Taxes & Tests Deterrents...

[townbikemark]

When cycling comes up in conversation with non-cyclists, sometimes they propose that cyclists should pay road tax, insurance and have to take lessons and tests before being allowed to use the roads, the same as the motorist.

I suspect this would be impractical for a number of reasons, but rather than spending time and effort searching deeply to come up with answers that they probably wouldn't take any notice of anyway, and going round and round in circles, my reply is that the government is trying to encourage cycling by building infrastructure and giving tax incentives (bike to work scheme and you can claim mileage) and taxes and tests would have the opposite effect, ergo highly unlikely.

Thoughts?

[fluffybunnyuk]

I think many cyclists pay tax, have insurance (of one kind or another),have taken cycling lessons ending with a proficiency test....

I would suggest subterfuge on car drivers. i.e. get them out and about on a bike to experience what its like...
A case in point is my Mum, shes in her 50s has never really ridden anywhere in her life, and lives in the middle of nowhere. She owns a car and drives everywhere even down to the local shop.

I got a bike fixed up for her, and took her out and about. I was surprised at the fear whenever a car trundled past at 20mph(2 cars in 1 mile!!!!), and the wobbling about in response to the car. I'll continue when I visit to encourage more bike riding together to build confidence.

The subterfuge comes in regards to now subconsciously shes probably a better driver and more aware of cyclists on the roads now instead of just blanking them out as before.

Sadly I feel the hope is with the young out there, and encouraging them to cycle. This in turn breeds more educated motorists, thus encouraging a sea change in opinion on cyclists. Whereas at the minute there are too many motorists whos only experience of being on a road is inside a car.

I'm not really sure I advanced any argument here but it was worth a go.

Emma

[irc]

Insurance - agree with them. 3rd party insurance for cyclists is so cheap the CTC gives it free with membership.So if the market was enlarged by making it a requirement it could be bought as a stand alnoe for maybe £15.

Road Tax - the same as other low CO2 vehicles - zero rate.


Lessons? No. What next walkers needing to pass a test tocross a road. Drivers are trained and tested to reduce danger and they still kill 2000 a year. Cyclists kill zero most years.

[meic]

You could just agree with them as it isnt going to happen, no matter what they decide should happen.

The other tact is to say "It is open to all, get on a bike and join in on the perks, ANYBODY can do it."
then "but I am afraid you dont get any discount on your existing car insurance, licence renewal or tax disc, so you actually end up paying anyway even if you do ride a bike".
Ask what happens to all the banned drivers, if you need a licence for a cycle?

[Pete Owens]

A good suggestion would be a level 3 bikeability certificate should be a pre-requisite when applying for a provisional driving licence.

[thirdcrank]

Since all they really mean is that cycling on roads should be banned, you are probably wasting your time engaging them in conversation. Beyond that, they are so sure that as drivers, they are somehow superior to mere cyclists, anything you say will be discounted anyway. That would still apply if you were the holder of a full driving licence with decades of driving experience.

PS Pete Owens' suggestion is certainly a gobstopper: I once used it to good effect on local radio, as well as mentioning that CTC membership included third party insurance.

[ArMoRothair]

Do you know I'm so fed up patiently explaining all the above points to a deaf audience, talking to a wall, that I've come around to thinking bring it on: VED at the appropriate rate (£0.00), mandatory insurance (say £15) a short test (a bit of a bureaucratic hassle, but no more onerous than the CBT I did as the first step to my motorbike licence).

Then: right, now I'm a fully fledged user of the road, let's have our road space, some roads in London have over 50% cycles on them, let's have 50% of the space please. Bring it on.




In the meanwhile I just patiently explain that as an owner of three vehicles I probably pay a great deal more VED than they do, I've also done far more tests than most.

[Pete Owens]

Then: right, now I'm a fully fledged user of the road, let's have our road space, some roads in London have over 50% cycles on them, let's have 50% of the space please. Bring it on.

Not such a great idea for those places where we are less than 5% of traffic though.

[snibgo]

Training and insurance may be good but if they were compulsory how would they be enforced? We would need registration plates and cycling licences (or a new category for bikes on ordinary driving licences). And what about kids and off-road?

I have a rule of thumb: anyone calling for compulsory training or anything else is actually anti-cycling, and that's the point that needs addressing.

[TonyR]

I just suggest that if they want to get cyclists like me off the road then think what would happen to congestion and availability of parking spaces if we all drove instead.

Had it with a taxi driver the other day who was complaining about having to follow about 10 cyclists down a narrow street. "Would you prefer they were in ten cars in front of you?" I asked. "You know, I'd never thought of it that way" he replied.

[MikeF]

"but I am afraid you dont get any discount on your existing car insurance, licence renewal or tax disc, so you actually end up paying anyway even if you do ride a bike".

But not fuel tax....... or parking fee - and for bikes that's one they haven't thought of ...yet

[MartinC]

A good suggestion would be a level 3 bikeability certificate should be a pre-requisite when applying for a provisional driving licence.

Yes, I always find this works. Whenever someone starts banging on about testing and licencing cyclists I always say "Yes, good idea, then we can make it a prerequisite for getting a driving licence" - they always then decide that it's not really needed after all.

[mjr]

When cycling comes up in conversation with non-cyclists, sometimes they propose that cyclists should pay road tax, insurance and have to take lessons and tests before being allowed to use the roads, the same as the motorist.

Easy: road tax ended in 1937 and most adult riders keep cars anyway so pay the same car tax even though it's rarely driven; bikes are so safe that insurance is included with most bike club memberships and many house insurances; and around 90% of riders have passed a driving test already - then go with Pete Owens's suggestion: lorry drivers have to pass a car test first, so why don't car drivers have to pass a bicycle test first?

[mjr]

But not fuel tax....... or parking fee - and for bikes that's one they haven't thought of ...yet

There are a few pay-to-park bike spaces, but they're often mismanaged and underused. (I'm thinking of bike lockers that were at some Great Western stations a few years ago.)

[meic]

lorry drivers have to pass a car test first

I dont know if they have changed the law recently but this wasnt the case in my day.

You could spot a HGV learner who didnt have the car test as they had two different sets of L plates on the vehicle. Sometimes it was a seventeen year old kid driving it, if it was dull green.