# Road tax



## gambatte (31 May 2012)

I see the front page of the BBC News website is referring to it again....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/


----------



## MissTillyFlop (31 May 2012)

Emailed and pointed out that they're rubbish.


----------



## gambatte (31 May 2012)

same here.
Also to BBC Breakfast this morning when they mentioned it, whilst reviewing the papers.


----------



## Matthew_T (31 May 2012)

I have been meaning to contact Fiat about it because they mention it in one of their TV adverts.


----------



## sabian92 (31 May 2012)

Matthew_T said:


> I have been meaning to contact Fiat about it because they mention it in one of their TV adverts.


 
I've seen that - it's in their newspaper ads too.

Really gets up my nose that does. Probably a bit wasted but it really irritates me.


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (31 May 2012)

Anyone know which tv advert it is?

It must be on Utube.


----------



## Matthew_T (31 May 2012)

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcUy8_B3dVA


This isnt the one I remember but it is similar.


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (31 May 2012)

Matthew_T said:


> .


 
Oh $h!£ that's so funny,"no need to pay road tax."

Mugs.


----------



## Matthew_T (31 May 2012)

Now lets watch that awful car being smashed up:

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qfmq3ErRKQ&feature=fvwrel


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (31 May 2012)

Actually it's so sweet,I wondered where you put the batteries.


----------



## Mushroomgodmat (31 May 2012)

Link no link to anything....can someone explain?


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (31 May 2012)

Mushroomgodmat said:


> Link no link to anything....can someone explain?


 

Oh yeah,you mean the OP.Im confused as well.


----------



## Electric_Andy (31 May 2012)

think OP means link to this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18277311


----------



## gambatte (31 May 2012)

Follow the link to the front page of the BBC news.
Theres a link " Road tax changes being considered" the link leads to the story. I'd link straight to the story, but on the actual page, there's no ref to RT. The ref's on the link only
*http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18277311*


----------



## gaz (31 May 2012)

It's only on the short description link, probably because they can't fit anything else in the character limit they have.
Not that it excuses the the use of road tax but at least the article explains what VED is...


----------



## gambatte (31 May 2012)

But with limited space "Car" is shorter than "Road"?


----------



## Psycolist (31 May 2012)

All this is being lost on me..........Why should we cyclists be concerned about low emmision cars being given cheaper tax. Its an ongoing project to encourage car manufacturers to clean up exhaust gasses....Wots the problem with that ?


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (31 May 2012)

I see they had the good grace to change it. It says Vehicle Tax now.


----------



## downfader (31 May 2012)

Psycolist said:


> All this is being lost on me..........Why should we cyclists be concerned about low emmision cars being given cheaper tax. Its an ongoing project to encourage car manufacturers to clean up exhaust gasses....Wots the problem with that ?


 
Are you new here?


----------



## Psycolist (31 May 2012)

downfader said:


> Are you new here?


 Yep !


----------



## 400bhp (31 May 2012)

Matthew_T said:


> I have been meaning to contact Fiat about it because they mention it in one of their TV adverts.


 
Don't contact Fiat - fill in the online complaint form on the Advertising Standards Agency website. Takes 2 minutes.


----------



## Matthew_T (31 May 2012)

Psycolist said:


> Yep !


The term "Road Tax" has been abolished. It is now called Vehicle Excercise Duty.

The tax is not for using the roads, VED is based on vehicle emissions. Motorists get confused and beleive that Road Tax is what they pay to use the road, so they blame us for not paying Road Tax.
As VED is based upon emissions, it means that electric cars such as the Gi-wiz and Tesla dont pay it. It is the same for bicycles. We do not produce any emissions (except from the odd fart) so we do not need to pay VED.
If everyone only used the term VED it would massively decrease the amount of disputes on the roads involving cyclists and motorists about Road Tax.


----------



## Matthew_T (31 May 2012)

400bhp said:


> Don't contact Fiat - fill in the online complaint form on the Advertising Standards Agency website. Takes 2 minutes.


I am going to have to wait until I see it again. The complaint form asks for a channel, time and date, and the programme I was watching. I dont remember these.


----------



## gambatte (31 May 2012)

Hi Psycholist,
It was abolished over half a century ago.
ignorance allows drivers to argue "get off the road, you don't pay road tax" despite the fact no one does. This attitude of ownership of the road was partly the reason for it being abolished. As Matt says plenty of vehicles are zero £ VED or Exempt.
Roads are paid for out of general taxation.
Also if the amount of VED payed gives an entitlement to the road, I've yet to see a car pull over to let an HGV go past.

So you've had the basics in a couple of posts.

Hang around. Its one of those subjects that comes up a lot, like Hi-Viz and helmets. Unlike those though, this is one where we all seem to be singing off the same hymn sheet


----------



## Psycolist (31 May 2012)

gambatte said:


> Hi Psycholist,
> It was abolished over half a century ago.
> ignorance allows drivers to argue "get off the road, you don't pay road tax" despite the fact no one does. This attitude of ownership of the road was partly the reason for it being abolished. As Matt says plenty of vehicles are zero £ VED or Exempt.
> Roads are paid for out of general taxation.
> ...


 Many thanx, I was somewhat bemused by the topic appearing on this site but you have explained its presence both clearly and conscise consise consciceley briefly. Ta


----------



## slowmotion (31 May 2012)

I just read in the paper that that Chloe Smith, a Treasury minister, has said that VED needed to be reformed in order " _to support the *sustainability* of public finances_". I just love her use of the all-encompassing b***ocks word. A classic.


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (31 May 2012)

Psycolist said:


> Yep !


 
Welcome dude.


----------



## gambatte (1 Jun 2012)

Now whilst I love Monty Python. I hate Spam of thye variety above - reported


----------



## Boris Bajic (1 Jun 2012)

I used to use the *log book* when I went to the Post Office to *tax* the car, but these days I do it online.

The *road tax* on my car is not as cheap as it was.

I use a Dyson to *hoover* my floors. If I want to call someone, I just* dial* their number.

If I told my wife I was popping out to sort out my VED, she might think I'd picked up an STI. This might compromise the integrity of our marriage.

Language can change slowly, but we all generally know what we mean.

There are some knuckle-headed morons on the road who shout silly things at pther road users, but there may be a case here for collectively getting over ourselves and accepting that the vast majority of drivers know what VED is and how it is used.

For whom is this really an issue?


----------



## gambatte (1 Jun 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> For whom is this really an issue?


Me for one.


----------



## 4F (1 Jun 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> but there may be a case here for collectively getting over ourselves and accepting that the vast majority of drivers know what VED is and how it is used.


 
Absolutely spot on, totally agree


----------



## 400bhp (1 Jun 2012)

Yeah agree.

I can't help thinking that when you say the words "it's not a tax it's Vehicle Exise Duty" you need to be holding your nose whist saying it.


----------



## Linford (1 Jun 2012)

Matthew_T said:


> The term "Road Tax" has been abolished. It is now called Vehicle Excercise Duty.
> 
> The tax is not for using the roads, VED is based on vehicle emissions. Motorists get confused and beleive that Road Tax is what they pay to use the road, so they blame us for not paying Road Tax.
> As VED is based upon emissions, it means that electric cars such as the Gi-wiz and Tesla dont pay it. It is the same for bicycles. We do not produce any emissions (except from the odd fart) so we do not need to pay VED.
> If everyone only used the term VED it would massively decrease the amount of disputes on the roads involving cyclists and motorists about Road Tax.


 
Emission based VED is a fairly rubbish way of deciding who and what gets to go in the roads atthe end of the day. It is about time it is abolished. Then this claim can be put to bed.


----------



## Dan B (1 Jun 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> there may be a case here for collectively getting over ourselves and accepting that the vast majority of drivers
> know what VED is and how it is used.
> 
> For whom is this really an issue?


John 'You want to join our gang, get trained and pay up' Griffin's name is the first that springs to mind


----------



## cloggsy (1 Jun 2012)

slowmotion said:


> I just read in the paper that that Chloe Smith, a Treasury minister, has said that VED needed to be reformed in order " _to support the *sustainability* of public finances_". I just love her use of the all-encompassing b***ocks word. A classic.


 
"_to support the *sustainability* of public finances_" = So we can tax the b'stards even more!


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (1 Jun 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> ... the vast majority of drivers know what VED is and how it is used.


You really think so? I think the vast majority of VED payers really do think they are paying specifically for the upkeep of the roads.


----------



## sabian92 (1 Jun 2012)

MrHappyCyclist said:


> You really think so? I think the vast majority of VED payers really do think they are paying specifically for the upkeep of the roads.


 
They should rename it "Vehicle Emissions Duty".

They wouldn't even need to spend millions deciding what the initials would be because I've just done it for them.


----------



## Mushroomgodmat (1 Jun 2012)

MrHappyCyclist said:


> You really think so? I think the vast majority of VED payers really do think they are paying specifically for the upkeep of the roads.


 
Agree.

9/10 people call it road tax, 9/10 people think by paying it they are paying for the upkeep of the roads.


----------



## Boris Bajic (1 Jun 2012)

sabian92 said:


> They should rename it "Vehicle Emissions Duty".
> 
> They wouldn't even need to spend millions deciding what the initials would be because I've just done it for them.


 
I quite like Road Tax....

... with the sense that payment of same is prerequisite to the use on the public highway of the vehicle for which it is paid (excluding those which are zero-rated by virtue of emissions or age).


----------



## LosingFocus (1 Jun 2012)

I got in this discussion last night when I was ranting at the BBC Red Button News article that has "Road Tax" as it's title. My wife, after listening politely for a few minutes said:

"You make sense, but while the* legally need to pay VED to use your car on the road*, it will also be seen as a road tax"

Indeed, I thought. It's a bloody good point.


----------



## sabian92 (1 Jun 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> I quite like Road Tax....
> 
> ... with the sense that payment of same is prerequisite to the use on the public highway of the vehicle for which it is paid (excluding those which are zero-rated by virtue of emissions or age).


 
Road tax implies 1 group of users own it - they don't. People would see it as bikes don't have tax discs, so they have no right to use the road when in fact we do. It's wrong.


----------



## LosingFocus (1 Jun 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> I quite like Road Tax....
> 
> ... with the sense that payment of same is prerequisite to the use on the public highway of the vehicle for which it is paid (excluding those which are zero-rated by virtue of emissions or age).


 


LosingFocus said:


> I got in this discussion last night when I was ranting at the BBC Red Button News article that has "Road Tax" as it's title. My wife, after listening politely for a few minutes said:
> 
> "You make sense, but while the* legally need to pay VED to use your car on the road*, it will also be seen as a road tax"
> 
> Indeed, I thought. It's a bloody good point.


 
Ha, lovely cross-posting there!


----------



## adds21 (1 Jun 2012)

I don't think it would make a whole lot of difference if the term "Road Tax" was never used again. The type of people who say "You don't pay road tax, you shouldn't be on the roads" aren't the type of people who are going to sit down and think about it, no matter what it's called.

If it wasn't "road tax", it would be "you don't have an MOT", or "you should be on the cycle path", or simply (and probably most honestly in their minds) "you shouldn't be in my way".

If anyone tells me I don't pay "Road tax", I simply reply "Yeah, good isn't it!". Life's too short.


----------



## downfader (1 Jun 2012)

adds21 said:


> I don't think it would make a whole lot of difference if the term "Road Tax" was never used again. The type of people who say "You don't pay road tax, you shouldn't be on the roads" aren't the type of people who are going to sit down and think about it, no matter what it's called.
> 
> If it wasn't "road tax", it would be "you don't have an MOT", or "you should be on the cycle path", or simply (and probably most honestly in their minds) "you shouldn't be in my way".
> 
> If anyone tells me I don't pay "Road tax", I simply reply "Yeah, good isn't it!". Life's too short.


 
Whilst I agree this doesnt mean we cant whack these myths one nadd at a time.


----------



## Matthew_T (1 Jun 2012)

adds21 said:


> If anyone tells me I don't pay "Road tax", I simply reply "Yeah, good isn't it!". Life's too short.


I would shout "Thanks for reminding me" or "Keep telling yourself that".


----------



## Psycolist (1 Jun 2012)

I am amazed at such a 'fact of life' issue has raised so many responses and comments. I have cycled for in excess of 50 years, and cant bring to mind a single instance when comments about my not paying towards the up keep of the road ever having been made in my direction. Wether it be called a tax or duty, is irrelevant to Joe Public. Every driver hates paying for petrol, insurance and his road fund licence, just like everyone hates paying tax and insurance on thier incomes. My outlook is simple, why waste energy and effort, worrying about something I cant change. Just enjoy the ride.......if y'getme


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (2 Jun 2012)

Psycolist said:


> Wether it be called a tax or duty, is irrelevant to Joe Public.


"Tax" isn't the issue; duty is a form of tax anyway. "Road" is the issue. The point is that everyone has the right to go on the road for free ("right of way"), You just have to pay VED (or "Car Tax") if you want to bring a motor vehicle along with you when you do. (And for some motor vehicles, the rate is zero.)


----------



## ufkacbln (2 Jun 2012)

I had a muppet in the pub who came up with this one, so I pointed out that I own a large vehicle in VED Band J, as his vehicle was only Band D, I therefore paid more road tax than him.... did that mean that he head to get out of my way when I was driving?

Apparently that is a very silly suggestion!


----------



## downfader (2 Jun 2012)

Psycolist said:


> I am amazed at such a 'fact of life' issue has raised so many responses and comments. I have cycled for in excess of 50 years, and cant bring to mind a single instance when comments about my not paying towards the up keep of the road ever having been made in my direction. Wether it be called a tax or duty, is irrelevant to Joe Public. Every driver hates paying for petrol, insurance and his road fund licence, just like everyone hates paying tax and insurance on thier incomes. My outlook is simple, why waste energy and effort, worrying about something I cant change. Just enjoy the ride.......if y'getme


 
I am glad that it has never been shouted, or even put to you, but to many of us it has - sometimes with the added joy of the vehicle being thrown into out direction.

The fact of the matter is that this little myth IS being used by the motoring lobby to change cycling (look at AL Private Hire boss Griffin as one example, Transport and Safety minister Penning MP as another, even previous Transport Secretary Philip Hammond who used "road tax" to lure the motoring vote before the elections, even look at the advertising and campaigns of Fiat and Ford in the UK and you get some sense of this, not to mention people like FairFuelUK and the ABD). 

It is being used as a lever to change the roads at the expense of pedestrians and cyclists, even horse riders. Terms such as "traffic smoothing" are often used when talking about crossings, for one, in that traffic must not be delayed for too long - often at the expense of pedestrians who get a limited time to cross. Parking, too has even become a major issue for elections and councils because of this lobby.



Cunobelin said:


> I had a muppet in the pub who came up with this one, so I pointed out that I own a large vehicle in VED Band J, as his vehicle was only Band D, I therefore paid more road tax than him.... did that mean that he head to get out of my way when I was driving?
> 
> Apparently that is a very silly suggestion!


Exactly, my mate at work drives an LGV for a living. If its "true" for us, then its "true" for them that they too must get out of the way of the next rung on the ladder of the elite.


----------



## mr_cellophane (3 Jun 2012)

According to direct.gov it is Vehicle Tax
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/motoring/owningavehicle/howtotaxyourvehicle/dg_10012524


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (3 Jun 2012)

Do zero emission vehicles like Prius's's's carry a disk with a '£0.00' on it? 
If so, perhaps us cycling critters can be issued with the same thing


----------



## ufkacbln (3 Jun 2012)

Nigel-YZ1 said:


> Do zero emission vehicles like Prius's's's carry a disk with a '£0.00' on it?
> If so, perhaps us cycling critters can be issued with the same thing


 
So do those registered as disabled


----------



## mr_cellophane (3 Jun 2012)

Nigel-YZ1 said:


> Do zero emission vehicles like Prius's's's carry a disk with a '£0.00' on it?


Yes they do. They still need to be sorn'ed if taken off the road.
I believe the 6 month fee is £5. Although why anyone would do that is beyond me.


----------



## gaz (4 Jun 2012)

Nigel-YZ1 said:


> Do zero emission vehicles like Prius's's's carry a disk with a '£0.00' on it?
> If so, perhaps us cycling critters can be issued with the same thing


Lets say it costs £5 in fees to make a VED disc, including admin fees, printing and sending it out...

How much would it cost to deliver a VED disc to every bicycle..... Well first we need to register every bicycle to know which ones do and do not have a valid VED disc... that would need administrating. and lets not forget that each bicycle would need a new VED disc each year... This cost is piling up whilst cyclists are providing no direct payment for it.

So where will this money come from to provide each bicycle with a VED disc?


----------



## musa (4 Jun 2012)

To add to this how do you deal with people who don't register the bike they are riding?


----------



## Andy_R (4 Jun 2012)

What is this "road tax" that you are all talking about?? Is it like that other mythical creation, the Unicorn? If so, do I need to pay road tax to ride my Unicorn down the road? Or should I just stick an ice cream cone to a pony's head and tell eveyone to feck off?


----------



## musa (4 Jun 2012)

Andy_R I believe it'll be the latter option


----------



## Mr Haematocrit (4 Jun 2012)

I just smile and inform people who say I don't pay road tax, you think thats bad I don't pay fuel duty on my bike either - hopefully it gets them thinking which at times can get a lot you a further than debate or arguments.


----------



## locker (4 Jun 2012)

gaz said:


> Lets say it costs £5 in fees to make a VED disc, including admin fees, printing and sending it out...
> 
> How much would it cost to deliver a VED disc to every bicycle..... Well first we need to register every bicycle to know which ones do and do not have a valid VED disc... that would need administrating. and lets not forget that each bicycle would need a new VED disc each year... This cost is piling up whilst cyclists are providing no direct payment for it.
> 
> So where will this money come from to provide each bicycle with a VED disc?


 
By fining the cyclists without a valid VED disc


----------



## Andy_R (4 Jun 2012)

gaz said:


> Lets say it costs £5 in fees to make a VED disc, including admin fees, printing and sending it out...
> 
> How much would it cost to deliver a VED disc to every bicycle..... Well first we need to register every bicycle to know which ones do and do not have a valid VED disc... that would need administrating. and lets not forget that each bicycle would need a new VED disc each year... This cost is piling up whilst cyclists are providing no direct payment for it.
> 
> So where will this money come from to provide each bicycle with a VED disc?


 and what about mountain bikes? do they get declared SORN?


----------



## Boris Bajic (4 Jun 2012)

Nigel-YZ1 said:


> Do zero emission vehicles like Prius's's's carry a disk with a '£0.00' on it?
> If so, perhaps us cycling critters can be issued with the same thing


 
I drive a 1961 roadster that has such a tax disc.

But in order to obtain it, I must prove that it's passed an annual roadworthiness test and that I have insurance on it.

I'm not sure that's a road most cyclists would want to go down. I certainly don't.


----------



## Dan B (4 Jun 2012)

Nor most pedestrians either, I suspect


----------



## captain nemo1701 (4 Jun 2012)

Psycolist said:


> All this is being lost on me..........Why should we cyclists be concerned about low emmision cars being given cheaper tax. Its an ongoing project to encourage car manufacturers to clean up exhaust gasses....Wots the problem with that ?


 
It's because it perpetuates the myth in the media and society as a whole that road tax still exists and motorists are the only ones entitled to use the roads since they 'pay for them'. I recently saw an ad for electric bikes which stated that if you bought one, you would save on road tax.


----------



## Boris Bajic (4 Jun 2012)

captain nemo1701 said:


> It's because it perpetuates the myth in the media and society as a whole that road tax still exists and motorists are the only ones entitled to use the roads since they 'pay for them'. I recently saw an ad for electric bikes which stated that if you bought one, you would save on road tax.


 
I do sometimes wonder whether this oft-mentioned myth is only there if you're looking for it.

There is much in this world to get cross about or disagree with, but this seems a trifling bagatelle in the wider scheme of things.

I may have been very lucky, but in forty years of cycling It's never been mentioned to me by another road user that I don't pay Road tax.

This may be because I tend not to to be confrontational and have been lucky in recent years to avoid incidents which might result in angry exchanges.

It may also be be because I prefer to see everyone on tarmac as just another road user, whether in a 38-tonne artic, an LTDA black cab or on a bicycle.

I fear these threads decrying the perpertrators of the Road Tax myth may just be another trench being dug in the imagined battle line between groups of road users. There is no need for this enmity and there is no need to get cross.

The *"You don't pay Road Tax"* argument as apparently used against cyclists is flawed, laughable, puerile and petty. To rile against it may also be three of those things.

Have a cup of tea and a slice of cake. Get cross about Lady Ga-Ga or the moles under your lawn instead.

Just be thankful that unlike many others, at least you don't pay Road Tax. Surely that's a good thing, not a bad thing.


----------



## Dan B (4 Jun 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> Lady Ga-Ga


Both original and good


----------



## mr_hippo (4 Jun 2012)

Today I had a ham butty for dinner.
I could also have said
Today I had a ham butty for lunch.
or
.Today I had a ham sarnie for dinner
or
Today I had a ham sarnie for lunch.
or
Today I had a ham sandwich for dinner
or
Today I had a ham sandwich for lunch
That is 6 ways of saying the same thing! Does it really matter to you what sentence I use? No? So why are you getting upset when someone says road tax? Some people may be under the impression that it pays for the road; there are some people who think that the earth is flat!
Stop worying about it, it's not rocket surgery, is it? If it still bothers you, go to ebay and put 'life' in the search box and get one!
Now what shall I have with the chicken I am having for my tea - pommes frites, french fries or chips?


----------



## dawesome (4 Jun 2012)

Driven to Kill: Vehicles as Weapons.

University of Alberta associate professor of Public Health J. Peter Rothe researched just this topic for his book Driven to Kill: Vehicles As Weapons.

He writes about intentional violence of all types aided by automobile. A central theme of this book, according to Dr Rothe, is that “police investigations are not engaged on the assumption that a driver deliberately uses his vehicle as a weapon for maiming or killing a pedestrian, cyclist, or other roadway users.”

“Stress! Vengeance! Impatience! Entitlement! Aggression! Mood! are prominent factors,” in traffic crashes, says Rothe, but accident investigations still focus on engineering and mechanical factors rather than the human element.
He has a chapter on violence against cyclists in particular, violence which is motivated by a motorist’s feeling of entitlement to the road and irritation that cyclists don’t pay a mythical “road tax” amongst other imagined sins and shortcomings. “A ‘might is right’ mentality erupts in some drivers,” Rothe writes, “that pushes them to discipline [cyclists], to teach them a lesson, which sometimes means steering their cars into bikes, pulling into the bikers paths, or purposely swerving into marked bike lanes.” [page 112]

Rothe covers much more than just car vs bike and road rage incidents in his book. He has a section devoted entirely to what he calls the “Immediate Zone” — the murderer plans and uses his car as the murder weapon. “The car,” he prosaically writes, “makes direct contact with a victim.”
Rothe doesn’t set out to demonize automobiles in his book, but to point out that automotive violence is a reflection of our violent culture. Instead of seeing vehicular violence as a normal, naturally occurring part of our transportation infrastructure, he wants to reframe it as a public health issue.
Book: Driven to Kill: Vehicles As Weapons by J. Peter Rothe. 2008.

http://ibikelondon.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/parliamentary-cycle-safe-debate-start.html


Anyone who thinks this resentment, sometimes leading to violence, doesn't exist is very naive.


----------



## Boris Bajic (4 Jun 2012)

dawesome said:


> (Some text removed for the sake of brevity)
> 
> ... Anyone who thinks this resentment, sometimes leading to violence, doesn't exist is very naive.


 
If you can tell us what you think may be causing this resentment in you Dawesome, we might be able to help.


----------



## dawesome (4 Jun 2012)

As long as you think using a vehicle as a weapon against vulnerable road users is ok you're very much part of the problem.


----------



## dawesome (4 Jun 2012)

That's the reality, you don't have to look far to see similar views, used to bolster the sense of entitlement and bullying of out-groups. There's research on it:

http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newsletters/53/article11.html



> Numerous experiments have been conducted which show that group labels affect people's perceptions, even when the labels are quite artificial. Intergroup bias3is a systematic tendency to evaluate one's own membership group (the 'in-group') or its members more favourably than a non-membership group (the 'out-group'). Bias includes behaviour (discrimination: 'cyclists shouldn't be allowed on the road because they slow me down'), attitude (prejudice: 'why should the council spend money on cyclists when they don't pay tax and don't have to have insurance') and cognition (stereotyping: 'you cyclists are all the same, always jumping red lights and never having lights').
> 
> Tajfael and Turner say that intergroup bias creates or protects in-group _status_ leading to positive social identity for in-group members, thereby satisfying their need for _positive self esteem_. Factors such as group-identifying characteristics (mode of transport, skin colour, sexuality, even simple labels), group size, status and power (majority versus minority), the extent to which members feel threatened (livelihood, physical danger), the way in which one rates members of another group (particularly whether this is done on a negative or positive scale) and, maybe, personality or predisposition to bias, are all cited as influencing intergroup bias.
> 
> Social theory talks about 'implicit measures', where bias is automatically activated by the mere presence of the attitude object (does that sound familiar?). Faster responses to negative traits in an out-group and to positive traits in an in-group are commonplace.


 
Basford, Reid, Lester, Thomson and Tolmie, 2002, ​_Drivers' perceptions of cyclists_​ 
, TRL Report TRL549, Transport Research Laboratory (​




​www.trl.co.uk/static/dtlr/cycling/TRL549.pdf​ 
).​


----------



## Boris Bajic (4 Jun 2012)

dawesome said:


> As long as you think using a vehicle as a weapon against vulnerable road users is ok you're very much part of the problem.


 
I'm pretty certain that nobody on this forum thinks the use of a vehicle as a weapon is acceptable. I may have imagined this, but I have a feeling that da Vinci once said the nonsequitur is the last refuge of the mindf*cked zealot.

However, da Vinci quotes or not, I accept that I lose on this one.

My forty years of happy cycling must have been enjoyed in a fog of blithe optimism, naivety and ignorance.

I will try to get as cross about psychotic, resentful, impatient motorists as some other posters seem to be and see if that rubs off some of this unwelcome naivety that is holding me back so much.

Grrrrr! Grrrrrr! No.... It doesn't seem to be working. 

As much as I try to be , it keeps going back to . Sorry.


----------



## dawesome (4 Jun 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> I'm pretty certain that nobody on this forum thinks the use of a vehicle as a weapon is acceptable.


 
Yours was a trolling post, I responded in kind. You have a tendency when unable to think of something constructive to simply troll the thread.


----------



## subaqua (4 Jun 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> If you can tell us what you think may be causing this resentment in you Dawesome, we might be able to help.


 
I think he resents everybody and everything especially if they don't fit his understanding


----------



## downfader (4 Jun 2012)

Lets look at this another way (as Gaz suggested) to make cyclists "pay and display" VED you would have to:

- change the law.
This is the most fundamental obstacle stopping VED on cycling. The mobile phone laws initial Bills pressed before parliament were around £30-40 million to draft, the actual law change cost more iirc (over £100 million more I think on top)

- Police said new law. 
This incorporates test legal cases to push through and validate the change. These are often difficult and more expensive than standard prosecutions as you will have to employ some pretty nifty legal bods to scrutinise every legal aspect. 

The Police also need training. This too costs money. (I'm sure our resident officers will tell you the stuff they had to brush up on regarding the mobile phone in cars and new licensing legislation for public venues). They cant just go out there and say "you're nicked!" They have to follow a set process to increase the likelyhood of sucessful prosecution or fine.

-Again, the courts and legalbods would themselves need specific training

- then you need regulations on how the VED is displayed and where on the bike, just as with motorcycles

- another legal obstacle - how do you identify each disc with each bike? Not all bikes have frame numbers. You'd be open for registration laws. Once bikes have to be registered then whats the point in riding, you have to go through these hoops for cars, might as well drive. 

Envelope maths...
There are around 2 bikes for every person in the UK. 140 million bikes, lets say nationally. If all have to be registered and display VED thats an awful lot of admin, way more so than the private motoring (some 25 million domestic cars used in the UK) and all for free. It could:

- spell the end of free VED for people like the disabled and co
- mean thousands of bikes taken to the tips
- mean thousands of cyclists getting caught out, not considering that would be happening (much like the mobile law - though riding without VED does not pose a risk to others)
- mean thousands give up cycling (I think I would certainly reconsider)

In fact - I think there is a better option: abolish VED altogether! On cars, on motorbikes, on lorries even. Amalgamate the taxation into an easy tax on fuel instead, or through the insurer. IMVHO vehicle excise duty doesnt actually encourage the use of greener cars, when really we should be using other options 75% of the time...


----------



## dawesome (4 Jun 2012)

> Is this mere pedantry? I'd argue not. It's my firm belief that the road tax myth fuels a persistent sense of entitlement among drivers. Left to broil in traffic jams, worked up to a futile rage at the idea of the "war on the motorist", they are more likely to act aggressively, even recklessly, towards those they feel are getting away with it.


 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/2011/nov/22/cycling-road-tax-confused

Doubtless some cyclists do get angry when careless, irresponsible and aggressive motorists put their lives at risk. However, when it comes to so-called 'road rage' it is motorists who are overwhelmingly the perpetrators and cyclists the victims. What's more the courts are notoriously lenient when it comes to delaying with motorists who attack or deliberately run down cyclists.
Consider the case a few years back of Carl Baxter, who deliberately drove over a cyclist called Stephen Kirwin and his six-year-old daughter, Emily, who was in a trailer. The cyclist was seriously injured, whilst the girl was in coma for six days and left with brain damage. The driver was sentenced to a paltry 2 years (i.e. less than 12 months) and astonishingly given only a 2 year driving ban.

In another case another motorist called Andrew Hart came up behind a 62-year-old cyclist called Alan Scott whilst driving his'4x4' down a narrow lane. The cyclist pulled over and stopped at the side of the road to let the driver past. The drive then stopped, went back to the cyclist and attacked him for 'getting in his way', leaving him with a broken shoulder. This injury caused a blood clot and as a consequence the cyclist died a few days later. Another driver who witnessed the attack said that the cyclist was 'slightly built' and had done nothing to provoke the attack. Hart was found guilty of manslaughter but incredibly the judge gave Hart only a 9 month suspended sentence. That is, effectively no penalty at all.

Unfortunately, such cases are far from exceptional. They also stand in stark contrast to the cases one reads about where cyclists have been violently arrested by the police after shouting at drivers who have put their lives at risk.


----------



## dawesome (4 Jun 2012)

subaqua said:


> I think he resents everybody and everything especially if they don't fit his understanding


 

The resentment is from drivers- the kind of drivers who spout the road tax myth. Bajic was trolling, again, and you didn't bother to read the thread and repeated his dishonesty. What was that about lack of understanding?


----------



## mr_hippo (4 Jun 2012)

dawesome said:


> Driven to Kill: Vehicles as Weapons.
> 
> University of Alberta associate professor of Public Health J. Peter Rothe researched just this topic for his book Driven to Kill: Vehicles As Weapons.
> 
> ...


 
If it were still on TV, Jackanory would be the perfect vehicle for this drivel!


----------



## subaqua (4 Jun 2012)

dawesome said:


> The resentment is from drivers- the kind of drivers who spout the road tax myth. Bajic was trolling, again, and you didn't bother to read the thread and repeated his dishonesty. What was that about lack of understanding?


 
oh the irony . why don't you read my post again and see what you understand by it. just because part of your name has awesome in it doesn't actually mean you are .


----------



## dawesome (4 Jun 2012)

mr_hippo said:


> If it were still on TV, Jackanory would be the perfect vehicle for this drivel!


 
The families of Alan Scott and Emily Kirwin would probably disagree with you.


----------



## User269 (4 Jun 2012)

I think the OP is quite right to have raised this issue as having been discussed in the media again, and subsequent posts, such as that about the Fiat ad. The myth that motorists pay for the roads needs to be challenged as it's sometimes used to excuse dangerous or even homicidal drivers who have a sense of entitlement. Interestingly, 'sense of entitlement' is a term used by psychologists to describe one of the diagnostic criteria for psychopathic personality disorder.

The roads are for all of us to use. It's your Council Tax that pays for their upkeep and building, with the exception of motorways and some trunk roads, which are paid for out of general taxation. As you can imagine, VED represents a tiny percentage of general taxation; most people pay more per month in income tax than they do for a year's VED for example.


----------



## Boris Bajic (4 Jun 2012)

dawesome said:


> The resentment is from drivers- the kind of drivers who spout the road tax myth. Bajic was trolling, again, and you didn't bother to read the thread and repeated his dishonesty. What was that about lack of understanding?


 
Dawesome, I'm not sure where you thought I was being dishonest or where you think Subaqua repeated my dishonesty.

I disagree with you, but that doesn't make me a troll and it doesn't make me dishonest.

I pop the odd light-hearted post onto threads, but that is not trolling. 

I'd be interested to see where you thought I was being dishonest. 

I'm afraid I agree with Mr Hippo is his Jackanory assessment. As soon as the title Associate Professor of Public Health at the University of Alberta is used to validate an opinion, the world stops listening.


----------



## dawesome (4 Jun 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> Dawesome, I'm not sure where you thought I was being dishonest or where you think Subaqua repeated my dishonesty.
> 
> I disagree with you, but that doesn't make me a troll and it doesn't make me dishonest.
> 
> ...


 

I explained that the "road tax" myth fosters the kind of violence meted out to Mr Scott and Ms Kirwin. The resentment felt by drivers, bolstered by the fallacious tax argument can cause horribly violent acts. There is no way you could have read the post and reasonably drawn the conclusion that the resentment was mine. You were trolling. Again.




Boris Bajic said:


> If you can tell us what you think may be causing this resentment in you Dawesome, we might be able to help.


 
Why did you think the resentment in connection with two instances of drivers using their vehicle as a weapon was on my part, not the drivers?


----------



## dawesome (4 Jun 2012)

User269 said:


> I think the OP is quite right to have raised this issue as having been discussed in the media again, and subsequent posts, such as that about the Fiat ad. The myth that motorists pay for the roads needs to be challenged as it's sometimes used to excuse dangerous or even homicidal drivers who have a sense of entitlement. Interestingly, 'sense of entitlement' is a term used by psychologists to describe one of the diagnostic criteria for psychopathic personality disorder.
> 
> The roads are for all of us to use. It's your Council Tax that pays for their upkeep and building, with the exception of motorways and some trunk roads, which are paid for out of general taxation. As you can imagine, VED represents a tiny percentage of general taxation; most people pay more per month in income tax than they do for a year's VED for example.


 
It's dangerous in more than one way. The media rely heavily on car advertising so they have an interest in perpetuating the "Poor over-taxed motorist" myth when the reality is private motoring is massively subsidised. So, the media are complicit in whipping up hysteria about "Free Loading Cyclists", with the violent results cited upthread.


----------



## Boris Bajic (4 Jun 2012)

dawesome said:


> It's dangerous in more than one way. The media rely heavily on car advertising so they have an interest in perpetuating the "Poor over-taxed motorist" myth when the reality is private motoring is massively subsidised. So, the media are complicit in whipping up hysteria about "Free Loading Cyclists", with the violent results cited upthread.


 
Dawesome, you are an absolute hoot. I'm dying here.

I'm not sure whether your stern (online) countenance is a true measure of some self-absorbed, high-moral-tone pomposity, or whether you're about to break into peels of laughter brought on by the brilliance of your conceit.

I have a funny feeling that you're not being entirely serious, as no-one who took themselves or their opinions as seriously as you seem to purport to would set themselves up like this online.

Please, please tell us! Is this just an amusing game or do you really believe all this stuff you're posting? 

These mentions of fatal-RTC victims you like to fall back on like a moral _Ace in the Hol_e whenever the argument seems to be swinging away from you... It's all too, too much. It seems a little rehearsed. It's not serious, is it?

I've squatted next to SMIDSY victims and held their hand as they slipped away from life before the ambulance arrived (pedestrians, not cyclists). One of them was muttering and gasping in a way that was quite distressing, but died nonetheless. It is all jolly upsetting, but it's a bit gauche and self-indulgently gratuitous to make a link between fatal RTCs and the Road Tax argument....

... Unless you're winding everyone up. In which case, it's just insensitive.

Either way, I take my hat off to you for your brazen lack of inhibition.


----------



## Linford (4 Jun 2012)

dawesome said:


> It's dangerous in more than one way. The media rely heavily on car advertising so they have an interest in perpetuating the "Poor over-taxed motorist" myth when the reality is private motoring is massively subsidised. So, the media are complicit in whipping up hysteria about "Free Loading Cyclists", with the violent results cited upthread.


 
The roads need to be maintained irrespective of all who use them. How about this as a proposal, They ban all private cars from the road, and then tax all of the remaining ones back up to the levels so they can then continue to spend that surplus quantity of money to prop up the NHS, Welfare system, Foreign aid, Euro contributions, and the Diamond Jubilee pageant 

That should put about £500 onto your tax bill PA as that is a typical sum which you would spend on keeping a car legal each year before it turns a wheel. It of course will be worth it to just share the roads with the buses and HGVs when you go out


----------



## 400bhp (4 Jun 2012)

Dan B said:


> Both original and good


 
Werthers?


----------



## downfader (4 Jun 2012)

Linford said:


> The roads need to be maintained irrespective of all who use them. How about this as a proposal, They ban all private cars from the road, and then tax all of the remaining ones back up to the levels so they can then continue to spend that surplus quantity of money to prop up the NHS, Welfare system, Foreign aid, Euro contributions, and the Diamond Jubilee pageant
> 
> That should put about £500 onto your tax bill PA as that is a typical sum which you would spend on keeping a car legal each year before it turns a wheel. It of course will be worth it to just share the roads with the buses and HGVs when you go out


 
But would it?

The Institute of Fiscal Studies (I think already detailed earlier in this thread) have already shown in the past few years that motoring is costing the taxpayer a lot extra. More than is ever paid in through motoring taxation. And shockingly each time these "externalities", as economists put it, are evaluated they seem to come up with more economic impacts previously unseen and unquantified into the overall evaluation.

This is why concrete road surfacing sometimes gets used on major roads and motorways - its cheap, long lasting and easy to maintain so brings down the costs. Look at similar routes where HGVs and large amounts of fast and heavy traffic get used and you'll see problems with both the road surfacing and the costs (the a33 is one iirc near here).

There is some argument that removing some motor traffic along some routes would actually benefit us all from an economic sense.


----------



## dawesome (4 Jun 2012)

Scrap VED altogether, just load the fuel, pay per mile. Also, no fuel stops without proof of insurance, but I fear this would lead to fist fights at petrol stations.


----------



## subaqua (4 Jun 2012)

dawesome said:


> Scrap VED altogether, *just load the fuel, pay per mile*. Also, no fuel stops without proof of insurance, but I fear this would lead to fist fights at petrol stations.


 
at last a post that makes sense. although how do those of us who have generators that run on petrol get fuel ? the basic idea is workable but like all mechanisms there will be a work around devised within a month or so


----------



## downfader (4 Jun 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> Dawesome, you are an absolute hoot. I'm dying here.
> 
> I'm not sure whether your stern (online) countenance is a true measure of some self-absorbed, high-moral-tone pomposity, or whether you're about to break into peels of laughter brought on by the brilliance of your conceit.
> 
> ...


 
I think you're being overly harsh, even provocative at times, Boris.

There are plenty of stories I have read of local cyclists who have died or nearly been killed and some of the first comments made about how [paraphrased] "do no pay our way!"

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/dis....Cyclist_seriously_hurt_in_city_centre_crash/

You have to remember - thesedays many find this sort of comment offensive on stories where condolences and tribute should be made, as a result are more likely to report and the webteams in charge more likely to remove. 

Death should never be a platform for the ranters. Unfortunately this is what happens, and the victim is somehow a little dehumanised as a result.


----------



## downfader (4 Jun 2012)

subaqua said:


> at last a post that makes sense. although how do those of us who have generators that run on petrol get fuel ? the basic idea is workable but like all mechanisms there will be a work around devised within a month or so


 
To all intents and purposes the pollution and problems caused via generators are the same as motoring. The only issue that doesnt really happen is road-wear.

Look at the travelling communities and gypsy communities - theres a reason why many are switching to solar cell and battery - fuel costs too much as it is. I can see the majority of generator users doing the same over the next few years.


----------



## subaqua (4 Jun 2012)

not sure if its a viable solution for building sites yet. ruggedness and durability are the main concrns for me in this respect. and when you get to batteries you have a huge pollution problem in the extraction of the raw materials and also in the production.
we did look into getting solar cells and an electric car but the maths for costs and pollution from manufacture/install didn't make it viable. maybe in 10 years it will be. I do hope so.


----------



## Linford (4 Jun 2012)

dawesome said:


> *Scrap VED altogether, just load the fuel, pay per mile*. Also, no fuel stops without proof of insurance, but I fear this would lead to fist fights at petrol stations.


 
Wholeheartedly agree with this first bit, but the insurance is a different matter. I would say that there is a strong argument for loading fuel duty additionally, and the balance would go to ensuring that all vehicles in possession of a current MOT are automatically insured with 3rd party liability for any driver legally entitled to drive or ride.
Higher levels of cover for fire/theft accidental damage would be covered by additional policies.

Vehicles with a higher BHP per tonne would require either grandfather rights or additional proof of testing/training, or be age dependent.


----------



## downfader (4 Jun 2012)

subaqua said:


> not sure if its a viable solution for building sites yet. ruggedness and durability are the main concrns for me in this respect. and when you get to batteries you have a huge pollution problem in the extraction of the raw materials and also in the production.
> we did look into getting solar cells and an electric car but the maths for costs and pollution from manufacture/install didn't make it viable. maybe in 10 years it will be. I do hope so.


 
I think with building sites thats a fair point. 

Robert Llewelyn (sp?) from Red Dwarf runs a Nissan Leaf from solar cells... though he has about 15 of the 5 footer ones..


----------



## Recycler (5 Jun 2012)

locker said:


> By fining the cyclists without a valid VED disc


 Including the 6 year old going to his local park, or the 12 year old on her way to school?


----------



## Recycler (5 Jun 2012)

dawesome said:


> they have an interest in perpetuating the "Poor over-taxed motorist" myth when the reality is private motoring is massively subsidised.


 
Where do you get that idea from? The taxes from fuel, VED, Insurance, Council Tax and VAT more than pay for the roads, their maintenance and their policing. Probably many times over.


On the other point about dropping VED and loading fuel costs. I think that that is a good idea, but we would probably still need some kind of system to keep control of who owns what car, how it is identified (Reg. no.), MoT etc. At the moment that is all built into the VED system.


----------



## downfader (5 Jun 2012)

Recycler said:


> Where do you get that idea from? The taxes from fuel, VED, Insurance, Council Tax and VAT more than pay for the roads, their maintenance and their policing. Probably many times over.
> 
> 
> On the other point about dropping VED and loading fuel costs. I think that that is a good idea, but we would probably still need some kind of system to keep control of who owns what car, how it is identified (Reg. no.), MoT etc. At the moment that is all built into the VED system.


 
Tonight on ITV regularly has a slot with people like Quentin Wilson, FairFuelUK have been on the BBC Breakfast a few times all talking about "hard pressed motorists". Even the Sun newspaper and co run these stories. I think there is a culture about motoring that is counter to the truth of the matter (eg where the money really comes from and why). 

When you buy a car you have to register yourself as the owner with the DVLA as it is, surely this is enough for things like ANPR and police recognition. The rest of it is simply taxation on vehicle ownership as far as I can see.. if we really want to tax the ownership we should do thing through the insurer (even force stronger regulation on insurers for fair charges too)

Your point about the 6 year old is a valid one, too. When driving a car we're not expected to carry ID. If you're in a situation where age makes you exempt from a taxation for a vehicle type you would have to be obligated to carry ID. This would mean more legal wrangling imo.


----------



## dawesome (5 Jun 2012)

Recycler said:


> Where do you get that idea from? The taxes from fuel, VED, Insurance, Council Tax and VAT more than pay for the roads, their maintenance and their policing. Probably many times over.


 


> The Campaign for Better Transport extrapolates from the Government research on marginal external costs to reach a total cost of externalities of £70 billion–£95 billion per annum at prices for 2006.
> The Sustainable Development Commission, a non-departmental public body (2000-2011) responsible for advising the UK Governments, concluded:
> “So it would appear that the overall costs imposed on society by motoring outweigh the revenues obtained from motorists, probably very substantially.”​And the externalities of driving costs don’t include noise pollution (£3.1bn); air pollution (£19.7bn – not including CO2); water pollution (between £1bn and £16bn); or obesity (£2bn).


 
http://ipayroadtax.com/itv-ignorance-about-road-tax/why-isnt-beer-tax-used-to-build-better-pubs/

Private motoring is subsidised, motorists are a net drain on the economy.

There is a widespread perception that motorists are already unfairly taxed.
This is simply not true(1). In the year 2002-03 £26.5 billion was raised from fuel and road tax(2). Around £6bn went toward roadbuilding and maintenance that year(3). The cost of policing the roads and the expense incurred by the judicial system is estimated to be between £1bn and £3bn(4), while congestion costs businesses and other drivers £20bn in delay(5).
The costs of the effects of air pollution and accidents due to road transport were estimated at £12.3bn(6) and £16bn(7) respectively.


----------



## Recycler (5 Jun 2012)

downfader said:


> When you buy a car you have to register yourself as the owner with the DVLA as it is, surely this is enough for things like ANPR and police recognition. The rest of it is simply taxation on vehicle ownership as far as I can see.. if we really want to tax the ownership we should do thing through the insurer (even force stronger regulation on insurers for fair charges too).


 
I think the problem comes when people sell their car and/or change address. At the moment the DVLA database is chock a block full of errors and as we know the DVLA never makes mistakes (cough, splutter, ahem!!!) it must be the motoring public which is at fault. In reality it's obviously both who are getting it wrong.

The other point I agree with. I have long thought that we should get rid of Road Tax/VED, put up fuel taxes and replace the "Tax" disc with an Insurance disk. That way drivers would inevitably pay for their pollution and their use of the road. It may also help reduce the problem of people driving uninsured. Beyond that, I have no idea how we would then ensure that we knew who owned what car and where they lived and that it was M.o.T'd.
The trouble is, if we tried to off-load the policing of it all onto the Insurance companies I dread to think what they would do in terms of pushing costs up, making errors and making us all wait and wait on call centre phone lines.


----------



## Recycler (5 Jun 2012)

dawesome said:


> http://ipayroadtax.com/itv-ignorance-about-road-tax/why-isnt-beer-tax-used-to-build-better-pubs/
> 
> Private motoring is subsidised, motorists are a net drain on the economy.
> 
> ...


 
Sorry, I can't get onto the link that you gave there. Something is either wrong with the site or my machine. So I'll work with what I can glean from your posting.

To be honest, I thought you would come back at me with figures of that sort. (nothing wrong with that). The problem with the congestion, judicial and pollution figures is that they are, inevitably, guesstimates rather than hard facts.....though I am not suggesting that there should be no attempt to quantify these things. But we also need to read beyond the figures.

Take the £20bn guesstimate for congestion. Does that mean that drivers should pay an extra 20bn in tax on top of the cost they have already incurred as a result of congestion? Or does it mean that we should make massive investment in the infrastructure to reduce congestion? Does it mean that only those who could afford to pay high taxes should have a car? Alternatively do we simply balance the books and spend less on the roads.......even though business, the economy and the roads themselves would inevitably grind to a halt.

The same applies to the air pollution and accident guesstimates. We could, in theory, just ban car driving on the basis that it doesn't pay its way. But the cost to our economy would be disastrous.

One other figure which does not appear to be included in what you have quoted is the contribution which the road network also makes to the economy in terms of the business which is genereated. Remove the employment and profits and taxes which are created by road and vehicle contruction and maintenance and a big hole would be created.

In a long winded way, I am saying that we need to look at the straightforward accounting figures (tax revenue versus actual cost of road construction and maintenance) and the "social cost" figures (the guesstimates) separately.

Yes, we need to be aware of the social costs, but to use them to make a sweeping statement that motoring is subsidised is, in my view, taking it too far. I can simply counter it by saying that without the road network our economy would collapse and not only would we have nowhere to ride, we would not even be able to afford to have bikes.

More importantly, I also believe that it is a mistake for cyclists to be attacking (for want of a better term) car drivers. We need them to be on our side. We need to share the road with them and we certainly need them to share the road with us. I really do believe that we would be better off by trying to win them over rather than confronting them and effectively saying "make them pay more tax"......even though it is very difficult at times and I can't claim to be an angel!


----------



## dawesome (5 Jun 2012)

Roads existed long before cars, they'll exist when our current car-reliance dissipates. They say to work out the real cost of fuel, drive your car 5 miles, then push it home. That's the real cost. We're unnaturally cossetted from the real cost of motoring because the externalities are, as you say, difficult to quantify, but as long as almost half of all urban car journeys are less than two miles long it's hard to see how the consequent sedentary lifestyle helps anyone. At school in the seventies we looked askance on any schoolchild driven to school, the bike sheds were crammed. Now most kids travel to school in a car (because the roads are so dangerous!). Madness.


----------



## downfader (5 Jun 2012)

Recycler said:


> Sorry, I can't get onto the link that you gave there. Something is either wrong with the site or my machine. So I'll work with what I can glean from your posting.
> 
> To be honest, I thought you would come back at me with figures of that sort. (nothing wrong with that). The problem with the congestion, judicial and pollution figures is that they are, inevitably, guesstimates rather than hard facts.....though I am not suggesting that there should be no attempt to quantify these things. But was also need to read beyond the figures.
> 
> ...


 
The £20bn is a pretty good guestimate based on the business made during days of low traffic compared to those when logistics firms get stuck in. Firms such as UPS, Royal Mail and co have pretty good understandings of how traffic effects business. Even bus companies have worked out how to best make money around traffic concerns (though monorail systems might be a much better option in the future for fuel costs and traffic issues). The London School of Economics have a history of evaluating these too and they are the source of the £20bn figure.

The best evaluation we have for economics of how much money is brought in via motoring is around £50 billion. 
http://www.smmt.co.uk/industry-topics/uk-automotive-sector/#economy-and-business

I think the most important points are these:
- cyclists are not attacking motorists. They are attacking (along with many others, many of whom are also drivers it should be noted) misconceptions about social and environmental impact
- an economy based upon motoring will crash severely when the oil runs out. It is already severely affected when oil prices rise for any reason. It needs an alternative and quickly
- motoring has for many years been seen as progress. Real progress is measured via how sustainably an industry or practice is - as it stands motoring cannot reflect progress on the grounds of space needed, environmental impact, casualty rates risk factor, and the sheer consumption it requires that seems exponential to that which we can provide.


----------



## downfader (5 Jun 2012)

dawesome said:


> Roads existed long before cars, they'll exist when our current car-reliance dissipates. They say to work out the real cost of fuel, drive your car 5 miles, then push it home. That's the real cost. We're unnaturally cossetted from the real cost of motoring because the externalities are, as you say, difficult to quantify, but as long as almost half of all urban car journeys are less than two miles long it's hard to see how the consequent sedentary lifestyle helps anyone. At school in the seventies we looked askance on any schoolchild driven to school, the bike sheds were crammed. Now most kids travel to school in a car (because the roads are so dangerous!). Madness.


 
I think even economists have come to accept that externalities ARE important. For a long time they were considered a nuisance to be ignored, but the more the economy is scientifically scrutinised the better, and the more the money men realise that externalities can destroy business, destroy jobs and certainly destroy the ability to make money.


----------



## Recycler (5 Jun 2012)

dawesome said:


> Roads existed long before cars, they'll exist when our current car-reliance dissipates. They say to work out the real cost of fuel, drive your car 5 miles, then push it home. That's the real cost. We're unnaturally cossetted from the real cost of motoring because the externalities are, as you say, difficult to quantify, but as long as almost half of all urban car journeys are less than two miles long it's hard to see how the consequent sedentary lifestyle helps anyone. At school in the seventies we looked askance on any schoolchild driven to school, the bike sheds were crammed. Now most kids travel to school in a car (because the roads are so dangerous!). Madness.


 
Of course it's madness, but we can't change it and we will be wasting our time trying to do so. All we can try to do is to make it better for ourselves. Do that and hopefully more people will turn to bikes which will make it better still.
We can only make it better by winning people over rather than confronting them on everything.


----------



## Matthew_T (5 Jun 2012)

Werent cyclists the first ones to actually get roads paved? If that is true then motor vehicles should be paying to use _our_ roads.
So the real arguement should be:
"You dont pay road tax"
"Because only you need to pay for the priviledge of using them, I on the other hand introduced them therefore I dont need to pay"


----------



## Matthew_T (5 Jun 2012)

Werent cyclists the first ones to actually get roads paved? If that is true then motor vehicles should be paying to use _our_ roads.
So the real arguement should be:
"You dont pay road tax"
"Because only you need to pay for the priviledge of using them, I on the other hand introduced them therefore I dont need to pay"


----------



## Recycler (5 Jun 2012)

downfader said:


> The £20bn is a pretty good guestimate based on the business made during days of low traffic compared to those when logistics firms get stuck in. Firms such as UPS, Royal Mail and co have pretty good understandings of how traffic effects business. Even bus companies have worked out how to best make money around traffic concerns (though monorail systems might be a much better option in the future for fuel costs and traffic issues). The London School of Economics have a history of evaluating these too and they are the source of the £20bn figure.
> 
> The best evaluation we have for economics of how much money is brought in via motoring is around £50 billion.
> http://www.smmt.co.uk/industry-topics/uk-automotive-sector/#economy-and-business
> ...


 
I've got no problem with the figures you quote and I do understand both how they are made up and that they need to be taken into account.
I just think that thwere is little point in using those figure to claim that motoring is being subsidised. It is the wrong way to use the figures, just as it would be wrong to add the £50 billion motoring "input" figure to say that motoring makes a "profit" and therefore, say, fuel duty should be reduced.

However, I think it is wrong to present your case as being one on behalf of cyclists in general and I think that you have moved beyond the realm of cycling and into the area of environmental debate. That debate is undoubtedly important but cycling has only a small contribution to make to it and some cyclists will agree with you, some won't. I suspect that the vast majority of adult cyclists are also drivers, so they wear two hats in these discussions. I certainly do.

Personally I think that all we need state is the simple and obvious point that cycling is more environmentally sustainable than motoring. Beyond that we need to work with what we have....and that includes motoring.

I think it is best to encourage both the authorites to make the roads better for cyclists, and motorists to be more considerate towards cyclist. To do both we need to win them over, rather than batter them over the head with the environmental issue. There are some things that cyclists can do to make themselves better thought of than perhaps they are now.

To be honest, I don't think that I'm expressing myself very well here. I hope that it makes some sense at least.


----------



## Recycler (5 Jun 2012)

Matthew_T said:


> Werent cyclists the first ones to actually get roads paved? If that is true then motor vehicles should be paying to use _our_ roads.
> So the real arguement should be:
> "You dont pay road tax"
> "Because only you need to pay for the priviledge of using them, I on the other hand introduced them therefore I dont need to pay"


 
You're stammering again, you're repeating yourself!

Cyclists weren't really the ones who got roads paved. Roads have been paved since Roman times.

What really did change was the discovery of oil in quantity at around the same time as the car arriving on the scene leading to the availability of tars etc in quantity. Roads were improved because of the need to make things better just as much for the horse and cart as the car and bicycle. Certainly certainly bicycles predated the car though.

Anyhow, I'm not sure that your argument would win many friends, but I have told moaners that the bike came before the car so they should shut up!


----------



## dawesome (5 Jun 2012)

> *19th century cyclists paved the way for modern motorists' roads*
> 
> Car drivers assume the roads were built for them, but it was cyclists who first lobbied for flat roads more than 100 years ago.
> 
> ...


 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/2011/aug/15/cyclists-paved-way-for-roads


----------



## downfader (5 Jun 2012)

Recycler said:


> You're stammering again, you're repeating yourself!
> 
> Cyclists weren't really the ones who got roads paved. Roads have been paved since Roman times.
> 
> ...


 
The predecessor groups to the CTC and the AA joined forces around the turn of the 20th century to campaign for tarmac'ing. They even campaigned for the removal of the redflag-man:

http://www.roadswerenotbuiltforcars...s-the-first-group-to-push-for-improved-roads/


----------



## downfader (5 Jun 2012)

Recycler said:


> I've got no problem with the figures you quote and I do understand both how they are made up and that they need to be taken into account.
> I just think that thwere is little point in using those figure to claim that motoring is being subsidised. It is the wrong way to use the figures, just as it would be wrong to add the £50 billion motoring "input" figure to say that motoring makes a "profit" and therefore, say, fuel duty should be reduced.
> 
> However, I think it is wrong to present your case as being one on behalf of cyclists in general and I think that you have moved beyond the realm of cycling and into the area of environmental debate. That debate is undoubtedly important but cycling has only a small contribution to make to it and some cyclists will agree with you, some won't. I suspect that the vast majority of adult cyclists are also drivers, so they wear two hats in these discussions. I certainly do.
> ...


 
By sheer definition of what a subsidy is - costs raised outside of direct costs to deal with issues caused via an activity - that is a subsidy. 

I've often said this, and I reitterate - cyclists need to know the political and economic factors around transport or they will (and indeed have been many times in the past) pushed out of the debates on infrastructure, planning, funding and even casualty rates. These issues are always raised when cyclists ask for safety or infrastructure (conversations I myself have ended up having with the council and locals down here). 

Its all very well to push the benefits of cycling - but other issues are often talked of first within the media, certainly.


----------



## Recycler (5 Jun 2012)

downfader said:


> The predecessor groups to the CTC and the AA joined forces around the turn of the 20th century to campaign for tarmac'ing. They even campaigned for the removal of the redflag-man:
> 
> http://www.roadswerenotbuiltforcars...s-the-first-group-to-push-for-improved-roads/


 
That's an interesting view but there was a call to improve roads long before that.

The growth of the turnpikes in earlier years was an attempt to improve roads.....it was an early form of privatisation. For years the responsibility for maintaining the roads was down to the local parish. That didn't work and responsibility was given to County Councils. In later years even that wasn't enough and we now have the major roads run, at national level, by the Highways Agency.

Dickens even makes the point about poor roads. There was lobbying long before cars and bikes came and it really started in earnest with the industrial revolution when the need to move goods around became important. Initially the call came because of the need to improve the ability of the horse to get around. Canals, and then railways, also came which enabled goods to be moved nationally, but those goods then needed to be moved locally and the call for local road improvement became even greater. Then the bike came and then, shortly afterwards the car.

In reality the whole thing was an evolutionary process. Changing technology, changing economy and a changing society led to pressure to improve roads. Bikes had a part to play, but we can't really claim that it is all down to us!

Here endeth the history lesson!


----------



## Recycler (5 Jun 2012)

downfader said:


> By sheer definition of what a subsidy is - costs raised outside of direct costs to deal with issues caused via an activity - that is a subsidy.
> 
> I've often said this, and I reitterate - cyclists need to know the political and economic factors around transport or they will (and indeed have been many times in the past) pushed out of the debates on infrastructure, planning, funding and even casualty rates. These issues are always raised when cyclists ask for safety or infrastructure (conversations I myself have ended up having with the council and locals down here).
> 
> Its all very well to push the benefits of cycling - but other issues are often talked of first within the media, certainly.


 
We'll just have to agree to disagree that motoring is subsidised.
We can make figures prove anything and, more importantly, I don't think there is much to be gained by trying to tell motorists something that the majority simply won't agree with. It will simply end up with an arguement about the figures rather than with the real issue of what can be done to imrove things for cyclists.
But I do agree that we do need to be aware of the wider issues.

Whilst there is still a lot more to be done I do actually believe that cycling has made considerable progress over the last ten or twenty years. It has become an issue on the political scene. Local authorities do try to provide better facilites. Tax benefits like B2W exist. etc etc.

I actually do believe that a lot of progress has been made but, particularly with the economy as it is now, it is going to be difficult to get more resources.


----------



## subaqua (5 Jun 2012)

dawesome said:


> http://ipayroadtax.com/itv-ignorance-about-road-tax/why-isnt-beer-tax-used-to-build-better-pubs/
> 
> Private motoring is subsidised, motorists are a net drain on the economy.
> 
> ...


 
its not often that i will agree with Dawesome, but this is one of those occasions. I was in wanstead on friday talking to one of the yummy mummy crowd who was bemoaning the fact there will be traffic chaos in
August . I asked her why she didn't use a bicycle for the journeys of less than a mile and she looked at me like i had 2 heads. she didn't understand the benefits of not driving the short distances she was complaining that would take "over an hour to drive" .


----------



## Recycler (5 Jun 2012)

subaqua said:


> its not often that i will agree with Dawesome, but this is one of those occasions. I was in wanstead on friday talking to one of the yummy mummy crowd who was bemoaning the fact there will be traffic chaos in
> August . I asked her why she didn't use a bicycle for the journeys of less than a mile and she looked at me like i had 2 heads. she didn't understand the benefits of not driving the short distances she was complaining that would take "over an hour to drive" .


 
I can't disagree with that. http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/news/topstories/804876.london_cars_move_no_faster_than_chickens/

It's how best to get things to change that is harder to work out.


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (5 Jun 2012)

Recycler said:


> I can't disagree with that. http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/news/topstories/804876.london_cars_move_no_faster_than_chickens/
> It's how best to get things to change that is harder to work out.


Ha! "The question Londoners will be asking themselves is whether an extra 1.5mph justifies paying £8 per day". Isn't that the whole point of a congestion charge? Perhaps it isn't high enough.


----------



## dawesome (5 Jun 2012)

Look at the media campaigning against Ken's congestion charge, famine and pestilence was predicted, along with a collapse in house prices. None of it happened, and I can't think of a politician with the cojones to suggest extending it. In fact Ken should have made it within the M25 but he would have lost too many East London votes.

Sometimes when I filter on the right of slow-moving traffic drivers veer right to block me, the resentment is so keenly felt. I imagine they are silently screaming 

IT WASN'T LIKE THIS IN THE ADVERTS!!!!!!!!


----------



## Linford (5 Jun 2012)

MrHappyCyclist said:


> Ha! "The question Londoners will be asking themselves is whether an extra 1.5mph justifies paying £8 per day". Isn't that the whole point of a congestion charge? Perhaps it isn't high enough.


 
Perhaps this is irrefutable proof that the congestion charge was always about raising money, and nothing about improving the situation for the people having to navigate the streets there......


----------



## dawesome (5 Jun 2012)

Linford said:


> Perhaps this is irrefutable proof that the congestion charge was always about raising money, and nothing about improving the situation for the people having to navigate the streets there......


 
Who cares? There would be more congestion without the charge, that's for sure. Think of it as like a charge for any other socially unaesthetic act.


----------



## Linford (5 Jun 2012)

dawesome said:


> Who cares? There would be more congestion without the charge, that's for sure. Think of it as a charge for any other socially unaesthetic act.


 
Can it be any worse than it already is. How do you define congestion ?

There are some awful bottlenecks near me which have been created by putting lights in. When they break down, the traffic starts to flow again. They can create congestion out of the lightest traffic flows, and the addition of bus lanes effectively halves the capacity for stretches of the roads which in themselves creates 'congestion'

I say ditch the bus lanes and turn off the lights but for the peak hours of the day when there is a tangible benefit from them being there, and double the capacity in a stroke


----------



## subaqua (5 Jun 2012)

Linford said:


> Perhaps this is irrefutable proof that the congestion charge was always about raising money, and nothing about improving the situation for the people having to navigate the streets there......


 
It was always about removing polluting vehicles from central london. hence the discount for electric vehicles, which the last time i checked still contributed to traffic congestion , same used to apply for LPG as thats a supposedly clean fuel but there were moves to stop the discount a few yrs ago. 

congestion charge is far more "zippy" than pollution tax .


----------



## subaqua (5 Jun 2012)

Linford said:


> Can it be any worse than it already is. How do you define congestion ?
> 
> There are some awful bottlenecks near me which have been created by putting lights in. When they break down, the traffic starts to flow again. They can create congestion out of the lightest traffic flows, and the addition of bus lanes effectively halves the capacity for stretches of the roads which in themselves creates 'congestion'
> 
> I say ditch the bus lanes and turn off the lights but for the peak hours of the day when there is a tangible benefit from them being there, and double the capacity in a stroke


 
some junctions on their own have a natural flow, the problem is that traffic engineering means putting several junctions in pahese with each other to keep traffic at ALL of the junctions flowing at a steady rate rather than ahve 1 or 2 free junctions and 1 or 2 clogged junctions.

lights are also needed for pedestrians to cross


----------



## Linford (5 Jun 2012)

subaqua said:


> It was always about removing polluting vehicles from central london. hence the discount for electric vehicles, which the last time i checked still contributed to traffic congestion , same used to apply for LPG as thats a supposedly clean fuel but there were moves to stop the discount a few yrs ago.
> 
> congestion charge is far more "zippy" than pollution tax .


 

Buuuutttttt, they then decide to stage the Olympics there, and invite how many thousands of lorries onto the streets to facilitate the construction ? - as well as then the event in itself. I for one will be staying on this side of Oxford. The place will be hell on wheels for sure


----------



## dawesome (5 Jun 2012)

We've tried reducing congestion by making it easier to drive, it doesn't work, nor does expanding capacity, traffic expands to fill the space. It's unsustainable, you end up chasing your tail all the time:



> As reported in our last issue, the DfT’s new central forecast, produced by the NTM, is for road traffic volumes in the capital to grow 43% between 2010 and 2035, reversing more than a decade of declining traffic levels.​
> Snip
> 
> The forecasters also need to understand that there is a parallel but equally important end state called equilibrium (i.e where traffic levels have stabilised). For example, taking into account costs, congestion, availability of alternatives, and the ability to get shopping delivered, people are increasingly deciding not to use the car for the supermarket trip.​Somewhere along the line this is going to reduce the growth in multi-car owning households, as it has already done so in inner London. Rather than using two separate cars, households will group trips together to reduce car mileage. Car sharing can happen within households as well as at the workplace. We may well reach equilibrium (traffic stabilisation) before we reach saturation, and in many places we’re there already. However, this should not prevent the saturation level itself being seriously revisited.​


 
http://www.rudi.net/node/22886

Bog standard n Victorian terraced house is about twenty foot wide. Married couple and their kids live there, they all have cars. All the neighbours have cars. People claim "their" parking space outside their house with wheelie bins and recycling boxes and planks of wood. Their cars are only used for an hour a day. It's unsustainable.


----------



## Linford (5 Jun 2012)

subaqua said:


> some junctions on their own have a natural flow, the problem is that traffic engineering means putting several junctions in pahese with each other to keep traffic at ALL of the junctions flowing at a steady rate rather than ahve 1 or 2 free junctions and 1 or 2 clogged junctions.
> 
> lights are also needed for pedestrians to cross


 
I understand the concept of queueing across series of junctions, but this only becomes a requirement when the traffic density becomes very heavy. The argument for many cyclists jumping red lights and using static flows as a justification on safety grounds is already there.

What is so wrong with the natural flows regulating the desire to use the area in the first place. You don't need traffic lights when the levels rise to a point that gridlock is inevitable. This could also do away with the desire to use buses and walk, and instead get a job with in walking distance.


----------



## dawesome (5 Jun 2012)

Linford said:


> . The place will be hell on wheels for sure


 
Jubilee went ok, because people didn't drive:



> Transport for London (TfL) certainly seem pretty pleased with how it has gone so far.
> The main reason being Londoners listened to the messages that they put out - i.e don't drive into central London.
> That means traffic was 40% down on a normal Sunday. Passengers on public transport went up 25%.


 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-18324886


----------



## Linford (5 Jun 2012)

dawesome said:


> Jubilee went ok, because people didn't drive:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-18324886


 
It was also the case because the majority were not in work over the break. We only have to see how much the traffic levels rise when the school runs are back in place when there is a statutory requirement for people to get their kids to school, or get to work, kids to college etc etc


----------



## Linford (5 Jun 2012)

dawesome said:


> We've tried reducing congestion by making it easier to drive, it doesn't work, nor does expanding capacity, traffic expands to fill the space. It's unsustainable, you end up chasing your tail all the time:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Alternatively the could drop the kerbs, and use their front gardens as parking spaces. This would keep the roads clear as nobody would legally be entitled to park across the drop - net result = cars off the road, and you can get 3 cars across 20ft of drive at a squeeze. I'd say that the average terrace with a hallway is closer to 18ft myself which would accommodate a couple of cars with ease.


----------



## subaqua (5 Jun 2012)

Linford said:


> Alternatively the could drop the kerbs, and use their front gardens as parking spaces. This would keep the roads clear as nobody would legally be entitled to park across the drop - net result = cars off the road, and you can get 3 cars across 20ft of drive at a squeeze. I'd say that the average terrace with a hallway is closer to 18ft myself which would accommodate a couple of cars with ease.


 
until they make a car thats 2 ft long or 2 ft wide then that isn't going to happen in most of East London with terraced houses. thats how far it is from my front window to pavement. wish i could park off road . would lower the insurance risks and therefore the costs. ( even if it is subsidised)

oh and have you tried to get permission for a drop kerb in LBWF- good luck.


----------



## subaqua (5 Jun 2012)

Linford said:


> Buuuutttttt, they then decide to stage the Olympics there, and invite how many thousands of lorries onto the streets to facilitate the construction ? - as well as then the event in itself. I for one will be staying on this side of Oxford. The place will be hell on wheels for sure


 
not many of the lorries from the park actually went through the CC zone though. theres more lorries in the CCzone from the crossrail project. a quick check of the map will show you the zone and the location of the park.

concrete was made on site and the majority( 99% ) of the raw materials for that were delivered by train. you could see this from the train on the liverpool st side of stratford station . its where the warm up track now sits. as much as i hate the waste on the park, it did do some sensible things ( muck away by train/canal wasn't used as much as it should /could have been)
the park itself is a private vehicle free zone. yes there are LOCOG cars and service vehicles. you can't park close to the park as there is a olympic CPZ in force from mid july to mid september. its pubic (sic) transport thats going to struggle with the 2 tube stations closest already not far from capacity ( leyton and stratford)


----------



## gambatte (7 Jun 2012)

Why is the term 'Road tax' so important?

I guess that question was asked 80 years ago in parliament, when it was abolished... because it gave a sense of entitlement to drivers?

Time we caught up


----------

