Should cyclists have to pay ‘road tax’?

Wavechanger
What planet are you on?

A fit rider will go faster. A fast Boris bike? Are you joking? Did they ride them on the TdF?

I have no figures for a Boris bike, I have never ridden one, I believe they have three low ratio gears, they are not fast.
I cannot include all eventualities.
Cargo bikes are heavier, but are much slower and very rare in the UK..

I’m on planet Earth and I’m concerned about the behaviour of ordinary cyclists. If you want to cycle in towns and cities where there is a risk of pedestrians being injured you need to forget the idea of high speed cycling.

Wavechanger,
How did I misuse science? I try very hard to stick to the facts. The one thing I’ve learned is that people really don’t like facts that show they’re wrong. I don’t like being wrong. When people try to ‘correct’ me, they normally do so by themselves being wrong.

It is a fact that a cyclist is effectively a fast pedestrian.

The mass of a ‘person riding a bicycle’ is dominated by the mass of the rider. The mass of a ‘driver and motor-vehicle’ is dominated by the mass of the vehicle. This is a fact and will remain so, as far as I can tell, for the foreseeable future. Yes bicycles vary in mass, but the reality is that fast bikes are light, heavy bikes are slow. 10kg is a reasonable figure. A roadster can weigh 18-20kgs or so, but at 0.1kW riders are likely to pootle along at ~12 mph and often slower.
On a racing bike ‘on the tops’ 0.1kW gives 14.5 mph.

You can direct all the specious and misleading rhetoric at me you like, but the facts aren’t going to change – because they’re facts. How inconvenient of them.

It is quite simple. The kinetic energy of a moving bicycle is not that of the bicycle itself but the bike plus rider. You made no mention of the rider in your earlier post, hence my criticism. You have now acknowledged the significance of the mass of the rider but criticised me. 🙁

Obviously the kinetic energy to be dissipated in an impact is that of the bike plus rider.

Wavechanger,
“If you want to cycle in towns and cities where there is a risk of pedestrians being injured you need to forget the idea of high speed cycling.” I believe that high-speed cycling is largely a myth. I don’t see any really fast cyclists, they’re just a bit faster than me.

Whereas motorists can’t wait to overtake me, it’s not unusual for them to start hooting, driving dangerously close and revving their engines, sometimes shouting obscenities or incoherent drivel, (I have been spat at once) or they’ll even overtake across double white lines on a narrow bridge with a blind summit, it’s all rather dangerous and quite pathetic, there’s a roundabout over the bridge and almost without exception, I catch them without trying and by timing, I can keep-up with them pretty effortlessly for the next three sets of traffic lights. They’d get there if they just waited and drove safely in accordance with the Highway Code, which they either ignore or seem to have never read.

The reality is that most cyclists are not fast. I’m certainly not, I ride a commuter-equipped bicycle with robust tyres, dynamo lights (lots of lights), carrier, mudguards mudflaps and none of these make for high-speed cycling (none featured on the TdF). Cycling is far more pedestrian-friendly than motoring as the statistics have shown year on year. As road-casualties have fallen, what’s changed is that vehicle occupants have become safer, while vulnerable road users – cyclists and pedestrians have continued IIRC to rise (haven’t got the figures to hand). But here’s a newspaper article that essentially supports what I’ve said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/9479965/Rise-in-vulnerable-road-users-being-killed-and-injured.html

http://www.20splentyforus.org.uk/UsefulReports/SWOVReports/FS_Vulnerable_road_users.pdf

Wavechanger,
“The kinetic energy of a moving bicycle is not that of the bicycle itself but the bike plus rider. You made no mention of the rider in your earlier post, hence my criticism.”

It never occurred to mention that anyone would be so incredibly foolish not to realise that a bicycle needs a rider.
So, I wasn’t deceiving anyone. So your criticism was specious nonsense.

What I said was: “The kinetic energy is not the mass of the bike but that of the bike plus rider. There is still a large difference in kinetic energy even if you use the correct figures. The argument would still be valid if you compared a small car with a Boris bike and an overweight rider.”

That should have read: “The kinetic energy is not DEPENDENT ON the mass of the bike but the bike plus rider. ….”

Anyway that’s the end of a rather fruitless discussion as far as I am concerned.

“It is a fact that a cyclist is effectively a fast pedestrian.”

Errr, no.
A very fast pedestrian and heavy too, if the kinetic energy presented by 200lbs of rider and bike at 20 mph is considered. Unfortunately for the common or garden city cyclist, the law regards the cycle as a vehicle and thus subjects the rider to the road traffic law (unlike the pedestrian).

“It is a fact that a car with four passengers is, in effect, four fast pedestrians” !

The specious nonsense arising from a dearth of rider (and the puerile delight therein) exemplifies a puritanical countenance from which in turn palpable pedantry presents. The ephemeral contention extends further into the “fingers in ears” mode, particularly when presented with evidence that, in fact, the holy grail of 1937 and the golden Winstonian words betray the continued existence of the tax that dares not utter its name in disparate yet oddly homogenised cycling fraternities.

Tim,
“It is a fact that a car with four passengers is, in effect, four fast pedestrians” – No it isn’t and you know that’s not remotely true. It’s not human-powered, it’s powered by an engine. A bicycle is human-powered and the bicycle weighs around 10kg, roadsters are typically heavier but slower, but relatively uncommon in the UK (actual mass figures are rarely published).

Rarely have I read a comment so egregiously false yet devoid of all facts.
A car features a very heavy, often steel cage, engine etc. To omit this fact is grossly inaccurate and misleading. The first small car I checked starts at 980kg, add a driver and three passengers and that’s 1280kg.
The least powerful model of this car can do around 100mph, up to ~130mph, and variants are even faster,
Perhaps you’d like to try again and cite your references so they can be checked.

If the argument were to be followed, acyclist would be a very fast pedestrian and heavy too, if the kinetic energy presented by 200lbs of rider and bike at 20 mph is considered.

Unfortunately for the unreasonable cyclist who we see posting here, the law regards the cycle as a vehicle and thus subjects the rider to the road traffic law (unlike the pedestrian).

Unfortunately for those who put the point, the law does not recognise the cyclist as a “fast pedestrian”.

The law, in fact, regards the bicycle as a road traffic vehicle, which is why the cycle is subject to the road traffic laws.

The “cyclists are pedestrians” argument is something which is cited by those cyclists who do want to obey the road traffic laws.

Thank you Patrick. Not before time. It might be comfortable to come back into the Conversation again if any new points emerge.

I would second that. Best wishes to all.

I cannot see why any reasonable cyclist would argue against third party insurance, nor in fact some kind of numbered tabard registration scheme.

It is interesting to note that vehicle road tax is now effected online, so too could be cycle registration, backed perhaps by their paying, as the article suggests, some form of road tax.

The difficulty seems to be, Malcolm, that riders generally do not ride while taking into account the additional risks to third parties- hence this discussion regarding insurance and registration.

Modern administrative techniques mean that the imposition of these things need not be complicated, although a vocal minority of riders will of course insist that it will, while at the same time arguing with equal force for increased concessions and “blind eye” law enforcement.

It depends whether the road tax system continues to be sidetracked by the emissions side of things or whether it returns to the basis whereby the roads were financed on a “user pays” basis. At the moment, there is inequality because cyclists, as a general class of road vehicle user, pay nothing.

It’s a bit off-topic but having zero VED for any cars is sending out the wrong message. Even the lowest emission cars have a serious environmental impact, in their manufacture, use and disposal.

On the other hand, VED has become a way of taxing those who drive the most polluting cars, which has its merits.

I agree.

It also muddies the waters when it comes to the payment of road tax, which is clearly something which the government wishes to do, given that it fails to hypothecate the road tax monies and therefore commits a form of administrative malfeasance.

An example of why politicians are not generally good at making thought-through decisions and should not run businesses – they think in terms of political gain, not real benefits.

However, if zero VED is applied to certain cars the (political) stance says it must also be applied to bikes. We may, of course, disagree with that line of thinking!

Bill; we had a similar problem where I live; every Sunday, the roads would be blocked by a group of inconsiderate cyclists who would argue that, although they were causing an obstruction, they were acting “within the law”. The latter is debatable, bearing in mind that these persons were riding two and three abreast and deliberately frustrating all reasonable attempts to overtake.

One local farming chap eventually decided that enough was enough. He would drive around their “course” in a large box van at a speed of about 18 mph. The engine was diesel and it would emit a fair amount of smoke, although again within the law. The gentleman would time the exit from his property to coincide with the approach of the group of riders and he would carefully drive in front of them at his low,but legal speed.

The story made our local paper when the cyclists complained. The complaint of course came very early on. The driver, meanwhile, reminded them that he was driving within the law. The journalist involved was quick to put to the spokesman for the cycling club that the cyclists were simply experiencing something to which they had been subjecting the public every week.

Our roads now tend to be clear of the gaggle of cyclists on Sundays, thanks to the public spirited chap in the box van.

So one inconsiderate act deserves another one? No wonder there is so little respect for other road users.

No, I think the point was that acting “within the law”, while paying disregard to issues of due consideration is something which works in both directions. We keep hearing that cyclists who ride two or three abreast are “acting within the law”, so the above exercise illustrated well the weakness of the argument, as your kind response acknowledges.

As an aside, the farmer, I understand, had considered using a large tractor and manure spreader, but he concluded that he might well not have been able to resist pushing that all-important button!

We could all be anti-social ‘acting within the law’ but can you imagine what it would be like to live in this country would be like if everyone behaved in this way?

I do agree wholeheartedly, but unfortunately, a sizeable percentage of cyclists do not share our sentiments, which was the point of the story related above.

The difficulty and dangers posed by these “antisocial acting within the law” cyclists is something which is encountered up and down the country every weekend, unfortunately. The farmer here was hailed as something of a local public hero.

As a car driver, I meet farmers in the summer causing queues, caravaners driving slowly up hills, slow lorries holding me up, buses that pull out from stops just before I get there, horses that walk along our country roads and impede traffic, other motorists that slow down at night every time a car comes the opposite way or drive on a sunny day more slowly than me to admire the view —— and cyclists out enjoying their ride or taking part in a road race. Life is too short to worry about my absolute right to dominate the road. So I just regard it as par for the course – I won’t change it so accept it. What is all the rush anyway?

In my experience, the best way to tackle antisocial people on your side is to enlist the help of people who they will respect, in this case cyclists.

I have seen many incidents provoked by lack of consideration. On Sunday I was driving down a narrow country lane and there were two cyclists abreast, making it impossible to pass. I stayed well back and they soon waved me on. The car behind followed them closely and they did not let him pass. It is inexcusable not to get out of the way but ‘tailgating’ is provocative and a mistake could injure cyclists.

Mary – Although I’m advocating tolerance I am very keen that cyclists should be registered.

I suspect that the possibility of being identified would help deter antisocial behaviour, which works to some extent with motorists.

Very interesting Jono , I take it you refer to the unnatural stance ( in relation to a monkey ) ? -ie- grouched/bent over . First of all bikes/motorbikes in Britain are traditionally made for riding in a semi-crouched position , I should know I rode British bikes for 25 years and motorbikes for 15 years . Not so in the USA where very long distances in travel mean its more comfortable to in an upright position and this stance applies to bicycles as well as Harley,s . That you are unhappy with that does that mean you are American ? and you would like us all to buy American equipment ? . We are a European country and if you watch German/French satellite TV like I do especially all the bike races which are major events on the continent – Eurosport 1 – Deutschland its never off it so its a cultural thing , we are not (yet ) American . By the way all those pictures of apes transforming into man from a crouched position is pure Bull ! you are either homo sapiens with a certain bone structure or you are an ape with a different bone structure . For a simple explanation of that click on : http://askjohnmackay.com/man-apes-and-monkeys-what-are-the-differences/ warning !! he isn’t exactly “biblical friendly ” but there again I think most of it is political propaganda .

I expect they think that posture applies optimum force to the pedals and thus maximum traction, Jono. I don’t suppose they have any regard to the presentation of their posterior to other road users; they have even aped the lurid Lycra colour schemes of certain primates’ hindquarters.

As I was going to the polling station last week a manic cyclist arrived at breakneck speed in fancy garb of extreme tightness and sidled into the hall; I wondered whether he was suffering from rickets. In a democracy we have to accept alternative customs and behaviours.

Would that be an ordinary stance, or a monkey stance!

Jacqueline I am amazed that this convo has generated so many posts just in case I haven’t picked this up right I always rode a British racing bike with bent handlebars this was normal in the 60,s onward , nobody but nobody rode a “ministers bike ” which wa the old 30,s up to 50,s heavy steel upright models , so obviously you could see my bum while behind me . Its obvious this nation has a fixation on bums , personally I have no problem with watching female bums –yes I know sexist , but last time I looked I was a red-blooded male . Whats going on here can someone be allowed to post a picture of the “Monkey bum ” for me ?? Its no wonder the “Big Yin ” -Billy Connolly was so popular in this country he never stopped talking about them . So come on forget the PC etc tell me what I am missing here ?

Very good, Jacqueline, but I don’t think that referring to ‘monkey stance’ etc. is conducive to promoting reasoned discussion.

Many people might relish the opportunity to have a reasoned and considered conversation as to the merits of the monkey stance, both in terms of the descriptive and the actuality.

I think the concern here is that people do not want to see the rear end yet, yet many seem intent on waving their posterior to those behind them in skin tight material. Not more so than the ‘twiddly dance’ where one tries to remain static in traffic balanced precariously in the pedals in any attempt not to put a foot on the tarmac. Anyone visiting our planet that had not witness said dance might take it for a mating ritual

[Sorry, your comment has been edited to align with our Community Guidelines. Thanks, mods]

The monkey stance is also known as the straddling of the middle of the road to ensure no one passes you

Ok so the money stance is a way of describing cyclists hogging the middle of the road as well as the crouching position that displays butt cheeks.

Cyclists should not use the monkey stance and hog the whole road. They should move left after hazards.

Maybe we are starting to get there Little J now I know -#1- anybody wearing tight multi-coloured/vivid lycra tights – #2- its middle-aged cyclists- #3- they “waggle ” their bum about while trying to show off that they can balance a stationary bike without touching the road -#4- they straddle the middle of the road so people are forced to see their “flashy bum ” . In the 60,s I wore a pair of short trunks while cycling but I got a positive response from female viewers of wolf whistles and comments that cant be posted, but lets say if I agreed to them I would need some iron tablets to keep me going.

You mean “butt-left” Bob -sorry couldn’t help that one.

I’d agree. Both monkey positions are not required. The monkey handlebar crouch and also the monkey straddling of the road, often displaying the rear swaying from side to side ready for blast off.

A following wind gives a valuable boost of momentum.

The breaking of wind provides a similar benefit, from the velocity of the emitted gases while the cyclist is poised in the monkey stance.

It might depend on the tightness of the trousers, Wilson. Trapped gas will emerge somewhere but not necessarily in a desirable place.

The university of Oxhampton conducted research on this phenomenon, John.

One group wore impermeable cycling shorts, while another wore standard issue “primate hind quarter” coloured lycra. A control group wore ordinary shorts, while a second control group comprised young female students with no shorts at all. This final group was studied more closely than all of the others, although there is no empirical reason why this should have been so.

The group with impermeable shorts were found to emit gases from a variety of location points, the most usual of which were to be found around the leg openings or upwards from the hem, as measured by a specially adapted micro manometer.

The group with the permeable shorts was found to emit gas in a direct trajectory from the fundament, although the diffuse nature of the movement provided little in the way of forward thrust, as measured by a third wheel device.

The group with the ordinary shorts behaved in a similar way to the second group, while the final group, being made up of fragrant young ladies of impeccable breeding, emitted no gas at all.

Thats “having a gas ” in sixties speak Frank – IE- having a lot of fun. Never used it myself sounds too mid-Atlantic , didnt use – “bummed out/bummer ” either.

What a quaint piece of research, Frank. I gather that Oxhampton University has since been closed.

This Conversation is starting to remind me of the book by Jerome K. Jerome Three Men on the Bummel about a cycling tour of Germany involving the same characters as in his previous book Three Men in a Boat. “Bummel” is a German word for journey. The book was written at the beginning of the 20th century when bicycles were more upright and riders fully clothed, usually in Tweed.

I rather liked your dry observation that “This final group was studied more closely than all of the others, although there is no empirical reason why this should have been so. Very understated… 🙂

The idea of the rear being in the air is something which is ill placed to be in the same sentence as the description of a distended finger.

It conjures up a vision which is arguably even more revolting than that faced by countless motorists who contemplate “elevated lycra indecency” on an all too common basis.

What is it with cyclists,
with the monkey stance,
their bums in their air,
doing a little dance.

Twitching from side to side,
a ritual it seems
but can any one say
what it actually means?

That’s a good question Little J, LOL