Scottish cyclists to pay road tax

If cyclists need tax and insurance then so do pedestrians, horse riders and any other road user that has the right to use the road.

Given how we need to reduce emissions and CO2 you'd think Governments would be going out of their way to encourage cycling. You know like continental Europe?
 
What next walking tax?

Are Governments really this stupid? Taxing something that makes people healthier, reduces congestion and reduces strain on public transport.

Seems the Government is pretty annoyed that people have found a way around petrol tax and road tax.

Even if they claim the money is to support the cycle infrastructure I cannot support this, because as mentioned before cycle lanes are more often than not, useless. And you can't do 20mph+ on a cycle lane that is on the pavement.

I think the damage caused by cyclists is lower than that caused by pedestrians scraping cars. Often motorists don't stop when they hit a cyclist, and this is potentially life-threatening.

I hate this country.
 
Its not as if motorbikes get the same reduced rates as low emission cars so why should non-motor-bikes?

Though it would be better if they stuck with what they claim they are trying to do and support and subsidise low emission transport (bicycles, motorbikes, low emission cars)
 
Basher said:
They being cyclists? Yes, me.
Click to expand...

I mean, did anyone say that they didn't allow cars to overtake in a safe fashion, on this thread?

The way I read it willhub was saying he has the right to use the road and therefore he doesn't have to be subserviant to cars. There is a difference between being considerate and diferring to other road users at all times.

TheCrow said:
Its not as if motorbikes get the same reduced rates as low emission cars so why should non-motor-bikes?
Click to expand...

Motorbike tax is based on engine size, I didn't realise that. They should be consistent and base it on emissions as well.
 
Last edited:
(I've mixed a couple of your posts up as answers are pertinent to both):)

RDM said:
Indeed I wasn't being serious, the weight issue is a complete red herring, it may well have been the original purpose for road tax (i.e. repairing the damage done by wear and tear) but it has long since stopped being about that and is in effect taxation for using the road. If it is taxation for using the road why should certain groups be exempt? If you feel that they should be exempt give arguments for that rather than going on about wear and tear on the roads.
Click to expand...

Semi pro pretty much got my argument spot on so i'm not going to reply about that, however the taxation now is about emissions as far s I can work out, so "green" cars pay nothing, small cars pay less than big gas guzzlers and lorries pay far more than cars. In that case there is no way a bike should pay tax when a hybrid (which still exhausts lots more CO2) doesn't pay anything. The argument about wear and tear was actually brought up by someone as a reason for taxation, hense the replies stating it's stupid.

RDM said:
However the argument I was responding to was the legal right to ride two abreast. I am struggling to see when it would put a rider at greater risk not to ride two abreast. While you may well have the legal right to do it, it is not always going to be showing consideration to other road users if you do.
Click to expand...

RDM said:
Technically by riding two abreast you are actually giving yourself less space than if you where riding solo. Was certainly the case when I was cycling and tends to be the case when I sometimes do it with my motorbike and a mate.
Click to expand...

Because you take up more road presence (and hence are easier to see), but you also have space to get out of the way, the cyclist in the middle of the oad can either go forwards and tuck in front of the other, or slow down and tuck behind WHEN it is safe for them. It stops cars haring past a cyclist who is on the curb already, almost clanging them with the wing mirror as the car goes past. Why do motorcyclists stick as close to the central white line as possible? For road presence, that's exactly why cyclists cycling abreast do it. When cycling down residential streets where I can go close to the speed limit I hug the central line too, but I don't do it on faster roads/uphill as I know i'll impede traffic flow, so instead stick to a metre from the curb. Most cyclists would cycle in the middle of the road if they didn't impede other road users.

RDM said:
Again, no issues with this, however we have cyclists in this thread saying they have the right to ride two abreast so tough luck. Yet they still want additional consideration from other road users. Seems to me to be a bit of a double standard going on here.
Click to expand...

They, like me, are replying to car drivers moaning about the occasional riding abreast. Most, again like me, probably don't ride abreast very often (in fact I can't remember the last time I did this on a road, or saw it), so although we are saying "tough luck" it doesn't mean we do it all the time, mostly out of consideration for other road users, however if we want to we are perfectly within our rights to do so!

I have only ever seen one cyclist damage a car, I was in a tesco car park cycling just beind my sister to the exit when a woman pulled out at a junction and ran straight into my sister almost breaking her ankle. There was a grim satisfaction however when we heard the *scraaapppeee* of her pedal against the car door as it went past, even more so whenwe saw some paint on her pedal. Guess what, the car driver didn't even slow down... ;)


willhub said:
I guess you are pretty inconsiderate to other road users then when you're talking to someone in the passenger seats of your car......
Click to expand...

These are probably the same people that have their stereo on full blast yet moan at cyclists who ride with headphones in.:p
 
Last edited:
Amp34 said:
(I've mixed a couple of your posts up as answers are pertinent to both):)
Click to expand...

While missing out the post where I agreed that taxing cyclists would probably never be workable it seems....

Amp34 said:
Semi pro pretty much got my argument spot on so i'm not going to reply about that, however the taxation now is about emissions as far s I can work out, so "green" cars pay nothing, small cars pay less than big gas guzzlers and lorries pay far more than cars. In that case there is no way a bike should pay tax when a hybrid (which still exhausts lots more CO2) doesn't pay anything. The argument about wear and tear was actually brought up by someone as a reason for taxation, hense the replies stating it's stupid.
Click to expand...

The taxation is about raising money and not a lot else. If it was all about emissions then it would be on fuel rather than road tax. And the issue of wear was first mentioned by a cyclist in this particular iteration of the argument.


Amp34 said:
I have only ever seen one cyclist damage a car, I was in a tesco car park cycling just beind my sister to the exit when a woman pulled out at a junction and ran straight into my sister almost breaking her ankle. There was a grim satisfaction however when we heard the *scraaapppeee* of her pedal against the car door as it went past, even more so whenwe saw some paint on her pedal. Guess what, the car driver didn't even slow down... ;)
Click to expand...

Then the cyclist that scraped the side of my wife's car while filtering through heavy traffic must have been an illusion...

Amp34 said:
These are probably the same people that have their stereo on full blast yet moan at cyclists who ride with headphones in.:p
Click to expand...

I am still wondering how a motorist talking to a passenger takes up more room than a motorist not talking to a passenger as this was the rather stupid point he actually addressed.
 
Compulsory road training for cyclists is a great idea like a CBT but on pedals
I remember doing it as a kid. I got a nice badge and a certificate haha

insurance would be a good idea, cover the costs of scrapes and stuff on cars should it happen. Small costs though nothing major or silly.

Just teaching people a bit of respect on both sides cars, and 2 wheels (1 if its a unicycle)

I hate all these motorist vs cyclists retarded arguments - we should be doing as much as possible to get people out of cars and onto alternative transport, not taxing them
 
RDM said:
While missing out the post where I agreed that taxing cyclists would probably never be workable it seems.....
Click to expand...

That was on this page was it not? I didn't read this page before quoting what I did. If not then I missed it as I can't remember reading about it, it wasn't intentional.:)

(yeah I know pages can differ depending on how many posts per page you have it on).:p



RDM said:
The taxation is about raising money and not a lot else. If it was all about emissions then it would be on fuel rather than road tax. And the issue of wear was first mentioned by a cyclist in this particular iteration of the argument.

Maybe, but at the moment emissions are used for both Cars and lorries. I didn't realise it wasn't used on motorbikes, however generally a larger engine will produce more CO2. As a lot of larger engined bikes have similar mpg to the average car (and so probably similar CO2 emissions) I assume there is some kind of road damage variable in there too (may also explain why lorry tax is far more than it should be for CO2 alone). As for who mentioned it first I read it first by an anti-cyclist on one of the first few pages, which is why I said it was a car driver that started it.




RDM said:
Then the cyclist that scraped the side of my wife's car while filtering through heavy traffic must have been an illusion....
Click to expand...

I'm not saying there aren't any out there, that would be stupid, as there will always be, however I was just pointing out it's no where near as prevelent as people are saying in this thread...



RDM said:
I am still wondering how a motorist talking to a passenger takes up more room than a motorist not talking to a passenger as this was the rather stupid point he actually addressed.
Click to expand...

I don't think it was anything to do with space, it was about consideration and concentration...
Click to expand...
 
Efour2 said:
Compulsory road training for cyclists is a great idea like a CBT but on pedals
I remember doing it as a kid. I got a nice badge and a certificate haha

insurance would be a good idea, cover the costs of scrapes and stuff on cars should it happen. Small costs though nothing major or silly.

Just teaching people a bit of respect on both sides cars, and 2 wheels (1 if its a unicycle)

I hate all these motorist vs cyclists retarded arguments - we should be doing as much as possible to get people out of cars and onto alternative transport, not taxing them
Click to expand...

I do (reasonably seriously) think that people should be forced to ride on the road for a month or two (or a certain mileage) before they take their driving test. There are way too many people in cars that don't see cyclists or just plain don't know how to deal with them or how dangerous it actually is on a bike on the road, and why some cycle like they do (within the rules).

(Yes I know there are "lots" of car drivers in this thread that used to cycle...)
 
Efour2 said:
Compulsory road training for cyclists is a great idea like a CBT but on pedals
I remember doing it as a kid. I got a nice badge and a certificate haha

insurance would be a good idea, cover the costs of scrapes and stuff on cars should it happen. Small costs though nothing major or silly.
Click to expand...


It makes sense, but then again, like myself I believe a lot of other people did cycling proficiency in school. Then if you also drive, you will have past a highway code theory test.

This still won't stop people jumping red lights and the like because they are in such a rush to get somewhere.

As for the CBT, well like I said earlier, I've seen so many foreign (I don't want to come off as racist, but its just how it is) scooter/pizza biker/courier motorcyclists that have L plates on, yet drive like idiots and clearly don't have a CBT. There aren't enough traffic police on the roads to enforce things like this, especially in built up cities, so quite how they are going to be able to enforce that on cyclists is beyond me.
 
Amp34 said:
I don't think it was anything to do with space, it was about consideration and concentration...
Click to expand...

I don't know I seemed to master the skill of talking and driving at the same time, I hadn't realised it was so rare...

Amp34 said:
I do (reasonably seriously) think that people should be forced to ride on the road for a month or two (or a certain mileage) before they take their driving test.
Click to expand...

Yes because the world needs a whole bunch of new cyclists with little road sense trying to do a certain milage before their test... And you think taxing cyclists is a bad idea?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom