Wait, what?

[NathanE]

Well then where does the money for cycle route projects and the like come from? Because it doesn't come out of thin air.

It comes from a pot - which is made up of money - collected from taxes - of which road tax (or VED, call it Fred if you like) is a contributor.

This is where you should be focusing your argument. It's not that cyclists should be paying for the existing roads. It's that, possibly or at least arguably, they should be paying towards specialist cycling improvements to the roads; such as the superhighways in London, and this signalling change in Cambridge.

Why don't you focus your argument on that angle?

 

[Skeeter]

But then if every cyclist paid road tax the liability on non-cyclists would be reduced.

So a tax on cyclists would mean VED would be reduced?

 

[Tute]

No, it'd just go towards reducing the budget deficit.

No, because the cycle route projects would go ahead with or without their contribution. At least with it, they contribute.

This is where you should be focusing your argument. It's not that cyclists should be paying for the existing roads. It's that, possibly or at least arguably, they should be paying towards specialist cycling improvements to the roads; such as the superhighways in London, and this signalling change in Cambridge.

Why don't you focus your argument on that angle?

Because it's the same thing. They pay £x into the pot each. The pot therefore is bigger, so the liability is reduced.

So a tax on cyclists would mean VED would be reduced?

Well no, when has VED ever been reduced? It would just be used in the central pot, as above.

 

[Skeeter]

Because it's the same thing. They pay £x into the pot each. The pot therefore is bigger, so the liability is reduced.

So your happy to fund a cycle path for someone who doesn't pay VED with your VED, but aren't happy for someone who doesn't pay VED to use your roads which you say are funded with your VED?

 

[Tute]

So your happy to fund a cycle path for someone who doesn't pay VED with your VED, but aren't happy for someone who doesn't pay VED to use your roads which you say are funded with your VED?

It may be because it's late, but I honestly cannot fathom that.

 

[Burnsy2023]

No, because the cycle route projects would go ahead with or without their contribution. At least with it, they contribute.

And like I already said, they do contribute already, just with taxes that don't have certain words in their title.

This is going around in circles.

 

[Skeeter]

It may be because it's late, but I honestly cannot fathom that.

Now you know how the rest of us feel...

 

[[DOD]Asprilla]

Well then where does the money for cycle route projects and the like come from? Because it doesn't come out of thin air..

It comes from down the back of the sofa. Spending on cycling infrastriucture has been given a one off boost of around £60m bringing the total cost to £1.20 per person.

I mentioned before that I pay around £800 a year in VED; any cyclists here who don't pay VED?

 

[arknor]

It comes from down the back of the sofa. Spending on cycling infrastriucture has been given a one off boost of around £60m bringing the total cost to £1.20 per person.

I mentioned before that I pay around £800 a year in VED; any cyclists here who don't pay VED?

I don't
Newcastle has a good metro system so I don't need a car.

but then again I pay taxes that go towards the NHS and I have only been to see my GP about 3x in 15years so they can take the money I didn't use in the NHS and redirect it to road tax to please the op

I probably spent about 10 years of my life smoking and never had any smoking related illness so I likely was a huge net contributor there too, I also have a good job so likely pay more tax than most motorists

but oh wait it's not road tax I'm paying !

BTW OP these stubborn arguments like this are usually done by people who are autistic (not saying it as an insult)
I use to do it a lot and people used to ask if I was autistic and I actually am.

I never realised how it looked from other peoples view point's and just carried on being the stubborn fool arguing a lost point to the death until everyone gave up like you are now

 

[Jono8]

I came in this thread to moan about the stupid 5 second head start idea but it appears everyone is arguing about VED again

 

[[TW]Fox]

Actually what they should do is charge cyslists £1 a year VED.

Then they can tell all the 'YOU DONT PAY ROAD TAX!!111111' crew to shut up.

 

[arknor]

Actually what they should do is charge cyslists £1 a year VED.

Then they can tell all the 'YOU DONT PAY ROAD TAX!!111111' crew to shut up.

Just include it in the price of the bike
have all bikes come with a mandatory roadtax sticker

 

[Howard]

I'm pretty sure a lot of cyclists also have cars, therefore they pay road t... VED anyway

 

[Tute]

I just want to know, are you all going to make me repeat myself until i'm blue in the face all day today?

I really don't think I can be bothered.

 

[Kenai]

If your viewpoint is going to continue to fly in the face of all logic then yes, I suspect that's going to be the case

 

[Tute]

All your opinion. I think I've made my point absolutely clear and I don't see what else I can do.

Either way, it's taken the thread wildly off topic and some people have started with the snipey remarks so I do think it's time to leave it there - especially as, boring as it sounds, Burnsy is right regarding how the law isn't going to ever do such a thing.

 

[Kenai]

You have made it perfectly clear, it's just that no one else thinks it makes any sense at all so they repeatedly tried to explain why as you continued to state the same point over and over

 

[Gribs]

I mentioned before that I pay around £800 a year in VED; any cyclists here who don't pay VED?

All of my friends who are cyclists have cars. In fact they all seem to drive more powerful cars than those who aren't so probably pay more VED.