Cycling UK Forum

A few comments: 1) just because something is in the "public interest" doesn't mean that it should be subsidised by the taxpayer 2) cyclists use roads as well as cars and lorries and 3) estimates of "congestion costs" are often used by bodies such as the CBI to press for more expenditure on highways.

So, does this mean that cycling shouldn't be subsidised by the tax payer? I think it is fair to say that it is at the moment and whilst it could be argued that cars are as well, it doesn't seem like that to anyone who runs a car.

I don't think this is really an argument about public good, morality etc etc, but more about whether it would be better in terms of getting better faciltiies and treated more seriously if cyclists, and I do include myself, viewed their bike as a vehicle rather than a two wheeled pedestrian and were therefore more willing to accept that there was a cost of ownership beyond buying kit. By this I mean being willing to pay for secure parking, 3rd party insurance, proof of ownership etc etc

OldGreyBeard wrote:

A few comments: 1) just because something is in the "public interest" doesn't mean that it should be subsidised by the taxpayer 2) cyclists use roads as well as cars and lorries and 3) estimates of "congestion costs" are often used by bodies such as the CBI to press for more expenditure on highways.

So, does this mean that cycling shouldn't be subsidised by the tax payer? I think it is fair to say that it is at the moment and whilst it could be argued that cars are as well, it doesn't seem like that to anyone who runs a car.

I don't think this is really an argument about public good, morality etc etc, but more about whether it would be better in terms of getting better faciltiies and treated more seriously if cyclists, and I do include myself, viewed their bike as a vehicle rather than a two wheeled pedestrian and were therefore more willing to accept that there was a cost of ownership beyond buying kit. By this I mean being willing to pay for secure parking, 3rd party insurance, proof of ownership etc etc

Err how many peds carry third party insurance?

Many people on this forum do carry their party insurance as part of their CTC membership - It's not compulsory, but it's still a good idea

Err how many peds carry third party insurance?

Bizarrley more than many realise as it's often included in home contents insurance.

3rd party is also a good reason to join the CTC and since it's a compulosry part of membership I believe no doubt the CTC feels there is a good reason for it.

OldGreyBeard wrote: more about whether it would be better in terms of getting better faciltiies and treated more seriously if cyclists, and I do include myself, viewed their bike as a vehicle rather than a two wheeled pedestrian and were therefore more willing to accept that there was a cost of ownership beyond buying kit. By this I mean being willing to pay for secure parking, 3rd party insurance, proof of ownership etc etc

we've had this debate before. i think that the conclusion has been that if you introduce any charges for cycling, then it will discourage cycling. any charge would need to be a significant sum if it were to be worth collecting. given the benefits to health, congestion, pollution, CO2 emmissions etc., then it's too useful a thing to risk discouraging.
the other conclusion is that the 5% of motorists who treat us with contempt are unlikely to change their ways and become civil and respectful if we were to start paying a charge either for registration or anything else.
if there was a demand for safe & secure parking whose costs would be more than covered by user fees (ie. profitable), then entrepreneurs would have stepped in and started reaping the profits - that this isn't happening shows that the demand isn't there

hubgearfreak wrote:OldGreyBeard wrote:
more about whether it would be better in terms of getting better faciltiies and treated more seriously if cyclists, and I do include myself, viewed their bike as a vehicle rather than a two wheeled pedestrian and were therefore more willing to accept that there was a cost of ownership beyond buying kit. By this I mean being willing to pay for secure parking, 3rd party insurance, proof of ownership etc etc

we've had this debate before. i think that the conclusion has been that if you introduce any charges for cycling, then it will discourage cycling. any charge would need to be a significant sum if it were to be worth collecting. given the benefits to health, congestion, pollution, CO2 emmissions etc., then it's too useful a thing to risk discouraging.
the other conclusion is that the 5% of motorists who treat us with contempt are unlikely to change their ways and become civil and respectful if we were to start paying a charge either for registration or anything else.
if there was a demand for safe & secure parking whose costs would be more than covered by user fees (ie. profitable), then entrepreneurs would have stepped in and started reaping the profits - that this isn't happening shows that the demand isn't there

Sooo in cambridge, in their new shopping centre (http://www.cambridge.gov.uk/ccm/content ... e-parks.en), they built a whole floor of cycle parking thats split into secure and unsecured. Weekly workers pay a daily rate ( i think its £1-2) and for that they also get lockers, i really dont knwo the details? Anyway as a saturday shopper, i often use the unsecured , go straight into shopping centre and start spending. The equation here is threefold:
-In cambridge a shopping centre needs to attract cyclists, so the shopping centre wanted it
-The council need to address cycle needs, so they wanted it
-The bike shop, station cycles, wanted the access to spenders so they run the secured parking op and their shop is the division between the two, so even the unsecured cyclists buy all their disposables , tyres, patches, mini lights etc from there.

Its a very profitable situation for all......because of the volume of cyclists. Would this translate to other places? Yes where there is volume. Stations, London highyways etc

sounds like a very good scheme, essexman.

But would there be more schemes such as the Cambridge one if us cyclists were more willing to pay? At the moment these schemes are pretty much always subsidised

[XAP]Bob wrote:
Err how many peds carry third party insurance?

Many people on this forum do carry their party insurance as part of their CTC membership - It's not compulsory, but it's still a good idea

Most of them, if not all!

MAny household insurance policies have a third party inclusion that covers a multitide of situations.

The more I read about this the more I agree with the concept, and I want total equality!

I have also worked out that I can definitely afford it

1. I am already insured for my cycles and therefore no additional cost
2. I already pay the correct VED for any vehicle in Band A so no additional cost
3. My cycles are registered with the local Police and "Immobilse" so no additional cost
4. I already pay for parking at work, so no additional cost there either

All I need now to achieve true equality is the £2000 subsidy that motor vehicles get... where do I apply?

OldGreyBeard wrote:But would there be more schemes such as the Cambridge one if us cyclists were more willing to pay? At the moment these schemes are pretty much always subsidised

Then theres the Cyclepoint initiatives , a dutch company trying their luck over here, but a very similar concept to the Cb scheme ie valet\services\retail.

I think the key point here is that these schemes have been targeted at areas where there are lots of cyclists, and the schemes combine profit making activities with transport infrastructure. The same approach can be taken anywhere that there are lots of cyclists. I've highlighted two very grand schemes, but i bet across the country there are much more modest examples

eg in my market town the council put two bikestands in the market square, thus driving traffic directly into the market centre instead of the supermarket.

or

I've often seen cycle lockers around various station which cost a quid or two.

Would more people pay for good facilities? Possibly, but i suspect the equation is the other way round. Why as a business do i want cycle parking? To attract cyclists\ retail footfall etc

Cunobelin wrote:All I need now to achieve true equality is the £2000 subsidy that motor vehicles get... where do I apply?

why not try

d. cameron
10 downing street
london

however, you ought to knock of £16.27 for the paint the council's put on some paths for your benefit

quite topical......... http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/g ... le-parking

Colchester Station is adding a secure cycle compound. Cycle Colchester says it's a trial, but National Express East Anglia syas it's part of their 2.2 mil upgrade

http://www.colchester.gov.uk/Info_page_ ... ec_id=2193

http://www.nationalexpresseastanglia.co ... er_station

Oh, and you can ignore the bit about 'double' the cycle parking. It's only double because of the sheffield stands the council took out last year.

When cycling amounts to greater benefit for all of society, it going to benefit taxpayers by provision of decent facilities (as well as those installed by forward thinking employers). If there are so many positives, why should it be seen as opportunistic to ask for the facilities to be paid via government? The benefits should be obvious for all to see...health, reduced congestion, better environment, less wear on roads.... The government should be subsidizing beneficial social activities and taxing damaging activities. And cycling is beneficial.

The costs for funding proper cycling facilities are so small compared to the direct and indirect costs of financing the road infrastructure for motor vehicles. The argument that we should be prepared to pay more for facilities won't benefit many people. Obviously, if cycling is seen as the transport of the poor then that perception may (to some folks) mean that it shouldn't warrant the same attention that bodies like the CBI lavish on road building campaigns. That is by and large an image problem.

So I think the wrong question is being asked here. How do we get cycling to be taken more seriously? Social research on costs and benefits, good driver and cyclist education and persistent campaigning of government and through the media. We've got a good case to make on many different levels; we just have to be better at persuading those with the power and money.

Or more to the point if spending £1 on cycling facilities saves £2 of NHS cost then it is in the tax payer interest to spend that £1