SE23.com - The Official Forum for Forest Hill & Honor Oak, London SE23
Online since 2002  -  10,000+ members

Home | SE23 Topics | Businesses & Services | Wider Topics | Offered/Wanted/Lost/Found | Site Feedback | Advertising | Contact
Geddes Hairdressing & Barbering Studio One Armstrong & Co Solicitors


Post Reply  Post Topic 
Pages (6): « First < Previous 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next > Last »
Granny spinners
Author Message
IWereAbsolutelyFuming


Posts: 531
Joined: Oct 2007
Post: #61
07-06-2011 07:33 AM

Do I really have to do this? There is no such thing as Road Tax.

I'll nick most of this from http://www.ipayroadtax.com as I cant be bothered to churn it out again:

Quote:
Road tax was abolished 74 years ago. Road tax doesn't exist. It's car tax, a tax on cars and other moror vehicles, not a tax on roads or a fee to use them. Motorists do not pay directly for the roads. Roads are paid for via general and local taxation, which almost all of us pay. In 1926, Winston Churchill started the process to abolish road tax. It was finally culled in 1937. Car tax (or Vehicle Excise Duty VED) is based on amount of CO2 emitted so, if a fee had to be paid, cyclists would pay the same as 'tax-dodgers' such as disabled drivers, police officers, the Royal family, and band A motorists, ie £0. A lot of cyclists are also car-owners, too, so pay VED.


I'll get onto the rest of your post once I've had my toast.

Find all posts by this user Reply
michael


Posts: 3,220
Joined: Mar 2005
Post: #62
07-06-2011 07:59 AM

I suspect that the idea of licensing all cyclists is a flawed one, but it would be nice if cyclists had an official document of ownership. This might prevent so many bikes being stolen and so many cyclists riding stolen bikes (my assumption being that every stolen bike eventually ends up being used by somebody else). I also suspect that more bicycles are stolen than pedestrians injured by cyclists on the pavement - not that this means we should ignore the problem of cycling on the pavement.

Cyclists caught riding on the pavement should not be fined (which in practice does not happen), but required to attend and pay for a cycling proficiency course. On their second offence the bike would be confiscated, and on a third offence they would be put in stocks outside the local primary school.

Find all posts by this user Reply
hillsideresident


Posts: 148
Joined: Jul 2010
Post: #63
07-06-2011 08:33 AM

Londdondrz:"I think we can end this thread by agreeing that if ALL road and pavement users were a little more attentive, stuck to the rules and showed consideration for others we wouldnt have this issue."

How are pedestrians not being attentive or not sticking to the rules when cyclists ride on the pavement? This simply isn't a problem where we all need to behave better.

And IWAF: "There is no such thing as Road Tax".
I know that. I didn't mention it. What I said was that car drivers and motorcyclists pay to use the road, which they do. I said cyclists don't, and they don't. You've just responded with the standard, knee-jerk response that doesn't actually deal with the issue.

You'll be telling us next that some cyclists have household insurance that covers them on the roads.

Find all posts by this user Reply
IWereAbsolutelyFuming


Posts: 531
Joined: Oct 2007
Post: #64
07-06-2011 08:51 AM

Part 1
I think Londondrz basically nails it but I'm going to respond to Hillsideresident's post anyway as I think it would be good to have some information and debate about licensing cyclists.

Quote:
firstly, I think it is bizarre that anyone should be able to use the road without insurance.

Ok, as long as it is uniformly applied, in which case only pedestrians with insurance would be able to cross roads. Let's not stop there, let's mitigate all risk and insist that all people take out personal liability insurance to cover everything they do. Motorists are insured because of their potential to cause significant damage and personal injury through operating a large, heavy vehicle often at high speed. Neither cyclists or pedestrians carry the same level of potential. Statistics from road traffic/pavement incidents support mandatory insurance for motorists. Statistics from road traffic/pavement incidents do not support mandatory insurance for cyclists or pedestrians.

Quote:
It is also evident that plenty of cyclists either do not know the highway code or couldn’t care less.

Certainly right that some dont...and the same can be said for motorists and pedestrians. Licensing motorists hasn't changed that.


Quote:
I also think it is unreasonable that car-drivers and motorcyclists have to pay a tax to use the road, but cyclists don’t.
Done this bit. Horrifically widely held misunderstanding of the facts. Still dont understand your subsequent post about motorists paying to use the road. How?

[quote]I would suggest that cyclists would have to have a licence to ride a bike on the road, and before they get the licence they would have to pass a cycling proficiency test. Then they would renew the licence each year by paying a fee of whatever amount, it needn’t be much, part of which would go to administer the scheme, and part would go on insurance.


Why? Where is the justification for all this faff? How do you apply it? Is it only for adults? In which case do kids have to carry proof of age/ID to claim exemption? Is this the end to sharing bikes (as it'd prevent individuals being pinned to registration numbers)? Bikes are more transient in ownership and use than cars. Are we licensing the cyclist, the bike or both? Why are the licensing rules more stringent for cyclists than motorists. How are you really going to fund the scheme? You can't charge it all to people who cycle as it would be so extortionate that it'd end cycling as a means of transport. Where is the justification of that cost? Of the countries that have had licensing of bikes/cyclists many/most have scrapped it as the costs were too high, the schemes too difficult to administer and provided little or no benefit. In countries where licensing remains many are acknowledged as being costly and with little benefit and many are under review.

Quote:
Then the law would have some leverage. If the police pull over a cyclist on the pavement now, it’s a meaningless £30 fine. With licensing, if the cyclist breaks the law he would lose points from his licence or have it withdrawn. If he cycles without a licence, that would be a serious offence, just as it is for a car-driver or a motorcyclist. There would be some point in the police taking action, just as they do for everyone else.

Firstly, laws aren't easily created, they are costly and complicated to draft and maintain so they need serious justification. Where is this? So we license cyclists and some of them have them withdrawn, how do we know, will the police be routinely stopping cyclists to check, do they have time for this? Cycling without a licence would be a serious offence? Why? What are the likely possible consequences of someone doing so (we have a good few years of evidence to base the answer to this one on)? Do you really believe the extra potential workload on the police is justified? Take a look on this forum alone and you'll see comments expressing surprise at how disinterested the police can be in crimes more serious than someone cycling on a pavement. Citizen action, reporting cycling misdemeanours? You'll have a licence plate number so why not? Try it now, call the police with the registration number next time you see a car speeding or jumping a red light (or even mounting a pavement) and see what response you get. Tell them you have 3 independent witnesses to the crime, see if the response is any different.

Find all posts by this user Reply
IWereAbsolutelyFuming


Posts: 531
Joined: Oct 2007
Post: #65
07-06-2011 08:52 AM

Part 2

Quote:
Not only would this give pavements back to pedestrians


Give the pavements back to the pedestrians? Is it really that bad at the moment? My own statistically irrelevant study this morning involved a more leisurely ride to work than normal so I could count cyclists using their bikes on appropriate surfaces and those riding on the pavement. The route covered a little over 6 miles taking in Forest Hill, Dulwich Village, Denmark Hill, Camberwell, Oval, Vauxhall and Pimlico. I counted 110 people operating their bikes where they were entitled to and 1 cycling on the pavement. Of the 110; 2 were pushing their bikes on pavements, 4 were riding on well-marked shared pavements and about 10 were on pavement areas that aren't well marked but where cyclists are entitled to ride. 1 other could possibly have been riding on the pavement prior to me seeing him riding on the road. But as I say, largely irrelevant as a one-off. I'm sure there are black-spots where more people ride on pavements. Out of interest, I wasn't concentrating on it in particular as I needed to retain a safe level of road sense but I'd say between a fifth and a quarter of the cyclists I saw at red lights jumped them. I also saw two cars mount pavements and numerous vehicles use bike and bus lanes illegally. Oh, and no kamikaze pedestrians.

Quote:
...but the number of cyclists killed on the roads should drop, hopefully dramatically, partly because they would all know what they’re doing, not just some of them, and partly because motorists would respect them a whole lot more. I don’t see the problem myself – I wouldn’t have minded such a scheme one bit. I just see it as cyclists joining the adult world.

The number of all people killed on the roads would drop dramatically if less people used motor vehicles and more people cycled, regardless of how well they cycle. The statistics back this up. That is why measures that discourage cycling are wrong - we should be doing the opposite and encouraging other forms of transport (including cycling) while discouraging driving.


Quote:
As for drivers and pedestrians: I think it would be very helpful if people had to pass the cycling proficiency test before they could move on to ride a motorbike or drive a car. That way they would understand things from the cyclist's point of view. And schools should teach children how to cross the road properly - although presumably this already happens?

Something we almost agree on, I certainly share your view that it is useful to experience the road from all possible perspectives. Some bus and haulage companies now run bike awareness courses that included hitting the roads on bikes. It doesn't take much, just spend two weeks making your journeys by bike to get a flavour of the experience.

Find all posts by this user Reply
IWereAbsolutelyFuming


Posts: 531
Joined: Oct 2007
Post: #66
07-06-2011 08:54 AM

Sorry, this bit got munged up:

Quote:
I also think it is unreasonable that car-drivers and motorcyclists have to pay a tax to use the road, but cyclists don’t.

Done this bit. Horrifically widely held misunderstanding of the facts. Still don't understand your subsequent post about motorists paying to use the road. How?

Find all posts by this user Reply
hillsideresident


Posts: 148
Joined: Jul 2010
Post: #67
07-06-2011 09:54 AM

Drivers and motorcyclists pay Vehicle Excise Duty. Cyclists don't.
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/Own...G_10012524

You ask whether I'm proposing licensing cyclists or bicycles or both. It was perfectly clear. I'm saying licence the cyclists.

You say the cost would deter cyclists. VED costs £16 for a small motorbike for 12 months. Say a tenner for bikes, plus £25 for third party insurance, £35 pa. Who would that deter?

You say pavement cyclists are rare. Pffghhh!!!!

You say some motorists don't know the Highway Code. They learn it. They pass a test on it. Cyclists have to learn and pass nothing.

As usual, cyclists are so defensive that debate is pointless. Personally, I think licensing is inevitable. Time will tell whether that's true or not. Certainly it's workable.

Find all posts by this user Reply
hillsideresident


Posts: 148
Joined: Jul 2010
Post: #68
07-06-2011 10:15 AM

Also, to say there isn't really a problem with pavement cyclists is pretty extraordinary.

Have you read the posts by pedestrians on this thread? Do you think they're all making it up?

Did you actually read the piece about blind people being injured by pavement cyclists in Cambridge? Why would Cambridge be so special? That must be true everywhere. Does that not strike you as a bit of a problem?

If you don't thinking licensing is the solution, then what is your solution?

Find all posts by this user Reply
Brockley_Babe


Posts: 57
Joined: Jul 2009
Post: #69
07-06-2011 10:53 AM

it happened again today - not locally but at London bridge Sad I was crossing the road when the pedestrian green man was green and two cyclists zoomed past - if they are colour blind they shouldn't be on the road- grrrrrrrrr

Find all posts by this user Reply
IWereAbsolutelyFuming


Posts: 531
Joined: Oct 2007
Post: #70
07-06-2011 10:54 AM

This is really quite tedious, you started the thread asking for ways to deal with people cycling on pavements. In the spirit of reasonable debate I am challenging your suggestion of licensing cyclists in response to cycling on pavements. I've suggested reasons why I believe licensing is inappropriate and unworkable but you see this as defensive so the debate is 'pointless'?

Quote:
Drivers and motorcyclists pay Vehicle Excise Duty. Cyclists don't.

...because they have no engine and emit no CO2, which is what VED is based on. I have already covered this. Whatever, motorists are not paying to use the road, they are paying to use their vehicle. The revenue collected goes to Central Government funds, not road maintenance.

Quote:
You ask whether I'm proposing licensing cyclists or bicycles or both. It was perfectly clear. I'm saying licence the cyclists.

I'm still confused, we're licensing cyclists but charging VED on the bikes? Or both? Ok, so how do you identify a cyclist riding on the pavement? Are we all to wear a visible licence plate? If not how does licensing help?

Quote:
You say pavement cyclists are rare. Pffghhh!!!!

No I didn't. But I'm happy to state that I don't think it represents a significant problem and as such the idea of licensing, to me, is an overreaction.

Quote:
You say some motorists don't know the Highway Code. They learn it. They pass a test on it. Cyclists have to learn and pass nothing.

Factually correct. Does that mean that all motorists adhere to it? Does it mean that all motorists still remember the bulk of it? I'm all for cyclists learning good road-craft. This is one area where I think there is potential for a mandatory obligation but it is far from clear cut. It carries the same problems of policing, discouragement etc as licensing does.

Quote:
Also, to say there isn't really a problem with pavement cyclists is pretty extraordinary.

Haven't said that either. I've acknowledged that it happens but I've seen no evidence that it causes a problem significant enough to justify licensing of cyclists and bikes. There will always be serious incidents but they are thankfully few and far between. I don't advocate cycling on pavements and don't do it myself. It frustrates and annoys me to see others doing it but I'm not going to overreact to it.

Quote:
Did you actually read the piece about blind people being injured by pavement cyclists in Cambridge?

I did and from memory I'm not sure it contained anything that justifies licensing of cyclists and bikes. It championed the use of more consideration of others by not riding on pavements, riding more carefully on shared pavements and not leaving obstacles on pavements, things that I'm happy to support.

Quote:
If you don't thinking licensing is the solution, then what is your solution?

Direct action, challenge the person riding on the pavement and block their way. If a significant collision occurs and the cyclist rides off then take a description of the person and the bike and report it to the police. I know it doesn't prevent it happening in the first place but then I don't believe licensing would either.

Find all posts by this user Reply
Cellar Door


Posts: 356
Joined: Oct 2007
Post: #71
07-06-2011 11:07 AM

I’ve been riding in London since I first got here in 1996. (And boy, am I tired!)

I generally ride from Forest Hill to Marylebone weekdays and I’ve not noticed an increase in pavement cycling. Nor a discernable decrease. And neither have I seen more or less spinning Grannies.

Hillsideresident, to answer your very first question on what do people find is the best strategy for dealing with cyclists who ride on the pavement…I usually cluck my tongue at them.

With an added look of deep disappointment while shaking my head and looking down at the ground.

The type of look that my parents generally gave me for most things. As a best strategy - it has limited success. Unless my tongue clucking and head shaking is causing a paradise of pavements without cyclists between Forest Hill and Marylebone.

Something inspired you to seek suggestions in dealing with pavement cyclists. Apart from your anecdotal evidence and that of other forum users including myself, is there any statistical evidence you have to determine if this Granny spinning is increasing in our area or further afield? Or maybe even decreasing?

Find all posts by this user Reply
Perryman


Posts: 809
Joined: Dec 2006
Post: #72
07-06-2011 02:36 PM

Yes, lets put some of those neon face signs at key points - pedestrians get a nice smillie face whilst those naughty cyclists are severely frowned at.

This would definitely work, just as it deters those drunken uninsured criminal motorists that speed dangerously out-of-control down Perry Rise.

Find all posts by this user Reply
michael


Posts: 3,220
Joined: Mar 2005
Post: #73
07-06-2011 02:54 PM

One thing that I think would help would be for all bicycles to be equipped with a piece of cardboard in the spokes so that pedestrians could hear them coming along the pavement, or when pedestrians are crossing the road completely oblivious to the world around them. Smile

Find all posts by this user Reply
hillsideresident


Posts: 148
Joined: Jul 2010
Post: #74
07-06-2011 03:25 PM

Expert commenting on blind people getting hit by pavement cyclists: “Blind and partially sighted people are not very confident as a rule. They tend to move slowly and cautiously. There are many collisions.”

Cyclist’s response (after reading the above): “ I don't think [pavement cycling] represents a significant problem.”

Says it all, really.


My proposal would take care of the licensing, insurance and training problems together. I think it would work fine, but I’m not wedded to it. There must be a number of ways you could organize it. But the principle is the same: to give cyclists equal, accountable, adult status with car drivers and motorcyclists. I know how frightening that is to some of you.

Find all posts by this user Reply
Cellar Door


Posts: 356
Joined: Oct 2007
Post: #75
07-06-2011 03:32 PM

hillsideresident Wrote:
...to give cyclists equal, accountable, adult status...

Would children get this "adult status"?

Find all posts by this user Reply
michael


Posts: 3,220
Joined: Mar 2005
Post: #76
07-06-2011 04:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Reply
hillsideresident


Posts: 148
Joined: Jul 2010
Post: #77
07-06-2011 06:36 PM

Statistics, CD? Use your eyes! I know only pedestrians can see these creatures, I do understand that. But have a look next time you’re walking somewhere. Like the oldie beardie today, pedalling his sad, self-centred way through a crowd of schoolchildren on the pavement to save himself 30 seconds at the lights. What sort of example does that set? Statistics!

Find all posts by this user Reply
jollyrog


Posts: 83
Joined: Jul 2008
Post: #78
07-06-2011 07:48 PM

Naughty, naughty...
http://goo.gl/maps/Iyx4

Indeed. If you do a 360° from that image of the cyclist, I count at least 5 cars in the foreground who have parked on the rough ground and (almost certainly) crossed the pavement without the use of a dropped kerb to get there.

In the background I see another five or so (probably) illegal pavement parked cars.

I see one cyclist on the pavement, clearly avoiding a temporary constraint due to roadworks. I don't see any pedestrians behind him or in his immediate path.

Find all posts by this user Reply
jollyrog


Posts: 83
Joined: Jul 2008
Post: #79
07-06-2011 07:54 PM

Naughty, naughty...
http://goo.gl/maps/A3RK

In the follow on image to that, you can see that he's turned his bike to join Dartmouth Road proper from the slip road. Looks to me like he's actually come from the bike racks on the corner (you can see the lock on his top tube) and is looking to be on the road. His crime? possibly cycling two or three metres from the cycle racks to the corner.

Not the best examples to prove a point.

Find all posts by this user Reply
IWereAbsolutelyFuming


Posts: 531
Joined: Oct 2007
Post: #80
07-06-2011 08:15 PM

That's right Hillsideresident, I'm a terrible person. I also hate blind people. And people with glasses, can't stand them.

There is nothing in the article that convinces me that cycling on the pavement is a significant national problem that justifies licensing.

Maybe the cyclists were blind too.

If there are black-spots locally perhaps contacting the Safer Neighbourhoods Teams and asking them to do some special patrols at key times would be a good idea?

Michael...I've been very good and not mentioned that...I don't need the card clacker anymore, my wheezing would alert all but deaf people. But then I hate deaf people too.

Find all posts by this user Reply
Pages (6): « First < Previous 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next > Last »

Friends of Blythe Hill Fields