Should cyclists in London pay some kind of road tax?

[cosmictanya]

Originally Posted by spindrift

Are you serious? A pedestrian gets run over by a car on the pavement and you're blaming the pedestrian?

In summary:

The number of pedestrians killed by cyclists on the footway in the ten years 2000-2009 was three. Average one per 3 1/3 years.

In the five years 2005-2009, 226 people were killed on the footway by motor vehicles, 161 by cars, 65 by other vehicles. Average 45 per year.



Based upon these figures, the danger to pedestrians on the footway is 99.34% from motor-vehicles and 0.66% from cyclists. On average >150 times as many pedestrians were killed on the footway by motor-vehicles as by people riding bicycles.

http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopModules...=638&mid=13641

Pavement cyclists can be annoying, they are not a significant feature in the accident rates.

yes i am serious. if you cross a driveway then it is your responsibility to take care. in many of those incidents, the pedestrian will have been the one at fault.

[spindrift]

Apparently Knightsbridge residents are bitterly complaining about Arab playboys screaming around the roads at night in supercars:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...e-Harrods.html

[cosmictanya]

Originally Posted by spindrift

Apparently Knightsbridge residents are bitterly complaining about Arab playboys screaming around the roads at night in supercars:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...e-Harrods.html

yes it is very annoying. they use my block in particular as a mini race track as it's a double ended road with both entrances/exits facing onto the brompton road.

[.Adam]

Pedestrianise it all?

[Trances]

Originally Posted by Ebeneezer_Goode

Because they're lazy and/or unfit.

Agree. In most cases there is a way to make cycling work for you.

[potto]

Originally Posted by .Adam

Pedestrianise it all?

nooooo! Then you get prostitutes and beggars filling the streets.

Streets racers or prostitutes? Oh the agony of choice for those C&K residential groups.

[potto]

Originally Posted by cosmictanya

should they be fined more regularly for cycling on pavements and darting through traffic lights? yes they should be.

but allowing cyclists to ride on pavements would bring out far more casual cyclists of all ages. The cycling enthusiasts and couriers will always prefer the road.

[.Adam]

Originally Posted by potto

nooooo! Then you get prostitutes and beggars filling the streets.

Streets racers or prostitutes? Oh the agony of choice for those C&K residential groups.

Ah yes - that dreaded Cafe Rogue turning Knightsbridge into a red light district haha.

[spindrift]

Take Exhibition Road, they made it clutter-free so that now the half-mile road, decorated by a criss-cross pattern, is a continuous shared space for cars and people, and you can't chuck a brick without hitting a working girl offering Golden Showers and spanking. Sheesh.

[ScouseinManc]

Of course they should pay.

Plenty of times cyclists are responsible for causing accidents.

[spindrift]

Originally Posted by ScouseinManc

Of course they should pay.

Plenty of times cyclists are responsible for causing accidents.

Sigh. Cyclists do pay for the roads unless you think I shouldn't have been paying tax for thirty years?





There was a very detailed study done by Transport for London, with Metropolitan Police data, examining this very point for every serious cycle/motorist collision in 2010
(http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloa...sions-and-casu...).

It doesn't collate the overall figures for whether the motorist or cyclist was to blame. But the raw numbers (on page 22) strongly suggest around three-quarters of the accidents were the motorist's fault. This all makes sense when you think about it, see the natural aversion cyclists have toward any collisions because of the risk of injury.

[spindrift]

Road tax as you think it works was abolished by Winston Churchill in 1937 - I believe it only ran for 11 years prior to that.

ROADS ARE PAID FOR 100% BY ALL TAXPAYERS - IT COMES OUT OF ONE POT.

Therefore the majority of people in this country who don't own a car are heavily subsidising those who do.


Over 80% of cyclists own cars, so pay motoring taxes.

Motoring taxes are not "hypothecated" to roads - all taxes go into one pot and get spent from that one pot, so income tax, VAT, stamp duty and other taxes paid by motorists and non-motorists alike pay for the roads.

Contrary to popular prejudice, motorists do not pay more in taxes than is spent on roads. Only if you confine yourself to road building can you come to that conclusion. By that time you have added maintenance, policing, ambulances for accidents, hospitals to patch up casualties, and all the other indirect coats of roads, the total greatly exceeds the sum of motoring taxes.

Despite typing all that I can pretty much guarantee some bone-headed cretin will pop up and say:

"Blah blah blah cyclists don't pay tax"

[ScouseinManc]

Originally Posted by spindrift

Sigh. Cyclists do pay for the roads unless you think I shouldn't have been paying tax for thirty years?

I think you'll find it's called, my opinion...

[.Adam]

How can that be your opinion when it's a fact that everyone pays for the roads? Tax payers money is used for the roads.. therefore they have paid?

Maybe time to get out of your car and get some fresh air.

[spindrift]

Originally Posted by ScouseinManc

I think you'll find it's called, my opinion...

I respect your opinion, but if you really think cyclists are exempt from the taxes, either direct taxation or council tax that pays for the roads, then your opinion is similar to someone who thinks people with red hair are exempt from all taxes.

It's asinine. For what you believe to be true no motorist could ever possibly also own a bicycle, anyone who rides a bike doesn't have to pay tax and you can write to your council and say

"Please stop sending me Council Tax reminders, I'm a cyclist and therefore exempt!"

[ScouseinManc]

Originally Posted by spindrift

I respect your opinion, but if you really think cyclists are exempt from the taxes, either direct taxation or council tax that pays for the roads, then your opinion is similar to someone who thinks people with red hair are exempt from all taxes.

It's asinine. For what you believe to be true no motorist could ever possibly also own a bicycle, anyone who rides a bike doesn't have to pay tax and you can write to your council and say

"Please stop sending me Council Tax reminders, I'm a cyclist and therefore exempt!"

Nowhere in my sentence, did I say cyclists are exempt from paying taxes.

I reiterate; I think cyclists should pay road tax, as well as every other tax, which motorists are expected to.

I also think cyclists should have to wear helmets, wait at lights (& not become pedestrians, as & when it suits), etc..

[spindrift]

Originally Posted by ScouseinManc

Nowhere in my sentence, did I say cyclists are exempt from paying taxes.

I reiterate; I think cyclists should pay road tax, as well as every other tax, which motorists are expected to.

You want cyclists to pay a tax that was abolished in 1937? Cyclists ALREADY PAY every other tax that motorists do, unless you are claiming the Venn Diagram of cyclists/motorists have no shaded areas?

Seriously, how can you be so uninformed that you think road tax exists?

Know what the E in VED stands for?

Firstly, a poll by British Cycling found that 87 per cent of its cyclist members also regularly drive cars, and so pay the same vehicle and fuel duties as other road users.

Secondly, this tax is paid into a central pot. The money made from Vehicle Excise Duty does not go directly back into the roads and highways. Cyclists - like everyone else - pay council tax, income tax and all sorts of other direct and indirect taxes which pay for the provision of public services, be they hospitals, trains or roads.

And thirdly, Vehicle Excise Duty is based on your vehicle’s emissions. Since a bike creates no emissions, it pays no Vehicle Excise Duty.


So, from a tax perspective, a cyclist has as much right to be on the road as any other road user and an extra levy would not be warranted.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public...cle3311131.ece

Nothing is established by people calling for cyclists to pay a tax that doesn't exist other than the fact that the people who come out with such a stupid statement are profoundly ignorant.

[ScouseinManc]

Originally Posted by spindrift

You want cyclists to pay a tax that was abolished in 1937? Cyclists ALREADY PAY every other tax that motorists do, unless you are claiming the Venn Diagram of cyclists/motorists have no shaded areas?

Seriously, how can you be so uninformed that you think road tax exists?

Know what the E in VED stands for?Nothing is established by people calling for cyclists to pay a tax that doesn't exist other than the fact that the people who come out with such a stupid statement are profoundly ignorant.

You really are quite tiresome aren't you?

[spindrift]

Car tax is based on amount of CO2 emitted so, if a fee had to be paid, cyclists - who are sometimes branded as 'tax dodgers' - would pay the same as 'tax-dodgers' such as disabled drivers, police cars, the Royal family, and band A motorists, ie £0.

No road tax:



No road tax:



No road tax:



No road tax:



No road tax:



No road tax:



No road tax:



No road tax:




I expect you have a go at the drivers of those vehicles and tell them "You don't pay road tax!"

[cosmictanya]

Originally Posted by potto

nooooo! Then you get prostitutes and beggars filling the streets.

Streets racers or prostitutes? Oh the agony of choice for those C&K residential groups.

Originally Posted by .Adam

Ah yes - that dreaded Cafe Rogue turning Knightsbridge into a red light district haha.

what is wrong with prostitutes? it already is a red light district - has long been so. harvey nichols fifth floor bar - and strangely the shoe dept - are the classiest pick up joints in town, and chelsea cloisters is estimated to contain more 'working flats' than any single building in london, soho included.