94 Million set aside for cycling

[Lillywhite]

Irrespective of where your tax goes, I pay for a road licence each year to use my vehicle on the road, so I don't think it's unreasonable to expect other road users including cyclists to fork out.

Tim, you certainly havn't read or chose not to understand the information on 'Road Tax' that I posted earlier. The money that you pay for 'car tax' or VED to give it correct term is not charged to allow you specifically drive your car on the highway otherwise why would VED Band A, classic cars registered before 1973 pay diddly squat?
All tax payers pay for the construction and maintenance of highways.

 

[Sketchley]

Irrespective of where your tax goes, I pay for a road licence each year to use my vehicle on the road, so I don't think it's unreasonable to expect other road users including cyclists to fork out. Just needs a rethink of basing what you pay on emissions which needs scrapping.

As I'm well educated and attended primary school will devise a tax plan

Tim.

Actually you don't. You pay vehicle excise duty (ved) based on emissions of your vehicle. If you owned a gwiz you'd pay zero. If bikes were judge the same, which is what you are asking, the fee would be zero.

Also consider this, I have three cars, ved paid on all of them, when I'm cycling they are all parked up but I've paid three times already to 'use the roads' and bike is doing much much less damage to them than my car would. Really I should get a discount on my VED because I use a bike for some journeys, I also shouldn't have to pay for cars two and three as I've already paid for the first one.

Simple fact is people use this argument not becuase they want to see cyclists pay more but becuase they want to see lees cycling and know licensing would cause that.

edit: for multiple errors and ommissions.....

 

[Lillywhite]

I think the road maintenance is actually paid for via council tax....so in effect, everyone contributes to the roads anyway.

Your Local Authority is not responsible for maintaining the roads. The County Councils and Highways Agency are responsible and this money come from general Government coffers which collects all forms of taxation including VAT which everyone pays. So you can make a case that everyone in our 60 odd million population pays.

I wonder if someone who drives a Z4M and pays £490 a year VED is going to make out that they have priority on the road over someone like me who only pays £220 a year VED?

 

[Anonymous]

Lets change the mindset from TAXATION to FINES!

A simple fine could be handed to a MAMIL who, quite frankly, shouldn't be wearing lycra!

The same could apply to the fat slags in the high street wearing skintight jeans, tops from Primarni (Primark!) that are just plain wrong etc etc....

Now this would bring in millions!

I say this as a fat person, so I would probably face prosecution at times also.

 

[Sketchley]

The tax argument is a joke. The idea that you are only entitled to use something becuase you paid tax on it is ridiculous. Should someone be denied the right to use a service for example the nhs, becuase they are out of wrok and not paying national insurance, of course not it's a stupid argument. Furthermore we all pay for things we don't use, I'm married no kids, high income, highest coucil tax in London, there are lots of things I pay towards already that I don't use schools and children's playgrounds to start with. If we had a system where you pay only for what you use I'd be much better off but many poorer people would not. Instead we have a tax system where 'everyone' contributes and that's then divided up and spent according to need not according to who paid what.

I almost certainly already pay more than my fair share towards the upkeep of cycling infrastructure without any need for a separate bike tax. 20% vat on £5k worth of bikes to start with.

This is the most well-rounded post I have seen so far in this thread.

Well thank you.

 

[Lillywhite]

A simple fine could be handed to a MAMIL who, quite frankly, shouldn't be wearing lycra!

I am formally registering myself as being exempt from any fine as I no longer can be classed as 'middle aged' as I'm the ripe old age of 66 who chooses to wear 'cycle specific clothing' which happens to be made out a variety of cotton, wool and man made fabric including lycra rather than wearing a pair of baggy shorts or cut down denim when pursuing my hobby and keeping myself fit so I'm not a drain on the NHS.

Can't stop I'm off out now on my expensive carbon bike to annoy a few 'road tax' paying highway users. :wink:

 

[PerryGunn]

A simple fine could be handed to a MAMIL who, quite frankly, shouldn't be wearing lycra!

I am formally registering myself as being exempt from any fine as I no longer can be classed as 'middle aged' as I'm the ripe old age of 66 who chooses to wear 'cycle specific clothing' which happens to be made out a variety of cotton, wool and man made fabric including lycra rather than wearing a pair of baggy shorts or cut down denim when pursuing my hobby and keeping myself fit so I'm not a drain on the NHS.

You must be OATMILD then - Old And Thin Man In Lycra Denial

 

[GregZ4]

You must be OATMILD then - Old And Thin Man In Lycra Denial

Which in itself attracts a higher fine than us MAMILs have to pay


Sent from some bloody gadget using Tapatalk

 

[IK.]

No lycra here - but then I ride an MTB!

 

[TitanTim]

Irrespective of where your tax goes, I pay for a road licence each year to use my vehicle on the road, so I don't think it's unreasonable to expect other road users including cyclists to fork out.

Tim, you certainly havn't read or chose not to understand the information on 'Road Tax' that I posted earlier. The money that you pay for 'car tax' or VED to give it correct term is not charged to allow you specifically drive your car on the highway otherwise why would VED Band A, classic cars registered before 1973 pay diddly squat?
All tax payers pay for the construction and maintenance of highways.

Yes I understand that, I indicated in my earlier post that the current system should be scrapped in favour of something based more on, you use it you pay to use it basis, I think the, yes we all pay taxes, whether you use a push bike, car etc is going too wide of the mark. The current system needs a radical rethink. All I'm saying is, use a bike on the highway then you pay a fee, simples!! The fact that also that people who own classic cars etc don't pay is also ridiculous!!

Tim.

 

[TitanTim]

I think the road maintenance is actually paid for via council tax....so in effect, everyone contributes to the roads anyway.

Your Local Authority is not responsible for maintaining the roads. The County Councils and Highways Agency are responsible and this money come from general Government coffers which collects all forms of taxation including VAT which everyone pays. So you can make a case that everyone in our 60 odd million population pays.

I wonder if someone who drives a Z4M and pays £490 a year VED is going to make out that they have priority on the road over someone like me who only pays £220 a year VED?

The Local Authority, i.e. County Council is responsible for the maintenance of adopted roads excluding Trunk Roads which are under the remit of the Highways Agency. So its your Local Authority that undertakes resurfacing, pot hole work although this may be contracted out.

Tim.

 

[IK.]

The fact that also that people who own classic cars etc don't pay is also ridiculous!!

So if the system were to be revised, and your tax went up, you'd be happy enough with that? Given you drive a 2.0, I'd imagine your tax would go up, rather than down.

 

[TitanTim]

The fact that also that people who own classic cars etc don't pay is also ridiculous!!

So if the system were to be revised, and your tax went up, you'd be happy enough with that? Given you drive a 2.0, I'd imagine your tax would go up, rather than down.

I would be happy where ALL road users pay and a fair tax :wink: Currently its not a fair system.

Tim.

 

[Sketchley]

Irrespective of where your tax goes, I pay for a road licence each year to use my vehicle on the road, so I don't think it's unreasonable to expect other road users including cyclists to fork out.

Tim, you certainly havn't read or chose not to understand the information on 'Road Tax' that I posted earlier. The money that you pay for 'car tax' or VED to give it correct term is not charged to allow you specifically drive your car on the highway otherwise why would VED Band A, classic cars registered before 1973 pay diddly squat?
All tax payers pay for the construction and maintenance of highways.

Yes I understand that, I indicated in my earlier post that the current system should be scrapped in favour of something based more on, you use it you pay to use it basis, I think the, yes we all pay taxes, whether you use a push bike, car etc is going too wide of the mark. The current system needs a radical rethink. All I'm saying is, use a bike on the highway then you pay a fee, simples!! The fact that also that people who own classic cars etc don't pay is also ridiculous!!

Tim.

Perhaps a better way would be to look at the what causes all the pot holes, road wear etc and then ensure the people / vehicles responsible for the this pay the money to repair them. That way there would be link between cost and use. So the more miles you do and more damage your vehicle does the more you pay. That seems fair? Does that work for you Tim?

Now let's look at current system of VED based on emmisions. The higher poluting the vehicle the heavier it is (normally) so the more damage it does to the roads, plus it's more polluting so does damage there as well. So looks like we already have this covered. Except that doesn't take care of the fact that someone that does 1000 miles a year will do less damage than someone who does 20,000. However, more millage is more feul and there is duty on that already so that's covered already.

So right now the people who cause the most damage and therefore cost pay the most. Seem fair enough to me. And I'm happy to have cycling assessed in the same way, my guess is as % of the cost for damage they actually cause compared to other road users we would be a paying just few pence a year.

 

[TitanTim]

So you have two identical cars with same emissions etc. One does 10k miles per annum the other 50k but the higher miler is wearing the roads out at an increased rate and their carbon footprint is higher but currently pays the same duty as the lower mileage driver. That seems fair :lol:

I'm not saying cyclists should pay ridiculous amounts to use the road but should contribute some sort of fee which would contribute towards dedicated cycle routes. Seems only fair.

Tim.

 

[Lillywhite]

The Local Authority, i.e. County Council is responsible for the maintenance of adopted roads excluding Trunk Roads which are under the remit of the Highways Agency. So its your Local Authority that undertakes resurfacing, pot hole work although this may be contracted out.

I know exactly who maintains roads. The local authority is not the County Council. The local authority is the one you pay your Council Tax to, usually a Borough Council (in my case) or a District Council and they do not maintain roads. However, local roads (other than trunk roads) are built and maintained by the Highways Authority (County Council) with the Highways Agency based in Birmingham for my area dealing with trunk roads.

 

[Simon_P]

So you have two identical cars with same emissions etc. One does 10k miles per annum the other 50k but the higher miler is wearing the roads out at an increased rate and their carbon footprint is higher but currently pays the same duty as the lower mileage driver. That seems fair :lol:

Very unfair, VED should be scrapped as a car disc and it all put through fuel as a tax. You pay for what you use via mileage. Although that would cause a lot of cars to have their tanks drained overnight by our lovely travelling community.

I'm not saying cyclists should pay ridiculous amounts to use the road but should contribute some sort of fee which would contribute towards dedicated cycle routes. Seems only fair.

Tim.

How would that be Policed and enforced?

 

[Lillywhite]

I'm not saying cyclists should pay ridiculous amounts to use the road but should contribute some sort of fee which would contribute towards dedicated cycle routes. Seems only fair.

Yeah and ask pedestrians to contribute to wearing out footways. Do you see how ridiculous your argument is? Anyway, when is anything ever fair in life?

 

[GregZ4]

I'm not saying cyclists should pay ridiculous amounts to use the road but should contribute some sort of fee which would contribute towards dedicated cycle routes. Seems only fair.

Yeah and ask pedestrians to contribute to wearing out footways. Do you see how ridiculous your argument is? Anyway, when is anything ever fair in life?

The shoe leather tax for pedestrians was phased out in 1823 after many one legged war veterans using crutches and getting 50% tax relief inspired a spate of self amputation across the country as people tried to reduce their tax burden.
It was replaced by Virtual Ambulatory Tax (VAT) which was imposed only if the claimant had to breathe back in before 10 minutes elapsed. This tax however cost the govt a net £94m to collect.
In order to distract the tax paying population the govt then manufactured a war abroad and raised an arms tax. However due to the confusion with leather tax (and Nelson still firmly in the Nation's memory) the possibilty of many citizens turning into one armed bandits caused this to be scrapped very quickly.
We then had window taxation until someone realised Bill Gates hadn't even been born.
I could go on but I have to put my lycra on now and go terrorise some blue BMW drivers....


Sent from some bloody gadget using Tapatalk

 

[Sketchley]

So you have two identical cars with same emissions etc. One does 10k miles per annum the other 50k but the higher miler is wearing the roads out at an increased rate and their carbon footprint is higher but currently pays the same duty as the lower mileage driver. That seems fair :lol:
Tim.

You didn't read the whole post did you. The car doing 50k is paying more tax, through fuel duty.

I'm not saying cyclists should pay ridiculous amounts to use the road but should contribute some sort of fee which would contribute towards dedicated cycle routes. Seems only fair.

Tim.

But the point is we already do pay for them through other taxes. I tax on bikes based on use / damage would result in nothing. Take for example the thread topic £94 million. Over three years for 20 millions bikes is about £1.56 each. How about I buy you pint if we meet on a z4 meet?