A cyclist and tax question

[heebeegeetee]

I think it's fair to say that PH represents the thinking of the average motorist in the UK, and clearly the average motorist has an enormous obsession going on with tax when it comes to cyclists.

So, a thought has occurred to me. As we know, both Jensen Button and Mark Webber are keen cyclists. One lives in Monaco, one in England.

How can we tell what tax liabilities they respectfully have, and what impact does the ownership of bicycles have on said liabilities?

I only ask because it does seem that an assumption is immediately made by many that a person will be paying less tax if ownership of bicycle or bicycles is involved.

[heebeegeetee]

Snowboy said:

I think that's nonsense.
There are a few quite vocal people who rant about tax, but the majority of PH and people in general don't use that argument.

For my sins I've been on PH for a lot longer than you, and can tell you that the (non-existent) issue of road tax has come up time and time again. It goes way beyond that though, for instance if you put 'road tax' into the search on youtube you'll get lots of results.

Stuff like this gem https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UiWji4osR0 where a car drove into a person in broad daylight - viewers phone in not to express surprise and anger at such appalling driving, and how long will it be before the driver kills etc, but instead phone in to address an issue of tax.

I can't think of any other subject (apart from directly addressing issues of tax) whereby tax forms such a major part of a discussion. I doubt the topic arises anywhere else in the world, so I think it is fair and honest to say that the average UK driver has an obsession going on with tax when it comes to cyclists.

Only yesterday this sort of nonsense was going on in PH:

Mr SFJ said:

Also, if they were to pay their way a little more on the roads, perhaps car drivers might give them a little extra room, as they're also paying for the upkeep? And in return, and Cyclists will use cycle lanes where provided?

That, to me, is fair.

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/post.asp?h=0&f=23&t=1397785&r=28358959&m=quoteOne&mid=26635

"If they were to pay a little more on the roads, perhaps car drivers might give them a little extra room, as they're also paying for the upkeep?" - he can't have any idea what they're paying in the first place, but somehow feels that because they own a bicycle they're somehow paying less - presumably less than himself - and he feels that he is somehow paying for the upkeep of the roads?.

(I don't wish to appear harsh on MR SFJ - his comments are entirely typical of what I've seen in my time on PH).

So i've been exploring the notion of how is it possible that the ownership of a bicycle can somehow convey the notion that less tax is being paid, (it's something that only applies to bicycles and not any other possession, surely?) and used two well known motorists, who are known also to be keen cyclists, to portray the utter absurdity of this thinking.

Have I got this wrong?

[heebeegeetee]

calibrax said:

No need for a tax. Simply make cycling a category on a driving licence that you have to pass a separate test for, i.e. like motorcycling. That way cyclists will all be trained, and will have no excuse for jumping red lights etc - and they can receive the same penalties as car drivers for misbehaviour.

"Simply"? You mean simply introduce a massive, expensive bureaucratic exercise which will achieve precisely nothing other than reduce the numbers of cyclists and thus reduce their safety, and put more cars on the road (which surveys have shown jump red lights to much the same degree)?

[heebeegeetee]

mybrainhurts said:

These problems would all go away...

if all bicyclists were shot on sight

Nope, slow drivers should be shot on sight. I'd happily oversee the project myself.

Anyone else breeze into work this morning, or indeed this week? Isn't there an incredible difference when there's fewer cars on the roads, and just think, all those car drivers all think they're all held up by somebody else.