Cycle lane & road Islands

[Silver Surfer]

Cycle lanes benefit car drivers, why not use the collective tax pool for them?

 

Car lanes (or roads) benefit cyclists for most of the Island - let them pay towards the upkeep as every other road user including charities, farmers, OAP's and motorcyclists do.

Why should they be treated differently?

 

Many cyclists in my own experience think they own the road, should not ride with consideration for other road users and take scant notice of traffic lights or other road signals at times.

And if it suits them they are not averse to hopping on a footpath to clear a road obstruction - when did you last see a car driver do that?

 

Our roads are crowded enough and it is not acceptable that you find on many occasions that the cause of an obstruction and slow moving traffic is a bunch of group-riding cyclists who cannot maintain the minimum

speed required on the road and inconvenience all of those of us who do pay for the privilege of using the roads.

[Ron Burgandy]

Annd if it suits them they are not averse to hopping on a footpath to clear a road obstruction - when did you last see a car driver do that?

 

Yep, car drivers usually drive onto the footpath to create rather than clear an obstruction.

[Slim]

Aren't most car drivers also already taxpayers as well? So why should car drivers also have to pay to maintain roads and improve facilities for motorists - if that is really what the money is used for?

Your vehicle licence isn't paying for your roads. Roads are funded out of the tax pool, which includes the vehicle license and other taxes. Not everyone who uses the roads pays vehicle tax, only motorised vehicles that are a drain on resources and the environment and need to be controlled accordingly. Cyclists, horses, pedestrians, mobility chairs, pogo sticks, stray dogs and ants all use the roads and don't pay vehicle duty. The fact that you do pay vehicle duty doesn't give you any more rights to use the road than someone who doesn't. I pay vehicle duty and I ride a bike.

 

In our society, we don't get out of government exactly what we put in. If I need brain surgery I'll take more than I pay. If I'm lucky enough to not need expensive medical assistance I'll end up paying for something I don't use. If I don't have kids, I'll pay schools that I'll never enjoy. That's how an inclusive society works. Your selfish and short minded view is prejudiced against people who aren't like you.

Let cyclists pay for the creation of cycle lanes by charging them also to use the roads. Let's also make sure they have compulsory road insurance to protect other motorists against their actions.

Yeah, whatever.

[Silver Surfer]

Slim

 

I believe the last DoI Minister made it quite clear that the raise in vehicle taxation was to be spent specifically on our ailing road network. So you are wrong.

 

The point is that cyclists use the roads and obstruct and inconvenience other motorists on a real and regular basis - unlike the crass examples you give of other non-paying road users.

 

Your typical disdainful dismissal of the insurance speaks volumes.

 

In your world presumably it would be acceptable for a vehicle driver who has to take avoiding action because of the wrongful actions of a (uninsured)

cyclist, potentially injuring himself, his vehicle or others, to be liable without recourse to a properly constructed insurance policy intended to cover road users which cyclists are not required by law to have?

 

If they use the roads, as opposed to the pavements, they should pay and be insured.

[GD4ELI]

Silver Surfer,

 

Cyclists stay more healthy and as a result are not such a drain on the NHS unless run over by coffin dodgers.

 

Cyclists free up road space by using their bicycles - were they in one car each you would notice the extra traffic and general wear and tear on the roads.

 

Finally, if you find yourself behind a cyclist on the IOM then just chill out and enjoy the lovely scenery - unless you have an urgent appointment with the Grim Reaper.

[Mr. Sausages]

 

The point is that cyclists use the roads and obstruct and inconvenience other motorists on a real and regular basis -

 

So what?

 

 

Your typical disdainful dismissal of the insurance speaks volumes.

 

In your world presumably it would be acceptable for a vehicle driver who has to take avoiding action because of the wrongful actions of a (uninsured)

cyclist, potentially injuring himself, his vehicle or others, to be liable without recourse to a properly constructed insurance policy intended to cover road users which cyclists are not required by law to have?

 

If they use the roads, as opposed to the pavements, they should pay and be insured.

 

A cyclist causing an accident through negligence is liable whether they are insured or not. The innocent motorist in your example wouldn't "be liable", you waffling buffoon.

[HeliX]

Look, I'm not in favour of things without engines being on the roads. I've been reasonably clear about that in many other threads, as I'm sure Slim will remember

 

But Silver Surfer - you're just plain wrong. The vast majority of cyclists pay VED. Not that paying VED gives you any more or less right on the road. I pay it on 3 vehicles, does that give me 3 times the right to be on the road than someone who has 1 vehicle? Of course it bloody doesn't.

 

Cyclists being on the road is a BENEFIT to motorists. No matter what you think about sometimes running into a group of cyclists, if those 10 blokes were in cars instead you'd be even further back in the road.

 

It's also not difficult to pass a cyclist outside of town, plenty of opportunity and since they're typically in the 20-40mph range it doesn't take long to get past them. Inside town they'll be doing so close to 30 you don't need to pass them.

 

Cycle lanes also benefit car users, as it makes the impact cyclists have on traffic become entirely negligible.

 

Cyclists don't need insurance. The damage a bicycle can cause to a car can generally be sorted in cash by the offending party.

 

I don't know if your hatred of bicycles is making you overlook the truth of the situation or if you're just ill informed, but either way you're very very wrong.

[Silver Surfer]

HeliX

 

I don't dispute that you make some good points.

 

But cyclists do need insurance because they could cause just as much third party damage as anything else on the road through their actions.

[Mr. Sausages]

Could. Hypothetically. And so could a pedestrian.

[HeliX]

HeliX

 

I don't dispute that you make some good points.

 

But cyclists do need insurance because they could cause just as much third party damage as anything else on the road through their actions.

 

No they really couldn't. It's very very simple physics. 50-120kg of bike&rider cannot do as much damage as 1,800kg of car. Especially when one is only capable of ~40mph and the other can do >100mph.

[Silver Surfer]

HeliX

 

Cyclist comes though red light, say. Car on green swerves to avoid him and hits another car or pedestrian.

 

Cyclist is liable on investigation and should have insurance to cover that liability - he does not!

 

As a road user he is no different to a car driver and should have insurance, not just to cover his own vehicle but to cover against damage he may, however inadvertently, cause to others.

[HeliX]

HeliX

 

Cyclist comes though red light, say. Car on green swerves to avoid him and hits another car or pedestrian.

 

Cyclist is liable on investigation and should have insurance to cover that liability - he does not!

 

As a road user he is no different to a car driver and should have insurance, not just to cover his own vehicle but to cover against damage he may, however inadvertently, cause to others.

 

A pedestrian running into the road would have the same effect - should they have insurance?

[Mr. Sausages]

Silver Surfer, we've been through all of this before.

 

http://www.manxforums.com/forums/index.php?/topic/54832-time-to-ban-pushbikes-from-the-mountain/page-9

 

You couldn't come up with a decent argument then, and you're saying exactly the same stuff now.

[kevster]

But cyclists do need insurance because they could cause just as much third party damage as anything else on the road through their actions.

A home insurance policy I had a few years agbo covered me for any claims made by a third party against me - this included any due to me having an accident riding a bike. I haven't checked my current policy, but I thought protection against third party claims was almost standard (although any claim arrising from driving a car would not be covered as you are legally obliged to have insurance for that)

[Slim]

I believe the last DoI Minister made it quite clear that the raise in vehicle taxation was to be spent specifically on our ailing road network. So you are wrong.

I'm not wrong, he was. That was an ill advice press snippet that doesn't reflect that infrastructure is paid out of general taxation and not specifically the vehicle excise duty. You can look at the budget to see that, the income from VED annually doesn't match things like the Promenade, Richmond Hill and Peel Road projects. That the governments increase in various duties will help pay for the roads is obvious, but VED does not directly pay for the roads. The 'road fund' was abolished for precisely this reason.

The point is that cyclists use the roads and obstruct and inconvenience other motorists on a real and regular basis - unlike the crass examples you give of other non-paying road users.

Mostly those cyclists do pay for the roads, via both VED and general taxation. I have two cars, my wife and I both work, we spend lots, we pay tax, we pay for the roads. Nowhere in the world do cyclists pay road tax because most people understand that cycling is an activity to be encouraged, that healthy cyclists are less of a drain than stressed high blood pressure fat drivers and that a bike on the road costs much less in infrastructure requirements than a car and reduces congestion.

Your typical disdainful dismissal of the insurance speaks volumes.

I didn't dismiss it, I ignored it. It's a stupid idea, it's not required, there are zero cases of cyclists causing unlawful damage and the costs have been met. It simply isn't a problem, you're making it up.

In your world presumably it would be acceptable for a vehicle driver who has to take avoiding action because of the wrongful actions of a (uninsured)

cyclist, potentially injuring himself, his vehicle or others, to be liable without recourse to a properly constructed insurance policy intended to cover road users which cyclists are not required by law to have?

Yes, because if he's in that situation then he's causing the problem, not the cyclist.

If they use the roads, as opposed to the pavements, they should pay and be insured.

Rot. It's been investigated and dismissed multiple times in many countries. It's a stupid idea where any benefit is quickly destroyed by the cost of administration and will only discourage cycling; something most governments wish to encourage.

 

You need to stop being a selfish small minded idiot and have some consideration for other users who SHARE the road with you. Drivers do not own the road.

 

I do have insurance by the way, it's optional and covers my liability. System works.