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

tiny_pens

When I was young, cycling as a child was a way of giving road experience to children so that they could interact in a sensible manner when they got behind the wheel of a car and the experience wasn't so overwhelming. i.e. you were learning vehicle control more than how traffic worked. I guess things have changed.

////
Warning. Next bit is a bit boring.
////

I like the number plates on the back of the cycle helmet idea. Lets see, there are 60 million people in the uk. As a finger in the air figure lets say that 75% of those people have at some point in time learned to ride a bike. That's 45 million say.
From my own experience I went through 5 different bikes growing up as they became too small / unfashionable for me to the age of 16. I'm then going to assume that the average person probably buys another 4 bikes during their life (yes I know I have more than that in my lock-up at the moment)
That's 405 million registrations for the current population had they needed to register their bikes. Lets assume that's a workable figure for the rough number of registrations that the system will have to deal with in the future without running out.
Now we couldn't piggy back onto the car system as it would run out to quickly so we would need a new scheme. I'm going to suggest just using numbers (for ease of maths).
So the DVLA claims that letters should be approx 4" tall by 2" wide to be legible (according to wikipedia anyway). So that's 18 inches wide plus spacing between and at the ends, lets round it up to 20 inches wide or over half the circumference of my cycle helmet.

Probably not a good option then. Mind you, would make a good air brake to slow you down maybe?

chuckcork

spen666 wrote:

chuckcork wrote:

...

While unlicenced, uninsured drivers are exceptions to rule, ....

Its estimated that in London, some 30% of drivers are uninsured

Perhaps I should have used :roll: to indicate I was being ironic....

spen666

Fungus The Muffin Man wrote:

If it meant that by paying a "road tax" I could then ride in the middle of the lane as is my right and not have to hog the dangerous road edge then I'm all for it. ...

Why do you want to pay extra to do what is already your right now?

jobysp

tiny_pens wrote:

When I was young, cycling as a child was a way of giving road experience to children so that they could interact in a sensible manner when they got behind the wheel of a car and the experience wasn't so overwhelming. i.e. you were learning vehicle control more than how traffic worked. I guess things have changed.

////
Warning. Next bit is a bit boring.
////

I like the number plates on the back of the cycle helmet idea. Lets see, there are 60 million people in the uk. As a finger in the air figure lets say that 75% of those people have at some point in time learned to ride a bike. That's 45 million say.
From my own experience I went through 5 different bikes growing up as they became too small / unfashionable for me to the age of 16. I'm then going to assume that the average person probably buys another 4 bikes during their life (yes I know I have more than that in my lock-up at the moment)
That's 405 million registrations for the current population had they needed to register their bikes. Lets assume that's a workable figure for the rough number of registrations that the system will have to deal with in the future without running out.
Now we couldn't piggy back onto the car system as it would run out to quickly so we would need a new scheme. I'm going to suggest just using numbers (for ease of maths).
So the DVLA claims that letters should be approx 4" tall by 2" wide to be legible (according to wikipedia anyway). So that's 18 inches wide plus spacing between and at the ends, lets round it up to 20 inches wide or over half the circumference of my cycle helmet.

Probably not a good option then. Mind you, would make a good air brake to slow you down maybe?

LOVE the boring bit

White Line

spen666 wrote:

White Line wrote:

Pfft, what an idiot. :roll:

I pay my share of VED, and I am all for insurance and tests and licence plates. Would have to be mounted on the rear brake like a race number though. Mounting on the saddle rails just won't do.

i ride fixed and have no rear brake to mount it on

Spoke card. People could see it when you skid! :P

girv73

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.

Good point, I hadn't considered that

Slow Downcp

It is quite easy to cause £1,000+ of damage to a normal family car, particluarly as the driver/driver's insurer will insist on using an approved repairer. I look after the motor fleet at work and have seen small dinks in one panel costing £500 to repair if it needs a new panel.

The other big advantage to having insurance is that it usually includes legal protection to cover your costs if you get hit and have to instruct a solicitor.

cedargreen

I already pay Vehicle excise duty on my car, I also pay council tax and income tax and VAT., which all contribute to maintaining the roads. As a cyclist, I think I should get a reduction in VED as I probably cycle more miles than I drive.

Cyclists should also be entitled to a rebate as the roads are a public highway yet cyclists are excluded from motorways and some trunk roads.

NGale

I already pay VED for my car (in fact I have the next six months to buy this Tuesday), I have seperate insurance for my bike and I have not only passed a driving test and a CBT but I have also passed a cycling proficiency.

I also contribute towards council tax (e.g highways, policing and fire services, all of which we as cyclists will use at some point, although hopefully not the final two), I pay tax and national insurance. So why should I pay more?

Motorists complain about speed cameras being a tax on motorists...WTF!! a tax is something you HAVE to pay, speeding is a choice, therefore you have a choice not to get caught when you see that big yellow camera. If you don't speed, you don't pay.

So again why should I pay more when I choose to take a form of transport which travels well under the national speed limit?

Why should I as a low to zero emmissions transport user pay for additional VED for a bike which I am, by law, not allowed to ride on the motorways and which by the very fact is human powered and has no engine? Unless the baked beans I ate for breakfast are causing some major atmospheric changes I can pretty safely say my VED would be a grand total of £0 per year.

andy83

apologies if my point has already been made but combination of watching ashes and cant be bothered to read im going to make my point

I really believe that anyone using the roads should have some sort of knowledge of using them. I have a driving license and think that knowing how to drive helps me massivly when cycling on the road

a prime example is roundabouts, you can tell a cyclist who cant drive (or is just blatenly ignorant) when they arrive to a roundabout and dont even look to the right. Everyone who drives should know you give way to the right. I know vehicle drivers and cyclists can be unpredictable but i think having a knowledge of how the roads should be used is essential

as for us paying extra to ride on the roads is a joke. The governement should be encouraging people to get from a to b in a healthy way instead of getting in the tin can (but no governement will make more money out of car/van users)

I wouldnt mind paying extra tax if there was sufficient areas to cycle (birmingham is so cycle unfriendly its untrue) or there werent pot holes in the cyclists paths all the time, or we got cash incentives like some people do to stop smoking lol. so after looking at them points i wont be paying anything extra to cycle on the roads.

pastryboy

I've already paid tax to use the roads on my bike, it's called VAT.

The registration system could never work - there's so many people who use their bikes just for a leisurely ride round the park or down the canal path - if they have to cross a road or two to get there they'd be charged for it and cycling as a leisure activity would be dead.

Edward Teach

We pay here every year usually 6 CHF a year, but some place you can it at a discount or free (depending how much you pay in a store, etc)

It's our insurance "Responsabilite Civile" and it's is compulsory, were you ride on or off road for each bike owned, for anybody who is 7 years or older. So if you are 7 years old and you have a bicycle, you have to pay (well dad has to pay )

If you you don't have a sticker on your bike, and get stop by the police, they can fine you.

nielsamd

Edward Teach wrote:

We pay here every year usually 6 CHF a year, but some place you can it at a discount or free (depending how much you pay in a store, etc)

It's our insurance "Responsabilite Civile" and it's is compulsory, were you ride on or off road for each bike owned, for anybody who is 7 years or older. So if you are 7 years old and you have a bicycle, you have to pay (well dad has to pay )

If you you don't have a sticker on your bike, and get stop by the police, they can fine you.

Just for future reference... for foreigners coming into Switzerland, can you buy this bicycle sticker at the border posts like the autobahn car sticker/tax?

Porgy

andy83 wrote:

I really believe that anyone using the roads should have some sort of knowledge of using them.

Would that include pedestrians?

posh_pedaller

Porgy wrote:

andy83 wrote:

I really believe that anyone using the roads should have some sort of knowledge of using them.

Would that include pedestrians?

Wouldn't that be covered by the Green Cross Code? Last time I was 4 we still had that.

ride_whenever

yes, but i'm sure that when you were four people still had brains...

currently headless sheep seems to be a more accurate description of people.

CiB

when a government wants to stop the population doing something they increase the tax on it. Driving, smoking, drinking. It's the financial dis-incentive, the implicit statement that says 'this is bad for you and the nation as a whole; if you want to do it you must pay more'.

How on earth could they square that with charging cyclists? The govt's favourite bit of trite cr@p is always along the lines of 'sending the right signals' so how does discouraging something that is universally a good thing tie in with 'sending the right signals'?

And on top of that factor in the administrative costs of running and policing a CED scheme; it's a complete non-starter in all respects. Licensing and registering bicycles is a non-starter.

Porgy

posh_pedaller wrote:

[Last time I was 4 we still had that.

How many times have you been 4? :shock:

Are you a Bhuddist?

TommyEss

posh_pedaller wrote:

Last time I was 4 we still had that.

The last time you were 4!?!?!

Porgy

posh_pedaller wrote:

Porgy wrote:

andy83 wrote:

I really believe that anyone using the roads should have some sort of knowledge of using them.

Would that include pedestrians?

Wouldn't that be covered by the Green Cross Code? Last time I was 4 we still had that.

I don't think anyone is taught the GCC anymore....I'm guessing that the number of times I get accused of "jaywalking" that most people get their road-awareness from Hollywood movies. :roll:

Agent57

Yeah, we need more Darth Vader and Tufty! I still have my Tufty Club badge.