94 Million set aside for cycling
- Thread starter TitanTim
- Start date
The fuel duty goes into the Treasury's coffers out of which money is allocated to pay for road building and highway maintenance.
Talking about cyclists wearing out the roads, how about putting a road use tax on horse riders, several of which I passed on my pleasant rural ride this morning, clopping along causing far more damage to the road surface than my skinny 23mm high pressure tyres? :?
Talking about cyclists wearing out the roads, how about putting a road use tax on horse riders, several of which I passed on my pleasant rural ride this morning, clopping along causing far more damage to the road surface than my skinny 23mm high pressure tyres? :?
Blimey there are some bitter pushbike owners out there :lol:
Pedestrians are different from cyclists :wink:
A County Council can be classed under a Local Authority :wink:
I still stand by that cyclists should pay to use the roads, obviously the daily cyclists will deem that unfair, but as mentioned life's unfair
Tim.
Pedestrians are different from cyclists :wink:
A County Council can be classed under a Local Authority :wink:
I still stand by that cyclists should pay to use the roads, obviously the daily cyclists will deem that unfair, but as mentioned life's unfair
Tim.
TitanTim said:
That's a crass comment, Tim.
All Z4 owning cyclists are doing here and giving an alternative view on their rights to continue to use the highways and not be marginalised and are consequently fighting their corner. Carlton Reid is currently writing a book that will be shortly published (I've seen excepts) which is to be called 'Roads Were Not Built For Cars'. I suggest it will make interesting reading. :wink:http://www.roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/
Lillywhite said:TitanTim said:
That's a crass comment, Tim.
http://www.roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/
I agree roads are for all users so long as they pay to use them, including cyclists, horse riders etc. I don't think that's marginalising cyclists to me it's just smacks of cyclists getting the hump of the prospects of having to pay for something they currently use for free
I would happily pay to ride a bike on the roads in the knowledge my money was being invested on dedicated cycle paths. But then it goes right back to the beginning of this thread i.e. in the current climate gov't money could be better spent on more important things along with all other money that's wasted. I think we will have to agree to differ :wink:
Tim.
TitanTim said:
You just don't get it no matter how many times you are told by me and others on this topic. Cyclists and other road users are already paying through general taxation which is where road building and maintenance is funded not specifically through payment of VED. That's a tax on emissions.
Carlton Reid who I mentioned earlier is being interviewed by Today on Radio 4 tomorrow morning if you want further confirmation that you and many other ill informed motorists believes that payment of VED gives them sole priority over use of public highways.
Lillywhite said:TitanTim said:
You just don't get it no matter how many times you are told by me and others on this topic. Cyclists and other road users are already paying through general taxation which is where road building and maintenance is funded not specifically through payment of VED. That's a tax on emissions.
No it's not. It's a tax that happens to be based on CO2 emissions at the moment because that suits the current agenda. There will still be a VE duty when all cars are zero emissions, mark my words. So why shouldn't cyclists pay? Seems reasonable to me.
original guvnor said:
So you're basing your argument on what changes to VED you feel MAY happen in the future? Well that is a novel approach. The situation is that VED Band A users currently pay diddly squat so I would be happy to pay that amount for the continued use of the highway whether I cycle, walk or run. :wink:
I would suggest that if we ever got to the stage where all cars have zero emissions then an alternative method of taxation to replace the lost tax would be devised but what that would be nobody can predict.
This is an interesting document and the second paragraph confirms the Government's current position:-
http://www.parliament.uk/Templates/BriefingPapers/Pages/BPPdfDownload.aspx?bp-id=SN01482
"Motoring taxation is made up of two elements: vehicle excise duty (VED) – a tax on ownership; and fuel duty – a tax on use."
Oh come on don't be so naive. Band A is zero at the moment precisely because the proportions of cars on the road that qualify is minuscule. There has always been a tax on car ownership, long before the current emissions based system was introduced. If you think the government will give up a tax levied on 40m cars (or whatever the number registered in the UK is) then you've been smoking something potent for too long.
Electric cars/hydrogen fuel cell cars whatever the technology will be taxed when they become ubiquitous.
Electric cars/hydrogen fuel cell cars whatever the technology will be taxed when they become ubiquitous.
Of course there has always been a tax on motor vehicle ownership but never on cycle ownership and why should there be? In future there might be zero tax on ownership but increased tax on fuel relating to road use. Who knows, certainly not me or you?
If they spend the money on cycle paths to get them off the road, it would get my vote of approval. Being stuck on the A22 to Eastbourne today behind a couple of cyclists which generated miles of traffic jam behind them sort of proven it to me that they should not be on a major road like that.
pvr said:
I agree for their own safety, did they not single out then to allow traffic to safely pass? If not then they should have. :x