Cyclists should have to pay road taxes... blah blah blah

fury21

Someone got out of the wrong side of bed...
letter published in Belfast Telegraph

I'd respond, but I think I'd be wasting my time.

always_tyred

Yup.
I'll happily pay road tax, providing that (a) it exists and (b) all road users are taxed proportionate to the amount it costs to construct and maintain the infrastructure required.
On that basis I think that VAT is a disproportionate levy on cycling.

prawny

I was thinking the other day.

If helmets were compulsary, you had to pass a test to ride on the road, had some kind of identifactaion number and paid bike tax (although this is moot as you don't have to pay tax on a diesel VW polo)

What would people have to moan about - or do you think cyclists would get a better deal on the road?

Aidy

Yawn.

It's not road tax, it's emissions duty.
Roads are maintained out of council tax.

ride_whenever

It's amazing that such ill-informed idiots are allowed to write in national papers.

Actually it really isn't

R_T_A

I actually had an argument on this matter with my Dad of all people over the weekend.

He refused to believe it wasn't road tax - even when I "offered him outside" to check his tax disc.

Obviously he refused - what does his son know? :roll:

girv73

Having a right old argument on Twitter with this one. Folk are suggesting there should be compulsory insurance and tests for cyclists using the roads. Anyone care to venture an opinion?

Clever Pun

girv73 wrote:

Having a right old argument on Twitter with this one. Folk are suggesting there should be compulsory insurance and tests for cyclists using the roads. Anyone care to venture an opinion?

insurance is no bad thing...

I suspect it'll just put more people on pavements

mudcovered

R_T_A wrote:

I actually had an argument on this matter with my Dad of all people over the weekend.

He refused to believe it wasn't road tax - even when I "offered him outside" to check his tax disc.

Obviously he refused - what does his son know? :roll:

Well you should offer to pay the same road tax as a low emissions car. I can't imagine a cyclist kicks out more CO2 emissions than that. Oh look that would be £0 VED

Training. CBT gets you permission to ride low cc 2 wheeled vehicles. I would be astonished if any cyclist couldn't make it through that (or at least the parts that have nothing to do with engine control).

Insurance. Well if you cause an accident 3rd party insurance at least would be a good plan. However as long as you are willing to pay for any damage in an accident you caused making it compulsory wouldn't buy much.

Mike

MrChuck

girv73 wrote:

Having a right old argument on Twitter with this one. Folk are suggesting there should be compulsory insurance and tests for cyclists using the roads. Anyone care to venture an opinion?

Why are they suggesting that? Just because they're feeling hard done by as (presumably) motorists?

In my experience people that say things like that haven't really thought about what they're saying at all, they're just repeating what they read in the Daily Wail or whatever.

girv73

That's what I thought too. Cycling to work, shops etc. is encouraged now as part of the gubmits green policies, but there isn't the cycle-specific infrastructure required to support it without the use of shared roads and we can't use the pavements. Making tests and insurance compulsory for using roads would be a vast deterrent to cycling (as well as a vast enforcement and bureaucratic overhead) and make a mockery of those same green policies that encourage it, so while tests and insurance might be a good idea, making them compulsory will never happen. It's a balancing act.

girv73

@MrChuck

The training argument is that a lot of cyclists on the roads clearly have no idea how to ride in traffic so training is required.

The point about insurance is: what's your recourse if a cyclist runs into your expensive, shiny cage?

prawny

You get 3rd party insurance in with your household contents insurance as standard. I'd be surprised if there were a lot of people cycling on the road without any insurance on their house.

girv73

Would that cover you damaging a car or something else? I have the Everyday Cycling insurance, but I didn't check my home contents policy.

prawny

girv73 wrote:

Would that cover you damaging a car or something else? I have the Everyday Cycling insurance, but I didn't check my home contents policy.

Any damage or injury that you or a menber of you family are liable for hang on I'll dig out a wording.

Edit:
Occupiers’, personal and
employer’s liability
Your legal liability to pay damages and
claimants’ costs and expenses for:
• accidental bodily injury or illness; or
• accidental loss of or damage to
property;
happening during the Period of
insurance in:
• the British Isles; or
• the rest of the world, for
temporary visits;
We will not pay more than £2,000,000
for any one incident

jairaj

girv73 wrote:

Folk are suggesting there should be compulsory insurance and tests for cyclists using the roads. Anyone care to venture an opinion?

The test is a tricky subject. A test will mean that people are only going on the roads when they have sufficient knowledge and skill required to do so. I see many people every day cycling dangerously and an compulsory test will mean they will be better informed and hopefully be safer. But at the same time, I don't want to see children not allowed to ride and play with bikes as they can't take a test

*edit * i guess the test would only apply for using a bike on the road not a public park etc so prob not an issue for kids.

I also think insurance is no bad thing either. It is very possible for a cyclist to cause an accident and cause expensive damage which the insurance would pay for.

MrChuck

girv73 wrote:

@MrChuck

The training argument is that a lot of cyclists on the roads clearly have no idea how to ride in traffic so training is required.

The point about insurance is: what's your recourse if a cyclist runs into your expensive, shiny cage?

Actually I sort of skim read :oops: and wasn't really referring to the training part. There's definitely an argument for it, not sure I'd like to see it become mandatory though as I think it would run counter to the direction we should be going on to get more people on bikes and it would be very difficult to enforce.

The thing about the insurance and taxes is that it's an extrapolation of the way things work for cars with an abitrary cut-off. I'd be surprised if people having their cars damaged by cyclists is very common, or common enough to warrant mandatory insurance. It's more likely that it's something relatively tangible for people to use to legitimise their dislike of cyclists on "their" roads than that people seriously think it's an issue that needs to be addressed.

If people are really concerned about having their cars damaged by cyclists they should probably leave them in the garage, as I expect there are plenty of other ways they could be damaged where there's no specific insurance in place to cover it.

unscarred

Simple responses - I do pay "road tax" and insurance - I have a car as well as a bike, I just choose to use the most appropriate form of transport at any given time.

I have been trained - I have completed CBT as well as cycling proficiency courses.

Next argument?

MrChuck

prawny wrote:

You get 3rd party insurance in with your household contents insurance as standard. I'd be surprised if there were a lot of people cycling on the road without any insurance on their house.

I'd say there are an awful lot of people on the roads who live in shared houses and don't have that sort of insurance.

prawny

MrChuck wrote:

prawny wrote:

You get 3rd party insurance in with your household contents insurance as standard. I'd be surprised if there were a lot of people cycling on the road without any insurance on their house.

I'd say there are an awful lot of people on the roads who live in shared houses and don't have that sort of insurance.

You may have a point I've never shared a house, do you not insure your contents in that case? All together like?

MrChuck

I have contents insurance but it's not the same as for your whole house. All the houses I've shared individuals have sorted themselves out.

I am a member of the CTC though so as it happens I do have insurance!

FrankM

Wouldn't it be an idea that everyone who buys a bike also gets (and pays for) membership with the CTC which carries free third party bicycle insurance? Such insurance still wouldn't cover you if you jumped a red light and knocked someone over.

I also read something once about how in some countries (maybe the Netherlands?) if ever a car or lorry is involved in an accident with a bicycle, the car's/lorry's insurance automatically pays out without it necessarily having been the car or lorry driver's fault. That way the car driver is not directly penalised, although everyone's insurance premiums would go up a bit to pay for such accidents.

Dudu

I'd be in favour of a cycling test (although there'd be a problem about at what age it should be taken) provided no one could apply for a vehicle driving test until they'd

1. Passed the cycling test
2. Proved that they have cycled 1000km without colliding with anyone or anything else.

As for insurance: The fact that public liability covers it means it would cost doodly squat and hence not be worth charging for.

Eau Rouge

girv73 wrote:

The point about insurance is: what's your recourse if a cyclist runs into your expensive, shiny cage?

Assuming the incident is the cyclists fault, you claim off the cyclist directly.
A cyclist is unlikely to do more than a few hundred pounds worth of damage to a car, it's going to be superficial at most. That the sort of sum that is, in the vast majority of cases, recoverable through the courts.
A car hitting another car, on the other hand, is capable of some very serious crash damage, often enough to write off the damaged car. Thats tens of thousnds of pounds worth of damage, the sort of money that is not easily recoverable from an individual.

It's that level of damage that makes it compulsary for cars to have insurance and exactly why it isn't necessary to waste money making it compulsory for bicycles.

It's like first-time-driver insurance quotes. People are amazed that they are many times more expensive than the car they are covering, and can't understand why....but they aren't about that car, they are about all the shiney Mondeo's, BMW's and Merc's the first-time driver is going to crash into and damage.

They stopped calling it "road tax" in the 30's becuase people thought it meant they owned the roads. 70 years ago!

jinnan_tonnix

Have you read the replies to the letter? Most of them are well written and comprehensively destroy the letter's argument. I couldn't have put it any better myself....

biondino

mudcovered wrote:

Training. CBT gets you permission to ride low cc 2 wheeled vehicles. I would be astonished if any cyclist couldn't make it through that

Haha - when I did mine the instructed was obliged to remind me that it was actually possible to fail

We seem to be overrun with cyclists on our roads and footpaths. These prats in spandex (what the hell is that all about?) seem to race everywhere at a breakneck speed without regard for man nor beast. Tax and insure them of our streets and make it an offence to be seen in one of those skintight suits...bloody weirdos!!

This guy's on the money, though.

BigJimmyB

If all cycles/clyclist had to have

Licence Tax Insurance

How would it be administered?
Could DVLA cope?
How would it be policed?
What if I only wanted to use my bike off-road (at trail centres)? Would I be exempt?

OK, I can see some merit in a CBT of some sort, but how would the police cope with every incident involving a bike that neede the rider to produce a CBT certificate?

And again, insurance, yes. Perhaps 3rd party coverage. But again, how is it policed?

I see way many more car drivers doing what they shouldn't (e.g. using mobile, no seatbelt), plus there are those who don't insure/mot their cars, oh, plus the claims fraud, which subsequently makes honest car owners premiums higher.The police/authorities can't cope with it. I know policemen who ignore using mobile, no seatbelt as they don't have time for it. So, add the admin/policing of cyclists and then what?

One last thing, does this apply to ALL cyclists?

Even four-year olds on stabilisers?

:roll:

prawny

MrChuck wrote:

I have contents insurance but it's not the same as for your whole house. All the houses I've shared individuals have sorted themselves out.

I am a member of the CTC though so as it happens I do have insurance!

Your ok under your household then, as long as you have some contents insurance you will have 3rd party insurance.

MrChuck

prawny wrote:

MrChuck wrote:

I have contents insurance but it's not the same as for your whole house. All the houses I've shared individuals have sorted themselves out.

I am a member of the CTC though so as it happens I do have insurance!

Your ok under your household then, as long as you have some contents insurance you will have 3rd party insurance.

Hmm, I'll take another look!

Headhuunter

Eau Rouge wrote:

girv73 wrote:

The point about insurance is: what's your recourse if a cyclist runs into your expensive, shiny cage?

Assuming the incident is the cyclists fault, you claim off the cyclist directly.
A cyclist is unlikely to do more than a few hundred pounds worth of damage to a car, it's going to be superficial at most. That the sort of sum that is, in the vast majority of cases, recoverable through the courts.
A car hitting another car, on the other hand, is capable of some very serious crash damage, often enough to write off the damaged car. Thats tens of thousnds of pounds worth of damage, the sort of money that is not easily recoverable from an individual.

It's that level of damage that makes it compulsary for cars to have insurance and exactly why it isn't necessary to waste money making it compulsory for bicycles.

It's like first-time-driver insurance quotes. People are amazed that they are many times more expensive than the car they are covering, and can't understand why....but they aren't about that car, they are about all the shiney Mondeo's, BMW's and Merc's the first-time driver is going to crash into and damage.

They stopped calling it "road tax" in the 30's becuase people thought it meant they owned the roads. 70 years ago!

That's actually a very good point. I only need to take out insurance on things that I can't afford to replace if lost or damaged. I have buildings insurance in case my home burns down (I can't afford to have it re-built) and health insurance through work in case, for some reason, I need expensive medical care. If I crashed into a car and it was my fault, as Eau Rouge points out, it's unlikely to cause more than a few hundred pounds worth of damage which I can cover myself

il_principe

Headhunter - as one of the more pro RLJ forumgers, can you see how your behaviour is viewed by the typical moronic motorist? Granted this woman is a twunt, but for as long as cyclists insist on ignoring the rules of the road we will be giving the likes of her - and the pro licence/tax.test board plenty of ammo...

Just a thought.