(1st-May-21, 07:45 PM)OXO cube Wrote: .....
i think the root ( route ) of the problem is cyclists are on a jolly ,,, and other road users ... have somewhere to go
so its obviously not the cyclist who gets infuriated
......
Wow, oh wow, so every trip a motorist makes is for some "purpose" that is more legitimate than a cyclists?
Ever drive to the movies, to the beach, for a day out, for any "jolly" purpose? You are what they call peak traffic contributing to peak traffic in your quest for a "jolly" day out in your motor vehicle. You must have a utilitarian purpose for every drive you embark on lest you are doing a "jolly" in your motor vehicle.
Not all cyclists are on a "jolly", some are commuters, some are shoppers, some are riding for fitness, and guess what, fit people are less of a tax burden on health systems, so should cyclists get a rebate on taxes for their health? They also often wear clothing fit for purpose, so you see cyclists on a "jolly" that could be something entirely different.
Not sure about other countries, but in Australia, road registration actually makes a loss for the government, yep that's right, registering a motor vehicle is a subsidised activity, everyone including those who do not have a vehicle pays for vehicles. If you really wanted to tax motor vehicles at registration time to truly subsidise the cost of roads, it would be astronomical. And like in many countries, all levels of government pay for the roads, local government, state government and federal government (yes I know the UK only has a local and national government). So when you travel to another local council area, do you pay for the roads there, no, the citizens of that council do, so you are driving on a subsidised local council road. Your not paying for it. So spare me the tripe about motorists paying their way, they don't, we all do.
While we're at it, should couples who decide not to have children get a tax rebate, after all, they are subsidizing an education system they don't use? The list goes on. I've heard it all before blah blah blah, I own a vehicle, I pay taxes, blah blah blah. It gets very tiresome.
As for your comment about Roman roads, they did not extend everywhere, only where the Roman's wanted them, and I think anyone would agree the current road building technology we have today, pioneered by cyclists, is a little more advanced than what the Romans had. So yes Romans had roads, but only what suited the Romans, and in particular their military, they were not for built for commoners to use at their leisure, let alone to "jolly" on.
Oh and "I'm not anti-cyclist but".... Sorry, you cannot say that and then rant. Its like saying "I'm not racist". Its disingenuous, and frankly insulting to anyone reading your comments.