Cardiff Cycle festival is now in full swing, the naked bike ride was last weekend, and there is plenty of development work that incorporates cycling. I thought we could try a dedicated bike thread.

And to start (just outside the city I know), has anyone had a look at the zig-zag cycle link in Penarth that is intended to make the ISV closer to the town center? And goes via Penarth Heights?

Quite a negative response (and some photos) here:

http://penarthnews.wordpress.com/2013/05/23/penarths-new-250000-zig-zag-cycle-track-puts-the-push-back-into-push-bikes/

I guess it will look nicer once some plants grow.

There is an ongoing dispute in Penarth (see website) over a £250,000 cycle track the council intends to build along an existing path. There has been a lot of heated debate.
So no wonder the zig zag path was not that popular, I've read somewhere an oap was knocked over by skateboarder recently on the Zig Zag (too old for skate boarding ) , so feelings running a bit high.

http://www.savepenarthgreen.co.uk/

I've not seen the zig-zag path up close but from the photos there doesn't appear to be a straight option using steps. That seems daft as fit pedestrians are almost certain to create unsightly short-cuts through any planting. I can't imagine any reasonably fit person sticking to the path.

Yet again walkers lose out to the lycra-louts! And before any one says it - I know not all cyclists are law-breaking, light-jumping, pavement-mounting idiots - but an awful lot are!

Stop the Tarmac Motorway!!!! I've heard it all now ffs. What would happen if Viridor wanted to set up in Penarth? Mass self-immolation? Hundreds of pensioners linking hands as they throw themselves lemming like off the pier? We'll never find out of course because it will never happen. Which is one of the reasons that people completely lose it over a cycle path.

I think encouraging people to cycle is generally a good idea. Most adult cyclists also drive. If they are cycling then they aren't in their cars. If they aren't in their cars then they aren't clogging up roads, meaning less traffic and less wear and tear. Less traffic is better for pedestrians.

It all seems eminently sensible. Of course that always assumes you can get people out of cars and onto bikes. The problem is that there is such an underlying hostility to cyclists by both motorists and pedestrians why would anyone bother. Pedestrians seem quite happy to cower on pavements as vehicles hurtle by just feet away but ask them to share a path with cyclists and its another example of the lycra louts winning. Motorists meanwhile consider that anything other than a motor vehicle being on the road is an affront to right thinking society. They will happily sit in congestion, moving at a few miles per hour as hundreds of single occupancy vehicles inch forward but if they have to wait a micro second to overtake a cyclist the red mist comes down.

I commute by bike almost every day and I rarely come across lycra louts. They tend to be weekend warriors who go out on their £2,000 racing bikes doing a Bradley Wiggins impression. Most people I see commuting are dressed normally and I rarely see jumping of lights, dangerous cycling or adults riding along pavements.

The council have a part to play in this of course - cycle lanes and in particular shared paths are often poorly marked which gives rise to confusion. Where cycle lanes are on the road they are invariably blocked by parked cars, are often too narrow (try the cycle lane in Corbett Rd which must be 9 inches if that), end abruptly (there was one cycle lane in Cardiff recently featured in the Daily Mail that was 8 feet long) and can occasionally be dangerous themselves (the council have put a cycle lane on the outside of a parking bay along the length of Cathays Terrace - ideal for cyclists to be knocked off by people opening their doors).

We are quite lucky in Cardiff in that we have the Taff Trail. The council are also developing the Ely and Rhymney river trails. Thats great and if you are taking the kids for a cycle ride its ideal. However in the long term it may actually be counter productive. Motorists need to get used to and accept cyclists as normality. They will only do that if there are more cyclists using the road. Many potential cyclists don't want to ride on the road as they think its too dangerous - one of the reasons for this is because motorists are not used to sharing the road with people on bikes. A catch 22 situation if ever there was one.

A reasoned viwew, Karl but my views are influenced by what I see driving in to work.

My route includes Cowbridge Road East with its permenantly blocked cycle lanes. I have counted 20+ cars blocking a stretch of a few hundred yards. I have every sympathy with angry cyclists there.

I then turn in to Neville Street which has well signposted dedicated cycle lanes. Do the cyclists use them? Do they ****? They're on the road, the pavement - everywhere apart from the cycle lane.

I took the opportunity of good weather to cycle up and down the new Penarth zig zag discussed above. While it did require a low gear, it was quite doable. but dont be fooled into thinking the uphill work finishes at the top of the zig zig, there is more uphill to go through Penarth heights.

I generally though it was pretty good, although a couple of criticisms that have been made on here and in the blog post above are quite right. Firstly, the lack of a lowered kerb at the bottom makes it much harder to access by bike. Either you jump the quite high kerb or have to cycle some distance down the road to a lowered section. It all felt a little foolish. Secondly, walkers and joggers absolutely ignored the path and would cut the corners up and down the route through the flower beds and across the grass. Pedestrian steps on a shorter route would have improved it. Indeed, while I cycled up the path one jogger who cut every corner completed the route in about a third of the time it took me.

And cycling down was much less fun than I anticipated. The corners are so tight it is not a free wheeling joy. Heavy brake use all the time.

I suspect it is not finished. it looks like there maybe another phase of Penarth heights to come, and based on how the earth was left it looks like a second entry point to the cycle path might be installed, to the new housing area. But we will see.


It was a good chance to look around Penarth heights, which looked better than the last time I visited, as people start to make it more homely. And a chance to check the view over the bay.

From summer 2014 a pilot scheme will be in operation for a maximum speed limit of 20 mph in parts of cathays and roath. Exact streets not decided yet, but this could include City Road and other roads with active shop fronts, although the focus is residential areas. It is all part of slowing down the traffic to make residential areas more cycle and pedestrian friendly. If it works it could be extended to other parts of the city.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/local-news/cardiff-council-slash-speed-limit-4752249

Wow! 20 mph in City Road!! I've never achieved that sort of speed in that road. Won't it be dangerous!?

As a resident of the marina I can tell that that article is full of shit. Cyclists can join the road within five yards at the bottom. There is no law which says cyclists can't use the road. Not only that, the grass on the banks is now almost fully grown.

We need to accept some people like to whinge and moan about the slightest thing.

Interesting plans to reconfigure Cardiff Bridge by the castle. They are on the link below. Plan is to put fully separated cycle lanes in both directions:

http://www.keepingcardiffmoving.co.uk/uploads/documents/139/original/Route_6_Booklet.pdf?1362408343

Looks good. This is part of Route 6, which links the city center to Ely. The document also includes plans for Cowbridge road east, that include removing the cycle lanes but putting in 'ghost islands' (small roundabout type things at junctions) and more raised crossing to slow down traffic.

This is all just a consultation document, as opposed to confirmed designs.

It notes work to improve cycle access in front of the castle will be considered in the future.

A new cycle path opened last month linking Radyr to Hailey Park over a refurbished bridge:

http://www.radyr.org.uk/20835

I walked over it and around that area for the first time the other day, was quite a nice place though felt like a place for local residents more than the Cardiff area as a whole.

As a recent resident of Cardiff (just over 4 years) I wonder if those among you who have lived here for some time could enlighten me regarding cycling in Cardiff.

I notice that cyclists take no notice of red lights at junctions. They either just cycle through them or mount the footpath in order to get to the road they want using pedestrian crossings if necessary. Also, I have always seen the benefit of young children on cycles being able to use the footpath for obvious reasons. I cannot see the need for adults to use them (and I am NOT talking about shared pedestrian/cycle paths) The other day, an adult cyclist rang his bell telling me to get out of the way so he could cycle past on the footpath.

Is there some historical reason for this ignorance?

Perhaps it's something in the water. I live in Cardiff and I regularly see motorists speeding, parked illegally, parked in cycle lanes, going through red lights, failing to indicate, parked on pavements, driving dangerously etc etc.

It must be a very lawless city, that's all I can think of.

I wonder if it is down to the absence of those people who used to wear a sort of blue serge suit and strange hat.....now what was their name.......you know who I mean...they used to keep order. Hey ho....wonder if we'll ever see their like again?

It is true that the cycle path system is not a good as it should be. But is this unique to cardiff?

I agree....but the thread is about cycling....that's why I discussed some cyclist's habits. I never mentioned HGV drivers on motorways either....

You asked if their was some historical reason for ignorance amongst the Cardiff cycling fraternity. I know of none but opined it may be something in the water as some motorists display the same cavalier attitude to rules. In effect I attempted to answer your question. I could have opened another thread entitled 'motoring in Cardiff' and referred you there so as to make sure this thread didn't deviate off topic (heaven forfend) but that would have been overkill.

Perhaps what I should have said is that some cyclists are knobs although most aren't which is something they share in common with other road users and indeed pedestrians.

Anyway I'll leave it there so this thread can get back to cycling in Cardiff - which I naively assumed was a discussion about cycling infrastructure in our lawless city rather than a thread specifically to bitch about the lycra lout menace.

I never get this proliferation of pointless cyclist hate. I suspect it comes from the fact that people sat in cars can't abide the idea that a cyclist can squeeze to the front of the queue at lights. So what? They take ten times as much grief from vehicle drivers' aggression.

Jeremy Clarkson has a lot to answer for

Should cyclists contribute towards the roads they use? Should cyclists be made to have insurance? We have seen there is general consensus that cyclists, like motorists and pedestrians, act the goat in equal measure. For this reason should they be held culpable for infringements and accidents in the same way as the motorist. From what I gather from the anecdotal evidence, if a car and a bike collide it is always the motorist who is deemed at fault. Perhaps shifting the liability on to the guilty party may help some cyclists act more responsibly. If you're going to cycle on the roads then surely you should have to hold a licence of sorts. Driving a car / riding a bike is easy, knowing the rules of the road should apply to all

Most do, through general taxation, the same as everyone else. http://ipayroadtax.com/

So, using that argument, we will be seeing an end to Excise Tax for motorists anytime soon?

I was talking road fund licence which is (supposedly) used to fund the roads. Cyclists don't pay it. They don't pay insurance either

There hasn't been a Road Fund Licence in decades. Vehicle Excise Duty is paid into general taxation. Nowadays VED is a tax on carbon-emissions from vehicles. Below is a quote from the WIKI article

"Hypothecation of VED into the Road Fund was formally ended under theFinance Act of 1936, in accordance with the recommendations of theSalter Report that controversially sought to introduce a balance between the road haulage industry and the railways. It had concluded that the method of road funding, which had relied on parishes and local authorities to fund a portion of the road network through their own means, represented a subsidy to the road hauliers.  After the 1936 Act the proceeds of road vehicle duties were to be paid directly into the Exchequer. The Road Fund itself was finally wound up in the Miscellaneous Financial Provisions Act of 1955,  becoming a system of funding through government grants."

Any good accountant or tax specialist should know this basic information.

We all know that the road tax goes into general fund much the same as NICS is paid into the general fund and not ring fenced for welfare, benefits or pensions. That doesn't mean it's intended purpose wasn't for national welfare.

You'll also have to explain why an accountant would need to know the details of VED?

NB I'm all for increased cycle lane provision much the same as we see on the continent. However as with motorists who contribute to the upkeep of the roads they use through road tax (using the vernacular), I also think its not unreasonable for cyclists to contribute towards a cycle lane network too. I also think if they use the roads they too need to demonstrate an understanding and proficiency of the highway code

That is why I used the words 'Excise Tax' in my post. (I substituted 'Tax' for 'Duty' purposely!)

I liked the reply Ernest Marples, Minister of Transport (1959-64) gave when asked why the money paid for Excise Licences by motorists wasn't spent solely on the road. He replied that it was an Excise Duty. Whisky drinkers paid Excise Duty too but they didn't expect a glass to drink it in from the proceeds!!

Most adult cyclists are also motorists so do contribute to the upkeep of the roads through 'road tax' but don't use them as much as non-cyclists. Does that mean they should get a rebate on their 'road tax'?

Its basically a carbon tax these days anyway. If you have a vehicle with low enough emissions you don't have to pay it. ANY vehicle. It's a complete non-argument as far as cycling is concerned.

I have two cars and I pay road tax on both. I can only use one at a time. I also have a bicycle and would happily pay a bike tax if it meant better cycle lanes. it is grossly unfair for cyclists to expect cycle lanes when they don't contribute towards the upkeep of the network.

VED may go into the general pot but that is more to do with the way HMT fund councils (who maintain our roads) these days. Generally speaking, whatever is collected in VED is used as the budget for councils to build new and maintain existing roads. A similar rule applies to NICS and the NHS/Welfare although the latter is significantly more in cost than what is collected via NICS (due to Labours insistence on everyone must have a prize whether they need it or not)

the incentive was to shift users away from petrol towards diesel/lpg. the lower VED collected is meant to be offset by an increase in fuel duty on diesel. The plan was to change 'direct' motorist taxation with 'indirect' motorist taxation. it was dressed up as a green alternative.

lets assume everyone shifted to low carbon emission vehicles - what then? no VED collected and our road network suffers. If you don't believe it then look at how much the councils are spending on road maintenance nowadays compared to just 5 years ago. The evidence is pot holes everywhere. VED has reduced but the supposed switch hasn't happened as expected and due to the economic downturn people are driving much less anyway. So we have a situation where there is less VED, less fuel duty and less allocation by HMT to council tax budgets for road maintenance.

For goodness sake THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ROAD TAX! There is Vehicle Excise Duty or Vehicle Tax or Car Tax if you prefer. This is the annual tax you pay for having a vehicle and the the money you pay goes to the treasury, it does not get put in a magical pot to only pay for the roads.

The 'Road Tax' argument is often used by dangerous motorists who think they have more rights than cyclists. However this is as incorrect as the notion that paying more for a car gives you more priority over other road users (mentioning no car makes in particular but you can guess ). The simple fact is that the highways are for everyone and can be enjoyed by reckless motorists and reckless cyclists alike!

Presumably your wife can use one of the cars whilst you are in the other? And cyclists DO contribute to the upkeep of the road network - see points already made. It's ludicrous to suggest that they don't. What you seem to be saying is that there should be a special tax on cycling. That seems a very retrograde step given the level of traffic is becoming unsustainable, their is a push to reduce carbon emissions, the health benefits of getting people out of their cars etc etc.

Don't feel the need to reply (although I know you will) because I really don't have the time or inclination to argue with you.

road tax is used in vernacular and is readily accepted by the DVLA, advertising standards agency, HMT and the police. just saying.

perhaps you can explain why a car owner who keeps his car on his driveway and never moves it should pay more in taxation and duty than a cyclist who is always riding his bike? this is not a common occurrence of course but and extreme example

who is arguing? I'm not, I want more cycle routes of the standard we see in places like the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany. I'm also not saying motorists should have special preference to cycle users. you're clearly not reading what I am saying.

you will note that a pedestrian contributes to the upkeep of the roads in the same way as a cyclist but doesn't use the roads. should pedestrians get a tax rebate since they are contributing towards the upkeep of the road network but don't actually use them?

the point I am making Karl is that we need more cycle lanes and as such we need to fund them somehow. Now call me old fashioned but I believe the people who use a service should pay for a service. That's me though, I believe in paying my way in life.

you also conveniently ignore the fact that cyclists are uninsured and that there is no requirement for someone to hold a cycle proficiency licence before they can cycle on the roads. Why should motorists have to understand the rules of the road but not cyclists? Why should motorists have to demonstrate an understanding of how to behave on the road but not cyclists?

put it this way, if a motorist travels through 4 red lights he runs the risk of losing his right to travel on the road through a totter offence. Would a cyclist suffer the same fate? I suppose it depends on whether you believe in equality for all in the scheme of things or whether you believe your group should have preferential treatment.

You are.

Against my better judgement I'm going to reply.

Your argument is premised on the basis that roads are for motorists and if any other group wants to use them they should pay extra (above and beyond what all adults pay towards the road network in 'road tax' for want of a better phrase)for the privilege. My comment about a rebate was a facetious one made to underline the fact that adults who own motor vehicles but prefer to cycle actually pay the same as motorists but use the network less. This should be welcomed with open arms by motorists as there is a group that pays the same as them but uses the roads less which obviously shares the financial load and also means less traffic. I wasn't being serious, just trying to make a point, as any reasonable interpretation would surely have concluded. You've picked up the ball and run down a blind alley with it and I don't intend to follow you.

Your point about only the people who use facilities should have to pay for them invokes the law of unintended consequences. The logical conclusion to that argument is plain to see. You and I are both motorists and both cyclists so your argument is that we pay more 'road tax' or council tax or whatever tax than just a motorist? Your argument also seems to suggest that better cycle lanes/cycle provision will only benefit those cyclists who use them and not motorists, pedestrians, the children of motorists or pedestrians,etc etc. We are both parents - only parents to pay for education services? Only park users pay for parks? Etc etc repeat ad nauseum until point duly laboured.

The point about cycling proficiency is a good one. I would be in favour of a nationwide scheme throughout schools to start with and potentially with adults. But the simple fact is that cars are much more dangerous than bicycles. They go faster, they weigh more and they kill plenty people. If you are in control of a lump of metal that can go in excess of 100 miles per hour and can, in the right circumstances, kill many, many people in one incident of course the standards that you should adhere to should be higher.

Insurance - I have public liability insurance. Most adults do if they have contents insurance on their house.

I'm not suggesting preferential treatment for cyclists. I haven't suggested any treatment in fact. I'm quite happy to cycle on roads as they are and where possible cycle off road on paths designated for pedestrians as well. I'd love to see better facilities for cyclists of course but my view is that this would be beneficial to a wider group than just cyclists. Motorists would benefit from an uptick in cycling - less cars on the roads, less traffic, less wear and tear, less potholes etc. Public health would be advantaged, less accidents and better health. The same arguments apply for people who make more journeys as pedestrians rather than as motorists. I'd like to see pedestrians provided for in a much better way than they are at the moment.

I suppose it comes down to whether or not you want to see all groups have equal treatment.

Positively my last word, at least for today, I have too much on. If I don't reply to your inevitable cut and paste response Jantra don't take it personally.

so debate is only allowed if it agrees with your viewpoint?


that is not what I said at all. I said all road users should pay for the upkeep of the roads. not only that, if we want specific cycle lanes for cyclists only, then cyclists should pay for those. the point about pedestrians was that they pay the same general taxation as cyclists but don't use the roads that cyclists use. it was a rhetorical device to show the folly of the argument that cyclists pay for the roads through general taxation. I'm not saying that general taxation isn't used as all taxes are paid into the general fund.


you're going to have to explain this to me. if I cycle to work then I travel the same distance whether I use the car or bike. I'm not sure how that is using it less, unless of course you you mean the cyclist places less load on the road leading to less maintenance required. but then you claim the motorist already pays for the upkeep of the roads through general taxation - you can't have the penny and the bun.


that is a fair point but I would say that as all services are paid out of the general fund then you're never going to get a ring fenced budget. the point being that if we want better services then they have to be funded. if we want better cycle lanes then the cost should be (primarily) paid for those who use the service. it would be unreasonable to expect APD to be increased to fund improvements to the cycle lane network.


I don't disagree with you at all. I fully appreciate cars need to be respected, hence why I'd like to see all cyclists take a cycle proficiency test and have a licence. when I see a cyclist ride through a red light and cause a car to swerve into another then I think that cyclist really needs to be kept off the road. two cars crash and the cyclist carries on regardless. I've seen it a few times in my life so its not a one off. cyclists need to adhere to the rules of the road and the fact is some cyclists do not and yet there is no way of stopping this.

fine, does it cover you on the roads? check the small print as most policies will not. but even if it does how about the cyclists who do not have home insurance? what then? I suppose they can carry on causing mayhem in their wake with no consequence and no fear of ever being banned from the roads.


then we are in agreement with where we want to end up, I just think more regulation of cyclists and their behaviour is required.

how would you punish cyclists who go through red lights? why do cyclists feel the need to stop beyond the red light? the line is there for a reason. my other bete noir is ride single file, this isn't the peloton



I wouldn't dream of it

Because he's a fool who didn't SORN his vehicle Having said that it would be good to have a Pay As You Go vehicle tax for those who use their vehicles less, although my car is only £30 a year so I'm not complaining!

On a side note, why if the police and DVLA can scan you number plate and find out if your vehicle has Insurance, Tax and MOT, do we still need to have a tax disc to display??

a few points

SORN - typical public sector state control freakery. why do we need paperwork to say I don't need to be taxed. the state assumes the worst of the individual yet again.

I wasn't really suggesting the road user was a SORN case. some car users don't drive their vehicles often but still have to licence them.

i agree with your point about the DVLA although I'm not sure the police even look for car tax evaders these days as it is all done by the DVLA. yet more paperwork and needless processes from the state though. viva la revolucion!

I thought the general trend right now was to try and encourage more cycling, but surely a cycle tax would disincentivise it.

how would you finance additional network with no extra revenues? shall we cut welfare more, reduce the number of schools, close a few hospitals...you get the gist.

how do we improve the nations rail infrastructure - we add a levy to each and every passenger journey made to finance the improvements.

if people have a decent cycle network which has a great safety record and improved access and right of way then they will use it. it would be unfair for cyclists to get all of this for free to the detriment of other services.

it seems to be the British way, we want northern europe/scandinavian type services but we want american/greek style taxation. you can't have both i'm afraid

The pedestrian has no use for roads eh? Does the pedestrian not eat then?

Unless we're talking about Tom & Barbara Good here,with zero requirements for the country's infrastructure, I suggest your rethink your argument, because currently your sounding a bit deranged, Jantra.

ridiculous argument. absolutely pathetic. the last time I looked, road haulage companies paid their own road fund licences to transfer goods around the country. the pedestrian does not rely on the roads, not at all. the pedestrian may rely on the shops to sell them food, but how that food gets there is of no concern to the pedestrian.

you'll be claiming the pedestrians rely on north sea oil next...good grief.

Of course it's not ridiculous! Roads are part of the national infrastructure, and very necessary! We all require roads, even if we don't directly use them, in the same way as we all benefit from the fruits of a education, whether or not we have kids. Just because the idea of collective responsibility goes against your ridiculous right wing agenda, doesn't mean it's not the correct progressive policy.

You forgot to add 'in my opinion'.

This isn't right wing bluster. Pedestrians don't use the roads. That is a fact. However lets say your warped analysis is correct. Your own argument falls over straight away. Motorists use the roads for travel and food whereas the pedestrian uses the roads just for food. Yet both are expected to contribute the same tax towards it.

Mr Jantra
Are you ok? You are behaving extremely quixotically. Nothing that you are posting makes any sense. How can you justify taxing cycling when there is no VED on vehicles that emit under 100g of CO2 per km? The whole concept is flawed.
Also, many people who ride do so as they can't afford other forms of transport. I am sure Norman Tebbit didn't envisage taxing bikes or cycling when he suggested using this form of transport.

thanks for your concern. rest assured I am fine. I'm pretty sure the VED free low emission cars do contribute directly to the exchequer in the form of fuel duty. that is a 'pay per mile' tax.

I'm not suggesting tax per se I am merely stating that we need an improved cycle network and that it needs to be funded. Now I have heard others suggest that everyone benefits but the only direct beneficiaries are the cyclists. the motorists and pedestrians may get indirect benefits but I doubt they will be anything of note. As someone who uses shanks pony I can't really see how better cycle lanes will affect my ability to walk around. Likewise, when I use cars I also cannot see how having fewer cyclists on the road will benefit me. I don't think I have ever been caught in a bicycle jam although if it has happened I cannot remember.

I'm not sure what Norman Tebbit has to do with the discussion although he did once say 'on yer bike' or something similar so i assume your making a defunct tenuous link in your usual style.

it really is quite simple. I'd like to see improved cycle networks across the UK. I'd also like to see cyclists having to prove they can use the roads if they choose to use them, much in the way motorists have to. Likewise if they infringe the rules of the road such as running a red light then cyclists should face the same consequences as a motorist committing the same offence. if you want the right of using the road you need to make sure you accept the responsibility of following the rules of the road. Cyclists claim they pay for the roads through general taxation so if that is the case then they have to accept that the rules apply to all and not just motorists.

I am also surprised that some on here have adopted the stance that those who don't benefit from a service should be made to pay for it. I will assume that we will no longer hear people bellyaching about the Barnett consequential of HS2 as this will be funded from general taxation too. I'm glad we have found a common angle to approach these things and that we can now all march forward in unison watching billions of taxes from the general fund being spent on upgrading the London/Birmingham then Manchester route. After all, we want to be consistent in how we approach these things.

No I'm not. I'm stating my opinion and nothing more. As is often the case when I state an opinion, others feel compelled to argue against every point I make dismissing my own opinion as irrelevant and wrong. I'm not sure how an opinion can be wrong but seemingly in the cardiffwalesmap universe it can be.

I hope this clears things up for you

I hope that's just an opinion about how an opinion can be wrong but seemingly in the cardiffwalesmap universe it can be - or I 'd feel quite put out!!

Of course it's "in my opinion", I friggin said it didn't I?!

*My* warped analysis?! Remember that the second you get out of your car, you become a pedestrian. I think the term you referring to was not "pedestrian", but "non road-vehicle user" (and that means non user of buses and taxis too). Even, people who fall into that category, and might not personally use the roads, still rely on them. It's (in my opinion) necessary for society to pay for such things that are part of the nation's infrastructure, that benefit everyone, through proper taxation. There's an argument that it's necessary to charge people more, who rely more, or consume the most in cost of upkeep (i.e. vehicle excise duty). There's also an argument that it might be a good idea (and I suppose it might not be) to introduce an incentive scheme, whereby people are encouraged to "go greener" by reducing this vehicle excise duty, if certain conditions are met.

Oh and I don't happen to notice your posts copiously annotated with the phrase "in my opinion", so let's drop that hypocritical rubbish, shall we?

Firstly simon you never once used the word opinion. Secondly you said I need to rethink my argument. This would indicate you are saying I am wrong. You even used the word argument which would indicate once again that you can't tell the difference between a statement of fact and an opinion.

Your thread is all over the place, just saying