Should cyclists in London pay some kind of road tax?

[oscar9]

I cannot believe there are people who would like to see a cycling tax,

taxing someone just to cycle to the shops or kids going to school, really

Why stop there ,lets tax walking !

[cnapan]

What a depressing read this has been. This sums it up:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9Fyj2GMxgo

"No pay, no say"

What a crock.

Well done above for pointing out that so called 'road tax' isn't paid by quite a lot of cars either.

I suppose they also have 'no say'.

Say or no say, what the fuck gives someone the right to behave dangerously to other road users because they consider that they have 'no say'?

For goodness sake, what does it matter what machinery we are on or in? Can't we all be a bit more civil to each other?

[Octoman]

Cyclists are prepared to pay to cycle in central London as evidenced by the uptake of the pay for use cycle hire scheme. We should leverage this by placing a cycle tax on the central London areas to invest in better cycling facilities. Rightly or wrongly these facilities will not be built any other way. Cyclists will continue to get killed sharing the roads with buses, lorries and cars or just disrupt traffic flow.

Cyclists fall into two broad categories. The first are mindless zealots who think that they are special because they travel on a human powered mechanical contraption and that irrespective of any other factor in their lives consider themselves superior. I consider them basic people and I couldn't care less about their opinions.

The other category are ordinary people who simply prefer to cycle and are in no way self obsessed. These people deserve to be listened to and be helped to cycle safely. They would be more likely to work collectively to find a funding solution, part of which may or may not come from a cycle tax.

I do think it is overdue that cyclist pay for insurance. Perhaps an insurance scheme can be devised that includes an infrastructure component.

[PadArch]

Originally Posted by Octoman

Cyclists are prepared to pay to cycle in central London as evidenced by the uptake of the pay for use cycle hire scheme.

That's because they are hiring a bike.

[spindrift]

Originally Posted by Octoman

Cyclists are prepared to pay to cycle in central London as evidenced by the uptake of the pay for use cycle hire scheme. We should leverage this by placing a cycle tax on the central London areas to invest in better cycling facilities. Rightly or wrongly these facilities will not be built any other way. Cyclists will continue to get killed sharing the roads with buses, lorries and cars or just disrupt traffic flow.

Cyclists fall into two broad categories. The first are mindless zealots who think that they are special because they travel on a human powered mechanical contraption and that irrespective of any other factor in their lives consider themselves superior. I consider them basic people and I couldn't care less about their opinions.

The other category are ordinary people who simply prefer to cycle and are in no way self obsessed. These people deserve to be listened to and be helped to cycle safely. They would be more likely to work collectively to find a funding solution, part of which may or may not come from a cycle tax.

I do think it is overdue that cyclist pay for insurance. Perhaps an insurance scheme can be devised that includes an infrastructure component.

None of that is going to happen, your argument is based on a profound ignorance about how roads are paid for, you cannot find a single example of a cyclist causing an unrecoverable loss and you are as prejudiced and ill-informed as a common-or-garden racist who thinks black people should pay an afro-tax.

And cyclists are traffic, congestion is caused by vehicles, not cyclists, your rantings are a symptom of a dumbed-down x factor obsessed hate-filled Britain.

[ill tonkso]

You have clearly never met octoman...

[spindrift]

I'm basing my opinion of him as disturbingly ignorant and prejudiced on the load of old trousers he's writing here. The idea that cyclists can be categorised into two groups is laughable, a third of the population have a bike, there are as many different types as there are drivers.

That octoman's prejudice is similar to racism is a noted aspect of people's attitudes towards "out-groups":

A report from the Transport Research Laboratory and University of Strathclyde a few years ago led by Lynn Basford (PDF via tinyurl.com/7qk877b) suggested that there’s some classic social psychology at work here – cyclists represent an outgroup such that the usual outgroup effects are seen, particularly overgeneralisation of negative behaviour and attributes – ‘They all ride through red lights all the time’. It’s hard to escape the conclusion that something of this sort is going on.

However, there has to be more to it than just this. For a long time I wondered if the outgroup status of cyclists was compounded by two other known social psychological factors: norms and majority vs. minority groups. Not only are cyclists an outgroup, they’re also a minority outgroup. Moreover, they are engaging in an activity that is deemed slightly inappropriate in a culture that views driving as normative and desirable and, arguably, views cycling as anti-conventional and possibly even infantile.

But even adding these factors into the mix does not explain all the anger that cyclists experience. It’s easy to identify other minority outgroups whose behaviour similarly challenges social norms but who do not get verbally and physically attacked like cyclists do: vegetarians, for example. So there’s clearly one or more important variables that we’ve not identified yet. Any social psychologists looking for a challenge are very welcome to wade into this.

http://www.thepsychologist.org.uk/ar...ArticleID=2136

[cnapan]

Originally Posted by Octoman

We should... [place] a cycle tax on the central London areas to invest in better cycling facilities. Rightly or wrongly these facilities will not be built any other way. Cyclists will continue to get killed sharing the roads with buses, lorries and cars or just disrupt traffic flow.

I don't understand this argument. Road users - pedestrians, cyclists and motorists (and most of us are at least two or more of these categories) stand to benefit from improvements to our roads. For example, if cycling were seen as safer, then more people would do it, and it would relieve congestion as a result, so it's in the motorists' interest that money is found to make cycling more compelling.

Or put it another way. Would it make sense to tax pedestrians to upgrade crossing facilities and widen pavements?

I don't think it does. And when you consider the number of cyclists right now, I don't think you could raise much money too without pricing cyclists off the road altogether... which would backfire because congestion would rise and trains would get even more packed.

Are you sure you've thought this through?

Cyclists fall into two broad categories. The first are mindless zealots who think that they are special because they travel on a human powered mechanical contraption and that irrespective of any other factor in their lives consider themselves superior. I consider them basic people and I couldn't care less about their opinions.

The other category are ordinary people who simply prefer to cycle and are in no way self obsessed. These people deserve to be listened to and be helped to cycle safely. They would be more likely to work collectively to find a funding solution, part of which may or may not come from a cycle tax.

I find this sort of analysis quite depressing. What cyclists are is people. You can find any human trait you want among that group. Don't expect me to defend the idiots who happen to ride a bike any more than I'd defend idiots in general, but please don't fall into the trap of 'them and us' when it comes to cyclists. I'm a motorist. I'm a pedestrian. I'm a taxpayer... and yes, I happen to ride a bike! (...and no, I'm not an idiot!)

I do think it is overdue that cyclist pay for insurance. Perhaps an insurance scheme can be devised that includes an infrastructure component.

I think this makes as little sense as the idea of pedestrians needing insurance to use our roads too. Motor vehicles are insured primarily because most deaths on the roads, and most costs due to accidents on the roads involve motor vehicles, and if you own one (as I do), then it is only right that you are expected to be insured for the vast damage to life and property that you may one day unfortunately cause as a result of moving a ton and a half of metal and plastic at high speeds for long distances.

I've had a few accidents in my car over the years - and despite them not being my fault, I've had near misses where I was lucky not to cause an accident - and that's coming from someone who tries to be safe.

I don't begrudge people who don't own a car their lack of insurance to use the road. They're just people trying to get home, for goodness' sake.

I really do think this singling out of road users (whatever method of transport we're talking about) is counterproductive.

By all means we should have a debate about how we can all get along in a safe and orderly manner, but let's stop singling out types of road user for special treatment.

[randolph]

I cycle and drive , about 50/50. Cyclists should be compeled by law to wear a helmet and high viz - and fined if they don't. Drivers shold stop whinging ( probably because they are lazy fay fooks who feel shamed and confused by peoples willingness to make a physical effort to get from A to B) and take a lot more care in looking out for people on bikes. Cyclists should not have to pay a road tax - maybe people found to have a car but no bike should pay double as they no doubt conjest traffic all the time!

[ill tonkso]

High-vis should be a legal requirement for on-road cycling I totally agree. Especially at night.

There was a cyclist on Traffic Cops who was killed. Cycling at night, no lights, black jacket, no helmet. Not to sully the poor guys name but this should be used as an example of the dangers.

[El_Greco]

Over-regulation will only put people off cycling.

[ill tonkso]

It isn't over-regulation, hi-vis at night is a no brainer. I used to cycle without a hi-vis jacket and I wonder now what the hell I was thinking. On quiet residential streets you are usually easy to see, but this is not always the case. Plus, if someone DOES hit you you can sue them into the ground.

[Ebeneezer_Goode]

Originally Posted by randolph

I cycle and drive , about 50/50. Cyclists should be compeled by law to wear a helmet and high viz - and fined if they don't. Drivers shold stop whinging ( probably because they are lazy fay fooks who feel shamed and confused by peoples willingness to make a physical effort to get from A to B) and take a lot more care in looking out for people on bikes. Cyclists should not have to pay a road tax - maybe people found to have a car but no bike should pay double as they no doubt conjest traffic all the time!

Unless they're under 18 and someone else is responsible for them, why do you believe that people should be required by law to wear a helmet?

[cnapan]

I think people would be mad not to wear high visibility clothes at night (whether a pedestrian on a dark country road or on a bike), but I don't think making laws is the solution either.

All vehicles are supposed to be fitted with lights. If you're travelling down a road which is dark, then you might encounter a pedestrian, so you should be travelling at an appropriate speed and paying attention to the possibility of people walking or cycling who aren't as easy to see as a car.

I know that people often drive cars at night fast on the basis that the headlights of other cars are easy to see. It reminds me of pedestrians looking only with their ears when deciding to cross the road.

These drivers don't think about other road users. They're not 'bad people'. They just rarely encounter other road users in such situations other than cars, and so when occasionally they have a near miss with said other road user, they tend to put the blame on them, which I think is wrong. Nevertheless, there will always be inattentive drivers and there will always be people who drive too quickly for the visibility they have. That's why I wear high-vis gear if I'm walking back from the pub along a country lane or am on my bike. It's also why I've got a white car

What we want is a significant change in the landscape (literally and metaphorically).

We want:

* Councils that actually understand what safe cycling conditions are, and how to change the roads to make this happen. (See below) The dutch and germans can teach us a thing or 20. Force all councillors to cycle to work if they are able... that might help! (Joke)
* Road users (of all types) to relax a little bit, make space for each other, and stop blaming other people for their frustrations when trying to get to work or back
* An end to the pig-headed idea that if someone doesn't pay vehicle excise duty, then they should just have to take rude or dangerous behaviour on the chin

Croydon council decided to leave this massively wide road alone and instead inflict this disgrace of a cycle lane on the residents:



There would have been local uproar had that sort of stupidity affected car drivers. We have to stop accepting this sort of thing, otherwise we'll never reap the benefits of increasing the number of journeys made by bike - benefits that will be felt by all types of road user.

[cnapan]

That website is hilarious... Please have a look through the pictures:



http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.me...month/book.htm

Click the arrows at the top to swoosh through the pictures... I think this might have to be a stocking filler!

If any of you hate cyclists, you can still enjoy the book armed with a touch of schadenfreude!

[Octoman]

Originally Posted by cnapan

I find this sort of analysis quite depressing. What cyclists are is people. You can find any human trait you want among that group. Don't expect me to defend the idiots who happen to ride a bike any more than I'd defend idiots in general, but please don't fall into the trap of 'them and us' when it comes to cyclists. I'm a motorist. I'm a pedestrian. I'm a taxpayer... and yes, I happen to ride a bike! (...and no, I'm not an idiot!)

I am coming from a fairly neutral position in this overall since I neither ride a bike or drive a car in London. For 99% of all travel I take the train.

I don't categorise cyclists generall but it is pretty clear that there are some fully signed up nutcases out there in the cycling community (plenty of posting evidence on this thread) who treat cycling as if it is some kind of religeous crusade. Like all extremists on all subjects, these people are not worth engaging with.

The rest have some fair points and I agree with the general comments about pointless traffic islands, poorly designed existing cycle paths and so on. However, too much of what is being said is confusing being anti car with being pro cycling. The two are not mutually exclusive. The anwser to "why do you enjoy cycling?" is not "because cars are shit" any more than the answer to "why do you like Cornwall?" is "Because Saudi Arabia is shit".

A levy on cyclists is just one possible way of raising funding to improve cycle facilities. Corporate sponsorship of routes might be another.

[spindrift]

I can't think of any positive aspects around taxing children who cycle to school. I suspect you can't either, how, exactly, would you impose and collect the tax?

[i_like_concrete]

Octoman, you are about as neutral as citric acid. The way you phrased the question on the front page was probably the most biased and loaded way possible. Short of saying "Should murdering cyclists be given free reign to destroy the world?", it's hard to imagine how you could have made the question more biased.

[spindrift]

Not once has octoman addressed the points raised, explained how he thinks roads are paid for or explained how his "cycling tax" would work. Instead, after five pages, he simply pops up again and says "I think cyclists should pay tax". I think he's trolling.

[Octoman]

I have explained my position. My view is that significant improvements to the public realm for cyclists are highly unlikely to happen without some kind of other measures. A contribution from the cyclists themselves is one possible solution.

Re: the poll, I wasn't even going to bother including one because the option for "cycling great, cars evil" would clearly bag most the votes on a site like this. I am however interested in how the vote of those who DO support a cycle tax divides between it being used for targeted expenditure or just falling into a general pot. It's an important distinction already being made by policy makers when discussing the topic. It's pretty clear that the supporters of the tax would like it to be ringfenced for cycle infrastructure spending.

Finally, on the issue of who pays for our roads, that has been covered. I refer you to JGG's posts where he demonstrates the massive subsidy to the exchequer from the motor industry via fuel duty (among other things) and how it vastly exceed road expenditure. Motorists pay for their roads - and a lot of other things besides.