Stupid cyclists

Status
Not open for further replies.

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
47,540
Location
Yorkshire
£120 is not far too cheap my god you should be able to drive without it draining you! petrol is already ridiculously high!
Why not get a smaller car?

And to take it further, if it is draining you, why have a car - it's not essential and the majority of people on the planet will never own a car, so you can live without.

And if petrol prices were lower, how would you pay for things like schools, hospitals, the police force etc? What would you increase to pay for them? or would you rather it was like the USA where only the rich can get health care?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Geezertronic

Established Member
Joined
14 Apr 2009
Messages
3,698
Location
Birmingham
My car tax cost me £405 for a years tax when I renewed and it costs me £70 a tank of petrol now prices have gone up. Usually I fill up once/twice a week depending on how much I have to travel (public transport is not an option). Yes it is expensive but I do what I have to so I can feed my family. And I am not changing my 3.2 V6 family car for anything :D
 

Lesjordans

Member
Joined
8 Jun 2005
Messages
353
Location
Glasgow
I already have a small car, C2 1.1, just happens to be £120 year! :( And yes, i do try and squeeze every drop by accelerating slow etc. But No, i want a car and its handy, no way am i using busses etc and walking miles to work when i don't have to, ditto for going places the other side of the city. And public transport is too expensive anyway at point of service, so im quite happy driving :) and i would never walk/bus from work at 10pm finishes/5.30 am starts

Edit: And to pay for other things - use some common sense in government and stop giving masses amounts of money in ridiculous things eg millions of pounds spent promoting gender equality in uganda. Or a reform of the benefits system and weed out the scroungers ;)
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
24,446
Location
UK
We could make do without toilets and many other things, as people around the world don't have such luxuries but I can't see it happening. I suppose it's not surprising that on a railway forum there would be people who are totally anti-car, but I hope these people won't complain about those on other forums who are anti-public transport. I prefer to be open minded, knowing that one day I'll drive, today I'm on public transport, on Saturday I'll be on foot and Sunday I may go cycling.

When we had the petrol protests, Tony Blair said that if he cut petrol duty it would be cutting the funding for one or two new hospitals. Of course, fuel prices haven't fallen (in fact, they're around the £1/ltr mark - and in the late 1990s it was about 65p/ltr) but we didn't get those hospitals either. In fact, the two nearest hospitals to me are both closing to make way for housing, and there will soon be just one hospital with A&E in the whole of Hertfordshire.

You pay for it so you should have a right to use it if you want :) £215 is ridiculous! Petrol prices are like a tax in themselves and you cant go without it for obvious reasons :(
It's to help pay for the NHS, curing cancer and feeding people in Africa. The more I drive, the more I save the planet. I suggest a few more people invest in cars and buy MORE petrol and then perhaps we'll get a better health service.
 

Lesjordans

Member
Joined
8 Jun 2005
Messages
353
Location
Glasgow
The NHS is in a bit of a mess so i don't see how we can afford to be giving billions in foreign aid really. Fair enough food etc, but money to corrupt governments? beggars belief
 

BlythPower

Member
Joined
15 Jan 2009
Messages
789
Location
Kenilworth
And to pay for other things - use some common sense in government and stop giving masses amounts of money in ridiculous things eg millions of pounds spent promoting gender equality in uganda. Or a reform of the benefits system and weed out the scroungers ;)
Or better still nail the corporate and private tax fiddlers/avoiders. The government could raise far more money doing that than going after benefit fiddlers. :)
 

mumrar

Established Member
Joined
26 Sep 2008
Messages
2,645
Location
Redditch
But No, i want a car and its handy, no way am i using busses etc and walking miles to work when i don't have to, ditto for going places the other side of the city.
Your statements are very single minded and it's no bad thing, but consider the cyclist. No way am I going to ride on a pavement covered with trees, barriers, lamp posts, post boxes or driveways when it's legal AND easier for me to cycle on the road. All this talk is taking away from the fact that a bicycle is one of the worlds best inventions, ever! Fuel consumption is quite low (few bits of extra fruit) and the coolant system has to be topped up more regularly, but for something using only human power it really is marvelous. Mind you, the emissions from the 'engine' whilst invisible, can smell a bit like a catalytic converter!
 

GB

Established Member
Joined
16 Nov 2008
Messages
5,602
Location
Somewhere
if it is draining you, why have a car - it's not essential
Well thats nonsense if I ever heard any. It might not be essential to you, but it is for those of us that have jobs where public transport is not available.

The Whole VED system is nonsense too. For example, a car putting out 225 CO2 g/km will pay £215 for 12 months, yet a car putting out 226 CO2 g/km will pay an even more extortinate rate of £405 for 12 months. How can an extra 1 CO2 g/km warrant an extra £190?? It not solving the issue of climate change rather than just penalising those that have already bought there cars before this new system was even thought of.

And why is the new VED scale only for new cars and cars registered after 2001? Im sure you will find old bangers built in the 80's and early 90's will be fair less eco friendly than the more modern cars...yet they pay such low tax.

But, I only do 5,000 miles a year now - which is considerably less than when I drove loads and had a diesel. So, what was worse - 20,000 miles with a diesel or 5,000 miles with a gas guzzling sportscar?
I agree 100% on that.

we've already uncovered elsewhere that road users don't pay their full share of costs attributed to the use of cars.
How do you come to that conclusion? We may or maynot pay for 100% of it, but I'd be suprised if we didn't pay for at least the majority.
 

90019

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2008
Messages
6,642
Location
Edinburgh/Leeds
Well thats nonsense if I ever heard any. It might not be essential to you, but it is for those of us that have jobs where public transport is not available.
But for a lot of people a car is not necessary, as there are plenty of other methods of getting to work.
Even with my previous job, public transport or bicycle was possible despite working in a different place each time, you just have to plan things.

It not solving the issue of climate change rather than just penalising those that have already bought there cars before this new system was even thought of.
And why is the new VED scale only for new cars and cars registered after 2001? Im sure you will find old bangers built in the 80's and early 90's will be fair less eco friendly than the more modern cars...yet they pay such low tax.
First you complain about people paying certain amounts because they bought the car before the taxes were thought of, then you say that people who bought cars before them should pay more?

And pre 2001 cars with large engines still pay a fairly high tax rate, because it's engine size that matters.
 

GB

Established Member
Joined
16 Nov 2008
Messages
5,602
Location
Somewhere
First you complain about people paying certain amounts because they bought the car before the taxes were thought of, then you say that people who bought cars before them should pay more?
Maybe its my mistake but you have lost me there.
 

90019

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2008
Messages
6,642
Location
Edinburgh/Leeds
Maybe its my mistake but you have lost me there.
It was just the way you put your argument, the two parts I quoted, the second seems to contradict the first.

I the first you're complaining about people having to pay more because of the newer measures, on the second you complain that people with older cars aren't paying as much, which isn't always true, but anyway, these two statements seem somewhat contradictory.
 

GB

Established Member
Joined
16 Nov 2008
Messages
5,602
Location
Somewhere
It was just the way you put your argument, the two parts I quoted, the second seems to contradict the first.

I the first you're complaining about people having to pay more because of the newer measures, on the second you complain that people with older cars aren't paying as much, which isn't always true, but anyway, these two statements seem somewhat contradictory.
I guess my issue is the fact that the government are bleating on about CO2 emissions yet we have a two tier system where by one lot of us pay a huge wack (£400+) on "newer" cars and the other lot in older *less eco friendly (*possibly) cars pay roughly half. IF the govenment is going to go on a mission to reduce CO2, surely the new rates should apply to cars prior to 2001 too? It probably sounds contradictory becuase that is what the system is.

I am in no way a supporter of the retrospective new rate VED and I firmly believe any new rates should apply to new unregistered cars only, giving the customer the choice.
 

90019

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2008
Messages
6,642
Location
Edinburgh/Leeds
I guess my issue is the fact that the government are bleating on about CO2 emissions yet we have a two tier system where by one lot of us pay a huge wack (£400+) on "newer" cars and the other lot in older *less eco friendly (*possibly) cars pay roughly half.
Tbh, I wouldn't quite agree, my friend has a Fiesta from 1985, it's 957cc, but costs him £125 in VED.
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
24,446
Location
UK
The Whole VED system is nonsense too.
Have you seen all the new charges for the first year that have been introduced? It's going to have a major impact on the 'on the road' price as you could be paying almost a grand the first year for 'road tax' - supposedly because it will act as a deterrent on gas guzzlers.

Erm, if the Government want to take these cars off the road they should just ban them! Anyone who has loads of money to buy their V8 Range Rover Sport with drug-dealer tinted windows isn't going to care about paying another grand on top. In fact, it's an even better way of showing you have money.
 

hairyhandedfool

Established Member
Joined
14 Apr 2008
Messages
8,838
Have you seen all the new charges for the first year that have been introduced? It's going to have a major impact on the 'on the road' price as you could be paying almost a grand the first year for 'road tax' - supposedly because it will act as a deterrent on gas guzzlers.

Erm, if the Government want to take these cars off the road they should just ban them! Anyone who has loads of money to buy their V8 Range Rover Sport with drug-dealer tinted windows isn't going to care about paying another grand on top. In fact, it's an even better way of showing you have money.
We seem to have come along way along a tangent, however anyone who knows anything about government knows that the most important thing in British politics is using spin and bandwagons to increase tax and reduce costs, whilst doing your damnedest to avoid paying for anything yourself!

For example, the government want you to "go green", travel by train, etc, etc, but infact they need revenue from car owners. They tell you that you should stop smoking, but need people to continue. They tell you to drink responsibly, guess what, they need you to buy pints, the more the better.

If they ban 4x4s they can't get the extra money from owners of them (because there aren't any), better to tax them to the brink of bankruptcy.

Now lets get away from the 'us and them' of politics and get back to drivers hating cyclists and vice-versa!
 

SouthEastern-465

Established Member
Joined
24 May 2009
Messages
1,631
Location
South East London
In my opinion its not all cyclist's are bad you do get the odd couple though,I think it is kind of the younger generation like me with there BMX's (i dont want or dont have one!)causing complete trouble with them!
 

The Snap

Established Member
Joined
10 Jun 2005
Messages
3,116
The 'point' is utterly daft and was that the more people pay for their VED the more right they have to be on the road and therefore cyclists should be on pavements, so if you agree with that how on earth can you then say "all road vehicles should have the same right to use the roads as others", as that is completely the opposite view. So what is your view?
I beleive that all cars should be charged the same amount to use the roads, as they all serve the same purpose. Why tax people for wanting a nice, big car?

So you don't agree with the "I pay VED therefore I have more right" argument that Les Jordans was making?
No.

Sounds like you have a chip on your shoulder. Perhaps you should visit a 3rd would country that suffers flooding as a result of selfish people here, and see if you have the same view then.
A large percentage of British air pollution ends up in parts of Scandanavia, namely Sweden and Norway. These are not, to my knowledge, LEDCs.

Utterly bizarre! You are saying that smokers are not selfish, but people who don't want to inhale smoke are? That's absolutely crazy. We all should have the right to breath clean air. Any other 'rights' such as the right to kill yourself smoking should be secondary to that, ie do it in your own home if you want but not near others!
People also have the right to smoke, and should be able to do so wherever they want. If you can drink alcohol in a pub, why can't you smoke? Both have very negative impacts on the body and can cause death if the body is over exposed to them.

Are you saying plane travel doesn't damage the Earth?
Yes, it does. So do nuclear weapons, and they serve less of a purpose in society...
 

90019

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2008
Messages
6,642
Location
Edinburgh/Leeds
People also have the right to smoke, and should be able to do so wherever they want. If you can drink alcohol in a pub, why can't you smoke? Both have very negative impacts on the body and can cause death if the body is over exposed to them.
Someone drinking alcohol doesn't release toxic carcinogens into the surrounding air.
Smoking on the other hand does.
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
24,446
Location
UK
I can't actually believe anyone actually bothered to answer the question, or that I just wrote this to point out that fact. :)
 

90019

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2008
Messages
6,642
Location
Edinburgh/Leeds
I beleive that all cars should be charged the same amount to use the roads, as they all serve the same purpose. Why tax people for wanting a nice, big car?
The size of the car isn't what VED is measured by, it's currently the amount of CO2 emitted, and therefore the most environmentally damaging cars have to pay the most.

If you want a big car with a big engine, you have to be prepared to pay for it.
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
24,446
Location
UK
Interesting to note the 'currently'. It seems of late that the Government has discovered that it can kill you on tax if it's for the environment.

It means that if you argue that you're paying too much tax, everyone will look at you as some planet-destroying monster.

Of course, people don't stop driving or give up their cars (which might actually make a difference), they just pay more tax.
 

Phoenix

Established Member
Joined
11 Mar 2008
Messages
2,019
Location
birmingham
I hate to be this forward but I own A moped so I have a little more contact with cyclists and In majority I believe there idiots.For example yesterday I overtook one whilst approaching a T junction but with a clear road and with enough time to correct my position ready for my left turn off the junction I pulled up and gave way to passing traffic.
This idiot cyclist decided to overtake me whilst I was giving way to traffic at a junction even though a had started to pull off clearly not displaying any road awareness.
Now at this point I know the rules and what not and I usually know to chill out and not get annoyed so I opened my visor and just said "excuse me what do you think your doing" which was in my annoyance replied with "doing a better job on two wheels than you" so I thought sod it and followed right behind him for about 30 seconds continuously beeping at him till he stop and stuck the middle finger up.

The lesson here is don't give a cyclist an inch cause they will always take a mile.
 

90019

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2008
Messages
6,642
Location
Edinburgh/Leeds
Interesting to note the 'currently'. It seems of late that the Government has discovered that it can kill you on tax if it's for the environment.

It means that if you argue that you're paying too much tax, everyone will look at you as some planet-destroying monster.

Of course, people don't stop driving or give up their cars (which might actually make a difference), they just pay more tax.
I say currently because of the change from engine size to CO2.

The government are frankly a bunch of hypocrites, they say they're trying to be green, yet bring in this retarded scrappage scheme. It seems to have completely passed them by that a lot of the emissions from cars is actually from the production and disposal of the car. They're just looking at the CO2 emissions from the exhaust, rather than the full scale of emissions from when the ar is being built to when it gets disposed off. Interestingly, taking into account predicted life span as well as the environmental cost of production and disposal, a Hummer is cleaner than a Prius, because the Prius is one of, if not the most polluting car to make and dispose of, mostly because of the batteries, which are highly toxic. I cannot stand the Prius, especially the smugness of some of the owners that their car is so clean, when really it's not. If you really want to drive a cleaner car, then adjust the way you drive rather than the car.
Another thing that I think is really stupid is this thing about scrapping cars that have been seized for various reasons. It's just a waste of a perfectly good car, and means that one more car is going to have to be produced to replace that one. I'm surprised the government don't sell them on, as this would be a much better use of resources, and would mean that slightly fewer cars would need to be produced.

For a government apparently trying to be green, they talk a lot of bull. But then again, they are MPs.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
The lesson here is don't give a cyclist an inch cause they will always take a mile.
It's unfortunate and annoying that you get people like that, who give the rest of us a bad name.

But motorists are just as bad; coming back from town last week, I had some pillock sitting about a foot off my back wheel for about a mile, refusing to give me any space, he then overtook me on a fairly narrow bit of road, forcing me into the gutter with basically no room, the to top it all off, turned left in front of me at the next junction, so I had to slam on the brakes to avoid hitting him.

I've noticed when out and about in Edinburgh, that when I'm driving, there are a few stupid cyclists, but it comes nowhere near the amount of stupid drivers I see when I'm both cycling and driving.
 

Phoenix

Established Member
Joined
11 Mar 2008
Messages
2,019
Location
birmingham
I agree that motorists can be just as bad and the same can be said for the majority of motorcyclists I think it's hard to pin point who is the worst out there but we can all have a guess.
I don't hate cyclists as a group of individuals as I know there are people out there who respect the rules and are friendly and considerate and they will always get my praise in the form of a thumbs up or a flash of my lights (in the day) but the problem is cyclists are the only group out there who do things so stupid it amazes me.
It may sound unfair what I did but If a cyclist is going to annoy me by using one of his advantages unfairly (him being able to weave through almost and traffic) then I will use my own (the ability to go faster and have a horn) to show him how it feels so it doesn't happen again.
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
24,446
Location
UK
I'm not a full-time cyclist and don't cycle to/from work, but I would like to see cyclists admitting that (in towns) the majority of cyclists are a law unto themselves. Come to London and look anywhere and you'll be shocked beyond belief. It's clearly a lack of training to blame, as so many cyclists put themselves in positions of danger that they're asking to be hit - and what good is it being paralysed but knowing you were technically in the right?

I'd also like the bad cyclists to stop saying 'well cars are worse' as if that gives them justification. As if, the fact that some car drivers are so bad that they may as well be as bad - or worse - to prove some sort of point. Perhaps it's because most cyclists think they can't be touched and aren't bound by any laws (most new cyclists don't believe red lights apply to them - and who's out there to tell them otherwise?).

Some motorists are awful, but most don't drive the wrong way down a one-way street. Few drive on pavements. Almost none drive through red lights (yes, one or two will jump when they've just gone red - but that's it) whereas a cyclist will go through red throughout the phase, making them even more dangerous.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top