Cylists without lights - disproportionately annoys me!!

adouglasmhor

Blobby8 wrote: »

I dont care what they call it, I have to pay tax to take my vehicles on the road,VED and all the other taxes paid by vehicle owners are not used to build and maintain roads otherwise we would have the best roads in the world.They are used to subsidise other areas.
Hence, all taxpayers do not pay for the road network.
Personally I dont want to share the road with anyone, horses should be in fields or on bridleways, and cylists should realize they are using a facility paid for by someone else and out of respect ride with deference to the people who foot the bill.

But I pay road tax (on my car and motorbike) and I cycle, I fully expect to have the same rights as any other road user and ride with a lack of deference.

Blobby8_2

adouglasmhor wrote: »

But I pay road tax (on my car and motorbike) and I cycle, I fully expect to have the same rights as any other road user and ride with a lack of deference.

What ! You have a motorbike & choose to ride a pushbike?

marleyboy

Even setting aside the point that many cyclists also own cars, there is no such thing as road tax, and hasn't been since 1937. Road building and maintenance is financed from other taxation; that fee you pay for the little paper disc which sits on the windscreen is vehicle excise duty (VED), a charge which varies according to the emissions produced.

As IPayRoadTax.com also notes, even if you still choose to view cyclists as tax dodgers, then the same opprobrium should be heaped on the drivers of particularly green cars, war pensioners, disabled drivers, and a number of other groups.
It's nonetheless a difficult message to get across, particularly in the 10 seconds before a set of traffic lights go green.


Hence Reid's campaign, which as well as the website also features a Twitter feed and even a iPhone app. The rather fetching jersey – sadly the one I got was far too big for me – features a series of pictured tax discs printed with a price tag of "£0,00", along with the website address.


Of course, in some ways its a bit contradictory: a educational campaign about the non-existence of road tax called I Pay Road Tax. Reid says on his website: "Shouldn't it be iPayVED.com? Yes. But too few people know what VED is. Everybody knows what road tax is. Or they think they do."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/green-living-blog/2010/mar/18/cyclists-road-tax-drivers

Cycling has many positive externalities including:

1. Less Pollution. Bikes don’t pollute, cars and buses do. Given the importance of global warming and rise in respiratory disease, cleaner air is a significant benefit to the rest of society, More people cycling means cleaner air for all.
2. Less congestion. If more people cycled, there would be less pressure on road and parking space, especially in city centres.
3. Cyclists are moving traffic calming measures. Councils find traffic calming measures significantly reduce accidents. They reduce speed and make motorists think. When a motorist approaches a cyclist it forces them to get out of cruise control mode and (in theory) think of a careful way to pass them. In theory this should lead to safer roads.
4. Cyclists don’t damage the road. Roads need repairing frequently because they soon get worn down. However, the roads are not worn down by 10kg bicycles, but 2 tonne + lorries. Therefore, it is not cyclists who should pay the external cost of road repair. Lorries not only create the cost but also create the time and inconvenience of road works. This is a major external cost and is a reason why HGV should pay higher road tax. If heavy goods vehicles paid the true social cost, it would encourage more freight to be transported by rail not road. Society would benefit from a more efficient transport system.
5. Cycling Reduces Cost of NHS. Obesity and lack of physical exercise creates strain on the resources of the National Health Service. By keeping fit, cyclist are less of a burden on government spending.

Cars should pay road tax and petrol tax because they create negative externalities; the social cost is greater than the private cost. The tax system is a way of making motorists pay the true social cost.
I would argue that lorries and heavy goods vehicles should pay extra taxes because they create the most negative externalities and the social cost is higher than driving.
If cyclists were subsidised it would encourage more people to take up cycling to work. This would help city centre transport systems and the quality of life.

http://cyclinginfo.co.uk/blog/cycling/cyclists-pay-road-tax/#ixzz1Ba6XxAGy

Everybody pays for the Roads, from pedestrians to passengers.

adouglasmhor

Sometimes yes I do, I ride a pushbike to training in the summer, and for short journeys localy; in carp weather, out with BH and work (where I have to take stuff) car; summer commuting and weekends - motorbike.

marleyboy

Blobby8 wrote: »

What ! You have a motorbike & choose to ride a pushbike?

I still have my Bicycle, albeit I only use it in the Summer. But it was only a few Years ago (before I sold my motorbike) that I had all three, and could choose which one I wanted to use.

Harry_Flashman

So - a quote from the Guardian (notoriously bearded liberal thinking) and a pro-cycling site (more tax on HGVs? Aye - that's just great, lets all pay more for everything)

Doesn't get us away from the fact that motorists pay to use the road where cyclists don't.

marleyboy

Harry_Flashman wrote: »

So - a quote from the Guardian (notoriously bearded liberal thinking) and a pro-cycling site (more tax on HGVs? Aye - that's just great, lets all pay more for everything)

Doesn't get us away from the fact that motorists pay to use the road where cyclists don't.

Everybody pays for the Roads, from pedestrians to passengers.

Harry_Flashman

marleyboy wrote: »

Everybody pays for the Roads, from pedestrians to passengers.

But not everybody pays to use them - that's the point being made.

Common sense would seem to dictate that those who pay for a service should be entitled to rather better conditions than those who simply get it for free by default.

adouglasmhor

Harry_Flashman wrote: »

But not everybody pays to use them - that's the point being made.

Common sense would seem to dictate that those who pay for a service should be entitled to rather better conditions thatn those who simply get it for free by default.

But unless you are psychic you have to assume that the cylist you see in the road is also a motor vehicle owner like me. some car owners pay no road fund either, is your eyesight good enough to spot them?

Harry_Flashman

No it isn't

It is obvious that a rider hasn't paid anything to put their bike on the road though. Therefore, they should keep out of the way of those who have.

I'm sure there will be a good reason for motorists to have been allowed not to pay Road Tax.