Should a 'road tax' be introduced for cyclists?

[py_megapixel]

Moderator note: split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/former-victorian-rail-line-that-is-set-to-be-europe’s-longest-underground-cycle-lane.226568/

Depressingly, because it's the Daily Mail, there's already a "cyclists should pay road tax" comment on the article.

 

[75A]

Depressingly, because it's the Daily Mail, there's already a "cyclists should pay road tax" comment on the article.

Why shouldn't they?
No I don't read the Daily Mail, I'm a Times man.

 

[Adlington]

Hear, hear....

 

[yorkie]

Why shouldn't they?

There's no such thing; cycles are zero emissions.

 

[75A]

There's no such thing; cycles are zero emissions.

So who pays for the cycle lanes etc that only they can use?

 

[py_megapixel]

Why shouldn't they?

This has come up in more relevant threads before, and the short answer is because their road tax - adjusted proportionally to pretty much any metric you choose, be it emissions, noise pollution, wear/tear on the road, marginal safety impact upon other road users, new value etc - would be negligible, and thus there would be virtually no financial benefit of collecting it. Cycling is also generally something the government wants to encourage for a wealth of reasons.

The only purpose in collecting it would be if you actively wanted more cars on the road (or overcrowding on public transport).

So who pays for the cycle lanes etc that only they can use?

Every person on a bicycle is an extra person not in a car. This reduces the amount of traffic experienced by car drivers and improves the street environment for local residents and pedestrians through making it quieter and less polluted. It also improves safety by reducing conflict between modes. So everyone pays as the benefit is to everyone - especially if the cycle routes are high enough quality that they actually encourage more people to cycle.

 

[yorkie]

So who pays for the cycle lanes etc that only they can use?

What point are you trying to make?

Also are you complaining that some cars don't pay vehicle emission duty?

Are you calling for all vehicles to pay a form of tax that pays for upkeep of roads or are you just singling out cycles for some reason?

Who pays for paths only pedestrians can use? Who pays for roads only cars can use? (These are rhetorical questions)

 

[Gloster]

At what age do start to demand cycle tax? “Happy Christmas, Johnny! Here’s your shiny new bike, and a form to fill out and send off with a cheque that takes all your Christmas money. And in few weeks or months you’ll be able to ride the bike.” This is not a case of making people pay their fair share, but another example of the, ‘Why should I have to pay for something I don’t use’ mentality.

 

[hexagon789]

No, motorists should pay more road tax instead.

*close thread*

 

[Bletchleyite]

So who pays for the cycle lanes etc that only they can use?

Vehicle excise duty is a general taxation based on the vehicle class. It does not specifically pay for roads.

 

[dakta]

I don't believe in the zero emissions concept, though obviously the gap between cyclist and motorist will be quite sizable different and the cyclist will be predominantly CO2 as opposed to particulates.

(http://cozybeehive.blogspot.com/2010/03/how-much-co2-do-you-exhale-while.html an interesting attempt at some impossible math which suggests a ten fold difference vs a prius, and despite it being a prius I actually thought it'd be wider than that). This should be taken with a hefty dose of salt but is interesting.

Whilst it might not be a fashionable concept right now, like with electric cars they will get taxed eventually as the options swindle on the 'what else can we tax or increase the tax on' game, there are things the world will not sacrifice for zero emissions.

 

[yorkie]

The idea that cyclists should pay VED is utterly absurd.

It makes absolutely no sense to increase the costs associated with cycling because we really need to reduce car usage (not just shift people onto electric cars but that's discussed in other threads, so no need to discus that here) and anything that puts people off cycling would make that harder to achieve and therefore be a very bad idea.

Indeed I'd go further and say we need to do more to reduce the costs of cycling.

 

[Falcon1200]

The idea that cyclists should pay VED is utterly absurd.

Agree 100%.

And, apart from anything else, given the level of car ownership in the UK, there is a fair chance that adult cyclists, or the parents of child cyclists, already pay 'road tax' anyway, as well perhaps as income and Council taxes - I certainly do, and I do not begrudge one penny of that money being spent on improvements for cyclists, which BTW where I live consists of signs saying 'cycle-friendly village' and not much else.

 

[dgl]

Cyclists should have to have insurance and indentifiying plates just like cars do as it will make the more "kamikaze" cyclists behave better.

 

[Ken H]

Cyclists should have to have insurance and indentifiying plates just like cars do as it will make the more "kamikaze" cyclists behave better.

Deffo 3rd party insurance.

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

No tax for conventional cycles, but certainly for €bikes!

 

[NoRoute]

One argument in favour of a cycle tax would be if it was matched with generous investment to create dedicated cycling infrastructure, new cycleways and some existing roads and pavements converted to cycleways to provide segregated routes for cyclists to get around.

I rarely cycle mostly because there's no cycle ways in my area and the roads are not pleasant for cycling along, but if there were some proper cycle routes, that would be worth paying a few pounds each year in cycle tax.

 

[Mally66]

Cyclists should have to have insurance and indentifiying plates just like cars do as it will make the more "kamikaze" cyclists behave better.

I deffo agree that they should have insurance

 

[Bletchleyite]

Deffo 3rd party insurance.

A large number of cyclists already do but don't realise it. It is covered by the general third party clause on a lot of (but not all) home insurance policies.

It is however notable that Switzerland abolished this requirement as a bureaucratic waste of time and money because claims were so low. So no, this is not a good idea.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Dec 2021 ==

No tax for conventional cycles, but certainly for €bikes!

Certainly not, as it is not charged for electric cars.

 

[Grimsby town]

How would you enforce a compulsory cycle insurance or tax scheme. Attaching a visible number plate to a bike is going to be difficult and even if it could be accommodated, may interfere with having lights on a bike. Are the police really going to spend time enforcing a cycle insurance scheme? The resources needed to do that would probably outweigh any income never mind the resources needed for administration.

Personally I would pay a cycle charge that improved cycle infrastructure but I'd probably not bother if it took more than a few seconds to register for such a scheme. I imagine most people just wouldn't bother and there would be no consequences for them not doing.

 

[yorkie]

Cyclists should have to have insurance and indentifiying plates just like cars do...

Would that encourage or deter cycling? Do you not agree we should be shifting people away from cars?

as it will make the more "kamikaze" cyclists behave better.

Does it make car drivers drive better? I see a lot of dangerous behaviour by car drivers.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Dec 2021 ==

No tax for conventional cycles, but certainly for €bikes!

Are you calling for similar taxes to be paid by drivers of electric cars?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Dec 2021 ==

How would you enforce a compulsory cycle insurance or tax scheme. Attaching a visible number plate to a bike is going to be difficult and even if it could be accommodated, may interfere with having lights on a bike. Are the police really going to spend time enforcing a cycle insurance scheme? The resources needed to do that would probably outweigh any income never mind the resources needed for administration.

The people who come up with these ideas don't think about the practicalities or the potential consequences, so I doubt you will get a sensible practicable answer to this.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Dec 2021 ==

One argument in favour of a cycle tax would be if it was matched with generous investment to create dedicated cycling infrastructure, new cycleways and some existing roads and pavements converted to cycleways to provide segregated routes for cyclists to get around.

I rarely cycle mostly because there's no cycle ways in my area and the roads are not pleasant for cycling along, but if there were some proper cycle routes, that would be worth paying a few pounds each year in cycle tax.

How would you charge it? How would you enforce it?

Such infrastructure is generally not particularly well used by experienced cyclists anyway; it tends to be used more for things like kids going to school, and for inexperienced cyclists who are just starting out. Your proposals would deter many people from cycling which in turn would put more cars on the roads.

 

[Grimsby town]

Cyclists should have to have insurance and indentifiying plates just like cars do as it will make the more "kamikaze" cyclists behave better.

Yes insurance and plates stops all forms of bad car driving. I saw somebody pull off a slip road and immediately cross 3 lanes of motorway traffic without indicating today. I see cars drive through red lights on a daily basis in Manchester. Most of the dodgy cyclists I see work for delivery services meaning they are financially better off for riding like idiots. Going after deliveroo would be far more sensible than an insurance scheme.

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

@yorkie
Yes I think electric cars should be taxed, likewise electric cycles. So many people buy the latter because they can, not because they make sense or need them.
..
I am insured for cycling through another policy, the premium for cycling alone would not be worth collecting. Uninsured drivers are numerous, they cause a bit more trouble than uninsured cyclists.

 

[fishwomp]

Vehicle excise duty is a general taxation based on the vehicle class. It does not specifically pay for roads.

Exactly. No-one suggests that the government should be opening pubs and breweries with all the tax on alcohol!

Time to close this thread already, nothing to do with railways here...

 

[yorkie]

Time to close this thread already, nothing to do with railways here...

It's in the Other Transport section

 

[The Ham]

There are a number of questions which need to be answered before any increases in legislation for cycling which would need to answered.

How much would the charge be? At £20/cyclists that's about £150 million a year. However how much would that cost in administration costs? Probably a fair chunk of that, let's say half, so that's £75 million. As a comparison it would bring in the same money to add £2 to everyone's income tax.

However that assumes that every one of the 7.5 million people who cycle each year would need to pay the tax, which leads to the question (others have raised up thread) what age do you tax cyclists? Would a 5 year old need to pay tax, how about a 12 year old? If you are excluding them then you're reducing the tax income yet further.

Then there's the issue of of cyclists have to pay tax, they will be very demanding that they should be getting much more infrastructure, now Government had announced several billion for cycle infrastructure for the next few years, that's quite a few years worth of £75 million before the tax brings in more than its costing. For instance £3bn would be the first 40 years worth of tax (after expenses), even without allowing for expenses that's still 20 years worth of income.

The biggest and most definite reason to not have it is that there's recently been a petition on the matter of cyclists being requested to have visible ID's which reached 10,000 people signing it and the government gave a response saying that they weren't going to do it, or is likely that any similar petition on taxing cyclists would receive a similar answer from government:

Archived Petition: Introduce new requirements for cyclists/e-scooters: visible ID, licences, etc

The Government should require cyclists and e-scooter riders display visible ID, require that cycle lanes be used where available, and introduce a licensing and penalty point system for all cyclists and licensing system for escooter riders.

petition.parliament.uk

Introduce new requirements for cyclists/e-scooters: visible ID, licences, etc The Government should require cyclists and e-scooter riders display visible ID, require that cycle lanes be used where available, and introduce a licensing and penalty point system for all cyclists and licensing system for escooter riders. More details Roads are now shared with more cyclists and e-scooters than ever. Yet cyclists and e-scooter riders aren`t currently held accountable in same way as drivers. Cycle lanes can be safer yet are often not-used. A licence scheme and penalty points system should ensure responsible cycling and e-scooter use. I welcome growth in cycling but this must be tempered with legislation to make roads safer for all.

This petition is closed

All petitions run for 6 months

10,498 signatures

Government responded
This response was given on 21 December 2021
The Government has no plans to introduce any such requirements for cyclists. The current trials of rental e-scooters will inform future policy on them. The Government considers that the costs of a formal registration system for cycle ownership would outweigh the benefits. The safety case for such a system is not as strong as that for drivers since, by contrast with motorised vehicles, cycles involved in collisions on the highway are highly unlikely to cause serious injury to other road users. Cycling provides clear benefits, both for those cycling (particularly in terms of health) and for wider society (tackling congestion, reducing CO2 emissions and improved air quality). The introduction of a licensing system would significantly reduce these benefits, especially over the short term. Over the long term, it would deny children and young adults from enjoying the mobility and health benefits cycling brings until they were old enough to pass a formal test. The introduction of a system of licensing would also be likely to lead to a reduction in the number of people cycling. This would be at odds with the Prime Minister’s plans to boost walking and cycling. The Prime Minister’s Cycling and Walking Plan (Gear Change) can be viewed here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cycling-and-walking-plan-for-england. Furthermore, the National Travel Survey indicates that a very high proportion of people who cycle regularly also hold a driving licence. The absence of a licensing system does not prevent a cyclist from being liable for their actions. The police and ultimately the courts, can take into account all the circumstances of an incident and judge accordingly. Cycle lanes, where provided, offer people cycling an alternative to cycling in the main carriageway, but it is not compulsory to use them and the Government has no plans to change this. The majority of people cycling generally use cycle lanes, but there are times when it may be more appropriate for them to use the main carriageway, such as when they are overtaking slower people cycling or avoiding obstructions on the cycle lane, or where it offers a faster, more direct route. The Government has announced ambitious plans for walking and cycling, and has committed an unprecedented £2 billion of funding for active travel over 5 years which includes the roll-out of segregated cycle lanes in towns and cities and offering cycle training to everyone who wants to undertake it, whether free or at a nominal charge. This investment coupled with the recently announced changes to The Highway Code will deliver increased safety for the most vulnerable road users and ensure a more mutually respectful and considerate culture of safe and effective road use that benefits all users. The Government is currently running trials of rental e-scooters to assess their safety and the impacts they have on the road and to inform the development of future policy. 31 trial areas are currently operating across England. Trial e-scooters are limited to 15.5 mph and are exempted from vehicle registration and licensing requirements. E-scooters must not be used on pavements. Those taking part in the trials need a full or provisional driving licence, meaning that the minimum age of those using the scooters should be 16 years old. Cycle helmets are strongly recommended but are not mandatory. All trial e-scooters must meet minimum construction standards and have a minimum of third-party insurance provided by the e-scooter operator. Guidance on the rules for trials has been published at: www.gov.uk/guidance/e-scooter-trials-guidance-for-users. Outside of the rental trials, e-scooters are still subject to the Road Traffic Act 1988 and are defined as a type of motor vehicle. Users of e-scooters will need to have insurance, driving licences, number plates and helmets, and the vehicles will need to meet the relevant construction requirements. The law was not drafted with e-scooters in mind, so users of e-scooters will find it a challenge to comply. Guidance on this can be found at: www.gov.uk/government/publications/powered-transporters/information-sheet-guidance-on-powered-transporters. Department for Transport
Date closed 7 December 2021

The most people that signed the above in one constituency was 124, which just shows that there just isn't the support for it. Which would make it politically difficult to get through.

Why? As many understand that even though they may not cycle, their kids may do (and for those teenagers who have access to a bike and decent routes for then to cycle, it means that their parents may not have to drive them to everything that they do to, freeing up the parents to do other things), or that someone cycling is someone not driving (or more importantly not trying to park their car where they may wish to park) or that someone could use a bike to get to an interview (which allows then to geta job, which gets them off of benefits and starting to pay taxes, which is a massive net benefit to the government, far now than then paying £20 in tax on their bike) or many other reasons why they think that it would be unwise to get cyclists to pay a tax.

As for insurance, the likelihood of harm or damage to property from cyclists is tiny. To give an idea; typically there's 1 death caused by a cyclist every 250 days*, in comparison vehicles which have to be insured there's about 1 death every 5 hours.

As such the level of cost to insurance companies from claims by drivers on their insurance is likely to be tiny and far, far lower than the cost of the circa 1 million uninsured car drivers.

*Some years there's more than 1, but not many more and whilst it's rarely 0, we could quibble over is it every 150 days, 200 days or 300 days rather than 250, however the point being that the disparity is significant.

 

[Spaceflower]

Who pays the tax for the pavements for pedestrians to use? For god sake. There, that's my response to this punitive, nanny state suggestion

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Dec 2021 ==

Cyclists should have to have insurance and indentifiying plates just like cars do as it will make the more "kamikaze" cyclists behave better.

That's more as a result of the macho culture that has been allowed to dominate UK cycling policy. Take your medication and head to Europe to begin your lesson.

Now excuse me whilst I renew my aroma protection policy. You never know, I might fart at some point next year.

 

[johncrossley]

So many people buy the latter because they can, not because they make sense or need them.

Surely they encourage people to cycle longer distances or in hilly areas, so cutting car trips? If everyone with an electric bike previously used a normal bike for the same trips then I could see the argument, but I doubt very much that is the case.

 

[JohnMcL7]

Surely they encourage people to cycle longer distances or in hilly areas, so cutting car trips? If everyone with an electric bike previously used a normal bike for the same trips then I could see the argument, but I doubt very much that is the case.

Yes, you're correct - ebikes are a great way to get people out of cars or other transport and cycle instead and they're a fantastic way to get people into cycling since e-bike owners are likely to ride longer and more frequently than if they'd gone with a normal bike. Since the cyclist still has to do some of the work they increase fitness and unlike many sports the adjustable assist makes them much easier to get started with and then the power can be reduced as fitness improves. I don't really get the snobbery with e-bikes and I'm always glad to see more cyclists out regardless whether they're e-bikes or not, pre-Covid I was doing work leading social cycles and e-bikes work so well in getting people out and enjoying cycling.

The idea that cyclists should pay VED is utterly absurd.

It makes absolutely no sense to increase the costs associated with cycling because we really need to reduce car usage (not just shift people onto electric cars but that's discussed in other threads, so no need to discus that here) and anything that puts people off cycling would make that harder to achieve and therefore be a very bad idea.

Indeed I'd go further and say we need to do more to reduce the costs of cycling.

I couldn't agree more, it's just such a bizarre stance to try and put more barriers to people cycling at a time when we have so many problems with congestion, pollution and health that cycling can all help with and very affordable as well. Other countries have reaped the benefits of investing in their cycling infrastructure but while there was a glimmer of hope last year as new cycle lanes and routes were put into place during covid it's been depressing watching the last of them being destroyed. It's frustrating so few people cycle especially seeing how bad congestion is getting in my area although at the same time the provisions for cycling are so poor I can't blame people for not wanting to give it a try.

What bugs me about the whole 'road tax' nonsense is I do pay VED on a car and a very high amount because it's an older car that predates the cheating on carbon figures so it's far more than similar newer cars. However since I use the bike for almost all my travel there's no point replacing the car with something newer to sit there and do nothing most of the time so despite being a lot greener by using the bike most of the time especially in town.

 

[Cambus731]

Absolutely no way. It would be absurd to make it a lot more difficult and expensive for people to use such an environmentally friendly form of transport