Bicycle Tax

reohn2
Posts: 37385
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Bicycle Tax

Postby reohn2 » 16 Oct 2010, 6:27pm

I have a better idea than a bicycle "road tax" why not abolish VED for motor vehicles altogther and calculate the cost into fuel,at whatever pence per litre increase.That would solve a multitude of problems not least admin costs and police time.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I cycle therefore I am.

User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 9938
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: Bicycle Tax

Postby Cunobelin » 16 Oct 2010, 7:14pm

Ther is a lot of controversy over the figures as it depends on what you include, such as costs of Policing, clearing accidents etc.

The general consensus though is that motoring in the UK is in fact subsidised, it is the amount of subsidy that is the issue.Estimates are between £800 to £3000 per year in order to recoup these other costs and reflect the true cost to the Country we need to put about 42 pence per gallon on fuel.

If we want equality then we should pay cyclists !

SilverBadge
Posts: 577
Joined: 12 May 2009, 11:28pm

Re: Bicycle Tax

Postby SilverBadge » 16 Oct 2010, 7:30pm

Cunobelin wrote:Ther is a lot of controversy over the figures as it depends on what you include, such as costs of Policing, clearing accidents etc.

The general consensus though is that motoring in the UK is in fact subsidised, it is the amount of subsidy that is the issue.Estimates are between £800 to £3000 per year in order to recoup these other costs and reflect the true cost to the Country we need to put about 42 pence per gallon on fuel.


http://www.rdrf.org/freepubs/pumpup.htm

Blueprint 5
True Costs of Road Transport
By Olof Johansson, David Pearce and David Maddison

http://www.roadpricing.greenisp.org/GettingAroundp4.htm

...yet more taxes on motorists?

There is a widespread perception that motorists are already unfairly taxed. This is simply not true(1). In the year 2002-03 £26.5 billion was raised from fuel and road tax(2). Around £6bn went toward roadbuilding and maintenance that year(3). The cost of policing the roads and the expense incurred by the judicial system is estimated to be between £1bn and £3bn(4), while congestion costs businesses and other drivers £20bn in delay(5).

The costs of the effects of air pollution and accidents due to road transport were estimated at £12.3bn(6) and £16bn(7) respectively. Then add global warming, the potential effects of which dwarf our entire economic system(8). Clearly all of us, motorists and non-motorists alike, are paying for motorists to sit in their cars and pollute the environment, and paying heavily(9).

If we want equality then we should pay cyclists !


Add in the reduction in burden on the NHS and that's pretty much certain. IIRC spending on cycling is ~20p per taxpayer per year (mainly white paint to create over-narrow cycle lanes).

Jonty

Re: Bicycle Tax

Postby Jonty » 16 Oct 2010, 7:33pm

I can see the argument in favour of scrapping VED completely but it ain't going to happen. Given our economic difficulties the Coalition will be looking around to increase taxation - not get rid of existing taxes.
I just have the feeling that there's quite a few people around who think that cyclists are getting off too easily and resent it.
Why do I have to queue behind a group of cyclists when they don't pay VED and fuel tax like me? Why are the authorities reducing road space and providing cycle lanes when I pay VED and fuel tax and they don't? Why do I have to sit a test, have insurance, pay VED and have to put up with cyclists who often don't obey the rules and think they own the road? Why shouldn't they be taken off the road and put somewhere else?
I think there are some issues here which we need to think about. Cycling won't get very far if we alienate other road users or if they think we're having a "free ride" at their expense.
I accept the obesity argument and that the "social welfare" of the nation is probably better served by the populace being slim and fit and that more cycling will help this.
But even here the issue may not be quite as clear-cut as some might think. From a cost-benefit point of view smoking for example should be encouraged. It raises revenue for the Government, it creates and protects jobs, and people who smoke are more likely to die in their sixties after a short illness rather than live into their '80s and '90s, merrily drawing pensions and getting free flue jabs.
Smoking is pro-social whilst not smoking is selfish and anti-social, it can be argued.
I accept however that it's difficult to put forward a similar argument on obesity.
I don't have a view on all this yet. I'm reading the posts and listening to the arguments. So far I'm inclined towards the view that if could be advantageous for cyclists to pay some sort of modest "tax" like most other road users and be seen to do so.
jonty

snibgo
Posts: 4604
Joined: 29 Jun 2010, 4:45am

Re: Bicycle Tax

Postby snibgo » 16 Oct 2010, 8:05pm

Jonty wrote:I just have the feeling that there's quite a few people around who think that cyclists are getting off too easily and resent it.


Doubtless. So we should pay more tax, sit tests and pay insurance to remove this resentment?

No, because very few motorists truly resent cyclists for those reasons. After all, the same is true of pedestrians, but I've never heard those grievances about them.

Motorists actually resent cyclists for other reasons: we are sometimes faster than them, sometimes slower, can go places they can't, can park anywhere, we reduce congestion, are healthier and better for the environment. And some of us are smug about it. The only way of alleviating these grievances is to swap our bikes for cars.

kwackers
Posts: 14011
Joined: 4 Jun 2008, 9:29pm
Location: Warrington

Re: Bicycle Tax

Postby kwackers » 16 Oct 2010, 8:08pm

Jonty wrote: So far I'm inclined towards the view that if could be advantageous for cyclists to pay some sort of modest "tax" like most other road users and be seen to do so.
jonty

Nonsense.

Since you can buy a car that doesn't pay excise duty why should bikes suddenly attract it?
It's impossible to enforce, costs more to run that it's ever got a chance of recouping, but most importantly it won't win over motorists.
The reason it won't is simple, motorists don't resent cyclists using the road for free - they simply resent cyclists using the road. Do you seriously believe when someone cuts you up or 'doesn't see you' or worse kills a cyclist they did so because cyclists don't pay road tax?
Motorists simply don't like to be held up by cyclists. It's not road tax, insurance, rlj'ing, pavement cycling, night time ninjas - they're all without exception excuses thrown into the mix because they won't (or probably can't) admit the truth, it's a simple fact they don't want a slow moving vehicle that is 'fragile' and difficult to overtake simply using the same road as them, and they absolutely hate it if the cyclist they've just overtaken passes them again because then they have to do it all again.

Fortunately it won't happen, so it's never going to be an issue.

User avatar
hubgearfreak
Posts: 8210
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 4:14pm

Re: Bicycle Tax

Postby hubgearfreak » 16 Oct 2010, 8:33pm

Jonty wrote:I just have the feeling that there's quite a few people around who think that cyclists are getting off too easily and resent it.


so.
there's some daft and arrogant people who think that VED is a tax to build roads
these same people resent others using the roads for free, unless they're in old or electric cars

to appease these daft people, you propose taxing cyclists*?
i suspect you're trolling (or you're daft)

*presumably just the few cyclists who hasn't already bought his/her VED for a car that lives on the drive and only comes out occasionally?

rower40
Posts: 385
Joined: 12 Jan 2007, 5:44pm
Location: Somewhere on the NCN

Re: Bicycle Tax

Postby rower40 » 16 Oct 2010, 8:34pm

Jonty wrote:Why do I have to queue behind a group of cyclists when they don't pay VED and fuel tax like me?

Because your car is burning a finite resource. And using up much more road space than you need. How often does your car have all its seats full? My bike (but not my tandem) never goes out carrying an empty seat.
Jonty wrote:Why are the authorities reducing road space and providing cycle lanes when I pay VED and fuel tax and they don't?

Not in my name. Bike lanes have been shown to increase, not decrease, the risks to cyclists.
Jonty wrote:Why do I have to sit a test, have insurance, pay VED and have to put up with cyclists who often don't obey the rules and think they own the road?

Because in your car, you have much much much greater capacity to cause injury and death. If a cyclist makes a mistake, he's the one that gets injured. If a motorist makes a mistake, it's either a bit of bent metal and an insurance claim, OR the cyclist gets injured anyway.

You pay for the privilege of your 1500 kg of armour-plate.

Thank you for stimulating this debate.
"Little Green Men Are Everywhere... ...But Mostly On Traffic Lights."

User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 17129
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: Bicycle Tax

Postby [XAP]Bob » 16 Oct 2010, 8:49pm

To misquote an old pilots saying:

What's the difference between a cyclist and a motorist?
If a cyclist makes a mistake then the cyclist gets injured. If a motorist makes a mistake then the cyclist gets injured.


Bob

Originally heard in relation to pilots / ATC
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.

reohn2
Posts: 37385
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Bicycle Tax

Postby reohn2 » 16 Oct 2010, 9:00pm

Jonty wrote:I can see the argument in favour of scrapping VED completely but it ain't going to happen. Given our economic difficulties the Coalition will be looking around to increase taxation - not get rid of existing taxes.

The government could kill two birds with just the one brick,they seemingly reduce tax by removing VED at a time when the country needs more revenue,but at the same time claw that revenue back by making the people who use and do more damage to the roads pay for it.
I just have the feeling that there's quite a few people around who think that cyclists are getting off too easily and resent it.
Why do I have to queue behind a group of cyclists when they don't pay VED and fuel tax like me? Why are the authorities reducing road space and providing cycle lanes when I pay VED and fuel tax and they don't? Why do I have to sit a test, have insurance, pay VED and have to put up with cyclists who often don't obey the rules and think they own the road? Why shouldn't they be taken off the road and put somewhere else?

Kwackers has answered this point acurately IMO
I think there are some issues here which we need to think about. Cycling won't get very far if we alienate other road users or if they think we're having a "free ride" at their expense.

We aren't alienating anyone or having a "free ride"at onyones expense,some motorists are alienating us.Cycling never has got far in this country because the general feeling by the public is that people cycle because they can't afford a car,never once is it thought that cycling=one less car/less congestion=less polution=health.People who are anti cycling are, quite simply, bigotted idiots.
I accept the obesity argument and that the "social welfare" of the nation is probably better served by the populace being slim and fit and that more cycling will help this.

Exactly! so why do cyclists need to justify their exsistence by paying more tax for the previlige
But even here the issue may not be quite as clear-cut as some might think. From a cost-benefit point of view smoking for example should be encouraged. It raises revenue for the Government, it creates and protects jobs, and people who smoke are more likely to die in their sixties after a short illness rather than live into their '80s and '90s, merrily drawing pensions and getting free flue jabs.

That is a very cynical POV shared by every government IMO.
Smoking is pro-social whilst not smoking is selfish and anti-social, it can be argued.

Bunkum
I accept however that it's difficult to put forward a similar argument on obesity.

quite!
I don't have a view on all this yet. I'm reading the posts and listening to the arguments. So far I'm inclined towards the view that if could be advantageous for cyclists to pay some sort of modest "tax" like most other road users and be seen to do so.
jonty

I'm of the view that cyclists(especially commuters) should be revered and have right of way at every intersection and a law of strict liability be made legal ASAP.
I pay my taxes and I don't need to appear to pay more tax than anyone else in society especially motor vehicle drivers so as to appear equal to them,I am equal and when riding a bike its them that should have to prove to me that they my equal by adhering to the highway code and the law of the land.
You may feel a need to justify your exsistence on the road,by paying some form of tax for the privelige, I don't.Infact I think my presence on the road whilst cycling is a contribution to the society in which I live for reasons mentioned above.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I cycle therefore I am.

User avatar
Tigerbiten
Posts: 1978
Joined: 29 Jun 2009, 6:49am

Re: Bicycle Tax

Postby Tigerbiten » 16 Oct 2010, 10:32pm

How would you collect this new tax on child bikes ??

I ride a recumbent trike and my seat is only ~8"/~200mm off the road.
Now ATM anything with a seat hight under 635mm/~20" comes under different regs, ie childs bikes.
Which is why I'm road legal with only one independent braking system, both front brakes are worked off one lever.

So will my trike be counted as a childs bike ??
If so will I pay any tax ??

Luck ......... :D

basingstoke123
Posts: 148
Joined: 13 Feb 2008, 10:05pm

Re: Bicycle Tax

Postby basingstoke123 » 16 Oct 2010, 11:00pm

VED and fuel duty pays for roads? Right, like VAT on shoes pays for pavements? Or duty on a pint at you local pays for pubs?

Tax is tax is tax - no one likes paying tax. There is no connection between what is taxed and how the money is spent (or wasted). The government will tax whatever it can, based on various criteria: the next election, ability to pay (hopefully), inability to object (eg taxing something you have no or little choice over), with higher or lower levels of tax in some areas to try and modify behaviour.

Perhaps one reason motorists complain about high motoring taxes is that most people will continue to drive even when motoring costs increase, either because they are unwilling to change their driving, or actually have no choice (at least, in the short term) but to continue drive. If you are unwilling or unable to make changes to reduce your motoring tax bill, then the only thing left is to complain: motoring is overtaxed, others aren't taxed enough, or high taxes aren't being used to pay for the roads etc. It's not fair - cyclists have found a way to not pay these taxes!

User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 17129
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: Bicycle Tax

Postby [XAP]Bob » 17 Oct 2010, 9:01am

It is the classic - but noone complains that tax on beer isn't being used to build more breweries / pus...
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.

kwackers
Posts: 14011
Joined: 4 Jun 2008, 9:29pm
Location: Warrington

Re: Bicycle Tax

Postby kwackers » 17 Oct 2010, 9:25am

It's probably worth pointing out that the cost of motoring is about as cheap as it's ever been.

What I find amusing is that most people have more money than ever, yet they seem to complain ever more bitterly about it being taken off them and used to provide the social infrastructure society needs to work as a cohesive whole.

It seems to me that the real problem is people see it as their money and want it spent on what they want (which usually means another holiday or bigger car).
I suspect this is why the middle classes love(d) the idea of a Tory squeeze - they think that all the projects and spending that don't benefit them will be cut leaving it all nice and lean for tax breaks once things are back on track whilst at the same time giving everyone else a good "Daily Mail" kicking financially.

The funniest thing I've seen of late is the child benefit thing, suddenly thousands of middle class people have spotted that voting for the Tories and their 'squeeze' will actually affect them and not "someone else", I'd love to be a fly on the wall during a "ladies that lunch" gossip or in someone's company car.
Indeed some of the discussions in our company kitchen have been quite heated! The last time I saw such dissent was when the company stopped providing free breakfast cereals (not because they cost anything, but because they discovered people took the wee by coming in at normal time and spending an hour making and eating their breakfast).

User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 9938
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: Bicycle Tax

Postby Cunobelin » 17 Oct 2010, 10:14am

snibgo wrote:No, because very few motorists truly resent cyclists for those reasons. After all, the same is true of pedestrians, but I've never heard those grievances about them.


I have.....

We have a 20 mph limit or residential areas here in Portsmouth and there was a lot of "I pay road tax and the residents should not have the right to impose speed limits on me" and some quite vitriolic stuff about these zones encouraging children and adults to get in the way of traffic!



Absolutely right , but the Green X would help to a degree, I know at least two of the victim's out of the four cases that caused the limit to be dragged down were due to not looking and the motorist had no chance.
People have slackened off regarding their own safety when crossing a road, you even see people walking in the road even though the pavement is clear, bizzare if you ask me.


And if they really cared about children, they would teach them road safety. I got taught the Green Cross Code and Cycling Proficiency in school. There used to be adverts on TV telling people how to cross the road safely. Now we just have adverts telling us to reduce our carbon emissions, and school kids actually walk down my street in the middle of the road when there is no reason not to use the pavement.


Lower speed limits give a false sense of security to pedestrians. If the limit is 60+ pedestrians respect the road and take more care where and how they use/cross it.

30 and lower and pedestrians think that it is safe to wander about without paying attention; then when they get run over, they always blame the driver.