My wife’s Citroen C1 doesn’t incur any tax and that’s not electric
And that’s where your argument falls flat. Anyone can use roads, without paying. Horse riders, pedestrians, cyclists, drivers of electric cars, drivers of cars > 40 years old (is it?), farmers hopping between adjacent fields. And so on. And most of us do also have a car, probably one that we’ve paid the VED for anyway but have then left it at home. We pay but don’t always use what we’ve paid for how. How altruistic is that eh? We pay and then don’t add to the congestion and pollution. We should get a tax rebate if anything.
Those that choose to use the roads using something that attracts VED have made a choice to use something that costs. If that’s your choice, so be it. But as above just because a tiny proportion of your annual tax contribution to HM Govt is made up of something called VED, that doesn’t make you special.
3 Likes
I couldn’t disagree more with this. The pavement doesn’t continue straight across the road, it continues around the bend into the side road.
IMO to say that pedestrians have the right to step off the pavement into the road without even looking is sheer madness and setting a dangerous precedent that certain road users do not have to have consideration for others.
In Finland, where a side road joins another road traffic from the minor road has right of way. They seem to manage without continually driving into each other.
Are you discussing this from a cyclists view point?
My experience of work (telling people they were unable to drive for health reasons ), where I volunteer now (where we are involved in driving and the law) and this thread (along with so many others) is that nothing quite tops the feeling of entitlement and righteous fury of many drivers who feel thwarted in their desire to drive anywhere, anytime and anyhow. The fact they think they are paying for it doesn’t help either.
Any restriction of driving whether by law, tax, fuel shortages, lycra or any other agency seems to be interpreted by a surprising number of citizens as an attack on their fundamental rights. The response of drivers to being disqualified by the Court is something to see. Many cannot envisage life without access to their cars, it is just intolerable.
The sooner society wakes up to driving as a (polluting, expensive and hazardous) privilege the better.
We all use the roads (and all pay for them), let’s do so tolerantly and safely where we can. That is all road users whatever vehicles they use/fabrics they wear. Prioritising the safety of the most vulnerable (pedestrians, cyclists etc) seems one decent principle to me
Bruce
8 Likes
We have auto stop / start on our car. The engine turns off when you stop, and starts again when you press the accelerator. There is no need to keep your foot on the brake. Maybe it’s because it’s an automatic.
All set and ready to go.
2 Likes
Absolutely, Bruce. As one who ended up in a coma as a result of being hit by someone who had been told not to drive because they had diabetes and very poor eyesight, I understand the consequences more than most. Those who suggest that car drivers should have priority ‘because they have paid’ are simply moronic.
1 Like
Yet many, many cyclists and pedestrians are also car owners and when they are on foot, or on bike their cars are parked!
I’m not sure that describing people as ‘moronic’ is helpful - and may hasten the demise of the thread. Hopefully we can have a sensible debate as mature adults and keep things civil?
2 Likes
Cyclist or pedestrian, why would it matter?
Your example seemed to be worded in a way that suggested your scenario involved being on bicycle.
If so, I couldn’t agree more.
I wonder how long that will last when the government see their coffers dwindling. There is no mention of the emissions produced in the manufacture of the car batteries or in the production of the electricity to charge them!
Personally, as a pedestrian, a cyclist, and a car driver, I think there is too little consideration for other road users by far too many - of all types of road user. There are of course drivers, cyclists and pedestrians who are thoughtful and have consideration for all other road users, but sadly it often seems they are in a minority.
I think the new approach is trying to put the balance will it should be: most vulnerable first, while also supporting moves elsewhere to try to reduce private motor vehicle use in favour of public transport, cycling and walking. In that it is to be commended – but as I suggested earlier in this thread, It does require commonsense and caution on the part of all, in particular those who are most vulnerable. Sadly, problems inevitably will arise from where common sense, caution and consideration for others falls down.
It is worth bearing in mind the motto of the Institute of Advanced Motorists, which organisation taught me how to make maximum progress with minimum risk: “Skill with responsibility”.
In due course of course, private motorcars will not be driven by humans, and algorithms will place safety and of being a load rules ahead of ecotourism and haste!
3 Likes
If I had been riding a bicycle I wouldn’t have had enough time to take any avoiding action and would have been hit full on by the van.
I was actually a pedestrian, hence I was able to pull my leg back (so that the rear wheel didn’t go over it) and turn my face away from the impact taking it on my left hand and forearm…
Does that lessen the offence in any way?
1 Like
It has been a requirement to give way to a pedestrian crossing the road when turning into a lesser road since 1981 (when I did my driving test) - or probably earlier (I remember my brother educating me). That’s not new
2 Likes
Then, I’m pretty, sure, you are wrong. The flow of traffic is along the pavement, across the side-street, on on to the pavement on the other side.
I’m not saying that it is their right (or at least, it was not - and I don’t think that it is right even now), but that you, driving a large and relatively powerful machine, have a duty of care to not run over them. Yes, they should check - but so should you. You know your intention (to turn into a side street), they do not. It is for you to ensure that your way is clear. We should all be looking out for each other, to try to ensure that what we are doing does not harm anyone else. Is it really hard to notice that a pedestrian is heading for the sideroad and assume that there is a real possibility that they might be crossing that sideroad? And too much of an imposition for you to slow down, or even - heaven forfend! - stop for them?
1 Like
Oh I agree one shouldn’t run over a pedestrian crossing the road, you seem to infer I believe differently!
However, I read the new rules that if someone is waiting on the corner to cross, then if I’m turning into that road, I now need to come to a stop on the main road, where there is no marked crossing or traffic lights, wait, let them cross and back up the traffic behind me and then turn in. I can see issues.
3 Likes
As someone obliged to use public transport but able to use a bicycle off road this whole thing amuses to some extent. Whilst there will be fierce resistance the long slow death of the motor vehicle is commencing and is inevitable. Generallyspeaking when both sides feel some grave injustice afoot it’s sign legislators hoagie got a difficult balance right.
2 Likes