Jump to content
IGNORED

Cyclists


BigTone

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Barry Sheene said:

Try taking a motorised vehicle on the road without paying it and see what happens. 

as i mentioned before.

“road tax” does not exist, and has not existed since the 1930s. What drivers do pay, however, is Vehicle Excise Duty, which is often known as road tax but is not strictly the same thing. Vehicle Excise Duty - what you pay for your car’s tax disc - is based on your vehicle’s emissions. Since a bike creates no emissions, it is not liable for Vehicle Excise Duty.

Secondly, the money from Vehicle Excise Duty goes into a central pot and does not go directly back into the roads. The maintenance of the highways is, in fact, funded out of general taxation. Cyclists - like everyone else - pay council tax and that goes towards the upkeep of roads and infrastructure.

I'm not sure why you don't accept the facts! unless you're calling VED - "Road tax'.

but then you might as well call it Gerald...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Antman said:

as i mentioned before.

“road tax” does not exist, and has not existed since the 1930s. What drivers do pay, however, is Vehicle Excise Duty, which is often known as road tax but is not strictly the same thing. Vehicle Excise Duty - what you pay for your car’s tax disc - is based on your vehicle’s emissions. Since a bike creates no emissions, it is not liable for Vehicle Excise Duty.

Secondly, the money from Vehicle Excise Duty goes into a central pot and does not go directly back into the roads. The maintenance of the highways is, in fact, funded out of general taxation. Cyclists - like everyone else - pay council tax and that goes towards the upkeep of roads and infrastructure.

I'm not sure why you don't accept the facts! unless you're calling VED - "Road tax'.

but then you might as well call it Gerald...

Call it what you want it is a tax for using the road.  In other words you cannot use a motorised vehicle without paying it

You can argue all you like but the facts are simple if you don't pay you will be fined. That in my opinion is a tax on using the roads hence why I will always call it road tax.

Add into that the road tax everybody who uses a motorised vehicle pays at the pumps in the form of at least 60% tax on fuel and of course the 20% vat and you will understand why I will continue to use the word Road tax.

However cyclists are of course utterly privileged  position of not having to pay to use the roads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Barry Sheene said:

Call it what you want it is a tax for using the road.  In other words you cannot use a motorised vehicle without paying it

You can argue all you like but the facts are simple if you don't pay you will be fined. That in my opinion is a tax on using the roads hence why I will always call it road tax.

Add into that the road tax everybody who uses a motorised vehicle pays at the pumps in the form of at least 60% tax on fuel and of course the 20% vat and you will understand why I will continue to use the word Road tax.

However cyclists are of course utterly privileged  position of not having to pay to use the roads.

Everybody pays for roads paths bridges etc. that includes cyclists and fare payers. Our car is diesel so we pay a bit more for its emissions. quite fair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 28/08/2017 at 15:11, Cowshed said:

You ignored the points in my post.

None (knowing) in answer to both of your questions.

I know two people killed on motorbikes in collisions with cars. 

How many cyclist do I know who were hit by vehicles due to no fault of their own. Quite a few. How many cyclist do I know who came off worse v vehicles. All of them. How many cyclist do I know who were hit by vehicles due to no fault of their own and had serious injuries several. Drivers injured v bicycles? Nil.

Cyclists are seen by too many drivers as the enemy.  As I cyclist I experience that.  I have been abused by drivers for obeying the law on the road. I experience aggression from vehicle drivers for obeying the law on the road. I have had to evade vehicles being driven at speed through cycle paths, it is a common occurrence. Confrontation with vehicle drivers for no reason beyond you occupy their road goes with cycling. This is monthly, weekly. That is the reality.

Cycling around Cities is a test of what nerve you have. Some people are scared of heights. People (many) do not dream of cycling around a City and many Towns due to the risk.

As another poster stated crazy roads, no place for kids. Too dangerous. He was not making it up. That is the reality. That is what society has lost due to the attitude of too many drivers. 

There is no parity for the cyclist.

 

Cyclists ignoring the rules rarely endanger drivers. The people they endanger are themselves and pedestrians. If you go through a redlight a car may hit you. If you cycle the wrong way down a one way street, you may hit a pedestrian. Both these offences are common and treated as "not an issue" by huge numbers of cyclists too impatient to stick to the rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is just a minor observation/moan in the cycling debate...

Anyone else noticed that- and down here it's a particular trend, not really seen it elsewhere, cyclists tend to cycle across the road at traffic lights. Not saying they cycle on the pavement necessarily (though doubtless some will), but never seen it elsewhere. :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Barry Sheene said:

Call it what you want it is a tax for using the road.  In other words you cannot use a motorised vehicle without paying it

You can argue all you like but the facts are simple if you don't pay you will be fined. That in my opinion is a tax on using the roads hence why I will always call it road tax.

Add into that the road tax everybody who uses a motorised vehicle pays at the pumps in the form of at least 60% tax on fuel and of course the 20% vat and you will understand why I will continue to use the word Road tax.

However cyclists are of course utterly privileged  position of not having to pay to use the roads.

I would assume that the vast majority of cyclists also own a car.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Leveller said:

Cyclists ignoring the rules rarely endanger drivers. The people they endanger are themselves and pedestrians. If you go through a redlight a car may hit you. If you cycle the wrong way down a one way street, you may hit a pedestrian. Both these offences are common and treated as "not an issue" by huge numbers of cyclists too impatient to stick to the rules.

You ignored the crux of my post. In this thread there is a comment "we follow all the rules of the road, but some car drivers actively target you".

Its an attitude I am familiar with.

It is my belief that the above attitude fuels the way some cyclist use the road. Its a lopsided argument - Cyclists ignoring the rules rarely endanger drivers - Drivers frequently endanger myself when following the rules of the road.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Slacker said:

I would assume that the vast majority of cyclists also own a car.

Sorry don't,t understand the point your making. 

I have to pay road tax on all my five motorised vehicles to take on the road individually

The driver who also is a cyclist pays road tax on his or hers car but is free to take their bicycle on the road 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Barry Sheene said:

Sorry don't,t understand the point your making. 

I have to pay road tax on all my five motorised vehicles to take on the road individually

The driver who also is a cyclist pays road tax on his or hers car but is free to take their bicycle on the road 

You don't pay road tax as there is no such thing 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Trueredsupporte said:

Everybody pays for roads paths bridges etc. that includes cyclists and fare payers. Our car is diesel so we pay a bit more for its emissions. quite fair.

Decent argument but to carry it on we all pay for such things as sports centres, art museums even the upkeep of the railways but if you want to have a swim you will need to pay an entrance fee as you will to get into an art museum and don't get me started about the price of using the railway.

But of course you can go to the local cycle shop and purchase a bicycle and not have to pay anything to use it on the road. While other road users are paying direct taxation to use the road. Not fair in my opinion

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Barry Sheene said:

Sorry don't,t understand the point your making. 

I have to pay road tax on all my five motorised vehicles to take on the road individually

The driver who also is a cyclist pays road tax on his or hers car but is free to take their bicycle on the road 

My point is that the majority of cyclists probably pay as much road tax as non cyclists,yet continually seem to get bereated for being some kind of freeloaders.I use my car very infrequently as I bike it to work and walk wherever possible.I do not however expect to pay less tax as I use the roads less.With respect I can't imagine anyone needs five vehicles,though you have every right to.That is the choice you have made.I try to keep my motoring costs as low as possible which I why I cycle and walk when possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Barry Sheene said:

Decent argument but to carry it on we all pay for such things as sports centres, art museums even the upkeep of the railways but if you want to have a swim you will need to pay an entrance fee as you will to get into an art museum and don't get me started about the price of using the railway.

But of course you can go to the local cycle shop and purchase a bicycle and not have to pay anything to use it on the road. While other road users are paying direct taxation to use the road. Not fair in my opinion

based on emissions bikes would be zero.  now those over sized 4x4's driving at 20mph in urban Bristol. whats that all about?? all silly this. little bikes v that???

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Barry Sheene said:

Decent argument but to carry it on we all pay for such things as sports centres, art museums even the upkeep of the railways but if you want to have a swim you will need to pay an entrance fee as you will to get into an art museum and don't get me started about the price of using the railway.

But of course you can go to the local cycle shop and purchase a bicycle and not have to pay anything to use it on the road. While other road users are paying direct taxation to use the road. Not fair in my opinion

You're not being taxed to use the road though. You are being taxed for pumping greenhouse gases in a public space. Electric cars don't pay it either

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, so it's agreed that the roads are funded from the general tax pot which our income tax etc covers. It is also agreed that VED paid by vehicle owners also goes in this pot. It would therefore be reasonable to say that vehicle owners are paying more for the upkeep of our roads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Welcome To The Jungle said:

You're not being taxed to use the road though. You are being taxed for pumping greenhouse gases in a public space. Electric cars don't pay it either

So why is it my  800cc motorcycle that does 75 mpg  and doesn't cause any congestion cost £80 a year and my Skoda Fabia diesel that does cause lots of congestion cost nothing?. Madness

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Barry Sheene said:

So why is it my  800cc motorcycle that does 75 mpg  and disesn't cause any congestion cost £80 a year and my Skoda Fabia diesel that does cause lots of congestion cost nothing?. Madness

Ha. As a fellow biker that too gets on my nerves. Not sure as to the exact details. My bike Is 14 years old so an older engine which I think also comes I

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK then, I'll throw this one in: introduce a 'purchase tax' on cycles at the retailers. That would not stop the user from the other aspects raised here, but would be a definable amount of money to go to the general good. Used to be applied to cars in previous years.:ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/12/2017 at 08:14, Barry Sheene said:

Call it what you want it is a tax for using the road.  In other words you cannot use a motorised vehicle without paying it

You can argue all you like but the facts are simple if you don't pay you will be fined. That in my opinion is a tax on using the roads hence why I will always call it road tax.

Add into that the road tax everybody who uses a motorised vehicle pays at the pumps in the form of at least 60% tax on fuel and of course the 20% vat and you will understand why I will continue to use the word Road tax.

However cyclists are of course utterly privileged  position of not having to pay to use the roads.

mate, we are in a loop here. and you seem to be in denial.

the VED / what you call 'road tax' is based on the emissions your vehicle emits. The money does NOT go towards road upkeep.

we ALL pay for the upkeep of roads through our other taxes. (yes, including cyclists)

This is FACT and not angry opinion.

thanks.

(apologies for regurgitating this)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Antman said:

mate, we are in a loop here. and you seem to be in denial.

the VED / what you call 'road tax' is based on the emissions your vehicle emits. The money does NOT go towards road upkeep.

we ALL pay for the upkeep of roads through our other taxes. (yes, including cyclists)

This is FACT and not angry opinion.

thanks.

(apologies for regurgitating this)

Genuinely sorry for raising your blood pressure.

Unfortunately when it comes to getting a valid point across I am not the best with wording it.

Big tone's post above says everything I have been trying to say but in a shorter more intelligent way.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Barry Sheene said:

Genuinely sorry for raising your blood pressure.

Unfortunately when it comes to getting a valid point across I am not the best with wording it.

Big tone's post above says everything I have been trying to say but in a shorter more intelligent way.

 

NW, all is cool and the gang!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Wednesday, September 13, 2017 at 19:54, BigTone said:

Ok, so it'in agreed that the roads are funded from the general tax pot which our income tax etc covers. It is also agreed that VED paid by vehicle owners also goes in this pot. It would therefore be reasonable to say that vehicle owners are paying more for the upkeep of our roads.

True. But that would be like some on a higher salary who pays more Income tax complaining that poorer people are ahead of him at the hospital. 

Cyclists hardly damage the road too so why shouldnt they pay less

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Welcome To The Jungle said:

True. But that would be like some on a higher salary who pays more Income tax complaining that poorer people are ahead of him at the hospital. 

Cyclists hardly damage the road too so why shouldnt they pay less

No, no, no.  I pay income tax along with everything else which is commensurate with my income.  I then pay VED as well (cyclists don't BTW)  so I am paying twice. There is no argument as many have pointed out on this thread how roads are funded.  "Cyclists don't damage the road" is a pathetic argument of someone soundly accepting defeat. Come on get and get a grip of reality. In saying all this my biggest bugbear is that cyclists are not insured. That was the crux of my original post.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/16/2017 at 14:42, BigTone said:

No, no, no.  I pay income tax along with everything else which is commensurate with my income.  I then pay VED as well (cyclists don't BTW)  so I am paying twice. There is no argument as many have pointed out on this thread how roads are funded.  "Cyclists don't damage the road" is a pathetic argument of someone soundly accepting defeat. Come on get and get a grip of reality. In saying all this my biggest bugbear is that cyclists are not insured. That was the crux of my original post.

 

 

 

First of all it is a legit argument. If you don't break it, you don't have to pay more for it. As for insurance, if you insist upon it then you take away the only free means of transport other than by foot. Children, people who simply can't drive, young people who cannot afford to drive all would be restricted in ability to travel. It wouldn't be as simple as paying a premium. Would each person be insured to ride any bike or just their own? How would this be enforced? Could a cyclist argue that they were pushing their bike and were at the time a pedestrian? 

To put it simply there is a reason no country has compulsory insurance and/or taxes for cyclists (some have tried...and failed). It simply is not practical or enforceable. In addition it would increase congestion as cyclists switch back to their cars, increase pollution and have a detrimental affect on our economy. 

Cycling is also one of the biggest (if not the biggest) forms of exercise people partake in. This takes pressure off the NHS, increases productivity and improves peoples lives. Also something that would be affected.

Sure it may not be fair, but is clearly better for all if we allow cycling to be cheap and easy. Also we still have in the region of a million people driving without insurance. That would be a much better usage of time and money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Welcome To The Jungle said:

First of all it is a legit argument. If you don't break it, you don't have to pay more for it. As for insurance, if you insist upon it then you take away the only free means of transport other than by foot. Children, people who simply can't drive, young people who cannot afford to drive all would be restricted in ability to travel. It wouldn't be as simple as paying a premium. Would each person be insured to ride any bike or just their own? How would this be enforced? Could a cyclist argue that they were pushing their bike and were at the time a pedestrian? 

To put it simply there is a reason no country has compulsory insurance and/or taxes for cyclists (some have tried...and failed). It simply is not practical or enforceable. In addition it would increase congestion as cyclists switch back to their cars, increase pollution and have a detrimental affect on our economy. 

Cycling is also one of the biggest (if not the biggest) forms of exercise people partake in. This takes pressure off the NHS, increases productivity and improves peoples lives. Also something that would be affected.

Sure it may not be fair, but is clearly better for all if we allow cycling to be cheap and easy. Also we still have in the region of a million people driving without insurance. That would be a much better usage of time and money.

Ok, so if you insist on insurance for cyclists you take away the only free means of transport other than by foot ?  So it's Ok for a cyclist to injure (or kill) someone without the victim having recourse to claim costs but not a car driver. How so ?  Each cyclist would take insurance to cover themselves on any bike would be my opinion. How is this enforced ?  In the same way as for car drivers would be the answer. Then we move on to the old argument of how much pressure cyclists take off the NHS. This Sir is just complete bollycocks and again a pathetic argument put up by people obviously running out of logical thought on the matter. I doubt many actually believe this. Add this to the "cyclists don't damage the roads" argument and I'm sure you can appreciate how bizarre the thought train has become.  Yes, there are drivers driving without insurance and if caught they are dealt with by the law. The same can apply to cyclists.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, BigTone said:

 Then we move on to the old argument of how much pressure cyclists take off the NHS. This Sir is just complete bollycocks and again a pathetic argument put up by people obviously running out of logical thought on the matter.

 

Cycling is a excellent cardio vascular activity. It is a excellent choice for those wanting to get fit. A form of exercise recommended by GP'S.

Activity like cycling does take off pressure on the NHS. It is an excellent means to lose weight and highly beneficial to those who need to keep weight off joints v other aerobic exercise. The benefits to health are massive.

It is a pity more do not cycle, but given the attitudes of vehicle drivers to cyclists it is understandable.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

Cycling is a excellent cardio vascular activity. It is a excellent choice for those wanting to get fit. A form of exercise recommended by GP'S.

Activity like cycling does take off pressure on the NHS. It is an excellent means to lose weight and highly beneficial to those who need to keep weight off joints v other aerobic exercise. The benefits to health are massive.

It is a pity more do not cycle, but given the attitudes of vehicle drivers to cyclists it is understandable.

 

I'm sure it does but has zero relevance to what we are talking about here.  I am, however, glad to hear that Charlie Alliston was participating in good cardio vascular activity when he hit and killed a pedestrian whilst riding an unroadworthy bike..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...