The 'cyclists should pay road tax' folks
Discussion
IMO - The bigger issue is that the cyclists want to use the road, but there is no requirement for them to have insurance.
I saw a cyclist a few weeks ago in the snow, who was riding with his head down, didn't see the car in front of him had stoppped, and headbutted the car, breaking it's rear screen. He then just buggered off, and left the poor motorist to pick up the cost.
If cyclists want to use the roads, then they should be subject to the same rules, such as having thrid party insurance, and having to stop and exchange details at an accident.
AS most cyclists claim to be drivers as well, perhaps it is something that the insurance companies could offer as an addition to the regular motor policy.
I saw a cyclist a few weeks ago in the snow, who was riding with his head down, didn't see the car in front of him had stoppped, and headbutted the car, breaking it's rear screen. He then just buggered off, and left the poor motorist to pick up the cost.
If cyclists want to use the roads, then they should be subject to the same rules, such as having thrid party insurance, and having to stop and exchange details at an accident.
AS most cyclists claim to be drivers as well, perhaps it is something that the insurance companies could offer as an addition to the regular motor policy.
First point. No one pays road tax, they pay VED.
Second point. Not all cars pay VED, quite a few pay £0 these days. This in itslef makes his argument invalid.
Third point. All roads aside from motorways IIRC are public rights of way. Motor vehicles have to pay VED in order to use them but no other road users do. You can no more argue that a cyclist should pay "road tax" than you could a pedestrian.
Final point. Governments have used taxation in order to encourage or promote behaviours for hundreds of years. Taxing cyclists would discourage them which given the cost to the NHS of obesity and related health problems would be stupid.
Tell your colleague that he might want to think before he opens his mouth as if he doesn't he risks saying more silly things that make him look daft.
Second point. Not all cars pay VED, quite a few pay £0 these days. This in itslef makes his argument invalid.
Third point. All roads aside from motorways IIRC are public rights of way. Motor vehicles have to pay VED in order to use them but no other road users do. You can no more argue that a cyclist should pay "road tax" than you could a pedestrian.
Final point. Governments have used taxation in order to encourage or promote behaviours for hundreds of years. Taxing cyclists would discourage them which given the cost to the NHS of obesity and related health problems would be stupid.
Tell your colleague that he might want to think before he opens his mouth as if he doesn't he risks saying more silly things that make him look daft.
kambites said:
Fittster said:
What I don't understand is why cyclists are reluctant to carry some for of visible identification. Wouldn't responsible cyclists wish to see those how flaunt regulations removed from the road?
Are they, beyond the practical difficulties? AndyNetwork said:
IMO - The bigger issue is that the cyclists want to use the road, but there is no requirement for them to have insurance.
I saw a cyclist a few weeks ago in the snow, who was riding with his head down, didn't see the car in front of him had stoppped, and headbutted the car, breaking it's rear screen. He then just buggered off, and left the poor motorist to pick up the cost.
If cyclists want to use the roads, then they should be subject to the same rules, such as having thrid party insurance, and having to stop and exchange details at an accident.
AS most cyclists claim to be drivers as well, perhaps it is something that the insurance companies could offer as an addition to the regular motor policy.
They already are legally obliged to stop after an accident and they are still liable for any damage they cause. As are pedestrians, horse riders and any other road users. I saw a cyclist a few weeks ago in the snow, who was riding with his head down, didn't see the car in front of him had stoppped, and headbutted the car, breaking it's rear screen. He then just buggered off, and left the poor motorist to pick up the cost.
If cyclists want to use the roads, then they should be subject to the same rules, such as having thrid party insurance, and having to stop and exchange details at an accident.
AS most cyclists claim to be drivers as well, perhaps it is something that the insurance companies could offer as an addition to the regular motor policy.
Fittster said:
kambites said:
Fittster said:
What I don't understand is why cyclists are reluctant to carry some for of visible identification. Wouldn't responsible cyclists wish to see those how flaunt regulations removed from the road?
Are they, beyond the practical difficulties? 
Fittster said:
What I don't understand is why cyclists are reluctant to carry some for of visible identification. Wouldn't responsible cyclists wish to see those how flaunt regulations removed from the road?
In my opinion the main reasons are as follow: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.
2) the main danger (beyond cosmetic damage to a car/van/lorry) is to the cyclist his/herself.
3) red tape would discourage cycling when we need to encourage it if we want to stop our cities grinding to a halt
Gandahar said:
Cyclists use the road so they should pay for it's upkeep.
I looked into this recently as a result of another thread. Cycling is a very middle-class thing, it's impossible to be sure but it looks almost certain to me that the average cyclist pays more tax than the average driver. Since bikes are so light, they also cause an order of magnitude less wear to the roads. Mopar440 said:
I'm sure you'll find that most of us pay VED on our cars.
Quite, but the point was as a cyclist, I do pay it, just not on my bike. Of course, I don't expect to use a car without valid VED on the road, but my comment is no less valid than those claiming cyclists don't pay it, both are nonsense.SuperVM said:
Quite, but the point was as a cyclist, I do pay it, just not on my bike. Of course, I don't expect to use a car without valid VED on the road, but my comment is no less valid than those claiming cyclists don't pay it, both are nonsense.
My point is that it isn't a legal requirement for cyclists to pay, so why is it ever used as a reason for them not to be on the road. I just don't get the logic.Fittster said:
What I don't understand is why cyclists are reluctant to carry some for of visible identification. Wouldn't responsible cyclists wish to see those how flaunt regulations removed from the road?
Do you also want number plates on pedestrians to make it easier to catch those who flaunt regulations?More than 10% of new car registrations are for VED band A cars, the owners pay nothing. Disabled drivers pay no VED. Owners of cars over 40 years old pay nothing.
Does the entitled VED-paying masses have a right to act like pricks to them too?
The roads cyclists use (ie. not motorways and major trunk roads) are typically local to them and owned and maintained by councils, funded by their council tax.
I would welcome a new VED system based on road damage, which is directly proportional to weight. Say £20 for each complete 100kg per year, with no upper limit?
Does the entitled VED-paying masses have a right to act like pricks to them too?
The roads cyclists use (ie. not motorways and major trunk roads) are typically local to them and owned and maintained by councils, funded by their council tax.
I would welcome a new VED system based on road damage, which is directly proportional to weight. Say £20 for each complete 100kg per year, with no upper limit?
Fittster said:
kambites said:
Fittster said:
What I don't understand is why cyclists are reluctant to carry some for of visible identification. Wouldn't responsible cyclists wish to see those how flaunt regulations removed from the road?
Are they, beyond the practical difficulties? kambites said:
Gandahar said:
Cyclists use the road so they should pay for it's upkeep.
I looked into this recently as a result of another thread. Cycling is a very middle-class thing, it's impossible to be sure but it looks almost certain to me that the average cyclist pays more tax than the average driver. Since bikes are so light, they also cause an order of magnitude less wear to the roads. Gandahar said:
Are you taking fuel duty into account multiplied by the millions of miles travelled by all classes compared to far fewer miles done by cyclists from a subset of the population paying nothing ?
No, just total tax paid to the treasury and/or to the local council. In fact given that most local roads are paid for by the local council, maybe we should limit the weight of vehicle people are allowed to use on the road by the council tax band of their house?
Edited by kambites on Tuesday 3rd March 15:19
kambites said:
IMO - ditch VED completely; make up the shortfall by increasing fuel duty. Then the anti-cycling brigade wouldn't have anything to moan about. 
ETA: Unless they're going to start arguing that cyclists should pay road fuel duty on food.
Nooo not talk of pasty tax again!ETA: Unless they're going to start arguing that cyclists should pay road fuel duty on food.
Maybe just a tax on protein bars
Freddy88FM said:
SuperVM said:
Quite, but the point was as a cyclist, I do pay it, just not on my bike. Of course, I don't expect to use a car without valid VED on the road, but my comment is no less valid than those claiming cyclists don't pay it, both are nonsense.
My point is that it isn't a legal requirement for cyclists to pay, so why is it ever used as a reason for them not to be on the road. I just don't get the logic.AndyNetwork said:
IMO - The bigger issue is that the cyclists want to use the road, but there is no requirement for them to have insurance.
Is it a big issue though?You saw one incident where a cyclist did some damage to a car. What you have to ask yourself is how often does this happen, how much damage is actually caused and what would the implications be of trying to apply such rules.
I'd suggest the problem with what you saw is that the cyclist just cleared off, not that he wasn't insured. Drivers clear off if they think they can get away with it.
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. Cylists primarily put themselves in danger when they behave stupidly and pose little risk to other road users.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff