The 'cyclists should pay road tax' folks

[Baskey]

Finlandia said:

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.
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.

As said, some form of licencing will be brought in, it's just a matter of time.

No it won't and no it's not

Dear God please don't tell me you honestly believe this

Edited by Baskey on Tuesday 3rd March 20:48

[Devil2575]

Finlandia said:

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.
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.

As said, some form of licencing will be brought in, it's just a matter of time.

You can keep saying it all you like. It bears no reflection on how likely it is to happen though.

I can equally say that it isn't going to happen.

[IroningMan]

Justin Case said:

The answer is simple; keep cycles and cyclists tax free, but double the tax on lycra. This is also in accordance with the principle that the polluter pays, though in this case the pollution is visual not atmospheric.

If visual pollution is to be the basis for taxation then I'm all for it - there are an awful lot of pie-swilling eyesores - who never wear Lycra - who will be either taxed into shaping up or taxed into staying in until it's dark and we don't have to look at them.

Since I look bloody good in Lycra I, on the other hand, won't be affected.

[Leafspring]

This has probably been mentioned here already but I can't be arsed to read it all so

No point in charging cyclists VED.

VED is based on emissions... so even if liable cyclists would immediately become exempt anyway.

Q: do cyclists have to pay to use toll roads?

[IroningMan]

Leafspring said:

This has probably been mentioned here already but I can't be arsed to read it all so

No point in charging cyclists VED.

VED is based on emissions... so even if liable cyclists would immediately become exempt anyway.

Q: do cyclists have to pay to use toll roads?

Toll roads will be subject to individual rules and or by-laws - by and large I would expect cyclists to be treated the same in these as pedestrians.

[Mave]

Tony33 said:

he 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.

Firstly, note, I don't condone red light jumping at all.
Are you seriously suggesting that red light jumping is limited to cyclists? Surely we have all sat patiently waiting at a red light, the light has gone amber then green, and a motorist has gone through the opposing lights? Or has that never happened to you? It happens to me, multiple times a day!

Same if I'm on my bike at an advanced stop line, the number of motorists who set off as soon as the lights have turned amber is not very few.

Edited by Mave on Tuesday 3rd March 21:17

[Mr Gear]

Finlandia said:

In Sweden up until the late 50's every bicycle had to have either a registration number or the owners name visible on the back of the bike.

Yeah, and they gave up that idea because it was stupid.

[Tony33]

Mave said:

Tony33 said:

he 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.

Firstly, note, I don't condone red light jumping at all.
Are you seriously suggesting that red light jumping is limited to cyclists? Surely we have all sat patiently waiting at a red light, the light has gone amber then green, and a motorist has gone through the opposing lights? Or has that never happened to you? It happens to me, multiple times a day!

Same if I'm on my bike at an advanced stop line, the number of motorists who set off as soon as the lights have turned amber is not very few.

I agree the red light jumping by motorists as lights change is infinitely more dangerous than checking everything is clear and setting off. Just that I don't recall ever seeing a motorist do that whereas cyclists frequently do. It is this assumption that the red light is optional that can put cyclists as a collective in a bad light.

[Finlandia]

Mr Gear said:

Finlandia said:

In Sweden up until the late 50's every bicycle had to have either a registration number or the owners name visible on the back of the bike.

Yeah, and they gave up that idea because it was stupid.

Mainly because people stopped cycling and started driving instead, not enough cyclists to bother about the registration.

[Finlandia]

Baskey said:

No it won't and no it's not

Dear God please don't tell me you honestly believe this

Edited by Baskey on Tuesday 3rd March 20:48

Devil2575 said:

You can keep saying it all you like. It bears no reflection on how likely it is to happen though.

I can equally say that it isn't going to happen.

Seems to be a touchy subject this

[Tony33]

otolith said:

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.

It kind of depends on the road though. Outside of rush hour a bike can be a bit like passing a tractor that takes ages to get a clear road to pass and magically gets to the front of the queue at the set of lights a few hundred yards after the pass is finally made!

[anonymous-user]

Finlandia said:

Seems to be a touchy subject this

What, being a troll, yes it irritates people.

[Devil2575]

Finlandia said:

Seems to be a touchy subject this

Not touchy at all, just pointing out the flaws in your argument.

[Mave]

Tony33 said:

Mave said:

Tony33 said:

he 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.

Firstly, note, I don't condone red light jumping at all.
Are you seriously suggesting that red light jumping is limited to cyclists? Surely we have all sat patiently waiting at a red light, the light has gone amber then green, and a motorist has gone through the opposing lights? Or has that never happened to you? It happens to me, multiple times a day!

Same if I'm on my bike at an advanced stop line, the number of motorists who set off as soon as the lights have turned amber is not very few.

I agree the red light jumping by motorists as lights change is infinitely more dangerous than checking everything is clear and setting off. Just that I don't recall ever seeing a motorist do that whereas cyclists frequently do. It is this assumption that the red light is optional that can put cyclists as a collective in a bad light.

The only study I can remember seeing (Manchester? Westminster?) concluded that the % red light jumping was similar between cyclists and motorists. And in absolute terms there are far more motorists than cyclists.

It is the assumption that cyclists are more guilty of red light jumping than motorists that can put motorists as a collective in a hypocritical light

[Finlandia]

yonex said:

Finlandia said:

Seems to be a touchy subject this

What, being a troll, yes it irritates people.

A troll, where?
Enforcement and possibly more is coming. I remember a few years ago in Bournemouth, police were fining cyclists on the Undercliff drive for speeding in a 10 or 20 zone, can't remember which. It's a particular busy place by the beach, full of kids running around and crossing the drive from the beach huts to the beach.
There was a massive outcry over it at the time, you can't fine us, it's our right and so on.

[Mave]

Finlandia said:

yonex said:

Finlandia said:

Seems to be a touchy subject this

What, being a troll, yes it irritates people.

A troll, where?
Enforcement and possibly more is coming. I remember a few years ago in Bournemouth, police were fining cyclists on the Undercliff drive for speeding in a 10 or 20 zone, can't remember which. It's a particular busy place by the beach, full of kids running around and crossing the drive from the beach huts to the beach.
There was a massive outcry over it at the time, you can't fine us, it's our right and so on.

I can imagine there being an outcry, not because "it's our right", but because legally speed limits don't apply to bikes except under local byelaws.

[Heaveho]

mybrainhurts said:

As the bicyclists get so wound up about this, let's forget "road tax"...

Make them pay an inconvenience tax.

Then give it to me for every time I use a particular B road, on which the presence of one bicyclist creates a 1.5 mile queue when traffic is flowing from the other direction and no one can pass the sweaty beast for the full 1.5 miles.

I'd call that fair...

Way too rational! I live just off the busiest B road in the UK, inhabited by one fuel truck per minute, and several trade vehicles at any given time. There is often a queue a mile long, the cause being a cyclist at the head of it. I find the sanctimonious outpourings of these people breathtakingly arrogant. All you have to do is look over your shoulder to see the mayhem it causes, but hey, why bother, it's your right to hold up those of us who have no choice but to drive.

[anthonysjb]

Last time I checked road tax amount was based on emissions, not type of vehicle. As far as I'm aware, cyclists make none. Why don't we complain about all the electric cars that aren't paying road tax too, they take up far more space on the road than bicycles.

It's just jealousy. People love to bully. I'm a lean, fit, fast cyclist, riding a lovely bicycle, having a great time, which you fatties can't. Stay mad.

[otolith]

People should pull over when there's a queue behind them. I more often wish people driving cars, trucks and tractors would bear that in mind than people on bikes.

[kiseca]

Heaveho said:

mybrainhurts said:

As the bicyclists get so wound up about this, let's forget "road tax"...

Make them pay an inconvenience tax.

Then give it to me for every time I use a particular B road, on which the presence of one bicyclist creates a 1.5 mile queue when traffic is flowing from the other direction and no one can pass the sweaty beast for the full 1.5 miles.

I'd call that fair...

Way too rational! I live just off the busiest B road in the UK, inhabited by one fuel truck per minute, and several trade vehicles at any given time. There is often a queue a mile long, the cause being a cyclist at the head of it. I find the sanctimonious outpourings of these people breathtakingly arrogant. All you have to do is look over your shoulder to see the mayhem it causes, but hey, why bother, it's your right to hold up those of us who have no choice but to drive.

To me arrogance is sitting in a car or a truck, in a mile long queue of cars and trucks, unable to overtake a single bicycle because of a constant stream of cars and trucks coming the other way, and thinking that the single bike is the cause of all your delay, not the thousands of cars surrounding you.