Suicidal Cyclist

tripled

I'm facinated by the arguments by people who pay "Road Tax" who think that there should be some form of preferential treatment. Commercial vehicles aside, no driver is obliged to pay VED as there are tax free car bands available. Why should choosing to drive a non-exempt vehicle suddenly confer additional rights?

I drive an aging 2 litre Vauxhall Zafira. VED costs me over £200 per year. I could replace it with a car that doesn't cost anything to drive. I choose not to because it would take a number of years to get a return on investment. Can I get some form of preferential treatment, such as those in small cars have to pull over and let me past, or even better, get off the road altogether (especially those that pay no VED at all)?

I'm fortunate that I only have to go into the office one day a week. Over a year I probaly average around four journeys a week (turns of the key), so I pay around £1 per journey in VED. My fiancee, representative of many commuters, drives to work daily in addition to using it for other bits and bobs, and pays £135 per year in VED, for around 700 journeys. This equates to less than 20p per journey, a fraction of what I pay. Why don't I get a special lane on the motorway, or priority parking bays in town?

I also own a bicycle. I often use it to pop into town as it's only three miles away. I probably make 150 or so journeys a year on my tax-free bike (into town once a week and the occasional leisure ride). This leaves me paying an average of 57p each time I use the road network. Considerably more, I suspect, than most other car drivers.

Considerably more than the driver with his/her fog light on in the rain dazzling those behind them, more than the other driver chatting on their phone while negotiating a busy roundabout, that teenager on his pushbike jumping on and off the pavement terrorising traffic and pedestrians. I doubt I pay as much as my friend though, who owns a car, van and motorbike, and almost certainly pays more than the owner who lost control of her horse, which belted out of a side road straight into traffic, putting said friend in hospital.

I pay Road Tax, so only me and people I personally approve should be allowed on the road. Anyone who pays less than me should be barred. Especially those who not only pay a lower rate of VED, but earn less too. At the very least they should be doffing their cap and offering to shine my shoes as I pass. Maybe we should create "peasant roads" to keep them out of my way.

almillar

adamdouglasgilmore - we're not going to agree on paying to use the road. All cars need to be 'taxed' to use the road. Some cars get that 'tax' free (a tax disc of old, which you HAD to display, even if it said £0.00 as payment). You're not paying for something else - you're subsidising the people who don't have to pay to tax their cars.
Fair enough, we'll move on and we haven't changed each other's opinions.

Norman Castle - same, let's move on - I've acknowledge all along that there's no direct funding, but that there is a correlation. I still do consider VED as payment to drive on the roads, as to not pay it, would be to not be allowed.

brat:

but the costs of congestion are spiralling, so one cost may, in the medium term, be replaced by another.

MORE ROADS!! Ha, No, not really. This is carrot and stick stuff. People use cars, people use public transport. Sometimes you have to have a car, sometimes not. For me, and I guess other people, I balance the cost, time and convenience of the two. So I'm boderline - during term time, I get the train, because the extra congestion from schools and uni makes the road that much more congested. When they're off, I drive in, in general.
But what about when public transport is at its peak, as it is on many routes? Forcing people out of cars ONLY isn't the answer - in many cases, the alternative that's always offered up isn't there.
And what happens when the Gov tries to build a new rail line (Birmingham to London)? There are more people travelling on our puny islands, where should they go?!

Idiophreak

almillar wrote: »

There are more people travelling on our puny islands, where should they go?!

Easiest thing would be to stop them travelling so much. Offer tax breaks to companies that have X% of their workforce working from home and you could slash the number of people travelling at rush hour.

Likewise, encouraging employers to offer their staff flexible hours would spread the load much better...making our existing road network go much further with minimum investment.

brat

almillar wrote: »

brat:
MORE ROADS!! Ha, No, not really. This is carrot and stick stuff. People use cars, people use public transport. Sometimes you have to have a car, sometimes not. For me, and I guess other people, I balance the cost, time and convenience of the two.

.

I was expressing the transport related cost burden, not the solution.

Excluding our annual holiday in Europe, I travel less than 2,500 miles a year in my car, mostly in or from a quietish corner of the country where congestion is not an issue, so I leave such solutions to those more personally or professionally affected by it.

Perhaps road charging would be the best solution - fair, and variable according to congestion/pollution concerns?

peter_the_piper

Fair idea, providing it was equitable and all users (except pedestrians) paid proportionately.

hugheskevi

I also own a bicycle. I often use it to pop into town as it's only three miles away. I probably make 150 or so journeys a year on my tax-free bike (into town once a week and the occasional leisure ride). This leaves me paying an average of 57p each time I use the road network. Considerably more, I suspect, than most other car drivers.

But when you are cycling you are being subsidised by motorists. So you need to add in the cost of that subsidy to your calculations.

Some purists argue that instead of cycling you could have driven, and that your decision to cycle results in less damage to roads, lower maintenance costs and less congestion, and hence society in general is better off from your decision to make the journey by bike rather than car.

But best to keep it simple - if you had chosen to drive, you would be contributing to the roads, but by deciding to cycle you are getting a subsidy and have less entitlement than motorists to be on the roads they are paying for [/sarcasm]

Strider590

hugheskevi wrote: »

But when you are cycling you are being subsidised by motorists. So you need to add in the cost of that subsidy to your calculations.

Some purists argue that instead of cycling you could have driven, and that your decision to cycle results in less damage to roads, lower maintenance costs and less congestion, and hence society in general is better off from your decision to make the journey by bike rather than car.

But best to keep it simple - if you had chosen to drive, you would be contributing to the roads, but by deciding to cycle you are getting a subsidy and have less entitlement than motorists to be on the roads they are paying for [/sarcasm]

How exactly?

Motorists don't pay anything toward road maintenance that a cyclist does not pay :rotfl:

ceredigion

hugheskevi wrote: »

But when you are cycling you are being subsidised by motorists. So you need to add in the cost of that subsidy to your calculations.

Some purists argue that instead of cycling you could have driven, and that your decision to cycle results in less damage to roads, lower maintenance costs and less congestion, and hence society in general is better off from your decision to make the journey by bike rather than car.

But best to keep it simple - if you had chosen to drive, you would be contributing to the roads, but by deciding to cycle you are getting a subsidy and have less entitlement than motorists to be on the roads they are paying for [/sarcasm]

Every time you get in your car , you are subsidising those people on salaries that most can only dream of ,who choose to commute by train. And receive a subsidy in order to do so.

custardy

ceredigion wrote: »

Every time you get in your car , you are subsidising those people on salaries that most can only dream of ,who choose to commute by train. And receive a subsidy in order to do so.

and what about those leaving a car at home to do so? (or walk,cycle etc)

Norman_Castle

almillar wrote: »

adamdouglasgilmore - we're not going to agree on paying to use the road. All cars need to be 'taxed' to use the road. Some cars get that 'tax' free (a tax disc of old, which you HAD to display, even if it said £0.00 as payment). You're not paying for something else - you're subsidising the people who don't have to pay to tax their cars.
Fair enough, we'll move on and we haven't changed each other's opinions.

Norman Castle - same, let's move on - I've acknowledge all along that there's no direct funding, but that there is a correlation. I still do consider VED as payment to drive on the roads, as to not pay it, would be to not be allowed.

hugheskevi But when you are cycling you are being subsidised by motorists.

....................