Traffic disruption and the Proms

[jean]

There's something called European Car Free Day that takes place in late September every year. I've experienced it in Italy, but over here it's a feeble thing indeed if it happens at all.

[Mr Pee]

There are the Sky Ride days in various cities around the country, when sections of public roads are closed to vehicles:-

http://www.goskyride.com/

I seem to recall that there was one in London a couple of years ago. It's a step in the right direction. And I don't want to get into a slanging match over the good and bad of Sky, but they have done a heck of a lot for British cycling over the last few years, from events such as the above, right through to sponsorship and support at the top professional level. Both our Tour de France winners have been Team Sky riders.

[Dave2002]

Probably as much as you or I do since all council tax payers pay for use of the highway, as this is how roads maintenance is funded.

Isn't that only part of the story. My understanding is that there are different categories of roads. Some are paid for by County Councils (or similar bodies), some are paid for out of central funds.

Re other taxation, is it not the case that there is additional tax to be paid to put a car on the road - or is that simply VED too?
VED, AFAIK, generates a lot more income for the Treasury than is used for transportation systems. The funds generated are not ring fenced for transport infrastructure. I think the same is also true of revenue generated by taxes on motor fuel.

[Sir Velo]

Roads maintenance costs are paid for out of council tax and general taxation, but mainly council tax. Either way, the costs of maintaining the highway are borne by all taxpayers (any search on any reputable website will support this, so don't just take my word for it!).

It is true that VED is not ring fenced to pay solely for cleaning up emissions, but it is equally not the case that it is used to pay for roads. Therefore, motorists are not correct to assert that they pay for roads, while non-motorists do not. In fact, we all have an equal entitlement (as indeed the Highway Code makes explicit). Moreover, as Mr Pee correctly asserts, cyclists cause negligible damage to any highway, so there is a good argument for saying that motor vehicles (and in particular heavier vehicles) are subsidised in their use of the roads by the rest of society.

This is all quite apart from the huge savings available to the NHS of having a healthier society. In fact we are storing up a world of trouble for us when you consider that fewer than 3% of all school journeys are made by bicycle, compared to over 50% a generation ago!

[Dave2002]

... so there is a good argument for saying that motor vehicles (and in particular heavier vehicles) are subsidised in their use of the roads by the rest of society.

I'm not on the side of "the motorist", even though I drive, but nevertheless I think your arguments are incorrect here - way off the mark.

Most of the funds generated from taxes centred round motor vehicles is not used to support transport infrastructure. In Surrey, there are very many roads with large pot holes, which cyclists should certainly object to.

[Bryn]

In my daily work I find that some cyclists, and in particular some of those engaged in emulating their sporting heroes, manage to considerably increase vehicle emissions by riding in peloton formation, forcing large vehicle such as omnibuses to change down in to lower, less efficient 'gears'. Far too many cyclists also demonstrate either ignorance of, or contempt for, the Highway Code, failing to give priority to vehicles such as buses and coaches when safe to so do. Misuse of traffic signals by many cyclists is also rife, especially in those cases where the 'white line' is set well back from a corner to facilitate the turning of long vehicles. The claim that all road users have an equal right their use is simply not true. Speed limits vary according to the type of vehicle, and cyclists have no prescribed speed limits as such, though they are advised/requested to limit their speed to 20 mph on cycle paths, and may be apprehended for "furious" riding on the carriageway. The exclusion of cyclist and pedestrians from motorways has already been mentioned. The same applies to some other categories of road user.


By the way, I am at least as opposed to the closure of public roads for car rallies and the like.

[Sir Velo]

I'm not on the side of "the motorist", even though I drive, but nevertheless I think your arguments are incorrect here - way off the mark.

I'm not sure from your reply what part of my argument you consider to be "way off the mark". Perhaps I didn't make my points clear. At any rate, I think you may have misunderstood me. I am certainly not saying that the roads are maintained to a satisfactory level. Quite clearly, insufficient funds are spent on maintaining the highway to a satisfactory standard. That does not, however, gainsay the fact that the contribution from cyclists is proportionately greater than that from motorists, given the relative levels of usage and damage caused by both classes of road user.

Most of the funds generated from taxes centred round motor vehicles is not used to support transport infrastructure.

I agree and that was my point when I wrote that VED is not used to maintain the roads. At the risk of repeating myself, all taxpayers pay equally for the maintenance of the roads. Therefore, motorists have no more "rights" than other road users. When I said that other road users (e.g. cyclists) "subsidise" motorists, my meaning was that, as cyclists cause negligible damage to roads but pay the same amount in taxation as motorists, they in effect are subsidising the usage of the highway by motorists (regardless of condition of the highway).

In Surrey, there are very many roads with large pot holes, which cyclists should certainly object to.

You won't find my disagreeing with you there. I think you will find that most potholes are caused by wear and tear from HGVs and other motor vehicles - not cyclists! Hence my point about cyclists subsidising motorists.

[Bryn]

Poor arguments there , Sir Velo. If roads are maintained from general taxation, and VEH/road tax (let's not play semantics), goes into the general pot, those paying the VEH/road tax are contribution proportionally more than those not. That said, the vast majority of cycles and cyclists participating in organised cycle events appear to get to and from the start and finish of such events by Chelsea tractors and the like. Responsible cyclists I have no problem with, having been a keen one myself until severe restriction of flection in my right knee (sustained in an RTA), limited me to left leg propulsion, and consequent loss of muscle tone in the right leg, the ankle of which got hooked on a padded extension to the rear wheel spindle. Looked strange, but with modern quick release pedal and cleat combination I was pretty quick. Walking is now my preferred mode of exercise, both legs getting a work-out.

[jean]

Poor arguments there , Sir Velo. If roads are maintained from general taxation, and VEH/road tax (let's not play semantics), goes into the general pot, those paying the VEH/road tax are contribution proportionally more than those not.

And so they ought, since their vehicles do proportionally more damage.

the vast majority of cycles and cyclists participating in organised cycle events appear to get to and from the start and finish of such events by Chelsea tractors and the like.

They might find it easier to transport their bikes by other means if restrictions on the carriage of bikes on trains did not make this so difficult.

Compare the situation in Germany, for example.

[Sir Velo]

Poor arguments there , Sir Velo. If roads are maintained from general taxation, and VEH/road tax (let's not play semantics), goes into the general pot, those paying the VEH/road tax are contribution proportionally more than those not.

Now Bryn that's poor argumentation. Presumably you will admit that motor vehicles cause considerable pollution to the atmosphere as well as causing ongoing damage to the highway. The amounts raised from VED, petrol duty etc are considerably less than the cost of cleaning up the environment, and/or maintaining the highways. Consequently, these costs are paid for out of general taxation which, as you know, is borne by the population at large.

[Sir Velo]

That said, the vast majority of cycles and cyclists participating in organised cycle events appear to get to and from the start and finish of such events by Chelsea tractors and the like.

Part of the reason for this is the poor state of cycle infrastructure in this country, compared with enlightened countries like Denmark and the Netherlands. It's not a lot of fun being passed by HGVs and white van man with a few inches to spare while trying to avoid potholes. As the Dutch have found there are huge advantages to both motorists and cyclists in investing in proper cycle infrastructure (NB not the joke bits of blue paint which pass as "cycle superhighways" in this country). Not only does the population gain in terms of health benefits, but the roads have far fewer vehicles on them (as a result of people using proper cycle infrastructure) thereby speeding up the roads.

[Bryn]

Part of the reason for this is the poor state of cycle infrastructure in this country, compared with enlightened countries like Denmark and the Netherlands. It's not a lot of fun being passed by HGVs and white van man with a few inches to spare while trying to avoid potholes. As the Dutch have found there are huge advantages to both motorists and cyclists in investing in proper cycle infrastructure (NB not the joke bits of blue paint which pass as "cycle superhighways" in this country). Not only does the population gain in terms of health benefits, but the roads have far fewer vehicles on them (as a result of people using proper cycle infrastructure) thereby speeding up the roads.

Neither is it much fun having to hang a good distance behind cyclists traveling at less than 20 mph, and who insist on using the main carriageway when there is a well maintained dedicated or cycle/pedestrian shared path directly alongside. That is all too often my experience. Then there are those damned fools who think one way road signs do not apply to them and put their own and others' lives at risk riding directly towards oncoming large vehicles. Again, I have no problem with responsible cyclists who do not excluded other road users from the public highway. I carry many passengers incapable of using a bicycle due to infirmity.Why should they be placed under effective curfew so that massed cyclists can go for a joyride on public roads?

[mangerton]

There's no problem for cyclists here. They cycle on the pavement, much to the consternation of pedestrians - especially the elderly and those with pushchairs.

Bryn, you might like to check your last sentence.

[jean]

...cyclists traveling at less than 20 mph, and who insist on using the main carriageway when there is a well maintained dedicated or cycle/pedestrian shared path directly alongside...

I'd like to know the location of these, since in my experience they are rarely more than 100 metres long

...pubic roads...

[amateur51]

There's no problem for cyclists here. They cycle on the pavement, much to the consternation of pedestrians - especially the elderly and those with pushchairs.

I'm waiting for PoundLand to start selling knock-off tasers to sort this out - don't necessarily want to use it, just to wave it in their general direction