Road Tax....

[Robzere31]

This was a question from another forum I frequent.

Motorists pay road Tax to use the UK road network. Out of this road Tax I presume the cost to maintain the roads is taken out.
Cyclists use the roads and cycle lanes on the road. They too also contribute to the daily wear and tear of the roads.
Should cyclists contribute to the road Tax system?
Granted they will not use motorways as such so a more lenient amount perhaps?

At first I thought it was a joke question, but the guy is quite serious.

[cycleruk]

Road Tax does not go to the roads.
It just goes into the kitty with all the other taxes.
There is a lot more money spent on the roads than vehicle tax contributes.
Some vehicles don't pay any road tax and others have very low taxes.
On the other hand lorries and buses cause more damage than cars and lorries pay thousands a year.
Car tax just gives drivers the "permission" to use their car on the "public" highway.
Just point out that 1 bicycle = 1 less car in front of them.

[Basil W Bloke]

There is no such thing as "Road Tax". Nor, in case you were wondering, anything called "The Road Fund Licence".
It never ceases to amaze me how some people can spend money on something and have absolutely no idea what they are buying.

[Basil W Bloke]

OK. Here’s how it works.
We all have the right to use the public roads. (Historically, the “Queen’s Highway”) There are some, recently added, where by act of parliament this right does not apply – Motorways.
On a public right of way you have the right to pass, re-pass, cycle, ride a horse, push a hand cart, herd your geese etc etc etc. You do not however, have the automatic right to drive a motor vehicle.
To drive a motor vehicle you must firstly prove that you have attained a certain competency in doing so. The vehicle must also be judged to be safe and in good working order. You must provide yourself with insurance in case of claims made against you. You must also pay a “Vehicle Excise Duty” on each vehicle registered for use on the public roads. This V.E.D. is only one of the conditions required to use a motor vehicle on the public road. It does give not any special status nor does it confer the vehicle any priority over other road users.
The V.E.D. collected is not ring fenced for any particular purpose, in the same way that tax on beer, wine and spirits in not ring fenced. This is probably a good thing because if it were, the roads would be in a much worse condition than they are now.

[eileithyia]

I pay VED, but exercise my right to choose whether I use my bike or my car which often stays at home on the drive whilst I ride my bike, often on a journey where I could have taken my car and contributed to the road wear and tear far than my bike will.

A friend when challenged about VED whilst on his bike, had a ready answer, as a company director of his own company he paid VED on 10 vehicles!

It is an age old argumnet and I thought people really understood that all taxes just go into one big government melting pot, their 2nd home allowances and expense claims etc.

[Cunobelin]

Reply that they do - and in full!

As above "Road Tax" is in fact "Vehicle Excise Duty", and is rated on the emissions.

These are then banded.

If we were to assess bicycles in the same way as we assess vehicles (only fair) then cycles emit less than 100g CO2 per km, and are therefore in Band A

The present duty for Band A vehicles is zero, zilch, nil - which I do pay in full every year.

Now if the OP to your forum is sugesting and increase in the bands so that cyclists pay then I presume there will be a pro-rata rse for all bands, and the proposed duty will also apply to all the Band A vehicles?

[dodger]

Like Eilethyia I pay road tax on my car but when I'm riding my bike I'm saving fuel, releasing almost no CO2, making no noise, hardly affecting the road surface, taking up little space and helping to stay healthier, thus less strain on the NHS.
I really don't understand the stupidity of the argument. Is there some sort of mindset that drivers think cyclists are smug or feel they are better than motorists?
It's rare that I get people saying about road tax these days. More likely they say they feel they ought to be out on their bike/ought to get a bike themselves and exercise.

[rower40]

Another factor to consider is that the damage to a road surface is proportional to the fifth power of the axle load. So if you double the vehicle's weight (with the same number of wheels), then it does 32 times more damage to the road.

Now if someone wants me to pay for my bike's proportion of tarmac damage, with an axle load of 1/10th of that of a family car, then the microfarthing had better become legal tender. Hey, I'll put in 10p, which should cover all of this county's cyclists.

(Ok, I realise that spending on roads is more than just repairing potholes. But that spend would be mostly the same if there were no bikes on the roads, ever.)

[gilesjuk]

Road tax is such an outdated term.

The modern term as others had said is actually V.E.D., I prefer to call it a vehicle licence and it does talk about having a vehicle licence in the renewal document.

Some vehicles emit low CO2 and pay no duty. Since bicycles are (1) not registered and (2) not emitters of CO2 there's no fee due.

This argument is the common one from ignorant car drivers with a chip on their shoulder. They're almost as bad as whinging smokers.

[gilesjuk]

If we were to assess bicycles in the same way as we assess vehicles (only fair) then cycles emit less than 100g CO2 per km, and are therefore in Band A

I think cyclists emit methane rather than anything else

[Mick F]

Since bicycles are .......... not emitters of CO2 .........

(Sorry for paraphrasing you)
I think we had a thread on here some time back (don't ask me to search!) that said that cyclists emit a rather large amount of CO2 due to the exhalation of heavy breathing! The poster was asked to qualify his statement.

We never heard from him in reply!
Still, it's an interesting point .........

I think cyclists emit methane rather than anything else

...... and it depends on what you eat!

[hubgearfreak]

Another factor to consider is that the damage to a road surface is proportional to the fifth power of the axle load. So if you double the vehicle's weight (with the same number of wheels), then it does 32 times more damage to the road.

on that basis, i'd happily pay a fiver a year...if motorists then could return the favour by
acknowledging our (existing) right to be on the road
look and observe for us
overtake with a sufficient safety margin
not pull out of give ways when we're near the junction
not overtake to then immediately turn left in front of me/us
not shout at us whilst overtaking (i only get a half syllable anyway you plonkers)
etc. etc.
in short, just follow the highway code

[climo]

Playing devils advocate.

A car driver could say that a band A vehicle doesn't get any special treatment on the road but cyclists get special paths and reserved strips of carriageway, boxes at junctions, etc. All paid for somehow and with no revenue raised from the specialised users.
As for the 'it all goes into the same pot' thought then it can be said that car drivers do pay more into that pot than us by virtue of having a car. Also whether you are driving your car or not is immaterial, it still has to be taxed to sit on the road and so does any alternate vehicle, eg a moped. I wonder how much wear a moped does to the road?

I'm actually in favour of a cycle VED, set very low of course, and compulsory 3rd party insurance. If that were introduced there would be no excuse for councils to ignore cyclists, we would have full parity and rights. Maybe that would alter many peoples perception of cyclists as a nuisance to just a slow moving vehicle.

I'm also a believer in cyclists paying for their cycles on trains. After all the train company is losing revenue by having no seats in that space. As trains get more crowded then a charge is inevitable. Better to manage that change and insist on proper dedicated spaces on all trains & online reservations for all companies, not the bodge that now exists. Guaranteed onward travel on bus replacement services, etc.

The thrust of the whole post is that there is no free lunch. If you pay then you can order want you want.

I can see the hackles rising

[Swizz69]

I agree with your point regarding trains, on the condition that my bike would be cosseted in return for paying its fare.

As for cyclists paying a VED though, no not at all for all the reasons everyones already stated. From a personal point of view I can happily live without any of the cycle 'farcilities' provided on our roads - the only ones I use are the advanced stop areas when no cars are parked in them, and because there will always be some idiot sat in his motor on the green patch of paint, i'm happy for him/her to pay for the priviledge. I contribute also when paying VED on our Honda Civic.

If that were introduced there would be no excuse for councils to ignore cyclists, we would have full parity and rights.

As already touched on a few posts up, do you really think government, local or otherwise would look at your contribution that way? Or have ya not been following the news recently?
My local MP, Mr Purnell (who we all have to thank for wrecking a few livers since he changed the licensing laws) apparently left one of his 'second homes' in a right mess when vacating it, despite claiming cash for a cleaner.
They aren't getting VED from my low carbon hobby. The missus says thats partly cos i'm a tightwad though

Maybe that would alter many peoples perception of cyclists as a nuisance to just a slow moving vehicle.

In the minds of most, slow moving vehicles are a nuisance. I'm afraid we're right down there with traffic wardens in the eyes of the motorist

[Ron]

I'm also a believer in cyclists paying for their cycles on trains. After all the train company is losing revenue by having no seats in that space.

Not sure if you are just being mischievous here or not.
In my case if there were no bike spaces on the train I would not be travelling by train, I would be travelling on the bus which is much cheaper. The bicycle spaces on trains are revenue earners, not revenue losers as you suggest. It's not so long ago since I was on a train where the 2 bike spaces were filled, and the two cyclists were the only passengers on the train.