Wait, what?

[[DOD]Asprilla]

I do pay for their upkeep. Why do you think I don't? Do you want me to repeat the list if taxes again?

You can use the roads paying £0 VED, even with a car. No-one is stopping you.

 

[Tute]

Yes, but then you're not contributing to the roads you're on. Hence my problem with the system. As said before, i'm well aware that you can buy a car with £0 road tax but i'm saying it's hardly fair when these people still expect to use the roads too.

[Edit] Oh I see, you're citing the whole "ringfencing" thing. Well, I would like to challenge that with a question.

If the treasury suddenly only took in 50% of what it does in terms of "VED", do you think it would continue to maintain the roads to the current standard?

 

[[TW]Fox]

Yes, but then you're not contributing to the roads you're on.

So what? You are not contributing to the roads you are on when you pay £300 for VED either - it goes into general spending.

 

[[DOD]Asprilla]

Yes, but then you're not contributing to the roads you're on. Hence my problem with the system. As said before, i'm well aware that you can buy a car with £0 road tax but i'm saying it's hardly fair when these people still expect to use the roads too.

Paying council tax is the only way you can contribute directly to local roads. Part of this is ring fenced for road maintenance withing your local authority. Everything else comes from general taxation so all my other taxes (including the VAT paid on my bikes) contributes some percentage.

VED contributes £6.3bn to the national coffers. There is currently £28bn earmarked for roads in the transport budget. Cutting VED in half wouldn't have a massive impact.

 

[Theophany]

Yes, but then you're not contributing to the roads you're on. Hence my problem with the system. As said before, i'm well aware that you can buy a car with £0 road tax but i'm saying it's hardly fair when these people still expect to use the roads too.

I think you have a chronic misunderstanding of the issue.

The proceeds of VED are not ringfenced for the upkeep of highways, so the idea that paying nil rate VED is somehow unfair is a non-sequitur as it is entirely within the spirit of the tax. It is supposed to discourage you from buying more heavily polluting vehicles.

 

[Tute]

The whole road tax system is fundamentally broken and unfair. The sheer concept that emissions really matters in the grand scheme is unproven for starters. Then you can move onto how someone can pay nearly £500 to drive a car for 1000 miles and emit far less than someone in a £100 car who does fifty times as much.

However, I digress.

I'd like to know if you three really think that the revenue from road tax does not impact the upkeep and maintenance of the roads, ringfenced or not.

Missed this:

VED contributes £6.3bn to the national coffers. There is currently £28bn earmarked for roads in the transport budget. Cutting VED in half wouldn't have a massive impact.

Of course it would - road tax contributes almost a quarter. There is no way the government could afford to lose half of that. And what do you think would suffer?

 

[[DOD]Asprilla]

See my figures above. VED is a tiny contributor to the national budget.

Edit; just checked and the £28bn earmarked for roads I mentioned above is over and above regular council maintenance spending.

 

[Theophany]

The whole road tax system is fundamentally broken and unfair. The sheer concept that emissions really matters in the grand scheme is unproven for starters. Then you can move onto how someone can pay nearly £500 to drive a car for 1000 miles and emit far less than someone in a £100 car who does fifty times as much.

However, I digress.

I'd like to know if you three really think that the revenue from road tax does not impact the upkeep and maintenance of the roads, ringfenced or not.

It doesn't, it is the responsibility of your local council. If anything, council tax probably has a less tenuous link to the upkeep of roads.

Name any tax in the UK that is considered 'fair' by everybody. No matter what, somebody will always feel put out or hard done by.

 

[Draeger]

Pedestrians should not be wandering in the road.

So what do pedestrians do when they require to cross a road?. Like the chicken felt the need to do at one point?.

 

[Tute]

It doesn't, it is the responsibility of your local council. If anything, council tax probably has a less tenuous link to the upkeep of roads.

Even if you want to break this down to an absolute basic level, all money from road tax helps to the upkeep of the roads in the end, if you take this from the general spending pot. By not paying, cyclists contribute less to the road upkeep whichever way you look at it.

Name any tax in the UK that is considered 'fair' by everybody. No matter what, somebody will always feel put out or hard done by.

That doesn't really justify it though?

So what do pedestrians do when they require to cross a road?. Like the chicken felt the need to do at one point?.

They use a crossing?

 

[Draeger]

They use a crossing?

Absolutely. And in doing so they are walking over/using the road.

 

[arknor]

So what do pedestrians do when they require to cross a road?. Like the chicken felt the need to do at one point?.

pedestrians should pay road tax!
why should motorists pay for all the toucan and pelican crossings!

 

[Theophany]

Even if you want to break this down to an absolute basic level, all money from road tax helps to the upkeep of the roads in the end, if you take this from the general spending pot. By not paying, cyclists contribute less to the road upkeep whichever way you look at it.

That doesn't really justify it though?

So does any tax! The idea that VED somehow gives you more of a right to be on the roads than cyclists is toxic.

It may not justify it, but the point is that 'fairness' is normative and thus pointless to use as a criticism of tax as it's entirely subjective.

 

[[DOD]Asprilla]

Even if you want to break this down to an absolute basic level, all money from road tax helps to the upkeep of the roads in the end, if you take this from the general spending pot. By not paying, cyclists contribute less to the road upkeep whichever way you look at it.

Oh dear. How much do you pay in taxes each year? Shall we find out who contributes the least to the UK treasury and get them off the road?

It's worth noting that numbers of cars owned is above the national average in households where at least one member cycles recreationally regularly. This is mainly because recreational cycling is an expensive hobby and correlates to above average household incomes.

 

[Tute]

Absolutely. And in doing so they are walking over/using the road.

You cannot be serious? Pedestrians are required to use the pavement to move around. Cyclists are required to use the road to move around. There's the difference.

So does any tax! The idea that VED somehow gives you more of a right to be on the roads than cyclists is toxic.

It may not justify it, but the point is that 'fairness' is normative and thus pointless to use as a criticism of tax as it's entirely subjective.

Oh dear. How much do you pay in taxes each year? Shall we find out who contributes the least to the UK treasury and get them off the road?

It's worth noting that numbers of cars owned is above the national average in households where at least one member cycles recreationally regularly.

I feel i'm on a cusp of this turning into a character assassination (to be fair, i'm shocked it's got this far) so i'm just going to make some things clear.

1. I know the law and I treat cyclists like any other road user. Just because I don't think they contribute doesn't mean I go around running them over or hurling abuse.
2. The fairest way to do road tax would be to charge people based on the wear and tear they cause to said roads (based on what they drive, and how much they drive it), but such technology isn't feasible. However the current system can stand to be much improved.
3. I'm aware "fairness" is subjective but at the end of the day, if we all thought the same thing, discussions would be pretty naff.
4. Ringfenced or not, you should pay towards what you use. It all helps in the end - collecting a tenner a year from each cyclist would help wonders on cycle lanes and the like.

 

[PMKeates]

I guess that goes for all the drivers that jump red lights, if you want to tar all cyclists with the same brush then all drivers are guilty too

That theory doesn't work because very few car drivers will regularly and blatantly go through a red, yet a lot of cyclists do it very often. The proportions are totally different.

The 5 second scheme makes a lot of sense, as at least they can get in the lane of / head in the direction they are going before cars have to shift around or filter etc.

The idea of cyclists 'not contributing' (additionally forgetting that cyclists are people that do contribute) is a bit bizarre too, being as if we only had cyclists the roads would need virtually no maintenance.

 

[[DOD]Asprilla]

Tute, not sure where point 1 came from, I agree with 2 and 3, but with point 4 you are still drawing a direct relationship between VED and roads expenditure that simply doesn't exist. The only direct relationship is through council tax.

PMKeats; amber means stop as well and we are all prone to a bit of amber gambling and when I do that I can usually find a couple of cars go through behind me. Cyclist do jump stop signal a lot (I think the last TFL figures I saw were 17%, which is deplorable and needs to be targeted. However, they also counted 6% of motor vehicles jumping the lights and that was without taking ASLs into account.

 

[NathanE]

That junction in Cambridge can be a nightmare. So I can understand them wanting to do something for cyclists. It's a cycling friendly city after all. You shouldn't need to be seasoned pro cyclist just to navigate safely.

I pay VED on two cars totalling over £500 year so I will continue cycling. Not in the gutter of the road either. At least 1/3 out, to force cars behind to actually think when they overtake me.

Lot of bad blood between motorists and cyclists. Most of it is simply ignorance. Only those who actually do both can be objective about it.

 

[Burnsy2023]

You cannot be serious? Pedestrians are required to use the pavement to move around. Cyclists are required to use the road to move around. There's the difference.

The pavement is part of the road. I don't see any difference.

Anyway, you're whole argument boils down to this: tax is unfair. Yes it is, in many different ways. Get over it and move on with your life.

As for the actual topic in the OP. I don't have a problem with it tbh, but I think it's effectiveness remains to be seen.

 

[Kenai]

Only those who actually do both can be objective about it.

Rubbish, anyone who isn't an idiot is perfectly capable of being objective about it.