A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

“He just kept saying cyclists have the right of way. Well then, they should be paying road tax.”



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 18th 19, 08:36 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
MrCheerful
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,444
Default “He just kept saying cyclists have the right of way. Well then, they should be paying road tax.”

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/new...roads-16251050
Ads
  #2  
Old May 18th 19, 01:25 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,598
Default “He just kept saying cyclists have the right of way. Well then, they should be paying road tax.”

On 18/05/2019 08:36, MrCheerful wrote:
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/new...roads-16251050


They go "too fast" but drivers have difficulty overtaking. Huh?
  #3  
Old May 18th 19, 03:42 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Bret Cahill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 700
Default “He just kept saying cyclists have the right of way. Well then, they should be paying road tax.”

On a /m^2 basis or road damage basis?

CIA



  #4  
Old May 19th 19, 10:06 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,598
Default “He just kept saying cyclists have the right of way. Well then, they should be paying road tax.”

On 18/05/2019 15:42, Bret Cahill wrote:
On a /m^2 basis or road damage basis?

CIA


Part of the problem in the UK is that it has become fashionable for
people to move out of town into country areas and buy cars that are too
wide for the roads. It's always somebody else's fault that there are
potholes on roads built in the 1920's and there isn't enough space to
park, overtake a cyclist or whatever.
  #5  
Old May 19th 19, 04:44 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Simon Jester
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,192
Default “He just kept saying cyclists have the right of way. Well then, they should be paying road tax.”

On Saturday, May 18, 2019 at 8:36:33 AM UTC+1, MrCheerful wrote:
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/new...roads-16251050


Anyone driving before the Road Fund Licence was abolished probably should not still be driving.
  #6  
Old May 21st 19, 06:14 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Bret Cahill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 700
Default “He just kept saying cyclists have the right of way. Well then, they should be paying road tax.”

On a /m^2 basis or road damage basis?

CIA


Part of the problem in the UK is that it has become fashionable for
people to move out of town into country areas and buy cars that are too
wide for the roads.


Someone needs to do a formal study on it to get the actual numbers but the reason they buy oversized cars in the U. S. is they are too fat to fit into a normal car.

Have you ever tried to wear a suit that's 2 - 3 sizes too small?

With my own informal observations I get a correlation coefficient of ~ 0.9 for the junk food in the shopping cart vs obesity relationship. Guessing not so wildly the correlation coefficient must be at least 0.8 for the obese driving oversize motor vehicles.

The commercial aircraft industry struggles in vain to get the lard off the runway. I feel sorry for Boeing, GE, Airbus, RR, Pratt, etc. No matter how big they make the fans the passengers just keep getting heavier.

It's getting more and more difficult to design a plane where the props or fans don't hit the runway. The engines are already almost as large as the fuselage. Sooner or later they will have to go VTOL with props designed to disintegrate on impact on emergency landings.

It's always somebody else's fault that there are
potholes on roads built in the 1920's and there isn't enough space to
park, overtake a cyclist or whatever.


  #7  
Old May 21st 19, 08:58 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,598
Default “He just kept saying cyclists have the right of way. Well then, they should be paying road tax.”

On 21/05/2019 06:14, Bret Cahill wrote:
On a /m^2 basis or road damage basis?


CIA


Part of the problem in the UK is that it has become fashionable for
people to move out of town into country areas and buy cars that are
too wide for the roads.


Someone needs to do a formal study on it to get the actual numbers
but the reason they buy oversized cars in the U. S. is they are too
fat to fit into a normal car.


Once upon a time American and European cars were a different size.
European cars were a better fit for European roads.

Have you ever tried to wear a suit that's 2 - 3 sizes too small?


The useful interior of a car doesn't correlate with the outside
dimensions. When cars did not have central locking and it was possible
for the driver to reach across to operate the passenger door lock. Most
of the extra width has just put more air between driver and passenger.

With my own informal observations I get a correlation coefficient of
~ 0.9 for the junk food in the shopping cart vs obesity
relationship. Guessing not so wildly the correlation coefficient must
be at least 0.8 for the obese driving oversize motor vehicles.

The commercial aircraft industry struggles in vain to get the lard
off the runway. I feel sorry for Boeing, GE, Airbus, RR, Pratt,
etc. No matter how big they make the fans the passengers just keep
getting heavier.


....and if the airlines charged for the total weight of passenger and
luggage, the politically correct brigade would shout "discrimination!".

It's getting more and more difficult to design a plane where the
props or fans don't hit the runway. The engines are already almost
as large as the fuselage. Sooner or later they will have to go VTOL
with props designed to disintegrate on impact on emergency landings.


Increasing bypass makes the engine more efficient. Whereas the car
industry only has to concern itself with consumer vanity and paying lip
service to government regulations, the commercial aircraft industry has
to concern itself with operating costs.
  #8  
Old May 21st 19, 05:16 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Bret Cahill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 700
Default “He just kept saying cyclists have the right of way. Well then, they should be paying road tax.”

On a /m^2 basis or road damage basis?

CIA


Part of the problem in the UK is that it has become fashionable for
people to move out of town into country areas and buy cars that are
too wide for the roads.


Someone needs to do a formal study on it to get the actual numbers
but the reason they buy oversized cars in the U. S. is they are too
fat to fit into a normal car.


Once upon a time American and European cars were a different size.
European cars were a better fit for European roads.

Have you ever tried to wear a suit that's 2 - 3 sizes too small?


The useful interior of a car doesn't correlate with the outside
dimensions. When cars did not have central locking and it was possible
for the driver to reach across to operate the passenger door lock. Most
of the extra width has just put more air between driver and passenger.


That may be true in part, but they are mostly concerned about how they look the 3 seconds required getting into and out of the vehicle. Once they are in or out it doesn't matter much.

With my own informal observations I get a correlation coefficient of
~ 0.9 for the junk food in the shopping cart vs obesity
relationship. Guessing not so wildly the correlation coefficient must
be at least 0.8 for the obese driving oversize motor vehicles.

The commercial aircraft industry struggles in vain to get the lard
off the runway. I feel sorry for Boeing, GE, Airbus, RR, Pratt,
etc. No matter how big they make the fans the passengers just keep
getting heavier.


...and if the airlines charged for the total weight of passenger and
luggage, the politically correct brigade would shout "discrimination!".

It's getting more and more difficult to design a plane where the
props or fans don't hit the runway. The engines are already almost
as large as the fuselage. Sooner or later they will have to go VTOL
with props designed to disintegrate on impact on emergency landings.


Increasing bypass makes the engine more efficient. Whereas the car
industry only has to concern itself with consumer vanity and paying lip
service to government regulations, the commercial aircraft industry has
to concern itself with operating costs.


2 oilcos are now calling for a carbon tax + rebate along with the 4 former Fed chairs and 27 Noble laureates. That may make operating costs an issue an for vehicles as well.

Here's one suggested aggressively progressive carbon tax table:

Tons/Year Income from your carbon debit card

0 $5000
1 $5000
2 $5000
3 $4950
4 4850
5 4700
6 4500
7 4250
8 3950
9 3600
10 3200
11 2750
12 2250
13 1700
14 1100
15 450
- Break even
16 -300
17 -1150
18 -2100
19 -3150
20 -4300
21 -5550
22 -6900
23 -8350
24 -9900
25 -11550
26 -13300
27 -15150
28 -17100
29 -19150
30 -21300
31 -23550
32 -25900
33 -28350
34 -30900
35 -33550
36 -36300
37 -39150
38 -42100
39 -45150
40 -48300
41 -51550
42 -54900
43 -58350
44 -61900
45 -65550
46 -69300
47 -73150
48 -77100
49 -81150
50 -85300
51 -89950
52 -95100
53 -100750
54 -106900
55 -113550
56 -120700
57 -128350
58 -136500
59 -145150
60 -154300
61 -163950
62 -174100
63 -184750
64 -195900
65 -207550
66 -219700
67 -232350
68 -245500
69 -259150
70 -273300
71 -287950
72 -303100
73 -318750
74 -334900
75 -351550
76 -368700
77 -386350
78 -404500
79 -423150
80 -442300
81 -461950
82 -482100
83 -502750
84 -523900
85 -545550
86 -567700
87 -590350
88 -613500
89 -637150
90 -661300
91 -685950
92 -711100
93 -736750
94 -762900
95 -789550
96 -816700
97 -844350
98 -872500
99 -901150
100 -930300
101 -960450
102 -991600
103 -1023750
104 -1056900
105 -1091050
106 -1126200
107 -1162350
108 -1199500
109 -1237650
110 -1276800
111 -1316950
112 -1358100
113 -1400250
114 -1443400
115 -1487550
116 -1532700
117 -1578850
118 -1626000
119 -1674150
120 -1723300
121 -1773450
122 -1824600
123 -1876750
124 -1929900
125 -1984050
126 -2039200
127 -2095350
128 -2152500
129 -2210650
130 -2269800
131 -2329950
132 -2391100
133 -2453250
134 -2516400
135 -2580550
136 -2645700
137 -2711850
138 -2779000
139 -2847150
140 -2916300
141 -2986450
142 -3057600
143 -3129750
144 -3202900
145 -3277050
146 -3352200
147 -3428350
148 -3505500
149 -3583650
150 -3662800
151 -3742950
152 -3824100
153 -3906250
154 -3989400
155 -4073550
156 -4158700
157 -4244850
158 -4332000
159 -4420150
160 -4509300
161 -4599450
162 -4690600
163 -4782750
164 -4875900
165 -4970050
166 -5065200
167 -5161350
168 -5258500
169 -5356650
170 -5455800
171 -5555950
172 -5657100
173 -5759250
174 -5862400
175 -5966550
176 -6071700
177 -6177850
178 -6285000
179 -6393150
180 -6502300
181 -6612450
182 -6723600
183 -6835750
184 -6948900
185 -7063050
186 -7178200
187 -7294350
188 -7411500
189 -7529650
190 -7648800
191 -7768950
192 -7890100
193 -8012250
194 -8135400
195 -8259550
196 -8384700
197 -8510850
198 -8638000
199 -8766150
200 -8895300
201 -9025450
202 -9156600
203 -9288750
204 -9421900
205 -9556050
206 -9691200
207 -9827350
208 -9964500
209 -10102650
210 -10241800
211 -10381950
212 -10523100
213 -10665250
214 -10808400
215 -10952550
216 -11097700
217 -11243850
218 -11391000
219 -11539150
220 -11688300
221 -11838450
222 -11989600
223 -12141750
224 -12294900
225 -12449050
226 -12604200
227 -12760350
228 -12917500
229 -13075650
230 -13234800
231 -13394950
232 -13556100
233 -13718250
234 -13881400
235 -14045550
236 -14210700
237 -14376850
238 -14544000
239 -14712150
240 -14881300
241 -15051450
242 -15222600
243 -15394750
244 -15567900
245 -15742050
246 -15917200
247 -16093350
248 -16270500
249 -16448650
250 -16627800
251 -16807950
252 -16989100
253 -17171250
254 -17354400
255 -17538550
256 -17723700
257 -17909850
258 -18097000
259 -18285150
260 -18474300
261 -18664450


The Canadian carbon card would be tastefully embossed with a hologram of a tits up grizzolar bear. Tilt the card a little and the legs of the bear twitch as in the later stages of rigor mortis.


Bret Cahill


"A little more, a little less. How much fate rides on so little!"

-- Nietzsche

  #9  
Old May 21st 19, 07:39 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,598
Default “He just kept saying cyclists have the right of way. Well then, they should be paying road tax.”

On 21/05/2019 17:16, Bret Cahill wrote:
On a /m^2 basis or road damage basis?

CIA

Part of the problem in the UK is that it has become fashionable
for people to move out of town into country areas and buy cars
that are too wide for the roads.

Someone needs to do a formal study on it to get the actual
numbers but the reason they buy oversized cars in the U. S. is
they are too fat to fit into a normal car.


Once upon a time American and European cars were a different size.
European cars were a better fit for European roads.

Have you ever tried to wear a suit that's 2 - 3 sizes too small?


The useful interior of a car doesn't correlate with the outside
dimensions. When cars did not have central locking and it was
possible for the driver to reach across to operate the passenger
door lock. Most of the extra width has just put more air between
driver and passenger.


That may be true in part, but they are mostly concerned about how
they look the 3 seconds required getting into and out of the vehicle.
Once they are in or out it doesn't matter much.


Well it can matter... the seat in my previous car was obviously designed
for people that bring their own upholstery; it had side bolsters which
no part of me touched when sitting centrally and it gave me back ache
from trying to stop myself from sliding around. Being a slim, agile
cyclist, a Lotus/Caterham 7 would be sufficient for me so the entry/exit
issue doesn't really cross my mind.

I would have thought it better to have taller, narrower bodywork, like
cars from the 20's, to give a bigger door aperture when the opening is
restricted between parked cars. Include suicide doors - I am sure they
can be made safe enough these days.
  #10  
Old May 22nd 19, 07:05 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Ian Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,605
Default “He just kept saying cyclists have theright of way. Well then, they should be paying roadtax.”

On Tue, 21 May 2019 19:39:11 +0100, TMS320 wrote:

Include suicide doors - I am sure they can be made safe enough
these days.


A handful of modern cars have them. Quite a high proportion of Rolls
Royce have them for at least some of the doors.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The things cyclists do to avoid paying anything. Mrcheerful UK 1 January 19th 15 06:53 PM
Cyclists, why are we paying for your bikes? Mrcheerful[_3_] UK 5 August 8th 13 05:53 PM
Cyclists, why are we paying for your bikes? Mrcheerful[_3_] UK 0 August 1st 13 12:22 AM
Paying Road Fund dues was never a fee for using a road Squashme UK 13 September 18th 11 12:00 AM
UK - Paying for the road Vincent Patrick Australia 11 December 10th 06 01:04 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.