Wait, what?

[Tute]

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.

Point 1 is just because I read through it again and i'm worried i'm coming across as someone who hates cyclists, which is untrue. I have no problem with decent, competent cyclists who obey the rules of the road. The ones that jump lights I picture disappearing under my wheels further up the road.

But i'm still in the camp that says they should be paying road tax to be there - it's still a contribution to the road upkeep.

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

I uh... what?

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.

Well gee Burnsy, thanks for clearing that up. And here was me thinking that discussing it on a forum for discussions would result in the law being changed.

 

[Burnsy2023]

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

Or anyone who is remotely considerate will also be capable of understanding different road users have different needs.

 

[Burnsy2023]

Well gee Burnsy, thanks for clearing that up. And here was me thinking that discussing it on a forum for discussions would result in the law being changed.

It's ok, you're naive I get that, but the tax regime is used to support to punish behaviour that the government want to promote to discourage. If you don't believe in the politics of the government who implement a policy it will never been seen as fair to you.

 

[PMKeates]

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.

There is a difference between the way in which motor vehicles and cyclists will do it - a motor vehicle is far more likely to have tried to sneak through and just been caught with a red, yet a cyclist is likely to have completely ignored it and gone right through a blatant red. I can barely recall seeing a car going through a clear red in recent times, yet saw more than one cyclist doing just that this morning.

It's ok, you're naive I get that, but the tax regime is used to support to punish behaviour that the government want to promote to discourage. If you don't believe in the politics of the government who implement a policy it will never been seen as fair to you.

Is debating that premise and challenging the government not a perfectly reasonable thing to do?

 

[Theophany]

There is a difference between the way in which motor vehicles and cyclists will do it - a motor vehicle is far more likely to have tried to sneak through and just been caught with a red, yet a cyclist is likely to have completely ignored it and gone right through a blatant red. I can barely recall seeing a car going through a clear red in recent times, yet saw more than one cyclist doing just that this morning.

This happens all the time in central London. To the point where you can be half way across the road at red lights and suddenly have to dodge an oncoming cyclist that has ignored them. I had one barrel into me last year on Jermyn Street. :/

 

[arknor]

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.

yea because what we need is more cycle lanes down the gutter where it's **** to ride
motorists park in them anyway even if they are solid lines.
they are a waste of time and seem to be designed by people who have never ridden a bike

and cyclists don't cause any wear and tear at all most bikes are well under 15kg and a lot of bikes weigh half that

why should we pay for roads to be stuck in the gutter on a crap surface cars have wrecked? If im paying a tax for cycling I want proper cycling lanes that aren't part of roads

 

[Draeger]

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.

What happens when a pedestrian needs to cross the road though?. Placing one foot in front of the other on a tarmac road has some degree of impact on the road surface and therefore if a pedestrian is going to do so and 'use' the road to cross then he/she should be liable for its upkeep/maintenance via some form of tax surely, following on from your train of thought?. In a similar manner to a cyclist impacting on the road while he/she pedals along it causing untold wear and tear on the road surface through their 700x23 tyres?.

 

[Tute]

yea because what we need is more cycle lanes down the gutter where it's **** to ride
motorists park in them anyway even if they are solid lines.


they are a waste of time and seem to be designed by people who have never ridden a bike

Okay, I agree but you should be complaining to your MP or council to sort those things out.

I mean if I paid road tax based on how good I thought the roads were, I probably would struggle to justify a quarter of what I currently pay.

What happens when a pedestrian needs to cross the road though?. Placing one foot in front of the other on a tarmac road has some degree of impact on the road surface and therefore if a pedestrian is going to do so and 'use' the road to cross then he/she should be liable for its upkeep/maintenance via some form of tax surely, following on from your train of thought?. In a similar manner to a cyclist impacting on the road while he/she pedals along it causing untold wear and tear on the road surface through their 700x23 tyres?.

Surely when a crossing reads for the people to cross it is no longer a road, and is instead a path for people, i.e a pavement.

 

[Nevakonaza]

cyclists already have a head start by virtue of ignoring the red lights to start with!

Thats only the bad cyclists!

I think this is a good idea though,Gives us time to gain speed and get moving out the way...although unlike many cyclists i never use the middle of the lane even though we are entitled too..i ride at the side near the pavement,There really isnt any need to take up the whole lane like some do unless its a very narrow street with parked cars etc.

 

[PMKeates]

Okay, I agree but you should be complaining to your MP or council to sort those things out.

I mean if I paid road tax based on how good I thought the roads were, I probably would struggle to justify a quarter of what I currently pay.

The trouble is that driving your car on a road wears it - a car weighs 1000 to 2000 Kg. A bike might weigh 20 Kg, and is barely doing anything to the surface. If we only had bikes, we could make a road and then be done with it for decades.

 

[Burnsy2023]

Is debating that premise and challenging the government not a perfectly reasonable thing to do?

I would suggest debating the root politics about whether cycling should be promoted etc will get you much further than suggesting that tax shouldn't be a vehicle of implementing government policy.

 

[arknor]

Okay, I agree but you should be complaining to your MP or council to sort those things out.

I mean if I paid road tax based on how good I thought the roads were, I probably would struggle to justify a quarter of what I currently pay.

what's wrong with roads for cars?
you don't have to worry about a vehicle weighing many thousands of times your weight crashing into you.
you aren't expected to drive where it's constant pot holes.
you don't get inconsiderate motorists beeping and yelling at you.

some guy even attacked me the other week for holding him up on a narrow road full of pinch points.

you should try cycling and see how utter **** it is on our roads if you think being a motorist is bad

 

[Tute]

The trouble is that driving your car on a road wears it - a car weighs 1000 to 2000 Kg. A bike might weigh 20 Kg, and is barely doing anything to the surface. If we only had bikes, we could make a road and then be done with it for decades.

It's not just the surface - the bikes use the lights, signage, cycle lanes and suchlike.

 

[PMKeates]

It's not just the surface - the bikes use the lights, signage, cycle lanes and suchlike.

The lights, signage and lanes that are installed at a cost to the general taxpayer, that cyclists are. I'm sure many of the cyclists whizzing around London are paying more for the roads than 90% of the rest of the country are.

I would suggest debating the root politics about whether cycling should be promoted etc will get you much further than suggesting that tax shouldn't be a vehicle of implementing government policy.

Much further in what sense?

 

[Burnsy2023]

It's not just the surface - the bikes use the lights, signage, cycle lanes and suchlike.

And I'm sure they pay for that through the myriad of taxes that go into what makes up the road maintenance budget.

 

[Tute]

you don't have to worry about a vehicle weighing many thousands of times your weight crashing into you.

Yes you do! It's called a truck.

you aren't expected to drive where it's constant pot holes.

Yes, I am. And when it nukes a tyre, that's another charge.

you don't get inconsiderate motorists beeping and yelling at you.

And sorry, but yes, you still do. Road rage happens to everyone.

 

[Tute]

The lights, signage and lanes that are installed at a cost to the general taxpayer, that cyclists are. I'm sure many of the cyclists whizzing around London are paying more for the roads than 90% of the rest of the country are.

And I'm sure they pay for that through the myriad of taxes that go into what makes up the road maintenance budget.

Please see above. With all respect, I don't want to type it all out again.

 

[Draeger]

Surely when a crossing reads for the people to cross it is no longer a road, and is instead a path for people, i.e a pavement.

Nope. Does the physical surface change?. It's still a 'road', even if you are walking across it whether its a pedestrian crossing or not.

 

[PMKeates]

Please see above. With all respect, I don't want to type it all out again.

Any particular points above? Because you are arguing utter nonsense and are on to a massive loser. Cyclists pay for roads just like every other taxpayer. They don't have to pay VED, which is a pseudo road usage charge. If there were a road usage charge, it'd make no sense to charge cyclists as they don't contribute to the wear of them.

 

[Burnsy2023]

Please see above. With all respect, I don't want to type it all out again.

Your point still doesn't make any more sense than it did before.