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

[italiafirenze]

The drivers who have a problem with it do so because they think they pay for the roads, just watch the perfect examples on Carlton Reid's site, they need to be informed they pay for the right to use their car; and has been pointed out, they needn't if they chose a different model.

Of course we have to campaign for accuracy on this point, because it is used as an excuse for the vitriol directed at cyclists. There's no saying it will reduce that vitriol, but at least in their tiny minds they will have to consider it for a little bit longer.

 

[jonesy]

By all means try to get across to people all the external costs of car based transport (accidents, congestion, air pollution etc) that have to be added to the cost of road building and maintenance, and that very low emission vehicles don't pay VED. Certainly point out that you actually get rather a lot for your annual VED, not least of which is the ability to use the public road to store your private property. But you are banging your head against the wall if you get bogged down in the finer distinctions of the meaning of "road tax"- to the anti-cyclists the argument is about something much simpler than that, they pay billions in VED and fuel duty each year to the government, cyclists don't. They feel this gives them a moral entitlement, and simply aren't open to persion to a pedantic debate about definitions. But as I said before, this doesn't matter anyway, it makes no difference to people's decision on whether to cycle, and those people who are positive about cycling are't going to demand that they pay tax on it.

 

[downfader]

Wikipedia isn't exactly a reliable source - given that it's often contributed to by people who talk out of their arse....

Wiki is a LOT better than it used to be. Citations and references are now used where possible, so if they have links to official sources its ok.

Colloquiliasms tend to be more unreliable and "road tax" is one of them.

 

[Adasta]

there is an argument, though about ownership. As far as I'm concerned (and. I'm sure you agree, Jonesy) roads are public space. The notion that the streets are 'paid for' by 'road tax' does infect policy. I'd suggest that the TfL's Draft Network Strategy rest upon the idea that the streets are not public space, but are rented out to traffic to do a job.

Are you influenced by the works of Henri Lefebvre?

Edit: That is a genuine question with no ulterior motive.

 

[Richard Mann]

there is an argument, though about ownership. As far as I'm concerned (and. I'm sure you agree, Jonesy) roads are public space. The notion that the streets are 'paid for' by 'road tax' does infect policy. I'd suggest that the TfL's Draft Network Strategy rest upon the idea that the streets are not public space, but are rented out to traffic to do a job.

Um. Roads (streets) often have a link function as well as a place function. The trick is not to deny the link function, but to moderate it's impact on the place function. You won't get anywhere by denying the link function - you can't claim exclusive ownership. But you can talk up the place function, and you can point out that car-flow is a pathetic metric for the link function: they need to measure everybody's delay.

 

[StuartG]

Boring. Sophistories like whether the London Congestion Charge is a tax or not is only important if you happend to have diplomatic status.

VED/Road Tax is irrelevant. We are taxed/charged at the same rate as motor vehicles. And as Road Tax/VED is a tax/charge on emmissions we pay the same rate as cars under 100mg per thingy. Period, full stop end of story.

Now taxing emmissions is another matter. The CC does that crudely, Fuel Excise Duty does that less crudely. Till they tax my farts this is not something to get into. And if you are a motorist you can elect to get out of it with LPG/Electricity.

Buying petrol pays for roads & cyclepaths? Ahem my alcohol excise duty pays for more ...

 

[dellzeqq]

Are you influenced by the works of Henri Lefebvre?

Edit: That is a genuine question with no ulterior motive.

no - I'm a drawing person, so Lucien Kroll is my inspiration. He provokes a kind of anti-architecture, which, extended to public space, asks the question 'who controls this?'

Richard's point about links is fair enough, but the overwhelming truth is that, for the most part, motorised traffic controls the street.

 

[Riding in Circles]

The Swiss pay a bike tax, it is a nominal fee but may be worth considering for here by charging the same as any other zero emission vehicle, i.e. zero, then display the tax sticker or disc.

 

[Alun]

The Swiss pay a bike tax, it is a nominal fee but may be worth considering for here by charging the same as any other zero emission vehicle, i.e. zero, then display the tax sticker or disc.

Are you suggesting that, in the current financial situation we set up a special tax for bikes, which will be zero rated and therefore raise no revenue at all? Who will pay for that?

 

[twowheelsgood]

The Swiss pay a bike tax, it is a nominal fee but may be worth considering for here by charging the same as any other zero emission vehicle, i.e. zero, then display the tax sticker or disc.

Not quite, we pay 7chf or about a fiver that gives us compulsory 3rd party liability insurance, it isn't "a tax" as such.

I did once read that the value of the insurance was actually pennies and the rest was the cost of administering the scheme and printing the stickers.

It's not really is the scheme of things a very sensible system given the low risk that cyclists pose, although it might placate the irate motorist. Unfortunately, those inclined to be an arse over this will likely still be an arse if we did the same. The problem is the attitude to cyclists that British drivers have.

 

[downfader]

Whilst this may seem like a good idea, I don't like it.

It undermines the principle that only those vehicles which are dangerous and pollute need licensing, which is what driving licenses, manadatory insurance, number plates and VED are all about. If we pay a 'bike tax', then the next demands will be for number plates, mandatory insurance and a 'cycling license'. Then bikes will be no different to cars.

I agree.

And the two big questions that would have to be asked is:

- will it make cycling less free and less attractive?
- do we REALLY need it in the first place? (Think dog licence.)

 

[classic33]

I drove the DVLA nuts with this one.

Under the present system, the vehicle needs it own unique number. This so that it can be issued with a licence plate. Licence plate required in order that the present system can then say how much is payable.

I even went as far as taking my then new(to me) Brox to a VOSA test station, for it to undergo the SVA test. Booked prior to purchase, but when I turned up & said what I was there for I got the response that they would be unable to test it, under the present system.

So does this mean that under the present system we are classified as not being liable or does it mean that they have have yet to work out a way of making us liable?

 

[rusky]

I refer to it as car tax. I pay my money to put a paper disc on my car not the road

 

[LabRatt]

Been gone for a while, so sorry to bounce what should be a dead thread.

I hadn't meant this to be so contentious when I originally posted it. I agree that the name itself isn't the issue, it's the fact that cars are paid for while bicycles aren't, but getting the name right is a step in the right direction - after all, it's not about the road, but the vehicle.

My point is rather that an organisation like the AA is better placed than many to actually help. They can start by getting the name right, but a big difference could be made if they put effort into correcting perceptions. The AA can tell drivers that bikes have every right to be on the road, that they delay they cause is minimal or non-existent, every bike is one less car between them and their destination, etc. Some of the already small proportion of drivers that are a problem might start to take notice, and that will help everyone. So let the prominent pro-car people/organisations come out as pro-bike too. It can't hurt.

Or maybe I'm just naive and pedantic.
(there, I've had my say so we can just let the thread die now)