# "Road tax" again (and an idea that might help)



## LabRatt (22 Jun 2011)

_if this should be somewhere else feel free to move it_

I got an email newsletter from the AA yesterday. One of the articles it was promoting was "How much does it cost to own your car?" with the blurb "Every year the AA publishes car running costs, looking at every element of the cost of running a car – *road tax*, insurance, depreciation, petrol, parts and servicing. The 2011 tables have now been launched." 
I know that bugs many a cyclist, though I think the proportion of drivers who believe their road tax gives them more right to the road than cyclists is small, and decided to give feedback. Feedback that I know will probably not be read, but sometimes I like to complain. 

In the course of writing, I came up with an idea. Here's what I wrote - I couldn't actually send it through their website contact form as it was too long, but I thought I'd throw it at you lot for feedback before putting it in a proper email or letter. The first part is fairly standard "large motoring organisation/responsibility/dispel the myths" stuff, the second part is my idea that _might_ (_if_ they did it) help. Or would it hurt? Or has it already been suggested?



Me as a letter-writing-nutjob said:


> In the news section [of your newsletter] on "How much does it cost to own your car?" there is a mention of "road tax". I'm sure you hear about this very often but that is because it is a very important point: there is no such thing as Road Tax.
> Putting the phrase into the search box I found 114 results - many of these results do correctly refer to Vehicle Excise Duty, but do use the road tax phrase.
> I've heard the fact that "road tax is the colloquial/common name for VED" used as a defence for this, but that's no good: the common name is wrong. If an organisation like the AA continues to refer to "Road Tax" that will perpetuate the myth that such a tax exists, and that VED is what pays for the roads.
> I'm sure you can guess where I'm coming from on this - the "Road Tax" argument is used by drivers who insist that cyclists are intruding on their territory, should ride at the side of the road, are slowing them down, and all the other things they say. Motorists think that their "road tax" pays for the roads, and that cyclists have no right.
> ...



It just seemed to me an approach that hadn't been tried before, though I might be wrong - I am new to all this. It certainly wouldn't be difficult to equip their patrol vehicles to deal with most "bike breakdowns" and training a mechanically minded (in my experience, their _very nice men _generally are) to deal with bicycle stuff should be fairly trivial. There's plenty of room in the market for more bike insurance too.


----------



## Dave Davenport (22 Jun 2011)

Looks good to me.


----------



## numbnuts (22 Jun 2011)

I have this on my bike


----------



## upsidedown (22 Jun 2011)

That's a great idea. I suppose it could be added to existing car cover too. I'd certainly pay a small amount each year to have the reassurance that i could get home in the event of a major mechanical or crash.


cheers

paul


----------



## dellzeqq (22 Jun 2011)

If I may

_........dear AA

I received your members newsletter, and read the article about the cost of motoring. 

Road Tax is a misnomer. It's called Vehicle Excise Duty. Get it right next time please.

_Surely that's all they need.


----------



## Richard Mann (22 Jun 2011)

ETA have done this for years.


----------



## benb (22 Jun 2011)

Good letter. I would just change the last sentence of the first paragraph from "perpetuate the lie" to "perpetuate the myth"
IMO it just sounds better that way.

No idea whether the breakdown cover would be popular or not. Worth looking into for sure.


----------



## LabRatt (22 Jun 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> If I may
> ..._
> _Surely that's all they need.



The newsletter issue was secondary, at least to my post here. The main point is an idea that could a) get them money, b) might actually be useful to cyclists (as demonstrated by upsidedown above) and 3) if done properly could help our cause.


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (22 Jun 2011)

numbnuts said:


> I have this on my bike



I have been carrying that in my wallet for about 6 months, waiting until I come across a suitable way to attach it. How is yours attached?


----------



## downfader (22 Jun 2011)

MrHappyCyclist said:


> I have been carrying that in my wallet for about 6 months, waiting until I come across a suitable way to attach it. How is yours attached?




Get down Halfords and buy a plastic Motorcycle holder. Then cable tie it to a stay or rack. 

On the AA I have written to them about this matter before. No reply myself either. I get the feeling that they like the idea of riling up motorists and making them feel like victims, look at the way they handled issues on speed cameras a few years back.


----------



## byegad (24 Jun 2011)

upsidedown said:


> That's a great idea. I suppose it could be added to existing car cover too. I'd certainly pay a small amount each year to have the reassurance that i could get home in the event of a major mechanical or crash.
> 
> 
> cheers
> ...



ETA already do it I have recovery on both our cars and my trike all in one payment. A recumbent trike is not something you can get on a bus or train if you suffer a mechanical, so when my Kettwiesel seat failed I could have called them out to get me home or to a Bike shop. As it happened my wife was home and used my car to rescue me.


----------



## numbnuts (24 Jun 2011)

MrHappyCyclist said:


> I have been carrying that in my wallet for about 6 months, waiting until I come across a suitable way to attach it. How is yours attached?


motorcycle tax holder from ebay and bolted it to the front rack supports.


----------



## Greenbank (24 Jun 2011)

Doesn't matter what it is called, many motorists get annoyed because the majority of them have to pay something that cyclists don't.

It may be called VED, it may be emissions based, but it doesn't matter; cyclists don't have to pay it for their bikes.

It doesn't matter that many cyclists do pay it because they do have cars. You're not in your car therefore they think you don't pay it.

If cyclists had to pay 1p or £1 then motorists would still get annoyed that cyclists paid much less than the majority of motorists.

If cyclists had to pay the same as a motorist then motorists would just get annoyed about something else, such as cyclists not having to pay for petrol/diesel.


----------



## jonesy (24 Jun 2011)

I fully agree I'm afraid. This isn't a debate worth bothering with, because few people are remotely interested in the distinction between a duty and a tax. You can go through a long and painful explanation of the difference, and they'll just respond "yebbut cyclists don't pay anything". Waste of time, as per Greenbank's post, the definition of tax isn't what makes them angry.It is a symptom not a cause.


----------



## dellzeqq (24 Jun 2011)

are some cars VED free? (I'm sorry, I'm out of touch on this)


----------



## italiafirenze (24 Jun 2011)

Yes, cars which emit less than 100 g/km of CO2.

There are very few of them. They are all rubbish.

Abolish VED and double fuel excise duty; that will do for me.


----------



## funnymummy (24 Jun 2011)

numbnuts said:


> motorcycle tax holder from ebay and bolted it to the front rack supports.



 ....And my next purcahse on Ebay shall be - Cheers Numbnuts x


----------



## dodgy (25 Jun 2011)

Or farm vehicles that use the road.


----------



## Greenbank (25 Jun 2011)

RichK said:


> and "classic" cars built before (about) 1972 pay nil ved
> 
> 
> anybody ever seen any evidence of drivers going on about owners of old cars not paying road tax? no, thought not.



Not in my experience. My old L-reg Triumph Spitfire was £0 VED.


----------



## dellzeqq (25 Jun 2011)

so to go back to Greenbank's point, is it simpler to say 'if you drove a sensible car you wouldn't pay either'


----------



## PK99 (25 Jun 2011)

I really don'y know why some cyclists get so hot and bothered about Road Tax:

as wikipedia has it:


*Road tax*, known by various names around the world, is a tax which has to be paid on a motor vehicle before using it on a public road.

and

*Vehicle Excise Duty* (also *VED*, *vehicle tax*, *car tax* and *road tax*) is a* vehicle road use tax l*evied as an excise duty which must be paid for most types of vehicle which are to be used (or parked) on the 'public roads' in the United Kingdom.

if you want to get hot under the collar about something ffs make it about something that matters


----------



## Adasta (25 Jun 2011)

PK99 said:


> as wikipedia has it



Does it have links to sources? If not then, even by Wikipedia's standards, the prose is unreliable.


----------



## jonesy (25 Jun 2011)

It doesn't matter. Someone fuming with Daily Mail indignation because we don't pay "road tax" isn't suddenly going to change their mind by having it pointed out to them that they've got its name wrong, and it is really a "duty" that we don't pay. It is a pedants' debate.


----------



## Adasta (25 Jun 2011)

jonesy said:


> It doesn't matter. Someone fuming with Daily Mail indignation because we don't pay "road tax" isn't suddenly going to change their mind by having it pointed out to them that they've got its name wrong, and it is really a "duty" that we don't pay. It is a pedants' debate.



With that sort of mentality, nothing would ever change. It might be seen as a minor linguistic/taxation difference, but I don't think people should resist from telling the truth simply because people might not believe them.


----------



## downfader (25 Jun 2011)

PK99 said:


> I really don'y know why some cyclists get so hot and bothered about Road Tax:
> 
> as wikipedia has it:
> 
> ...




The point isnt just that people get things wrong, its that they use them as justification for their own wants or actions, and a level of jealously. VED is an avoidable tax in many ways. We're not the ones that get hot under the collar in all reality - I think this debate has been brought unto us.

Once the debate is won, however, it will move on to any of the other red herrings such as insurance, plates, etc.. or that we "get in the way."


----------



## dellzeqq (25 Jun 2011)

all you can do is deal with it at source. I can assure you that no ****er giving me this shoot has ever been left in any doubt about the difference, or, for that matter, about the size of his penis 

.....although from now on, thanks to those of you who have brought me up to date, I'll be able to point out that if he had made an intelligent choice of car then he (it's always a he) would be paying anything either


----------



## PK99 (25 Jun 2011)

Adasta said:


> Does it have links to sources? If not then, even by Wikipedia's standards, the prose is unreliable.



Pedantry[sup]2[/sup]


----------



## jonesy (25 Jun 2011)

Adasta said:


> With that sort of mentality, nothing would ever change. It might be seen as a minor linguistic/taxation difference, but I don't think people should resist from telling the truth simply because people might not believe them.



The point isn't whether people will believe it or not, it is that they simply aren't interested in the distinction. When they complain "Cyclists don't pay road tax", the thing they object to is the bit in red. You want to argue about the definition of the bit in blue.

People who are anti-cyclist won't be less so just because someone tells them VED isn't the same as road tax. And for people who are positive about cycling the issue doesn't even come up. The government isn't about to inflict a road tax on us, so this isn't a battle we need to fight.


----------



## dellzeqq (25 Jun 2011)

there is an argument, though about ownership. As far as I'm concerned (and. I'm sure you agree, Jonesy) roads are public space. The notion that the streets are 'paid for' by 'road tax' does infect policy. I'd suggest that the TfL's Draft Network Strategy rest upon the idea that the streets are not public space, but are rented out to traffic to do a job.


----------



## jonesy (25 Jun 2011)

I see what you mean, I'm just not convinced that the people who come out with the "cyclists don't pay road tax" argument are actually going through any kind of sophisticated thought processes about the funding of transport or the ownership of public space, so they aren't open to technical arguments about the difference between a tax and a duty. The point is that they pay something that we don't. It isn't so much the fact that we don't pay "road tax" that offends them, it is that we don't pay a "cycle tax"...


----------



## italiafirenze (25 Jun 2011)

The drivers who have a problem with it do so because they think they pay for the roads, just watch the perfect examples on Carlton Reid's site, they need to be informed they pay for the right to use their car; and has been pointed out, they needn't if they chose a different model.

Of course we have to campaign for accuracy on this point, because it is used as an excuse for the vitriol directed at cyclists. There's no saying it will reduce that vitriol, but at least in their tiny minds they will have to consider it for a little bit longer.


----------



## jonesy (26 Jun 2011)

By all means try to get across to people all the external costs of car based transport (accidents, congestion, air pollution etc) that have to be added to the cost of road building and maintenance, and that very low emission vehicles don't pay VED. Certainly point out that you actually get rather a lot for your annual VED, not least of which is the ability to use the public road to store your private property. But you are banging your head against the wall if you get bogged down in the finer distinctions of the meaning of "road tax"- to the anti-cyclists the argument is about something much simpler than that, they pay billions in VED and fuel duty each year to the government, cyclists don't. They feel this gives them a *moral* entitlement, and simply aren't open to persion to a pedantic debate about definitions. But as I said before, this doesn't matter anyway, it makes no difference to people's decision on whether to cycle, and those people who are positive about cycling are't going to demand that they pay tax on it.


----------



## downfader (26 Jun 2011)

User said:


> Wikipedia isn't exactly a reliable source - given that it's often contributed to by people who talk out of their arse....




Wiki is a LOT better than it used to be. Citations and references are now used where possible, so if they have links to official sources its ok.

Colloquiliasms tend to be more unreliable and "road tax" is one of them.


----------



## Adasta (26 Jun 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> there is an argument, though about ownership. As far as I'm concerned (and. I'm sure you agree, Jonesy) roads are public space. The notion that the streets are 'paid for' by 'road tax' does infect policy. I'd suggest that the TfL's Draft Network Strategy rest upon the idea that the streets are not public space, but are rented out to traffic to do a job.



Are you influenced by the works of Henri Lefebvre? 

Edit: That is a genuine question with no ulterior motive.


----------



## Richard Mann (27 Jun 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> there is an argument, though about ownership. As far as I'm concerned (and. I'm sure you agree, Jonesy) roads are public space. The notion that the streets are 'paid for' by 'road tax' does infect policy. I'd suggest that the TfL's Draft Network Strategy rest upon the idea that the streets are not public space, but are rented out to traffic to do a job.



Um. Roads (streets) often have a link function as well as a place function. The trick is not to deny the link function, but to moderate it's impact on the place function. You won't get anywhere by denying the link function - you can't claim exclusive ownership. But you can talk up the place function, and you can point out that car-flow is a pathetic metric for the link function: they need to measure everybody's delay.


----------



## StuartG (27 Jun 2011)

Boring. Sophistories like whether the London Congestion Charge is a tax or not is only important if you happend to have diplomatic status.

VED/Road Tax is irrelevant. We are taxed/charged at the same rate as motor vehicles. And as Road Tax/VED is a tax/charge on emmissions we pay the same rate as cars under 100mg per thingy. Period, full stop end of story.

Now taxing emmissions is another matter. The CC does that crudely, Fuel Excise Duty does that less crudely. Till they tax my farts this is not something to get into. And if you are a motorist you can elect to get out of it with LPG/Electricity.

Buying petrol pays for roads & cyclepaths? Ahem my alcohol excise duty pays for more ...


----------



## dellzeqq (27 Jun 2011)

Adasta said:


> Are you influenced by the works of Henri Lefebvre?
> 
> Edit: That is a genuine question with no ulterior motive.


no - I'm a drawing person, so Lucien Kroll is my inspiration. He provokes a kind of anti-architecture, which, extended to public space, asks the question 'who controls this?' 







Richard's point about links is fair enough, but the overwhelming truth is that, for the most part, motorised traffic controls the street.


----------



## Riding in Circles (3 Jul 2011)

The Swiss pay a bike tax, it is a nominal fee but may be worth considering for here by charging the same as any other zero emission vehicle, i.e. zero, then display the tax sticker or disc.


----------



## Alun (4 Jul 2011)

Catrike UK said:


> The Swiss pay a bike tax, it is a nominal fee but may be worth considering for here by charging the same as any other zero emission vehicle, i.e. zero, then display the tax sticker or disc.



Are you suggesting that, in the current financial situation we set up a special tax for bikes, which will be zero rated and therefore raise no revenue at all? Who will pay for that?


----------



## twowheelsgood (4 Jul 2011)

> The Swiss pay a bike tax, it is a nominal fee but may be worth considering for here by charging the same as any other zero emission vehicle, i.e. zero, then display the tax sticker or disc.




Not quite, we pay 7chf or about a fiver that gives us compulsory 3rd party liability insurance, it isn't "a tax" as such.

I did once read that the value of the insurance was actually pennies and the rest was the cost of administering the scheme and printing the stickers.

It's not really is the scheme of things a very sensible system given the low risk that cyclists pose, although it might placate the irate motorist. Unfortunately, those inclined to be an arse over this will likely still be an arse if we did the same. The problem is the attitude to cyclists that British drivers have.


----------



## downfader (4 Jul 2011)

User said:


> Whilst this may seem like a good idea, I don't like it.
> 
> It undermines the principle that only those vehicles which are dangerous and pollute need licensing, which is what driving licenses, manadatory insurance, number plates and VED are all about. If we pay a 'bike tax', then the next demands will be for number plates, mandatory insurance and a 'cycling license'. Then bikes will be no different to cars.




I agree.

And the two big questions that would have to be asked is:

- will it make cycling less free and less attractive?
- do we REALLY need it in the first place? (Think dog licence.)


----------



## classic33 (7 Jul 2011)

I drove the DVLA nuts with this one.

Under the present system, the vehicle needs it own unique number. This so that it can be issued with a licence plate. Licence plate required in order that the present system can then say how much is payable.

I even went as far as taking my then new(to me) Brox to a VOSA test station, for it to undergo the SVA test. Booked prior to purchase, but when I turned up & said what I was there for I got the response that they would be unable to test it, under the present system.

So does this mean that under the present system we are classified as not being liable or does it mean that they have have yet to work out a way of making us liable?


----------



## rusky (7 Jul 2011)

I refer to it as car tax. I pay my money to put a paper disc on my car not the road


----------



## LabRatt (28 Jul 2011)

Been gone for a while, so sorry to bounce what should be a dead thread.

I hadn't meant this to be so contentious when I originally posted it. I agree that the name itself isn't the issue, it's the fact that cars are paid for while bicycles aren't, but getting the name right is a step in the right direction - after all, it's not about the *road*, but the *vehicle*.

My point is rather that an organisation like the AA is better placed than many to actually help. They can start by getting the name right, but a big difference could be made if they put effort into correcting perceptions. The AA can tell drivers that bikes have every right to be on the road, that they delay they cause is minimal or non-existent, every bike is one less car between them and their destination, etc. Some of the already small proportion of drivers that are a problem _might _start to take notice, and that will help everyone. So let the prominent pro-car people/organisations come out as pro-bike too. It can't hurt.

Or maybe I'm just naive and pedantic.
(there, I've had my say so we can just let the thread die now)


----------

