Idea regarding 'Road Tax' fallacy.

[snorri]

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]

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

 

[pshore]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Brilliant! I now have a new mantra.

 

[Dan B]

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]

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]

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...

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


its pointless arguing.

 

[monkeypony]

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]

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]

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...

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]

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]

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