Re: Times Letters


Matt B wrote:
> Yes. Cyclists /are/ being subsidised. They are being provided with
> facilities, with money from the general pot (with no charge specific to
> cyclists), which are of no use to /anyone/ else - at all.

Wrong, and wrong again. The paymnent of VAT on cycles is a cycle
specific charge, in the same way that VAT on cars is a car specific
charge. There are additional costs on motorists but proportionally
these do not account for the additional expenditure required to support
car based transport. See above.

And point 2. Next time you just get through the traffic lights before
they turn red, be glad that the cyclist you overtook isn't driving
their car just in front of you. Next time you get that last parking
space, be glad that the cyclist didn't drive and get there first. Next
time you take a breath of air, be glad that the cyclist didn't pump
exhaust fumes into it too. I would submit that getting more people on
bikes rather than in cars is important for everyone, whether or not
they are cyclists.

> These
> facilities are, generally, ill conceived and poorly designed, and
> therefore under utilised.
Indeed.

>In the meantime, because of the failure to
> encourage travellers to leave their cars behind, because of the road
> space consumed by the 'facilities', because of the extra traffic lights,
> and poor phasing of the old ones,
Now you are talking rubbish. Apparently making life harder for
motorists doesn't encourage them to not drive?

> the poor design of junctions and
> intersections,
Agreed. They are too motor centric without enough though tot conflict
avoidance for VRU.

> the failure to provide the 'unnecessary' motorway
> infrastructure, etc. congestion is getting /worse/.

Motorways do not ease congestion at the destination, they merely
relocate it. You cannot increase throughput if the places everyone is
trying to get to remain the same. Promary casues of congestion are
consolodation of points of interest into fewere, more distant locations
(eg retail parks, larger schools etc. that then predicate the use of
mechanical transport for access. Relocalising shops, schools etc would
make a big difference.


> >>>For every cyclist on the road, the remaining car driver benefits
> >>>from a slightly less congested road.
> >>
> >>No they don't, because more road is taken than is freed.
> >
> > I think your argument just went into another universe.
> >
> > When I ride my bike along the road (rarely in a cycle lane), it takes the
> > space of a bicycle, plus the clearance required around it to avoid
> > collisions. When I drive my car it takes the space of a car, plus the
> > clearance space to avoid collisions (the old 2-second rule is a good
> > starter). At any speed, my car takes considerably more road space than my
> > bicycle. Therefore, I create far more congestion when I take my car on the
> > road than when I use my bicycle.
>
> No. Even if there are _no_ cyclists on the road the space that the
> dedicated 'facilities' consume is not available to motorised traffic,
> the junctions and traffic lights still artificially slow and restrict
> the flow, and so on.

The junctions and traffic lights are there becasue of motorised
traffic, not bicycles. When did you ever see a set of traffic lights on
a cycles only junction?

> > Ah, so I understand now. You argue that those who choose to use a fuel
> > efficient means of transport should subsidise those who do not. Thus,
> > drivers of Micras (etc) should be paying to help those poor individuals who
> > have to put ten times as much fuel per mile into their Rolls or Hummer. Do
> > I also have to pay your Rolls-Hummer tax when I choose to walk, rather than
> > use the car to get to the shops (about a mile away in my case).
>
> No. I'm arguing that tax for the general pot should not be raised from
> fuel duty, it should be raised for income tax. I'm not saying fuel
> should be free, or even VAT free, just duty free (tobacco and alcohol
> too) so more use will still actually mean more cost.

It is regarded as a net benefit to society to discourage excessive
consumption of certain items. One of the instruments for doing that is
special taxation (or duty in this case.) I have no problem with tax
being used as a mechanism for social engineering when it is voluntary
consumption that is being taxed.

...d

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Cycle path sign - compulsory?
    ... lane from the main traffic lanes and left turning vehicles. ... I often drive a car along country lanes. ... traffic lights. ... exceeds the number of cyclists. ...
    (uk.rec.cycling)
  • Re: Advance stop lines
    ... In some place beyond the rainbow, where cyclists wait ... vehicles get up to 10mph. ... across the junction before the first car has even got going. ... means, especially at a pinch-point (eg, traffic lights) where capacity is ...
    (uk.rec.driving)
  • Re: Top Gear on Sunday...
    ... Pitted a car against a bicycle, public transport and going by river. ... other cyclists berated him for doing so.... ... In all honesty, the only time I see a cyclist stop for traffic lights they are either old and frail or can't squeeze past the cars to get through. ...
    (uk.transport)
  • Re: Potholes
    ... You don't need to give cyclists room to fall off because if they do and you run them over, ... I was following another car and they braked sharply because the traffic lights went to red in front of them; I ran into the back of their car but it was the traffic lights' fault, officer, for chosing that moment to go to red.) ... Or the car drivers who are so desperate to overtake a speeding cyclist that they overtake without reading the road ahead and then promptly have to stop because of a parked stationary vehicle and oncoming traffic. ...
    (uk.rec.cycling)
  • Re: Passing cyclists two-up on narrow roads
    ... and get as close to the verge as I can to make sure there's clearance. ... hatchback car in front (narrower than my car, ... There are a couple of cyclists up ... ahead riding two abreast. ...
    (uk.rec.cycling)