"Road tax" again (and an idea that might help)

[LabRatt]

if this should be somewhere else feel free to move it

I got an email newsletter from the AA yesterday. One of the articles it was promoting was "How much does it cost to own your car?" with the blurb "Every year the AA publishes car running costs, looking at every element of the cost of running a car – road tax, insurance, depreciation, petrol, parts and servicing. The 2011 tables have now been launched."
I know that bugs many a cyclist, though I think the proportion of drivers who believe their road tax gives them more right to the road than cyclists is small, and decided to give feedback. Feedback that I know will probably not be read, but sometimes I like to complain.

In the course of writing, I came up with an idea. Here's what I wrote - I couldn't actually send it through their website contact form as it was too long, but I thought I'd throw it at you lot for feedback before putting it in a proper email or letter. The first part is fairly standard "large motoring organisation/responsibility/dispel the myths" stuff, the second part is my idea that might (if they did it) help. Or would it hurt? Or has it already been suggested?

In the news section [of your newsletter] on "How much does it cost to own your car?" there is a mention of "road tax". I'm sure you hear about this very often but that is because it is a very important point: there is no such thing as Road Tax.
Putting the phrase into the search box I found 114 results - many of these results do correctly refer to Vehicle Excise Duty, but do use the road tax phrase.
I've heard the fact that "road tax is the colloquial/common name for VED" used as a defence for this, but that's no good: the common name is wrong. If an organisation like the AA continues to refer to "Road Tax" that will perpetuate the myth that such a tax exists, and that VED is what pays for the roads.
I'm sure you can guess where I'm coming from on this - the "Road Tax" argument is used by drivers who insist that cyclists are intruding on their territory, should ride at the side of the road, are slowing them down, and all the other things they say. Motorists think that their "road tax" pays for the roads, and that cyclists have no right.
In my opinion the AA, as the most prominent motoring organisation and whose president is strongly advocating cycling, has a duty to correct this misconception. You are more strongly placed than anyone else to put the truth across, but instead you perpetuate the lie.

I have a suggestion. Extend your insurance and breakdown cover to bikes! I'm sure that with the right coverage you'd get a lot of customers. You could then use the advertising for these new products to promote cycling and get across the message to drivers that cyclists are allowed on the roads that everyone pays for.

It just seemed to me an approach that hadn't been tried before, though I might be wrong - I am new to all this. It certainly wouldn't be difficult to equip their patrol vehicles to deal with most "bike breakdowns" and training a mechanically minded (in my experience, their very nice men generally are) to deal with bicycle stuff should be fairly trivial. There's plenty of room in the market for more bike insurance too.

 

[Dave Davenport]

Looks good to me.

 

[numbnuts]

I have this on my bike

 

[upsidedown]

That's a great idea. I suppose it could be added to existing car cover too. I'd certainly pay a small amount each year to have the reassurance that i could get home in the event of a major mechanical or crash.


cheers

paul

 

[dellzeqq]

If I may

........dear AA

I received your members newsletter, and read the article about the cost of motoring.

Road Tax is a misnomer. It's called Vehicle Excise Duty. Get it right next time please.

Surely that's all they need.

 

[Richard Mann]

ETA have done this for years.

 

[benb]

Good letter. I would just change the last sentence of the first paragraph from "perpetuate the lie" to "perpetuate the myth"
IMO it just sounds better that way.

No idea whether the breakdown cover would be popular or not. Worth looking into for sure.

 

[LabRatt]

If I may
...
Surely that's all they need.

The newsletter issue was secondary, at least to my post here. The main point is an idea that could a) get them money, b) might actually be useful to cyclists (as demonstrated by upsidedown above) and 3) if done properly could help our cause.

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

I have this on my bike

I have been carrying that in my wallet for about 6 months, waiting until I come across a suitable way to attach it. How is yours attached?

 

[downfader]

I have been carrying that in my wallet for about 6 months, waiting until I come across a suitable way to attach it. How is yours attached?

Get down Halfords and buy a plastic Motorcycle holder. Then cable tie it to a stay or rack.

On the AA I have written to them about this matter before. No reply myself either. I get the feeling that they like the idea of riling up motorists and making them feel like victims, look at the way they handled issues on speed cameras a few years back.

 

[byegad]

That's a great idea. I suppose it could be added to existing car cover too. I'd certainly pay a small amount each year to have the reassurance that i could get home in the event of a major mechanical or crash.


cheers

paul

ETA already do it I have recovery on both our cars and my trike all in one payment. A recumbent trike is not something you can get on a bus or train if you suffer a mechanical, so when my Kettwiesel seat failed I could have called them out to get me home or to a Bike shop. As it happened my wife was home and used my car to rescue me.

 

[numbnuts]

I have been carrying that in my wallet for about 6 months, waiting until I come across a suitable way to attach it. How is yours attached?

motorcycle tax holder from ebay and bolted it to the front rack supports.

 

[Greenbank]

Doesn't matter what it is called, many motorists get annoyed because the majority of them have to pay something that cyclists don't.

It may be called VED, it may be emissions based, but it doesn't matter; cyclists don't have to pay it for their bikes.

It doesn't matter that many cyclists do pay it because they do have cars. You're not in your car therefore they think you don't pay it.

If cyclists had to pay 1p or £1 then motorists would still get annoyed that cyclists paid much less than the majority of motorists.

If cyclists had to pay the same as a motorist then motorists would just get annoyed about something else, such as cyclists not having to pay for petrol/diesel.

 

[jonesy]

I fully agree I'm afraid. This isn't a debate worth bothering with, because few people are remotely interested in the distinction between a duty and a tax. You can go through a long and painful explanation of the difference, and they'll just respond "yebbut cyclists don't pay anything". Waste of time, as per Greenbank's post, the definition of tax isn't what makes them angry.It is a symptom not a cause.

 

[dellzeqq]

are some cars VED free? (I'm sorry, I'm out of touch on this)