Government Spending Survey

lardboy

As you may have seen in the news, the Government is asking for public opinion on how to reduce spending and reduce the deficit. To do this, they've set up a website where you can put your suggestions and vote on other people's ideas.

As would be expected, there's a significant amount of nonsense being spouted on there (Immigrants out, cut all benefits, housing for british people only, etc), but there also seems to be a large number of cycling related posts, mostly around compulsory insurance/licensing/taxing.

If anyone feels so inclined, or even just fancies a bit of an internet argument with an anti-cycling numpty, please do pop over to this site, register and drop some nice low votes on the more idiotic suggestions:

http://spendingchallenge.hm-treasury.gov.uk/

g00se

Just had a look - it's a prime example of why some people shouldn't be given the vote!

iPete

g00se wrote:

Just had a look - it's a prime example of why some people shouldn't be given the vote!

This.

Although if I HAD to make a suggestion, it would be remove the daft website. The only people who are going to comment are daily mail readers with their angry pens.

davmaggs

Those sites are just for the illusion of consulting people. The civil service has no interest in saving money and its only because it really has run out that things are changing. Even then I suspect they'll go for easy culls and possibly even go for ones that'll get bad headlines to try and make the politicians baulk.

Funny how the Brits have been brainwashed into suggest that raising taxes on other people is the only way. Taxes on cars have been wasted so lets grab some of bikes so that can be wasted too.

As Douglas Hurd pointed out moons ago. There are more civil servants nows than at the height of the empire when they were overseeing a 1/3 of the world. What are they all doing?

g00se

it's a way to justify the daily-mail type cuts. Housing benefit cut? well, you asked for it...

re-cycles

lardboy wrote:

mostly around compulsory insurance/licensing/taxing.

If anyone feels so inclined, or even just fancies a bit of an internet argument with an anti-cycling numpty,

I'm a cyclist thats in favour of insurance, licensing & taxing!

iPete

re-cycles wrote:

lardboy wrote:

mostly around compulsory insurance/licensing/taxing.

If anyone feels so inclined, or even just fancies a bit of an internet argument with an anti-cycling numpty,

I'm a cyclist thats in favour of insurance, licensing & taxing!

If that happens I might as well just get a motorbike! :!:

spen666

re-cycles wrote:

lardboy wrote:

mostly around compulsory insurance/licensing/taxing.

If anyone feels so inclined, or even just fancies a bit of an internet argument with an anti-cycling numpty,

I'm a cyclist thats in favour of insurance, licensing & taxing!

Turkey + christmas comes to mind

Porgy

re-cycles wrote:

lardboy wrote:

mostly around compulsory insurance/licensing/taxing.

If anyone feels so inclined, or even just fancies a bit of an internet argument with an anti-cycling numpty,

I'm a cyclist thats in favour of insurance, licensing & taxing!

So where's the number plate going to go? I've got a suggestion if you're not sure.

rjsterry

I though the No. 10 Downing STreet website with its petitions was daft, but this really takes the biscuit. As if you could make even a vague stab at a sensible way to cut the deficit without even an outline knowledge of what money is currently spent where. It just beggars belief.

paulbox

re-cycles wrote:

I'm a cyclist thats in favour of insurance, licensing & taxing!

Why...:(

schweiz

I don't agree with taxing bicycles to raise revenue, like has been said previously, it'll just be wasted, but I do agree with the Swiss system of having mandatory insurance. It costs between CHF4.50 to CHF7.00 (£2.70- £4.40 ish) depending on where you get it from.

http://translate.google.com/translate?j ... l=de&tl=en

re-cycles

PaulBox wrote:

re-cycles wrote:

I'm a cyclist thats in favour of insurance, licensing & taxing!

Why...:(

What would happen if you rode your bike into the side of a car on your commute? At present the car owner hasn't got much choice but to deal with the damage themselves. Hows that fair? A lot of people on here are proud to announce how fast they can ride their bikes, and for some of them the speeds are not that different to a 50cc scooter. A bike hitting something at those kinds of speeds would do a fair bit of damage.

rjsterry

re-cycles wrote:

PaulBox wrote:

re-cycles wrote:

I'm a cyclist thats in favour of insurance, licensing & taxing!

Why...:(

What would happen if you rode your bike into the side of a car on your commute? At present the car owner hasn't got much choice but to deal with the damage themselves. Hows that fair? A lot of people on here are proud to announce how fast they can ride their bikes, and for some of them the speeds are not that different to a 50cc scooter. A bike hitting something at those kinds of speeds would do a fair bit of damage.

That's an argument for insurance. What about taxing/licensing? Even if pedal cycles were included in the existing VED system, we wouldn't pay anything, as the rate is based on emissions (I must admit I do breath out a bit on my bike, and occasionally fart as well).

iPete

re-cycles a valid point & I agree that some form of third party insurance is highly recommended.

However the cost of administrating a compulsory insurance scheme would be huge. Then you get into issues with all the people who aren't regular cyclists! Its adding red tape to a recreation that should be easily accessible.

On that note, anybody recommend some good third party insurance, CTC membership the best route to take?

El Capitano

davmaggs wrote:

What are they all doing?

Oh Hai, they're posting on this forum...

ketsbaia

schweiz wrote:

I don't agree with taxing bicycles to raise revenue, like has been said previously, it'll just be wasted, but I do agree with the Swiss system of having mandatory insurance. It costs between CHF4.50 to CHF7.00 (£2.70- £4.40 ish) depending on where you get it from.

http://translate.google.com/translate?j ... l=de&tl=en

Problem with having compulsory insurance in this country is that the insurance companies would treat it as yet another licence to print money and charge ridiculous sums for it. See also car insurance, buildings and contents insurance, etc.

Ambrose Bierce had it right.

schweiz

iPete wrote:

However the cost of administrating a compulsory insurance scheme would be huge.

It doesn't need to be, see my post above about how much a scheme costs here. I have always wondered how the insurance companies make any money about it if you take into account the cut for the re-seller (LBS, Post Office, Supermarket etc.) and the cost of producing the stickers. The pack the sticker comes with always has an advert for theft insurance, maybe they rely on that bringing in revenue. Also I have no idea how many claims there are per annum, but the scheme does seem to work.

iPete wrote:

Then you get into issues with all the people who aren't regular cyclists! Its adding red tape to a recreation that should be easily accessible.

Which will be the hardest part. Changing the mindset of the people. Here they are just advertised everywhere you go from early spring. If you have a bike, you just buy one, it's a couple of quid and no more worries.

There has been a recent discussion on scrapping them as most people are (alledgedly) covered through their home contents insurance which usually has a 3rd party insurance tagged on, but I like the idea that it is a seperate insurance that has no link to the premium I pay on my household insurance.

re-cycles

rjsterry wrote:

That's an argument for insurance. What about taxing/licensing? Even if pedal cycles were included in the existing VED system, we wouldn't pay anything, as the rate is based on emissions (I must admit I do breath out a bit on my bike, and occasionally fart as well).

I've never understood the resistance of some cyclists against VED/tax. Just looking around the forum shows that a fair few people spend an awful lot of money to buy their bikes, and that a lot of bikes are stolen. Surely a registration system would help reduce the sales of stolen bikes? I'm not suggesting it'd stop it the trade in "dodgy" bikes, but a reduction would be a good thing wouldn't it?

Under the current system it would cost anything to "tax" a bike for the user, so whats the problem? Would visiting a post office once a year really be that difficult? As far as I can see the only ones that would lose out would be the RLJs, dangerous riders and those that ride stolen bikes!

iPete

I'd have no issues with being issued a tax disc sticker for nothing, would shut up a few motorists but it wouldn't be done cheaply in this country. I can't see riders of bike shaped objects taking to it nor the current government who'd lose money doing it during a time of heavy cuts.

If it was left to insurance companies to sell compulsory insurance, I'm 100% sure it wouldn't be as cheap as the Swiss model. A few quid would be a dream but won't happen.

Still if by some miracle a tax disc and insurance for cyclists was to be implemented for a few quid per year, I'd sign up but I'll also be watching out for the flying pigs on my commute.

zanes

re-cycles wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

That's an argument for insurance. What about taxing/licensing? Even if pedal cycles were included in the existing VED system, we wouldn't pay anything, as the rate is based on emissions (I must admit I do breath out a bit on my bike, and occasionally fart as well).

I've never understood the resistance of some cyclists against VED/tax. Just looking around the forum shows that a fair few people spend an awful lot of money to buy their bikes, and that a lot of bikes are stolen. Surely a registration system would help reduce the sales of stolen bikes? I'm not suggesting it'd stop it the trade in "dodgy" bikes, but a reduction would be a good thing wouldn't it?

Under the current system it would cost anything to "tax" a bike for the user, so whats the problem? Would visiting a post office once a year really be that difficult? As far as I can see the only ones that would lose out would be the RLJs, dangerous riders and those that ride stolen bikes!

Just like VED for cars means no cars are ever stolen in this country?

And the old "Nothing to hide, nothing to fear" argument again. Wonderful. Just play the "National Security" and "think of the children" cards and I'll be shouting BINGO!

davmaggs

Rather than say how easy or cheap it would be to buy cyclist insurance, why not ask the question why and what significant benefit does it really provide?

When cars collide there can be thousands and thousands of pounds of damage, plus the cost that the NHS could charge (car insurance firms are liable for ambulance charges etc) and damage to life and limb. Many accidents would bankrupt the owners hence insurance is required for those who aren't wealthy (you can self insure, and companies do this).

Whilst I'm sure we can find a few anecodes the consequences of bike accidents don't result in this level of damage and accidents usually harm the cyclist (and they are welcome to self insure). There's lots of scares to promote of liability insurance, but where are the thousands of cases of it being claimed against?

Cycling insurance would just be a boom to those selling it. As the Swiss pricing shows, it would probably not pay out anything worth having and the cost probably covers the bureaucracy from what is most likely a legacy statute.

davmaggs

just as I thought for the Swiss advocates:

http://genevalunch.com/blog/2010/03/30/parliament-debates-utility-of-annual-bicycle-stickers/

schweiz

davmaggs wrote:

Cycling insurance would just be a boom to those selling it. As the Swiss pricing shows, it would probably not pay out anything worth having and the cost probably covers the bureaucracy from what is most likely a legacy statute.

CHF 2,000,000 is worth having.

I believe something like 20% of the cost is for admin.

re-cycles

zanes wrote:

Just like VED for cars means no cars are ever stolen in this country?

How many more would be stolen if the thief knew they could sell them easily with no checks?

zanes wrote:

And the old "Nothing to hide, nothing to fear" argument again. Wonderful. Just play the "National Security" and "think of the children" cards and I'll be shouting BINGO!

So what is your reason for not wanting it?

spen666

re-cycles wrote:

PaulBox wrote:

re-cycles wrote:

I'm a cyclist thats in favour of insurance, licensing & taxing!

Why...:(

What would happen if you rode your bike into the side of a car on your commute? At present the car owner hasn't got much choice but to deal with the damage themselves. Hows that fair? A lot of people on here are proud to announce how fast they can ride their bikes, and for some of them the speeds are not that different to a 50cc scooter. A bike hitting something at those kinds of speeds would do a fair bit of damage.

At first this sounds a sensible idea, but stop and think about it


1. Even if you are cycling at 30+MPH the damage that a cyclist will do to a car is minimal and superficial (in most cases). The cyclist ( myself excluded) isn't carrying enough mass to do much damage other than perhaps denting a panel on a vehicle. A motor vehicle however, even a scooter weighs much more than a pedal cycle and its mass combined with their speed means they can cause much more damge to some object/ person they hit.

2. The above does not deal with a cyclist hitting a pedestrian. Again, the damage done is usually relatively minimal and often the cyclist will come off worst. This latter point tends to ensure most ( not all) cyclists ride cautiously.

3. We are not required as private citizens to have 3rd party insurance in everyday life off the road. For example I am not required to be insured against bumping into a ladder and knocking a person off the top of the same (would cause serious harm). This does not mean that I am not liable in damages to anyone I injure as a result of my negligence. If I am not insured, I end up having to pay it out of my own pocket.

4. Many cyclists are covered against 3rd party liability by their house and or contents insurance. Many cyclists are covered against 3rd party liability via the CTC, BC, LVRC, LCC or other organisations anyway.

5. The injuries and damage caused in most accidents by cyclists would be below the level of excess on most insurance policies in any event, so the cyclist would be paying out for insurance that actually provides little benefit at all.

6. ( Pure specualtion this one) If motorists thought they had a chance of recovering costs of damage to their car in insurance claim against cyclists, then I'm sure more would try to blame the cyclist for their vehicle damage - thus making it harder for the genuine victim to get compensation . In particular look at how many insurance vehicle claims for motorised vehicles are settled on a knock for knock basis

always_tyred

re-cycles wrote:

lardboy wrote:

mostly around compulsory insurance/licensing/taxing.

If anyone feels so inclined, or even just fancies a bit of an internet argument with an anti-cycling numpty,

I'm a cyclist thats in favour of insurance, licensing & taxing!

Of what though?

Why not tax pedestrians as well, give the "ID Cards" or something like that, so we can track when they j-walk and so on. Think of all the infrastructure they require; pavements, crossings, underpasses etc. Tax everyone. Lets call it an outdoor tax. If there weren't people wanting to be outdoors, we wouldn't have to spend money on it.

Shall I continue, or have you gone now?

spen666

davmaggs wrote:

Rather than say how easy or cheap it would be to buy cyclist insurance, why not ask the question why and what significant benefit does it really provide?

.......

+1

lost_in_thought

davmaggs wrote:

As Douglas Hurd pointed out moons ago. There are more civil servants nows than at the height of the empire when they were overseeing a 1/3 of the world. What are they all doing?

So true.

I was chatting to a friend last night, he's in the armed forces, and despite their being on the brink of running out of money altogether, their whole mess is being redecorated and all the crew-rooms are being fitted with 60" televisions and PS3s. Apparently, the overwhelming feeling is that they'd sooner have body-armour.

EDIT: And on the subject of insurance, you're not insuring the other party, you're insuring yourself against having to pay out if it can be proven you're at fault.

EDIT 2: Oh, spen's already said it. And better than me. Damn.

zanes

re-cycles wrote:

zanes wrote:

Just like VED for cars means no cars are ever stolen in this country?

How many more would be stolen if the thief knew they could sell them easily with no checks?

You mean exactly like we have at the moment? It's times like this that makes me wonder how the human race has survived so long without morons like you trying to legislate/control every aspect of everyones life* Personally, I note you haven't actually explained how your proposed system would actually help fight theft, or replied to my question re. how much the VED system applied to cars cuts car theft, especially bearing in mind the average bikes identification is much easier to remove than the average cars.

re-cycles wrote:

zanes wrote:

And the old "Nothing to hide, nothing to fear" argument again. Wonderful. Just play the "National Security" and "think of the children" cards and I'll be shouting BINGO!

So what is your reason for not wanting it?

Notice how I haven't actually said I don't want it, but since you assumed**. Feature creep, and the fact that it'll be just another excuse/mechanism for monitoring/restrictions to be put in place (not necessarily under the current government. Make of that what you will.)

Bit ranty this and obviously on a different subject, but meh: http://www.biometricidentitycards.info/ ... NoFear.htm


*Labour voter, perchance?
**Yes, makes an, ass, you, me etc.

spen666

lost_in_thought wrote:

davmaggs wrote:

....I was chatting to a friend last night, he's in the armed forces, and despite their being on the brink of running out of money altogether, their whole mess is being redecorated and all the crew-rooms are being fitted with 60" televisions and PS3s. Apparently, the overwhelming feeling is that they'd sooner have body-armour.

......

That is exactly why you need the civil service pen pushers.

Those stupid soldiers have no sense of priorities. They just think self self self- body armour - pahhhhhh what good is that- you can't even play outdated versions of games on it.

And what body armour allows you to watch big brother in HD?


Thankfully we have the civil service to protect us from those self centred , thoughtless soldiers