Nah, they will just up the tax on electricity.
Stupid Cyclist
- Thread starter support_bae
- Start date
Nah, they will just up the tax on electricity.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 May 2007
- Posts
- 9,214
- Location
- Surrey
In that case, nope I don't, sometimes I'm past it, sometimes I sit in the bicycle bit (my tax disc says bicycle on it). The question now is, shall I rise to the bait?
Well maybe I misunderstood you, but it looked like more cyclist hate.
But I think the argument is valid.
As a car owner who is paying VED and who owns and uses a bicycle along with accessories and keeping it in condition, you will most likely contribute more to the funding of the roads than many motorists do. So when some neanderthal shouts at you for not paying 'road tax', pointing out that you own a car should make them realize what an idiot they've just been.
When you have road bikes that can comfortably go 25mph+ I don't think putting them on pavements with pedestrians is a good idea. Car drivers just need to remember that the roads aren't just for them.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 16,024
- Location
- 9th Inner Circle
You mean like they are legally allowed to do so according to the Highway Code?
Well done big man.
In that case, nope I don't, sometimes I'm past it, sometimes I sit in the bicycle bit (my tax disc says bicycle on it). The question now is, shall I rise to the bait?
It doesn't matter if your tax disc says 'Bicycle' as it presumably says 'motor' in front of that.
The ASL is most often connected to a cycle lane which is painted green or blue and as such motor cycles aren't allowed in either. The picture on them also resembles that of a bicycle and not a motor bicycle.
Plenty of motorcyclists will use them.
Are they allowed to... no, it's deemed by law as having jumped the red light.
Will they be punished for it... probably not unless the Police are doing the occasional rounds to catch people who do.
Oh and here's the official line from the The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions act which came in to force on 31st January 2003:
"Where a cycle reservoir has been marked out at traffic signals at a junction, all vehicles MUST stop at the first stop line reached unless the signal is green, or the vehicle cannot be safely stopped for an amber signal. Pedal cycles may use the approach cycle lane to enter the reservoir without crossing a stop line. Motorcycles MUST NOT use the approach cycle lane to enter the reservoir while a red signal is showing even if the cycle lane is an advisory one rather than a mandatory one."
"Where a cycle reservoir has been marked out at traffic signals at a junction, all vehicles MUST stop at the first stop line reached unless the signal is green, or the vehicle cannot be safely stopped for an amber signal. Pedal cycles may use the approach cycle lane to enter the reservoir without crossing a stop line. Motorcycles MUST NOT use the approach cycle lane to enter the reservoir while a red signal is showing even if the cycle lane is an advisory one rather than a mandatory one."
Considering I used to cycle to work myself, still do the odd bit of mountain biking and know quite a few keen cyclists and the owner of a cycle shop then no, not really. I think it was more "He does not agree with me about cyclists! He must be the devil!".
I don't think it is at all.
Well, no, because the cycle and accessories do not contribute in any way to the funding of the roads. VED more than pays for the funding of the roads. Having one vehicle for which you pay VED does also not exclude you from having to pay VED on other eligible vehicles. Otherwise I would say money on my bike VED each year.
No it doesn't. Just says "Bicycle".
Well it's still a motorized vehicle isn't it, and not a pedal cycle, so by law it's still not a vehicle that's allowed to use the ASL which specifically states that motorcyclists aren't allowed to use them.
So we shall completely ignore the history around VED and road funding and play the "I pay more VAT than you game." instead.
The bike has an engine...
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 14,034
- Location
- Surrey, by the river
Erm, not even close.
The total revenue raised from VED in 2007/08 was £5.4bn:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmtran/103/10306.htm
Total expenditure on roads 2007/08 was £9.348bn:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmtran/103/10305.htm
Neither is VED ring fenced for roads, but is put into general coffers along with income tax and VAT (including that generated from buying bikes).
Road tax as a direct contributor to road building and maintenance was abolished in 1936 at Winston Churchill's suggestion in order to disabuse motor vehicle users of any impression that they had more right to use the road than any other user. Churchill's words, not mine.
Last edited:
Other vehicles using the ASL also just causes a knock on effect.
For example see here:
The cyclists will be filtering up the cycle lane on the left hand side to get to the ASL. Then when they can't get there, they have to move infront of the Taxi. This pushes them into the pedestrian zone; if you've got a lot of cyclists such as in London, this is not exactly ideal.
For example see here:
The cyclists will be filtering up the cycle lane on the left hand side to get to the ASL. Then when they can't get there, they have to move infront of the Taxi. This pushes them into the pedestrian zone; if you've got a lot of cyclists such as in London, this is not exactly ideal.
So we shall completely ignore the history around VED and road funding and play the "I pay more VAT than you game." instead.
The bike has an engine...
Right... I thought as a bicycle shop owner you were referring to a pedal cycle.
Now though I'm not even sure what kind of shop it is you own.
Associate
- Joined
- 23 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 1,195
VED has nothing to do with road maintenance, the hypothecation ended in 1937. VED contributes to general taxation and road maintenance etc is paid from general govt monies. Welcome to the 21st century.
In fact, seeing as our household contributes more than the national average in income tax (and so probably VAT etc too), I pay more for the roads than most car drivers (including 2 VED bills). Perhaps, when I'm on my bike, all those nasty drivers should get the hell of the roads that *I* pay for.
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Aug 2006
- Posts
- 11,431
- Location
- Derbyshire
When you post back saying a car knocked you down because you and your cycling chum got knocked down when riding side by side, I shall post that I told you so.
A cyclist must act responsibly, you have absolutely zero protection!
While the driver ends up in a court of law for dangerous driving for having knocked somebody off.
Cyclists riding two abreast is no different to a motorist passing a tractor, caravan, HGV, old person driving slow. If you don't leave correct room and injure somebody then you've put yourself into a whole world of trouble for your misjudgment.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 4,936
- Location
- Manchester.
There are bad drivers and there are bad cyclists, however at the end of the day the car driver wont be the one dying or getting hurt.
Until we have better cycle lanes and stuff it is the way it is so move out of the way or end up dead.
As a car driver I do my best to give them room but **** happens.
Until we have better cycle lanes and stuff it is the way it is so move out of the way or end up dead.
As a car driver I do my best to give them room but **** happens.