Myths about cycling, busted

I do know very well clive
(Not going there:)

confirmation of the fart rule

1. Most bike accidents are the cyclists' fault ---- skydancer's link to Pedal cyclist collisions and casualties in Greater London doc (sorry, I can't see how to make a short link)
   

Pedal Cyclist Collisions
PDF hyperlinked here Brokenbetty

This is quite interesting- what are the figures on car ownership?

I'd have thought that the average family have a car, so would all count as motorists.

What percentage of people in the UK don't belong to a family unit that has a car?

My argument is dependant on the point that the level of car ownership is irrelevant. It's dependant on a bit of a semantic leap, but one that I think is valid and stands up although I've never really had it challenged so please do if you think I'm wrong.

Firstly we look at the balance of the whole cost of the road vs the income from motoring. Based on the figures from the article I posted upthread the disparity is basically a ratio of 3:1. The article claims to be conservative in its estimates and I believe that, but even from a more conservative stance you'd be hard pressed to get it under a ratio of 2:1. So immediately the argument of paying "road tax" falls apart there. Aside from the non existence and the manner in which revenue is managed and distributed, the cost borne by the motorist alone is less than the cost borne by everyone outside of that.
Yes, overall the motorist is still paying more, but a couple of things need to be taken into consideration. a) a significant porportion of motoring derived revenue is formed from the commercial/business sector. Unsurprisingly, that cost gets passed on to the customer so non-motorists kick in even more. This goes up in a point I'll be making later. b) A proportion of all of the whole cost of the road is derived directly from motorways, which non-motorists have no access to, so we're subsidising something that we have no access to. c) The majority of road development and maintenance is centred directly around motoring so the insult of the disparity of cost is exacerbated further by the disproportionality of disbusement. You could argue the other real benefits to the non motorists, and I agree they exist, but I find it hard to see the balance restored here. d) The motorists road tax relies heavily on a sense of ownership, yet that ownship cannot genuinely hold true while they're being bailed out from all quarters.
So moving on from this, if you own a vehicle that attracts a VED charge and consumes fuel that attracts tax and duty (even electric can claim this), essentially a motor vehicle then absolutely you do pay to access the roads, even for the simple act of being parked away from private land (check SORN rights for further details). However, I'm of the opinion that even if you are a motorist, if you are on the road but not using a motor vehicle, including even as a pedestrian and not on what we would recognise as the roadway, you then constitute a non-motorist. Partly because you at that time are not paying a recognisable tax or duty related directly to road use and partly because of the absence of equitable comprehensive support in doing so and partly because of the legally unimpingeable right to do so. And in that act of being a non-motorist you are then subsidising those who at the time are being a motorist.
Possibly a radical notion, but while non-motorists are stumping up twice the amount that motorists are, then I don't think it unreasonable to expect some investment that is greater than verging on the insignificant.
In the mean time, if motorists want to believe that they pay "road tax" then they need to STFU and start accepting our unfaltering support with a lot more good grace and gratitude. [/rant]

we all use motorways, even if we don't venture onto them ourselves, lots of people do on your behalf, and even if you cycle or walk everywhere, you are still dependent on motor vehicles for almost everything you do and use.

Cycling is a left-wing plot and it aims to bring down capitalism.

No. Wait.

Sorry. It actually is.

The Times does some mythbusting re road tax
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3311131.ece

BBC Bristol is currently discussing cycling in England's first Cycling City...usual talk about helmets and RLJing but makes for interesting listening

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bristol/programmes

we all use motorways, even if we don't venture onto them ourselves, lots of people do on your behalf, and even if you cycle or walk everywhere, you are still dependent on motor vehicles for almost everything you do and use.

True, but as I stated, as a consumer, we end up paying for that anyway.

This (http://invisiblevisibleman.blogspot.com/2012/01/minister-who-made-invisible-visible-man.html) busts the myth that cycling is dangerous and explains to some extent why there are rediculous myths about cycling and a toleration of the real menace on the roads. drivers

An interesting read, though odd in part.

'Seven cycling myths unpicked' in the Times cycling supplement today p.10

I might be going out on a limb when I suggest that some of us have internet access.
So in case you don't want to line Rupert Murdoch's pockets, here's the link:
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3328526.ece

It includes this gem: "A small minority of drivers break the speed limit."

So unfortunately I have to conclude that whoever wrote the article is a dribbling moron, who hasn't actually travelled on a road. Or at least hasn't travelled on a road since they introduced speed limits.

"The Department for Transport says as many as 49% of drivers flout the current 70mph limit."
From here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15116064

49% seems awfully low if you ask me.

Agreed.
Although apparently 49% constitutes "a small minority" in News Corp-speak.
At least they are consistent. I am sure they once said, "a small minority of our journalists have been involved in phone hacking..."

I'd say 100% of drivers break the speed limit, it's a question of degree though, innit?

85 on a motorway is politically acceptable, 120 and people think you are a bit of a twat.

Yes but the article says that 49% of drivers break 70mph which is clearly bullshit, as many more than that do. Also this argument about raising the 70mph limit because cars are safer than they were 50 years ago when the limit was introduced is bullshit unless of course you are only going to allow new cars on the motorways.

Good work busting the busters. The myth behind the myth behind the myth...

There are enormous economic benefits to be had by increasing the speed limit and shortening journey times.A. Of course it does, greater speed, greater fuel consumption - More tax paid.
More tax paid = better roads? Doubtful.
Greater fuel consumption = yet more bad stuff in the air we breathe
Greater speed shortening journey times = fucking genius that!

Now it is time to put Britain back in the fast lane of global economies = This is the same England that bailed out the bank of Scotland who just posted losses of 778 million, yet bonus payouts reach around 800 million in the same fiscal year? That Genius is back!

"What we are doing here, is bringing a lot of drivers who currently, routinely break the speed limit, back on the right side of the law - and that has to be a good thing." = Nope, it means they'll go 90 as standard (assuming raising speed to 80), nullifying any affect at legalising speeding (That's essentially what it is) = People will go faster, fact! (I say fact, completely unsubstantiated by anything other than fact - well that and Human nature!)

We would be strongly opposed to any policy that would increase deaths on the roads = Are these the same policy makers that want Cycle Super Highways all over the place, yet display a complete lack of road use understanding? That Genius is officially a twat.

(A petulant Thursday)

1. Riding a lo-pro is not like riding downhill all the time.
   

Yes but the article says that 49% of drivers break 70mph which is clearly bullshit, as many more than that do. Also this argument about raising the 70mph limit because cars are safer than they were 50 years ago when the limit was introduced is bullshit unless of course you are only going to allow new cars on the motorways.

What percentage of the cars that you see on a typical motorway journey are 50 years old?

How about 20 years old?

The majority of cars in use today are notable for having moved on from cable operated drum brakes at all four corners, and a top speed of ~50 mph come to that.

But, as you point out, things like stopping distances are still based on the example of our drum braked Morris.

Dammit, don't be so sensible.

I mean owing to the handful of 50 year old cars, we should absolutely slow down the rest of the country.

It's called the tyranny of the minority and just a price you have to pay in any fully functioning democracy.

Oh wait.

Frankly I much prefer the French idea where you can go 80-ish in good weather but if it starts raining the limit drops to 65 AND IS ENFORCED.