# Idea regarding 'Road Tax' fallacy.



## iamanidiot (24 Jan 2011)

Hello!

I mainly lurk (literally, I almost never post) in the commuting section so apologies if this is the wrong place to be posting this.

Anyway, like many cyclists, I often find myself forced into defending the fact that I don't pay the non-existent 'road tax'. It struck me the other day, that it would be very useful to have bicycles classified in with other Zero band vehicles. Obviously, though, this would be difficult to implement as a legal requirement, so why not make it entirely voluntary? It strikes me that it would kill any potential argument pretty quickly if when accused of not paying road tax, you could just point someone to a tax disc looking a bit like this attached to your bike:







i.e a road tax disc, but with a yearly cost of NIL - perhaps with make/model/colour instead of numberplate?

The obvious problem would be how to ask the DVLA to implement this, but mainly i'd like to know what people think of the idea of a voluntary tax disc? Am I totally insane, or a complete visionary  or has this all been suggested before.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (24 Jan 2011)

It's a nice idea, but I don't think it'll help. I occasionally get grief from other road users when I'm trying to manoevre a 45' trailer into a small gap off the main road, and my lorry has a very expensive tax disc indeed ... on the other hand, my car has a free "historic vehicle" tax disc, and everyone loves it. If it wasn't "you don't pay road tax" it'd be something else.


----------



## Dan B (24 Jan 2011)

Rhythm Thief said:


> If it wasn't "you don't pay road tax" it'd be something else.


This


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (24 Jan 2011)

Rhythm Thief said:


> If it wasn't "you don't pay road tax" it'd be something else.



But if the "something else" has some comedy value... 

More seriously, I think the cost of producing these discs and distributing them could be more wisely spent on a publicity campaign about what "Road Tax" actually is. 

Pragmatically, I am hoping that this "issue" will slowly die a death as we see increasing numbers of zero-VED cars on the road. The emphasis on 'hoping'.


----------



## iamanidiot (24 Jan 2011)

All good points. Alternatively I could just take the tax disc from my car with me when I cycle, pointing out that actually I do pay 'road tax'. Apart from the fact that that's beside the point I would of course leave my car open to clamping...

I just thought it would be fun to actually have a tax disc for my bicycle.


----------



## Gerry Attrick (24 Jan 2011)

Don't give the authorities ideas! You do realise that in order to qualify for your free disc, your bike would have to undergo a 450 point annual MOT and the rider would have to prove his/her riding competance on a regular basis. These tests would of course be charged to the cycle owner, who would have registered his/her bike with the DVLA.

Please don't take offence Iamanidiot, but I hope your next post has a better suggestion.


----------



## ohnovino (24 Jan 2011)

The morons who go on about "Road Tax" have one basic point: they pay a lot of tax to drive their cars and feel that gives them more rights over people who don't.

Having a zero-rate for bikes won't change that attitude.


----------



## iamanidiot (24 Jan 2011)

Gerry Attrick said:


> Don't give the authorities ideas! You do realise that in order to qualify for your free disc, your bike would have to undergo a 450 point annual MOT and the rider would have to prove his/her riding competance on a regular basis. These tests would of course be charged to the cycle owner, who would have registered his/her bike with the DVLA.
> 
> Please don't take offence Iamanidiot, but I hope your next post has a better suggestion.



Oh I won't take offence, I realise it's not an amazing idea. Or even a good idea. Or even a passable idea.


----------



## Norm (24 Jan 2011)

ohnovino said:


> The morons who go on about "Road Tax" have one basic point: they pay a lot of tax to drive their cars and feel that gives them more rights over people who don't.


I don't agree with this, as the only "discussions" I've had (only in the office, I've never had a problem on the road) have been with people who drive company cars and who, therefore, don't pay any road tax themselves anyway.

I take great pleasure in pointing out that I have 2 cars and 2 motorbikes and therefore pay plenty of "road tax" myself.

I make sure that the irony of their position is not lost on them.


----------



## classic33 (24 Jan 2011)

Gerry Attrick said:


> Don't give the authorities ideas! You do realise that in order to qualify for your free disc, your bike would have to undergo a 450 point annual MOT and the rider would have to prove his/her riding competance on a regular basis. These tests would of course be charged to the cycle owner, who would have registered his/her bike with the DVLA.
> 
> Please don't take offence Iamanidiot, but I hope your next post has a better suggestion.



Tried doing this, however I was told that my vehicles would have to undergo
http://www.direct.go...icle/DG_4022105

Prior to this test, which has to be booked and paid for in advance, non returnable fee, the vehicle cannot be used on the public highway. It would have to have the drive disconnected and arrive at the testing station on a trailer. When that test is done, assuming it passes, I could then apply for VED. Problems arise when you attempt to apply for either. VOSA, are not allowed to inspect pedal cycles under the SVA and until that is done you cannot legally make an application for VED.

There is also at present no way that a pedal cycle can be issued with a valid VED disc as they do not fall under the remit of the DVLA or VOSA.

I know this bit because I tried. Even turning up to VOSA station for the test on a Brox. Some odd looks & some wondering if it was a wind up. 

Spelling errors


----------



## downfader (24 Jan 2011)

I've used the old "rebate" joke in the past. Mate at work was joking about bikes not being taxed, so I said "its an environmental charge, my bike does no damage, so I'm owed a rebate!"

It wasnt a serious discussion though.

I did contemplate buying a motorcycle disc holder, printing off a joke disc and inserting it motorcycle style on the forks. I agree with Rhythm Thief though. If it isnt "road tax" it will be insurance, get insurance and it will be licence plates.. You do everything at the same price as a motorist, all the same obligations and they will just turn around and say "why am I being held up by cyclists!? I'm faster, I should have more rights!"

Its the mentality. A minority of motorists are indeed fundementalist about their cars, etc. Once you've challenged and corrected you will still have idiots. Its down to society to fall in line and say that idiots mentality is unacceptable and should change imo.


----------



## subaqua (24 Jan 2011)

downfader said:


> I've used the old "rebate" joke in the past. Mate at work was joking about bikes not being taxed, so I said "its an environmental charge, my bike does no damage, so I'm owed a rebate!"
> 
> It wasnt a serious discussion though.
> 
> ...




bang on the nail. you can substitute any form of transport and it still works.


----------



## Tyres (24 Jan 2011)

I can honestly say I've only come across this attitude once - a work colleague moaned his head off about cycle clubs taking up the road.
At the end of the day, do these bigots not realise that they too can go buy a bike and ride it on the roads...


----------



## User269 (24 Jan 2011)

I continue to believe it's better to spread the word that there's no such thing as road tax with regard to vehicle excise duty payments. 

All roads are paid for by our council tax, with the exception of motorways and some trunk roads, which are paid for out of general taxation. Cyclists pay council tax like everyone else. There is no such thing as road tax. Call it car tax if you like, but it's actually vehicle excise duty. All the cyclists I know also own cars, and are of course paying VED on them.

The sooner the message gets across that the roads are for the use of all of us, not just motorists, the better. And the sooner that motorists understand that they don't fund the roads and don't therefore have some divine right to their use, the better.


----------



## downfader (24 Jan 2011)

subaqua said:


> bang on the nail. you can substitute any form of transport and it still works.




I cant take full credit.. others got there before me


----------



## snorri (24 Jan 2011)

ohnovino said:


> The morons who go on about "Road Tax" have one basic point: they pay a lot of tax to drive their cars


....but they don't pay a lot of tax!
I pay just £110 pa in VED, which gives me access to who knows how many thousand miles of road any hour of the day or night. I can even leave my car parked on the road for a year if I wish for no extra charge. It only costs me 13 p a mile in fuel to drive, and not all of that is tax.


----------



## gaz (24 Jan 2011)

I have a 'tax' disc on my bike. It's on my jersey


----------



## pshore (25 Jan 2011)

Next time I get "You don't pay road tax" from builders, I am going to shout back "You don't pay VAT".


----------



## Dan B (25 Jan 2011)

pshore said:


> Next time I get "You don't pay road tax" from builders, I am going to shout back "You don't pay VAT".


I've said that to taxi drivers. Try also "I don't pay for sex either"


----------



## dellzeqq (25 Jan 2011)

iamanidiot said:


> Oh I won't take offence, I realise it's not an amazing idea. Or even a good idea. Or even a passable idea.


(puts virtual arm round virtual shoulder and offers a cup of tea and a slice of cake)


----------



## monkeypony (25 Jan 2011)

Gerry Attrick said:


> Don't give the authorities ideas! You do realise that in order to qualify for your free disc, your bike would have to undergo a 450 point annual MOT and the rider would have to prove his/her riding competance on a regular basis. These tests would of course be charged to the cycle owner, who would have registered his/her bike with the DVLA.
> 
> Please don't take offence Iamanidiot, but I hope your next post has a better suggestion.



To be fair, would it be such a bad thing to have to proove you're bike is roadworthy once in a while? I'm of the opinion that mandatory insurance to ride on the roads would be no bad thing either. I've lost count of the number of cyclist I've seen rear ending motorists and riding off without even stopping to give false details 

Should there be an age limit for riding on the roads? 16 for a motorbike. if a 15 year old isn't deemed competant to ride a little moped on the public roads what about a 10 year old cyclist? and cyclists don't ever even have to proove competancy!

All mad and unworkable I know but cycling is such a grey area its no wonder that stupid people get confused...


----------



## siadwell (25 Jan 2011)

downfader said:


> Once you've challenged and corrected you will still have idiots.



Brilliant! I now have a new mantra.


----------



## Dan B (25 Jan 2011)

monkeypony said:


> To be fair, would it be such a bad thing to have to proove you're bike is roadworthy once in a while?


Sure, if wishes were horses. When you look at how much it would cost and what benefit we'd actually see, it begins to seem like a less good idea


----------



## monkeypony (25 Jan 2011)

Well yes but look at it this way,

I'm a motorist travelling at 45mph down hill in a 30 zone.
1) I can be fined and prosecuted for speeding
2) I have mandatory insurance to cover an individual or their family should I have an accident
3) I have an MOT so have had to prove my car was roadworthy within the last 12 months
4) I have a licence so have proved that I am (was) able to use the roads safely

Past me comes a cyclist doing 50mph (could be me on my way into work).

None of the above applies!

Add to that the fact that as a motorist:

1) I pay 'road tax' (regardless of what it's actually spent on, its still a tax to use my vehicle on the roads)
2) I pay for my mandatory insurance
3) I pay 'insurance tax' on top of that
4) I have to pay for fuel
5) I have to pay for my MOT
5) I have to pay duty on the fuel
6) I have to pay value added tax on the duty

It isn't difficult to see why we cyclists are not treated like equal road users...


----------



## subaqua (25 Jan 2011)

monkeypony said:


> Well yes but look at it this way,
> 
> I'm a motorist travelling at 45mph down hill in a 30 zone.
> 1) I can be fined and prosecuted for speeding
> ...



we payed VAT on the bike when we bought it.
we pay VAT on any purchase for it


its pointless arguing.


----------



## monkeypony (25 Jan 2011)

subaqua said:


> we payed VAT on the bike when we bought it.
> we pay VAT on any purchase for it
> 
> 
> its pointless arguing.



As did the car owner so that doesn't really set us apart.

Except that we probably payed less VAT than the car owner.


----------



## User269 (25 Jan 2011)

The _public_ roads are for everyones use. They are paid for out of council tax, apart from motorways and some trunk roads. We have to share the space with each other.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (25 Jan 2011)

monkeypony said:


> Well yes but look at it this way,
> 
> I'm a motorist travelling at 45mph down hill in a 30 zone.
> 1) I can be fined and prosecuted for speeding
> ...



It doesn't stack up though. I mean, just because cars pay these things doesn't mean all road users should have to. "My" lorry has to have an Operator's Licence displayed in the windscreen, but you hear very few lorry drivers campaigning for them to be compulsory for cars. Which is the rough equivalent of what you're suggesting.


----------



## Dan B (25 Jan 2011)

monkeypony said:


> It isn't difficult to see why we cyclists are not treated like equal road users...



It's a classic example of "framing the debate". If you start from the premise that roads are for cars then yes, it looks like cyclists are getting a free ride. However, if you start from the premise that roads are for people (as they have been since the year dot, long before the internal combustion engine was invented) then why should people be subject to all these restrictions? In the case of car drivers, because history and 2000+ deaths a year seem to demonstrate that the restrictions are necessary for safety. For cycles and pedestrians, really, how many deaths or injuries a year are caused by 50mph uninsured downhill cyclists and is it enough to justify removing people's rights in this way?

If you choose to use an antisocial and dangerous contraption to get around, you should expect society to act to protect the interests of those around you (e.g. by ensuring that you are licenced and your vehicle inspected regularly). If you don't make that choice, why should society regulate you as if you had, just for parity with the peoepl who did because they think it's "not fair"?


----------



## Dan B (25 Jan 2011)

Rhythm Thief said:


> It doesn't stack up though. I mean, just because cars pay these things doesn't mean all road users should have to. "My" lorry has to have an Operator's Licence displayed in the windscreen, but you hear very few lorry drivers campaigning for them to be compulsory for cars. Which is the rough equivalent of what you're suggesting.



+1


----------



## jowate (25 Jan 2011)

It's interesting to me to have learned (in my guise as a car driver) that I don't pay 'road tax' - and it's worthwhile to try to get this information more widely known among drivers. But I don't think it's likely to have much effect on small minority of drivers who get irate at cyclists and use this kind of non-argument to rationalise their irateness. Most of these incidents, I suspect, are based on a settled prejudice about 'bl**dy cyclists' and are more like road rage. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to discover that most of those prejudiced drivers who get irate about cyclists are also liable to get irate about other drivers, pedestrians, and just about anything else that people tend to get prejudiced about. What they could probably most do with is some kind of anger management course and education about the consequences of their actions - but unfortunately they're unlikely to get that, even if they end up seriously hurting someone. But as others have said above, if it's not tax discs, they'll find something else to fuel their verbal assaults.


----------



## downfader (25 Jan 2011)

Reference to MoTs, fines, etc..

If asked to stop by a Police Officer or PCSO cyclists are required to stop under law. An Officer has the right to inspect your bike to assess its road-worthyness, or have someone assess it for them. IIRC you can even be fined for having no brakes, or any other defect. 

On speeding..

You can be fined or prosecuted for wreckless cycling or wanton and furious if the situation is seen as a danger to others. This has been done a couple of times, though keeping up with cars in a 40 zone wont usually count. Cyclists can have the same obsessions with speed that motorists sometimes have

Insurance..

Household Policies, union or club memberships often have some cover that will help. However, even if you dont have those you're less likely to act like a c*ck on a bike for the simple reason that any collision you cause will most probably hurt you more, even collisions with peds can result in the cyclist coming off and biting dirt. Many of the people who bitch about this often do so because they see insurance as some kind of garanteed windfall: "I've been hit, now I'll get some money in damages!" Its part of the rise in NoWinNoFee companies ad the litigation culture that has sprung in the last 10 years.

Licensing and reg..

Daft ideas for bikes. Pretty much every system around the world that has been in place has been a massive administative headache for the authorities. Set the fee's too high, or make the system too complex and people just resort to cars and dont bother with bikes. The Toronto investigation into a proposed system found that they would have to set the fees at well under the admin costs and that they would lose a fortune. People were surveyed and they all said they would be in the main unhappy with doing it in the first place and at having to pay anything over a couple of dollars a year (this was in the 90s). 

A similar problem had arisen in the UK in the 80s. IIRC Thatcher was responsible for scrapping the dog licence as it had been costing the government a small fortune, and those staff that dealt with the set up were needed elsewhere. 

Plates will cause problems for two reasons - 1. they will be too small to be read via CCTV and automated plate systems (ANPR). 2. If a driver has a grievance with said cyclist they may well try and drive too close so as to read said plate. 3. Anything too large will cause drag. 4. The sign will have to be positioned so as to be away from moving body parts - this means away from the legs, and in so doing it needs either a rack or an adapter to be fitted. 5. if operated at night this will need additional lighting so the plate is visible

....I think we have to see cycling (as well as walking) as free. We need to keep it that way or else it just overly complicates peoples lives, government operations and would cost us all in the end. We have major problems in the UK with obesity, mental health, traffic congestion, road surface issues, the environment (carbon monoxides, dioxides, particles of soot and chemical compounds, as well as substantial noise is all released when you turn the key)...

...cycling to me, as with walking, seems to be a valid aid to dealing with this.


----------



## Norm (25 Jan 2011)

Rhythm Thief said:


> It doesn't stack up though. I mean, just because cars pay these things doesn't mean all road users should have to. "My" lorry has to have an Operator's Licence displayed in the windscreen, but you hear very few lorry drivers campaigning for them to be compulsory for cars. Which is the rough equivalent of what you're suggesting.


I don't want to put words into Monkeypony's mouth but, for me, his point was not whether or not it stacks up in the minds of a cyclist, but that many car (and lorry) drivers see there as being some direct relationship between the amount of tax paid (note, paid not payed, please) and their entitlement to be on the road.

Emotional and rational arguments are not usually found in the same topic. 

We need to overcome the points which monkeypony made, not by shouting him down for making them but by redressing those members of society who consider it just that rights can be traded and who consider spending more money confers them more rights.


----------



## sheddy (25 Jan 2011)

User269 said:


> The _public_ roads are for everyones use. They are paid for out of council tax, apart from motorways and some trunk roads. We have to share the space with each other.


 This

The roads are for everyone, everyone pays road tax, paid from their council tax


----------



## downfader (25 Jan 2011)

Norm said:


> I don't want to put words into Monkeypony's mouth but, for me, his point was not whether or not it stacks up in the minds of a cyclist, but that many car (and lorry) drivers see there as being some direct relationship between the amount of tax paid (note, paid not payed, please) and their entitlement to be on the road.
> 
> Emotional and rational arguments are not usually found in the same topic.
> 
> We need to overcome the points which monkeypony made, not by shouting him down for making them but by redressing those members of society who consider it just that rights can be traded and who consider spending more money confers them more rights.




I think you're bang on the money..

..though I included the above as an attempt to air the reasons and ideas behind it all just incase anyone has a little trouble in other conversations over this nonsense.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (26 Jan 2011)

reiver said:


> Road Tax and MOTs for cyclists, what will be the next argument from the brain dead, cyclist should be forced to purchase petrol and diesel



Steady on lad. There's no need to resort to flinging insults about, it was a reasonable question.


----------



## dellzeqq (26 Jan 2011)

forget the Council Tax argument. Streets (a far better word than roads) are public space and we're all entitled to occupy them. Cars have no more reason to be on our streets than pedestrians, cyclists, people selling ice cream or whatever. Streets belong to all of us. They're not 'paid for' because they've been ours, as Dan says, from the year dot. 

If people want to buy something that is taxed, that's up to them.


----------



## monkeypony (26 Jan 2011)

Norm said:


> I don't want to put words into Monkeypony's mouth but, for me, his point was not whether or not it stacks up in the minds of a cyclist, but that many car (and lorry) drivers see there as being some direct relationship between the amount of tax paid (note, paid not payed, please) and their entitlement to be on the road.
> 
> Emotional and rational arguments are not usually found in the same topic.
> 
> We need to overcome the points which monkeypony made, not by shouting him down for making them but by redressing those members of society who consider it just that rights can be traded and who consider spending more money confers them more rights.




Indeed.

The sad fact of the matter is that without legislating (which isn't needed) or taxing (which certainly isn't wanted) cyclists, we will always be treated as second class road users and need to accept that fact as nothing is going to change peoples opinions. I think we actually rank below people on horesback!

Incidently, for those who dont have 3rd party insurance, a bicycle striking a pedestrian at 25mph will do more damage than a car travelling at the same speed. Its certainly worth considering and hopefully you'll never need to use it!


----------



## Jezston (26 Jan 2011)

You know what I hate? Pedestrians. Slowing me down by using crossings. I bet they don't pay road tax either - it's my tax paying for those pavements too! And what about joggers - knocking old ladies down. They should have registration plates. Derp derp etc.


----------



## Mad at urage (27 Jan 2011)

monkeypony said:


> Should there be an age limit for riding on the roads? 16 for a motorbike. if a 15 year old isn't deemed competant to ride a little moped on the public roads what about a 10 year old cyclist? and cyclists don't ever even have to proove competancy!


So where should young people learn road-sense? Playground courses (they are for learning bike handling)? Classrooms (no immediate threat to keep them awake)? By riding on the pavement?


----------



## Dan B (27 Jan 2011)

monkeypony said:


> Should there be an age limit for riding on the roads?


Should there be an age limit for walking on (or across) the roads? They're public spaces, and restrictions on their use are imposed for uses that bring danger to the public. The case that motor traffic is dangerous and this danger can be mitigated by restricting their use is well-known (look at accident graphs over the past century or so since regulation began). So, what is the danger to the public that justifies restricting children from riding a bike on the roads? And I'm looking for statistics here, not "what if someone swerved" anecdotes or hypotheticals


----------



## Dan B (27 Jan 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> Streets (a far better word than roads) are public space and we're all entitled to occupy them



This is, for me, the crux of the matter. The Manual for Streets says "A street is defined as a highway that has important public realm functions beyond the movement of traffic" - and isn't that true of pretty much any highway short of the most soulless motorway? Even a country lane between villages can be a wildlife habitat, a space for walkers and riders, and a vantage point for vistas that soothe the soul.


[ Apologies if you're getting as fed up as I am of the random font size changes in my posts. No, I don't know why it's doing it either]


----------



## downfader (27 Jan 2011)

Mad@urage said:


> So where should young people learn road-sense? Playground courses (they are for learning bike handling)? Classrooms (no immediate threat to keep them awake)? By riding on the pavement?




We can look at other countries and determine what might be the problems involved and see that actually, kids use the roads from about 6 or 7 in places like parts of Germany, parts of Finland iirc.. most certainly The Netherlands (who must be like Spock to our Kirk) 

Further thinking... I was at work today and mulling this all over and came to a philosphy that every cyclist must go through asking this question about tax at least once ....and people must end up asking the kids and roads question too, quite a bit. The beautiful thing about the web is if you want an answer you can ask people, even ask people in other countries "how does it work over there?"


----------

