The 'cyclists should pay road tax' folks
Discussion
I pay tax on my 3 cars, they all sit on the drive all week as I cycle to work
It wouldn't bother me if I had to pay a small amount to cycle however would it solve anything, I think not.
The cost to administer the scheme would probely cost a lot more than it brings in and the cycling t
ts that everyone hates wouldn't pay it anyway.
It wouldn't bother me if I had to pay a small amount to cycle however would it solve anything, I think not.
The cost to administer the scheme would probely cost a lot more than it brings in and the cycling t
ts that everyone hates wouldn't pay it anyway. Baskey said:
The cost to administer the scheme would probely cost a lot more than it brings in and the cycling tts that everyone hates wouldn't pay it anyway.
That's what has happened everywhere it's been tried - it costs more to administer that is brought in.ts that everyone hates wouldn't pay it anyway. The pubic sector all around the world is f
king expensive, wherever they are, so the idea that you could charge cyclists enough to cover salaries, pensions, bonuses and the rest of it is just laughable. otolith said:
Finlandia said:
otolith said:
Finlandia said:
One very good argument is revenue.
Can't see that flying, any more than introducing a salad tax.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rates_in_the_United_K...
Finlandia said:
Wait and see when most cars run on electric, no one smokes or drinks, the state wallet needs filling.
It will be necessary to raise funds from other sources. Cycling will never be a particularly appealing target for taxation - it's not seen as a "sin", like drinking, smoking, motoring. It doesn't lend itself easily to gathering significant revenue - you can't tax fuel it doesn't use, a bicycle is a relatively small, inexpensive object compared to a new car or a house, easy to conceal. You could try to impose some sort of annual levy, but it would be hard to justify and harder to enforce. You may as well suggest walking will be taxed. The obvious thing to tax to replace income lost to electric cars is electricity, or more likely, road charging.
Much as you may like the idea, I simply don't see it happening. It will take a long time for governments to get cycling participation up to acceptable levels for the policy targets that pretty much all politicians agree are in the "apple pie & motherhood" class of ideas, after which it will be very hard to turn round and impose punitive taxes on it.
yonex said:
Finlandia said:
Wait and see when most cars run on electric, no one smokes or drinks, the state wallet needs filling.
Bundle of joy aren't we? If new cars are sold there will be a way to tax them. Bicycles won't be taxed for all the reasons already given. Gandahar said:
but bicyclists are not paying their way and to argue against it is hiding your head in the sand.
When I was a bicyclist I was paying £3000 a year in ved and a £100 a day in fuel tax. When I was bicycling none of my vehicles would be on the road.Would you care to explain how the ownership of the bicycle reduced my liabilities?
otolith said:
Finlandia said:
Council tax anno 1993, so not that far back in time.
Replacing Community Charge. Replacing Rates. Introduced hundreds of years ago.Finlandia said:
At some point it will.
Why? Is it also likely that they will start taxing pedestrians?How about you provide sone evidence that leads you to the view that it will.
Bus swerving to avoid a bicycle? What about a school bus swerving to avoid a pedestrian? Should everyone have to get insurance just to leave the house?
heebeegeetee said:
Gandahar said:
but bicyclists are not paying their way and to argue against it is hiding your head in the sand.
When I was a bicyclist I was paying £3000 a year in ved and a £100 a day in fuel tax. When I was bicycling none of my vehicles would be on the road.Would you care to explain how the ownership of the bicycle reduced my liabilities?
Devil2575 said:
Finlandia said:
At some point it will.
Why? Is it also likely that they will start taxing pedestrians?How about you provide sone evidence that leads you to the view that it will.
Bus swerving to avoid a bicycle? What about a school bus swerving to avoid a pedestrian? Should everyone have to get insurance just to leave the house?
A cyclist moves much faster than a pedestrian though, it's not that wise to let anyone out in whatever traffic without any training on a device capable of 30mph+. As I said, not long ago you were able to pass your driving licence in a 1.0L car, and the next day ride a 1000cc motorbike.
They are taxed, just not for being cyclists. The majority are already walkers, do they get taxed for that?
It's just a ludicrous idea. How do you get a significant amount of money out of people for cycling? VED raises absolutely fk all in the grand scheme of things. About 4.1% of UK tax revenue comes from fuel duties. About 0.9% from VED. Even if everyone quit driving for bikes and you could impose tax levels comparable to VED for owning a bike (which, just to reiterate, nobody important thinks is anything but a stupid idea) you would only be clawing back a small amount of revenue lost, and you would have to pay for introducing a massive amount of administration and policing to administer and enforce it. There are loads of easier ways to raise the money.
It's just a ludicrous idea. How do you get a significant amount of money out of people for cycling? VED raises absolutely f
k all in the grand scheme of things. About 4.1% of UK tax revenue comes from fuel duties. About 0.9% from VED. Even if everyone quit driving for bikes and you could impose tax levels comparable to VED for owning a bike (which, just to reiterate, nobody important thinks is anything but a stupid idea) you would only be clawing back a small amount of revenue lost, and you would have to pay for introducing a massive amount of administration and policing to administer and enforce it. There are loads of easier ways to raise the money.Freddy88FM said:
1) a bike running a red light is several orders of magnitude less dangerous than a car doing the same. I'd be significantly more worried about a car shooting a light than a bike personally.
The key issue to me is allowing mandatory traffic control to be determined as optional for a group of road users. We have all sat patiently waiting at a red light at a cross roads with no traffic in sight only for a cyclist to come past, check there is no traffic and cross. With very few exceptions would a car driver do the same regardless of how safe the maneuver may be. I don't believe any road user should have the right to override traffic control based on their own judgment of safety. I think the "road tax" thing reflects some frustration at double standards that some cyclists display i.e. demanding to be treated like a car when being followed and then passing a queue of traffic with a mm each side when it suits. It is very frustrating for a driver held up by a cyclist to wait for a gap to give plenty of room only for the same cyclist to pass with no room to spare at lights and have the driver held up having to pass again, it is even more aggravating if the cyclist goes through the red light whilst they are abiding by the law and waiting! It may make little difference to overall journey time but the one rule for one perception can create a bit of a divide between the groups and the stereotype of "cyclists" and "drivers" we see so often here.
Tony33 said:
It is very frustrating for a driver held up by a cyclist to wait for a gap to give plenty of room only for the same cyclist to pass with no room to spare at lights and have the driver held up having to pass again
That's a matter of perception, though - the cyclist could make the same objection that people keep overtaking him only to leave him having to pass them all again at the next set of lights. It's inevitable when you have two groups of people making the same average time in different ways. Either would be better off if the other sacrificed their own progress. Lack of empathy.Finlandia said:
When the tax money becomes scarce, there will be new ways of collecting it.
A cyclist moves much faster than a pedestrian though, it's not that wise to let anyone out in whatever traffic without any training on a device capable of 30mph+. As I said, not long ago you were able to pass your driving licence in a 1.0L car, and the next day ride a 1000cc motorbike.
None of this is evidence that cycling will be taxed. You could equally suggest that if people stopped smoking they'd get the tax from people who drank coffee instead.A cyclist moves much faster than a pedestrian though, it's not that wise to let anyone out in whatever traffic without any training on a device capable of 30mph+. As I said, not long ago you were able to pass your driving licence in a 1.0L car, and the next day ride a 1000cc motorbike.
Bicycles will never take the place of cars, they are an alternative in certain circumstances but not a replacement. There will always be cars that can be taxed.
Devil2575 said:
The implications of insurance would be extra cost which would put some people off cycling, and as we don't even know if there is a signifcant problem i'm not sure this is a good thing to do. You'd also need to consider ways to identify cyclists, such as a number plate of some sort which is again expense and will put people off. No other country in the world has gone down this route. I wonder why?
I think an awful lot of noise is made about cyclists breaking the rules, damaging cars and injuring other road users but in reality I don't think any of these cause many real problems. Cyclists primarily put themselves in danger when they behave stupidly and pose little risk to other road users.
I think an awful lot of noise is made about cyclists breaking the rules, damaging cars and injuring other road users but in reality I don't think any of these cause many real problems. Cyclists primarily put themselves in danger when they behave stupidly and pose little risk to other road users.
I'll add that if we're to take cycling in London seriously we need to invest in it. That means proper cycle lanes not a bit of blue paint which was an obvious short-term solution for the Olympics. I've cycled in Denmark and Holland and it was pleasure, however they have proper infrastructure. To install that kind of set up in London would be very expensive and perhaps not even physically possible given the relatively narrow streets.
Edited by g3org3y on Tuesday 3rd March 20:38
Devil2575 said:
Finlandia said:
When the tax money becomes scarce, there will be new ways of collecting it.
A cyclist moves much faster than a pedestrian though, it's not that wise to let anyone out in whatever traffic without any training on a device capable of 30mph+. As I said, not long ago you were able to pass your driving licence in a 1.0L car, and the next day ride a 1000cc motorbike.
None of this is evidence that cycling will be taxed. You could equally suggest that if people stopped smoking they'd get the tax from people who drank coffee instead.A cyclist moves much faster than a pedestrian though, it's not that wise to let anyone out in whatever traffic without any training on a device capable of 30mph+. As I said, not long ago you were able to pass your driving licence in a 1.0L car, and the next day ride a 1000cc motorbike.
Bicycles will never take the place of cars, they are an alternative in certain circumstances but not a replacement. There will always be cars that can be taxed.
I thought "road tax" was so you could abandon your tin cage at the side of the road, with no consideration for other road users? The biggest cause of congestion on my commute are the queues of traffic waiting to get round the double parked fkwits who live along my chosen route.
Second biggest cause are the timid folk who don't like going more than thirty-five in the twisty 60 zones, followed by the goods vehicles, who get a reprieve as they are only allowed to do 40 anyway.
Way down the list, after buses, are cyclists, who don't delay me at all, other than to slow my progress to the back of the next queue. If it wasn't for the time and distance issue, I'd ride to work as well.
kwits who live along my chosen route.Second biggest cause are the timid folk who don't like going more than thirty-five in the twisty 60 zones, followed by the goods vehicles, who get a reprieve as they are only allowed to do 40 anyway.
Way down the list, after buses, are cyclists, who don't delay me at all, other than to slow my progress to the back of the next queue. If it wasn't for the time and distance issue, I'd ride to work as well.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff