Demand for cyclists number plates.

Status
Not open for further replies.
ghoti said:
Nobody is taxed on "journeys", per se. And, in any case, the bit about car owners/cyclists was peripheral. It was stuck on the end of the main point, which you have dutifully ignored. The principal point is that, by and large, council tax pays for roads (the roads mostly used by cyclists, anyway). We all pay for local roads through local taxation. Your precious VED and fuel duty go into the consolidated fund.
Click to expand...

What was your point? You think bikes should cycle around free, why car drivers should pay. You think a cyclist should be exempt from insurance and car drivers should just pick up the bill if the cyclist is at fault and damages are sustained to the car drivers propety as the cyclist is more injured. Someone damages my car on a bike and it is their fault. Sorry mate, I couldn't care if they are injured, dead, or not, I care about my car being ok without me or my insurer paying.

Mattyd said:
So nothing to do with tax then, just about you and your priority.
Click to expand...

Huh? Non tax paying road users hold up tax paying ones. Seems fair to me?
 
ST4 said:
My point is your car owner/cyclist argument is flawed as the cyclist is not paying any tax on their journeys when they cycle. Perhaps when GPS based road pricing comes in, cyclists bikes will be chipped so they pay into the system. Afterall, they are using the roads like everyone else?
Click to expand...
But fuel duty isn't ring fenced for the roads anyway. So what is the point you are making?
 
ST4 said:
What was your point? You think bikes should cycle around free, why car drivers should pay. You think a cyclist should be exempt from insurance and car drivers should just pick up the bill if the cyclist is at fault and damages are sustained to the car drivers propety as the cyclist is more injured. Someone damages my car on a bike and it is their fault. Sorry mate, I couldn't care if they are injured, dead, or not, I care about my car being ok without me or my insurer paying.



Huh? Non tax paying road users hold up tax paying ones. Seems fair to me?
Click to expand...
The point is this: by and large, car drivers don't pay any more for roads than anyone else. A fact you seem to be doing cartwheels to avoid.

And we never even addressed insurance. You've just went off on a frothing tangent there. Why not sit down with a nice cup of tea until you calm down before you do your heart a mischief. As it happens, I think bike insurance is a good idea. I have bike insurance which covers public liability and whatnot alongside the usual theft coverage; and it costs the princely sum of.....£4.50 per month. I'd recommend it to all cyclists.
 
dejongj said:
But fuel duty isn't ring fenced for the roads anyway. So what is the point you are making?
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter where the money goes, the point is the car driver pays it, the cyclist does not. I cycle to Glasgow, I pay nothing, I drive to Glasgow (pre ban) I would pay £20 in fuel each, £15 going to the Government. It matters not one jot where the money goes, the fact is for that journey the government have £15 of my money, the cyclist hasn't paid anything. That is the point.
 
ST4 said:
It doesn't matter where the money goes, the point is the car driver pays it, the cyclist does not. I cycle to Glasgow, I pay nothing, I drive to Glasgow (pre ban) I would pay £20 in fuel each, £15 going to the Government. It matters not one jot where the money goes, the fact is for that journey the government have £15 of my money, the cyclist hasn't paid anything. That is the point.
Click to expand...
That's like moaning that people drink soft drinks on a night out while you imbibe heavily taxed alcohol, and spiting them for the enjoyment of their evening.
That is, it makes you look like a ridiculous fool.

IF drivers did pay more for road maintenance than anyone else (which they mostly don't) you might have the fragile embryo of a point (although it would still be flawed for numerous reasons). As it stands you just look silly.
 
ST4 said:
It doesn't matter where the money goes, the point is the car driver pays it, the cyclist does not. I cycle to Glasgow, I pay nothing, I drive to Glasgow (pre ban) I would pay £20 in fuel each, £15 going to the Government. It matters not one jot where the money goes, the fact is for that journey the government have £15 of my money, the cyclist hasn't paid anything. That is the point.
Click to expand...

VED is based on the emissions of your car. Bicycles don't have emissions.

You pay tax on the fuel that you use. Bicycles don't use fuel.

Neither of these taxes pay for the upkeep of the roads and certainly neither of them are fees for using the roads so neither give you priority when using them.
 
fabs said:
VED is based on the emissions of your car. Bicycles don't have emissions.

You pay tax on the fuel that you use. Bicycles don't use fuel.

Neither of these taxes pay for the upkeep of the roads and certainly neither of them are fees for using the roads so neither give you priority when using them.
Click to expand...


That would depend who's pedalling it ;)

I suppose you could argue that the rider is the fuel for a bike and as such pays VAT on some of the food they eat to provide the energy needed
 
Well....I certainly eat a lot of food due to cycling. Unfortunately tho I opt for cheap porridge.

So one problem it would seem is because I have the ability to fuel myself cheaply with simple food and not a fuel source that's drilled for, and transported around the world at great expense I should be taxed more.

So... Let's raise taxes on food then.
 
ghoti said:
That's like moaning that people drink soft drinks on a night out while you imbibe heavily taxed alcohol, and spiting them for the enjoyment of their evening.
That is, it makes you look like a ridiculous fool.

IF drivers did pay more for road maintenance than anyone else (which they mostly don't) you might have the fragile embryo of a point (although it would still be flawed for numerous reasons). As it stands you just look silly.
Click to expand...

That is a very flawed analogy and one cannot liken a night out to the roads. Quite how you see that councils etc should design roads around a minorty of people that pay absolutely nothing into the cost of their travel whereas car drivers pay through the nose through VED, fuel duty. Actually, I will go back to your analogy of a night out. A queue for a nightclub. You pay extra and you skip it, and you go faster, thats the car driver. The cyclist goes for free but gets in slower. Why should the club make its decisions about the non paying entrants?
 
A massive amount of money is spent on traffic management, policing, heavy traffic constructions like multiple lane flyovers and huge one way systems solely to cope with large, heavy and congested motorised vehicles. Even if there were a heck of a lot more bikes, that huge cost would not be needed for them.

But we all knew that anyway.
 
Last edited:
ST4 said:
No it is not. Fuel duty, you know when you drive you use fuel and the bulk of the cost of fuel goes to the exchequer?
Click to expand...
Which does not directly go towards roads. It goes into a big pot and is divvied up between many different things.

And the amount consumed will largely depend on how much mileage you do and the car you own. So suggesting that cyclists are getting a free ride (pun intended) when most will own a car is absolute BS.
 
ST4 said:
No it is not. Fuel duty, you know when you drive you use fuel and the bulk of the cost of fuel goes to the exchequer?
Click to expand...


And as pointed out. If I don't spend money on fuel I'll spend it elsewhere.

If your issue is there's too much tax on fuel. That's fine, but that's got nowt todo with those who don't need to buy the fuel.
 
Last edited:
ST4 said:
That is a very flawed analogy and one cannot liken a night out to the roads. Quite how you see that councils etc should design roads around a minorty of people that pay absolutely nothing into the cost of their travel whereas car drivers pay through the nose through VED, fuel duty. Actually, I will go back to your analogy of a night out. A queue for a nightclub. You pay extra and you skip it, and you go faster, thats the car driver. The cyclist goes for free but gets in slower. Why should the club make its decisions about the non paying entrants?
Click to expand...
You don't pay more for cars so you can go faster; you pay more for cars because they are fundamentally more expensive to run and they use controlled resources. YOU, personally, may pay that extra money so you can go faster; but that's not the reason they're more expensive. It's nothing like paying extra to skip a queue.
 
neil_g said:
Which does not directly go towards roads. It goes into a big pot and is divvied up between many different things.
Click to expand...

Including the roads. The more fuel you use, the more goes to the pot, and the more that goes to the roads...unless you can prove catagorically that no revenue at all from road fuel goes to the roads?

neil_g said:
So suggesting that cyclists are getting a free ride (pun intended) when most will own a car is absolute BS.
Click to expand...

I don't think you are getting this or you might be trying to be obtuse. When the cyclist is cycling, they are not using the car they may or may not own. They are therefore not paying into this big pot you are referring to when using their bike, but if they were driving for that journey, they would be.
 
neil_g said:
This thread has more circles than the magic roundabout in MK...

I have to pay the same amount of ved and insurance for my car whether I do 8k or 12k so the argument is completely irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Swindon :-)
 
ghoti said:
You don't pay more for cars so you can go faster; you pay more for cars because they are fundamentally more expensive to run and they use controlled resources. YOU, personally, may pay that extra money so you can go faster; but that's not the reason they're more expensive. It's nothing like paying extra to skip a queue.
Click to expand...

Can you make a bicycle go 60mph? I can make a car do this. Of course you buy a car to go faster. I am afraid you are very much wrong. I could maybe cycle to work, but it would take longer. I would therefore pay for a train ticket to get me their quicker, and pay more to get there faster. Or I would buy a car again and drive it, making it faster than driving?
 
ST4 said:
It doesn't matter where the money goes, the point is the car driver pays it, the cyclist does not. I cycle to Glasgow, I pay nothing, I drive to Glasgow (pre ban) I would pay £20 in fuel each, £15 going to the Government. It matters not one jot where the money goes, the fact is for that journey the government have £15 of my money, the cyclist hasn't paid anything. That is the point.
Click to expand...


You know what to do then, and it isn't rocket science

Get on your bike:naughty:
 
neil_g said:
This thread has more circles than the magic roundabout in MK...

I have to pay the same amount of ved and insurance for my car whether I do 8k or 12k so the argument is completely irrelevant.
Click to expand...

In fact I get reduced motor insurance by agreeing a cap on the number of miles I drive annually but no reduction on VED even if I am (well not quite yet) a pensioner who only drives 10 - 15 miles a week) As usual those with the least amount of income pay the most tax

On the subject of cycling events on the New Forest, unless they are officially races, no there is no need to inform anyone. No they are not publicised, if so where. Had no need to go onto the Wiggle/Gridiron route, only a few mils from home at Setley encountered the inevitable signs of yet another cycling event, only to say that participants were encountered in small groups so this event in itself did not cause any problems for me
 
ST4 said:
It doesn't matter where the money goes, the point is the car driver pays it, the cyclist does not. I cycle to Glasgow, I pay nothing, I drive to Glasgow (pre ban) I would pay £20 in fuel each, £15 going to the Government. It matters not one jot where the money goes, the fact is for that journey the government have £15 of my money, the cyclist hasn't paid anything. That is the point.
Click to expand...

I think we should encourage more people to smoke. I mean consider all that lost revenue due to not smoking.
 
Last edited:
going back to the OP suggestion has been made that all motor vehicles should be chipped. Next year this will be compulsory for dogs

Instead of plates why not bikes be chipped likewise
 
kennethwfd said:
Instead of plates why not bikes be chipped likewise
Click to expand...

Interestingly I think this idea is one with legs.

And if an (affordable) option was available now I'd be interested in it (for the sake of protecting my bikes from theft).

But again. The issue of enforcement is problematic.
 
ST4 said:
Including the roads. The more fuel you use, the more goes to the pot, and the more that goes to the roads...unless you can prove catagorically that no revenue at all from road fuel goes to the roads?
I don't think you are getting this or you might be trying to be obtuse. When the cyclist is cycling, they are not using the car they may or may not own. They are therefore not paying into this big pot you are referring to when using their bike, but if they were driving for that journey, they would be.
Click to expand...

The more fuel you use, the more goes to the pot, and the more that goes to the dole abusers? OHMYGAWDALLYOURDRIVINGISPAYINGFORPOORPEOPLETOSMOKEANDDRINKLOLZ :lol:

If I didn't cycle, I wouldn't do more miles in my car. I have no idea where that leaves me.
 
ST4 said:
Can you make a bicycle go 60mph? I can make a car do this. Of course you buy a car to go faster. I am afraid you are very much wrong. I could maybe cycle to work, but it would take longer. I would therefore pay for a train ticket to get me their quicker, and pay more to get there faster. Or I would buy a car again and drive it, making it faster than driving?
Click to expand...
Yes, as I said, individuals may purchase cars because it offers you the opportunity to go fast, but that is not what you're explicitly paying for. There is no payment made for "the right to go fast" and to interpret fuel duty this way is stupid; you're paying in the first instance for the controlled resources that your car needs to work - whether you intend to drive it fast or intend to drive it at 20mph to the shop and back once a week because you're incapacitated, and everything in between.
There is no tax for making journeys, or for travelling fast.
And VED is related to emissions, for the purpose of incurring a slight penalty for people who chose methods of transport that are horrifically bad for the environment. Again, it's not a tax for travelling fast or for making journeys.
 
ST4 said:
Including the roads. The more fuel you use, the more goes to the pot, and the more that goes to the roads...unless you can prove catagorically that no revenue at all from road fuel goes to the roads?
Click to expand...
Local roads are paid for with local taxation (council tax); no money from fuel duty goes into local taxation, it goes into the consolidated fund. As has been explained time and again to you. Some roads, like motorways, are paid for from national budgets but they're largely irrelevant as cyclists and pedestrians can't use them anyway.
 
Last edited:
ST4 - do you think you should be charged extra for or prohibited from driving on local roads outside of your local authority area? If not, why not? I mean, you don't pay for those roads, so why should you be allowed to use them with impunity?
 
ghoti said:
Yes, as I said, individuals may purchase cars because it offers you the opportunity to go fast, but that is not what you're explicitly paying for. There is no payment made for "the right to go fast" and to interpret fuel duty this way is stupid; you're paying in the first instance for the controlled resources that your car needs to work - whether you intend to drive it fast or intend to drive it at 20mph to the shop and back once a week because you're incapacitated, and everything in between.
There is no tax for making journeys, or for travelling fast.
And VED is related to emissions, for the purpose of incurring a slight penalty for people who chose methods of transport that are horrifically bad for the environment. Again, it's not a tax for travelling fast or for making journeys.
Click to expand...

Horrifically bad for the environment...please, amature dramatics went out of fashion I thought. Even my old 4.4i BMW X5 wasn't horrifically bad for the environment, it was wonderful as it filled the town and country with a baritone V8 roar as it wafted through the six of its forward gears with extreme prejudice. Fuel isn't a controlled resource either, it is free to buy however much you need and want. Its not rationed, thank heavens. That's it, the S class will be the 5500cc model. Mainly so I can get good value for the top tier of VED, why ommit 250g/km CO2 for £400odd per year, if I can emit over 350g for the same VED. You are right, how stupid of me.

ghoti said:
ST4 - do you think you should be charged extra for or prohibited from driving on local roads outside of your local authority area? If not, why not? I mean, you don't pay for those roads, so why should you be allowed to use them with impunity?
Click to expand...

I think not, because it is the purpose of the car, to transport quickly over distance. I use roads in other authorities, other people use roads in this one.

I ask you this, do you think income tax collected from you should only be spent on causes you think is worthy, or in the area in which you live. If not, why not ;)
 
Last edited:
ST4 said:
I think not, because it is the purpose of the car, to transport quickly over distance. I use roads in other authorities, other people use roads in this one.

I ask you this, do you think income tax collected from you should only be spent on causes you think is worthy, or in the area in which you live. If not, why not ;)
Click to expand...
Exactly. It is also the purpose of a bike to transport (relatively) quickly over distance.
No, I don't think income tax collected from me should only be spent on causes I like or the area in which I live; but I'm not the person making the argument that if cyclists don't pay to use the roads (they do, as explained umpteen times, but your position rests on the incorrect idea that they don't) they should have less right to their use. YOU don't pay to use the roads in other local authorities, so by your reasoning, you should have less right to them.

Again: what are your grounds for the belief that drivers pay more for the upkeep of roads than cyclists?
 
Last edited:
neil_g said:
This thread has more circles than the magic roundabout in MK...

I have to pay the same amount of ved and insurance for my car whether I do 8k or 12k so the argument is completely irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Just to keep one you'll have to pay it. Whether you drive it or not. I really don't get people are still bringing up these points regarding tax and duties etc.
 
ghoti said:
Exactly. It is also the purpose of a bike to transport (relatively) quickly over distance.
No, I don't think income tax collected from me should only be spent on causes I like or the area in which I live; but I'm not the person making the argument that if cyclists don't pay to use the roads (they do, as explained umpteen times, but your position rests on the incorrect idea that they don't) they should have less right to their use. YOU don't pay to use the roads in other local authorities, so by your reasoning, you should have less right to them.
Click to expand...

I pay for the fuel used and that all goes into the pot as I said already. Car drivers pay a fortune in tax, through fuel duty, VED and are a cash cow. Cyclists, well, they don't yet the roads and infrastucture is getting put more and more towards them, not the need of the modern British motorist.
 
ST4 said:
I pay for the fuel used and that all goes into the pot as I said already. Car drivers pay a fortune in tax, through fuel duty, VED and are a cash cow. Cyclists, well, they don't yet the roads and infrastucture is getting put more and more towards them, not the need of the modern British motorist.
Click to expand...
Have you read anything people have written here? Fuel duty goes into the consolidated fund which does not pay for local roads; it pays for many, many things that are unrelated to local roads (including blowing up impoverished brown people so we can maintain a steady supply of this fuel), but it does not pay for local roads. Local roads are paid for from council taxes. The "pot" your fuel duty goes into is irrelevant.

Feel free to swerve this point for the millionth time.
 
Last edited:
ghoti said:
Have you read anything people have written here? Fuel duty goes into the consolidated fund which does not pay for local roads; it pays for many, many things that are unrelated to local roads (including blowing up impoverished brown people so we can maintain a steady supply of this fuel), but it does not pay for local roads. Local roads are paid for from council taxes. The "pot" your fuel duty goes into is irrelevant.

Feel free to swerve this point for the millionth time.
Click to expand...

Right, fuel duty isn't segregated into funds that are excluded from the roads. Indeed, its not local authorities responsible for trunk roads but the government as a whole.

Funding for this comes from central government

http://www.bearscot.com/

Not council tax. Sorry. Wrong again.
 
ST4 said:
Right, fuel duty isn't segregated into funds that are excluded from the roads. Indeed, its not local authorities responsible for trunk roads but the government as a whole.

Funding for this comes from central government

http://www.bearscot.com/

Not council tax. Sorry. Wrong again.
Click to expand...
Riiiiiiiiiiiight. And we clearly have a problem with all those bloody cyclists clogging up trunk roads, I assume?
The vast majority of cycling takes place on local roads. Funded from..............council tax!

http://www.glasgow.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=11063
 
Last edited:
ghoti said:
Riiiiiiiiiiiight. And we clearly have a problem with all those bloody cyclists clogging up trunk roads, I assume?
The vast majority of cycling takes place on local roads. Funded from..............council tax!
Click to expand...

Try heading along the A82. A83, A84, etc. A9 even. So you realise that fuel duty pays for trunk routes and to get to trunk routes you use local ones...right???
 
ST4 said:
Try heading along the A82. A83, A84, etc. A9 even. So you realise that fuel duty pays for trunk routes and to get to trunk routes you use local ones...right???
Click to expand...
The overwhelming preponderance of cycling happens on local roads.

Also, maintenance of many A roads comes from a mixture of local and central funds. Motorways are entirely centralised, I believe.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top