Is there any such thing as 'road tax'? (UK: Cars vs Cyclists)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23694438

by lucaspiller • 13 years ago

40 51 13 years ago

bbc.co.uk

jbrooksuk3• 13 years ago

I'm a keen cyclist myself and have been (very thankfully) hit only lightly a couple of times, then had awful words shouted at me and one man getting out of his car to confront me. I always stand my ground in situations like that, but I felt deeply saddened that this man, this 60+ year old man believes he has more priority on the road in his big Merc than I do on my bike. I drive too, I pay my £115 VED yearly and the road is not paid for by the public.

I cycled 150 miles for Cancer Research last year, and thankfully suffered only one scare (thanks to my own mum), even after having to cycle down a dual carriage way (on the pavement).

The whole "I pay road tax" is crap, it needs to be sorted. Public announcement?

ealexhudson• 13 years ago

The "car tax" name isn't much better, not least because motorbikes and lorries pay it too, and a good number of cars don't. "Road tax" is the better name in that sense; it's just many people get exempted to some degree.

Based on carbon emissions, which is the main escalator, if bikes were included they would be fully exempt from the tax. Maybe cyclists (and other exempt users) should be allowed to get a special green disc for free to show they're part of the system and to shut these luddites up.

Shish2k• 13 years ago

"Pollution tax"?

dasil0034• 13 years ago

I also cycle commute in London after having done so in Silicon Valley, Minneapolis, and Santa Fe. London is by far my preference because of the critical mass and the general awareness that drivers have of cyclists (New Mexico is the worst, they could kill you there and not even realize you even existed).

I understand the road rage issue because everything is tight in London, and cyclists often make better time than any other mode of transport across central London. But it's also frustrating when someone thinks cycles don't belong on the road because the alternative is even more auto traffic and worse congestion.

tehwalrus5• 13 years ago

I've never had this happen to me in London (and I've cycled a lot.) The video I saw on http://ipayroadtax.com when I first heard about the campaign was northerners shouting at each other (I can't find it now - an older couple shouting "no pay, no say!" out the window.)

harrytuttle4• 13 years ago

60 year old Merc man is not an individual case; it's a phenomenon across the UK.

Just ride off the moment they get out.

jbrooksuk3• 13 years ago

Oh, I'm aware of that, it's the norm.

I had no reason to ride off, I asked for him to apologise for beeping at me since he scared the crap out of me (wide country road, no-one else around) I could've fallen off. His response was, "no-one would see me run over you, now get off of the road."

apierre2• 13 years ago

While I appreciate Boris'Superhighway, I think driving during rush hours with dozen of cyclists coming from every way, driving in the middle of the road is just insane.

I am a very careful driver, I respect cyclists but some of them really think the road only belongs to them. I sometimes feel I am in a middle of a flock of birds and that is dangerous.

rmc• 13 years ago

A lot of the time "assertive cycling" (cycling in the middle of the road) is safer for the cyclist. It means cars are forced to stay behind then. If you cycle on the side of the road, a car can try to squeeze past you, sometimes at speed.

People aren't just making these decisions based on thinking "they own the road", personal safety comes into it too.

DanBC• 13 years ago

Plus, sometimes what drivers consider to be the "middle of the road" is actually just "avoiding the various drain grates and potholes".

I do agree that there are a large number of road users (pedestrians, cyclists, car-drivers) who are stupid, selfish, and lousy.

I'd be interested to see research on attitude. Do cyclists suddenly forget what it's like when they get in a car?

dasil0034• 13 years ago

Here's the problem: if you ride on the side and there's not enough space drivers will come very close to you or try to squeeze past in between oncoming traffic. If you ride too close to parked cars you are liable to get doored, which has happened to me (in Kensington of course, by some upperclass twit stepping out of a cab who's probably never ridden a bike or driven a car, but I digress). A friend of mine almost had his trachea punctured by the corner of an opening door.

So, no, if there's not enough space, cyclists should absolutely get out in the middle where cars can see them and respect them.

That said, London rush hour is not a place for slow or casual cyclists unless you really know your routes through side streets. We're still a long way from Holland.

nicholassmith2• 13 years ago

Imagine being a cyclist stuck in a pack of roaming wolves.

I'm not saying cyclists can't be asshats (they can, I've seen plenty), and most drivers are perfectly fine around cyclists, but being on a bike on a main road with traffic streaming past you inches away can be pretty terrifying. A lot of drivers slip into auto pilot mode, or don't have the best spatial awareness, or get distracted, or they've had a long day and are slow to react. If you're in a car and a cyclist hits you it's annoying, if you're a cyclist and a car hits you it's life threatening.

apierre2• 13 years ago

I completely agree with you. I do cycle sometimes as well and since I am an occasional driver as well, I try to anticipate motorists behaviour.

I think it is all about understanding each other ecosystem and mutual respect.

maaaats• 13 years ago

I hear this often in Norway as well. But I also own a car and pay the same tax/fees each year as they do, I just choose the bike to and from work. And still, even if I hadn't the car has no priority.

But while they are arguing, honking and standing in line with their high blood pressure, I am cruising past them.

andyking• 13 years ago

I don't know if I'm making a big mistake here, but isn't local council tax used to maintain the roads?

So if I was going to go down the path of "I pay my road tax, therefore I have more rights on the road than you," I could just as easily say "you're not from around here, get off MY roads!" Which would just be silly.

justincormack• 13 years ago

Roads are split I think in terms of this with larger roads centrally managed, And I think paid for.

andyjohnson0• 13 years ago

In England and Wales the Highways Agency manage and maintain what they term the "strategic road network" - basically the motorways and main A roads (map [1]) - and this is funded by central government. Other roads are the responsibility of local government. I don't know how it works in Scotland.

[1] http://www.highways.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Highwa...

harrytuttle4• 13 years ago

That is correct.

You can actually sometimes tell when you drive out of a London borough with good maintenance (Richmond) into one that is crap (Hounslow for example) without even looking at the signs...

toble2• 13 years ago

It's similar for Scotland's rural routes. Some councils don't have the funding to maintaining their roads properly, so they focus on the important roads. It can be quite jarring crossing from one area to another.

JackpotDen• 13 years ago

the problem is the idea that one is special for some reason, and one is entitled to more of something because of that reason.

mrweasel• 13 years ago

Denmark changed the term to "Grøn afgift" - Green Tax. This means that car owners pay for the polution that they generate, but not for the roads. Roads are pay though other taxes.

jkldotio• 13 years ago

While language is powerful I am not sure it will help, as in Australia calling it a registration fee, leads to "but you don't pay rego" arguments. It's particularly silly in Australia as a huge number cyclists are car owners anyway.

For my part when I moved to a dense European city with clockwork public transport I gave up cycling and am much more stress free because of it. I think I'd only return to cycling in areas with proper lanes or separate paths or a prominent cycling culture (e.g. Denmark or the Netherlands). There is just too much stress involved with sharing the road with aggressive cars when there are no separate lanes, particularly when being forced very close to parked cars where people fling open their doors. The other poster in this thread saying he's only been "hit only lightly a couple of times" says it all, even if the stats for serious injury aren't that high it's just in your mind all the time.

All that's to say nothing of people deliberately coming close and beeping just to bully, or people double parked sleeping in bike lanes. The one that takes the cake is probably the person who ran a red in their car, I was waiting for it and yelled at them, and then deliberately crossed into a cycle lane I was in and braked heavily to deliberately have me smack into the back of them sending me over the handlebars and ruining a wheel. Police not taking things seriously was the main a problem there. If someone had some other huge piece of machinery that wasn't surrounded with the cultural aspects of a car and deliberately smacked it into someone they'd be in a court in short order.

While I find Top Gear amusing and will always support sports driving in designated areas I think self-driving cars can't come soon enough. The process will accelerate pretty heavily in the countries with poor public transport infrastructure facing the retirement of the post war boomers as well.

alsothings2• 13 years ago

I believe this headline is a very clear example of Betteridge's law of headlines[1], since the answer is 'No'.

I'll also just add that road surface wear and tear is to a significant extent and function of vehicle weight. If car driver want to yell at people for using more than their fair share of the road, yell at HGVs.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_Law_of_Headline...

quarterto• 13 years ago

But in this case, the question mark isn't obfuscating the article's lack of content.

alexchamberlain• 13 years ago

Why not charge cyclists for use of the road too? Simply charge a low fee - say £5 a year - and all these arguments would go away.

It actually annoys me more that they don't have to have insurance.

jalada• 13 years ago

Why not charge pedestrians for use of the pavement and road crossings?

toble2• 13 years ago

I would like to see the insurance industry reduced in size, rather than be further bolstered by legislation.

scotty79• 13 years ago

Funny thing to do would be to actually reintroduce noticeably high road tax on car owners and channel those funds directly to building bicycle paths.

tehwalrus5• 13 years ago

combined costs of Vehicle Excise Duty (car tax) and the extra tax added to petrol ("gas") is phenomenal in the UK, to the extent that I keep getting invites to facebook groups of real ordinary non-political people "campaigning"[1] to have them lowered. Both of these taxes go into central government funding.

[1] i.e. sitting on facebook being angry together..

blibble2• 13 years ago

this argument always stinks of excessive pedantry, yes the budgets aren't ring fenced, but this doesn't mean fuel using vehicles aren't paying for the roads that cyclists use.

in 2013 the the treasury expects to collect £26B[1] via fuel duty alone (the tax motorists pay on petrol/diesel), and the entire transport budget is £21B[2], so it's accurate to say that the motorist's taxes pay entirely for the roads (and a good chunk of the trains too).

(note the £26B fuel duty figure doesn't include the 20% VAT motorists also pay on petrol, and the money from VED)

[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm... page 103

[2]: same document, page 10

skrause• 13 years ago

http://tu-dresden.de/die_tu_dresden/fakultaeten/vkw/ivs/oeko... suggests that the total cost of cars in the UK are around £50B per year.

Your argument also suggest that all cyclists don't pay taxes at all.

blibble2• 13 years ago

that document assigns a future expected value of £30B for damages due to climate change caused by cars... which to be frank, is a bullshit made up number.

take that out, and motorists still make a profit for the treasury.

my argument is purely based on receipts from purchase of fuel... if there were 0 motor vehicles on the road, the receipts would be many orders of magnitude lower.

tehwalrus5• 13 years ago

Almost all roads are maintained by council tax, which is genuinely separate from Vehicle Excise Duty which goes to the treasury. The highways agency roads (mostly A roads and motorways) are usually not safe for/used by cyclists anyway.

slgeorge• 13 years ago

I don't accept the argument, but as a thought experiment lets go with it. So motorists pay for the roads and for trains - so what?

I pay lots of tax for services I don't use - or perhaps someone else doesn't pay for something I also use (public libraries for example) - but so what? We pay tax and we may use some, all or none of the services provided - it's just part of the bargain with the state to create a civil society.

Just because you've paid tax (greater or lesser) doesn't give you more or less access to services as a citizen.

rikkus• 13 years ago

Typical BBC article. It misses the point entirely.

The problems are:

1. Many motorists drive dangerously.

2. Many motorists are aggressive towards cyclists.

3. Many cyclists cycle dangerously.

4. Number 3 fuels number 2.

All of these combined make it dangerous to be a cyclist. It's the fault of both groups (note it's only the majority - a minority are careful drivers/cyclists and non-aggressive).

Changing attitudes is difficult. Segregating the two groups is expensive. I don't see the situation improving in the near future.

SideburnsOfDoom• 13 years ago

note it's only the majority - a minority are careful drivers/cyclists and non-aggressive

I would say "note it's only a minority - the majority are careful drivers/cyclists and non-aggressive

Swannie2• 13 years ago

Agreed... I can be an aggressive cyclist, and I say that with pride.

I'm usually slightly more assertive than the norm. However, on the road in the UK, on a bicycle, you have to be very assertive. If a driver has seriously risked my life, or that of another cyclist (and in London, it happens all the time) - you better believe I'm cycling up to the driver side and shouting at them. The first time my girlfriend saw me doing it, she was extremely shocked... but damn it, that driver (in a big 4x4) almost knocked her off her bike in the middle of an extremely busy junction.

Is that productive? I don't think so. But I'm not going to change my behaviour. If someone walked up to me in the street and threw a punch at my face, and missed by a few centimeters, I'd hope to have them on the floor in a second, restrained, and to be perusing assault charges.

tehwalrus5• 13 years ago

I practice advanced driving[1] when cycling, which means taking my lane and making cars move over for me. It helps that I accelerate faster than most cars out of traffic lights and then tuck in to the left past the junction.

(It works almost all the time, just don't ever try it with a London Taxi, they'll kill you.)

[1] http://www.iam.org.uk/

alsothings2• 13 years ago

It's perhaps worth mentioning that there's a pro-cyclist campaign around this issue that's been going for a few years (full disclosure, I have one of their jerseys) http://ipayroadtax.com/

malbs2• 13 years ago

In Australia, car registration fees predominantly go towards paying compulsory insurance which funds common law/no fault motor accident victims.

The roads/infrastructure costs are paid for by fuel taxes.

So really, if people get upset about cyclists' right-to-road access, then they should also be upset about electric car drivers, and to a lesser extend, hybrid drivers!

I'm actually curious what will happen when Tesla start selling vehicles in Australia. These are very heavy vehicles - they will absolutely impact the roads, yet will be essentially using them "for free" - no fuel tax being paid.

lucaspiller• 13 years ago

common law/no fault motor accident victims

Could you elaborate a bit on that? I haven't heard of such thing in the UK?

malbs2• 13 years ago

In Victoria the TAC handles it - "The TAC will pay the reasonable costs of medical treatment, rehabilitation services, disability services, income assistance, travel and household support services that you may need as a result of your injuries from a transport accident."

They also pay out on accident claims - my brother was involved in a multi-vehicle accident as a passenger in Victoria, sustaining serious head injury which will impact him for life.

In Tasmania the MAIB handles it - "The Motor Accidents Insurance Board (MAIB) is a Tasmanian Government Business Enterprise which operates a combined common law/no fault motor accident scheme for Tasmanians.

The scheme provides medical and income benefits on a no fault basis to persons injured in motor vehicle accidents whilst enabling access to common law."

For example, my car registration is around $600 aud per year, however only about $150 is actual registration/administration costs. The rest is a tax that is paid straight to the MAIB.

Is there any such thing as 'road tax'? (UK: Cars vs Cyclists)

Related Stories