Interestingly they were discussing the 'Road Tax' issue on Radio 4 yesterday, about 8.45am.
And on the BBC News site butcher. I suspect this is the thread that prompted the OP:
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/is-there-such-a-thing-called-road-tax
If it would work abd if it meant better cycle lanes traffic lights sensors that bikes activate more secure areas to leave your bike then yes but it won't so ...no.
The main reason why not do so is because cycles have a right to use the roads whereas cars and motorbikes have to be licensed to do so. And the costs of collecting any licence will grossly outweigh the income.
Nope
[i]Afterall, more money is being spent on cycle lanes etc and maybe they could throw in the incentive of better bike storage facilities in town centres etc
[/i]
And the cycle lanes are mostly useless.
[i]To be honest for every idiot car driver there's also a cyclist who needs educating in the ways of the road.
[/i]
If thats you being "honest" then you have to be one of the stupidest people on here.
To be honest for every idiot car driver there's also a cyclist who needs educating in the ways of the road.
The difference being, the cyclist is putting himself in danger by riding without lights etc. The ignorant drivers are putting lots of other people at risk.
I have been paying for the road infrastructure through tax for the last 30 years, a fact lost on e 18yr old girl who tried to kill me then shouted "I pay tax " out her window as she drove away.
So NO, I should actually be getting a reimbursement for not mowing down my proportion of citizens, not poisoning them , not making outside a no go area and not being a fat c***
no.
To be honest for every idiot car driver there's also a cyclist who needs educating in the ways of the road.
There are some idiots on bikes out there. Granted.
But I have no idea what that has to do with Vehicle Tax?? 😕
No chuffing chance, for all of the reasons expressed above.
Once established in principle, there will be nothing to stop cyclists becoming yet another source of tax revenue to squander, the amount edging up year after year, because of 'administration costs'. Bugger that.
No.Pedestrians, bicycles and horses have a 'right' to use the road. Drivers are invited to apply for a licence that will enable them to use the roads.
Its not just peds, cyclists and horses. Pebbles, leaves, shit, monkeys, lunatics, ducks and asbestos - you could find any of them on a road and they haven't had to earn the right to be there and you can't take their right away - they all have more right to use the road than motorists. I'm not sure where car drivers get the notion of their elevated status from, the idea that by duty and sitting an exam and carrying papers that they've earned privilege - that by paying money they've bought something. All those things are actually the surrendering of privileges and demonstrate that their rights to use the road with a vehicle and limited and fragile.
Karinofnine - Member
Of course not. The tax issue is beside the point, I've more often heard that cyclists 'get in the way', are a 'nuisance', are dangerous. The presence or absence of a tax disc (which would have to be zero-rated anyway as a bicycle emits no co2) wouldn't change those misconceived ideas.
I suspect the above is correct other than the zero rated bit which was really just a dumb subsidy to increase the take up of lower emission cars
I'd vote yes here's a quick manifesto :
Drivers to have mandatory test resits every 5 years
Road spend to be skewed towards sustainable use and not the minority of road spend
Presumption of liability in favour of cyclists and pedestrians
Cyclists to have mandatory skills training and public liability insurance - I'm sure there are insurance co's that could easily deliver a "registration plate" at minimal cost (for the n+1 make it a personal based system rather than a bike registration)
We've inherited a system of road use built up over many years that needs to change so why not?
runs off to change user name
Cyclists to have mandatory skills training and public liability insurance - I'm sure there are insurance co's that could easily deliver a "registration plate" at minimal cost (for the n+1 make it a personal based system rather than a bike registration)
It's been tried before and it's unworkable. And where does it leave hire bike schemes? Or a kid riding round the park? Do you only have to get insurance when you're over 16?
Trying to promote cycling and sustainable travel, not tie it up in red tape.
What next, proof of insurance for walking to the shops just in case you walk round a corner and knock over a little old lady?
No Nope Nooooooooo
It's not like a pushbike wears out tarmac.
and this.
And I ALREADY DO on the car I'm not driving.
And Noooooooooo
and NI, IT, VAT, Import tax on the bike in the first place, and Noooooooo*
And if we go that far then its pedestrians and horses too, and Noooooooo, and what about your little kiddy on their bike outside your house, they'd need a tax disc. Stoopid right? so nooo, because it makes no sense. Bikes aren't the reason we need 4 lane roads, with complicated carefully timed traffic control mechanisms and filter lanes and massive car parks.
I'd go further, an advertising campaign like this, only instead of would you like some cheese, the proposition is "Do you think cyclists have equal rights to the road?"
And when they answer no, Panda keys their car...
Nope, never - would be the start of the slippery slope.
Next up would be a roadworthiness test (fee payable),third party insurance, then licence to ride on the road.
Just be a money spinning exercise and car drivers would claim they pay more than cyclists.
No, why should we be expected to pay for the privilege of being the most vulnerable group of road users?
More needs to be done to introduce and enforce properly recognised driving standards in this country and provide pedestrians and cyclists with a decent standard of protection in the eyes of the law. Sadly the government doesn't have the guts to make these necessary changes.
In the meantime I'm quite happy to keep telling shouty motorists who use the 'you don't pay road tax' argument that they are ignorant ***ts.
In a word no....
first of all strict liability would have to come into force ..... and even at that i wouldnt pay for the privaledge, but i would display something to show im insured.
I wouldn't mind particularly - but it wouldn't do a thing to resolve the bullying, harrassment and prejudice that cyclists face... that's an emotional reaction to a minority group who are different from the accepted social norm.
A rational response like us paying a nominal tax would make no difference. Proper enforcement of the existing rules and irresponsible driving being socially unacceptable would be more effective IMO
no.
stupid people should be sent back to school.
if they're still stupid, they should be drowned - not [s]pandered[/s] panda'd to.
To be honest for every idiot car driver there's also a cyclist who needs educating in the ways of the road.The difference being,
The difference being THERE ISN'T.
if it meant that drivers would treat you with a bit more respect
it wouldn't they'd just imagine another half truth about cyclists instead.
I increasingly like the idea of my Panda Awareness campaign. Other things panda could do to the car of characters who answer No.
Snap off a wing mirror
Take a stanley knife to the soft top.
Kick in the head lights
Pull out a silenced pistol and shoot a tyre out.
Put fist through window.
Pull out remote control and push button causing cement block to fall on car.
Snatch keys from owner and swallow them.
Or combinations of the above
The idea that VED is now a "true" taxation on vehicle emissions doesn't;'t add up. Cars that are SORN, or agricultural or lets say Motor racing don't pay any VED, yet they can still be legally used off the highways. Now as we know, emissions don't have the canny ability to stay where they are, they float around... everywhere.. SO, my question is why is there an allowance for off-highway vehicles not to pay the "environmental" tax.?
they should start with some televsion education adverts, just simple 5 second ones. Could start with some film of 2 roadies side by side and the voice over with words on the screen
'cyclists are allowed by law under road traffic regulation blah de blah to cycle two abreast'
& a film of a cyclist taking a dominant line through a pinch point with
'Sometimes a cyclist may take a primary position on some sections to maintain safe riding conditions'
stuff like that.
One mile on a bike is a $.42 economic gain to society, one mile driving is a $.20 loss
http://grist.org/list/one-mile-on-a-bike-is-a-42-economic-gain-to-society-one-mile-driving-is-a-20-loss/
More support for the "Bike rebate" idea....
Driving puts other people in danger due to collisions. It causes congestion. It leads to huge amounts of public space being used to store private property (otherwise known as on-street parking, if I can leave a van on the road indefinitely, why can't I put a small shed there?). It's bad for the health of the driver and pollutes the atmosphere, killing five thousand people a year in the UK. The noise and pollution devalues properties and the perceived danger and unpleasantness scares people away from roads and leads to them only feeling safe in....a car! No wonder it's taxed.
Cycling is safe (certainly for third parties), it doesn't pollute (apart from production, which is still a fraction of a car). It's space efficient: [img] 
[/img] It addresses the looming obesity crisis. The cost-benefit ratios of GOOD cycling infrastructure projects are a 'safe bet' in terms of a quick return on investment due to the reductions in pollution, congestion and ill health and the boosts to local businesses.
It's good for everyone. If you're really that wedded to your car then more people on bikes, on safe infrastructure, means less congestion for you.
The idea that VED is now a "true" taxation on vehicle emissions doesn't;'t add up. Cars that are SORN, or agricultural or lets say Motor racing don't pay any VED, yet they can still be legally used off the highways. Now as we know, emissions don't have the canny ability to stay where they are, they float around... everywhere.. SO, my question is why is there an allowance for off-highway vehicles not to pay the "environmental" tax.
I imagine it would be pretty hard to police.
It's only fair that if a vehicle is SORNed and not used, you don't pay VED, but if it's SORNed and driven on your private estate, how would anyone know? A bit like making your own beer at home, you don't pay alcohol duty on it.
Big Dave - Member
In the meantime I'm quite happy to keep telling shouty motorists who use the 'you don't pay road tax' argument that they are ignorant ***ts.
what you need is a belt of smoke grenades, next time the window comes down to start shouting at you pop a live one through and see how long the shouting lasts.
PS don't get caught on camera
Would you pay some kind of VED / Tax to use your bike?
No I wouldn't!
I'd be vocally against it!
What next reintroduction of window tax?
"Pedestrian tax" levied when you buy new shoes?
The UK has become a more a "Car-centric" culture, just because car use is common, widespread and the infrastructure and support network for motor vehicles which is funded by [U]general[/U] taxation is also used in part by bicycles doesn't mean cyclists should be compelled to pay a specific "Road Tax".
The supposed basis for VED is emissions (some points of contention but that's the general principle), by that logic cyclists really should qualify for a rebate... But as a group we've not tended to push for that, leave us to get on with things and we'll not push that point...
Say what you like but in terms of full life cycle CO2/Km a bicycle will piss all over a Prius or Twizzy every time... So you really can't apply "Bicycle VED" without significantly upping motorised vehicle VED rates, and I just can't see that happening, can you?
Start taxing use of a Bicycle on the road as a means of supporting cycle specific infrastructure and it would backfire spectacularly IMO.
Under such circumstances cyclists would be well within their rights to demand proper lanes (not crappy painted lines in the gutter or on pavements) for their money, at present cycle lanes primary function seems to be preventing cars from being slowed down too much by pesky bicycles, rather than actually creating a safe, unimpeded route for cyclists, start charging me specifically for use of my bicycle on the road and I want to see some proper specific features added for my use as a cyclist, otherwise it's just fraud.
All the other DM Suggestions for "improving" cycling on the road are thinly disguised way to discourage cycling and get bicycles off the road and out of the way of entitled drivers...
If the real goals of government are to cut emissions, improve general health and exercise levels, reduce wear and tear on our roads, generally encourage less car use and improve public safety, then implementing measures that would discourage and reduce the numbers taking up cycling and serve to legitimize certain drivers over-developed sense of entitlement would be the wrong way to achieve such aims...
While I don't agree with formal licencing or "MOTs for bicycles" (such schemes would be pointless and un-administrable) I do think the police should better understand the legal requirements for cyclists and their bicycles, and be applying them. Stopping and penalizing people for unsafe cycling and equipment just doesn't seem to happen, and it's only fair. Drivers generally don't disconnect their rear brakes and weave about half pissed on the pavement, it shouldn't be tolerated for bicycles, but generally speaking it currently is (and helps to give "cyclists" a bad name)...
If we expect motorized transgressors to be appropriately punished (separate debate), those of us on bicycles should not be immune from the law either.
Insurance is a funny one, the main thing to consider is 3rd party injury damage and liability, TBH anyone who is "into" cycling should seriously consider BC or CTC membership for the insurance benefits, for the "casual cyclist" just consider the implications of being found liable for injuries in an incident with a pedestrian or damage to a car / property caused through your actions... Compulsory? No, the scope for damage caused by a cyclist is far more limited than for a motorized vehicle, but idea of taking up some cover should be promoted...
But VED for bikes?
Nah! Shite idea TBH...
Insurance is a funny one, the main thing to consider is 3rd party injury damage and liability, TBH anyone who is "into" cycling should seriously consider BC or CTC membership for the insurance benefits, for the "casual cyclist" just consider the implications of being found liable for injuries in an incident with a pedestrian or damage to a car / property caused through your actions... Compulsory? No, the scope for damage caused by a cyclist is far more limited than for a motorized vehicle, but idea of taking up some cover should be promoted...
Of the 26.3 million households in the UK in 2011, an estimated 19.7 million households have contents insurance
And pretty much all of those insurance policies will include cover for third party liability. So if I damage a car while cycling I'm covered on my home contents insurance. (I'm also covered by my BC membership.)
Insurance for bikes is an argument that stems from ignorance, both of the number of incidents where damage is caused by the cyclist, and of the fact that most people on bikes actually will be insured.
Insurance for bikes is an argument that stems from ignorance, both of the number of incidents where damage is caused by the cyclist, and of the fact that most people on bikes actually will be insured.
I'm still surprised at the number of people on a forum supposedly for cyclists who are unaware of this - to the point that when I've mentioned it previously I've been told I'm wrong.
Back on the VED issue - will I need to pay £2.50 for each of my unicycles, or will they be exempt? How about if I only ride them on the pavement? What about my 4yo's bike? Or even the balance bike he had before? Presumably all my bikes (and unicycles) will also need to be registered and carry number plates.
Im far too lazy (and hungover) to read (and focus on) the words already posted on this thread.
But;
"if" it meant drivers were more repectful and careful yes, but they wouldnt be so I'm out!
Plus one.
And for the same reason, I dont see this working: http://lcc.org.uk/articles/major-victory-as-transport-for-london-says-dutch-style-roundabouts-could-be-in-london-in-2014
No to a road tax because it doesn't get used for the up keep of roads etc as it is. Compulsary insurance for road cyclists yes.
No. And no to compulsory insurance also. I pay a lot of income tax and national insurance, out of what I'm allowed to keep I pay:
- VED on two cars (mine and the wifes)
- Insurance on two cars
- Fuel [s]tax[/s] duty
- TV [s]tax[/s] license
- VAT on almost everything we buy
- House insurance
- Premiums on house insurance to cover our bikes from theft
- Council Tax
- Tax on the paltry amount of interest we earn on our savings
Each appears to be used as a cash cow by the provider, be it government or private 'enterprise'. Why on earth would I voluntarily allow the government to burden me with yet another parasitic way to extract money?
Furthermore, at what age would this tax become liable? Would I need to pay bike tax for my children who are both under 4 years?!
Actually that's a point we already effectively mileage related tax on bicycles, parts and accessories, all of these contribute to money to general government spending through VAT.
Buy a bike, you pay VAT, use it lots, wear out tires, chains, clothing, etc and you end up paying more VAT on the replacements, it might not be intended as such but in relation to bicycles VAT ends up as a form of mileage related taxation. The contributions from this probably well exceed the burdens placed on the UKs road infrastructure by cycling.
Then other people would moan that we don't pay enough.
So we pay the same as cars?
I do think we should have 3rd party insurance as a minimum though.
Then other people would moan that we don't pay enough.So we pay the same as cars?
I do think we should have 3rd party insurance as a minimum though.
Like I said, relative to their impact, bicycles probably already contribute more through general taxation than cars do.
I'm actually not in favour of compulsory cycling insurance, 3rd party or otherwise. compulsion would serve as another deterrent to potential new cyclists, and contributes to the idea that cycling is dangerous, I think government backed promotion of cycling should include encouragement for people to join BC or CTC as a means of getting them informed, trained, educated and insured.
But the dangers posed by uninsured cyclists are nothing like those presented by uninsured drivers, The police can't keep on top of those, how would they go about checking cyclists insurance?
Compulsory cycle insurance would cost more to administer than could ever practically be charged.
Actually I would tax people who wear poorly fitting helmets, Hi Viz vests and grimace with effort when cycling to work.
They give cycling a bad image and should be taxed of the earth.
Yes, as long as its based on emissions. I'd gladly display a tax disk if it made folk take a bit more care on the roads.
Or even better, it would be good if Gideon came out and said, "we could get cyclists to display tax disks, but they would need to be charged a zero rate as some cars are. We have chosen not to go down this route as it would cost a fortune and raise nothing."
