All for greater use of cycles on the roads. However, if a cycle is on the road it should be insured like every other road vehicle. A cyclist removed the door mirror of my car and scratched it the other week in traffic. He just rode off and I couldnt do anything as I stationary. If you scratch a car in traffic you should be held responsible and have the insurance in place to pay for any damage.

I am an cyclist and use my bike everyday to cycle into work which is getting more and more dangerous by the day. What i find astonishing is the ignorance of drivers who don't adhere to the cycle lanes that were given to us cyclist to use as our protection when cycling for example into Manchester. Numerous times i have seen cars and wagons use the cycle lanes during peak traffic hour when they are not meant to be using them just to gain the extra distance without any care or attention for the cyclist who i have seen many times before now get forced onto the pavements to avoid getting hit or squash......it hasnt even been a week since i saw a fellow cyclist laid out in the middle of the road cycling into Manchester after being hit by a car....something has to be done to change this ignorance of vehicle drivers who just dont seem to have any regard or respect for fellow road users such as cyclists....it is getting beyond the joke. It has to be addressed before someone gets even more hurt or killed.
For what these people did at the weekend cycling thro Manchester the way they did, hats of to them....!

I can't believe it! I leave the city for 2 days and this occurs!!! - would have been the highlight of my summer. If any MEN readers are aware of any other naked events in and around manchester please email ********@hotmail.com - lol

well said,jason.

All i can sayis, you should all go to live in berlin and Mestre-Venice. I have done my year abroad there, and it is full of cycle lanes,even in the centre of the city which are used. The UK is not very cycle friendly, i am ashamed to say.

I can see their point and thats all well and good but I'm afraid I have to agree with Laught Out Loud - If they are using the road they should pay taxes and insurance, After all that money is allegedly used to maintain the roads - why should they get to use it if they're not paying for it? Also, maybe they will get the respect they want from drivers when they earn it - being on a bike does not give you the right to go through red lights and ignore the signals at pedestrian crossings - its reasons like this that drivers get wound up with cyclists.

Laugh out loud: I cycle and I am insured under my home contents insurance policy. Even if the cyclist was not insured, you could have sued him. And btw, the only accident I have been involved in was the drivers' fault, he ran into my rear wheel in broad daylight.

Ok cyclists; pay for the roads and you can use them. Otherwiese I would just put up and shut up if I were you. You are using something that somebody else pays for free of charge, stop moaning.

Jake: Like it or not, cyclists, just like pedestrians and horse riders have a right to use roads, whereas cars require a licence. Road tax does not cover the cost of building and maintaining roads, low emission cars, foreign cars and lots of cheaters do not pay road tax either. I pay income tax, NI, VAT, excise taxes, council tax and probably others I cannot think right now, altogether nearly ??20,000 last year. I think I paid enough to use the roads.

Long at it again, cliched ignorant rants. Firstly, cyclist, pedestrians and horse riders have a right to use the roads enshrined in law. The use of motor vehicles on the public highway is only allowed under licence and is, in effect, a privilege that may be withdrawn. (For example if a driver does not insure their vehicle or their licence is suspended etc. etc.).

'Road tax' is actually motor vehicle licence duty. Cycles are not motor vehicles and so can hardly be expected to have to contribute to such a duty!

All streets are provided with footways and yet no one suggests that a 'pedestrian tax' should be levied in order to pay for them. This is despite the fact that the quality and comprehensiveness of the footway system vastly exceeds that of cycle facilities and cycles have almost no impact on the roads system.

The motor vehicle licence is set at a very low level and one of the primary aims in collecting it is to try to limit the number of drivers who fail to insure their vehicles or who have valid M.O.T. certificates. A scheme to check these details would be needed and have to be paid for even if motor vehicle excise duty were to be abolished.
So long, just because you are physically and mentally incapable of riding a bike, dont dish out your ignorant garbage here.

Firstly, if there were no motor vehicles then there would be no roads. Secondly, I think that the 80% that is taken by the government in fuel tax alone should more than cover payments for road use and third party insurance for that matter. Without motor vehicles this country would quickly grind to a halt; something that you could hardly say that about cycles. Even if you do not use a motor vehicle yourself, you must rely on goods and services that are brought to you by such vehicles. When will the cyclist lobby get it? They, along with their archaic technology belong in museums, not taking up space on Britain??TMs roads.

Hats off to these people. If more people cycled, naked or clothed, children could play out in the street again and not become a fat burden on their country, the last thing we need in the run up to the London olympics.

People who have the George Cross on their car aren't patriotic: naked cyclists are!

Well said Andy, someone who thinks before making comment. After all how much pollution do bikes create and how much wear and tear do they incur on the roads. Rather than cyclists having to pay extra to use the roads, they should be given financial incentives to use their bikes.