Properly annoyed a cyclist last night!

Kernow666

sarcasm as you always get the road tax doesnt exist response

my work here is done

The_ICT_Engineer

Kernow666 wrote: »

sarcasm as you always get the road tax doesnt exist response

my work here is done

There is no such thing as road tax. And the Road Fund licence was formally ended under the Finance Act of 1936. After the 1936 Act the proceeds of road vehicle duties were to be paid directly into the Exchequer. The Road Fund itself was finally wound up in the Miscellaneous Financial Provisions Act of 1955.

Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) is a tax that is levied as an Excise Duty. Many motorists wrongly believe that the proceeds from VED are used to fund the roads and even that the roads are funded solely from this tax. All tax payers, not just motorists, pay proportionately for the roads, and that cyclists impose minimal wear and tear on them. Which clarified the fact that roads are paid for out of general taxation.

VED is in effect an emissions tax, as the bands are based on the CO2 emission rates per kilometre. As cycles do not produce CO2 therefore would be zero rated. Many vehicles are also exempt for paying VED

patanne

So they should be registered for excise duty and pay zero tax. But registered none the less.

brat

Sadly, yet another cycling thread derails...

Nasqueron

patanne wrote: »

So they should be registered for excise duty and pay zero tax. But registered none the less.

So you want the government to waste hundreds of millions registering every single bike to get zero revenue? A registration process that will require an entire new IT system as the VED process checks insurance and MOT neither of which are applicable to bikes (the former is arguably a good idea, the latter is obviously pointless given the only part of an MOT check that you could transfer over to bikes is to check the brakes (and even worn out brake pads on a rim brake will stop a bike due to lower speed and momentum)). Bikes transfer hands (legally and illegally) all the time which will need constant re-registration wasting more admin fees - between April 2014-March 2015 381,000 were stolen.

I have 3 bikes and a car, I pay my £20 VED, I do not want my taxes wasted on registering 3 bikes for £0 VED

brat wrote: »

Sadly, yet another cycling thread derails...

I assumed the user Kernow666 was just trolling or doing the <insert obligatory bike road tax nonsense> comment for a joke

ElefantEd

Going back to the original question, which I think is worth asking, personally I wouldn't mind either way as I don't have mirrors so wouldn't be dazzled. So long as the motorist passes me in a safe place, giving me a wide berth, I'm happy.

Someone coming towards me I would expect to dip their beam just like for any other road user (including pedestrians - I do when I'm driving anyway).

Richard53

I do have a mirror, on the end of the RH bar. It doesn't vibrate, and I find it very useful. It's below my line of sight, so a bright light in it doesn't bother me too much. However, a car behind with full beams on casts odd shadows which move around you as the car approaches and passes. It can be quite weird. (There is also the sneaking feeling of "he's got his main beams on - has he not seen me and thinks the road is empty?") On a good, well-surfaced road, not a big problem, but I commute on narrow lanes without lighting and with poor surfaces. A car's main beams behind me can throw shadows that hide big parts of the road ahead, which could contain potholes, gravel, wet leaves or anything. On balance, I would prefer them to dip, but it's not something I could get too excited about.


Thanks to the OP for thinking of others and bothering to ask the question. I wish more were as considerate.