They should have to pay road tax

“Mrs Perkin,
if you have any integrity and honesty, you must support each and every one of your highly questionable claims with sound evidence.

By evidence, I mean reliable, checkable and objective sources. I do not mean the media. All too often they are not checkable, not objective and driven by an agenda.

Failure by you to defend your claims with substantive and supportive evidence will be taken as proof that your claims were disingenuous and false.”

“Reduce the speed limit in residential areas to 20mph and enforce it.. Some tiny twisty roads in Bristol, the speed limit is still 30 mph, yet anyone driving at this speed may not be breaking the law, but would be driving recklessly.

99.9% of accidents would be avoided if car drivers just SLOWED DOWN, showed caution, anticipation and consideration to others around them. Unfortunately, SO MANY, NOT ALL, car drivers think their journey is more important than the safety of pedestrians. It's a shame..
RE: The driver who knocked down a pedestrian on a pedestrian crossing and got away with it.”

“Mrs Perkin,
Cycle Helmets – Oh please!
Since the danger to cyclists is primarily derived from motor-vehicles, it is particularly galling when individuals start blaming the victim and making claims that fly in the face of the facts. The evidence about cycle helmets is clear – that they offer little discernible benefit to cyclists hit by motor-vehicles [http://tinyurl.com/2tj8fd]. Therefore, forcing innocent parties to wear typically ineffectual pieces of sweaty plastic is particularly stupid and pointless. Compulsory helmet laws have been shown repeatedly to severely discourage cycling, because it is perceived that cycling is dangerous. Societies should be encouraging cycling – why? Ever heard of the diseases of inactivity? Obesity, diabetes type-2; hypertension; atherosclerosis; osteoporosis; muscle-wasting; hyperlipidaemia; some cancers; some depression; some dementias. All of these can be prevented or substantially ameliorated by exercise – of which an important source is cycling. Any benefit from imposing cycling helmets is greatly outweighed by the reduction in cycling levels and the increased mortality that results. The New Zealand helmet law is: 'Estimated to have contributed to 53 premature deaths per year (due to reluctance to cycle and hence people not exercising). ' [http://tinyurl.com/7f8jyh7]

Many cyclists are drivers too. There's every reason to believe that discouraging cycling will merely result in people moving from bicycle to car. Is the solution to this country's congested roads really more cars or would fewer cars be a better idea? Your arguments and reasoning are just not credible.

Cycling benefits not just those who cycle, it benefits those who breathe in fewer fumes, have fewer hours of lost sleep, pedestrians who are less likely to be killed and it benefits drivers too, by removing cars from the roads and thereby reducing congestion and demand for parking spaces. It also reduces the load on the NHS. All these factors have real costs, financial and in health and mortality.
For example: Transport-related air pollution probably causes ~2,450 deaths per year. (70% of 3,500) http://tinyurl.com/ykvykjf
NHS obesity cost '….Estimated costs of treating the consequences of obesity were approximately £1 billion in 2002. ...''….Using the increasing levels of BMI predicted, the Foresight model estimates that the NHS cost attributable to obesity could rise to £5.3 billion9 by 2025. …' [http://tinyurl.com/8suujl]

You will note that driving has many disbenefits that are visited variously upon individuals and upon wider society.

More utility cyclists, those who forsake the car for the bike means fewer cars and fewer cars means fewer pedestrian casualties. Every additional 109 utility cyclists [who use the bike instead of the car, 3 or more times a week] would boost the UK economy by £1 million over 30 years.
Planning for Cycling Report to Cycling England 18/12/08 backupurl.com/1yq76f

So compelling cyclists to wear helmets is a very very bad idea. But encouraging cycling by protecting cyclists from cars is a very good idea – I cite the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany.

Making Cycling Irresistible: Lessons from The
Netherlands, Denmark and Germany
http://tinyurl.com/49ukykk”

“@rogergeffen

Just another question on this point if I may?

"However, given that the real source of road danger is irresponsible driving, that surely is what the police should primarily focus on."

I completely 100% agree. Unfortunately over the years we have solely been concentrating on speed, which has lead to the assumption/message that as long as you are not exceeding the speed limit you are driving responsibly and safely, despite only 5% of accidents having anything to do with breaking speed limits. Speed cameras have now replaced many road police, in spite of the fact they do very little to stop irresponsible (not paying attention, driving too fast for conditions etc...) driving.

What measures does your organisation support to reduce irresponsible driving?”

“Mrs Perkin, Would you like to retract your letter as you have clearly slandered all law abiding cyclists?
I have been a motorcyclist, pedestrian, cyclist & Passenger of a motor vehicle & all accidents I have been involved in over the decades all involved motor vehicles. Most of them are due to failure to stop at a junction or jump the red light. When on the road or pathway next to it, I respect all around me & pay attention . For if I didnt, I be dead by now. I have been pushed off the motorway by a lorry not looking & changing lane to the slow one which I was in & smashed my motorbike, I've been clipped by car failing to stop at the lights & I always wait for the green man, most failed due to lack of attention when on the mobile or chatting to a passenger.

So drivers arent all squeeky clean & law abiding, but as a person who is returning back onto the cycling to help get my leg fixed after 20yrs of crutches, I wear all the gear including helmet & stop at lights, abide the law & respect others on the road even those pedestrians who feel its their right to walk on cycle paths that states cycles only. For I do not want to be back on crutches & take offence in your letter in saying the majority break the law. If you have 99% that do in your area, then take it up with the Police.

And as for bringing up 'Road Tax', it was abolished in the 30's & those who still use the term need to read up the facts...”

“the key words, smoosername "serious or fatal consequences"

A pedestrian and a cyclist in a collision is much more likely to have a non-serious or fatal collision than a collision between a pedestrian and a 2-ton vehicle made of solid metal and glass travelling at around 3 times the speed of a cyclist.... Dontcha' think?”

“@rogergeffen

Both of the statements below can't be correct, for the figure to only be 1.35 in the statistic "mile for mile, motor vehicles were 1.35 times more likely than a cycle to seriously injure a pedestrian".

"cyclists and drivers are about equally likely (or unlikely) to act irresponsibly on the roads."
"driving irresponsibly is a lot more likely to have serious or fatal consequences"”

“To Smoosername:

The relatively modest difference in cyclists' and drivers' involvement rates per mile travelled in serious or fatal pedestrian injuries - despite the difference in weight - is unlikely to be because cyclists are acting really dangerously, as you suggest. I have already noted that the police are about 3 times as likely to attribute "contributory factors" solely to the driver as to the cyclist when cycle / motor-vehicle collisions occur.

I suspect that, in practice, cyclists and drivers are about equally likely (or unlikely) to act irresponsibly on the roads. Both groups consist of human beings, and both include the usual mix of people who fully respect society's rules and the safety of other people, and those who do not. Stereotyping either group is entirely unhelpful to the cycle safety debate.

There is one really important difference though. Driving irresponsibly is a lot more likely to have serious or fatal consequences - to cyclists, pedestrians or anyone else using our roads.

CTC, the national cyclists' organisation does not defend irresponsible cycling, any more than you'd expect the AA or RAC to defend irresponsible driving. We strongly support increased traffic policing, given that cyclists are far more likely to be the victims than the perpetrators of irresponsible driving - and pedestrians are far more likely to be the victims of the latter too. If increased traffic policing means more errant cyclists getting nicked, that's fair game. However, given that the real source of road danger is irresponsible driving, that surely is what the police should primarily focus on, to make sure everyone - including children - can use the streets in safety, whether on foot, on bicycles or in cars.

Roger Geffen
Campaigns & Policy Director
CTC, the national cyclists' organisation”

“@brs_traffic - "Don't know the answer to that, or where your 1.75x number came from."

Bottom of page 4 in the CTC report.”

“Did someone hit the anti-cycling, letter generator button?????

Same old nonsense. It's called Vehicle Excise Duty, not Road Tax. Gettit?”