The 'cyclists should pay road tax' folks

[Gandahar]

dooosuk said:

Gandahar said:

Please post where I have said it was. Have you read any of my posts?

Yes and you keep stating that cyclists do not pay their way and do not pay for the upkeep of roads.

Those statements are simply not true.

No, I am saying that the roads are not built for cyclists, they are getting them as free way of exercise rather than going down the gym

[kambites]

Gandahar said:

List me the number of bypasses being built this year and the percentage built just for bicyclists.

Why would we need bypasses if we didn't have cars? The existing roads should have oodles of space for enough bikes.

I wouldn't be entirely surprised if more new tarmac has been laid for cycle and foot paths than for roads in the last few years.

[Gandahar]

kambites said:

Gandahar said:

List me the number of bypasses being built this year and the percentage built just for bicyclists.

Why would we need bypasses if we didn't have cars? The existing roads should have oodles of space for enough bikes.

As I mentioned to make ££££

It's called infrastructure. It allows City bankers to get into Canary Wharf to make enough for a new Porsche GT3 RS as a commuter

[kambites]

Fine, so they keep building new roads for the drivers funded by general taxation. That's how things work now, so why does anything need to change?

[Finlandia]

otolith said:

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.

Once upon a time that was true for cars and motorcycles as well.

[Gandahar]

Freddy88FM said:

Hi guys,


Immediately we got in to a debate but after about 1 min or so he said we should agree to disagree and get on with work. We did. A shame, I like a good debate!

Well I tried my best against all and sundry and hopefully lasted for 20 mins !

Some good arguments on both sides as per the last 100 threads on the subject.


Ok, I need to go back to virtual Geneva.

[paranoid airbag]

Freddy88FM said:

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.

Partly, they may feel guilty because society says "you should do this" and they're not - witness the number of people who absolutely never question science - until "climate change" - aka, something that supposedly requires action from them - is mentioned. People don't like being told what to do, unless it's by a man in a funny hat.

Partly, they may on some level realise whoever gave them a license to operate a lethal piece of machinery in public probably made a mistake. If they ever were in a serious accident and had to answer in court for their driving - could they, really? People don't like having their flaws exposed, and they don't like the people who'll expose them.

But overall, people just like having someone to hate.

It's reassuring to believe that you're the only one pulling your weight around here and that you therefore have some entitlement to expect others to do more for you. Hey, I've done you a favour by "sharing the road" (aka: not murdering you for fun). You owe me. It's a lot easier to argue for what you want, whatever that is, if you simply believe you already deserve it.

The latter in particular, is a reason to look forward to driverless cars - humans are just not set up to operate in an environment where favours are not expected and rarely given, and therefore where very little ability to legally punish others exists. Hell, I was (a passenger in a car) on a dual carriageway last week when one total wkstain of a human in a megane decided to put four or five people in danger for the sake of a very stty undertake. Officially, I don't believe in capital punishment, but give me twenty minutes in a windowless room with that person and a breadknife and you'd find a missing head and a st in the wound at the end. But what, exactly, can you do other than bh? Nothing. It's all rather frustrating.

Edited by paranoid airbag on Tuesday 3rd March 16:00

[castex]

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.

Ha, I knew it! Not folks; they're a brigade.

[otolith]

Gandahar said:

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.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2...

http://www.roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/

Sorry I pay for upkeep of them and new roads now, not before my grand father was born.

List me the number of bypasses being built this year and the percentage built just for bicyclists.

If your argument is that but for motorised traffic there would be no roads, how do you reconcile that with roads being built before motorised traffic existed?

That isn't to say that the roadbuilding programme is not driven by the need to accommodate the problems caused by increasing volumes of motorised traffic, rather that we would still need a network sufficient for bikes if that was all there were.

[dooosuk]

Gandahar said:

dooosuk said:

Gandahar said:

Please post where I have said it was. Have you read any of my posts?

Yes and you keep stating that cyclists do not pay their way and do not pay for the upkeep of roads.

Those statements are simply not true.

No, I am saying that the roads are not built for cyclists, they are getting them as free way of exercise rather than going down the gym

You directly said "Cyclists use the road so they should pay for it's upkeep.", "bicyclists are not paying their way" and "Bikes are using it as a freebie in effect". All these statements are incorrect with respect to the way roads are currently funded. To argue otherwise is daft.

I agree that new roads are not built for cyclists...but cyclists do contribute to the funding of roads in the same respect as car drivers through general and local taxes.

Roads are not paid for exclusively by VED or fuel duty as you seem to be implying.

Edited by dooosuk on Tuesday 3rd March 16:04

[otolith]

Finlandia said:

otolith said:

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.

Once upon a time that was true for cars and motorcycles as well.

CO2, local air quality, congestion, road death rates, obesity. Yeah, once we have fixed all of those someone might think that perhaps it doesn't matter if we discourage cycling.

[WinstonWolf]

Gandahar said:

dooosuk said:

Gandahar said:

Please post where I have said it was. Have you read any of my posts?

Yes and you keep stating that cyclists do not pay their way and do not pay for the upkeep of roads.

Those statements are simply not true.

No, I am saying that the roads are not built for cyclists, they are getting them as free way of exercise rather than going down the gym

No they're not as roads are paid for out of general taxation. We all pay for them

[Finlandia]

otolith said:

Finlandia said:

otolith said:

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.

Once upon a time that was true for cars and motorcycles as well.

CO2, local air quality, congestion, road death rates, obesity. Yeah, once we have fixed all of those someone might think that perhaps it doesn't matter if we discourage cycling.

I didn't say discourage cycling, I said licence it in someway, and that time will come when more and more people take to the roads on bicycles.

[Freddy88FM]

otolith said:

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.

Thanks. Interesting.

For anyone wondering it basically says the wear due to the weight of a reference axle to the power of four times the number of times it passes a particular spot is equal to the wear due to the weight of the heavy axle to the power of four times the number of times it passes a particular spot.

So if the weight of the heavy axle increases by 1 unit then the number of times it can pass a spot and leave the same damage decreases by a factor of the new weight to the power of four.

EDIT: If we assume (for easy figures) that a average bike + rider is 100kg, and the average car is 1600kg... then the wear over one mile of a car due to a bike is 65,536 times higher.

Edited by Freddy88FM on Tuesday 3rd March 16:29

[J4CKO]

15 grand a year in income tax and NI
20 percent VAT on most of what I buy
£800 in VED
£200 in Council tax
Tax if I fly on a plane
Tax if I am taxed to death
Tax on insurance premiums
Tax on Bank Interest
Tax on any capital gains I may make

And I am expected, by a few, to pay additional tax if I want to go on a push bike, oh do fk off

Do these people really think cyclists are getting some kind of huge personal advantage, go and ride a bike for a few miles and then report back, that is the thing, we are ALL completely at liberty, at any time of the day and night to cycle on whatever roads (apart from motorways etc) we choose and not pay tax.

Therefore, every person in the UK is a cyclist, some are just "non practising" cyclists.

[Mr Will]

1. Cyclists already pay VED at exactly the same price as any other low emissions vehicle such as a Prius (i.e. £0)

2. If paying more entitles you to priority then regular cars should pull over for anything with a V8.

[anonymous-user]

Finlandia said:

otolith said:

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.

Once upon a time that was true for cars and motorcycles as well.

Cars and motorcycles have evolved significantly in their performance. Bicycles are still powered by humans and a little bit of powder (sometimes).

The only thing that will not last is the freedom to use motorised transport on public roads. Bike useage will continue to increase and as per pretty much every other country the UK will eventually follow the model and invest heavily in infrastructure and legislating to protect riders.

As for the tax debate I'll gladly pay tax on my bike based on its emissions. Similarly I'd like a refund on the three cars that are sat idle otherwise, it'll save me a fortune. In fact let's just sling VED on fuel and be done with it

[anonymous-user]

3rd party liability insurance should be compulsory for cyclists (and all other road users)

vehicle excise duty: I already pay the same for each of my bicycles as I do for my Renault Zoe

[f1nn]

I've not read the thread, but I can guess as to the content.

Should cyclists pay road tax? No, I don't think so.

Should the way in which motorists pay road tax be altered? Yes, divide the average mileage by the average fuel consumption and yearly mileage and split the average road fund/tax whatever and put it on fuel. If you drive more miles you pay more, less you pay less.

Should public transport be a more attractive option? Yes of course.

[TurboHatchback]

kambites said:

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?

I've never seen any cyclist organisation call for it. Have you?

I'd never even come across the idea until you just mentioned it.

Probably because it's a ridiculous idea. More red tape and taxation is not what this country needs.

I would support more education about cycling on the roads and investment in dedicated cycle paths (off the road not just a different coloured bit at the edge) but absolutely not ridiculous and pointless legislation to extract money and criminalise people for no benefit.

Back when I was a teenager I had a shed full of bikes and bits of bikes which were constantly cannibalised to make a few working bikes at any one time. How would you suggest this should be taxed or insured? The 'cyclists should pay road tax' viewpoint seems to always be held by fat, stupid, angry people who have clearly never ridden a bike anywhere in their lives.