Paying Road Tax!

Hoopdriver

This morning, yet again, I had the classic bit of abuse from a passing motorist about road tax - and wrote a little essay about it fellow cyclists might enjoy. Cheers

http://my-bicycle-and-i.co.uk/2012/paying-road-tax-heres-a-bridge-i-want-to-sell-you/

meanredspider

Nice piece. These people are just idiots who can't think of anything better with which to vent their frustration at being held up for 5 seconds

asquithea

TL;DR. At least, you didn't get to the point within the first two paragraphs...

Hoopdriver

It wasn't a news bulletin friend, it was an essay

DonDaddyD

I haven't read it yet, but I have to say this road tax argument irks me.

I pay either £137.50 for 6 months or £250.00 for 12 months "road tax" (we all know they mean VED) so I'm guessing I pay my fair share and/or more than those motorists that often like to bemoan the misconception that cyclists don't pay road tax. I do, I just prefer not to drive my car to work.

Surely it should be me having a go at them for assuming I don't and my own frustrations for (somewhat) choosing to pay so much....

Next time a person says this I'm going to stop them and say "Look, dickhead, I pay 250 f*cking pounds a year 'road tax' so don't talk to me about not paying while you sit there in your f*cking shitty car that looks like a skateboard compared to mine". The last bit may not be factually true but puts across the point I think.

Hoopdriver

The weird thing is that even if they extended VED to bicycles, we'd STILL pay nothing as it is based on carbon emissions (I guess the boffins who calculate these things have not yet figured out we exhale while we ride!)

The broad public ignorance on the 'road tax' issue would be funny but for the mindset that follows from it, and the way it creates an impression that cyclists are somehow tax-dodging freeloaders who don't belong out there and thus deserve whatever they get in the way of risks, unpleasantness, injury and death

jonnyboy77

I'm all for a PAYG 'road tax' where you only pay for the miles driven, and thus emissions produced per mile. That way my annual 'road tax' would be reduced the more I cycle, and the car only used where really necessary. In fact, you could scrap road tax, and add more tax to the cost of fuel, they do that often enough anyway.

I have given up arguing with drivers or pedestrians, they're not going to spoil my ride to work with unfounded drivel.

- Jon

kelsen

Although the link to the spam was a bit tenuous, I thought it was a nicely written piece. Maybe a better response might be 'No, you don't'. That would engage their ignorant minds to argue the toss before you beat them down with facts.

However, a simple 'Get to f*ck!' is probably quicker and easier.

CiB

I replied to the one in Cake Stop with a TL;DR but to add to the I Do Pay argument, in my head the response should be along these lines.

Roads are a shared national resource; we all pay for them through general taxation. VED is a part of general taxation along with PAYE, NICs, VAT, alcohol duty, tobacco duty (does not apply here), tax on interest on some savings, & Council Tax.

So far this year I've spent £774 on diesel and 70% of that is tax so there's over £600 in the coffers. VED was £165 this time round, wines = plenty so far thanks, PAYE & NIC have also come to a fair amount so far, the little bit of tax on the New Bike Fund a/c wasn't much but adds up over the year, and 20% of casual spending goes into the pot as VAT. The VAT on the bike when I had it was £280, VAT on the Di2 was another £300 by the time it was all added up.

I have paid thanks, and by the looks of you & your grubbly little car I've paid a sight more than you have. How about you get out of my way and give me a clear run on my roads?


I've had variations of bits of that conversation two or three times. The bother is that arguing with some brainless halfwit at the side of the road isn't the best location to hold a detailed analysis, so on balance I'd also go for the 'fark orf tosspot' approach if & when it does happen again.

rml380z

Why do people still argue with the shouters on the road? You wouldn't invite the religious door-knockers into your house to argue with them, would you?

1) Paddington Bear stare
2) Roll eyes sky-wards
3) Slow shake of the head
4) Ride off

or

1) Big grin
2) Laugh
3) Ride off

daviesee

I've given up on this but the use of the phrase "Ro@d T@x" should be outlawed.

You will be wasting your time but if you feel the need to argue then the shortest accuate way of getting the point across is:-
Duty is paid on the vehicles emissions. No emissions, no duty.

flimflam_machine

daviesee wrote:

Duty is paid on the vehicles emissions. No emissions, no duty.

Nice!

Alternatively, a jersey with a picture of a Prius (or any of these cars) with the legend "I pay as much "road tax" as this bloke. So sod off and hassle him instead."

pdw

I'm all for a PAYG 'road tax' where you only pay for the miles driven, and thus emissions produced per mile. That way my annual 'road tax' would be reduced the more I cycle, and the car only used where really necessary. In fact, you could scrap road tax, and add more tax to the cost of fuel, they do that often enough anyway.

Yep - fuel used is a much better way to measure emissions than the current VED nonsense, so scrap VED and increase fuel duty to compensate. Fuel duty has the advantage that it's much harder to evade than VED, so you can scrap all the enforcement and administration associated with VED too, so on average people should be paying less.

While you're at it, stick 3rd party insurance on fuel duty too.

meanredspider

Just BTW, I never did get a reply from Bob Russett, the muppet in charge of Palletline, who was arguing that bikes should be banned from cities for safety's sake and because we don't pay "road tax". Since he once led the RTA, there's no wonder there's idiots out there that believe this stuff.

el_presidente

The best one I ever had was a driverof a Prius berating me for "not paying road tax". "err...neither do you, mate" *rides off into sunset*

squired

Hoopdriver hit the nail on the head. Whether any of us have cars and pay tax on them is irrelevant. Just like other zero emission vehicles we wouldn't have to pay anything.

One day someone in Government will decide that we all need some form of tax disc, which will cost nothing in terms of VED, but for which we will probably have to pay £10 for to cover "administration costs". A few hundred/thousand public sector jobs will then be created to oversee and manage the pointless process. Drivers will then just shout abuse at us for not being insured and some Government fool will decide that we should all be insured too. Sounds ridiculous, but I could see it happening one day.

Hoopdriver

squired wrote:

Hoopdriver hit the nail on the head. Whether any of us have cars and pay tax on them is irrelevant. Just like other zero emission vehicles we wouldn't have to pay anything.

One day someone in Government will decide that we all need some form of tax disc, which will cost nothing in terms of VED, but for which we will probably have to pay £10 for to cover "administration costs". A few hundred/thousand public sector jobs will then be created to oversee and manage the pointless process. Drivers will then just shout abuse at us for not being insured and some Government fool will decide that we should all be insured too. Sounds ridiculous, but I could see it happening one day.

My God don't write such things, you'll give them ideas!

Jay dubbleU

Get one of these http://www.foska.com/ipayroadtax-toasti ... acket.html

Initialised

Reply with "I don't pay insurance either" and kick in their door panel when you catch them at the next lights.

[/evil mode]

What's wrong with me at the moment?

Must need more miles.

Initialised

rml380z wrote:

Why do people still argue with the shouters on the road? You wouldn't invite the religious door-knockers into your house to argue with them, would you?

I did that once, they left as atheists... [/fantasy land]

If only!

Don't feed the trolls...

daviesee

Initialised wrote:

rml380z wrote:

Why do people still argue with the shouters on the road? You wouldn't invite the religious door-knockers into your house to argue with them, would you?

I did that once, they left as atheists... [/fantasy land]

If only!

Don't feed the trolls...

Friend of mine waiting on the gas board thought "why not" when the Jehovas knocked on the door.
He asked a lot of awkward questions and they went on their way :twisted:

Wheelspinner

rml380z wrote:

Why do people still argue with the shouters on the road? You wouldn't invite the religious door-knockers into your house to argue with them, would you?

Reminds me of living in a share house 25 years ago. One guy used to love seeing the Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses doorknocking in the street. He'd strip off, borrow his girlfriend's spare high heels, and fling open the door starkers, to invite them in for a cuppa and a nice "chat"

Always a giggle. Used to worry what would happen if someone accepted the invitation though..

PBo

asquithea wrote:

TL;DR. At least, you didn't get to the point within the first two paragraphs...

What's TL;DR ?

Wheelspinner

PBo wrote:

asquithea wrote:

TL;DR. At least, you didn't get to the point within the first two paragraphs...

What's TL;DR ?

Too Long. Didn't Read.

PBo

daviesee wrote:

Initialised wrote:

rml380z wrote:

Why do people still argue with the shouters on the road? You wouldn't invite the religious door-knockers into your house to argue with them, would you?

I did that once, they left as atheists... [/fantasy land]

If only!

Don't feed the trolls...

Friend of mine waiting on the gas board thought "why not" when the Jehovas knocked on the door.
He asked a lot of awkward questions and they went on their way :twisted:

Problem I had when I was a kid was that when the Jehovah's knocked it was my nanna!!
"little PBo, was that your nanna at the door?"
"yes, I told her 'not today, thanks' and slammed the door in her face!"

:twisted:

PBo

asquithea wrote:

TL;DR. At least, you didn't get to the point within the first two paragraphs...

Crickey! Tough crowd.

Look, this is just a forum, you aren't examining him.

Fine, don't read it, with your gnat's attention span, but why make such an uncharitable post?

I liked it.....

CiB

PBo wrote:

asquithea wrote:

TL;DR. At least, you didn't get to the point within the first two paragraphs...

Crickey! Tough crowd.

Look, this is just a forum, you aren't examining him.

Fine, don't read it, with your gnat's attention span, but why make such an uncharitable post?

I liked it.....

I posted TLDR on the CS version. It was / is. It takes half a dozen paragraphs of waffle to get to the point and is written in that awful smug condescending language all to get to a point that's been made on here a million times. If he'd been writing about not having a knitting licence most of us would have dismissed it out of hand; just because it's "talking our language" doesn't mean it automatically has to be given a 10/10. That'd only encourage the fellah to do more.

Each to their own. If you like that sort of prose bookmark his blog. If it was submitted for inclusion in a newspaper though I reckon it'd be spiked at first read. YMMV. Personal view only. And I'm sure he's a nice chap.

Hoopdriver

CiB wrote:

PBo wrote:

asquithea wrote:

TL;DR. At least, you didn't get to the point within the first two paragraphs...

Crickey! Tough crowd.

Look, this is just a forum, you aren't examining him.

Fine, don't read it, with your gnat's attention span, but why make such an uncharitable post?

I liked it.....

I posted TLDR on the CS version. It was / is. It takes half a dozen paragraphs of waffle to get to the point and is written in that awful smug condescending language all to get to a point that's been made on here a million times. If he'd been writing about not having a knitting licence most of us would have dismissed it out of hand; just because it's "talking our language" doesn't mean it automatically has to be given a 10/10. That'd only encourage the fellah to do more.

Each to their own. If you like that sort of prose bookmark his blog. If it was submitted for inclusion in a newspaper though I reckon it'd be spiked at first read. YMMV. Personal view only. And I'm sure he's a nice chap.

Hi CIB

You know, for a guy who supposedly hated the post you've spent an awful lot of your valuable time commenting and writing critiques on it - in fact I daresay you've spent more time mulling over it, brooding upon it, resenting it and critiquing it than I spent writing the damn thing. I suppose I should feel flattered to have caught your attention and involved you so deeply in what, frankly, was just a light-hearted essay.

In terms of 'encouraging the fella' to do more, well, chum, you're a bit late on that one. I've been a journalist for nearly thirty years now, magazines mainly - Time, National Geographic, Conde Nast, Nature - and what's more I expect to continue for quite some time yet, both in print and blog form. And although I have won many national and international awards in the course of my career, the encouragement I get to do more comes from the enjoyment I derive from writing and photography - and lately, from the many positive comments I receive about my blog.

If that troubles you, get over it.

Cheers - and have a nice day.

CiB

Hoopdriver wrote:

CiB wrote:

PBo wrote:

asquithea wrote:

TL;DR. At least, you didn't get to the point within the first two paragraphs...

Crickey! Tough crowd.

Look, this is just a forum, you aren't examining him.

Fine, don't read it, with your gnat's attention span, but why make such an uncharitable post?

I liked it.....

I posted TLDR on the CS version. It was / is. It takes half a dozen paragraphs of waffle to get to the point and is written in that awful smug condescending language all to get to a point that's been made on here a million times. If he'd been writing about not having a knitting licence most of us would have dismissed it out of hand; just because it's "talking our language" doesn't mean it automatically has to be given a 10/10. That'd only encourage the fellah to do more.

Each to their own. If you like that sort of prose bookmark his blog. If it was submitted for inclusion in a newspaper though I reckon it'd be spiked at first read. YMMV. Personal view only. And I'm sure he's a nice chap.

Hi CIB

You know, for a guy who supposedly hated the post you've spent an awful lot of your valuable time commenting and writing critiques on it - in fact I daresay you've spent more time mulling over it, brooding upon it, resenting it and critiquing it than I spent writing the damn thing. I suppose I should feel flattered to have caught your attention and involved you so deeply in what, frankly, was just a light-hearted essay.

In terms of 'encouraging the fella' to do more, well, chum, you're a bit late on that one. I've been a journalist for nearly thirty years now, magazines mainly - Time, National Geographic, Conde Nast, Nature - and what's more I expect to continue for quite some time yet, both in print and blog form. And although I have won many national and international awards in the course of my career, the encouragement I get to do more comes from the enjoyment I derive from writing and photography - and lately, from the many positive comments I receive about my blog.

If that troubles you, get over it.

Cheers - and have a nice day.

Oh FFS. First off I could happily point a shotgun at anybody who strolls into my office today and blow their stupid skull to smithereens, so excuse me if I'm a bit less than charitable.

I haven't spent any time mulling over it; you got a TLDR over on CS as that's what I thought it was worth; then I noticed on here a snide comment that suggested that if anyone found it too long they must have the attention span of a gnat. That's what triggered me to spend all of 30 seconds knocking out that response above, and now I feel like wasting another 48 seconds to do this.

If you're that good - you clearly are according to errr... you - why churn out 6th form nonsense like that road tax attempt? Give us something exciting, gripping, enticing.

Like I said. I thought it was tosh and said so. Feel free to rip the SC Stats board to shreds as a riposte if you want.

Right. Who's got my gun?

Hoopdriver

You sound like such a happy, well adjusted man...

Honestly - and this is coming from the guy who wrote it - the post truly isn't worth the heat and passion you are putting into it. Cool your jets.

Kieran_Burns

Ignoring the toys being thrown around by the stroppy developer over there :P hasn't it occurred to anyone that all these people have the argument entirely backwards?

These are Public Highways. They are paid for, to be used by the public, as a means of getting around. As such pedestrians, cyclists and horse-riders have a right to use them as they have paid for them.

Drivers of motorised vehicles are allowed on these public highways under sufferance. This is the literal definition of 'under licence': you're being allowed to use the public highways. To earn that licence (and I'm NOT talking about the piece of paper: that's just a 'certificate' to show you've earned your licence to use a motor vehicle on the public highway)

Actually, I think clarifying the definition of license is in order here:
from: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/diction ... sh/licence
C] an official document which gives you permission to own, do or use something, usually after you have paid money and/or taken a test
a dog licence
a driving licence/US driver's license
a TV licence
•
[S or U] formal permission or freedom to do what you want
As parents, they allowed their children very little licence.
[+ to infinitive] He was given licence to reform the organization.

I am referring to the second definition in my argument.

Anyone can use the public highways, we have that right as individuals; but to use a motorised vehicle on our highways you need to ask permission and prove you are capable of doing so.

So anyone driving a motor vehicle should have the attitude that they are using someone elses roads, they are there under sufferance. An example of is when pedestrians have right of way when they have started crossing a junction: the motorised vehicle has to wait for them. (rule 170 highway code), this is why the motorists should look on pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders as the priority on the roads as they have the right to be there, the motorist doesn't.

So you see: the whole argument being proferred by these people bellowing "get off our roads" is backwards. You should respond "They're ours!" If nothing else it'll shut 'em up for long enough to allow you get away.

I might just post a variant of this post up on Scoobynet and see what happens....


(edited to correct grammar and my bloody spell checker)