Cyclist should pay Road Tax

[gimp27 10]

There are plenty of other ways of keeping fit anyway, not cycling doesn't mean someone isn't fit.

 

---------- Post added 05-10-2014 at 21:22 ----------

 

 

Too many of both, but tarring everyone with the same brush doesn't help.

 

Minority/too many of both??? In my mind, and im no expert, but the amount of people cycling/driving has increased since we were younger (no offence meant) but the sheer amount of both does push the probability of danger AND the amount of sillyness up four-fold. This increase is a problem, and whilst I feel every inch of empathy for cyclists, the sheer bloddy mindedness of both parties is clear, even with just the amount of discussion on this forum. Thirty years ago, we may not have noticed a cyclist bobbing through a red light or up a pavement, likewise road rage from a motorist, but today it is widespread, and talking about it and tarring groups does help, if it raises awareness of a problem that is not one sided.

 

---------- Post added 05-10-2014 at 21:48 ----------

 

The final word http://ipayroadtax.com/

 

Vehicle Excise Duty is a pollution tax. It doesn't pay for road maintenance; that is paid for through general taxation, so if you pay income tax or corporation tax or inheritance tax or capital gains tax you pay for road maintenance, regardless of what you do on roads. And that's it.

 

That will only help when all cars are VED free Bob, as a lot of people have to pay a lot of tax on their cars to use them on public roads.

[Bonzo77 13]

That will only help when all cars are VED free Bob, as a lot of people have to pay a lot of tax on their cars to use them on public roads.

 

But it does answer the question of why cyclists shouldn't pay 'road tax'.

[gimp27 10]

But it does answer the question of why cyclists shouldn't pay 'road tax'.

 

Very true Bonzo. That is why it should be abolished, and as cars get more modern, this should happen. However, until that days comes, many many VED payers will feel disgruntled about one rule for one etc.

[DYKWIA 10]

Minority/too many of both??? In my mind, and im no expert, but the amount of people cycling/driving has increased since we were younger (no offence meant) but the sheer amount of both does push the probability of danger AND the amount of sillyness up four-fold. This increase is a problem, and whilst I feel every inch of empathy for cyclists, the sheer bloddy mindedness of both parties is clear, even with just the amount of discussion on this forum. Thirty years ago, we may not have noticed a cyclist bobbing through a red light or up a pavement, likewise road rage from a motorist, but today it is widespread, and talking about it and tarring groups does help, if it raises awareness of a problem that is not one sided.

 

---------- Post added 05-10-2014 at 21:48 ----------

 

 

That will only help when all cars are VED free Bob, as a lot of people have to pay a lot of tax on their cars to use them on public roads.

 

It will only help the idiots that think I pay VED VED pays for the roads, so im more entitled to use the road than someone who doesn't pay any.

[RootsBooster 24]

Very true Bonzo. That is why it should be abolished, and as cars get more modern, this should happen. However, until that days comes, many many VED payers will feel disgruntled about one rule for one etc.

 

It's not one rule for one, it's the same rule for everyone:

The lower the emissions, the less you pay.

The higher the emissions, the more you pay.

[Bonzo77 13]

It's not one rule for one, it's the same rule for everyone:

The lower the emissions, the less you pay.

The higher the emissions, the more you pay.

 

Doesn't seem that hard to understand, does it?!

[RootsBooster 24]

Doesn't seem that hard to understand, does it?!

 

I was expecting someone to say "well that's 2 rules!"

(it's actually the same rule worded two different ways, because there's obviously some people who really just don't get it)

[Cyclone 10]

Very true Bonzo. That is why it should be abolished, and as cars get more modern, this should happen. However, until that days comes, many many VED payers will feel disgruntled about one rule for one etc.

 

Suppose cars became as efficient as bikes (impossible I know), so VED was no longer based on emissions. We could base it on the amount of congestion caused... So bikes would still be free. Or we could base it on the wear and tear generated by the vehicle to the road, so bikes would still be free... Is there anything sensible it could be based on, that makes sense from a societal point of view and that doesn't result in bikes being free?

 

Ultimately, if more people cycled, the roads would be less congested and the remaining car drivers would be happier, it's in their interests to make cycling as attractive as possible.

[PRESLEY 1,231]

Suppose cars became as efficient as bikes (impossible I know), so VED was no longer based on emissions. We could base it on the amount of congestion caused... So bikes would still be free. Or we could base it on the wear and tear generated by the vehicle to the road, so bikes would still be free... Is there anything sensible it could be based on, that makes sense from a societal point of view and that doesn't result in bikes being free?

 

Ultimately, if more people cycled, the roads would be less congested and the remaining car drivers would be happier, it's in their interests to make cycling as attractive as possible.

 

Cyclist use the roads so they should crontribute to the up keep, ie work carried out and cycle lanes put in place for them, put your hands in your pockets.

[JFKvsNixon 11]

Cyclist use the roads so they should crontribute to the up keep, ie work carried out and cycle lanes put in place for them, put your hands in your pockets.

 

The roads upkeep comes out of general taxation, so cyclist do put their hands into their pockets!

[PRESLEY 1,231]

The roads upkeep comes out of general taxation, so cyclist do put their hands into their pockets!

 

So motorist are paying twice.

[Cyclone 10]

Cyclist use the roads so they should crontribute to the up keep, ie work carried out and cycle lanes put in place for them, put your hands in your pockets.

 

Cyclists pay more tax than the average person... And 85% of cyclists are of course motorists and are paying VED (unless they have a zero rated very efficient car).

 

If you manage to drive cyclists off the road, they will simply get the cars out that they own and you will have to sit in traffic for a little while longer (and the road will be used a little more heavily and need a little more money spending on it). You don't realise or don't care that cyclists make the road better for you.

 

---------- Post added 06-10-2014 at 08:49 ----------

 

So motorist are paying twice.

 

No. Once you get it through your head that VED is not a hypothecated tax to fund the roads, then you'll understand.