The End of the 'Punishment Pass'?

[heebeegeetee]

Mr Snrub said:

I think you'll find a lot of us are unhappy someone could do 40,000 miles in a Prius and pay less tax than someone doing 400 miles in a 911, although at least it will level out somewhat next year

Why would they be unhappy? What has one's transportation got to do with taxation, personal or otherwise? Can you tell how much tax someone pays just by looking at them? Why would anyone waste a moment thinking about it?

[herewego]

Rural roads should be widened to accommodate cyclists and walkers. This would be a better use of HS2 funds.

[Mr Snrub]

heebeegeetee said:

Mr Snrub said:

I think you'll find a lot of us are unhappy someone could do 40,000 miles in a Prius and pay less tax than someone doing 400 miles in a 911, although at least it will level out somewhat next year

Why would they be unhappy? What has one's transportation got to do with taxation, personal or otherwise? Can you tell how much tax someone pays just by looking at them? Why would anyone waste a moment thinking about it?

Because 40,000 miles in a Prius causes more damage to the roads and environment than 400 miles in 911, but the latter would pay a lot more. I know the driver would pay less tax because I know that car is a lower road tax band?

[battered]

I'm waiting for compulsory registration and VED on every pram, pushchair, horse and wheelbarrow to come along on the back of compulsory registration and VED for bicycles.

Those bloody roadmenders with their barrows, everywhere they are and what do they pay?

[otolith]

battered said:

I'm waiting for compulsory registration and VED on every pram, pushchair, horse and wheelbarrow to come along on the back of compulsory registration and VED for bicycles.

Those bloody roadmenders with their barrows, everywhere they are and what do they pay?

I'm sick of being held up by people in supermarkets who push their trolleys inconsiderately. Last week one of them on the adjacent check out ran hers into my hip, because she wasn't watching what she was doing. We need to tax, insure and test the buggers with regular retests for the elderly, it's a really pressing problem that we should be focusing money on in these times of austerity.

[poo at Paul's]

STe_rsv4 said:

Dakkon said:

Remarkable, so you are punished for passing too close to a cyclist but they can pass you within inches and that is fine....

Yeah, because many car drivers have been killed by cyclists crashing into their car resulting in fatal injuries......

Yes, but car drivers are forced by law to wear seatbelts, to protect themselves. How many predestrians have been killed by drivers flung from their vehicles!?
My point is, perhaps what he means is, why aren't cyclists held accountable for their own actions where it endangers themselves. And it is a fair question, (BTW I cycle 100-200 miles a week!)

[heebeegeetee]

Mr Snrub said:

Because 40,000 miles in a Prius causes more damage to the roads and environment than 400 miles in 911, but the latter would pay a lot more. I know the driver would pay less tax because I know that car is a lower road tax band?

It's purely personal choice to own a 911 and do 400 miles a year in it. In fact it's a daft choice and I don't expect any tax system to make allowances for such a thing.

Also the owner of the 911 won't be just driving 400 miles a year, he'll be using other means of transportation every time he leaves his house and will be taxed as per his free choice.

And at the end of the financial year, one's ved will be all but irrelevant and solely of choice and volition.

[George111]

PHmember said:

Exactly. Yet apart from my own gasses my bike is zero emmisions.

Was it created by a higher being or did it have to be manufactured ?

The manufacture and maintenance of vehicles is usually excluded from the emissions equation these days but it's more relevant now with battery cars than it ever was. The greenies seem to forget this for some reason . . .

So your bicycle starts life with some emissions, probably a lot if it's got carbon fibre frame, or parts on it, and it accrues emissions as it's maintained and repaired over the years. Even tyres, small though they are, create emissions in production.

And you contribute to the emissions with the food you eat and the cloths you wear/replace - granted only marginal over a car driver but over the life of a vehicle, significant and currently not accounted for. When you look at the materials bicyclists use, most of them use oil based materials as their base product- these need to be made and have a finite life. (base layers, mid layers and waterproof layers are usually man made oil based products)

Bit off topic, but worthy of a mention

[PHmember]

Aren't the emmisions caused in the manufacturing process covered by taxes paid by the manufacturers & built into the price of the product?

[WinstonWolf]

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

[aclivity]

George111 said:

Was it created by a higher being or did it have to be manufactured ?

The manufacture and maintenance of vehicles is usually excluded from the emissions equation these days but it's more relevant now with battery cars than it ever was. The greenies seem to forget this for some reason . . .

So your bicycle starts life with some emissions, probably a lot if it's got carbon fibre frame, or parts on it, and it accrues emissions as it's maintained and repaired over the years. Even tyres, small though they are, create emissions in production.

And you contribute to the emissions with the food you eat and the cloths you wear/replace - granted only marginal over a car driver but over the life of a vehicle, significant and currently not accounted for. When you look at the materials bicyclists use, most of them use oil based materials as their base product- these need to be made and have a finite life. (base layers, mid layers and waterproof layers are usually man made oil based products)

Bit off topic, but worthy of a mention

I know I will regret this ...

So car production and the clothes car drivers wear and the food they eat are different?

Also, why do you insist on using "bi" at the start of "cyclists"? Makes you sound even more of an idiot.

[herewego]

Mr Snrub said:

heebeegeetee said:

Mr Snrub said:

I think you'll find a lot of us are unhappy someone could do 40,000 miles in a Prius and pay less tax than someone doing 400 miles in a 911, although at least it will level out somewhat next year

Why would they be unhappy? What has one's transportation got to do with taxation, personal or otherwise? Can you tell how much tax someone pays just by looking at them? Why would anyone waste a moment thinking about it?

Because 40,000 miles in a Prius causes more damage to the roads and environment than 400 miles in 911, but the latter would pay a lot more. I know the driver would pay less tax because I know that car is a lower road tax band?

Have you taken into account the tax on fuel?

[heebeegeetee]

I'll probably regret it too...

George111 said:

So your bicycle starts life with some emissions, probably a lot etc etc

A lot? Compared with what forms of mechanised transport? If push bikes create a lot of emissions in manufacture you'll be able to quickly list the viable alternatives that create a lot less (even if the bike has a carbon frame).

[George111]

heebeegeetee said:

I'll probably regret it too...

George111 said:

So your bicycle starts life with some emissions, probably a lot etc etc

A lot? Compared with what forms of mechanised transport? If push bikes create a lot of emissions in manufacture you'll be able to quickly list the viable alternatives that create a lot less (even if the bike has a carbon frame).

I regretted it long ago

Any form - if you're going to measure emissions then you need to do it properly otherwise the arguments are nonsense.

[mac96]

heebeegeetee said:

I'll probably regret it too...

George111 said:

So your bicycle starts life with some emissions, probably a lot etc etc

A lot? Compared with what forms of mechanised transport? If push bikes create a lot of emissions in manufacture you'll be able to quickly list the viable alternatives that create a lot less (even if the bike has a carbon frame).

And perhaps more regrets, but:

'Probably a lot' is maybe an exaggeration but surely point is that all our choices in life lead to emissions; bicycle much lower than a car, but equally food, clothing and other buying choices are relevant. And yet we concentrate entire on car choice.(fair enough I suppose- this is Pistonheads!).
We should really be looking at all life choices- for example, I am in the (slow) process of acquiring a 5litre V8- but: I travel to work by train; I have never driven a child to school; I make local journeys on foot or on a push bike and I do not fly for holiday purposes. So no one is going to make me feel guilty about the 20mpg car while they drive several times my mileage (probably in a diesel car) and take 3 foreign holidays per year!

[heebeegeetee]

George111 said:

I regretted it long ago

Any form - if you're going to measure emissions then you need to do it properly otherwise the arguments are nonsense.

I don't think we should do anything that would get people to take a look at emissions from a car factory. I mean, do you include the emissions from building the thing? What about the emissions from the vehicles that were used in building the car factory, and what about the emissions from building the vehicles that built the car factory?

Let's not go there...

[battered]

George111 said:

The manufacture and maintenance of vehicles is usually excluded from the emissions equation these days but it's more relevant now with battery cars than it ever was. The greenies seem to forget this for some reason . . .

So your bicycle starts life with some emissions, probably a lot if it's got carbon fibre frame, or parts on it, and it accrues emissions as it's maintained and repaired over the years. Even tyres, small though they are, create emissions in production.

A bike weighs about 12kg. Yes, it's manufactured, but we are talking about 12kg worth of manufactured materials. I carry more than that home from the supermarket every week.

someone clutching at straws said:

And you contribute to the emissions with the food you eat and the cloths you wear/replace - granted only marginal over a car driver

Come off it. Do you really imagine that there's a significant difference between a cycle commuter's food consumption and that of a motorist? Let's do a fag packet sum - a fit cyclist burns 200W. This is enough to get you to 15-20mph on flat roads. Most commuters will run half or 2/3 this, but we'll stick with 200W for ease. Half an hour each way, 200Wh. 200J/sec x 60 x 60 = 720kJ. About 170kcal. A 58g Mars bar is 260kcal. So 2/3 of a Mars bar extra per day, or a slice of bread and butter. Wow. It's good to see that all the motorists out there have their diet dialled in as precisely as the last slice of bread and butter. I can see that they do, they're all so thin.

As for clothes, this is even more of a red herring. My sports clothing is God knows how old and I wear it until it's in holes. Things like T shirts get worn for other activities. Yet apparently drivers wear fewer clothes. Really? Is there anyone out there, anyone at all, who doesn't throw out their normal clothing, any of it, long before it's worn out? A glance in any charity shop will show you otherwise.

These arguments just don't hold water. You may as well have a go at people who walk to work because they are using more shoe leather.

[battered]

heebeegeetee said:

I don't think we should do anything that would get people to take a look at emissions from a car factory. I mean, do you include the emissions from building the thing? What about the emissions from the vehicles that were used in building the car factory, and what about the emissions from building the vehicles that built the car factory?

Let's not go there...

I've heard it reported that a car's total emissions over life are 50% fuel and 50% manufacturing related.

This is one of the reasons why taxing old vehicles out of existence in the UK is not a reliable means of reducing global emissions, but we all knew that anyway. Cars are too valuable as taxed resources to want to reduce their manufacture.

[anonymous-user]

While I'm happy to support the cause of most cyclists the lycra nonsense is a bit odd though.

I'm a massive F1 fan and if when I drove my Merc at weekend I dressed in a full F1 race suit I am sure people would be laughing their head of yet.......

[Johnnytheboy]

cb1965 said:

While I'm happy to support the cause of most cyclists the lycra nonsense is a bit odd though.

I'm a massive F1 fan and if when I drove my Merc at weekend I dressed in a full F1 race suit I am sure people would be laughing their head of yet.......

You'd have to be sure to look down your nose at people who dressed normally to drive their cars, perhaps give them a derogatory nickname like "pedestrians in cars".