Idea regarding 'Road Tax' fallacy.

[jowate]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?"