# Compulsory Insurance and VED



## classic33 (25 Jun 2019)

Given the recent decision in court, and the fallout from it, calls from parts of the media saying we, cyclists, should have mandatory insurance and "Road Tax"(VED) and possibly some sort of training before we are allowed on the roads. What are the chances, and the implications of such a move?

In a recent thread, these same issues were raised on here with regards a possible increase in the top assisted speed for e-bikes. Before the court decision was announced. There's been a new thread on insurance for cyclist, possibly as a result of the court case was announced.

Would greater freedom on the roads, possibly an increase in the assist speed limit as a result of having the three things that some are saying we should have be worth it? Would we be treated as equals on them, if we had them? Would you be willing to to be treated as an equal, if they said you'd be treated differently, but..... 

Can we avoid having them imposed on us. Once again a court case has put cyclists back in the media spotlight.

At present the systems can't ensure that all the vehicles currently covered by such regulations actually meet them. How would it cope, if it could, with an increase brought about by including cyclists?

Finally, for now, does anyone know where I can get the application form for the licence for my class of vehicle? I've managed to get the Registered Keeper of a trailer, and the Waste Carriers Licence. Now it's just the appropriate licence that's required.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (25 Jun 2019)

As has been made clear in Parliament on a number of occasions, the measures you refer to would be too costly to administer and be of no real benefit. I wouldn't worry about it, no matter how much the click-bait driven media flog it.


----------



## classic33 (25 Jun 2019)

One I'd say is highly likely is the insurance. But how would they "police" the system?

Either that or we can expect similar cases to come up. Result would be a greater number of cyclists taking out cover for themselves, until a majority is reached whereby it becomes easier to implement the compulsory insurance requirement.


----------



## mjr (25 Jun 2019)

With third party insurance being given away with household insurances as well as club memberships, there may already be majority coverage. I still don't expect it to become compulsory else we'll see similar for walkers and horse riders and the authorities already can't cope with compelling motorists.


----------



## bladderhead (25 Jun 2019)

glasgowcyclist said:


> I wouldn't worry about it


I am glad about that. The thought of tax and insurance is a bit depressing, and not just because of the money. One of the reasons I like cycling is because it is something you can just _do_. Anyone can just buy a bike and ride it. Anywhere. No pissing about with licenses and stuff. Ride it in the park, on the pavement, the wrong way up a one-way street, nobody makes a fuss. It would be a shame to squeeze out that sense of anarchy.


----------



## classic33 (26 Jun 2019)

mjr said:


> With third party insurance being given away with household insurances as well as club memberships, there may already be majority coverage. I still don't expect it to become compulsory else we'll see similar for walkers and horse riders and the authorities already can't cope with compelling motorists.



The Employers' Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969
&
The Riding Establishments Act 1970
covers horse riding/riders.


----------



## jowwy (26 Jun 2019)

I cant see it ever happening, but if it did then....

Im already licenced for a bike
Im already insured against, theft and third party damage
And tax would be zero as its electric

So im covered whichever way it goes....but with climate change, congestion, pollution etc etc causing already big issues for the planet. It would be utter stupidity to start tackling cyclists for no apparent gain


----------



## PK99 (26 Jun 2019)

jowwy said:


> I cant see it ever happening, but if it did then....
> 
> ....
> And tax would be zero as its electric



Don't forget, that tax incentive is a "nudge" to encourage environmentally friendly vehicles. Eventually than nudge will not be needed but the loss of tax revenue must be replaced somehow. Expect all vehicles using roads to be brought back into the tax net.


----------



## Phaeton (26 Jun 2019)

mjr said:


> With third party insurance being given away with household insurances as well as club memberships,


That has not been my experience, I've always found that you have to pay extra for 3rd party liability cover on household insurance & that club membership doesn't include insurance, in fact the inverse, to ride out with the club you have to provide your own insurance.


----------



## mjr (26 Jun 2019)

Phaeton said:


> That has not been my experience, I've always found that you have to pay extra for 3rd party liability cover on household insurance & that club membership doesn't include insurance, in fact the inverse, to ride out with the club you have to provide your own insurance.


The fact that not all give it away doesn't contradict that it is given away by some. It's so cheap it will never be worth the admin to compel, much like any non-punitive tax.


----------



## jowwy (26 Jun 2019)

PK99 said:


> Don't forget, that tax incentive is a "nudge" to encourage environmentally friendly vehicles. Eventually than nudge will not be needed but the loss of tax revenue must be replaced somehow. Expect all vehicles using roads to be brought back into the tax net.


I still cant see ebikes being subject to VED in my lifetime.......just my opinion nothing else


----------



## Smudge (26 Jun 2019)

PK99 said:


> Don't forget, that tax incentive is a "nudge" to encourage environmentally friendly vehicles. Eventually than nudge will not be needed but the loss of tax revenue must be replaced somehow. Expect all vehicles using roads to be brought back into the tax net.



Yep, they always change the goal posts. 
Just like those £20 and £30 a year VED petrol & diesel cars you used to be able to buy new.


----------



## bladderhead (26 Jun 2019)

jowwy said:


> It would be utter stupidity


That never stopped them doing anything.


----------



## Phaeton (26 Jun 2019)

mjr said:


> The fact that not all give it away doesn't contradict that it is given away by some. It's so cheap it will never be worth the admin to compel, much like any non-punitive tax.


Only my experience but I have never come across a policy where it's automatically included, it just maybe that we look at different ends of the cost spectrum, I detest insurance so will almost always take the cheapest option, in 40+ years I have only ever claimed on any insurance once.


jowwy said:


> I still cant see ebikes being subject to VED in my lifetime.......just my opinion nothing else


I do hope you are right, but I do think that electric motored motorcycles/mopeds will be subject to VED


Smudge said:


> Yep, they always change the goal posts.
> Just like those £20 and £30 a year VED petrol & diesel cars you used to be able to buy new.


My Volvo diesel is still only £30 a year, it's ridiculous, I have a friend whose BMW is only £30 he does 50K a year, my kit car is £250+ does less than 2K (in fact this year likely to be less than 1K) surely his emissions will be greater than mine


----------



## mjr (26 Jun 2019)

Phaeton said:


> Only my experience but I have never come across a policy where it's automatically included, it just maybe that we look at different ends of the cost spectrum, I detest insurance so will almost always take the cheapest option, in 40+ years I have only ever claimed on any insurance once.


Not different ends but since dealing with the excreable Endsleigh for my first home, I also detest insurance, so I tend to stick to a group of mostly co-ops who have never screwed me and are easy to deal with. I probably pay a few £s more than the cheapest but not much. The last time I remember paying extra for third-party was Zenith via a work's co-op preference deal a decade ago but they screwed me so I don't use them since.


----------



## Smudge (26 Jun 2019)

Phaeton said:


> Only my experience but I have never come across a policy where it's automatically included, it just maybe that we look at different ends of the cost spectrum, I detest insurance so will almost always take the cheapest option, in 40+ years I have only ever claimed on any insurance once.
> 
> I do hope you are right, but I do think that electric motored motorcycles/mopeds will be subject to VED
> 
> *My Volvo diesel is still only £30 a year, it's ridiculous, I have a friend whose BMW is only £30 he does 50K a year, my kit car is £250+ does less than 2K (in fact this year likely to be less than 1K) surely his emissions will be greater than mine*




Which is why i believe VED should be scrapped and the duty put on fuel instead.


----------



## Phaeton (26 Jun 2019)

Smudge said:


> Which is why i believe VED should be scrapped and the duty put on fuel instead.


100% agree, the more miles/fuel you use the more you pay,


----------



## numbnuts (26 Jun 2019)

Phaeton said:


> 100% agree, the more miles/fuel you use the more you pay,


Yes as an old fart I only do 1000 miles per year, but have to pay £265


----------



## Smudge (26 Jun 2019)

Putting the VED on fuel would not only be a fairer system, but i believe it would actively encourage people to use other forms of transport like bikes and public transport at times. Especially for short journeys in town which are the most polluting.
But the government must have considered this and decided that annual VED on vehicles give them more revenue.... and that's all they are interested in.


----------



## Phaeton (26 Jun 2019)

Smudge said:


> Putting the VED on fuel would not only be a fairer system, but i believe it would actively encourage people to use other forms of transport like bikes and public transport at times. Especially for short journeys in town which are the most polluting.
> But the government must have considered this and decided that annual VED on vehicles give them more revenue.... and that's all they are interested in.


Although I agree with the idea of putting the revenue on the amount of fuel, but we may disagree on the reason the Government don't do it, I think it's down to lobbying, the motor industry, the road haulage association & possibly the CBI would all be against it & they have a bigger sway than the Green's (not the political party but people in general)


----------



## byegad (26 Jun 2019)

My CTC/BritishCycling [I swap between them as prices vary.]covers third party insurance.
I took my Cycling Proficiency, aged 10, the RAC/ACU test and then my motorcycle test age 17 and my driving test a week later, by which time I was 18 and I trained as a driving instructor at 25.

Passing any extra cycling test will not be a problem. So I have nothing to fear in this.......

BUT! Requiring these of all cyclists will kill off cycling in the young almost instantly as parents will not want to pay for little Jonny or Jenny's road insurance and the test will be only available to taken at a certain age, or do they expect 4 to 7 yr olds to be tested?

The extra costs to the NHS in the future will make its viability much less likely.


----------



## classic33 (26 Jun 2019)

Smudge said:


> Putting the VED on fuel would not only be a fairer system, but i believe it would actively encourage people to use other forms of transport like bikes and public transport at times. Especially for short journeys in town which are the most polluting.
> *But the government must have considered this and decided that annual VED on vehicles give them more revenue.... and that's all they are interested in.*


And if more vehicles on the roads were cycles, would they start looking at these. Most are single user only after all.

Given that cycling is classed by some insurers as an extreme sport, if insurance became mandatory would they reclassify it.



"And if it more" changed to read "And if more"


----------



## Smudge (26 Jun 2019)

I know one thing for me personally, if bicycles started have legislation on them like insurance, ved etc, i would start losing interest in them pretty quickly. The biggest attraction of them for me is the freedom of them and the minimal running costs.


----------



## TheDoctor (26 Jun 2019)

If anyone can explain why a cyclist should pay more VED than the driver of the £35000 BMW i3 I'd be delighted to hear it.
And vehicle drivers are the ones bringing all the risk to the party. That's why they're required to have insurance.


----------



## kynikos (26 Jun 2019)

It's clear from all the noises coming from government, as opposed to click bait media, that VED for cycles isn't going to happen.

As for insurance, as an adult you have liability to third parties whatever you're doing be it driving a car, cycling or simply walking along the street. Whether or not it's compulsory it's sensible to have insurance cover if you have any assets you'd rather not lose - ask Mr Hazeldean who's now facing bankruptcy, loss of his house etc.


----------



## Andy in Germany (26 Jun 2019)

jowwy said:


> So im covered whichever way it goes....but with climate change, congestion, pollution etc etc causing already big issues for the planet. It would be utter stupidity to start tackling cyclists for no apparent gain



Aye, but this is politicians we're talking about. Utter stupidity seems to be their speciality at the moment...


----------



## jowwy (26 Jun 2019)

Andy in Germany said:


> Aye, but this is politicians we're talking about. Utter stupidity seems to be their speciality at the moment...


thats a discussion that im not awilling to enter into.......


----------



## Andy in Germany (26 Jun 2019)

If the government did decide to do this I see all kinds of expensive problems. How old does the rider have to be before paying 'tax' or needing insurance? How will that be enforced? Four year olds being stopped to check their paperwork is in order? Or perhaps they'll start at twelve. I can just imagine a copper wanting to spend the morning checking insurance on pink bicycles.

On the other hand, a mountain bike here is sold as 'sports equipment' so would they need a numberplate? and are the police going to be required to stop anyone on an MTB who rides on a road, which means anyone going to ride on an MTB track would be forced to transport the bike by car/train or by walking, or...

Our kids had to take a test before they were covered by the school insurance and technically they should wear a helmet to be covered, but try telling that to a 16 year old who is late, doesn't want to wear a helmet and says he lost it at school. What chance would a licencing drive have in the face of reluctant teens?


----------



## KneesUp (26 Jun 2019)

Smudge said:


> Putting the VED on fuel would not only be a fairer system, but i believe it would actively encourage people to use other forms of transport like bikes and public transport at times. Especially for short journeys in town which are the most polluting.
> But the government must have considered this and decided that annual VED on vehicles give them more revenue.... and that's all they are interested in.


I don't even think it would raise less revenue - it would be fairly easy to make it revenue neutral at the first implementation, and then you could easily take in more - there is about 40 billion litres of petrol and diesel sold in the UK each year. VED raises about £6 billion in revenue, so if you add 15p per litre and scrap VED the net result is about the same - but if you add 15.1p per litre you would raise £40 million extra, and no-one would notice the difference.

I think it isn't being done because it is very slightly hard sell to the voters who would be told by The Daily Heil to be cross that it was going to COST THE AVERAGE MOTORIST AN EXTRA £10 TO FILL UP or whatever.


----------



## Milkfloat (26 Jun 2019)

The problem with moving the tax to fuel is that it hits rural areas hard. Rural areas would need proper services if they are to survive, before duty is moved to fuel.


----------



## KneesUp (26 Jun 2019)

Milkfloat said:


> The problem with moving the tax to fuel is that it hits rural areas hard. Rural areas would need proper services if they are to survive, before duty is moved to fuel.


It doesn't sound insurmountable. To a certain extent it's 'fair' - you live in a nice place that's miles from where you work, you pay for the pollution you create getting to work, or move if you don't want to. Or cycle - whatever. It incentivises the desired outcome.

I also see that it may make it more expensive for businesses to get stock in remote locations, but it will be a level field - it would - presumably - also be more expensive to get stuff delivered to you personally, removing the disadvantage to the local business - and it would also be more expensive to go to the town and buy it yourself, again, levelling the field.

The current system is not equitable either - it penalises those who own multiple vehicles and / or don't use their vehicles much, and one might argue that by making it a flat fee it encourages car use - if you've paid the VED you might as well drive. It is also regressive - if you're poor, chances are you have an old car, and chances are you're paying a lot of VED even if you can't afford to drive it much.


----------



## Phaeton (26 Jun 2019)

Milkfloat said:


> The problem with moving the tax to fuel is that it hits rural areas hard. Rural areas would need proper services if they are to survive, before duty is moved to fuel.


I wrote to my MP a couple of years ago, he wrote to the Treasury (I think) that was one of their reasons why they wouldn't do it, I've just wrote to him again asking for an update, at some point it will be over the tipping point.


----------



## Milkfloat (26 Jun 2019)

KneesUp said:


> It doesn't sound insurmountable. To a certain extent it's 'fair' - you live in a nice place that's miles from where you work, you pay for the pollution you create getting to work, or move if you don't want to. Or cycle - whatever. It incentivises the desired outcome.
> 
> I also see that it may make it more expensive for businesses to get stock in remote locations, but it will be a level field - it would - presumably - also be more expensive to get stuff delivered to you personally, removing the disadvantage to the local business - and it would also be more expensive to go to the town and buy it yourself, again, levelling the field.
> 
> The current system is not equitable either - it penalises those who own multiple vehicles and / or don't use their vehicles much, and one might argue that by making it a flat fee it encourages car use - if you've paid the VED you might as well drive. It is also regressive - if you're poor, chances are you have an old car, and chances are you're paying a lot of VED even if you can't afford to drive it much.



The governments own figures state that car use would fall by 8% in a single year from taking use rather than the vehicle itself, which is great .Don't get me wrong, I am a very low mileage car driver, paying a fortune in VED, so would benefit from this, but also I understand rural pressures. 

There is already extreme poverty in some rural areas, it is not all 2.4 children a Range Rover and a Labrador. I think the last thing we want to be doing is urbanizing further. 

Those local business themselves will have higher costs, plus they won't be able to hire people if people cannot travel to them. By all means disincentive car use, but do it with a carrot approach, like decent rural public transport for a start.


----------



## KneesUp (26 Jun 2019)

Milkfloat said:


> By all means disincentive car use, but do it with a carrot approach, like decent rural public transport for a start.


Decent public transport in cities would be a start.


----------



## Andy in Germany (26 Jun 2019)

Milkfloat said:


> The problem with moving the tax to fuel is that it hits rural areas hard. Rural areas would need proper services if they are to survive, before duty is moved to fuel.



This is why a lot of people suggest road pricing rather than fuel. That way a kilometre is 'priced' depending on the demand, so several kilometres on a rural road would be cheaper than one kilometre driven in Westminster.

The system could also take into account the type of vehicle, fuel consumption, et c. A 4x4 being used in a city would attract a higher toll than one registered to a rural business.

The problem with this, of course is that it potentially invades your privacy because you'd have to know where you drive. Also I suspect it wouldn't be long before some rural farm has 34 registered 4X4's which mysteriously spend a lot of time at city addresses, but in principle it would be fairer than a simple fuel duty...


----------



## classic33 (26 Jun 2019)

Andy in Germany said:


> This is why a lot of people suggest road pricing rather than fuel. That way a kilometre is 'priced' depending on the demand, so several kilometres on a rural road would be cheaper than one kilometre driven in Westminster.
> 
> The system could also take into account the type of vehicle, fuel consumption, et c. A 4x4 being used in a city would attract a higher toll than one registered to a rural business.
> 
> The problem with this, of course is that it potentially invades your privacy because you'd have to know where you drive. Also I suspect it wouldn't be long before some rural farm has 34 registered 4X4's which mysteriously spend a lot of time at city addresses, but in principle it would be fairer than a simple fuel duty...


If you start pricing for distance travelled, where would cyclist come in any scheme? Would off-road facilities be fewer.

Regardless of the means of transportation, the rider/driver has to eat. For the cyclist that'd be the only fuel used, in most cases.

Will insurance companies now remove cycling from extreme sport and put it the same catargory as motor insurance.


----------



## KneesUp (26 Jun 2019)

Andy in Germany said:


> This is why a lot of people suggest road pricing rather than fuel. That way a kilometre is 'priced' depending on the demand, so several kilometres on a rural road would be cheaper than one kilometre driven in Westminster.
> 
> The system could also take into account the type of vehicle, fuel consumption, et c. A 4x4 being used in a city would attract a higher toll than one registered to a rural business.
> 
> The problem with this, of course is that it potentially invades your privacy because you'd have to know where you drive. Also I suspect it wouldn't be long before some rural farm has 34 registered 4X4's which mysteriously spend a lot of time at city addresses, but in principle it would be fairer than a simple fuel duty...


The system as described wouldn't mean it would be beneficial to register your vehicle at a rural address - it's where and when you drive it that counts. It'd be an IT nightmare though - how could you tell if people had disabled the tracker without matching CCTV footage of cars with GPS logs? Just the GPS logs would be a privacy nightmare, but matching it to CCTV would require a lot of processing, and be even more of a nightmare!

I guess what would encourage false addresses would be a system where the amount extra per litre paid in lieu of VED was based on your postcode - but I can't see that ever coming in.

However, putting the tax on the fuel would sort-of give you per mile charging - if I drive through the city centre when there is no traffic I can manage almost 40mpg in my car even with the traffic lights. If I do it at 8:45 it gets below 30mpg -so if I was paying VED via fuel, the journey would cost me more at a busy time. On a longer run on country roads, driving at sensible speeds I can get almost 50mpg out of my 1.8 litre petrol car so it would be cheaper per mile if I lived in the country, for the country miles at least.


----------



## lazybloke (26 Jun 2019)

I'd rather not see VED abandoned for cars, as it's an annual check that they have valid insurance and MOT (with a few exceptions).


----------



## KneesUp (26 Jun 2019)

lazybloke said:


> I'd rather not see VED abandoned for cars, as it's an annual check that they have valid insurance and MOT (with a few exceptions).


Technology can do that - if you have the pay per mile thing you would need a GPS track linked to a vehicle - if it's not taxed and insured, it gets flagged to be stopped by plod - whose cars would presumably also flag up any car that was either not where it's GPS said it should be, or was clearly moving but not providing a GPS fix.


----------



## Smudge (26 Jun 2019)

lazybloke said:


> I'd rather not see VED abandoned for cars, as it's an annual check that they have valid insurance and MOT (with a few exceptions).



There is already a check for non insured cars. The DVLA will automatically spit out a fine for cars that aren't either insured or sorned.
And anyone that is determined to drive uninsured wont care about not having VED either. Plus the fact that VED discs aren't shown anymore so even easier to evade VED.


----------



## lazybloke (26 Jun 2019)

KneesUp said:


> Technology can do that - if you have the pay per mile thing you would need a GPS track linked to a vehicle - if it's not taxed and insured, it gets flagged to be stopped by plod - whose cars would presumably also flag up any car that was either not where it's GPS said it should be, or was clearly moving but not providing a GPS fix.



Technology _will be able_ to do that, once GPS tracking of cars is mandatory. It'll take a few years for the majority of cars to be trackable in this way.
More NPR cameras would provide an interim solution, and allow congestion charging.


----------



## KneesUp (26 Jun 2019)

lazybloke said:


> Technology _will be able_ to do that, once GPS tracking of cars is mandatory. It'll take a few years for the majority of cars to be trackable in this way.
> More NPR cameras would provide an interim solution, and allow congestion charging.


It was a theoretical 'can' :-) I think making it mandatory will be difficult because it will be a vote loser - because governments have demonstrated that they neither have honest intentions nor can they be trusted with data.


----------



## Andy in Germany (26 Jun 2019)

KneesUp said:


> The system as described wouldn't mean it would be beneficial to register your vehicle at a rural address - it's where and when you drive it that counts. It'd be an IT nightmare though - how could you tell if people had disabled the tracker without matching CCTV footage of cars with GPS logs? Just the GPS logs would be a privacy nightmare, but matching it to CCTV would require a lot of processing, and be even more of a nightmare!
> 
> I guess what would encourage false addresses would be a system where the amount extra per litre paid in lieu of VED was based on your postcode - but I can't see that ever coming in.
> 
> However, putting the tax on the fuel would sort-of give you per mile charging - if I drive through the city centre when there is no traffic I can manage almost 40mpg in my car even with the traffic lights. If I do it at 8:45 it gets below 30mpg -so if I was paying VED via fuel, the journey would cost me more at a busy time. On a longer run on country roads, driving at sensible speeds I can get almost 50mpg out of my 1.8 litre petrol car so it would be cheaper per mile if I lived in the country, for the country miles at least.



That's the problems with the system: it's effectively spying on people using motorised vehicles, and lets face it, governments don't have a great track record of keeping data like that secure.

Also the DM would then say everyone on a bicycle was obviously travelling for secretive and nefarious purposes, because otherwise they'd be driving, right?.

We have it here for trucks, and soon after the system was introduced there was a case where the police requested access to the logs and were denied it because it was unconstitutional. We can't have CCTV under the constitution here so that'd be near impossible as well.

The problem with taxing fuel though is as @Milkfloat describes: It penalises people in rural areas. At the same time, it is only fair that people driving cars on congested roads in cities at peak times should pay more.

There's a good discussion on the pros and cons of road pricing from a Canadian transport planner here.


----------



## Pat "5mph" (26 Jun 2019)

byegad said:


> Requiring these of all cyclists will kill off cycling in the young almost instantly as parents will not want to pay for little Jonny or Jenny's road insurance and the test will be only available to taken at a certain age, or do they expect 4 to 7 yr olds to be tested?





Andy in Germany said:


> Four year olds being stopped to check their paperwork is in order? Or perhaps they'll start at twelve. I can just imagine a copper wanting to spend the morning checking insurance on pink bicycles.


I think the examples above are not valid, because young riders would not use the road, well, here anyway.
I'm all for cycle training and some sort of liability insurance if you ride on the roads.
By roads, I mean where also cars are allowed.
If one does not ride the roads, I think we can agree that insurance/training would be OTT, may as well impose it to pedestrians, joggers, hill walkers. 
BUT: currently in the UK there isn't a network of segregated paths equal to roads for cars.
All the ones I know of are disjoined, one needs to ride roads with cars at some point to get anywhere.
Cyclist do not have the choice not to use roads, until this happens, it's a no from me to compulsive insurance/training, even though I ride insured, did my cycle training when I started commuting.



Andy in Germany said:


> On the other hand, a mountain bike here is sold as 'sports equipment' so would they need a numberplate? and are the police going to be required to stop anyone on an MTB who rides on a road, *which means anyone going to ride on an MTB track would be forced to trasmport the bike by car/train or by walking, or..*.


Quite often I see bikes transported on cars headed to the local MTB track.
The road to it is quite busy, steep, crashes have happened due to speeding cars.
It is normal to see parents unloading bikes from the car when taking the kids to local parks.
It is rare having a safe cycling route to your local park from a built up area.
Rides on segregated paths, run by local cycling hubs, often have participants driving there.
Sadly, bike transport because of safety issues is already happening without the compulsory insurance issue.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (26 Jun 2019)

classic33 said:


> Will insurance companies now remove cycling from extreme sport and put it the same catargory as motor insurance.



Do they routinely consider cycling an extreme sport? That's a new one on me.

As I suggested earlier, I think compulsory insurance will never happen, not least because of the rarity of cyclists featuring in motoring claims (less than 0.1% according to the Association of British Insurers).


----------



## icowden (26 Jun 2019)

It's also important to note that the amount the treasury takes in duty on fuel is going to rapidly decrease as the number of electric cars increases. That's why the oil barons push so much anti Tesla propaganda. Less profit in oil. Of course, many of them have access to great places to build solar farms and battery tech instead.

It therefore makes more sense to move to a duty based on distance traveled as electric uptake increases. Personally I think we will see massive changes over the next 10-20 years with the advent of driverless and electric moving into the mainstream.


----------



## classic33 (26 Jun 2019)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Do they routinely consider cycling an extreme sport? That's a new one on me.
> 
> As I suggested earlier, I think compulsory insurance will never happen, not least because of the rarity of cyclists featuring in motoring claims (less than 0.1% according to the Association of British Insurers).


I don't consider it an extreme sport. The insurance does however, and requires more to be paid to cover it.

Started this as a result of the court result and the seperate thread in which insurance cover was raised. It'd be a knee jerk reaction if it came in anytime soon. Making it the worst kind of reaction. 

I've had the "you don't pay insurance/road tax/have to pass a test/have to have the cycles MOT'd arguments thrown at me whilst cycling. Like many on here I'd say.


----------



## dave r (26 Jun 2019)

Smudge said:


> There is already a check for non insured cars. The DVLA will automatically spit out a fine for cars that aren't either insured or sorned.
> And anyone that is determined to drive uninsured wont care about not having VED either. Plus the fact that VED discs aren't shown anymore so even easier to evade VED.



I can confirm that, a couple of years ago I changed insurance companies when I renewed the insurance, the company didn't put the new policy on the database, a few weeks later I got a letter from the DVLA asking why my car wasn't insured or sorned, I then had to chase the insurance company to get it put on the database.


----------



## tom73 (26 Jun 2019)

Smudge said:


> There is already a check for non insured cars. The DVLA will automatically spit out a fine for cars that aren't either insured or sorned.
> And anyone that is determined to drive uninsured wont care about not having VED either. Plus the fact that VED discs aren't shown anymore so even easier to evade VED.



Not forgetting the DVLA number plate camera vans that can be found going round the streets.


----------



## Smudge (26 Jun 2019)

tom73 said:


> Not forgetting the DVLA number plate camera vans that can be found going round the streets.



Yes, i've seen a few cars in my town that have been clamped and had a DVLA sticker put on the windscreen by those vans.


----------



## tom73 (26 Jun 2019)

So have I inc one down the road.


----------



## mjr (26 Jun 2019)

Milkfloat said:


> There is already extreme poverty in some rural areas, it is not all 2.4 children a Range Rover and a Labrador. I think the last thing we want to be doing is urbanizing further.


If you don't want to urbanise rural areas further, then please make fuel more expensive! So many villages have become little more than glorified detached suburbs because villagers think it's cheaper to drive to the edge-of-town retail parks than to pay the higher prices in some small shops, while we're priced out of most farm shops that now think it's more profitable to market themselves as boutique shopping destinations for driving townies than offering reasonably-priced direct-to-consumer fresh produce sales.

The village I grew up in used to have a thriving high street with a bakery, butcher's, grocer's, post office and so on, with a daily milk round and a weekly frozen produce van, but now there's only one combined newsagent/convenience-store/post-office left (unless it's gone under since I was last there for a family wedding) and that's not an unusual story. Yet some villages which are further from towns have kept their range of shops and managed to market themselves as "service villages" for nearby villages and hamlets, because they're already far enough away for the drive to seem expensive enough.

So who's to say that gradually raising fuel taxes wouldn't save some currently-borderline village retail businesses and maybe encourage some to (re)start?


----------



## glasgowcyclist (27 Jun 2019)

classic33 said:


> I don't consider it an extreme sport. The insurance does however, and requires more to be paid to cover it.



I still don't see where this extreme sport categorisation is coming from. My cycle commute to work, or shopping trip, is not an extreme sport.
If I was competing in the Downhill World Cup at Fort William then insurance companies might have a point, otherwise I'm struggling to see the relevance of the term to the everyday cycling most of us enjoy.



classic33 said:


> Started this as a result of the court result and the seperate thread in which insurance cover was raised. It'd be a knee jerk reaction if it came in anytime soon. Making it the worst kind of reaction.



You're manufacturing a scenario that's not going to happen and arguing against it, what's the point?



classic33 said:


> I've had the "you don't pay insurance/road tax/have to pass a test/have to have the cycles MOT'd arguments thrown at me whilst cycling. Like many on here I'd say.



Simple answer to that is: "Fark off".


----------



## Drago (27 Jun 2019)

59 pedestrians die for every billion journey miles.

53 cyclists die for every billion journey miles.

Therefore, if cycling is an extreme sport, then strolling to the shop for 20 Bensons and the Daily Sport must be up their with crocodile wrestling.


----------



## Phaeton (27 Jun 2019)

Drago said:


> 59 pedestrians die for every billion journey miles.
> 53 cyclists die for every billion journey miles.


UK or Worldwide?


----------



## Drago (27 Jun 2019)

UK I believe, but I'm not entirely certain old chap. It was in the CUK chipwapper, and once they've done duty in the bottom of the budgie cage I just throw 'em.


----------



## youngoldbloke (27 Jun 2019)

mjr said:


> If you don't want to urbanise rural areas further, then please make fuel more expensive! So many villages have become little more than glorified detached suburbs* because villagers think it's cheaper to drive to the edge-of-town retail parks than to pay the higher prices in some small shops,* while we're priced out of most farm shops that now think it's more profitable to market themselves as boutique shopping destinations for driving townies than offering reasonably-priced direct-to-consumer fresh produce sales.
> 
> The village I grew up in used to have a thriving high street with a bakery, butcher's, grocer's, post office and so on, with a daily milk round and a weekly frozen produce van, but now there's only one combined newsagent/convenience-store/post-office left (unless it's gone under since I was last there for a family wedding) and that's not an unusual story. Yet some villages which are further from towns have kept their range of shops and managed to market themselves as "service villages" for nearby villages and hamlets, because they're already far enough away for the drive to seem expensive enough.
> 
> So who's to say that gradually raising fuel taxes wouldn't save some currently-borderline village retail businesses and maybe encourage some to (re)start?



It is, much cheaper, even taking into account fuel costs. 
However, our local village shop is thriving, it has become a 'service shop' and the result is a blocked village High Street, and heated tempers, as parking for locals becomes difficult and daily deliveries from numerous wholesalers are made in vehicles totally unsuited to narrow village streets. Then there is the ever increasing number of online shopping deliveries. The bus company threatens to withdraw the (minimal) service because of problems getting through the restricted street. It's not only in towns that congestion is a problem. Successful businesses in villages can create their own issues.


----------



## TheDoctor (27 Jun 2019)

Not being funny, but it is feasible to do things differently.
NZ has a compulsory nationwide accident compensation scheme that covers everyone. This means you don't actually need car insurance, as all third party risks are covered. You can take out fully-comp cover, if you like, but there's no obligation.
There's also the handy benefit that compensation culture just doesn't exist.


----------



## mjr (28 Jun 2019)

Drago said:


> 59 pedestrians die for every billion journey miles.
> 
> 53 cyclists die for every billion journey miles.
> 
> Therefore, if cycling is an extreme sport, then strolling to the shop for 20 Bensons and the Daily Sport must be up their with crocodile wrestling.


Shouldn't we focus on those dishing out the injuries rather than those receiving them? After all, it's the perpetrator's insurance that should pay out.


----------



## Illaveago (28 Jun 2019)

lazybloke said:


> I'd rather not see VED abandoned for cars, as it's an annual check that they have valid insurance and MOT (with a few exceptions).


I totally agree. They have made a complete mess of things by removing tax discs. By removing VED you will encourage fuel theft .


----------



## mustang1 (28 Jun 2019)

Did you know you can get insurance for insurance premiums going up? These guys really have it sussed huh. It's called financial instruments and it phareks with your mind. 

Gambling gambling your life away...


----------



## Phaeton (28 Jun 2019)

lazybloke said:


> I'd rather not see VED abandoned for cars, as it's an annual check that they have valid insurance and MOT (with a few exceptions).


Sorry I don't see the relevance, you can VED a car without insurance & they already know if a car has MOT or not. They should just be more proactive in sending out the warning letters & then follow through with the prosecutions. I'd be happy if all the speed cameras turned into insurance & MOT spotting cameras. We've spend all this money of Smart motorways, let's make then truely smart & make them earn money


----------



## Illaveago (28 Jun 2019)

Phaeton said:


> Sorry I don't see the relevance, you can VED a car without insurance & they already know if a car has MOT or not. They should just be more proactive in sending out the warning letters & then follow through with the prosecutions. I'd be happy if all the speed cameras turned into insurance & MOT spotting cameras. We've spend all this money of Smart motorways, let's make then truely smart & make them earn money


 Car cloning ! A speed camera may pick up a vehicle registration but will not identify what vehicle it is that is using it .


----------



## Drago (28 Jun 2019)

mjr said:


> Shouldn't we focus on those dishing out the injuries rather than those receiving them? After all, it's the perpetrator's insurance that should pay out.



Alas, the figures didn't delve into the statistical causes, only the statistical outcomes. But I'm certainly with you in principle.


----------



## Tail End Charlie (28 Jun 2019)

Phaeton said:


> Sorry I don't see the relevance, you can VED a car without insurance & they already know if a car has MOT or not. They should just be more proactive in sending out the warning letters & then follow through with the prosecutions. I'd be happy if all the speed cameras turned into insurance & MOT spotting cameras. We've spend all this money of Smart motorways, let's make then truely smart & make them earn money


Surely the registered keeper must have insurance? I accept that the car can then be driven by someone without insurance, but this wouldn't be flagged by a camera in any case.


----------



## lazybloke (28 Jun 2019)

Tail End Charlie said:


> Surely the registered keeper must have insurance? I accept that the car can then be driven by someone without insurance, but this wouldn't be flagged by a camera in any case.


Yes insurance is needed to renew VED. The online process checks the Motor Insurance Database. Much easier than taking a certificate or cover note to the post office.


----------



## yello (28 Jun 2019)

mustang1 said:


> Did you know you can get insurance for insurance premiums going up? *These guys really have it sussed huh.* It's called financial instruments and it phareks with your mind.



Exactly the kind of thing I've referred to in another thread! I can get ranty on the subject tbh... so I won't say more!


----------



## Firesprite (28 Jun 2019)

The major problem is you cannot get stand alone 3rd party insurance for a cyclist. You can only get it by either being member of a club or by insuring the bike with it as a add-on. In some places the bike insurance costs are through the roof. I have a cheap folder for use between the staion and my office four miles away in Cambridge. The bike cost £105, the yearly insurance cost would be a £110 plus another £40 for 3rd party. Which I don't need as I'm covered by the CTC which covers me for all bikes. Unlike the insurance above which would only cover me for riding the bike insured. I contact TFL about the hirebikes and asked if the hirers were insured, their not and are recommend hirers to arrange cover before hiring.


----------



## Phaeton (28 Jun 2019)

lazybloke said:


> Yes insurance is needed to renew VED. The online process checks the Motor Insurance Database. Much easier than taking a certificate or cover note to the post office.


Nope, you don't need insurance to get VED, it used to check it no longer does. all the insurance companies batch update what is & what isn't insured overnight. So if you insure a car today DVLA don't know it's insured until tomorrow but they will allow you VED today.


----------



## Richard A Thackeray (10 Jul 2019)

PK99 said:


> Don't forget, that tax incentive is a "nudge" to encourage environmentally friendly vehicles. Eventually than nudge will not be needed but the loss of tax revenue must be replaced somehow. Expect all vehicles using roads to be brought back into the tax net.



Indeed!!

My wife bought a new Toyota C-HR last year, & it was £0 rated VED
We got a renewal last week, & it was £135
I've no idea if that was the case when she bought it, or the goal-posts have moved since June 2018?


----------



## Smudge (10 Jul 2019)

Richard A Thackeray said:


> Indeed!!
> 
> My wife bought a new Toyota C-HR last year, & it was £0 rated VED
> We got a renewal last week, & it was £135
> I've no idea if that was the case when she bought it, or the goal-posts have moved since June 2018?



If you bought it last year, then you bought it after the VED pricing structure was changed, which was 2016.
All the £20 & £30 cheap VED cars that were bought previous to this date, still get their cheap VED. Although there's no guarantee this wont change.


----------



## Richard A Thackeray (10 Jul 2019)

Smudge said:


> If you bought it last year, then you bought it after the VED pricing structure was changed, which was 2016.
> All the £20 & £30 cheap VED cars that were bought previous to this date, still get their cheap VED. Although there's no guarantee this wont change.



Yes, my Octavia Tdi is £30/annum


----------



## Smudge (10 Jul 2019)

Richard A Thackeray said:


> Yes, my Octavia Tdi is £30/annum



Yes, my Focus was £20 yr VED when i bought it in 15. Its still £20 now.
It wouldn't surprise me if they change this though, because people will be keeping these cars longer because of the cheap tax.


----------



## Drago (10 Jul 2019)

The changes are 2016 onwards. I suspect Mrs Thackaray's car was first year free under the rather complex new regime.

The government have pledged that older vehicles under 120g/km, ie, the 30 quid, 20 quid, or free bandings, will be exempt from the escalator that has blighted more polluting models over the last 2 years. How long that pledge will hold though is anyone's guess.


----------



## Richard A Thackeray (10 Jul 2019)

Smudge said:


> Yes, my Focus was £20 yr VED when i bought it in 15. Its still £20 now.
> It wouldn't surprise me if they change this though, because people will be keeping these cars longer because of the cheap tax.


True enough


On another issue, the removal of the requirement of an MoT test for cars over 40 years old, is scary
In the event of one being involved in any RTC, with/without injury (or death), who decides if it is road-worthy
It's doubtful that investigators/insurers will accept the owners _"Well, it looked okay last month & the brakes work"_


----------



## glasgowcyclist (10 Jul 2019)

Drago said:


> The changes are 2016 onwards. I suspect Mrs Thackaray's car was first year free under the rather complex new regime.
> 
> The government have pledged that older vehicles under 120g/km, ie, the 30 quid, 20 quid, or free bandings, will be exempt from the escalator that has blighted more polluting models over the last 2 years. How long that pledge will hold though is anyone's guess.




My Fabia is still zero rated but from 2021 it won't be allowed in the city centre.


----------



## classic33 (10 Jul 2019)

Richard A Thackeray said:


> True enough
> 
> 
> On another issue, the removal of the requirement of an MoT test for cars over 40 years old, is scary
> ...


Using Ireland as an example, pre NCT, An Garda Síochána investigating officers would have decided that. Although every side involved in any incident could employ their own "specialist" to go over their vehicle.


----------



## Drago (10 Jul 2019)

glasgowcyclist said:


> My Fabia is still zero rated but from 2021 it won't be allowed in the city centre.



I look forward to the day when no cars are allowed into city centres.


----------

