Scottish cyclists to pay road tax

Disco Boy · 13 Sep 2009 at 19:02

There's no such thing as road tax.

Cars with low CO2 emissions pay no road fund license, so cyclists having to pay road fund license is a ridiculous idea.

Sinque · 13 Sep 2009 at 19:03

Disco Boy said:
There's no such thing as road tax.

Cars with low CO2 emissions pay no road fund license, so cyclists having to pay road fund license is a ridiculous idea.

Then they should get off the roads.

shauncr91 · 13 Sep 2009 at 19:03

Disco Boy said:
There's no such thing as road tax.

Cars with low CO2 emissions pay no road fund license, so cyclists having to pay road fund license is a ridiculous idea.

Forward slash thread.

Sparky__H · 13 Sep 2009 at 19:11

It's an on-paper emissions tax.

Bicycles give off emissions now?

Disco Boy · 13 Sep 2009 at 19:13

Sparky__H said:
It's an on-paper emissions tax.

Bicycles give off emissions now?

*insert usual fart joke*

Burnsy2023 · 13 Sep 2009 at 19:13

I don't think they should be taxed, but I do think insurance and registration is a good idea.

greengiant · 13 Sep 2009 at 19:13

Sinque said:
Then they should get off the roads.

Who? The cyclists or the VED exempt cars?

SB118 · 13 Sep 2009 at 19:17

Disco Boy said:
Cars with low CO2 emissions pay no road fund license, so cyclists having to pay road fund license is a ridiculous idea.

But the cyclist pedaling is releasing a higher than normal amount of co2 due to the effort of pedaling.

Tax the hell out of them.

Disco Boy · 13 Sep 2009 at 19:18

SB118 said:
But the cyclist pedaling is releasing a higher than normal amount of co2 due to the effort of pedaling.

Tax the hell out of them.

Yeah, joggers, people who go to the gym, fat people, people who play sport, the lot of them! I've been waiting for years for an oxygen tax.

shauncr91 · 13 Sep 2009 at 19:18

Disco Boy said:
Yeah, joggers, people who go to the gym, fat people, people who play sport, the lot of them! I've been waiting for years for an oxygen tax.

Lol

Ross1234 · 13 Sep 2009 at 19:19

Its a proposed idea. It will probably never happen. (In before the anti scottish stuff)

Pho · 13 Sep 2009 at 19:22

Sparky__H said:
It's an on-paper emissions tax.

Bicycles give off emissions now?

By cycling you use up energy from the food you've ate, which means you eat more to replenish it. Food isn't carbon free in itself; transportation of lorries moving your food around, processing etc all add into its carbon figure.

Therefore cyclists are destroying the world (though arguably, not as much as cars)

.

Biohazard · 13 Sep 2009 at 19:27

Tax everything, tax the lot. Make a tax to open your front door in the morning, that'd be good.

Road cyclists should have a licence though, too many idiots.

shauncr91 · 13 Sep 2009 at 19:28

Biohazard said:
Road cyclists should have a licence though, too many idiots.

This, I agree with.

Delvis · 13 Sep 2009 at 19:29

Burnsy2023 said:
I don't think they should be taxed, but I do think insurance and registration is a good idea.

Erm, no.

Biohazard · 13 Sep 2009 at 19:29

shauncr91 said:
This, I agree with.

My main gripe is their road position, mainly at lights and junctions, or in general really.

DAnDan · 13 Sep 2009 at 19:31

Or cyclists that go down a road at 20 when there is a specially built cycle path just for them going alongside the road!

shauncr91 · 13 Sep 2009 at 19:31

Biohazard said:
My main gripe is their road position, mainly at lights and junctions, or in general really.

Yep. And those who have almost no ability to ride in a straight line, swerving in and out from the curb constantly.

Disco Boy · 13 Sep 2009 at 19:42

DAnDan said:
Or cyclists that go down a road at 20 when there is a specially built cycle path just for them going alongside the road!

If you had ever tried to cycle down a cycle path at 20 mph then you'd know that the road is a better choice. It is recommended (by a QUANGO), with good reason, that if you are a cyclist travelling quickly, to not use cycle paths. A source for that claim escapes me currently, but I will find one.

shauncr91 said:
Yep. And those who have almost no ability to ride in a straight line, swerving in and out from the curb constantly.

Generally they'll be avoiding potholes, grids etc. As you get more experienced at cycling on the road you'll plan ahead better and look behind sooner to make your intentions clear. It's often necessary to move out into the road to avoid potholes, which would you rather; a cyclist breaking a wheel, coming off and lying in the road, or a cyclist moving a foot to avoid a pothole?

Biohazard said:
My main gripe is their road position, mainly at lights and junctions, or in general really.

I don't know what you mean by position at junctions, but in general it is much safer for a cyclist to be 1m from the left hand curb than <1m for many reasons. There are fewer potholes here, so the cyclist isn't having to change his or her road position, so they are easier to overtake. Them being further out makes drivers unable to squeeze past when cars are coming the other way, so it is safer for the cyclist. Cars will generally give more room when overtaking when you are further out. If a problem arises, there is room for the cyclist to move to either side of them.

Following on from that subject is this:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6828100.ece

Which most cyclists will have noticed as soon as they used a cycle path which is part of a road. I certainly always cycle along the line at the edge of such paths.