Road tax or ved for cyclists Stupid idea or what - Q: What do think ? do people like cyclists

[natty01295]

Road tax or VED for cyclists What do you think ?

Yes I changed the subject

[Townleygreen]

Doh!!!

Don't be an idiot!

Cycles do not emit any carbon.

Cars that don't emit carbon (eg electric) don't pay any VED either.

That's what the system is based on.

[kford]

...not yet. Wait until most cars are 100g/km or less or electric, then they'll find a way of taxing us again.

[Loz]

Townleygreen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Doh!!!

> Don't be an idiot!

> Cycles do not emit any carbon.

> Cars that don't emit carbon (eg electric) don't pay any VED either.

> That's what the system is based on.

Currently, yes. But that hasn't always been the case. They do change the criteria every now and again.

And, if loads and loads of people switched to electric cars or bicycles tomorrow, guess what the Treasury would do? Slap the road tax on electric cars/bicycles.

[Townleygreen]

It would be far too hard to do VAD on cycles. How would you keep track of them? Think of the admin costs!

[natty01295]

Because I see on youtube , people saying you don't pay road tax why should I let you have room or etc

[PeckhamRose]

I like people who are cyclists and cycle well, safely, courteously and thoughtfully, and are not a danger to me, other road users, or themselves.

Ditto I like people who ride motorcycles, drive cars, drive busses, taxis, etc as above.

I also quite like people who are pedestrians who choose to look before they cross the road and don't just wonder across whilst on their mobile phones.

Answer your question?

[DulwichFox]

Cyclists Should pay something..

They constantly request dedicated cycle lanes. Cycle super-highways.

They cost a lot of money to build.

Who is supposed to pay for them.

DulwichFox

[Townleygreen]

DFox, you are being sooooo short-sighted!

Having dedicated cycle lanes like in Holland etc will mean more people will want to cycle (and walk? as less polluted) so we will have more fit people who won't be such a drain on our NHS. Fewer obese people. Children will be able to ride safely to schools - so fewer cars on road at school times.

Less pollution as fewer cars. Fewer people suffering from allergies that result from this pollution.

What's not to like?

[DulwichFox]

Children do not cycle to school and have very little desire to do so.

Walking would seem to be out of the question.

They get taken to school by their parents in their 4X4's

The subject of the thread is about whether there should be road tax for cyclists.

I suggested that they should contribute to the infrastructure hey demand.

Nothing to do with health or a drain on the NHS.

DulwichFox

[Townleygreen]

Just shows how short-sighted you are then doesn't it Foxy!

If cycling is seen by parents and kids as safe then why wouldn't they be allowed to cycle? And everyone would benefit!

Can't you understand that?

[PeckhamRose]

I still think that cyclists should be registered as long as they share the same road as the rest of us and can be responsible for accidents like the rest of us.

[StraferJack]

registering cyclists is the last refuge of the mean-spirited, spiteful, and narrow minded

Cycling is something we should be encouraging from an early age, and for as long as possible (health, space, road capacity, ease of access etc)

for reasons of PHYSICS alone (and not ideology) driving cars shouldn't be encouraged

You "go through a register" for cyclists you drive more people away from that and more onto the road

Even as a selfish motorist, I wouldn't want more cars on the road

[Townleygreen]

well said Straferjack, a bit of sanity.

[PeckhamRose]

Mean-spirited, spiteful and narrow minded. Yeah, right. Thanks SJ.

You have no effing idea how effing offensive your opinions continue to be just because you don't like someone else's.

[StraferJack]

Offensive? You are offended?

Really? How? What is offensive

[tommyk2000]

Let's not get heated. Here is an interesting video.

[natty01295]

You don't pay road tax look on youtube videos

[Townleygreen]

what about all the cars that don't pay "road tax" then? would you ban them too natty?

[Robert Poste's Child]

The original Q is a bit simplistic (other than as a way to make drivers more likely to accept cyclists as fellow road users, which is maybe the idea). Car drivers' road tax wouldn't cover the cost of roads: roads are mostly paid for by other forms of tax. As most cyclists are also tax payers, they are already contributing. And what about the cyclists who are also car owners - should they pay twice, when cycling would mean they're using the road less than if they relied on their car alone? If this is a serious proposition, would you extend it to make pedestrians pay road tax to cover the maintenance of pavements, pedestrian crossings, underpasses etc, which after all are for their sole use?

[ultraburner]

Stupid thread natty. And I'm not going to devote the energy to tell you why.

[tommyk2000]

Lots of good info at: http://ipayroadtax.com , Natty.

Thinking more deeply about it. Bicycles don't even need the car-optimised, tax-funded road infrastructure that they are forced to use. They just have to use it because it took all the space up. So yeah, thanks motorists, for letting them use the car roads that we ALL have to pay for, despite not requiring.

[Loz]

tommyk2000 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Lots of good info at: http://ipayroadtax.com ,

> Natty.

That's the stupidest, most badly argued site I've seen in a while. Someone has spent a lot of time putting together a web site whining about a single casual piece of terminology.

What next? londondsareacodeisreally020.co.uk? mussolinididntmakethetrainsrunontime.it? youcantseethegreatwallofchinefromthemoon.com? duckquacksdoecho.tv?

Hopefully getalife.com might still be available.

[LadyDeliah]

tommyk2000 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Let's not get heated. Here is an interesting

> video.

>

>

Nice video. I like the way it shows how different their response to traffic problems have been compared to the UK.

[tommyk2000]

Loz Wrote:

> That's the stupidest, most badly argued site I've

> seen in a while. Someone has spent a lot of time

> putting together a web site whining about a single

> casual piece of terminology.

>

> What next? londondsareacodeisreally020.co.uk?

> mussolinididntmakethetrainsrunontime.it?

> youcantseethegreatwallofchinefromthemoon.com?

> duckquacksdoecho.tv?

>

> Hopefully getalife.com might still be available.

I think it's relevant, Loz. What's stupid about it? In fact, I think it contains most of the answers to the original question posed in this thread.

It is quite a problem really, and the terminology doesn't help. Some drivers use the excuse that they have paid to be on the road to justify treating cyclists badly. 'Get off my road, I pay to be here!' doesn't make sense. Really they just don't like bicycles being there, because they have to change their driving style.

I do feel like a hypocrite though. I am FURIOUS with the size of my NI and Tax contributions. These have to, in-part, pay for an NHS overburdened with obese motorists, respiratory diseases caused by emissions, RTA victims etc. 'Get out of my hospital, I pay to be here!'.