Someone asked on this topic why bikes do not pay vehicle tax while motor bikes, motor cars and other motor vehicles do. The answer is that bikes don't have motors and the tax is for those vehicles that do.
The need to segregate motor vehicles from bikes and pedestrians is somewhat obvious, motor vehicles kill and injure pedestrians and cyclists on a daily basis as their motors give them greater weight, acceleration and speed.
The great numbers of motor vehicles drives pedestrians and cyclists off the roads or to face death or injury, but motorists then park their vehicles on pavements and cycle routes endangering pedestrians and cyclist as they mount and drive onto pavements and cycle routes and further blocking those pavements and cycle routes forcing pedestrians and cyclists back onto the road.
Pedestrians and cyclists were using the roads before motor vehicles were invented, since motorists drove pedestrians and cyclists off the roads it would be unfair to make pedestrians and cyclists pay extra taxes to provide pavements and cycle routes.
It is actually a Road Fund Licence. It funds the repair of the roads. Therefore, cyclists using roads should pay a road fund licence. Pedestrians use the footpath and pay council tax which helps repair the footpaths
I agree that cyclists should not have to pay road fund licence.
They are however still subject to road traffic regulations and should therefore display identification plates.
Quote: Originally posted by Bob61 on 03/9/2017
Well, if you were out in my area yesterday you would have been driving accordingly at 4 mph for miles behind a gaggle of them
When I came back from town about an hour ago there were four cyclists ambling down the road at about 8 or 10 mph. Three were cycling correctly in single file at the side of the road and the fourth was in the middle of the road with a huge tailback of cars behind.
People like this give all cyclists a bad name.
This is an issue we have on the A82 in that they will insist on travelling two abreast (or in groups) and, being sensible, they're staying away from the sometimes awful carriageway edge; this means they're aking up the same space of road width as a car. There's a lot of the A82 - a trunk road - that's not exactly wide, so everyone gets held up. If they rode in single file with a reasonable gap between groups, all traffic would flow better and fewer vehicle drivers would get frustrated and do something daft.
------------- " When I die I don`t want my life to flash before me in an instant, I want it to be a 3 hour epic !"
Quote: Originally posted by Bob61 on 03/9/2017
It is actually a Road Fund Licence. It funds the repair of the roads. Therefore, cyclists using roads should pay a road fund licence. Pedestrians use the footpath and pay council tax which helps repair the footpaths
It isn't a road fund licence it is vehicle excise duty and is based on vehicle emissions.
It is paid into the general tax coffers and is used to fund many things, a small part of it goes to roads.
Why don't all electric cars pay VED?
Less than 25% is spent on roads,and most of that is spent om major projects like tunnels and by-passes etc,very little is spent on resurfacing etc.
saxo1
Quote: Originally posted by Bob61 on 03/9/2017
It is actually a Road Fund Licence. It funds the repair of the roads. Therefore, cyclists using roads should pay a road fund licence. Pedestrians use the footpath and pay council tax which helps repair the footpaths
Again as VED payments are based on emmissions and I don't pay any on my car which is diesel and under the emmissions levels, how would a bicycle pay any at all?
As far as I am aware cyclists aren't exempt from paying council tax. Due to the demographics of our area we have a higher percentage of elderly people but I wouldn't criticize them for cluttering the roads and slowing down traffic. Its a fact of life so live with it.
How the government chooses to name the tax and spend it is it's own problem. But at the end of the day, it's a tax on the car to use on the road. You can legally drive a car on a private track or field producing exactly the same emissions but not pay the tax so no matter how you look at it, it's a tax to be able to use the car on the road.
It's also a very badly orchestrated tax that is said to be on emissions but doesn't really relate to emissions at all. There is nothing stopping you buying a car that does not need to have tax paid and then modify the engine. It will still be tax free but could be pumping out more emissions than many big cars on the road. Also, it does not take in to account any form of mileage. A tax free car doing 20,000 miles per annum is putting out more emissions that a car that does have to pay tax but only does 1000 miles a year.
If it was a true emissions tax, then it would be either put on fuel or based on MOT test results/mileage.
If we were being pedantic, then you could say that cyclists produce emissions even if not directly. A queue of cars stuck behind a bike for a period of time are pumping out more emissions than if they were not being held up by the cyclist.
Quote: Originally posted by langleys on 04/9/2017
"There is nothing stopping you buying a car that does not need to have tax paid and then modify the engine"
How can you do that on an electric or Hydrogen powered vehicle they are the only new VED exempt types?
Easy - You buy an electric car, pay no tax. Then add an engine to extend the range and performance. :)
A totally impractical proposition,to describe it as easy is bordering on the ridiculous.
saxo1
Quote: Originally posted by langleys on 04/9/2017
"There is nothing stopping you buying a car that does not need to have tax paid and then modify the engine"
How can you do that on an electric or Hydrogen powered vehicle they are the only new VED exempt types?
Easy - You buy an electric car, pay no tax. Then add an engine to extend the range and performance. :)
A totally impractical proposition,to describe it as easy is bordering on the ridiculous.
saxo1