On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 13:02:19 +0100, PDannyD
<
[email protected]> wrote:
> On Saturday 15 July 2006 09:42, Richard Brookman [[email protected]]
> wrote
> in message <[email protected]>
>
>> Derek wrote:
>>
>> || Its about time cycle lanes were made compulsory Manchester Airport
>> || spent millions on them and the tossers still ride on the road.
>> || Derek
>>
>> And round here too. The council has spent hundres of thousands of
>> ratepayers' money on building cycle lanes alongside the busiest roads,
>> and
>> still some buggers use the road and hold up the traffic. I can't see
>> why
>> - the cycle lanes are ten foot wide, new surfaces, no obstructions, very
>> inviting. Perhaps they are just being arsey and making a point "I have
>> as
>> much right to use the road as you do". Well, the day you pay £195 a
>> year
>> in road tax you do pal.
>
> Then pull over and bow down to HGV drivers who obviously have a much
> greater
> "right" to use the road because they pay so much VED.
>
> The day cyclists cause as much damage, noise, pollution, deaths, injuries
> and congestion as motorists is the day they pay £195 in VED.
>
> Most cyclists are tax-paying motorists too (such as myself - one bicycle,
> two motorbikes, one Land Rover and a classic car)
Sounds very similar to our household - except we have more bicycles than
you can shake a stick at.
> and the upkeep of roads
> is paid for by those taxes.
if you say so - I reckon it barely covers the cost of collection.
> VED is a premium on top of taxes for the
> privilege of driving a motorised vehicle on the public highway.
>
> I ride my motorbike to work and every day I am held up (only slightly, I
> can
> usually ride down the side of the traffic queues) by cars with just one
> person inside and all going to the same place at the same time.
That argument is an extension of the call against the 'need' for a 4x4.
The issue here is with the fixed costs of owning a vehicle - personally
I'd be happy to maintain a fleet of different vehicles, each suited to its
own set of tasks. It ain't gonna happen though - is it.
> One person
> wrote into the local newspaper because they had driven from their house
> on
> one side of town to a shop on the other side and back and it took over an
> hour. They then walked the same route and it took 40 minutes. They tried
> to
> blame the traffic problem on the town council but failed to realise that
> they were part of the problem even though they could have walked, saved
> 20
> minutes, got some exercise and saved on fuel.
Of course that works if the item in question fits snugly in your pocket
and the real argumement is about the destruction of the hight street.
There is no Butcher, Green Grocer or Fishmonger within walking distance of
where I live in a fairly anonymous suburb. However, if I want to buy a
new house or a 2nd hand jacket, then I'm spoilt for choice.
> Perhaps motorists should start looking at themselves as being the cause
> of
> congestion rather than grasping at straws and blaming cyclists who are
> obviously bastards intent on using the road for which the poor motorist
> has
> paid for.
heh - I know where that rant comes from - most folk have experience of
many different views of our road network, driver, rider, pedestrian. You
know as well as I do there are arsoles and they ain't gonna change just
because they're using a different form of transport.
I try to treat each one on their merits (a bit like posts on usenet),
remebering that everyone has a bad day occasionally.
Everyone has a bad driver/cyclist/pedestrian story.
--
William Tasso
Land Rover - 110 V8
Discovery - V8
