Would you pay some kind of VED / Tax to use your bike
Compare VED to CO2 emissions, then extraopolate back to zero emissions and I’ll take the tax rebate in excahnge for displaying some sort of disc. That would easily pay for some sort of insurance which would help to make “other road users” even more happy. Sounds like win win to me!Posted 4 years agobenjiSubscriber
No, because why should I pay when some cars don’t just to appease the modern moron that life is fair, the next thing they will be bleating I pay more than you, you will never please them, till they actually use the grey matter between their ears for more than remembering which celeb slept with which other vacuous moron.
Futher more I’m sure most of already pay the appropriate VED for our other vehicles, I know I pay two lots one for my car one for my motorbike so does that mean I get extra rights, no I just get to use the road legally in/on those vehicles.Posted 4 years agokcrMember
No, I would like to get a tax refund because I cycle to work.
Because I’m not using a car, I’m reducing the wear and tear on the road infrastructure, helping to alleviate congestion and reducing the environmental impact of my travel. I reckon I’m therefore paying more than my fair share through my tax contribution, and should get something back.
A tax refund for cycling would be a great incentive to get people out of their cars.
Also, as noted above, a bicycle is a zero rated vehicle, so it would make no sense to start taxing it when zero rated cars are exempt.Posted 4 years agocrazy-legsSubscriber
And the costs of administering such a scheme would still cost more than £5 per cyclist (or bike?).
It’d be entertaining though to see the Daily Mail readers tied up in knots – simultaneously happy that cyclists were finally paying “road tax” while being outraged that the system would cost millions of pounds every year to administer.
😆Posted 4 years agoIanMunroMember
No. Apart from objecting to the general principle. It would be ridiculously expensive to administer, and the retards who actually believe that their ‘road tax’ gives them greater rights over cyclists will carry on believing this as the cyclists pay less ‘road tax’. If you set the tax level the same the drivers will change their bleat to something else.Posted 4 years ago
It’s not about the tax.scotroutesSubscriberKarinofnineMember
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.Posted 4 years agoToastyMember
No, but I’d pay for a more reliable type of insurance, like drivers get. That said, the bulk of the cost you’d be paying would be to cover the chance of damaging their vehicles.
Tragically I’d pay £5/year towards an advertising campaign to educate drivers in what VED actually is, who pays for the roads and legal cycle maneuvers such as riding 2 abreast.
I’d even be up with balancing the tables out and making cyclists run some sort of CBT before road riding.Posted 4 years agoGrahamSSubscriber
If the government abolished the illusion of environmental ‘road tax’ yes…
Why is it an “illusion”? How many Band A cars do you reckon there would be on the streets if we didn’t have VED?
(Graded congestion charge works well too!)
Just scap ved and pay a little more fuel duty
Wouldn’t be as effective. Calling it out separately makes people aware of it.Posted 4 years ago
Not many folk would base their buying decision on a 45.5mpg car over a 45mpg one, but they would be influenced towards a Band C versus Band D car (even though it likely makes less of a difference to their bottom line)jonah tontoMember
roads have existed for a long long time. long before cars were invented. motor vehicles have to pay because they are driving on pedestrians/ horse riders roads and their dangerous, destructive vehicles are damaging everything, our roads, our health, our planet, etc.
bikes, which are iron horses as far as im aware, do none of those things, they dont even damage the roads as much as pedestrians.
why should bikes pay? to build cycle lanes? the idea is to keep the cars away from the bikes, not the other way around.Posted 4 years agodannybgoodeSubscriber
Lets say a nominal amount – £5 p/y if it meant that drivers would treat you with a bit more respect.
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’ve mooted this point a few times over the past few years and for one I’d be willing. Unfortunately I don’t think it would a blind bit of difference but may be worth exploring?
Danny BPosted 4 years agosbobMember
Why is it an “illusion”?
Because my 18yr old hunk of Japan’s finest is far more environmentally friendly than modern crap that has an expected life of only 9yrs, yet costs more in tax.
Because my Jag has produced less pollution in the last twelve months than Johnny Guardian reader’s blue motion.
Two at a guess.Posted 4 years ago
Warning Graham: I’m on the cider.
The topic ‘Would you pay some kind of VED / Tax to use your bike’ is closed to new replies.