Cyclists don't "pay their way" - reposte

[simonineaston]

The trope that cyclists don't "pay their way" and that they should be "taxed like all other road users" has been with us for yonks and, as we most of us know, has been picked up by the motor vehicle pressure group and used across sm with much gusto.
What is your favourite rejoinder, the pithy one liner, that you find most effective, dear reader? Or does the argument require careful explanation, nuance & subtlety?

[a.twiddler]

The information is out there. Unless you're unfortunate enough to be homeless, you live somewhere where you pay council tax. Among other things, council tax is used to maintain local roads. Not all council tax payers are drivers, but all drivers are presumably council tax payers, unless they live with ther parents. So effectively, non driving council tax payers are subsidising those who drive, by paying for something that they don't use. You could also say that practically all cyclists are drivers, while not all drivers are cyclists.

Regardless of taxation, everybody has to suffer the indirect consequences of the cult of the car whether they drive or not. Noise, air quality, cost to the NHS of all this, not to mention the acceptance of and human cost of accidents, congestion, contribution to global warming, the reduction of public transport, most noticeably in rural areas.

Boiling all that down to, "I'm subsidising YOU, you prat", is not exactly helpful in educating the sort of lazy thinker that believes in their entitlement to denigrate others arising from "payng their way" to drive a motor vehicle, with all that entails. Although you can't change the mind of an idiot with facts, most people are not idiots, but have some form of emotional gain or issues of their own self worth tied into their views. A feeling of belonging to a group, an elite, even, is important to them, even though they are all individuals with their own history and reasons for believing what they do. This could also be turned around and applied to any vaguely similar group, such as, er, cyclists.

It certainly is something that requires careful explanation, nuance and subtlety. It's definitely not just "them and us". Getting the message across, well, that's something else.

[simonineaston]

The information is out there.... Getting the message across, well, that's something else.

While appreciating your interesting post, twiddler, it's exactly the challenge of the brief encounter that prompted me to ask!

[PH]

Tell them you don't do it to save road tax, but for the extra fifty grand in state pension. Or just ask what's stopping them from cycling, and maybe laugh at reply. Or simply tell them you pay as much for the roads as they do. You're not likely to persuade anyone in these conversations, their mind is already made up. Ignore it, or have some fun with it.

[Chris Jeggo]

Here are a few.

Most cyclists do pay road tax, because most cyclists own cars.

It's actually called excise duty, and it's not spent on roads. We pay excise duty on all alcoholic drinks. Do you think that gets spent on pubs/breweries/distilleries?

It's not called "road tax" - that was abolished nearly a hundred years ago (1937 actually - see Wkipedia on VED). It's called "Motor Vehicle Excise Duty", and it isn't earmarked for roads. It's general taxation, which means it just goes into the Treasury melting pot with all the other general taxes such as VAT and income tax. Roads are a general good, which is payed for out of general taxation.

[Nearholmer]

Look at them quizzically, and shake my head slowly, making it very clear that I think they’ve lost their marbles. I might throw in a “Do you seriously believe that load of old tosh? Honestly?”.

[Carlton green]

The trope that cyclists don't "pay their way" and that they should be "taxed like all other road users" has been with us for yonks and, as we most of us know, has been picked up by the motor vehicle pressure group and used across sm with much gusto.
What is your favourite rejoinder, the pithy one liner, that you find most effective, dear reader? Or does the argument require careful explanation, nuance & subtlety?

On whatever subject you’ll never get any sense talking to bigoted folk, my start point would be that motorists pay only part of their full costs and cyclists don’t creat costs (‘cause cyclists don’t wear out any road or hard surface). Cars cause traffic jams, air pollution (if not electric), and major accidents which kill or otherwise injure people, all of which are a cost to society.

[axel_knutt]

What is your favourite rejoinder, the pithy one liner, that you find most effective

The one that I've posted on here several times, from years of arguing with motorists on Twitter I've found that it shuts them up first time almost every time:

It's the motorists who are being subsidised.
.

.

.

.

[Chris Jeggo]

Here's another.

The Government taxes people who can afford to pay. If you can afford to drink beer and whisky you can pay excise duty on it. If you can afford three tankfuls of fuel you can afford to pay Vehicle Excise Duty.

[axel_knutt]

Most cyclists do pay road tax, because most cyclists own cars.

If you own two cars you pay for two lots of road tax, if you own one car and one bike you pay for one.

It's not called "road tax"

They don't care what it's called, so if you say that it's hardly surprising that they just laugh at you.

[Blondie]

If you want to pay your way through road tax, then for each car the true costs would be about £6,000 per year. But I guess you don’t want to the pay the true costs of your driving hobby.

[Chris Jeggo]

Most cyclists do pay road tax, because most cyclists own cars.

If you own two cars you pay for two lots of road tax, if you own one car and one bike you pay for one.

It's not called "road tax"

They don't care what it's called, so if you say that it's hardly surprising that they just laugh at you.

It's a bit aggressive to say "Neither do you, because it's not called 'road tax'."

[simonineaston]

Thanks for all the suggestions. My favourite so far is the observation that most cyclists do pay ved (or as the other team prefer to term it, inaccurately as we know, "road tax").
Years ago, I restored & rode a Sunbeam S8. I quickly got used to complete strangers engaging me on conversation on the subject of my bike, and telling me in amazing detail all about it. A couple of favourites I still remember were the confident assertion that it was 2000cc and that it had a reverse gear. When I pointed out that it didn't, the "expert" took a fall-back position that it was probably an option if the machine came with a side-car.
As a serial owner of different products like Citroën cars, Apple Macs & Moulton bicycles, I'm now well used to the general public offering their unsolicited opinions...

[Pebble]

I like a bargain, so if its free I'm going to make the most of it. why don't you get a bike?

[a.twiddler]

The information is out there.... Getting the message across, well, that's something else.

While appreciating your interesting post, twiddler, it's exactly the challenge of the brief encounter that prompted me to ask!

Since you're not likely to have time to win hearts and minds during a brief encounter carried out through the open window of a moving car, or dish out leaflets, I'll stick to, "I'm subsidising YOU, you prat!" and hope I've got an escape route in case that response releases the inner troglodyte in the recipient. Otherwise, I'll just suck it up. Probably not a good idea to shout back at the sort of driver who shouts at cyclists, especially if he's got a carful of mates egging him on. In most circumstances, by the time you manage to say anything they'll probably be too far away to hear you, in any case.

Though since I'm generally on a recumbent anyway, by the time most drivers have processed what they're seeing, and thought of a witty remark, they're long gone, or I am.