it makes me so angry when cyclists refuse to obey traffic signs

ElefantEd

Hermione Grainger wrote "So someone voices their opinion and you reply with
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElefantEd
What a bunch of !!!!!!!!!!s!


With an attitude such as yours, are you really surprised that bike riders are held in contempt by a lot of people?"

The !!! were inserted by MSE automatically, I fear. I can't remember exactly what I wrote, but it was something that I thought was really quite innocuous. And was merely punctuating the sarcasm of the rest of my reply, which was attempting to point out that cyclists do of course pay for the upkeep of roads through a variety of means including income tax, VAT and Council Tax, not to mention VED if they also own a car. Quite why this would lead to someone feeling contempt for cyclists I don't know, especially as I hadn't identified myself as one.

As it happens I do cycle, but I drive far more than I cycle, if that makes any difference - it doesn't make any difference to my rebuttal of the opinion that cyclists should pay road tax.

zagfles

j0nathon2 wrote: »

Indeed it is. But there is no tax for that, there is a tax for using your vehicle on the road that has certain emissions. There is no tax for driving, cycling, running or walking on the road.

And there's no tax on certain types of income. Doesn't mean income tax isn't a tax on income.

No it isn't. It's definition is to use your vehicle on the road depending on its emissions.



I cannot argue with that. But it's not a tax to earn an income, it's a tax paid on it. Just like a tax to use your vehicle with high emissions on the road is a tax for that, not a tax to use the road. Similarly income tax is not a tax on using the NHS, but it goes some way to funding it.



You've already contradicted this. If you have a non-SORNd high emission producing vehicle parked in your drive, you'd be paying VED and not using the road.

:rotfl:You contradicted that in the very post! See above " It's definition is to use your vehicle on the road depending on its emissions."

If you earn £1000 a year, you'd not be paying income tax.


VED is a tax on using your emission producing vehicle on the road. You are correct about income tax.

I'm only saying how it is. I don't create laws.

I think we've just about reached the limit of this pointless semantic debate

At the end of the day, as a cyclist I pay more than my fair share to use the roads through income tax. By cycling 2-3x as many miles as I drive, I am also wearing the roads less, and polluting less. I also have £5m of public liability insurance on the roads while on my bike.

I don't have an issue with cyclists or other non-polluting road users not paying road tax. But to argue they pay for roads via other taxes is just silly. Motoring taxes, ie VED, fuel duty etc, come to more than the cost of maintaining and building roads. Just because there isn't a separate "pot" the money comes from and money is fungible (brilliant word that just saw it used on the pensions board) doen't mean you can simply claim that non-motoring taxes pay for the roads!

To actually go back to the OP's post, I also find cyclists breaking the rules annoying. I often feel daft sat at a red light in a village in the night with no traffic, but I still do it; I do the same in a car.

People seem to pick out the lycra clad as being the worst offenders; I think they're more likely to be more experienced and argue their case, especially when an irate motorist complains about them doing things they're legally allowed (two abreast, filtering, taking a centre of lane position) but on my travels its your casual commuter who tends to do most of the red light jumping. I am in the former, lycra clad lot.

Well as a motorist who rarely cycles on the road, idiot motorists wind me up far more than idiot cyclists. The main reason I don't cycle on the road is all the idiot motorists.

You get the occasional idiot cyclist, like the one I referred to earlier who got his bike destroyed and was very lucky to escape serious injury himself because he was stupid enough to jump a red light, and one the other week who overtook me on the left while I was indicating left.

But they're vastly outnumbered by idiot motorists. So I really don't see why cyclists have to get so defensive when someone points out bad one. As a motorist, if someone whinges about a bad motorist, I'll just agree. I won't start attempting to justify them with "well what about idiot cyclists...." etc etc.

esuhl

zagfles wrote: »

That doesn't contradict what I wrote. It is a tax for using the roads [with some other conditions added].

No it's not. You can use the roads as much as you like without paying the tax! It's only if you choose to cause excessive air pollution that you get taxed.

zagfles

esuhl wrote: »

No it's not. You can use the roads as much as you like without paying the tax! It's only if you choose to cause excessive air pollution that you get taxed.

....for using the road!

Like I said above I think we've just about reached the limit of this pointless semantic debate, we all know how it works. You think of it in whatever way makes you happy and so will I.

ElefantEd

According to https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/209297/DVLA_Annual_Report_2012-13.pdf VED raised £6bn in 2012.(this from 100 million vehicles, which seems a lot!) The amount spent on roads - maintenance and building - was more than this. For example, https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/212590/action-for-roads.pdf
says that £12bn are to be spent on maintenance. This is a policy statement rather so the numbers aren't directly comparable. Another newspaper report I saw said that £8b was spent. Either way it is clear that VED doesn't pay by itself for the roads; never mind building new ones which is a huge amount of money. Of course, you could argue to include fuel duty as well in the income, which outweighs the VED. But then you might also have to include the costs of measures to combat climate change caused by the fuel use.

zagfles

ElefantEd wrote: »

According to https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/209297/DVLA_Annual_Report_2012-13.pdf VED raised £6bn in 2012.(this from 100 million vehicles, which seems a lot!) The amount spent on roads - maintenance and building - was more than this. For example, https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/212590/action-for-roads.pdf
says that £12bn are to be spent on maintenance. This is a policy statement rather so the numbers aren't directly comparable. Another newspaper report I saw said that £8b was spent. Either way it is clear that VED doesn't pay by itself for the roads; never mind building new ones which is a huge amount of money. Of course, you could argue to include fuel duty as well in the income,

Err...which I did! "Motoring taxes, ie VED, fuel duty etc, come to more than the cost of maintaining and building roads". Together they raise about £38bn. Far more than the road spending numbers you quote above.

which outweighs the VED. But then you might also have to include the costs of measures to combat climate change caused by the fuel use.

Which won't be much. You'll still have plenty of change from the £38bn.

Of course if it suits your argument you could add the entire NHS cost of people with respiritory problems, if it still doesn't get the number you need add the cost of treating cancer, you know petrol is carcinogenic, keep finding other costs which you can say are entirely the fault of the motorist till you get to the number which proves the motorist is subsided rather than the subsidiser.

ElefantEd

Which is why VED, fuel tax etc go into a general taxation pot of money and are not hypothecated to road maintenance and construction. Because it is not as straightforward as "anyone who uses the roads should pay for them" and "only people who pay for roads should use them". It's a complex web of interrelated costs and expenditure. Which is why saying "cyclists should pay to use the roads" is nonsense.

Having said that I have actually been quite encouraged that VED and fuel duty raise as much as they do. I had imagined that roads were subsidised by other general taxation far more. So that's been interesting to find out.

zagfles

ElefantEd wrote: »

Which is why VED, fuel tax etc go into a general taxation pot of money and are not hypothecated to road maintenance and construction. Because it is not as straightforward as "anyone who uses the roads should pay for them" and "only people who pay for roads should use them".

Of course - that's the basic principle of virtually all taxation. What you pay in bears no relation to what you get out. What is why VED is a "tax" to use the roads, paid by some road users, rather than a "charge" to use the roads.

That's the point of taxation, rather than just paying for stuff direct. The govt can skew who pays towards what, to meet whatever objectives they want.

I have no objection for motoring taxes paying all the costs of roads and more. There are too many cars on the road as it is, and people ought to be encouraged to use other forms of transport.

But to argue cyclists are paying their way in road use is ridiculous. They aren't. That's a totally separate argument as to whether they should. IMO they shouldn't, for a variety of reasons. It would be too expensive to administer, it would discourage occasional cyclists like me from ever cycling, it would discourage people taking exercise and reducing emissions etc.

It's a complex web of interrelated costs and expenditure. Which is why saying "cyclists should pay to use the roads" is nonsense.

Having said that I have actually been quite encouraged that VED and fuel duty raise as much as they do. I had imagined that roads were subsidised by other general taxation far more. So that's been interesting to find out.

Yes, when you consider fuel duty is nearly 70p/litre, it's hardly surprising. Someone who does 10,000 miles a year is probably paying about £1000 a year in fuel duty.