FAO Town Hall Cyclist

[yellowperil 10]

Calling it road tax instead of VED reinforces that sense of entitlement. That's why people keep correcting those who use road tax - it's to try and dispel that particular myth.

 

I Disagree, what reinforces is the fact that if you dont pay then you cant use the road legally if you own a motor vehicle, what people call it isnt really an issue.

We all know what is meant when its called roadtax, only a certain kind of person states the obvious.

[adamf 10]

Sorry, but that opinion makes me think that you're either stupid or anti cyclist.

 

Anti-cyclist is a specific kind of stupid.

[Blackbeard 10]

Yes of course they should. And the argument that many of them are also motorists and already pay VED on their car dosnt wash. I own two motors , but i cannot use one of them on the roads without VED just because i pay VED on my other vehicle.

 

I am a cyclist, without the Lycra, and also a VED paying car owner it cost me nothing for both because my car is in Band A and so is my cycle.

[Eater Sundae 12]

What else did you expect from a two wheeled , lycra clad lunatic ? They are all the same , they think the laws of the road dont apply to them.

 

---------- Post added 05-06-2014 at 15:36 ----------

 

 

Yes of course they should. And the argument that many of them are also motorists and already pay VED on their car dosnt wash. I own two motors , but i cannot use one of them on the roads without VED just because i pay VED on my other vehicle.

 

You pay VED on your motor based on its ability to pollute. You may only use one motor at a time, but there's nothing stopping the other one being used by someone else. If you didn't pay VED for a second people, people would use this as a way of getting out of paying the duty. A fairer way may be to add the cost to fuel duty instead, then at least the payment for being allowed to pollute would be directly proportional to the level of pollution caused.

 

But back to cycles. What rate should the VED be set at for cycles? More or less than for a car producing, say 95 g/km of CO2? As such a car pays £0 in VED, then it follows that a cyclist, producing much less CO2 should pay even less. This is sounding better by the minute - the government should pay the cyclist for not using a polluting car. I like it.

 

The only worry is...

 

...how much CO2 is released when making lycra?

[adamf 10]

I Disagree, what reinforces is the fact that if you dont pay then you cant use the road legally if you own a motor vehicle, what people call it isnt really an issue.

 

What if it's a Band A (£0 VED) car?

[altus 533]

I Disagree, what reinforces is the fact that if you dont pay then you cant use the road legally if you own a motor vehicle, what people call it isnt really an issue.

We all know what is meant when its called roadtax, only a certain kind of person states the obvious.

 

But you have to pay it for each eligible vehicle. If it was a tax to use the roads you'd only have to pay it once and there wouldn't be zero rated cars.

Edited June 5, 2014 by altus

[Cyclone 10]

Anti-cyclist is a specific kind of stupid.

 

A specific subset

 

---------- Post added 05-06-2014 at 15:58 ----------

 

If you want to use the road then expect to follow the rules of it with no special dispensation.

 

Perhaps I'm being unfair, can you clarify what you mean yellowperil? I originally thought you meant that the counter direction cycle lane shouldn't exist, but you can't mean that all vehicles should follow the same rules can you?

 

Afterall, car drivers get special dispensation to go faster than HGV's, to go into areas where HGVs aren't allowed and so on... They get special dispensation to go on motorways where smaller engined vehicles (and other road users) aren't allowed... You wouldn't want car drivers to lose all these special dispensations would you?

[Guest]

There are "cyclists" and there are people on bikes. There is a difference. There are those with helmet, gloves, high vis garment, back pack on, and riding with a purpose, probably to/from work on a decent bike, and then are the casually dressed people on any old bike that are just popping to the shops for a pack of fags. Cyclists are the former, people on bikes are the latter, and because of the danger that cyclists pose to pedestrians and motorists is so negligible, cycling remains, thankfully, an informal, unregulated form of transport; it is a rare example of the prevailment of common sense.

Edited June 5, 2014 by Guest

[yellowperil 10]

What if it's a Band A (£0 VED) car?

 

Then theres nothing to pay anyway!!!

Trying to make me look stupid by acting stupid yourself is a risky strategy but dont let that deter you, youre doing a great job.

 

---------- Post added 05-06-2014 at 16:07 ----------

 

But you have to pay it for each eligible vehicle. If it was a tax to use the roads you'd only have to pay it once and there wouldn't be zero rated cars.

 

Youve not read the whole thread have you?

I said i wasnt for or against, just pointing out what people meant when they called it road tax.

Hypothetically though the road tax ( if it existed!)

Would be for that particular vehicle to use the roads,not a blanket charge for every vehicle you own, the government wouldnt miss a trick like that.

[altus 533]

Then theres nothing to pay anyway!!!

Trying to make me look stupid by acting stupid yourself is a risky strategy but dont let that deter you, youre doing a great job.

 

But accessing cyclists by the same criteria used to decide a car is band A would result in the cyclist also being in band A. Why go to the effort and cost of administration when you are not going to charge people anything?

[yellowperil 10]

A specific subset

 

---------- Post added 05-06-2014 at 15:58 ----------

 

 

Perhaps I'm being unfair, can you clarify what you mean yellowperil? I originally thought you meant that the counter direction cycle lane shouldn't exist, but you can't mean that all vehicles should follow the same rules can you?

 

Afterall, car drivers get special dispensation to go faster than HGV's, to go into areas where HGVs aren't allowed and so on... They get special dispensation to go on motorways where smaller engined vehicles (and other road users) aren't allowed... You wouldn't want car drivers to lose all these special dispensations would you?

 

A great answer, shows you have time to think while youre maybe not concentrating on the pedestrians! ;-)

 

If a one way street is a one way street then it should be for all vehicles, then the ops observed incident would not have occured would it and upset that poor cyclist.

The rules in place for hgv vs car or motorcycle are there because of the limitations of the vehicle.

 

---------- Post added 05-06-2014 at 16:15 ----------

 

But accessing cyclists by the same criteria used to decide a car is band A would result in the cyclist also being in band A. Why go to the effort and cost of administration when you are not going to charge people anything?

 

I assume you mean assesing?

I didnt express an opinion that they should be banded by the way! Youre arguing with the wrong person.

[altus 533]

A great answer, shows you have time to think while youre maybe not concentrating on the pedestrians! ;-)

 

If a one way street is a one way street then it should be for all vehicles, then the ops observed incident would not have occured would it and upset that poor cyclist.

The rules in place for hgv vs car or motorcycle are there because of the limitations of the vehicle.

 

The rules for cyclists, e.g. you're not allowed on motorways, you are allowed to use contraflow cycle lanes, etc., are there because of the limitations of the vehicle.

 

I assume you mean assesing?

I didnt express an opinion that they should be banded by the way! Youre arguing with the wrong person.

 

Yes and looking back at it you're not - your reply to adamf's post gave me the impression you were.