seen a lot about this subject in the media lately, which is usually debated from driver's comments about 'cyclist should pay road tax'.
This leads to debates about whether cyclists should pay some sort of tax to ride on the roads and display reg plates, etc.
Cant help thinking that with the rate of increase of petrol and subsequent rise of the commuting cyclist numbers that the government will have no choice than to tax cyclists in some form and the media is government spin in pushing the agenda to some tax proposal in the future.
Its just a question of when?? You watch and then we can all say i told you so. That said if it happens then this would be cause for an uprising of the cyclist!!
Whats your thoughts????!!!!
VED is based on emmisions.
Apart from Binners, no cyclist created noxious emmisions.
Ergo, nothing to 'Tax' so to speak..
DrP
Even if they were taxed, it would be free, going by the current emissions based system.
edit: snap.
Im covered already
[img] 
[/img]
VED is paid essentially to offset the damage the vehicle does to the environment.
Introducing something similar for cyclists whilst low emission vehicles are still zero rated would be absurd, and I'd suggest would probably be political suicide. Can't see it happening.
VAT on bikes
VAT on cars
Some Cars don't even pay VED (Prius Insight etc...) and they are still burning fossil fuels
how on earth could they tax cycling?
No one pays Road Tax and now no one pays VED, it's Car Tax now.
Just to add to the confusion.
Forgot - I'm already covered too....
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
DrP!!
A fair proportion (25%?) of VED goes to administering the enforcement and collection of road tax.
Add in bicycles and god knows what percentage that would rise to.
Plus what do you tax?
Okay so you tax commuters and road bikes. What about mountain bikes that are used mainly off road?
What about bikes kept in the shed or the garage and pulled out and used 2 sunny days a year. Do they need a SORN?
What about kids bikes?
etc
etc
Too much to think about, too much hassle to administrate versus what you could reasonable expect a cyclists to pay.
Plus as others have said cyclists already pay VED at the correct rate for their CO2 emission £0
good luck policing that.
MOT for bikes on the other hand 😉 ...... some of the rafts i see being ridden to work on. the noises they make WOW -
Thats hope hubs for you 😉
never going to happen are they going to tax my kids for cycling to school ?
Enforcement would be very difficult and probably cost more than it raised
A fair proportion (25%?) of VED goes to administering the enforcement and collection of road tax.
What does that even mean? Road tax doesn't exist...
Glad to see some refreshing views on the subject.
A fair proportion (25%?) of VED goes to administering the enforcement and collection of road tax.What does that even mean? Road tax doesn't exist...
FFS I think you know what I meant. A good chunk of the taxation raised goes to the administration of raising the tax in the first place. "road tax" being the accepted colloquial nomenclature for Vehicle Excise Duty
"road tax" being the accepted
but it's not accepted.
That's the point.
In using it it perpetuates the myth that bicycles have a lesser right of presence on the road.
Fair enough, it doesn' make the point I was making any less valid.
"road tax" "car tax" or VED on bicycles would never work.
FFS I think you know what I meant.
No I really didn't, the fact you used VED and road tax in the same sentence made me think you really were referring to the mythical tax!
cyclists already pay VED at the correct rate for their CO2 emission
depends what they had for dinner the night before 😉
I'd only be prepared to pay a "bike tax" if it also contained a comprehensive bike registration scheme, and virtually stamped out bike theft.
Won't happen.
Carlton Reid has already summarised the arguments here
http://ipayroadtax.com/licensed-to-cycle/licensed-to-cycle/
If they scrapped VED tomorrow, and implemented a proper "road tax" that was ringfenced, there would be no easy cost effective and thorough way to tax bikes other than to bring in a full licencing & training system similar to cars and motorbikes. Cycling costs would go up massively, and cycling rates would drop dramatically. You'd end up with more cars and traffic on the road (possibly more deaths too).In London, most of the public transport is already close to bursting point and would be even more overcrowded.
And on the plus side, you would achieve... what?
And on the plus side, you would achieve... what?
You get to shut up the uneducated moronic journalists who churn out shit about 'cyclists not paying road tax'?
frankly id rather see tax scrapped all together and fuel prices go up to make up for it.
that way those that use their cars very little pay less , those heavy users pay more.
seems much fairer than the current system.
much harder to get out of paying it- ie you cant just not pay it or your car wont work and much cheaper to admin
make folk think twice about using their car just because its is there.
worked out today that in fuel alone it costs me 6 quid a day to come to work - if this were closer to the true representation of running the car for that journey then im sure more folk would think twice.
Stoner + DrP where do I get one of those tax discs from?
hmmm so VAT on my bike bits, income tax on my wage, VAT etc on my fuel (cakes, oh wait, ok choccy biscuits)the government will have no choice than to tax cyclists in some form
Motorists (I'm one of those aswell) get [i]spanked[/i] for fuel duty cause it's supposed to make them think whether they really need to drive to the shops. Doesn't work of course, instead everyone drives 0.5mile to the shops leaves engine running while they nip in the shop and then drive home and go online to complain about cost of petrol.
Ultimately, if we all drove VED-exempt cars or rode bicycles, the govt would need to find some way of generating the lost 'income' from everyone paying VED
So, they's either "reinvent" the VED scheme & charge individal owners, or implement a pay-to-drive scheme where you're charged based on mileage driven.
Cyclists should still be exempt (biased, moi?), as I can't see how a registration system for bikes could ever be financially viable considering how much a scheme would cost to implement, administrate & enforce.
Unless the cost was absorbed in the charges made to motorists.
Which would really make them happy.
And give them a real reason to resent cyclists.
No one pays Road Tax and now no one pays VED, it's Car Tax now.
At least that's less inaccurate than 'road tax' ... although I really can't see why we need a special phrase to use in place of 'VED', that means 'VED' but without actually saying 'VED' 🙄
Ultimately, if we all drove VED-exempt cars or rode bicycles, the govt would need to find some way of generating the lost 'income' from everyone paying VED
The lost income from VED would be made up for in reduced spending on the environmental and health effects of the polluting cars?
that's assuming producing all those VED exempt cars didn't cause other environmental and health hazards 🙂
VED is a tax, the fact they've tried to brand it as something to do with the environment / environmental damage is just an attempt to distract. A car with a big engine which is driven 1,000 miles a year produces way less damage than a small car driven for 20,000 miles. The "low/zero tax" cars with systems like engine off are a joke as you can just switch that feature off. The money goes into the central pot and is spent in the same as is income tax.
Cyclists already pay huge amounts of tax in the form of VAT. Having bought a new bike this year plus other odd and ends I think I'm up to around 600 quid and that's not including duty on fuel I've spent driving to different riding venues (e.g. 40 in fuel taxes for round trip to Peak district).
Having cyclists visibly registered is a good idea for traffic law enforcement
[b]trail_rat[/b] - Member
frankly id rather see tax scrapped all together and fuel prices go up to make up for it.that way those that use their cars very little pay less , those heavy users pay more.
Trouble is that's a big tax on living in the countryside or in a place with little public transport.
As an aside STW'ers may be interested to know that in Singapore you have to pay £50k upfront for the right to drive your car for the next 10 years (COE - Certificate of Entitlement), plus their petrol is taxed like ours and they electronic road tolls everywhere.
Registering cyclists will cause one of the biggest civil disobediences in modern history. They should do it and then we can change governments about 3 weeks later, it could be our Cycling Dawn, we should get the French to come over and bomb Audi and BMW dealerships.
so who you going to register? My lad on his balance bike? Obviously not but where do you draw the line? How do you enforce it? How do you pay for the system and enforcement. It'll cost a bomb and as far as I can see there's not a vast amount to gain.Having cyclists visibly registered is a good idea for traffic law enforcement
<edit>What about all the misdemeanour's (and bigger crimes) done by pedestrians? Maybe we should tattoo bar codes on every ones forehead and have bar code readers on all CCTV?
Limited life COE sounds a step forward
50K tho 😯
"Trouble is that's a big tax on living in the countryside or in a place with little public transport. "
i live in the country side and would have to walk 5 miles to a bus.
the only issue i can see is disability vehicles - its not fair on them.
A couple of million cars on our roads don't have to pay [s]road tax[/s] [s]VED[/s] car tax, so why should cyclists?
I often wonder how the [i]"you don't pay 'road tax', you have no rights on the road"[/i] mentality works in practise.
Does a Band A car have no road rights either?
Does a Band B car have ten times less right than Band H?
You could never police it.
Also, I pay VED for 2 cars and currently have 2 of my motorcycles on the road so 2 lots of VED for motorcycles too.
I think I pay enough...
that's easy, it doesn't work, just spouted by idiots who can't think [s]things through[/s] and just repeat stupid mantras they've heard down the pub.I often wonder how the "you don't pay 'road tax', you have no rights on the road" mentality works in practise.
Boris Bikes already have number plates.
http://ipayroadtax.com/no-such-thing-as-road-tax/bike-licensing-doesnt-work-just-ask-boris/
my predictions
mandatory fluro vests with your facebook name on it
automatic scanning of your mobile on cycle paths into city centres to confirm you've got third party insurance
no bike fridays to give pedestrians a chance to "reclaim the pavement"
more electric bikes than pedal bikes (already a sales trend in that their Netherlands)
Having cyclists visibly registered is a good idea for traffic law enforcement
What horrific crimes are cyclists committing that would justify such an enormously expensive scheme?
Presumably the registration plate would need to be a similar size/font to a car one to allow it to be read by traffic cameras etc - where are you going to mount it?
What about kids bikes? Off-road bikes? etc
'Road tax' [b]is[/b] an accurate description: a tax to be paid by those using vehicles on the road. It does not mean the money is spent on roads, just like alcohol tax isn't spent buying alcohol and tobacco tax isn't spent buying tobacco.
It has nothing to do with pollution per se because I can buy a car or bike and use it exclusively off-road and not have to pay said tax...I only pay if I want to use the vehicle on our roads.
It's not a particularity complicated subject to get your head around.
'Road tax' is an accurate description: a tax to be paid by those using vehicles on the road.
But for some the term "road tax" is intrinsically linked to "road fund".
It has nothing to do with pollution per se because ... I only pay if I want to use the vehicle on our roads.
Unless it doesn't pollute too much - in which case you don't pay.
Which sort of suggests a link to pollution, no?
And many off-road tracks you could drive a car on (i.e. RUPPs) still require you to pay car tax.
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
And many off-road tracks you could drive a car on (i.e. RUPPs) still require you to pay car tax.
Gosh, you could start a whole new thread arguing about the meaning of 'off-road' when taken in the context of my posting.
🙄
Can we tax drivers instead of cars?
From my point of view I pay £260 a year road tax (OK, VED if you must) but go most places on my bike. I therefore pay a lot more for using the road than the majority of drivers. Most cyclists are divers too, but i suspect very few drivers are also cyclists.
However, my car is quite large and expensive to run. If I were to buy a smaller, more economical one to use when i didn't need the big one I would pay tax again even though I would be using less fuel/casuing less wear to the road etc. If the driver was taxed then one could transfer it between vehicles, you can only drive one at a time.
.
IMO an even better idea would be a a flat rate tax based on days used. For example, do away with VED & fuel duty and have a monitor in the car which charges, say £10, each day the vehicle is used (maybe bands for emmisissions, lists prices etc) This would make people think long and hard about using the car for th 1/2 mile school run, but without penalising those who live in the aprts of the country where there is no such thing as public transport and they have jno choice but to have a car.
Also, why is there no 'red petrol' for use in lawnmowers, chainsaws etc?
Gosh, you could start a whole new thread arguing about the meaning of 'off-road' when taken in the context of my posting.
True. But it's a point: a lot of what people might regard as "off-road" is a rough path maintained by public money so still subject to "road tax"; conversely a lot of motor vehicles that drive on public highways are not subject to "road tax".
I therefore pay a lot more for using the road...
This is the thing. Unless you're on a toll road, you pay [i]nothing[/i] for the roads. At least not specifically.
Your 'road tax' goes into one big pot alongside your income tax, VAT and whatever else. If you're lucky, it might go towards something useful. Like a moat in your local MPs back garden.
It has as much to do with the roads as an apple crumble.
tucker while I get that we are only arguing semantics here "road tax" has connotations and implies to the hard of thinking that it pays for upkeep of, or entitles the driver to use of, the road (it kind of does but not to the exclusion of others) or infers some sort of ownership. Didn't churchill scrap the "road tax" moniker for specifically that reason?
he is right, road tax suggests you pay a tax to use the roads when in reality you dont. It is not an entitlement to use the roads it is a punishment/tax whatever for the emissions your vehicle will make whilst using the roads hence why bikes would be set at zero.
Given that roads are paid for by general taxation, surely highly paid chain-smoking alcoholics have more right to use them than the rest of us?
have a monitor in the car which charges, say £10, each day the vehicle is used (maybe bands for emmisissions, lists prices etc) This would make people think long and hard about using the car for th 1/2 mile school run, but without penalising those who live in the aprts of the country where there is no such thing as public transport and they have jno choice but to have a car.
Errr, no it doesn't. In your analogy those who are half a mile away can walk, whilst those with no choice have to pay £10 every day. It specifically penalises those without public transport!
has it always been the case? I've only been driving a few years but got the impression that the emmissions bit was fairly new (I know the A-H? are new but I thought the < or > 1.59 was comparatively recent aswell)it is a punishment/tax whatever for the emissions your vehicle will make
CO2 emissions banding was introduced in 2005 apparently.
Prior to that it was just based on engine size.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_Excise_Duty#History
so prior to 1999 was it same charge for all cars?In June 1999, a reduced car road tax band was introduced for cars with an engine capacity up to 1100cc
Plenty of people been driving from well before then so I can see how they'd view this emissions thing as just being road tax tarted up as a new green incentive but it's still essentially [i]their[/i] fee to buy/loan/use [i]their[/i] roads.
Still bobbins but just wondering.
True, but even in 1999 it wasn't a tax to [i]"pay for the roads"[/i], to get that you have to go back to the "road fund" which was abolished in 1937.
Sadly not everyone has realised this:
[img] 
[/img]
Completely impossible to do what about kiddies on little bikes, BMXers? offroad riders?
Several countries have tried this - not one has made it a sucess
Bit late to the party TJ. Busy day? 😉
have a monitor in the car which charges, say £10, each day the vehicle is used (maybe bands for emmisissions, lists prices etc) This would make people think long and hard about using the car for th 1/2 mile school run, but without penalising those who live in the aprts of the country where there is no such thing as public transport and they have jno choice but to have a car.Errr, no it doesn't. In your analogy those who are half a mile away can walk, whilst those with no choice have to pay £10 every day. It specifically penalises those without public transport
No, because as you say those who live half a mile can, and probably would walk. Those who have no option but to drive would benefit because the £10 would be lower than the fuel tax removed further up in the paragraph. I'm not sure where the break-even distance would be but it would cut down a lot on the 1-2 mile school runs!
This is the thing. Unless you're on a toll road, you pay nothing for the roads. At least not specifically
Yes it goes into general coffers, but you do pay for using the roads, if you don't use, you don't pay (mostly) Roads are paid for out of general tax so whether you use (directltly) or not your taxes pay for the roads. Subtle difference.
Just did some relevant geeky sums that may amuse:
The [url= http://www.dft.gov.uk/dvla/ARA.aspx ]DVLA Annual Report and Accounts[/url] states "VED receipts in 2010-11 amounted to £5,782 million".
Meantime the [url= http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/tax_receipts/table1-2.pdf ] HMRC figures show that Tobacco and Alcohol tax receipts were £17,776 million[/url], plus another few billion for all the VAT on booze and fags of course.
So alcoholic smokers fund us to the tune of £20 billion pa.
Non-smokers and tee-totallers should not be allowed on our roads!
If you want to drive/cycle on the road then pick up 20 Marlboro and bottle of Johnnie Walker and pay your way.
I want to get [url= http://ipayroadtax.com/no-such-thing-as-road-tax/who-pays-road-tax/ ]this article[/url] printed onto leaflets to carry with me so I can hand them out to the next ignorant pillock that shouts "pay yer road tax" at me.
There's a significant anti-cyclist feeling out there now, headlined recently by John Griffin of Addison Lee cabs spouting off about how cyclists should get trained and pay up. Usual ignorant bollocks which the Daily Wail readers love. The term "road tax" or even worse "road fund licence" implies to these particularly thick people that they've paid for "something" (they're not really sure what) and you haven't. You're therefore a freeloading scumbag who needs to be run off the road.
Of course, the idea of VED is still flawed anyway - I could drive a Humvee 1000 miles a year and have fewer emissions than someone driving a Micra 25000 miles a year but still be paying £400+ to their £35. You can't link it to fuel duty because fuel prices are irretrievably linked to inflation so even if VED was scrapped overnight and 20p added to the cost of every litre of fuel to make up for the loss of VED revenue, inflation would skyrocket.
What's needed is a proper road pricing plan - scrap VED, [b]lower[/b] the cost of fuel and then have a pay-per-mile scheme. Yes it would cost a lot to implement but it would be the best thing that any Government could do for congestion, the environment. Ring-fence the revenue raised to pay for public transport and road improvements, hire bike schemes etc.
Unfortunately, it's political suicide so it'll never happen. 🙁
, lower the cost of fuel and then have a pay-per-mile scheme.
Fuel tax is a pay per mile scheme, sort of. And it doesn't work.
Those who do 2 mile schol runs pay next to nothing and cause most of the congestion. Those who drive on empty countryside A and B road because they live 20 miles from the nearest station and have no other option pay a fortune.
My flat rate scheme would penalise, heavily, those who do short journies, ie those journies where walking or biking is a viable alternative, it's those people we should target. And they all seem to drive silly little Smart cars and Priusus thinking they are doing their bit. Bollox, a Smart car driven on unnecessary journeys (journies doens't look right, I'm terrible at spilling) does a lot of harm, environmentally and congestion-wise which could easily be avoided.
And the lower-emmissions = lower tax thing hits the poorest hardest again. Old big cars = cheap to buy, eg I got a Mondeo for £760, really get stung on VED every year. A new 'green' car with £0 VED is way out of my price range. Also, keeping an old 'gas guzzler' going as long as possible is far less bad for the environment than building a new lower emmissions car, even Friends of the Earth say that!
And don't start me on the scrappage scheme, worst idea ever that one.
Finally in my little rant, why does no-one ever refer to a G-Wizz or similar as coal-powered?
Great thread and for once nearly everyone is talking sense! 🙂
As TJ alluded, what has happened abroad?
Have you all signed the Addison Lee petition on Government website? He really does need to be brought round to seeing sense.
Some typical examples of why the "road tax" myth matters:
The trouble is; despite us all 'being in the right' about the 'road tax' error - NONE of those motorists seemed to listen or change their opinion.
There needs to be a quicker, more sincinct way (if you actually care that much) to get the point across - most of the time it's a beep of the horn, "road tax blah blah blah...f*%$ off" and they're gone, thinking they're in the right 🙁
DrP
What's needed in my opinion are some suitably eyecatching adverts to explain this fact to motorists.
Ideally funded by the DfT, maybe with some sponsorship from RoadPeace, AA, RAC, CTC and Sustrans. And Top Gear. 😉