The 'cyclists should pay road tax' folks

[anonymous-user]

Gandahar said:

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

Roads were built for traffic. I notice you drive an Astra Estate, does that mean based upon taxation you have less right to be on the road than me? 'Free exercise' what a curious statement. No and no.

[Finlandia]

yonex 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.

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

Licencing for bicycles is coming, and probably VED too just as it will for electric and now tax exempt cars, when the state wallet needs filling.

[anonymous-user]

JPJPJP said:

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

Most will have it through the CTC or BC I would think?

http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/membership/articl...
http://www.ctc.org.uk/member-benefits/%C2%A310m-3r...

[Robert Elise]

from a road wear viewpoint, a substantial amount will be land shift and freeze/thaw cycles.

[Antracer]

Most cyclists own a car anyway. I dont see where the ops viewpoint comes from. Should horse riders pay tax?, as they cause a much bigger nuisance on our roads, what with there telling us how we should pass them & dumping all over the place. Public health issue?

I dont think they'd be so keen if they had to poop a scoop after themselves!.

[anonymous-user]

Finlandia said:

Licencing for bicycles is coming, and probably VED too just as it will for electric and now tax exempt cars, when the state wallet needs filling.

VED for bicycles, not in your lifetime

[Finlandia]

yonex said:

Finlandia said:

Licencing for bicycles is coming, and probably VED too just as it will for electric and now tax exempt cars, when the state wallet needs filling.

VED for bicycles, not in your lifetime

Many said that about cars too.

[Gandahar]

dooosuk said:

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

OK let me clarify better

Roads are made for and looked after for vehicles to make money.

Bikes use those roads whilst not making any money in general. There are exceptions but not enough to make someone pay for or upkeep a road.

If your local council said to all bikers we want to make a new road, just for bikers, that goes between Leeds and Skipton just for bikers, but will cost £130m but it will be just for you ... how much will you pay ?

Would the road be made?

[otolith]

Finlandia said:

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.

There can be no doubt that licensing would discourage cycling by increasing bureaucracy and cost. You would need a very good argument to justify it.

[Hol]

Hardly any tax looks like it is actually being spent on kerbside potholes and other roadside lumpy-bumps anyway (the original reason for this whole story - where the cyclist wanted room to swerve), so I guess NOBODY is paying tax for the parts that cyclists use.

[Gandahar]

WinstonWolf said:

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

Read it again. Roads are not built for cyclists in general is what I am saying, they get the a benefit as a by product.

So, the question is, should they pay something towards using that facility given it was not made for them? Even cars and vans are being threatened with toll roads, and they have had the road made for them !

[Finlandia]

otolith said:

Finlandia said:

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.

There can be no doubt that licensing would discourage cycling by increasing bureaucracy and cost. You would need a very good argument to justify it.

One very good argument is revenue.

[TurboHatchback]

JPJPJP said:

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

No it shouldn't.

By that logic every human being in the land should have insurance as at some point they will cross a road or walk down a pavement. Do you seriously believe that a 7yr old toodling round on his pushbike in the road outside his house should be legally obliged to possess 3rd party liability insurance? How would you punish him for failing to comply, no pocket money for a week or life in prison?

[Gandahar]

yonex said:

Gandahar said:

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

Roads were built for traffic. .

Roads are built for certain traffic. Hence why they are slightly wider than the width of a bicylce ... funny that eh? It would be cheaper to make a lane only 3 foot across

[Pixelpeep7r]

Cyclists should have to have BASIC training before let out on any main city streets.

Have a read of this too. A thread i started a few years back regarding cyclists to be held accountable for their actions. Didn't seem to go down too well.

[Mave]

Gandahar said:

OK let me clarify better

Roads are made for and looked after for vehicles to make money.

Bikes use those roads whilst not making any money in general.

So do you think that your mode of transport for commuting changes how much money you make when you're in work?

[dooosuk]

Gandahar said:

dooosuk said:

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

OK let me clarify better

Roads are made for and looked after for vehicles to make money.

Bikes use those roads whilst not making any money in general. There are exceptions but not enough to make someone pay for or upkeep a road.

If your local council said to all bikers we want to make a new road, just for bikers, that goes between Leeds and Skipton just for bikers, but will cost £130m but it will be just for you ... how much will you pay ?

Would the road be made?

Now I really don't know where you're going. We're talking about roads which are multi-use, not roads that are built specifically for a single transport type.

And this is also incorrect... "Bikes use those roads whilst not making any money in general." All cyclists commuting to a place of work are contributing the the economy. Just because they don't pay VED or fuel duty to get to the office doesn't mean they aren't making money.

[otolith]

Finlandia said:

One very good argument is revenue.

Can't see that flying, any more than introducing a salad tax.

[anonymous-user]

Finlandia said:

Many said that about cars too.

Well considering that since 1889 motorised vehicles have been taxed wouldn't you have thought if there was a good reason to push it through one of the many Governments wouldn't have done so?

The Swiss tried it and then abandoned the scheme (which was more about TPL insurance) it as it cost more to police than it made. Perhaps we can all have licence plates as well, then the DVLC, who are so very good at getting things done can add cycling to their workload, who'll pay for that I wonder, cyclists, motoring cyclists?

The Gov't said:

The Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 provides for the registration of mechanically propelled vehicles so it would not be possible to register bicycles or cyclists under that Act. To enable the Government to administer the registration of cyclists, changes in legislation would have to be considered along with extensive changes to computer systems.

There are more than 20 million bicycles in Great Britain—many of which change owners frequently—and one in three adults owns a bicycle. To register them would entail the establishment of a system parallel to that presently existing for motor vehicles.

The cost of such a system would, in the Department for Transport’s view, outweigh any possible benefits and so we do not propose to take this idea forward.

Argue with me, argue with the Gov't. But ultimately the same old crap gets regurgitated on here by a few who just don't like cycling. How many more cycling threads can we manage this week I wonder.......

[Freddy88FM]

TurboHatchback said:

No it shouldn't.

By that logic every human being in the land should have insurance as at some point they will cross a road or walk down a pavement. Do you seriously believe that a 7yr old toodling round on his pushbike in the road outside his house should be legally obliged to possess 3rd party liability insurance? How would you punish him for failing to comply, no pocket money for a week or life in prison?

Ah, but it's all about risk. the risk of a pedestrian following too closely and locking up under braking thus hitting the back of a car is fairly minimal. Having had a guy on a bike take a chunk out of my boot lid with his brake lever 5 years ago and then cycle off (paint still missing to this day), I personally do agree that some sort of registration and insurance would be a good idea. Government funded maybe? Discouraging cycling must be avoided so we'd need to make it super easy and free.