# time to p*** off the motorists again



## rowan 46 (14 Sep 2011)

I haven't said anything to annoy motorists in a while (if ever ) so I thought I would have a go at putting forward my idea of improving road safety. It goes something like this. Most people are online or have access to computers so I propose that the perception test for drivers is posted online with every driver having to retake it every 12 months 3 attempts to get it right if you fail after 3. A mandatory full re test The purpose of this would be to remind drivers to be aware of their surroundings and stop them driving on automatic. (Hang on a minute while I get my flak gear)


----------



## ian turner (14 Sep 2011)

Ahem that would be a government IT project therefore not a problem as it would be late, over budget, not work and get cancelled 
Would this include the ability to recognise an approaching bike or would BSOs have to covered as well?


----------



## Globalti (14 Sep 2011)

They would give the project to EDS who would screw it up.


----------



## 400bhp (14 Sep 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> *Most* people



and that's where it fails.


----------



## rowan 46 (14 Sep 2011)

400bhp said:


> and that's where it fails.



libraries, jobcentres? what's wrong with workplaces giving access for 30 mins during lunch?


----------



## pally83 (14 Sep 2011)

I don't think you go far enough. The hazard perception test can be passed quite easily with a few random clicks so long as you're not daft with it.

The greatest single thing that could be done to improve road safety is to improve training before the test. Align the current test with an advanced test such as that from the IAM (of which I am a member, having scored full marks on every section of the test ) or RoSPA and better educate new drivers on safe driving. Hopefully, as a side effect, better training would reduce insurance premiums.

I think that 'refresher training' should be mandatory for all drivers after, say, 5 years in order to reduce complacency. But this would only work if the existing standards were sufficiently high.


----------



## Hip Priest (14 Sep 2011)

I think the standard of driving is quite high in the UK, compared to other countries I've visited. Is there really a need for such an expensive, difficult-to-implement policy as the one suggested in the OP?


----------



## oldfatfool (14 Sep 2011)

Will there be a similar test for some cyclists


----------



## element (14 Sep 2011)

I have a better idea, seeing as the lovely tarmac roads that cyclists love so much are paid for by the massive rates of VED and fuel paid for by car drivers, why don't we make a law that cycles have to have their own VED and insurance before they are allowed on the road. 
I also suggest that seeing as the most petrol hungry cars contribute the most money to the exchequer, we should have special lanes on all the motorways for any car over three litres or any car with more than 200 bhp.
We could invent a special rule where cyclists who have road bikes pay more in VED as they cannot survive without the roads paid for by car drivers. MTB'ers don't need roads so they can pay less. Obviously cyclists who have high powered cars get heavy discounts on VED. Also any roadie in team colours lycra should get an extra penalty as punishment for looking like a dick.


----------



## ian turner (14 Sep 2011)

Make skate boarders wear number plates and pay road tax !!!!


----------



## element (14 Sep 2011)

The cycling casualty rate in the UK is very low so why not just find ways to encourage more people on to bicycles which has been shown to be the most effective way to reduce cycling casualties on the road.


----------



## element (14 Sep 2011)

ian turner said:


> Make skate boarders wear number plates and pay road tax !!!!



NO make skateboarders wear proper fitting trousers and make a law that any citizen within sight of a baggy trouser wearer MUST attempt to pull those baggy trousers down to the wearers ankles.


----------



## BSRU (14 Sep 2011)

ian turner said:


> Make skate boarders wear number plates and pay road tax !!!!



Make pedestrians wear number plates and pay road tax, or maybe a road toll every time they cross over a road.


----------



## rowan 46 (14 Sep 2011)

My reason for posting was not so much that I feel the general standard of driving is so bad it's just that motorists get complacent . there are regular near misses caused by drivers inattention. it strikes me that anyone who cannot pass the present perception test within 3 attempts has no right to be on the road. I am not trying to force drivers off the road just reminding them to think when they are on it.


----------



## rowan 46 (14 Sep 2011)

element said:


> I have a better idea, seeing as the lovely tarmac roads that cyclists love so much are paid for by the massive rates of VED and fuel paid for by car drivers, why don't we make a law that cycles have to have their own VED and insurance before they are allowed on the road.
> I also suggest that seeing as the most petrol hungry cars contribute the most money to the exchequer, we should have special lanes on all the motorways for any car over three litres or any car with more than 200 bhp.
> We could invent a special rule where cyclists who have road bikes pay more in VED as they cannot survive without the roads paid for by car drivers. MTB'ers don't need roads so they can pay less. Obviously cyclists who have high powered cars get heavy discounts on VED. Also any roadie in team colours lycra should get an extra penalty as punishment for looking like a dick.



roads are paid for by general taxation precisely to stop One set of users claiming ownership


----------



## rowan 46 (14 Sep 2011)

oldfatfool said:


> Will there be a similar test for some cyclists



no but I would like to see cycle training in the education syllabus. i don't remember the figures but most accidents between cyclists and motorists are caused by motorists I am sure somebody will be along to give the figures and details


----------



## gaz (14 Sep 2011)

element said:


> I have a better idea, seeing as the lovely tarmac roads that cyclists love so much are paid for by the massive rates of VED and fuel paid for by car drivers, why don't we make a law that cycles have to have their own VED and insurance before they are allowed on the road.
> I also suggest that seeing as the most petrol hungry cars contribute the most money to the exchequer, we should have special lanes on all the motorways for any car over three litres or any car with more than 200 bhp.
> We could invent a special rule where cyclists who have road bikes pay more in VED as they cannot survive without the roads paid for by car drivers. MTB'ers don't need roads so they can pay less. Obviously cyclists who have high powered cars get heavy discounts on VED. Also any roadie in team colours lycra should get an extra penalty as punishment for looking like a dick.


What a fantastic post but in future it might be a great idea to do some research before posting such a thing.

VED doesn't pay for the roads
Not all motorised vehicles pay VED
Motorised vehicles cause significantly more damage to the roads when compared to a bicycle.


----------



## rowan 46 (14 Sep 2011)

element said:


> The cycling casualty rate in the UK is very low so why not just find ways to encourage more people on to bicycles which has been shown to be the most effective way to reduce cycling casualties on the road.



maybe so but I think it would also cut down accidents between motor vehicles you are never going to stop accidents or driver inattention but this may help a little.


----------



## Theseus (14 Sep 2011)

Re: rowan 46 & gaz responses to elements post on VED.

I can just hear the sound of the line whipping off the reel. I think you protest too fast, I read it as a satirical post putting forward the standard driver position with a bit of embelishment.


----------



## element (14 Sep 2011)

Car drivers pay a shoot load of money in taxes for the honour of driving on the roads, the roads are built and paid for by car drivers, you can argue the semantics all you like car drivers pay a fortune and without that money to the exchequer we would not have those lovely smooth roads. Do you really think that without car drivers paying we would have a tarmac road network ?	
Some people need to get real.


----------



## Theseus (14 Sep 2011)

On the other hand ... maybe he is serious after all.


----------



## element (14 Sep 2011)

Touche said:


> Re: rowan 46 & gaz responses to elements post on VED.
> 
> I can just hear the sound of the line whipping off the reel. I think you protest too fast, I read it as a satirical post putting forward the standard driver position with a bit of embelishment.



Actually to start with I was taking the piss but the line about car drivers not paying for the roads had me caught hook line and sinker.


----------



## sabian92 (14 Sep 2011)

element said:


> Car drivers pay a shoot load of money in taxes for the honour of driving on the roads, the roads are built and paid for by car drivers, you can argue the semantics all you like car drivers pay a fortune and without that money to the exchequer we would not have those lovely smooth roads. Do you really think that without car drivers paying we would have a tarmac road network ?
> Some people need to get real.




Get ready to raise your flameproof shield in 5..4..3..2..1..

Oh, and while I'm at it, you're a moron. I'd say what I actually want but i'd be banned.


----------



## snorri (14 Sep 2011)

element said:


> Car drivers pay a shoot load of money in taxes for the honour of driving on the roads, the roads are built and paid for by car drivers, you can argue the semantics all you like car drivers pay a fortune and without that money to the exchequer we would not have those lovely smooth roads. Do you really think that without car drivers paying we would have a tarmac road network ?
> Some people need to get real.


It's a good idea to post a smiley a little below the end of posts of this nature, this indicates to the reader that you are joking and avoids accusations of trolling as there are still some people around who believe the UK motorist subsidises society when of course the reverse is true.


----------



## John the Monkey (14 Sep 2011)

element said:


> I have a better idea, seeing as the lovely tarmac roads that cyclists love so much are paid for by the massive rates of VED and fuel paid for by car drivers, why don't we make a law that cycles have to have their own VED and insurance before they are allowed on the road.



Slow clap.


----------



## John the Monkey (14 Sep 2011)

element said:


> Car drivers pay a shoot load of money in taxes for the honour of driving on the roads, the roads are built and paid for by car drivers, you can argue the semantics



Psst - you're using "semantics" as a synonym for "facts". HTH, HAND.


----------



## Parrot of Doom (14 Sep 2011)

element said:


> Car drivers pay a shoot load of money in taxes for the honour of driving on the roads, the roads are built and paid for by car drivers, you can argue the semantics all you like car drivers pay a fortune and without that money to the exchequer we would not have those lovely smooth roads. Do you really think that without car drivers paying we would have a tarmac road network ?
> Some people need to get real.



Roads are surfaced with asphalt, you don't seem to know what it is you drive on.

I drive a 4 litre V8 Lexus and I think that as much as I pay in duty, cyclists have more claim to the roads than I do.

By the way, historically it was cyclists who prompted local authorities to tarmac roads. Not motorists.


----------



## adds21 (14 Sep 2011)

element said:


> Car drivers pay a shoot load of money in taxes for the honour of driving on the roads, the roads are built and paid for by car drivers, you can argue the semantics all you like car drivers pay a fortune and without that money to the exchequer we would not have those lovely smooth roads. Do you really think that without car drivers paying we would have a tarmac road network ?
> Some people need to get real.



Damn right. And I pay for the hospitals though my tax and NI, so anyone not paying tax and NI can bloody well sort out their own injuries...


----------



## John the Monkey (14 Sep 2011)

adds21 said:


> Damn right. And I pay for the hospitals though my tax and NI, so anyone not paying tax and NI can bloody well sort out their own injuries...



Think of the tax you pay on beer! Surely those freeloading soft drink drinkers shouldn't be entitled to YOUR bar stools?


----------



## rowan 46 (14 Sep 2011)

John the Monkey said:


> Think of the tax you pay on beer! Surely those freeloading soft drink drinkers shouldn't be entitled to YOUR bar stools?



I don't care who has my stools anyone can have them.


----------



## adds21 (14 Sep 2011)

John the Monkey said:


> Think of the tax you pay on beer! Surely those freeloading soft drink drinkers shouldn't be entitled to YOUR bar stools?



...And don't get me started on those freeloading school children. Having the cheek to learn at the school *I* pay for. Bet none of them have ever paid a penny in tax. Scroungers, the lot of them.


----------



## gaz (14 Sep 2011)

element said:


> Car drivers pay a shoot load of money in taxes for the honour of driving on the roads, the roads are built and paid for by car drivers, you can argue the semantics all you like car drivers pay a fortune and without that money to the exchequer we would not have those lovely smooth roads. Do you really think that without car drivers paying we would have a tarmac road network ?
> Some people need to get real.


Your argument is like stating that we can't live without smokers because they generate so much tax. It is of course bollocks because they generate costs!

I'll add that I will happy pay VED for my bicycle. Oh wait I already do.


----------



## ian turner (14 Sep 2011)

John the Monkey said:


> Think of the tax you pay on beer! Surely those freeloading soft drink drinkers shouldn't be entitled to YOUR bar stools?


The mark up on soft drinks in pubs makes fuel duty pale into insignificance, get off my stool wife beater !!!


----------



## Bicycle (14 Sep 2011)

I think the OP is quite right about motorists getting complacent. I think we all do from time to time.

I see it in drivers, pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists. Nonetheless, I quite like the current system. It seems to work reasonably well. 

I've been hurling my children onto bicycles and encouraging them to ride along sweeping, fast, rural A-Roads since they were _tag-along_ age. They were out there in rain, shine and sleet.

They are now 12, 15 and 18 and all remain extant. All still ride for pleasure on those very same roads.

These roads are populated by vehicles of between one and forty-ish tonnes, travelling at between 50 and 90 mph with only a human being in charge of speed, direction and road position. Human frailty being what it is, I think that as a wider road-using community we do OK.

I am regularly staggered not by the carnage on UK roads, but by how few incidents and collisions there are in a system of shared-use infrastructure that would never get off the back of an envelope if designed from scratch today.

I've been bumped off my bicycle many times and absolutely walloped for six in car and on motorbike... but I glory in the barminess of it. 

One test at seventeen* and then only money and good sense stand between you and 500 bhp. That's part of the romance of life, isn't it?

Even better, cyclists can propel themselves into that Rollerball nightmare without even passing a test or an assessment. 




(* I refer to the test in place when I was 17)


----------



## John the Monkey (14 Sep 2011)

adds21 said:


> ...And don't get me started on those freeloading school children. Having the cheek to learn at the school *I* pay for. Bet none of them have ever paid a penny in tax. Scroungers, the lot of them.



And you lot, walking between the streetlights *I* pay for, when I hardly EVER go out at nights. I'd put a coin meter on 'em. 5p a light, just enough time for you to walk briskly to the next one. (c) Mark Steele


----------



## ian turner (14 Sep 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> no but I would like to see cycle training in the education syllabus. i don't remember the figures but most accidents between cyclists and motorists are caused by motorists I am sure somebody will be along to give the figures and details


Can't do that. Health and safety and the possibility of litigation.


----------



## Bicycle (14 Sep 2011)

gaz said:


> Your argument is like stating that we can't live without smokers because they generate so much tax. It is of course bollocks because they generate costs!
> 
> I'll add that I will happy pay VED for my bicycle. Oh wait I already do.




A private healthcare provider carried out research about twenty years ago into whole-life healthcare costs for smokers and non-smokers.

Oddly, the cost for smokers was lower, as they generally miss out that bit of life near the end where costs are higher because of the frequent need for constant care. 

Although smokers do get ill, they have a habit of getting very ill and dying (COPD, heart disease and various cancers).

I was amazed at the findings, but whenever I mention them a doctor nods sagely and says it is so.

I'd like to add, however, that as a former smoker I've paid all the taxes needed to care for me after the serious accident I'll inevitably had while cycling to regain my fitness after quitting. So there!


----------



## John the Monkey (14 Sep 2011)

Bicycle said:


> I am regularly staggered not by the carnage on UK roads, but by how few incidents and collisions there are in a system of shared-use infrastructure that would never get off the back of an envelope if designed from scratch today.



This is the Clarkson position, as I recall, that 3,000 or so deaths a year is something to be pleased with. 

I think the "few" incidents arise at least partly from;

1) The motor car has largely bullied all but the brave, skilful or foolhardy from the roads.

2) The motorist has become increasingly well protected by their vehicle

3) A degree of "herd immunity" in which the careful compensate for people on their phones, reading books &c at the wheel. (Punishments for the latter being risible, and there being no sense that this is dangerous behaviour in the way that, say, drink driving is perceived to be).

4) "Forgiving" road design


----------



## element (14 Sep 2011)

Parrot of Doom said:


> Roads are surfaced with asphalt, you don't seem to know what it is you drive on.
> 
> I drive a 4 litre V8 Lexus and I think that as much as I pay in duty, cyclists have more claim to the roads than I do.
> 
> By the way, historically it was cyclists who prompted local authorities to tarmac roads. Not motorists.



Um no I think you y are wrong seeing as Asphault is the name given to the binding agent used to secure the aggregate in Asphault concrete which is one of many things that can be used to build roads including Tarmac. 

You also have very bad taste on cars.


----------



## element (14 Sep 2011)

John the Monkey said:


> Psst - you're using "semantics" as a synonym for "facts". HTH, HAND.


I am really not using semantics as a synonym for facts. HTH


----------



## rowan 46 (14 Sep 2011)

gaz said:


> Your argument is like stating that we can't live without smokers because they generate so much tax. It is of course bollocks because they generate costs!
> 
> I'll add that I will happy pay VED for my bicycle. Oh wait I already do.



Annual revenue 2009/10 £8.779 billion (http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/tax_receipts/table1-2.pdf)
Cost to nhs £5.2 billion (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/5478135/Smoking-costs-the-NHS-more-than-5bn.html)
and of course smokers don't live so long so pensions don't have to be paid for so long. however taking the purely economic costs out that's too many people dying who don't need to


----------



## 4F (14 Sep 2011)

element said:


> I am really not using semantics as a synonym for facts. HTH




Blimey, you really did meant your earlier post ROFPML


----------



## BSRU (14 Sep 2011)

Bicycle said:


> A private healthcare provider carried out research about twenty years ago into whole-life healthcare costs for smokers and non-smokers.
> 
> Oddly, the cost for smokers was lower, as they generally miss out that bit of life near the end where costs are higher because of the frequent need for constant care.
> 
> ...



There was some research a while ago that basically stated the government should not be discouraging smokers, drinkers and the unfit as they die younger so the government saves all that pension money and all the associated care costs for pensioners. Non-drinking, non-smoking healthy people are a real drain on the countries finances


----------



## element (14 Sep 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> Annual revenue 2009/10 £8.779 billion (http://www.hmrc.gov....ts/table1-2.pdf)
> Cost to nhs £5.2 billion (http://www.telegraph...e-than-5bn.html)
> and of course smokers don't live so long so pensions don't have to be paid for so long. however taking the purely economic costs out that's too many people dying who don't need to



5.2 billion refers to the care costs of people who smoke not the care costs of people sufering from health issues caused by smoking according to that article. Its a bit like the fallacy of man made global warming people ,with an agenda can bend the numbers to fit any theory they like.


----------



## rowan 46 (14 Sep 2011)

ian turner said:


> Can't do that. Health and safety and the possibility of litigation.



they put rugby and hockey on the syllabus why not cycling in P.E


----------



## growingvegetables (14 Sep 2011)

> you can argue the semantics all you like car drivers pay a fortune and without that money to the exchequer we would not have those lovely smooth roads.



If you are seriously suggesting we have "lovely smooth roads", you're bonkers  

But I like your idea - if car drivers pay for them, then it's time to make drivers pay *a damned sight more* to get the roads back into good repair.


----------



## element (14 Sep 2011)

Only 160 odd cyclists die each year while using the motorists roads.


----------



## element (14 Sep 2011)

growingvegetables said:


> If you are seriously suggesting we have "lovely smooth roads", you're bonkers
> 
> But I like your idea - if car drivers pay for them, then it's time to make drivers pay *a damned sight more* to get the roads back into good repair.



Go to anywhere outside Western Europe and Noth America then let me see you complain about our roads.


----------



## Bicycle (14 Sep 2011)

John the Monkey said:


> This is the Clarkson position, as I recall, that 3,000 or so deaths a year is something to be pleased with.
> 
> I think the "few" incidents arise at least partly from;
> 
> ...




It may seem that I am with Clarkson on this, but the truth is otherwise.

I am a keen cyclist and motorist.

He is a keen motorist who claims to have contempt for cyclists.

I am not pleased about the road-death figures, but I am staggered that they are not higher. That was my point. I think the current system works well. That doesn't mean I am pleased when casualties occur.

I do glory in the barminess of such mass, force and velocity being in the hands of mere human beings, but I cycle in that stuff too. So do my wife and children. 

I'm not sure I agree either about cars bullying other road users off the roads. I see more cyclists now than I did 10, 20 or 30 years ago. 

I may be wrong, perception is not always my friend.


----------



## Mad at urage (14 Sep 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> libraries, jobcentres? what's wrong with workplaces giving access for 30 mins during lunch?


What about retired drivers? How are they supposed to access a computer?

In any case, the perception test is not about perception, it is about being familiar with online games and learning a new game. I (and other advanced motorists) frequently fail those tests available on the web, because we percieve more things as potential hazards and see all the hazards too early: The 'test' decides we are clicking too much and must be doing so at random (I give you for example the cyclist overtaking a truck, posted earlier on these forums: The 'test' identifies the cyclist as a potential hazard when he looks over his shoulder having realised there is a lorry in front of him. I realised he was going to move out some time before that ...).

Many perfectly good and safe drivers have not spent their youth interacting with computers. Your suggestion discriminates against them.


----------



## rowan 46 (14 Sep 2011)

element said:


> Only 160 odd cyclists die each year while using the motorists roads.



most of which are caused by driver carelessness and what about injuries to cyclists near misses and motorist on motorist crashes a pedestrian was killed down our street 2 weeks ago 15years old leaving a grieving family. every untimely death leaves somebody else with a shattered life. no body is saying motorists go out like death race 2000 the problem is that once people have the piece of paper saying they can drive they never have to be accountable again unless something serious happens and then that's too late.


----------



## rowan 46 (14 Sep 2011)

Mad@urage said:


> What about retired drivers? How are they supposed to access a computer?
> 
> In any case, the perception test is not about perception, it is about being familiar with online games and learning a new game. I (and other advanced motorists) frequently fail those tests available on the web, because we percieve more things as potential hazards and see all the hazards too early: The 'test' decides we are clicking too much and must be doing so at random (I give you for example the cyclist overtaking a truck, posted earlier on these forums: The 'test' identifies the cyclist as a potential hazard when he looks over his shoulder having realised there is a lorry in front of him. I realised he was going to move out some time before that ...).
> 
> Many perfectly good and safe drivers have not spent their youth interacting with computers. Your suggestion discriminates against them.



you may have a point about its failings but its surely not beyond the wit of man to design a good one. I am not sure how many don't have access to the internet i must admit but most people could get access if they have a reason surely half an hour to keep your license isnt too much to ask. schools could be opened up for a couple of hours in the evening etc


----------



## Rhythm Thief (14 Sep 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> My reason for posting was not so much that I feel the general standard of driving is so bad it's just that motorists get complacent . there are regular near misses caused by drivers inattention. it strikes me that anyone who cannot pass the present perception test within 3 attempts has no right to be on the road. I am not trying to force drivers off the road just reminding them to think when they are on it.



I've never even taken a hazard perception test, and I drive around 1800 miles every week.


----------



## tsddave (14 Sep 2011)

Comparing this between England and Norway (where I live now!) I would say the roads in the UK are much better.
The roads in Norway suffer alot here and pots holes and cracks are commonplace. The cycle paths are better in Norway though, at least those in the area I live.


----------



## lukesdad (14 Sep 2011)

I d do one for cyclists first.


----------



## Mad at urage (14 Sep 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> you may have a point about its failings but its surely not beyond the wit of man to design a good one. I am not sure how many don't have access to the internet i must admit but most people could get access if they have a reason surely half an hour to keep your license isnt too much to ask. schools could be opened up for a couple of hours in the evening etc


Certainly it is not beyond the wit of man to design a good computer game, but as long as it is accessed via a normal computer, htat is what it remains, not a driving simulator (whatever its title may be).

Again, many perfectly good and safe drivers have not spent their youth interacting with computers (or computer games).


----------



## abo (14 Sep 2011)

Globalti said:


> They would give the project to EDS who would screw it up.



Hewlett Packard now, you should know that


----------



## Wankelschrauben (14 Sep 2011)

To implement what the OP has proposed would cost an absolute fortune in immediate and ongoing costs.

It will also reduce revenues by some degree for all those who fail, lose their licences and possibly their jobs.

Perhaps instead of such a drastic change, a simpler solution would be to include into the hazard perception test an additional area focusing upon the required distance and correct manner by which to pass a cyclist and what to look out for including wind against flags and other hazards that may cause a cyclist to swerve or change direction suddenly.

Also, to remind road users, a televised road safety campaign could also be produced. Like the ones they used to make for speed awareness and the look, look and look again campaigns.

In reality, the vast majority of motorists have no idea of the danger that they pose to a bicycle or slower moving vehicle whilst overtaking, anything from wind turbulence to actual colision.

I'm sure a video from inside the average car of an average man overtaking a cyclist too closely, or cutting back in too soon, or slowing immediately upon overtaking, all whilst perfectly happy and blissfully unaware to suddenly hear the blood churning consequences of the carnage caused behind him will change the majority of motorists actions when passing a cyclist.


----------



## rowan 46 (14 Sep 2011)

Mad@urage said:


> Certainly it is not beyond the wit of man to design a good computer game, but as long as it is accessed via a normal computer, htat is what it remains, not a driving simulator (whatever its title may be).
> 
> Again, many perfectly good and safe drivers have not spent their youth interacting with computers (or computer games).



neither did i say they had but the perception test has been part of the driving test for some time now. It,s just that there have been calls on many forums for many years for mandatory retesting. i feel that is going too far. But in many other walks of life if you were using dangerous machinery you would be required to do refreshers and or recertification I was just trying to suggest what I felt to be the minimum required. To my mind most accidents are caused by driver inattention any way to make concentration better would i am sure help cut accidents and maybe driver costs


----------



## rowan 46 (14 Sep 2011)

Wankelschrauben said:


> To implement what the OP has proposed would cost an absolute fortune in immediate and ongoing costs.
> 
> It will also reduce revenues by some degree for all those who fail, lose their licences and possibly their jobs.
> 
> ...



I would go for that but that still leaves the millions who have already taken their tests and doesn't address driver complacency as to cost I am not sure it would cost so much. as I have said in other threads it's a talking point that's all I am not wedded to the idea but who knows someone may something useful. I agree it's only a half thought idea and needs fleshing out or abandoning. that's why I brought it to you lot


----------



## Rhythm Thief (14 Sep 2011)

The problem is not that people are unaware of hazards on the road or cyclists, it's just that more and more people think that they and they alone are the centre of the universe, and consequently don't even begin to take other road users into account when they're trying to get somewhere. You won't change that by making them sit a test every five years. The first step would be perhaps to try and educate people to make them realise that there is actually no such thing as a right to have everything exactly how they want it at all times ...


----------



## Parrot of Doom (14 Sep 2011)

element said:


> Um no I think you y are wrong seeing as Asphault is the name given to the binding agent used to secure the aggregate in Asphault concrete which is one of many things that can be used to build roads including Tarmac.
> 
> You also have very bad taste on cars.





No, I think I'm right. And you appear to know **** all about cars. Or cycling.

What else do you know **** all about?


----------



## Parrot of Doom (14 Sep 2011)

User said:


> Valid points





You missed one. Massive expansion of traffic police numbers, officers tasked only to road-related work, and not general policing.


----------



## adds21 (14 Sep 2011)

User said:


> The only real answers to addressing poor driving are:
> 
> 
> Bring back an understanding that driving is a privilege - not a right.
> ...



Harsh, but I find myself agreeing with most.


----------



## rowan 46 (14 Sep 2011)

User said:


> The only real answers to addressing poor driving are:
> 
> 
> Bring back an understanding that driving is a privilege - not a right.
> ...



I am not sure I agree with you although for the the life of me I can't think why as it seems eminently sensible. I think my problem is that that is too draconian. Many people once they have passed a test change their lives to suit. they get jobs that rely on them to drive etc. I don't like the idea of people being put out of work. However I do think some way of reminding drivers how dangerous their vehicles are if they don't pay attention would be a good idea. As a care worker i regularly have to do training and refreshers i usually come back refocussed on my job I was putting out this idea to see if the same same principle could be applied.


----------



## Davidc (14 Sep 2011)

ian turner said:


> Make skate boarders wear number plates and pay road tax !!!!



And PED for walking?


----------



## Dan B (14 Sep 2011)

User said:


> Anyone driving without a license should have the car confiscated and crushed.



Just as a matter of interest, would you let the car occupants get out first?


----------



## snorri (14 Sep 2011)

Dan B said:


> [/size]Just as a matter of interest, would you let the car occupants get out first?


There's a soft streak in you Dan B.


----------



## hennbell (14 Sep 2011)

It is mind boggling that motorist still go on about road tax, and their lack of understanding. There is no such thing as road tax!


----------



## Bicycle (14 Sep 2011)

User said:


> The only real answers to addressing poor driving are:
> 
> 
> Bring back an understanding that driving is a privilege - not a right.
> ...




I read the above with interest but I find some of it slightly Draconian. There is certainly poor driving, but I'm not convinced that the proposed regime is the answer. Certainly not 'the only real answer'. Drink drivers and banned drivers often assume they won't get caught. 

I quite like the way things are going at the moment. There have been recent changes. It's not perfect but the rudder has been applied and the ship is turning in its own good time.

I went on a 'Speed Awareness Course' a few weeks ago rather than pay a fine and take points. It was only an option for drivers who were within X mph of the limit, but it was still (to my mind) better than slapping points on someone and leaving them poorer but no wiser.

I learned something and I am now slightly more responsible on the roads. Slightly....

The guy who led the workshop said they also do ones for dangerous drivers, drink drivers folk who'd nodded off when driving and so on (not as an alternative to punishment but in addition to). 

This seems sensible and progressive to me. 

As someone who was banned whilst still too young to drive, I can assure you that it is not difficult to lose a license. I deserved it 112%, but it really was as easy as falling off a log.


----------



## CopperCyclist (14 Sep 2011)

The hazard perception test is rubbish. A mate once bought a version to test himself. I tried it and only just passed. It said I wasn't spotting hazards.

Actually I was. I was just spotting them before the test thought it was appropriate - i.e. the van in front of you is a hazard to be aware of, it doesn't only a hazard the moment it crosses the white line. Drive the way an advanced driving course or a police course tell you, and the hazard test thinks you're rubbish!


----------



## John the Monkey (14 Sep 2011)

Bicycle said:


> I am not pleased about the road-death figures, but I am staggered that they are not higher. That was my point. I think the current system works well. That doesn't mean I am pleased when casualties occur.



Pleased might be overstating - having had time to retrieve the actual quote;

_"We need to get the message across that 3,200 deaths a year is tragic but not excessive. With 30 million vehicles on the roads it’s nothing short of a bloody miracle.”
_
It's excessive for the poor buggers in that 3,200. Whilst some collisions are unavoidable, both my serious "offs" have been the result of appalling misjudgement, and impatience by drivers. I suspect that certainty of punishment might have made them decide not to try to enter a roundabout through me, or overtake me where there wasn't room. 

Whilst anecdote is not data, I see an increasing amount of impatience, casual law breaking, and wilful self distraction by drivers in Manchester. I half joke that it's only a matter of time before I see someone building a ship in a bottle at the wheel. 

I think there's also the issue of our road culture, which I find it hard to glory in. Whilst cycling is, statistically, safe, it's pretty bloody unpleasant, especially compared to riding in the parts of France and Belgium that I've had the good fortune to visit.



> I do glory in the barminess of such mass, force and velocity being in the hands of mere human beings, but I cycle in that stuff too. So do my wife and children.
> 
> I'm not sure I agree either about cars bullying other road users off the roads. I see more cyclists now than I did 10, 20 or 30 years ago.


Your family is, I suspect, in the minority, sadly - as for more cyclists, I think it's happening despite the culture of the roads & perception of danger. If that latter changed, (and I don't care how that happens) I suspect there'd be a veritable explosion of cycling in the UK.


----------



## Bicycle (14 Sep 2011)

John the Monkey said:


> Pleased might be overstating - having had time to retrieve the actual quote;
> 
> _"We need to get the message across that 3,200 deaths a year is tragic but not excessive. With 30 million vehicles on the roads it’s nothing short of a bloody miracle.”
> _
> ...



Grrrrr... I reluctantly find myself agreeing with much of what you say. I can't bear agreeing with people.

I think I do slightly romanticise the duelling swordplay that our roads can occasionally be. I'm a reformed courier (motorbike) so I am drawn to the two-stroke stink and the sound of shattering wing mirrors that London used to provide. 

I entirely take your point about wilful self-distraction. I might even start using the phrase myself.

However, I could imagine myself typing the second sentence of your Clarkson quote, if not the first. The difference is that we are typing from different positions at the table. In fact, I think we might not even be typing from the same restaurant.


----------



## gaz (14 Sep 2011)

i suspect element is trollin
[media]
]View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bMLrA_0O5I[/media]


----------



## User16625 (14 Sep 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> I haven't said anything to annoy motorists in a while (if ever ) so I thought I would have a go at putting forward my idea of improving road safety. It goes something like this. Most people are online or have access to computers so I propose that the perception test for drivers is posted online with every driver having to retake it every 12 months 3 attempts to get it right if you fail after 3. A mandatory full re test The purpose of this would be to remind drivers to be aware of their surroundings and stop them driving on automatic. (Hang on a minute while I get my flak gear)



I see one serious flaw in that idea. What if you disconnect before completing the test, does it count as a fail? If so that would be unfair. If not, people would exploit this if they thought they werent doing well when they near the end of the test. Any such test would need to be carried out in a test centre for this reason. Also motorists pay through the nose as it is, any extra cost isnt going to go down well.


----------



## DrSquirrel (14 Sep 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> I haven't said anything to annoy motorists in a while (if ever ) so I thought I would have a go at putting forward my idea of improving road safety. It goes something like this. Most people are online or have access to computers so I propose that the perception test for drivers is posted online with every driver having to retake it every 12 months 3 attempts to get it right if you fail after 3. A mandatory full re test The purpose of this would be to remind drivers to be aware of their surroundings and stop them driving on automatic. (Hang on a minute while I get my flak gear)




I've done the perception tests, and they are utter utter shite.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (15 Sep 2011)

hennbell said:


> It is mind boggling that motorist still go on about road tax, and their lack of understanding. There is no such thing as road tax!



Technically, you're quite right. But it's used as a shorthand for "vehicle excise duty", which takes longer to say even though it is more accurate. It's not important.


----------



## John the Monkey (15 Sep 2011)

Rhythm Thief said:


> Technically, you're quite right. But it's used as a shorthand for "vehicle excise duty", which takes longer to say even though it is more accurate. It's not important.



Car tax? Vee Ee Dee?


----------



## John the Monkey (15 Sep 2011)

Bicycle said:


> I think I do slightly romanticise the duelling swordplay that our roads can occasionally be. I'm a reformed courier (motorbike) so I am drawn to the two-stroke stink and the sound of shattering wing mirrors that London used to provide.



Eh, I dislike it. Luckily I like cycling more than I dislike it. I don't want to be a road warrior, and I don't think people should have to be to ride a bike. If I wanted to fight, I'd box again.


----------



## techno (15 Sep 2011)

I have to say I have read this thread and found it entertaining, I run a forum and wether you ride a pushbike, motorbike or drive a car you will get threads like this so its nothing new.
I have to say I would like to see no more forced legislation, regular retests seem to be a common proporsition however for a start people struggle to get a first test let alone the logistics for retests!
Then theres the problem of thnose that would fail, loss of jobs possibly and then theres the poor unfortunate disabled people. no probs hey lets leave them housebound.

People have gone on about how the tes should be harder, well the test is nothing more than a competancy test all the real learning is done after ouve passed, well it was for me as i regard myself as a better driver now than i was just after passing, yet if i took my test again i could infact fail on some minor point that is useless in everyday driving.

Someone suggested that before doing a test we should spend 6 months on a bike, hey why not go further do tiime on motorbikes, lorries buses am sure that wouldnt cause the accident stats to rise at all utter nonsense and anyway most people have served longer on bikes as upto the age of 16 a push bike is all you can ride, i also dont remember moaning about driving standards as a child hell how did we survive!
One thing I do agree with is that the hpt is pointless I passed mine after I had been driving for nearly 20 years and it really doesnt apply to actual road use imo!
As for the op, way to go why would you want to deliberatly piss off any road user, surely as a cyclist not actually knowing what a traffic light is or is used for probaly pisses off motorists already!


----------



## Wankelschrauben (15 Sep 2011)

techno said:


> I have to say I have read this thread and found it entertaining, I run a forum and wether you ride a pushbike, motorbike or drive a car you will get threads like this so its nothing new.
> I have to say I would like to see no more forced legislation, regular retests seem to be a common proporsition however for a start people struggle to get a first test let alone the logistics for retests!
> Then theres the problem of thnose that would fail, loss of jobs possibly and then theres the poor unfortunate disabled people. no probs hey lets leave them housebound.
> 
> ...




I agree with what this guys says to this point.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Sep 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> I haven't said anything to annoy motorists in a while (if ever ) so I thought I would have a go at putting forward my idea of improving road safety. It goes something like this. Most people are online or have access to computers so I propose that the perception test for drivers is posted online with every driver having to retake it every 12 months 3 attempts to get it right if you fail after 3. A mandatory full re test The purpose of this would be to remind drivers to be aware of their surroundings and stop them driving on automatic. (Hang on a minute while I get my flak gear)



Single biggest problem I see is how to stop another from taking the test for you.


----------



## John the Monkey (15 Sep 2011)

techno said:


> I have to say I would like to see no more forced legislation



Agreed - I'd like to see the laws we actually have enforced before even more are enacted (although I reckon presumption of liability, along the lines of continental systems would make a massive difference to the experiences of pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists).



> As for the op, way to go why would you want to deliberatly piss off any road user, surely as a cyclist not actually knowing what a traffic light is or is used for probaly pisses off motorists already!



I've no idea, although I also don't know why being asked to show competency to operate a car safely would "piss off" drivers. As for the red light jibe, Ho, ho. Give us the road tax one next time.


----------



## DrSquirrel (15 Sep 2011)

techno said:


> I have to say I have read this thread and found it entertaining, I run a forum and wether you ride a pushbike, motorbike or drive a car you will get threads like this so its nothing new.
> I have to say I would like to see no more forced legislation, regular retests seem to be a common proporsition however for a start people struggle to get a first test let alone the logistics for retests!
> Then theres the problem of thnose that would fail, loss of jobs possibly and then theres the poor unfortunate disabled people. no probs hey lets leave them housebound.



So you are saying that someone that is uncapable of driving (failing a test) should still be allowed to just because they are disabled?

And if someone struggles to pass first time, this sounds like a good reason for a retest every so often.

As you say, the test is not really related to real world driving... so surely retests should be much easier for "experienced" drivers. Not that I like this idea of "real world driving" anyway, as peoples view on this is more to do with how to push the limit, gamble with lights and pushing your way through traffic wherever possible.


----------



## Bicycle (15 Sep 2011)

User said:


> What absolute tosh!
> 
> As a society we have become in thrall to the motor vehicle and, it would appear, willing to excuse any behaviour by motorists.
> 
> ...




It may be a little harsh accusing another contributor of writing absolute tosh. 

I'm not sure that we are _in thrall to motor vehicles_. They are central to the way we live now, but so are telephony, the Water Main and the National Grid. I think I'd find it hard to live as I do without my saucepans, collender, wooden spoon and chopping board too. That doesn't mean I'm in thrall to them.

I've lived without mains power, piped water and cars at different times and it's perfectly possible but not always convenient or easy. There's a difference between being in thrall to something and exploiting its utility.

Most of what I eat and much of what I own has been delivered at some stage in a car, van or lorry. Deliveries to my LBS are by van; those from Wiggle to my door, likewise. 

I'm not sure, either, that we're willing as a society to _excuse any behaviour by motorists_. Some people will always get away with outrageous or criminal acts. I wonder if there is anywhere in the world where they don't. But in general, I think our roads are well policed. 

As things stand, drivers are tested and issued with a license that can be withdrawn from them for a number of reasons. Motor vehicles are tested annually for roadworthiness. 3P insurance is mandatory. VED must be paid and proof of payment displayed. Drivers suspected of having excess alcohol in their system can be stopped and tested. All of that is as it should be.

Cyclists, on the other hand, just go out and buy a bicycle. 

Motorists and cyclists are all road users. I'm not at all in favour of testing cyclists, but I do wonder why we'd advocate regular re-testing of one set of road users when another is never tested. 

I realise there's the point about the comparison between a series of light metal tubes and a 70-mph metal box weighing over a tonnne (which has its merits as an argument) but I'm really not convinced that regular re-tests would make things any better. 

Just a thought.


----------



## element (15 Sep 2011)

User said:


> You really are a bit of half-wit, aren't you?
> 
> The £5.2 billion is the cost to the whole economy - not just the NHS. The costs to the NHS of smoking related diseases is about half of that total - and that's for the whole population, not just the smokers.
> 
> ...



You are an imbecile, the title of the article is 'smoking costs the NHS more than 5 billion'. Aside from that the point I was making was more about the manipulation of the statistics by parties who clearly had an agenda. You really are a bit slow. I would suggest that being completely out of your depth in this debate, you go and sit down for a bit


----------



## John the Monkey (15 Sep 2011)

Bicycle said:


> I'm not sure, either, that we're willing as a society to _excuse any behaviour by motorists_. Some people will always get away with outrageous or criminal acts. I wonder if there is anywhere in the world where they don't. But in general, I think our roads are well policed.





> "Official figures obtained by The Independent on Sunday show that more than 10,000 motorists have totted up at least 12 points for offences including drink-driving, speeding, and failing to produce a specimen. One Bradford motorist is still on the road even though he or she has collected 32 points."
> 
> ...
> 
> The Driver Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) revealed that on 6 August, 10,072 drivers in Great Britain had 12 or more current penalty points, but were still entitled to drive. The figures, obtained under freedom of information legislation, show that more than 120 motorists had 20 or more points, seven have 30 or more and one, in Bradford, has 32.



http://www.driving.o...-points-or-more (widely reported elsewhere too).

Or talk to someone about "road rage", and then similar behaviour in a different social context (down the pub, say). Do they react in the same way to both?


----------



## ClichéGuevara (15 Sep 2011)

For my work,to comply with their insurance I need to take periodic re-tests in order to drive company vehicles, (laughable as the insurance excess is equal to the value of the vehicle, but that's another issue). 

I have no problem at all with this as it keeps me on my toes and more up to date with regulations than I might otherwise be. Incidentally, it gets quite involved in speed awareness and mobile phone use, but doesn't cover anything specific about cyclists.

Some people fail the test, but can still use their own vehicle for work purposes, which I'm not sure of the liability consequences of. Others find reasons not to use company vehicles to avoid the test. Listening to their comments about driving (what's wrong with sitting in the middle lane?) I think they're right to be nervous.

A consequence of this test is that the overall insurance premium is very low, accidents and motoring offences are rarities, driving standards are maintained, and fuel economy and vehicle life greatly increased by more efficient driving. All in all it makes it cost effective for my employrer and I'd certainly closely consider a similar option if it were available to me as a private individual.


----------



## Jezston (15 Sep 2011)

element said:


> You are an imbecile, the title of the article is 'smoking costs the NHS more than 5 billion'. Aside from that the point I was making was more about the manipulation of the statistics by parties who clearly had an agenda. You really are a bit slow. I would suggest that being completely out of your depth in this debate, you go and sit down for a bit



Dude, just accept you were wrong about the whole 'road tax' bollocks and we can all move on. 

You are just digging yourself into a hole.

In other news, I live in Nottingham and pay council tax, which pays for the roads in Nottingham. Should people from other cities, in particular Derby, not be allowed to use our roads? Also students who don't pay council tax?


----------



## element (15 Sep 2011)

However you want to paint it the money for the lovely smooth roads is only there because people who drive pay a lot in VED and fuel tax. DO you really think without that money we would have such a well developed road system ? Motorists are a massive source of revenue for the government and cyclists, especially those left wing hippie types with no grasp of reality, who don't own a car should be charged for being on the roads. 
I personally have no respect for a grown man who does not have a car or motorbike unless they have a medical problem or they live in London or similar city.	Those delusional hippies who cycle out of principal and carry that anti car agenda should be sent to live in the woods so they can wipe their arse with leaves and be a proper hippie.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Sep 2011)

element said:


> However you want to paint it the money for the lovely smooth roads is only there because people who drive pay a lot in VED and fuel tax. DO you really think without that money we would have such a well developed road system ? Motorists are a massive source of revenue for the government and cyclists, especially those left wing hippie types with no grasp of reality, who don't own a car should be charged for being on the roads.
> I personally have no respect for a grown man who does not have a car or motorbike unless they have a medical problem or they live in London or similar city.	Those delusional hippies who cycle out of principal and carry that anti car agenda should be sent to live in the woods so they can wipe their arse with leaves and be a proper hippie.



You Sir are a prick of the highest order.


----------



## Jezston (15 Sep 2011)

Oh dear, and I actually thought at first he wasn't a troll.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Sep 2011)

Jezston said:


> Oh dear, and I actually thought at first he wasn't a troll.



We can all make mistakes.


----------



## lulubel (15 Sep 2011)

I don't think it's driving standards or driver training that are the issue so much as _attitudes_, and this is what needs to change.

Driving standards in the UK are much higher than they are here in Spain, and yet I feel safer cycling on the road here because drivers respect cyclists, and don't have the attitude that they shouldn't be on the road. Getting more people out of their cars and onto bikes is probably all it would take - cycling is a popular activity here - and the government doesn't really need to be proactive about this (by running a big ad campaign, for example) because the rising costs of running a car will just keep pricing more and more car drivers off the roads. And I'm sure those in power are very much aware of that.


----------



## Black Sheep (15 Sep 2011)

element said:


> I have a better idea, seeing as the lovely tarmac roads that cyclists love so much are paid for by the massive rates of VED and fuel paid for by car drivers, why don't we make a law that cycles have to have their own VED and insurance before they are allowed on the road.
> I also suggest that seeing as the most petrol hungry cars contribute the most money to the exchequer, we should have special lanes on all the motorways for any car over three litres or any car with more than 200 bhp.
> We could invent a special rule where cyclists who have road bikes pay more in VED as they cannot survive without the roads paid for by car drivers. MTB'ers don't need roads so they can pay less. Obviously cyclists who have high powered cars get heavy discounts on VED. Also any roadie in team colours lycra should get an extra penalty as punishment for looking like a dick.




Yes, I agree completely, provided that the VED can be worked out on the current system

making all of us zero emission vehicles paying £0.00 per year just like drivers of gwhizz, prius and other hybrid / electric vehicles, adding to the cost of everyone else's VED to fund the disc that is to be displayed. 

and yes, I did pay my £140 VED for my 1.3 hatch



element said:


> Car drivers pay a shoot load of money in taxes for the honour of driving on the roads, the roads are built and paid for by car drivers, you can argue the semantics all you like car drivers pay a fortune and without that money to the exchequer we would not have those lovely smooth roads. Do you really think that without car drivers paying we would have a tarmac road network ?
> Some people need to get real.




actually, if you work it out, the costs of maintaining (not building) the current network based on the costs purely from VED, insurance tax and fuel tax there is a -£5bn to be found from somewhere...
from costs that go straight to central government funds
some of which will end up in local council budgets
who are responsible for the roads in their area
who get the vast majority of their funding from
council tax
the only people who don't pay this are students and people who are not working / on income support or similar. 



going back to the original post, 

I'm looking at doing my motorbike licence this autumn, I passed my test ten years ago, just before hazard perception came in and I've failed the online practice due to clicking too early! I'm putting this down to 10 years driving, but more so, 20 years of cycling, looking further ahead and assuming people are not concentrating on driving. 

I've adapted when i click and pass with flying colours by clicking a second or two later, after the hazard gets to the point I'd like to have already avoided it if possible (cars coming round blind corners while passing a parked car etc) 
what I'm trying to say is, I feel the current test while good, is not perfect. 

the idea of refreshing driving knowledge I do agree with, and having just renewed my licence, wondered if there ought to be a re-visit of the theory test given that things may have changed in that decade. 

I don't think this would be too great an undertaking, you would have to make it possible to take it on evenings and weekends because of people who work full time, but given that the lady in the post office where I renewed it says they get people renewing them for anything up to two years after the renewal date (making the license not valid) so many people would forget or just not bother.


----------



## Jezston (15 Sep 2011)

lulubel said:


> I don't think it's driving standards or driver training that are the issue so much as _attitudes_, and this is what needs to change.
> 
> Driving standards in the UK are much higher than they are here in Spain, and yet I feel safer cycling on the road here because drivers respect cyclists, and don't have the attitude that they shouldn't be on the road. Getting more people out of their cars and onto bikes is probably all it would take - cycling is a popular activity here - and the government doesn't really need to be proactive about this (by running a big ad campaign, for example) because the rising costs of running a car will just keep pricing more and more car drivers off the roads. And I'm sure those in power are very much aware of that.



Very good point.

People in Paris drive like absolute bloody maniacs, and treat other cars like shoot, but they seem to often be far more unexpetantly patient and considerate of cyclists. I've been in situations there that would have led to being cut up, close passed, beeped at or shouted at in the UK which have resulted nothing untowards at all. I'd half expect to see some guy ram another car off the road for daring to attempt to overtake and piss on the burning remains, before encountering me and calmly sitting behind at a safe distance before I turn off.


----------



## Mad at urage (15 Sep 2011)

Black Sheep said:


> I'm looking at doing my motorbike licence this autumn, I passed my test ten years ago, just before hazard perception came in and I've failed the online practice due to clicking too early! I'm putting this down to 10 years driving, but more so, 20 years of cycling, looking further ahead and assuming people are not concentrating on driving.
> 
> *I've adapted when i click and pass with flying colours by clicking a second or two later, after the hazard gets to the point I'd like to have already avoided it if possible* (cars coming round blind corners while passing a parked car etc)
> what I'm trying to say is, I feel the current test while good, is not perfect.
> ...


You've adapted your click due to your experience with computer use and computer games. Many perfectly good drivers have no experience at all of computers, have never played a computer game and have no idea that a mouse can click!

Again, forumites are basing their ideas on their own life experiences and ignoring the needs of those who don't sit at keyboards all day. After all, they're not like us, so can cheerfully be ignored  .

Edit: You're exhibiting the same prejudice that mooted the abolition of cheques, because "Everyone uses a card now".


----------



## Black Sheep (15 Sep 2011)

Mad@urage said:


> You've adapted your click due to your experience with computer use and computer games. Many perfectly good drivers have no experience at all of computers, have never played a computer game and have no idea that a mouse can click!
> 
> Again, forumites are basing their ideas on their own life experiences and ignoring the needs of those who don't sit at keyboards all day. After all, they're not like us, so can cheerfully be ignored  .
> 
> Edit: You're exhibiting the same prejudice that mooted the abolition of cheques, because "Everyone uses a card now".





That isn't what I said. 

I said I had adapted WHEN I click, to click later in the timeline of the hazard.

However, you are correct, my gran would not be able to take the hazard perception test as she's never used a computer. However, my idea of every time the photo card license needs renewing ought to not have this problem since the older generation have paper licences that don't expire and so people who will have to renew are the people who don't know that computers used to not have a mouse. 

as with most things like this, it needs to be phased in.


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (15 Sep 2011)

So as long as you pass a test it's ok to walk away from the examiner, get in a car, recline the seat like a deck chair, turn your hat sideways, scream off in a cloud of burning rubber while steering with your elbow pointed at the sky and one hand on the wheel, blabbing into your mobile and tailgating, bullying, driving head on and screaming abuse at everyone (and yes, I know someone who did and does just that!).
He'll pass a perception test every time - but mowing me down is more fun in the real world.


It's the attitudes and the 'I can get away with it' culture that's killing people.

Even the yellow boxes are being covered up now. That's another law to be broken with impunity.


BTW You'll never convince anyone that's paid a lot of money for something that they're entitled to nothing. It's better to say - "Yes, you're entitled to all this, but we'll take it away if..."
It's the 'take it away if...' bit that's missing these days. No one stresses the consequences enough.


----------



## Mad at urage (15 Sep 2011)

Black Sheep said:


> That isn't what I said.
> 
> I said I had adapted WHEN I click, to click later in the timeline of the hazard.
> 
> ...


Not true, when we moved house we had to get a new licence, this is then a photo-card licence, which expires.



Nigel-YZ1 said:


> So as long as you pass a test it's ok to walk away from the examiner, get in a car, recline the seat like a deck chair, turn your hat sideways, scream off in a cloud of burning rubber while steering with your elbow pointed at the sky and one hand on the wheel, blabbing into your mobile and tailgating, bullying, driving head on and screaming abuse at everyone (and yes, I know someone who did and does just that!).
> He'll pass a perception test every time - but mowing me down is more fun in the real world.
> 
> 
> ...


+1 or whatever de yoofz say


----------



## henshaw11 (15 Sep 2011)

element said:


> However you want to paint it the money for the lovely smooth roads is only there because people who drive pay a lot in VED and fuel tax. DO you really think without that money we would have such a well developed road system ? Motorists are a massive source of revenue for the government and cyclists, especially those left wing hippie types with no grasp of reality, who don't own a car should be charged for being on the roads.
> I personally have no respect for a grown man who does not have a car or motorbike unless they have a medical problem or they live in London or similar city.	Those delusional hippies who cycle out of principal and carry that anti car agenda should be sent to live in the woods so they can wipe their arse with leaves and be a proper hippie.



I'm sure there's a bridge missing your presence, but here goes...apologies if the Guardian's a bit too lefty to be considered your reading material, but beggars, etc..if it's troublesome you could always ask a responsible adult to read it to you 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/2011/aug/15/cyclists-paved-way-for-roads

best read the whole thing, but as a snippett:

"Cyclists' organisations, such as Cyclists' Touring Club in the UK and League of American Wheelmen (LAW) in the US, lobbied county surveyors and politicians to build better roads. The US Good Roads movement, set up by LAW, was highly influential. LAW once had the then US president turn up at its annual general meeting.The CTC individual in charge of the UK version of the Good Roads movement, William Rees Jeffreys, organised asphalt trials before cars became common. He took the reins of the Roads Improvement Association (RIA) in 1890, while working for the CTC."

"The CTC created the RIA in 1885 and, in 1886, organised the first ever Roads Conference in Britain. With patronage – and cash – from aristocrats and royals, the CTC published influential pamphlets on road design and how to create better road surfaces. In some areas, county surveyors took this on board (some were CTC members) and started to improve their local roads.Even though it was started and paid for by cyclists, the RIA stressed from its foundation that it was lobbying for better roads to be used by all, not just cyclists."




The majority of road spending/development in the early decades of the 20thC was funded from council/government - only a fraction came from then 'road tax'. Even when there was a 'road fund' some time later (hence the term 'road fund licence' the intention was to be used for maintenance - ie *damage* done by motor vehicles - rather than roading building as such - and is was later to be wound up anyway:

http://ipayroadtax.com/no-such-thing-as-road-tax/bring-back-the-road-fund/

Partway down that page there's a 5yr-by5yr breakdown of relative revenues/spends...

As I 'm sure has been posted already, VED is now a behaviour modifier - cyclists pay same as any other low emmisions vehicle - and if some figures I've seen recently (mebbe a thread here discussing it) are accurate then roads are effectively subsidised, VED only pays a proportion of all the cost involved.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Sep 2011)

henshaw11 said:


> I'm sure there's a bridge missing your presence, but here goes...apologies if the Guardian's a bit too lefty to be considered your reading material, but beggars, etc..if it's troublesome you could always ask a responsible adult to read it to you
> 
> http://www.guardian....d-way-for-roads
> 
> ...


----------



## growingvegetables (15 Sep 2011)

element said:


> Motorists are a massive source of revenue for the government and cyclists, especially those left wing hippie types with no grasp of reality, who don't own a car should be charged for being on the roads.



ROFLMAO- Never let it be said that you allowed simple, basic facts to standin the way of your trolling pleasure.

DVLAAnnual Report & Accounts 2009-10 - “The Agency collected over £5,742m in VED” from which deduct “Thecost of VED collection in total was £129.9m” - a balance of *£5,612million*

Asagainst the budget for  


the	Highways Agency (responsible only for strategic routes in England)	was *£4,857	million*.<li>The	roads budget for Transport Scotland (37% of £2.2 billion) –	similarly responsible only for strategic routes – was *£814	million*.

 That *£5,671 million *only covers central government expenditure on *3%of the road network, *and you'realready being subsidised.

Now,instead of bleating about motorists being ripped off, do your******* homework. Go off and find the same budget figures for NorthernIreland, Wales, aye and for over 250 local authorities who look after*97% of the road network*. 

Then add the cost of policing the roadnetwork; the cost for fire and rescue services for the road network;the costs of running air ambulance services; the costs to the NHS(who can only claim reimbursement from motor insurers to a maximum of£10,000 per case).

Ifyou're really diligent, you'll also find the costs of trafficpollution to the nation, and the costs of congestion to the economy(because there's simply too many of you).



Whenyou've done that, please feel free to come back to end offer me aconvincing argument why I (a non-car-owner) should be *subsidising* your motoring. And I might consider making similarly offensive (but much more painful) suggestions to return your compliments.


----------



## Jezston (15 Sep 2011)

*applause*


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Sep 2011)

growingvegetables said:


> ROFLMAO- Never let it be said that you allowed simple, basic facts to standin the way of your trolling pleasure.
> 
> DVLAAnnual Report & Accounts 2009-10 - “The Agency collected over £5,742m in VED” from which deduct “Thecost of VED collection in total was £129.9m” - a balance of *£5,612million*


I get the rest of the post and applaud the sentiment. Could you explain the quoted paragraph as the figures make no sense to me.


----------



## Bicycle (15 Sep 2011)

GV has it spot on, but it is more complicated than that.

Little is transported by rail now. Gone are the days when firms like Lyons had their own siding and rail depot in Greenford. Canals also carry the square root of f**k all in terms of freight and Budgie Post never really took off.

Almost everything goes by road.

Without the road network most of us would be without most of what sustains us.

I'm a keen cyclist, but I do not think it is helpful to think in terms of one group of road users subsidising another, even when only in response to a slightly barmy point from another contributor.

We all pay for education, whether we have children or not. 

We all pay for municipal housing, whether we need it or not.

We all pay for overseas troop deployments, whether we have a personal beef with Gaddafi or not.

These things cost money and are thought to contribute to the common good. Maybe some more than others...

Without roads and the associated infrastructure, we would need significantly to alter the way we live and the way we function as a society. 

I take cyclists' complaints about road wear about as seriously than those from my hill-walking friends about how much damage I do with my MTB.


----------



## abo (15 Sep 2011)

element said:


> I personally have no respect for a grown man who does not have a car or motorbike unless they have a medical problem or they live in London or similar city



Really? Hahaha you're pretty weak...


----------



## rowan 46 (15 Sep 2011)

techno said:


> I have to say I have read this thread and found it entertaining, I run a forum and wether you ride a pushbike, motorbike or drive a car you will get threads like this so its nothing new.
> I have to say I would like to see no more forced legislation, regular retests seem to be a common proporsition however for a start people struggle to get a first test let alone the logistics for retests!
> Then theres the problem of thnose that would fail, loss of jobs possibly and then theres the poor unfortunate disabled people. no probs hey lets leave them housebound.
> 
> ...



I think most people people knew I was being tongue in about deliberately p******g off the motorists. they immediately react to any idea to take their license as a personal affront. (quite justifiably as I feel the same about my cycling) the fact is there are something over 200 000 traffic accidents with car drivers not paying attention being the largest cause of accident at 38% the idea was to look at how to get people to pay attention when driving. asking nicely isn't going to cut it I'm afraid. welcome to cycle chat by the way


----------



## techno (15 Sep 2011)

User said:


> What absolute tosh!
> 
> As a society we have become in thrall to the motor vehicle and, it would appear, willing to excuse any behaviour by motorists.
> 
> ...



What absolute tosh, well its well placed as 95% of this thread is exactly the same, bullshit knee jerk reactions!

People do get given retests those who are deemed to need it when caught driving in a certain manner, probably 99% of motorists are more than fine otherwise the accident figures would be considerably worse!

Note I am not saying everyone drives well, on the contrary I do wonder myself how the hell some people actually passed a basic test, those people are a problem not everyone, those are the ones that want targeting, but as we see more commonly in this day that its easier to hit everyone than target the true problem, nice to see some of you see this as acceptable behaviour!


----------



## growingvegetables (15 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I get the rest of the post and applaud the sentiment. Could you explain the quoted paragraph as the figures make no sense to me.



 no worries - in 2009-10


£5,742m = VED collected by the DVLA

£129.9m take away the collection costs, to leave ...

£5,612m as a balance.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Sep 2011)

growingvegetables said:


> no worries - in 2009-10
> 
> 
> £5,742m = VED collected by the DVLA
> ...


OMG I need to get my eyes tested. I read the 5,742 as 5.742 (ie £5.7ish million)


----------



## element (15 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> You Sir are a prick of the highest order.



Very good did that extremely clever reply take much work ?


Just to help those who are clearly mentally deficient 

Car drivers pay around 32 billion in direct taxation each year, that is VED and fuel tax. If you were to include the automotive industry who contibute over ten billion and then the oil companies 9 billion, not too mention 2 million speeding fines paid every year as well as taxes paid by the 800 thousand people employed in the UK in the automotive industry that is alot of money coming from the motorists pocket.
Despite this you still get guardian reading fools on bicycles constantly demonising car drivers. Hippies on bikes are contributing nothing financially to the country so why do I detect such self rightious indigation from the cyclists on this board who are too narrow minded to concieve of a problem outside their own experience. 
I completely fail to understand why, when the road casualty rate is so low people still have nothing better to complain about than car drivers, many cyclists won't even use the cycle lanes available as they are too bumpy for their fragile road bike. If you cannot even use a cycle lane in an effort to preserve your own safety why should every other road user have to jump through hoops to make the safe English roads even safer ?
Some of you should really travel the world a bit go and witness the carnage on the roads in Asia then, instead of moaning all the time about nothing you may become appreciative of how easy and safe life is for a cyclist in England.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (15 Sep 2011)

... now you can detail some of the costs of motor vehicles to the economy for us.

I should point out that I'm a long way from the hippie stereotype in your posts. Yes, I have long hair and (sometimes) a beard, but I drive an articulated lorry for my living and own two cars, one of which is a 3 litre 4x4 and the other of which gets free "road tax". But I'm under no illusions as to the true cost of our love affair with the internal combustion engine.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Sep 2011)

element said:


> Very good did that extremely clever reply take much work ?
> 
> 
> Just to help those who are clearly mentally deficient
> ...


By England do you mean the UK?
2nd by your logic, low emission cars are a bad thing.
3rd every tax payer pays for the roads. Car drivers pay because of the damage they cause and the amount they polute.
Finaly having no respect for an adult without a car is the same a shouting in a very loud voice "I have no Penis".


----------



## Rhythm Thief (15 Sep 2011)

element said:


> ... the fallacy of man made global warming ...



Anyone who posts this is probably beyond reasoned argument. Although if Element does have peer reviewed and widely accepted, scientifically rigorous work to suggest that man made global warming is a fallacy, I'd be interested to read it.


----------



## techno (15 Sep 2011)

Rhythm Thief said:


> Anyone who posts this is probably beyond reasoned argument. Although if Element does have peer reviewed and widely accepted, scientifically rigorous work to suggest that man made global warming is a fallacy, I'd be interested to read it.



Shouldnt it be climate change anyway as you cant argue with that description as the climate changes all the time anyway!

Cars are taxed because they can be and people will gladly pay it as there a nessecity in the modern world, pollution is just the excuse they use to justify it!


----------



## Dan B (15 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1544252"]
He's making the age-old mistake of forgetting that we're all car drivers.* There are two in our house*.
[/quote]

That's a bit extreme. Most people keep them in the garage or the driveway


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Sep 2011)

techno said:


> <br><br>Shouldnt it be climate change anyway as you cant argue with that description as the climate changes all the time anyway!<br><br>Cars are taxed because they can be and people will gladly pay it as there a nessecity in the modern world, pollution is just the excuse they use to justify it!<br>


Thing is :troll: s live under bridges so have little knowledge of weather. 
Also I wonder if Element ir J.Clarkson


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Sep 2011)

Dan B said:


> That's a bit extreme. Most people keep them in the garage or the driveway


Well if the bikes are kept in the house, the cars will be jelous


----------



## Dan B (15 Sep 2011)

Clarkson would have a long way to fall before he becomes as predictable and unfunny as "element"


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Sep 2011)

Dan B said:


> Clarkson would have a long way to fall before he becomes as predictable and unfunny as "element"


That is a very good point


----------



## growingvegetables (15 Sep 2011)

element said:


> Some of you should really travel the world a bit go and witness the carnage on the roads in Asia



That's twice you've pulled that verbal trick. I call your bluff - what experience do you have of witnessing the roads of Asia.


----------



## rowan 46 (15 Sep 2011)

techno said:


> Shouldnt it be climate change anyway as you cant argue with that description as the climate changes all the time anyway!
> 
> Cars are taxed because they can be and people will gladly pay it as there a nessecity in the modern world, pollution is just the excuse they use to justify it!



cars are not a necessity for all. Our family got one 8 years ago because we wanted one not needed it. Yes it's handy at times but it's not a necessity.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1544262"]
I wonder if element is the plum who just breezed my elbow in his corsa and then told me that he knows he'd given me enough room because he's been riding a bike for 10 years?
[/quote]
No chance, he didn't tell you to get in a cycle lane. 
Anyway it sounds like E driver a "real mans car", you know some 6L 500bhp monster.


----------



## Black Sheep (15 Sep 2011)

element said:


> I completely fail to understand



yes, yes you do. 


right, each bit individually:




element said:


> Car drivers pay around 32 billion in direct taxation each year, that is VED and fuel tax.


ok, fair enough



> If you were to include the automotive industry who contibute over ten billion and then the oil companies 9 billion, not too mention 2 million speeding fines paid every year as well as taxes paid by the 800 thousand people employed in the UK in the automotive industry that is alot of money coming from the motorists pocket.




But the council / income tax of someone who works in the automotive industry counts towards the total collected by council tax and income tax, it does not count towards the total collected from the motorist. 


> Despite this you still get guardian reading fools on bicycles constantly demonising car drivers. Hippies on bikes are contributing nothing financially to the country so why do I detect such self rightious indigation from the cyclists on this board who are too narrow minded to concieve of a problem outside their own experience.


 

because you're refusing to listen to what people are saying, people who have had this argument over and over again, been used as references for various news stories on it and as for contributing, this board is home to doctors, lawyers, engineers, truck drivers and many other professions who each pay their council tax, VED etc 

the only thing we're not contributing to is congestion as many of us choose to commute by bike, holding you up for 30 seconds before you get to the back of the next queue instead of being another car on the road. 



> I completely fail to understand why, when the road casualty rate is so low people still have nothing better to complain about than car drivers, many cyclists won't even use the cycle lanes available as they are too bumpy for their fragile road bike. If you cannot even use a cycle lane in an effort to preserve your own safety why should every other road user have to jump through hoops to make the safe English roads even safer ?




my road bike's wheels are strong enough to cope with cobbles, dirt tracks and bridal ways but I rarely use a cycle lane as it does one of three things:

1) goes along a pavement that is shared with pedestrians and small children - my average riding speed is 15mph, I don't think its safe / fair to endanger children walking to the park by my riding (I do however use them if i'm unable to keep my speed up due to tiredness, injury or mechanical problems)

2) puts me right in the gutter where cars won't see me easily, squeeze past when it's too narrow and so much debris that I need to regally swerve round it - would you run over a dead badger / house brick / half a tree in your car? on a bike it can make me fall off and end up under a car.

3) they often don't go where I'm wanting to go, or are short stretches that serve no purpose, such as the 10 meter one near me that literally is a bit of green paint at the side of the road over a cross roads, then it ends again. 

the hoop we want people to jump through, is to treat us like they do horses, give us a bit of space, except we're not expecting people to crawl past us.
 



> Some of you should really travel the world a bit go and witness the carnage on the roads in Asia then, instead of moaning all the time about nothing you may become appreciative of how easy and safe life is for a cyclist in England.



been to holland, cycled in poland, denmark and Mallorca

feel most at risk cycling in England as people push past clipping me with their door mirror, not waiting until the road is clear to overtake etc. 
A friend of mine lived and cycled in India for a year with no problems, they expect bikes from all sides, it took him some time to get used to cycling here.


----------



## element (15 Sep 2011)

Ridden across Vetnam and prolific use of knackered old bikes in Thailand Cambodia Laos Indonesia and visits to Malaysia and a few other places outside asia. This was generally on 125cc mopeds the bicycles there tend to be pretty basic and for me were unrideable especially in Saigon traffic.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Sep 2011)

element said:


> Ridden across Vetnam and prolific use of knackered old bikes in Thailand Cambodia Laos Indonesia and visits to Malaysia and a few other places outside asia. This was generally on 125cc mopeds the bicycles there tend to be pretty basic and for me were unrideable especially in Saigon traffic.


So no cycling experience then?


----------



## Bicycle (15 Sep 2011)

Black Sheep said:


> yes, yes you do.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I agree that the Nedherlands is a cycling paradise. France also. Mmmmmmm....

I've never cycled in Denmark so can't comment.

I'm surprised that you think Poland is better than the UK for cycling. I've driven there and was troubled by much of what I saw.

I've driven in India but not cycled. I think bicycles do OK there because there are so many of them. I'd agree that they get a good deal. However, many roads out of town are very poor. 

My worst experience was in Bosnia. Not only are drivers unaccustomed to bicycles, they also have very slippery roads from November to April. The Government there is not on top of climate control and they let it get jolly cold when it doesn't really need to be.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Sep 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> cars are not a necessity for all. Our family got one 8 years ago because we wanted one not needed it. Yes it's handy at times but it's not a necessity.


For some (such as Element) they are penis extenders. 
I owned cars from 1990 to 2007. I borrow my Mums occasionaly but don't miss not having one a bit.


----------



## growingvegetables (15 Sep 2011)

element said:


> Ridden across Vetnam





element said:


> "visits"





element said:


> generally on 125cc mopeds



ROFLMAO - fair enough - I think my experience might just trump Element's *silly little tourist breaks* (on mopeds, ffs), and hopefully do something to make him think about his perceptions of cyclists. 

Have you, Element, taken a motorbike from Scotland, down through Italy, up into Yugoslavia, and back - most of it in the worst rainstorm for 30 years. Kinda beats a bit of p***ing around on mopeds.

Have you driven from Cairo to Aswan, using both the main roads, and alternative routes using the other bank of the Nile? Or the Red Sea route? 30 years ago before the massive improvements due to tourism improved the road infrastructure? In a Renault 4? No? Oh dear; I have.

Have you used an ancient Chinese Flying Pigeon bike as your main transport for two years in an Egyptian city? No? Oh dear; I have. And I'll tell you for nothing - give me the choice between the mad (but systematic) craziness of Egyptian driving, and the casual, careless, stupid, self-righteous "I-pay-for-the-road" arrogance of an English (your choice of word) driver, and I'll take Egypt; every time.

Have you driven a 4x4 (Landrovers, Landcruisers, Daihatsus, Suzukis, and Nivas) extensively through, over, and around the mountains of SW Arabia, for years, as part of your job and for pleasure? Some on the few roads - but mostly on wildly unfriendly rock strewn "tracks". No? Oh dear - again, I have. Salt for the pwn - I got PAID for it 

Have you explored the Empty Quarter? How far did you get in? 4 days? No? Umm - do you even know where it is? Aye, but I have.

Have you driven extensively in the Sahel - again as part of your job and for pleasure, over several years; in desert, savannah, and forest; in dry season and wet season? No? Oh dear, I have - this is getting boring. More salt for the pwn - again, I was getting paid for it.

Can you rescue a 4x4 from a swamp? No? Pity - I've done it.

Have you managed a fleet of motorcycles, and the riders' personal safety, again in the Sahel for many years? No? Come on, you need to try harder.

Have you ridden 250cc motorbikes off-road in the Sahelian wet season, travelling around 60-70 isolated villages - again as part of your job and for pleasure? No? Oh dear, I have.

Have you driven 212km on the roads of Senegal with a dangerously ill member of your family - in 1 hour and 20 minutes? I thought not - the professional drivers on my staff refused to tackle the drive and insisted I do it cos I'd be better at it.




How better to show you're not just a troll, but an ignorant and stupid troll, who doesn't recognise a ******* great elephant trap set for him. 

Please continue to show your ignorance - it's getting quite enjoyable. But ffs, just remember that more than a few of the cyclists you think it's fun to troll and insult might just have more than enough driving experience to make you look like a total ****wit, who shouldn't have been allowed a provisional licence.


----------



## apollo179 (15 Sep 2011)

Bicycle said:


> I've driven in India but not cycled. I think bicycles do OK there because there are so many of them. I'd agree that they get a good deal. However, many roads out of town are very poor.



Car ownership in india is pretty much reserved to the wealthy and increasingly wealthy middle classes. However as these tend to be principally urban dwellers even these people dont usually need to own a car as public transport is so cheap and frequent that owning a car is unnessecary and also taxis are quite cheap.
125cc motorbikes are more common in india . You can buy a brand new honda kawasaki etc for about £500 equivalent.
Push bikes are used as appropriate but i woudnt say there is the same bikecentricity in india as in some other countries.
edit - where abouts did you drive in india Bicycle - just curious no other reason.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Sep 2011)

growingvegetables said:


> ROFLMAO - fair enough - I think my experience might just trump your *silly little tourist breaks* (on mopeds, ffs).
> 
> Have you taken a motorbike from Scotland, down through Italy, up into Yugoslavia, and back - most of it in the worst rainstorm for 30 years. Kinda beats a bit of p***ing around on mopeds.
> 
> ...


----------



## gaz (15 Sep 2011)

ELEMENT - I ALL READY PAY VED FOR MY BICYCLES!!!!! £0!!!!!


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Sep 2011)

gaz said:


> ELEMENT - I ALL READY PAY VED FOR MY BICYCLES!!!!! £0!!!!!


lmfao


----------



## Bicycle (15 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> edit - where abouts did you drive in india Bicycle - just curious no other reason.




Bombay/Mumbai and across the bay from there.


----------



## John the Monkey (15 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I owned cars from 1990 to 2007. I borrow my Mums occasionaly but don't miss not having one a bit.



We couldn't manage without one, currently - although we get by with one (most households on the road I live on have two or more, which makes parking - interesting for them, as most of us have room for one only on our drives).

I drive as well as cycle. Despite the casualty rate, I see a lot of pointless impatience, deliberate self distraction, needless aggression, complete failure to read road conditions and the road ahead, and agree largely with Lulabel's take on attitudes and road culture in the UK. The justice system fails to take a lot of this stuff seriously enough.

Motor cars could pay their way COMPLETELY by taxation, and run on non polluting pixie farts, and these things would still be true. They are useful tools, in the hands of people who are not taking the power they wield seriously enough. Is the op's idea a good one? No. Does that mean everything is rosy? Far from it.


----------



## Norm (15 Sep 2011)

gaz said:


> ELEMENT - I ALL READY PAY VED FOR MY BICYCLES!!!!! £0!!!!!


Do you also pay for prostitutes, extortion, bribery and corruption? 

No, you don't, just like you don't pay VED on a bike because not paying for something is not the same as paying nothing for something.

Some vehicles are in a band that has a VED of £0, bicycles are not in that category.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Sep 2011)

Norm said:


> Do you also pay for prostitutes, extortion, bribery and corruption?
> 
> No, you don't, just like you don't pay VED on a bike because not paying for something is not the same as paying nothing for something.
> 
> Some vehicles are in a band that has a VED of £0, bicycles are not in that category.


Norm. How do you know Gaz doesn't pay for prostitutes? Extortion, bribary and corruption- welk that could describe government or the banking sector and we all in effect support those.


----------



## apollo179 (15 Sep 2011)

Bicycle said:


> Bombay/Mumbai and across the bay from there.



Thats my neck of the woods . 
Never driven though. Until recently you could buy an a day bus ticket for rs15 / 20pence although recently like the price of everything in mumbai its gone through the roof to rs25 (if i remember correctly).


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Sep 2011)

element said:


> Only 160 odd cyclists die each year while using the motorists roads.


WTF are motorised roads?


----------



## Black Sheep (15 Sep 2011)

Norm said:


> Do you also pay for prostitutes, extortion, bribery and corruption?
> 
> No, you don't, just like you don't pay VED on a bike because not paying for something is not the same as paying nothing for something.
> 
> Some vehicles are in a band that has a VED of £0, bicycles are not in that category.



while bikes are not in that category, if they were to be VED then, by logic they would have to sit alongside other zero emission vehicles



however, given that we're talking a government classification, that's unlikely


----------



## Norm (15 Sep 2011)

Black Sheep said:


> while bikes are not in that category, if they were to be VED then, by logic they would have to sit alongside other zero emission vehicles


 Indeed, as would horses, pedestrians (walking, jogging or running), skaters and skateboarders and the kids on those strange scooters.

But there isn't, so they don't.



Angelfishsolo said:


> WTF are motorised roads?


 Sometimes, you really do need to take a step back and a deep breath you post, AFS.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Sep 2011)

> Sometimes, you really do need to take a step back and a deep breath you post, AFS.


Norm, maybe you should proof read your posts


----------



## Black Sheep (15 Sep 2011)

don't get petty, it's only an internet troll


----------



## Norm (15 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1544283"] Ironic that a simple typo is made aware by someone with a lack of grammer. [/quote] Ironic indeed, if it was a simple typo.


----------



## John the Monkey (16 Sep 2011)

Norm said:


> Ironic indeed, if it was a simple typo.



HAHA yuo lot need to watch yore typeing.


----------



## gaz (16 Sep 2011)

Norm said:


> Do you also pay for prostitutes, extortion, bribery and corruption?
> 
> No, you don't, just like you don't pay VED on a bike because not paying for something is not the same as paying nothing for something.
> 
> Some vehicles are in a band that has a VED of £0, bicycles are not in that category.


Elements point is that cyclists should contribute to the roads, and he suggest we do so by paying road tax. Which as you are aware would mean we would pay no more than we already do.
So apart from the 'status' of having VED there is no difference


----------



## Bicycle (16 Sep 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> I haven't said anything to annoy motorists in a while (if ever ) so I thought I would have a go at putting forward my idea of improving road safety. It goes something like this. Most people are online or have access to computers so I propose that the perception test for drivers is posted online with every driver having to retake it every 12 months 3 attempts to get it right if you fail after 3. A mandatory full re test The purpose of this would be to remind drivers to be aware of their surroundings and stop them driving on automatic. (Hang on a minute while I get my flak gear)




This has been was (at times) an interesting and illuminating discussion.

The jury seems hung. 

As things are (and I'm not in favour of radical change) I feel significantly less exposed in a car than I do on a bicycle.

Further, I cannot imagine a strengthened training, testing, re-testing and re-training system that would make me feel any less exposed on a bicycle.

I believe that the current move towards driver training workshops in place of or in addition to prosecution for various offences is a positive move. As the offender bears the cost, it's also fiscally smart.

I certainly feel that when I'm cycling, I am at times a second-class road user. I am harder to see than a car, more exposed to the risk of injury and enjoying at all times a full and frank dialogue with whatever the Heavens want to throw at me.

Truly, I wouldn't have it any other way. Nor will it ever be any other way, _de facto_. Laws may be tweaked, but the underlying reality will always be so.

The police are thorough, the courts do what they can and legislators are (for the most part) clever and thoughtful people who take their responsibilities seriously.

I have many good driving memories, but far more good cycling ones. I don't suppose that will ever change either.


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (16 Sep 2011)

John the Monkey said:


> I drive as well as cycle. Despite the casualty rate, I see a lot of pointless impatience, deliberate self distraction, needless aggression, complete failure to read road conditions and the road ahead, and agree largely with Lulabel's take on attitudes and road culture in the UK. The justice system fails to take a lot of this stuff seriously enough.
> 
> Motor cars could pay their way COMPLETELY by taxation, and run on non polluting pixie farts, and these things would still be true. They are useful tools, in the hands of people who are not taking the power they wield seriously enough. Is the op's idea a good one? No. Does that mean everything is rosy? Far from it.



+1


----------



## Wankelschrauben (16 Sep 2011)

Element, do you see me as a less deserving user of the road when on my bicycle? 

Do you consider me someone who does not contribute in the same way as you do for the use of our roads?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (16 Sep 2011)

Wankelschrauben said:


> Element, do you see me as a less deserving user of the road when on my bicycle?
> 
> Do you consider me someone who does not contribute in the same way as you do for the use of our roads?



and me?


----------



## Wankelschrauben (16 Sep 2011)

AFS, I never considered that you may also see me as a less deserving user of the road maybe you do, hmmm


----------



## Angelfishsolo (16 Sep 2011)

Wankelschrauben said:


> AFS, I never considered that you may also see me as a less deserving user of the road maybe you do, hmmm






You know what I meant


----------



## Wankelschrauben (16 Sep 2011)




----------



## element (16 Sep 2011)

growingvegetables said:


> ROFLMAO - fair enough - I think my experience might just trump Element's *silly little tourist breaks* (on mopeds, ffs), and hopefully do something to make him think about his perceptions of cyclists.
> 
> Have you, Element, taken a motorbike from Scotland, down through Italy, up into Yugoslavia, and back - most of it in the worst rainstorm for 30 years. Kinda beats a bit of p***ing around on mopeds.
> 
> ...




Thanks for your life story but all you have told me there is that you don't have alot of experience of driving in foreign cities on vulnerable transport. My eight month trip in south asia is described as a 'silly little tourist trip' interesting point of view but there is no accounting for ignorance.	You seem incapable of drawing the distiniction bettween words so let me help you, I spent most of my time in asia not all of my time on 125's this is because in some countries when you do have larger bikes you get in trouble with the police. I think its funny that you take your exact trips as a barometer for driving experience. As it happens I have not ridden from Scotland to Yugoslavia in the rain but I have ridden from England to Tallinn in December and by comparison your jaunt was a piece of cake.
I have also driven a few thousand KM in Egypt and found it had very good roads and reasonable drivers compared to south asia so what is your point ?
I cannot see what relevance your 4x4 driving has or is it just a bit of insecure willy waving , I made a point that the driving in England is good, I base this on my experiences in many countries most notable south east asia where the largest vehicle has right of way and the smalllest either moves or gets run over. 33000 deaths a year in Vietnam on the road, 3000 in the UK and remember that is with a much higher rate of car ownership here .	You have piped up with your life story thanks but I never felt the need to list the number of countires I have droven in, I am not that insecure. 
The roads in the UK are of exceptionally good quality and they are very safe. I can tell you that as a fact based plenty of sataistics and my own experience. 
To the guy who thinks Poland has good drivers, own experince of driving and riding motorobikes there I found that the driving there was terrible. A quick google revealed the extremely high casualty rates on the roadsin Poland and serious drink driving issues.
I think its funny that people have resorted to out and out lies to try and prove a point to me, you are just embarrasing yourselves. All that resorting to petty insults justs make people look desperate when they know they are losing an argument .
I will repeat again as the brian cell count on here is pretty low, The roads here are safe, the drivers here are good, the quality of the roads here is very good. You can argue all you want but by any international level or comparison those are facts. 
If cyclists want to ride on roads paid for by car drivers then they should be Insured taxed and tested. I am a cyclist and quite happy to follow the regulations that are applicable to car drivers so why not the rest of you ? I can answer that myself, its becuase the militant non car driving cyclist brigade they think the whole of the roads system has to move around them, despite their lack of contribution.
Plenty of you miserable bastards need to cheer up and realise how good you have it instead of whining bitching and complaining all the time.



I


----------



## Dan B (16 Sep 2011)

element said:


> I will repeat again as the brian cell count on here is pretty low,



I'm Brian! And so is my wife!


----------



## Wankelschrauben (16 Sep 2011)

So Element, do you have your bicycle taxed, tested and insured?

Or is it that you own a motor vehicle, and consider your use of the road on your bicycle fully covered under the taxes paid on your car?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (16 Sep 2011)

element said:


> I will repeat again as the brian cell count on here is pretty low,



A cheese toastie thank you.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (16 Sep 2011)

Wankelschrauben said:


> So Element, do you have your bicycle taxed, tested and insured?
> 
> Or is it that you own a motor vehicle, and consider your use of the road on your bicycle fully covered under the taxes paid on your car?



If you own a bigger car does that give you more right to cycle on the road than a Prius owner?


----------



## element (16 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> If you own a bigger car does that give you more right to cycle on the road than a Prius owner?



Yes considering the horrific impact on the planet the manufacture of the prius has I think that the owners should be taxed at the highest rate of VED possible. Owners of 4.6 litre V8 landrovers should be given tax free motoring naturally.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (16 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1544302"]
3000 people are killed here on the roads each year, by your figures, and you consider that to be acceptable.
[/quote]

Should we really feed this :troll: any more?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (16 Sep 2011)

element said:


> Yes considering the horrific impact on the planet the manufacture of the prius has I think that the owners should be taxed at the highest rate of VED possible. Owners of 4.6 litre V8 landrovers should be given tax free motoring naturally.



Thus proving you have no penis. Thank you.


----------



## Bicycle (16 Sep 2011)

The Alps?

I thought they were Nordic....


----------



## Wankelschrauben (16 Sep 2011)

element said:


> Yes considering the horrific impact on the planet the manufacture of the prius has I think that the owners should be taxed at the highest rate of VED possible. Owners of 4.6 litre V8 landrovers should be given tax free motoring naturally.




So you can not excuse the high pollution costs upon the initial creation of what is considered to be one of the greatest advances in automotive history of the past ten years even though the pollution costs of its production today are significantly less than they were ten years ago and will continue to reduce as the Prius and indeed other vehicles like the Prius gain in popularity.

Are you aware that every vehicle incurs costs upon production also? Be those costs financial, pollutant or both, as in the cases of most, however with time and volume these costs are greatly reduced through efficiency.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (16 Sep 2011)

Bicycle said:


> The Alps?
> 
> I thought they were Nordic....



Google Troll + Alps and you get some great results


----------



## Angelfishsolo (16 Sep 2011)

Wankelschrauben said:


> So you can not excuse the high pollution costs upon the initial creation of what is considered to be one of the greatest advances in automotive history of the past ten years even though the pollution costs of its production today are significantly less than they were ten years ago and will continue to reduce as the Prius and indeed other vehicles like the Prius gain in popularity.
> 
> Are you aware that every vehicle incurs costs upon production also? Be those costs financial, pollutant or both, as in the cases of most, however with time and volume these costs are greatly reduced through efficiency.



Based on Elements' logic I had better switch off my electricity and revert to a coal or peat fire and gas lamps.


----------



## Bicycle (16 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1544302"]
3000 people are killed here on the roads each year, by your figures, and you consider that to be acceptable.
[/quote]


We are currently at fewer than 40 deaths annually on the road per million population.

The word 'acceptable' may not be helpful here in every context, but it appears to be a figure the wider population 'accept' as one of the risks of using our road system.

I've said before on this thread that I'm surprised it's as low as it is. It doesn't for a moment put me off cycling.

I accept the current road-death figures and I continue to ride. I'd probably do so at 80 per million, 120 per million and higher. I think many would. (I wonder how high the figure would need to be to deter a significant number of cyclists.)

That doesn't mean that in all senses I find them acceptable.

But... I'm not actively doing anything to reduce them, so one might argue that I'm 'happy' with them and that in one sense I find them perfectly 'acceptable'.

It is my intention not to become one, although few of us get to choose.


----------



## henshaw11 (16 Sep 2011)

Ah, f*ck it.

Since Mr Osmium* appears to be either thick or stubborn wrt taking in simple ideas, or is just a troll (and judging by some other threads probably the former) - he's on the ignore list - that's a first for me 

*wikipedia is your friend


----------



## Black Sheep (16 Sep 2011)

Wankelschrauben said:


> So you can not excuse the high pollution costs upon the initial creation of what is considered to be one of the greatest advances in automotive history of the past ten years even though the pollution costs of its production today are significantly less than they were ten years ago and will continue to reduce as the Prius and indeed other vehicles like the Prius gain in popularity.
> 
> Are you aware that every vehicle incurs costs upon production also? Be those costs financial, pollutant or both, as in the cases of most, however with time and volume these costs are greatly reduced through efficiency.



The issue with the prius specifically, is that the environmental impact of shipping the components the equivalent of twice round the world is more than the car itself saves in the life span of it's batteries (3 years before replacement iirc) 

considering the environmental costs of building and running a normal family hatch for 3 years has less environmental impact than building and running a prius for the same length of time. 

personally, i have a 10 year old car, it's been in the family from new, it will be fixed and run until it's too unreliable and then scrapped as I feel this better than buying a new car every 3-5 years like a lot of people seem to do. 



with regards to cycling in poland, I felt safer riding round Krakow than riding round coventry - I never said they were better drivers, I just felt safer.


----------



## Wankelschrauben (16 Sep 2011)

Your information is dated and based upon the 1995 trials and the 1997 first production models.

The batteries now last far longer than 3 years and the environmental impact upon the production has since greatly reduced with increases in volume, demand and efficiency.

What is often forgotten about in the argument is that all vehicles incur and environmental impact upon production.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (16 Sep 2011)

Wankelschrauben said:


> Your information is dated and based upon the 1995 trials and the 1997 first production models.
> 
> The batteries now last far longer than 3 years and the environmental impact upon the production has since greatly reduced with increases in volume, demand and efficiency.
> 
> What is often forgotten about in the argument is that all vehicles incur and environmental impact upon production.



In fact everything that is produced incurs environmental impact!


----------



## element (16 Sep 2011)

Parrot of Doom said:


> Roads are paid for by everybody, not just motorists, you enormous thundercunt.



I think I proved othewise but I don't expect someone with your issues to have the ability to understand. You have a car anyway though don't you an old Mercedes diesel ?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (16 Sep 2011)

element said:


> I think I proved othewise but I don't expect someone with your issues to have the ability to understand. You have a car anyway though don't you an old Mercedes diesel ?



You proved nothing apart from the fact that you are a :troll:


----------



## growingvegetables (16 Sep 2011)

element said:


> You have piped up with your life story thanks but I never felt the need to list the number of countires I have droven in, I am not that insecure.


Now I'm bored. Hey, you're good; very good 
















........................ at entirely missing the point. You *failed* when offered some facts. You *failed* to take the chance to change or withdraw extraordinary trolling generalisations you made about cyclists as some sort of "different" animal, who never drive nor ride motor bikes.

The only person on here whinging or complaining is you. And you're boring. Go crawl back under your stone.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (16 Sep 2011)

growingvegetables said:


> Now I'm bored. Hey, you're good; very good
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think our :troll: is Francium*



































*Francium is the most unstable of the naturally occurring elements


----------

