Jump to content

Tour De France Coming To Sheffield!


Recommended Posts

A shortfall of £2.4 million in funding for the Tour DE France was announced today. Yay, I wonder who's gonna pay for that then?

Link to post
Share on other sites

A shortfall of £2.4 million in funding for the Tour DE France was announced today. Yay, I wonder who's gonna pay for that then?

I could have a good guess. Who pays for cyclists to use the road anyway? They don't pay road tax, they don't have to have an MOT on their frequently unroadworthy heaps of scrap and they do not have even the minimum third party insurance cover. Whats more, the cyclists are not required to pass a test, own a licence or, so it would seem, have any knowledge at all of the highway code. However, all of a sudden, cycling which contributes nothing to transport on our roads can demand road closures so that they can have a race on it. What next? Will a set of Hells Angels demand the closure of the M1 so they can do speed tests on it and organise a TT style race down it? I don't think so, but if they did at least they would have met the previously mentioned conditions and contributions to road use.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst I agree that cyclists should carry some sort of insurance, and maybe undergo some sort of test, I think you're somewhat generalising about cyclists again Dave.

I personally own 2 vehicles, both of which are taxed and insured for the year, and I also have a pushbike, all of which are "off road" when not in use. I can neither ride nor drive more than one of them at the same time. If I go to the shops on my bike, I'm saving the journey that I would have done in my van or car. As a bike takes up less room, and does an indeterminate amount less damage than a motor vehicle, I consider this to be a positive contribution.

I don't know for a fact, but I would imagine that, if the only vehicles using the roads were bikes, then the roads would need only a fraction of the maintenance to damaged surfaces. (most of which, I think, would be due to weather rather than wear)

I've said somewhere on here before that I find some cyclists to be bad mannered and/or dangerous and some car drivers to be bad mannered and/or dangerous.

Did you not have a pushbike when you were a lad ? Perhaps not, but most of the kids I grew up with did. What about children on tricycles or scooters causing wear and tear on the pavements. Perhaps they should pay some sort of tax.

As for road closures, I have fallen foul of them on more than one occasion. Football matches, marathons. Very annoying.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst I agree that cyclists should carry some sort of insurance, and maybe undergo some sort of test, I think you're somewhat generalising about cyclists again Dave.

I personally own 2 vehicles, both of which are taxed and insured for the year, and I also have a pushbike, all of which are "off road" when not in use. I can neither ride nor drive more than one of them at the same time. If I go to the shops on my bike, I'm saving the journey that I would have done in my van or car. As a bike takes up less room, and does an indeterminate amount less damage than a motor vehicle, I consider this to be a positive contribution.

I don't know for a fact, but I would imagine that, if the only vehicles using the roads were bikes, then the roads would need only a fraction of the maintenance to damaged surfaces. (most of which, I think, would be due to weather rather than wear)

I've said somewhere on here before that I find some cyclists to be bad mannered and/or dangerous and some car drivers to be bad mannered and/or dangerous.

Did you not have a pushbike when you were a lad ? Perhaps not, but most of the kids I grew up with did. What about children on tricycles or scooters causing wear and tear on the pavements. Perhaps they should pay some sort of tax.

As for road closures, I have fallen foul of them on more than one occasion. Football matches, marathons. Very annoying.

Yes vox we have discussed this somewhere before (link fairy? But I can't remember the exact topic or context)and I did not intend to generalise against all cyclists, its just that there are more than a fair share of looney ones on our road, the main reason for that is the lack of any age limit or "test" or "licence" (a requirement to prove you are competent to be in charge of the vehicle). Riding on the pavement, going through red traffic lights, undertaking stationary lines of traffic and numerous other antics are common, - but because there are no legal requirements on ownership of the bike, proficiency at riding it or even insurance cover many cyclists seem to think that the highway code doesn't apply to them!.

As a kid I did have a bike, a rode it regularly but not on the pavement or even off road. As the road was a dangerous place, even in the 1960s, to ride a bike my parents insisted I learn to ride it properly, think safety and obey the rules of the road which I did. This paid off well, because when, to my parents horror, I graduated onto motorcycles which I rode for many years before I got married and had kids, it set me up to think safety all the time and got me through years and many thousands of miles of motorcycling accident free.

However, in this topic, its not the quality of cyclist that is the issue. It is the cost of sporting events and what is acceptable. Cyclists contribute nothing to the financing of the public highways, - and they are exactly that, - public property, - there to be used by everybody to get around freely in whatever way they choose or are legally permitted to do. So, unless a road has to be closed by emergency services or works departments for valid reasons of safety, maintainence or repair no one has the right to close a road and use it for their own purpose as though they actually own it. For this reason I am very also very anti those red tar "psychopath cycle paths" for use by bikes. Who paid for them? Why do we need them? Cyclists would say it protects them from motorists, I would argue it protects motorists from them by getting them out of the way, - but these paths weave about and use both roads and random sections of pavement so to pedestrians they are a liability.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Waterside Echo

I would argue it protects motorists from them by getting them out of the way, - but these paths weave about and use both roads and random sections of pavement so to pedestrians they are a liability.

Tell me about it! Try walking from from St Mary's Gate up to the Brook Hill roundabout. W/E.

Link to post
Share on other sites
madannie77

I could have a good guess. Who pays for cyclists to use the road anyway? They don't pay road tax, they don't have to have an MOT on their frequently unroadworthy heaps of scrap and they do not have even the minimum third party insurance cover. Whats more, the cyclists are not required to pass a test, own a licence or, so it would seem, have any knowledge at all of the highway code. However, all of a sudden, cycling which contributes nothing to transport on our roads can demand road closures so that they can have a race on it. What next? Will a set of Hells Angels demand the closure of the M1 so they can do speed tests on it and organise a TT style race down it? I don't think so, but if they did at least they would have met the previously mentioned conditions and contributions to road use.

No-one pays Road Tax, as it does not exist. Nor is the money raised by the Vehicle Excise Duty "ring-fenced" for use on road building & repair.

Basically, everyone who pays income tax, VAT or any other tax pays for the roads.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

No-one pays Road Tax, as it does not exist. Nor is the money raised by the Vehicle Excise Duty "ring-fenced" for use on road building & repair.

Basically, everyone who pays income tax, VAT or any other tax pays for the roads.

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

Correct, but as Vehicle Excise Duty (which is still a "tax") is the only time a check is made that a vehicle is insured (a legal requirement) and has a current MOT (is actually in a roadworthy condition) it does serve a purpose. I know some vehicles are exempt or have a £0 rating these days, but the check is still made. no one ever makes this check on cyclists. so a cyclist could be an incompetent idiot on an unroadworthy heap of scrap, which they frequently are, - because nobody checks on them!

Link to post
Share on other sites

To me Vehicle Excise Duty is called "Road Tax"

I refuse to call it VED as that sounds like a sexually transmitted disease!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...