you race you need it for example.

A quick pootle to the shops on a bike is a very, very different beast to being in a race.

But ignoring that for a moment, at what age would insurance become compulsory?

Would scooter (this type: https://www.decathlon.sg/3927-thickbox_default/scooter-town-3-blue-.jpg) users be included or exempt from this compulsory insurance?

What would be the punishment for not having valid insurance?

Would bike shops have to insist on people having insurance before they sold them a bike?

Would they need to see proof of insurance before allowing the owner to leave the shop with it?

If so, what is in place for people who won't be cycling on roads, such as MTBers, BMXers, track racers, people going on holiday to Centre Parcs etc?

Would they have to apply for and have some sort of road use insurance exemption? If so, who would administer this?

Would this compulsory insurance include people using public share bike schemes?

ianrobo wrote:

yes and the issue of 3rd party insurance is different anyway. If you use the road then surely it is sensible to protect yourself in whatever way possible ?

Why would you be against compulsory insurance ? I see no logic in that, after all if you race you need it for example.

You still haven't told my HOW third party insurance will protect me when cycling. It can't. If it can't protect me why should it be compulsory?

If you're racing you have a day or full license from BC, which includes insurance. Even time trials, sportives and reliability trials have insurance.

As Bez pointed out in the article, having rules and laws doesn't mean everyone follows them. From your comments I don't think you have actually understood what he has written.

ianrobo wrote:

yes and the issue of 3rd party insurance is different anyway. If you use the road then surely it is sensible to protect yourself in whatever way possible ?

Why would you be against compulsory insurance ?

Does this insurance you speak of prevent nutters in leather jackets from running you over?

severs1966 wrote:

ianrobo wrote:

yes and the issue of 3rd party insurance is different anyway. If you use the road then surely it is sensible to protect yourself in whatever way possible ?

Why would you be against compulsory insurance ?

Does this insurance you speak of prevent nutters in leather jackets from running you over?

no but it makes other drivers, more mature and sensible ones likely to understand us. Nutters are nutters but nothing would stop them. All other traffic on roads has to be insured, why not bikes ?

ianrobo wrote:

All other traffic on roads has to be insured, why not bikes ?

No, motorised vehicles require insurance, but non-motorised traffic (such as pedestrians and cyclists) doesn't. I don't about horses, but I suspect insurance isn't compulsory for them either, no matter how sensible it might be to have it. Compulsory third party insurance is required for motorists because of the amount of damage cars etc do when they hit things.

ianrobo wrote:

yes and the issue of 3rd party insurance is different anyway. If you use the road then surely it is sensible to protect yourself in whatever way possible ?

Why would you be against compulsory insurance ? I see no logic in that, after all if you race you need it for example.

All 3rd party insurance protects is your own financial liability wrt to a claim against you - presumably in the case of motor vehicles it was made compulsory in (in 1930) given the high probably of dignificsnt damage/injury/death in the case of the vehicle hitting someone or something.

Look at the number of injuries/fatalities csused by cyclists vs drivers - the latter is relatively huge by comparison, severe injuries from a bike hitting someone are pretty rare.

Not having insurance - or enough cover - does not remove liability. 3rd party cover is a legal nicety.

I have 3rd party cover as a ctc member, but compulsion ? - little point.

psgm wrote:

Maybe if cyclists paid a tax as other road users have to,

I pay £150 a year VED my wife does not in her small fuel efficient car, should she not be allowed to drive on the roads ?

psgm wrote:

I'm not going to condone what the driver did, but is the cyclist ANY better?

Yes, the cyclist wasn't endangering other road users. Both behaved like toddlers having a tantrum but only one is in charge of two tonnes of hazardous machinery (and in a mentally-unfit state to be so).

psgm wrote:

Maybe if cyclists paid a tax as other road users have to

They do. Look up VED and see how it works.

Not that it has any relevance here whatsoever.

psgm wrote:

I'm not going to condone what the driver did, but is the cyclist ANY better? You cannot complain about not having enough cycle lanes then not use them simply because it is inconvenient!

The cycle lanes are there FOR A REASON! If you don't want to use them fine - but then you CANNOT complain about the lack of them!

Maybe if cyclists paid a tax as other road users have to, then more cycle lanes would be made available!

If you look at the video the CYCLIST started the verbal abuse!

You CANNOT have it both ways!

Don't feed the troll people... ignorance or baiting, who knows, not worth bothering anyway.

Terrifying intimidating driving behaviour from the guy in the black agricultural vehicle, overtaking on a roundabout, trying to squeeze the cyclist into the hedge.

I use that cycle lane with caution but only to avoid drivers like this who should have been banned years ago but haven't because our policing and justice system is very lenient on motorists.

But this is a poor example of a cycle lane. Usually covered in twigs, pedestrians and their dogs, it is not wide enough for cyclists travelling in both directions. For this one of the riders has to cross the humped solid white line painted on the path and ride on the pavement illegally. There are many driveways crossing the route including the LTA, Bank of England Sports Club, and the Priory. Motorists exit these frequently and bizarrely they actually have right of way. This cycle path, which is not a mandatory for cyclists (are there any in the UK?) is not a safe refuge but just another dangerous place to ride, and on the other side of the road from where these riders were riding.

psgm wrote:

I'm not going to

Blah blah blah.

Troll.
Not to mention ignorant and clueless.

Member for 2hrs 52minutes...

psgm wrote:

I'm not going to condone what the driver did, but is the cyclist ANY better? You cannot complain about not having enough cycle lanes then not use them simply because it is inconvenient!

The cycle lanes are there FOR A REASON! If you don't want to use them fine - but then you CANNOT complain about the lack of them!

Maybe if cyclists paid a tax as other road users have to, then more cycle lanes would be made available!

If you look at the video the CYCLIST started the verbal abuse!

You CANNOT have it both ways!

So neewbie. How would you go around taxing a cyclist? Would it be done in the same way that motorists are taxed i.e. on the emissions from their vehicle aka VED - Vehicle Excise Duty? If this were to be the case a cyclist only produces Co2 (although orange flavour High-5 2:1 is currently giving me brutal wind so maybe a wee bit on top for my noxious fumes) meaning they would probably have to pay about 5p a year. If you're wanting equal road rights then this tax would have to give the cyclist the same right as a motorised vehicle and, like our other two wheeled friends the motorcyclist we'd be entitled to use the whole road lane. Massive backfire for the 'tax cyclists' brigade eh.

psgm wrote:

I'm not going to condone what the driver did, but is the cyclist ANY better? You cannot complain about not having enough cycle lanes then not use them simply because it is inconvenient!

The cycle lanes are there FOR A REASON! If you don't want to use them fine - but then you CANNOT complain about the lack of them!

Maybe if cyclists paid a tax as other road users have to, then more cycle lanes would be made available!

If you look at the video the CYCLIST started the verbal abuse!

You CANNOT have it both ways!

Troll

psgm wrote:

If you look at the video the CYCLIST started the verbal abuse!

LOL - 'Hey, Come on!' is verbal abuse now!

Must remember to only shout 'Thank You' when forced of the road.

psgm wrote:

The cycle lanes are there FOR A REASON! If you don't want to use them fine - but then you CANNOT complain about the lack of them!

Maybe if cyclists paid a tax as other road users have to, then more cycle lanes would be made available!

It's a public road. Buy your own fucking road if you want it to yourself.

Beaufort wrote:

The wider point here that is easy to miss is exactly why many cyclists don't use cycle lanes on paved area. On a narrow road it makes sense in safety terms.

I would disagree, far too often the shared use path is more dangerous than the road, driveways, hedges, junctions,

You either do cycle paths PROPERLY or IMO don't bother, the crap we have now is doing no one any favours, you have cyclists who believe that they are on the path, when in fact it just stopped a couple of hundred metres before, drivers who believe that cyclists should use the paths and that they are costing them money, you have other cyclists who are scared to use the road, others scared to use the cycle paths, you have pedestrians how simply don't give a damn about blocking the paths, drivers see no issue in parking where they like, to hell with pedestrians and cyclists and there paths.