Author Topic: Anti cycling law  (Read 15495 times)

NZPeterG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 726
  • It's Great to Be Alive! Again! Go Cycle. . . . . .
    • Kiwi Pete's Cycling Safari
Re: Anti cycling law
« Reply #15 on: April 10, 2013, 08:38:25 PM »
Why do cyclists not pay road taxs?

I'm asked this most days from Car and Truck drivers?

Pete
 :o


The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common[

http://kiwipetesadventures.tumblr.com/

http://kiwipetescyclingsafari.blogspot.co.nz/

Looked after by Chris @ http://www.puresports.co.nz/
For all your Rohloff and Thorn Bicycle's in NZ

Danneaux

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8281
  • reisen statt rasen
Re: Anti cycling law
« Reply #16 on: April 10, 2013, 08:42:27 PM »
Hi All!

Bicycle licensing (for revenue generation, hopefully to be plowed back into bike-related things) and extending the Youth Helmet law from age 16 and below to 18 and below are currently under consideration by the Oregon legislature in the current session.

So far, the greatest opposition to extending the youth helmet law has come from organized bicycle groups in the state, who fear it will increase the perception that cycling is a "dangerous" sport and will have a cooling effect on participation, amounting to an anti-cycling law.

As it is, the current law here is not enforced with any sort of consistency if at all. I see little kids (really little!) riding around all the time without helmets, right past police officers who do nothing in response. At the same time, I'll see parents without helmets take great care to put on on their child. The (half-facetious) question begs: Who has the most to lose here? The adult with a head full of knowledge, parental responsibilities and a wage-earner and contributing member of society...or a little kid with a lifetime of experiences yet to go?

I hope this won't start the Great (and always unwinnable) Helmet Debate on the Forum (Please! As Forum member and Administrator, I beg you all on bended knee!).

However, such laws are symptomatic of efforts toward greater overall regulation of cycling. A good part of it (here in 'Merka) is related to our penchant for tort claims and monetary awards for damages. Part of it is related to insurance premiums and risk categories for "dangerous" pursuits. Part of it is...well, maybe we know more about the sad consequences of being Unsafe and the bankrupting personal medical costs that can now result. When I was a little kid, my father owned a 1949 Willys Jeep. It didn't have enough seating for all, and the preferred seat was an unsecured wooden house chair sliding around on the wood-slatted deck in the covered cargo area. Corners and panic stops were fun from my chair-skittering perspective and nothing Bad ever happened, thank goodness. Neither the Jeep or the other car (we kept them for decades, it was a 1957 Mercury Montclair...and this was in the early 1970s) had a single seatbelt and all interior contact surfaces were steel. Now, of course, I latch the seatbelt/shoulder harness before I turn the key and worry the '89 Honda doesn't have a single airbag. It is a jungle Out There on the road.

My fellow drivers (I drive too!) aren't as careful as they once were. Every day the evening news carries horrific stories of cars crossing the center line and taking out oncoming traffic and innocent trees and utility poles. Cyclists and pedestrians are being run over at alarming rates, and in-car distractions are growing by the day. Riding along in traffic and stopping at traffic lights allows me to see inside. People are watching televisions on flip-down sun visors or half-silvered rearview mirror monitors, texting or talking on cell phones (and submitting eBay bids!), eating, shaving, applying makeup, swatting kids in the back seat...everything, it seems, but driving or watching out for cyclists like myself and others. On several occasions in the last year, I've been forced to leave the road and take to the ditch when my rearview mirror showed a closing SUV approaching from the rear, two wheels over the fog line onto the shoulder where I was riding. If I hadn't done so, I wouldn't be writing this now.

And, some of the cyclists I've seen can hardly be held blameless for their behavior. Riding wrong-way against traffic, lane-splitting, darting unsignalled across cars' right of way, and blowing stop signs and traffic lights. behaviors like this tend to alarm and inflame and don't exactly help the cyclists' cause. It seems endemic among riders based near the local uni. Hurried cyclists carving through pedestrians on sidewalks aren't a happy mix either. There's enough blame to go 'round.

So, where does it end? Here, the daily newspaper carries frequent letters to the editor endorsing bicycle licensing as a means to Make Cyclists Pay Their Own Way...forgetting most American cyclists also own and operate cars and so fund road taxes via registration fees and gas (petrol) taxes. I think part of the problem here is bicycles are still viewed by many as (sometimes expensive) toys that belong on the sidewalk or in parks. A young Portland driver recently Tweeted this photo: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BArU7i2CIAAwqFa.jpg with the caption, "Bikers that bike in the middle of the street like this are so annoying. Like have you ever heard of a sidewalk?" Mmmno, the rider is following safe procedure, establishing his intent to proceed straight through the intersection and preventing a car from turning right over him. There's no bike lanes pictured, and his intent is in letter-perfect compliance with procedure listed in the Oregon State Cycle Operator's Manual. Still, it bothered her enough to photograph and post her complaint. A car driver recently rolled down her passenger-side window to upbraid me for riding in the curbside cycle lane. "Get off the road!", she screamed, "Would you play tennis in the middle of the street? Ride on the sidewalk where you belong!" and roared away when the light changed, giving me a single-fingered salute in parting.

A friend in the insurance business recently warned me to think twice about posting bike ride-related photos and material on my Facebook page, saying it is now standard procedure for some of the larger companies to do a Google search for Facebook and Twitter posts that could reveal "undue risk behaviors" among clients and use these as a means for setting rates and deductibles. Yikes. I'm a goner there if they ever find my Thorn Forum posts.

There's times I'd like to see more evidence of personal responsibility, as I saw in The Netherlands. I was touring a windmill and talking with the miller on an unfenced deck after climbing a very steep spiral staircase absent a handrail. Pretty soon, I heard children's voices and a couple very small kids raced up the stairs ahead of their parents. I voiced some concern to the miller and wondered about liability in the event of a fall or accident. His response? A shrug and "If they fall, perhaps they were't holding on tightly enough. They have parents". Brought me back to childhood.

Putting oneself in the other person's place and sharing -- really sharing -- (like we were taught in kindergarten) would go a long ways toward alleviating many bike-car conflicts.

Best,

Dan.

E-wan

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 103
Re: Anti cycling law
« Reply #17 on: April 10, 2013, 08:55:19 PM »
although comemly called road tax in the UK I believe the correct term is "Vehicle Excise Duty" this is aplicable only to motor vechles. Roads are funded through general taxation not Vehicle Excise Duty and currently there is no reason why cyclists should pay 'road tax' as road tax doesn't exist and Vehicle Excise Duty does not fund roads. :) :)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/green-living-blog/2010/mar/18/cyclists-road-tax-drivers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_Excise_Duty

Ewan

Danneaux

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8281
  • reisen statt rasen
Re: Anti cycling law
« Reply #18 on: April 10, 2013, 08:58:19 PM »
Quote
Why do cyclists not pay road taxs? I'm asked this most days from Car and Truck drivers?
Hi Pete!

The best answer I've found recently is contained in an editorial appearing in my local newspaper a week ago: http://www.registerguard.com/rg/opinion/29643166-78/taxes-bicycles-bike-transportation-bicyclists.html.csp

The reader comments that follow the editorial (further down the page at the link above) are...surreal when taken in their entirely.

A nice followup from a reader is posted under the title, "Bicycling produces economic gains" on the Letters to the Editor page in a latwr edition of the same newspaper: http://www.registerguard.com/rg/opinion/29661692-78/eugene-energy-forests-million-program.html.csp

Best,

Dan.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2013, 09:14:54 PM by Danneaux »

Andre Jute

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4128
Re: Anti cycling law
« Reply #19 on: April 11, 2013, 12:16:21 AM »
although comemly called road tax in the UK I believe the correct term is "Vehicle Excise Duty" this is aplicable only to motor vechles. Roads are funded through general taxation not Vehicle Excise Duty and currently there is no reason why cyclists should pay 'road tax' as road tax doesn't exist and Vehicle Excise Duty does not fund roads. :) :)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/green-living-blog/2010/mar/18/cyclists-road-tax-drivers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_Excise_Duty

Ewan

And what's more, cyclists ride the roads by unfetterered right, whereas motorists are clearly such dangerous and antisocial entities that they come on the roads only by conditional license for both the vehicle and the operator.

Andre Jute

Danneaux

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8281
  • reisen statt rasen
Re: Anti cycling law
« Reply #20 on: April 11, 2013, 01:18:54 AM »
 
Quote
...cyclists ride the roads by unfetterered right, whereas motorists are clearly such dangerous and antisocial entities that they come on the roads only by conditional license for both the vehicle and the operator
;D Love it! Beautifully stated, Andre.

Best,

Dan. (...whose whole day was made brighter by that well-phrased statement of our esteemed Mr. Jute)

Cambirder

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 132
Re: Anti cycling law
« Reply #21 on: April 11, 2013, 10:18:58 AM »
You can now drive a car on UK roads without paying VED providing it had CO2 emissions <100g/km. A car kicking out 99g/km is still far more polluting than a bike so maybe we should be paid to go on the road  8).

Most drivers complaining about this are speaking from ignorance, and I bet most would have a fit if they realised that most motorbikes pay nothing either. I'm assuming they don't know this because I've never seen bikers being subject to the same accusation.

NZPeterG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 726
  • It's Great to Be Alive! Again! Go Cycle. . . . . .
    • Kiwi Pete's Cycling Safari
Re: Anti cycling law
« Reply #22 on: April 11, 2013, 10:50:53 AM »
Most drivers complaining about this are speaking from ignorance, and I bet most would have a fit if they realised that most motorbikes pay nothing either. I'm assuming they don't know this because I've never seen bikers being subject to the same accusation.

But Motorcycles are Speed Limited  ::) Bicycles are not  ;)

OK, OK, Yes Motorcycles go fast but Max Speed is set to 320kph  ;D

Just having fun with you all, We all just need to get out more and cycle. cycle....

Pete
 ;)

The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common[

http://kiwipetesadventures.tumblr.com/

http://kiwipetescyclingsafari.blogspot.co.nz/

Looked after by Chris @ http://www.puresports.co.nz/
For all your Rohloff and Thorn Bicycle's in NZ

StuntPilot

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 435
    • Tour on a Bike
Re: Anti cycling law
« Reply #23 on: April 11, 2013, 11:10:59 AM »
Yes, in the UK Winston Churchill abolished 'road tax' in 1937. Ever since roads have been paid for from general revenue and local taxes. As mentioned most cyclists are also vehicle owners too. There is a campaign to educate people on these facts in the UK ...

http://ipayroadtax.com/

In fact, the rapid improvement of the road system in the UK in the late 19th and early 20th century was at the demands of cyclists wanting a better road surface to ride on. Cyclists should be honoured by car drivers for helping to improve the road system!

Cycle training organisations actually encourage you take up a positive road position too.

As for helmets, it is better to leave it to choice. I would certainly advocate that children wear helmets, and adults too in urban areas, however the choice should be up to the individual. Compulsory helmet rules have been shown to discourage cycling uptake. Spokes (the Edinburgh and Lothian cycle campaign) will not take advertising from organisations that make helmet wearing compulsory during an event!

http://www.spokes.org.uk/wordpress/documents/internal-documents/spokes-advertising-policy/

http://www.spokes.org.uk/wordpress/documents/advice/helmets/

(Edinburgh has just been voted the 'most sensible city' in the UK by the way!)

As well as discouraging cyclists by making helmet wearing compulsory, I read somewhere that in certain more minor accidents, the helmet can cause an increase in the rotational forces exerted on the brain leading to increased head trauma. Interesting thought!

Lots more here if you have time to spare ...

http://cyclehelmets.org/

PHEW!
« Last Edit: April 11, 2013, 12:39:49 PM by StuntPilot »

bikerwaser

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 110
Re: Anti cycling law
« Reply #24 on: April 16, 2013, 08:52:25 PM »
as we know, the law brought in in Australia significantly reduced the number of cyclists whereas prior to the law cyclist numbers were on the increase:

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1194.html

less cyclists mean less funding for cyclists and bike infrastructure.


Matt2matt2002

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1946
Re: Anti cycling law
« Reply #25 on: April 16, 2013, 10:38:57 PM »
I'm no mathematician but did the decrease in numbers of cyclists also decrease the numbers of folk admitted to A & E with head injuries, on a pro rata basis?

Before I get flamed, can I say that I think helmets should be a free choice.
Never drink and drive. You may hit a bump  and spill your drink

bikerwaser

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 110
Re: Anti cycling law
« Reply #26 on: April 16, 2013, 11:53:30 PM »
here's the figures on pre and post Ozzy helmet law. showing that the percentage of hospital admissions and head injuries rose after the helmet law was introduced.
it also shows that bringing in speed checks were a big factor in reducing serious injuries.

on the whole it would seem the helmet law had no effect or worse effect on percentage of cyclist fatalities.

http://www.cycle-helmets.com/results.html

what isn't mentioned is the fact that cycling keeps a person fit and therefore costs the country less in health support. if they bring in helmet laws, less people cycle and more people become unhealthy and more people die of heart disease etc.



Danneaux

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8281
  • reisen statt rasen
Re: Anti cycling law
« Reply #27 on: April 17, 2013, 01:29:24 AM »
The policy analyst in me always hopes data from such studies are at least considered in other areas when pondering new legislation. So often, it seems the wheel (sorry) has to be re-invented ever anon because "that's there and this is here".

Best,

Dan.

Matt2matt2002

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1946
Re: Anti cycling law
« Reply #28 on: April 17, 2013, 06:30:19 AM »
The policy analyst in me always hopes data from such studies are at least considered in other areas when pondering new legislation. So often, it seems the wheel (sorry) has to be re-invented ever anon because "that's there and this is here".

Best,

Dan.

Or , that was then and this is now.

Over here we have a type of person called a "jobsworth". Someone who goes by the book no matter what.
And of course, all this revision keeps someone in a job!
 ;)
Never drink and drive. You may hit a bump  and spill your drink

NZPeterG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 726
  • It's Great to Be Alive! Again! Go Cycle. . . . . .
    • Kiwi Pete's Cycling Safari
Re: Anti cycling law
« Reply #29 on: April 17, 2013, 11:48:05 AM »
Look All  :o

Helmet Law's are here to Stay in OZ and NZ!

Get Over It

I have had My Life Saved by having a Helmet on My Head  :o 2 X So Far, and been Saved from Brain Damage 3 more times  :-[

So Why not wear one ?

(Would you all like some Wood to Build a Bridge and get over it?)

Pete
 ;)

Sorry to Say this But too Me You All are Anti to any Cycling Law's

« Last Edit: April 17, 2013, 11:51:42 AM by NZPeterG »
The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common[

http://kiwipetesadventures.tumblr.com/

http://kiwipetescyclingsafari.blogspot.co.nz/

Looked after by Chris @ http://www.puresports.co.nz/
For all your Rohloff and Thorn Bicycle's in NZ