The 'cyclists should pay road tax' folks
Discussion
otolith said:
As I understand it, wear to the roads is roughly proportional to the fourth power of the weight acting on the axle. So several orders of magnitude is probably closer to the truth.
Very interesting. I was wondering how weight impacts on road use... do you have a source for this?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. Freddy88FM said:
otolith said:
As I understand it, wear to the roads is roughly proportional to the fourth power of the weight acting on the axle. So several orders of magnitude is probably closer to the truth.
Very interesting. I was wondering how weight impacts on road use... do you have a source for this?
otolith said:
kambites said:
Since bikes are so light, they also cause an order of magnitude less wear to the roads.
As I understand it, wear to the roads is roughly proportional to the fourth power of the weight acting on the axle. So several orders of magnitude is probably closer to the truth.Coz they are used by trucks, vans and cars.
Bikes are using it as a freebie in effect. I don't mind that, I use bikes myself on the road, but bicyclists are not paying their way and to argue against it is hiding your head in the sand.
Same as people riding their horses along a road to get somewhere. Very nice and all, but it's not what the road is there for.
Gandahar said:
Same as people riding their horses along a road to get somewhere. Very nice and all, but it's not what the road is there for.
Erm, I think getting somewhere is the entire point of the road network.... I don't even pay council tax, (student status), so I don't even pay for the local upkeep of the roads and I get to spend more money on Pistonheads lycra.. 
kambites said:
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. Edited by kambites on Tuesday 3rd March 15:19
Gandahar said:
Well then you are biasing your argument in favour of bikes. Cars. vans and lorries and the people and companies that run them put money into taxes from fuel duty and also local taxes, government taxes, corporate tax etc far more than cyclists. It's obvious.
Yes? Where did I say that wasn't the case? I said I think it's highly likely that cyclists, on average, pay more. I'd be quite happy to pay VED for the 0g/km of tailpipe emissions that my bike produces, anyway (not that I actually have a bike).
I'm sure there are hotspots of idiot cyclists disregarding road laws - london, cambridge and oxford spring to mind but in general I see a lot of decent people getting about cheaply and healthily.
Make cyclists pay some sort of tax to use the road and they would just use those amazing cycle paths councils have provided instead
Make cyclists pay some sort of tax to use the road and they would just use those amazing cycle paths councils have provided instead
Gandahar said:
You miss the point, the point is that if it was just bikes on the road repairs would not be done at all, neither would roads be built. Roads are built and maintained to keep ££ flowing in the economy.
Coz they are used by trucks, vans and cars.
Bikes are using it as a freebie in effect. I don't mind that, I use bikes myself on the road, but bicyclists are not paying their way and to argue against it is hiding your head in the sand.
Same as people riding their horses along a road to get somewhere. Very nice and all, but it's not what the road is there for.
If only bikes used them they probably wouldn't need repairing at all.Coz they are used by trucks, vans and cars.
Bikes are using it as a freebie in effect. I don't mind that, I use bikes myself on the road, but bicyclists are not paying their way and to argue against it is hiding your head in the sand.
Same as people riding their horses along a road to get somewhere. Very nice and all, but it's not what the road is there for.
If motor vehciles had never been invented there would still be roads and cyclists would still be able to use them.
Roads are built to allow people to get from one place to another. Before there were tarmac roads there were paths used by people and horses etc.
Freddy88FM said:
Very interesting. I was wondering how weight impacts on road use... do you have a source for this?
It's a rule of thumb - there are more accurate ways of modelling it, and other sources of variation, but see;http://www.nvfnorden.org/lisalib/getfile.aspx?item...
page 17.
Gandahar said:
You miss the point, the point is that if it was just bikes on the road repairs would not be done at all, neither would roads be built. Roads are built and maintained to keep ££ flowing in the economy.
You see, I think you have that the wrong way around. In my opinion roads were throughout history (and continue to be) built and maintained to let people go wherever they want for whatever reason they want whenever they want as easily as reasonably possible. This is a theme throughout history.Pounds through the economy come as a side effect of that.
Gandahar said:
You miss the point, the point is that if it was just bikes on the road repairs would not be done at all, neither would roads be built. Roads are built and maintained to keep ££ flowing in the economy.
Coz they are used by trucks, vans and cars.
Bikes are using it as a freebie in effect. I don't mind that, I use bikes myself on the road, but bicyclists are not paying their way and to argue against it is hiding your head in the sand.
Same as people riding their horses along a road to get somewhere. Very nice and all, but it's not what the road is there for.
I think you have a misconception about the history of roads.Coz they are used by trucks, vans and cars.
Bikes are using it as a freebie in effect. I don't mind that, I use bikes myself on the road, but bicyclists are not paying their way and to argue against it is hiding your head in the sand.
Same as people riding their horses along a road to get somewhere. Very nice and all, but it's not what the road is there for.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2...
http://www.roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/
In the beginning of the history of cars, you could drive one without the need to be licenced or without any training, then there were more cars and drivers and accidents, and after a while some sort of licencing was required. Same with motorcycles, up until very recently you could pass your licence in a 1.0L car and the next day buy a 1.0L motorcycle, pure madness really. Same with bicycles, you can buy a racing bicycle and pedal away in the traffic without any training or licencing.
Enjoy while it lasts, because it will not last forever.
Enjoy while it lasts, because it will not last forever.
kambites said:
Gandahar said:
Well then you are biasing your argument in favour of bikes. Cars. vans and lorries and the people and companies that run them put money into taxes from fuel duty and also local taxes, government taxes, corporate tax etc far more than cyclists. It's obvious.
I said I think it's highly likely that cyclists, on average, pay more. /quote]
Pay more than who on average?
The fact of the matter is, and we keep drifting away from the point, is that roads are built and maintained not for cyclists.
Can you not agree with that?
And that the roads are being built for users who spend extra taxes on fuel and VED and corporation taxes etc etc. Keeping the country moving in other words.
Anyhow, like I said, I have nothing against cyclists, I am one myself. Financially wise it is a blessing for us to use the roads rather than some burden.
If you argue otherwise you are pissing in the wind.
Finlandia said:
Enjoy while it lasts, because it will not last forever.
Nobody of any power or influence has any intention of doing anything which might discourage cycling. Quite the opposite. Schemes which raise the bar for access to cycling are not going to happen because discouraging cycling is contrary to a whole host of policy objectives.otolith said:
Gandahar said:
You miss the point, the point is that if it was just bikes on the road repairs would not be done at all, neither would roads be built. Roads are built and maintained to keep ££ flowing in the economy.
Coz they are used by trucks, vans and cars.
Bikes are using it as a freebie in effect. I don't mind that, I use bikes myself on the road, but bicyclists are not paying their way and to argue against it is hiding your head in the sand.
Same as people riding their horses along a road to get somewhere. Very nice and all, but it's not what the road is there for.
I think you have a misconception about the history of roads.Coz they are used by trucks, vans and cars.
Bikes are using it as a freebie in effect. I don't mind that, I use bikes myself on the road, but bicyclists are not paying their way and to argue against it is hiding your head in the sand.
Same as people riding their horses along a road to get somewhere. Very nice and all, but it's not what the road is there for.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2...
http://www.roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/
List me the number of bypasses being built this year and the percentage built just for bicyclists.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff