Should a 'road tax' be introduced for cyclists?

[Meerkat]

The sort of cyclists that this is aimed at......are they going to bother? Unless you have a plate so impracticably large that an ANPR camera can see it who is going to check its real? Motorcyclists have velcro/clip on fake plates for when they want to be loonies; it would be even easier on a push bike.
Good luck to plod trying to catch a cyclist in an urban area, and considering motorbike nutters are willing to abandon bikes when they crash if it came to it the cyclist would just dump the bike and run (the police would have to bother catching bike thieves before they could start disputing "wasn't me, my bike got nicked"!!)

 

[TheSel]

In the interests of equality and 'levelling up', presumably riders of cycles that are over 40 years old would qualify a for tax free concession?

 

[The Ham]

In the interests of equality and 'levelling up', presumably riders of cycles that are over 40 years old would qualify a for tax free concession?

Which bit of the bike has to be 40 years old, or could someone just end up with (say) a 40 year old peddle, or could you just have paperwork showing that you brought a 40 year old bike and then have replaced various bits (akin to Trigger's broom)?

 

[XAM2175]

Which bit of the bike has to be 40 years old, or could someone just end up with (say) a 40 year old peddle, or could you just have paperwork showing that you brought a 40 year old bike and then have replaced various bits (akin to Trigger's broom)?

You'd base it on the DVLA rules for rebuilt, kit-built, kit-converted, or radically altered vehicles, as appropriate

 

[Fenchurch SP]

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

In many cases they are there for traffic calming reasons as much as to benefit cyclists. Wasn't the road tax intended to compensate for the space a vehicle takes up on the road, which for a cycle is not much more than a pedestrian.

 

[edwin_m]

In many cases they are there for traffic calming reasons as much as to benefit cyclists. Wasn't the road tax intended to compensate for the space a vehicle takes up on the road, which for a cycle is not much more than a pedestrian.

If there were no cars the roads would be perfectly safe for cyclists. So the costs of measures that (sometimes!) restore that level of safety should actually be counted as part of the costs of providing for cars, rather than penalising cyclists for something that isn't their fault.

 

[splashoutradio]

I recall the topic of cyclists paying road tax being brought up a few years ago.

If memory serves, it was concluded that anyone who pays council tax, income tax or any other form of taxation is paying for the roads, regardless of how they use them. Road tax was abolished in 1937 and Vehicle Excise Duty is a charge on vehicle emissions that doesn't directly fund roads, but goes into the central government coffers.

 

[NoRoute]

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.

Most people don't cycle, a quick search puts the figure at 12% of adults cycling at least once per week, so evidently the vast majority of people are not happy to cycle regularly, I believe the lack of dedicated cycling infrastructure is a big part of that.

These experienced cyclists happy to use the roads that you mention are a small minority. The question is what it would take to get more of the 88% cycling regularly.

 

[johncrossley]

I can't remember where I saw this, but I'm sure I read somewhere that there was more cycling in Britain in the 50s than there is today in the Netherlands. People seem to be under the impression that cycling in Britain isn't viable because of hills and rain.

 

[The Ham]

I recall the topic of cyclists paying road tax being brought up a few years ago.

If memory serves, it was concluded that anyone who pays council tax, income tax or any other form of taxation is paying for the roads, regardless of how they use them. Road tax was abolished in 1937 and Vehicle Excise Duty is a charge on vehicle emissions that doesn't directly fund roads, but goes into the central government coffers.

Indeed, the other thing to bear in mind is that council grants for road maintenance from central government are determined by the number of HGV's as the big cost of road maintenance isn't the resurfacing every few years but rather the rebuilding of the road at the end of its design life.

The design life of a road is defined by the number of axels of larger vehicles (PSV & HGV) with little consideration given to the number of cars which use them. Typically a figure (in the millions) is calculated which defines the thickness of the road structure for a given timeframe (60 years isn't uncommon although it can be longer/shorter). This thickness doesn't include the foundation of the road (unbound stone, which is referred to as sub-base sometimes with a capping layer below that where the subsoil isn't firm enough).

It's where those calling for a tax on cycles misses the point, in that the tax from cars isn't really needed to repair the roads and cycles would cause practically no damage to the roads (cycle lanes are no different in construction to footways with typically limited structural make up, often less than 100mm, whilst even basic road construction is closer to 300mm, also making them much cheaper to build in the first place; even if they were the same width, which they rarely are).

 

[johncrossley]

It's where those calling for a tax on cycles misses the point, in that the tax from cars isn't really needed to repair the roads and cycles would cause practically no damage to the roads (cycle lanes are no different in construction to footways with typically limited structural make up, often less than 100mm, whilst even basic road construction is closer to 300mm, also making them much cheaper to build in the first place; even if they were the same width, which they rarely are).

Let's be honest. Most people who call for bikes to be taxed simply want to get rid of cycling.

There are a few cycle enthusiasts who want cycle registration. They like to think of cycling as something they want to keep as a minority hobby rather than something that regular people do as a normal activity. This is equally as unhelpful.

 

[The Ham]

I can't remember where I saw this, but I'm sure I read somewhere that there was more cycling in Britain in the 50s than there is today in the Netherlands. People seem to be under the impression that cycling in Britain isn't viable because of hills and rain.

I don't know the level of cycling in the Netherlands, however to get to half the amount of cycling per person seen in 1950 we'd need to increase the amount of cycling by about 2.4 times that currently seen.

Therefore it's perfectly reasonable to have a goal of reaching 50% more than what we currently have (still only about 30% what there was in 1950), however to get to that would require a lot more cycling from those who currently discount it.

Applying taxes to cycling isn't going to aid in that. Creating more routes which people can feel safe cycling along, which go where they wish to go, will be a significant part of that. As few, even regular cyclists, would consider cycling around a roundabout with a 60mph limit and with motorway on/off slips being arms of it, however there are cyclists which would. Yet for many who have limited experience of cycling many roads would feel as scary as that to those who are reasonably confident cyclists. Until there's suitable routes which a 5 year old could cycle with supervision we're unlikely to see significant levels of cycling.

Let's be honest. Most people who call for bikes to be taxed simply want to get rid of cycling.

There are a few cycle enthusiasts who want cycle registration. They like to think of cycling as something they want to keep as a minority hobby rather than something that regular people do as a normal activity. This is equally as unhelpful.

Indeed.

 

[biko]

I don't know the level of cycling in the Netherlands, however to get to half the amount of cycling per person seen in 1950 we'd need to increase the amount of cycling by about 2.4 times that currently seen.

About 27% of trips is by bicycle in the Netherlands and 9% of the total distance travelled. In the UK, it used to be 11% of the distance travelled in 1952 (source: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/tsgb01-modal-comparisons ).

 

[Ashley Hill]

Yes I believe cyclists should pay a tax and be registered and insured. There are cycle paths that are nowhere near roads that are free and someone has paid for them,usually local councils meaning we have all paid for them whether we use them or not. Cyclists should be identifiable and held accountable for incidents just as car drivers are. A cyclist can stop beside your car accidentally scratch it and disappear leaving you with a bill. Some cyclists also ignore red lights and one way streets and generally ignored by the police. A lot don't use lights at night or think pavements are cycle paths and dink dink you (or swear) as if you're in the wrong. Of course being seen as green no government in their right mind would bring any such legislation.
When we used to charge for bikes on trains many flatly refused to pay. Also they think they can force their bike onto a rammed train causing delays or think the maximum number of bikes sign doesn't apply to them or block gangways because the bike is expensive and won't leave it in the bike space.
I recognise not all cyclists are like this but I speak from experience and yes I do own a bike as well as a car.

 

[yorkie]

Yes I believe cyclists should pay a tax and be registered and insured...

How much should it be, what age would you apply it from, how would it be administered and how would it be enforced?

Do you think it would affect the number of people cycling?

There are cycle paths that are nowhere near roads that are free and someone has paid for them,usually local councils meaning we have all paid for them whether we use them or not.

Isn't that the case for roads, footpaths and much more?

Cyclists should be identifiable and held accountable for incidents just as car drivers are. A cyclist can stop beside your car accidentally scratch it and disappear leaving you with a bill.

Anyone could scratch an object; I don't see how your proposals would prevent this?

Some cyclists also ignore red lights and one way streets and generally ignored by the police.

This is very much true of some car drivers too.

A lot don't use lights at night or think pavements are cycle paths and dink dink you (or swear) as if you're in the wrong. Of course being seen as green no government in their right mind would bring any such legislation.

Car drivers are responsible for many more deaths and injuries on the roads than cyclists are.

When we used to charge for bikes on trains many flatly refused to pay.

How would your proposals make any difference to this? It's quite right that the charges were rescinded by the way, so I don't see the relevance given you are talking about well over 20 years ago.

Also they think they can force their bike onto a rammed train causing delays or think the maximum number of bikes sign doesn't apply to them or block gangways because the bike is expensive and won't leave it in the bike space.
I recognise not all cyclists are like this but I speak from experience and yes I do own a bike as well as a car.

And many car drivers behave badly too. I recognise not all car drivers are like this but I speak from experience.

 

[Ashley Hill]

It's all a moot point as it will never happen. It will be unworkable in the same way as the dog license became. Imagine proposing that today!

 

[The Ham]

There are cycle paths that are nowhere near roads that are free and someone has paid for them,usually local councils meaning we have all paid for them whether we use them or not.

Such a route would also be used by pedestrians as well, meaning that many more would use it than just the cyclists.

However given that it's likely to not need any major maintenance for several decades and be split between several 10's of thousands of people the cost per person would be tiny.

That's before you consider the wellbeing benefits from cycling and the savings that provides.

 

[Falcon1200]

There are cycle paths that are nowhere near roads that are free and someone has paid for them, usually local councils meaning we have all paid for them whether we use them or not.

Every single cycle path I have ever used has also been infested/used by pedestrians and dogs; Surely they should have to be licensed and 'pay their fair share' as well ? And as I pay Income Tax, Council Tax, and VED, I feel I have paid at least my fair share, if not more.

 

[TheSel]

... And as I pay Income Tax, Council Tax, and VED, I feel I have paid at least my fair share, if not more.

Well done, you. I'm sure we're all very grateful.

 

[Falcon1200]

Well done, you. I'm sure we're all very grateful.

What exactly was the point of this post ?

 

[yorkie]

Well done, you. I'm sure we're all very grateful.

And your point is...?

 

[TheSel]

And your point is...?

To express our collective thanks to the poster for his selfless contribution to cyclepaths, without which the world would be a different, and some would say, an inferior place.

 

[Falcon1200]

To express our collective thanks to the poster for his selfless contribution to cyclepaths, without which the world would be a different, and some would say, an inferior place.

I still don't see the point of your post but if you think it was a worthwhile use of your time, well done to you.

 

[typefish]

Sure.

E-scooters require insurance (and indirectly a duty) so why shouldn't their more dangerous counterpart, the bicycle?

(read: e-scooters and bicycles etc should be insurance and duty free)

 

[AndrewE]

Sure.

E-scooters require insurance (and indirectly a duty) so why shouldn't their more dangerous counterpart, the bicycle?

(read: e-scooters and bicycles etc should be insurance and duty free)

Did you really mean that? An e-scooter (if it can play a useful role in transport) will be heavier and probably faster than a bike, so much more momentum and damage/injuries caused if it hits something.

 

[JohnMcL7]

Sure.

E-scooters require insurance (and indirectly a duty) so why shouldn't their more dangerous counterpart, the bicycle?

(read: e-scooters and bicycles etc should be insurance and duty free)

You have it completely the wrong way round, the data from the e-scooter trials so far shows them to be far more dangerous than bicycles. ITV did a program on e-scooters and compared them against a basic bicycle (narrow tyres, rim brakes and rigid frame) going over a pothole, moving one handed while signalling and heavy braking which the e-scooter was remarkably bad at, its small wheels meant the scooter suffered a much larger impact than the bike, it was unstable one handed due to the narrow bars and it took far longer to brake. That was against a basic bike and there's many bikes that would be far better than the bike they tested with. So the e-scooter is by far the more dangerous counterpart to the bicycle.

Vehicle Excise Duty is charged on emissions not 'danger', bikes and e-bikes produce none so they're due no VED so running such a scheme would cost the government money in administration costs.

E-bikes do require insurance, registration etc. unless they meet a strict set of rules under which they can be defined as a bike restricting their power output, their speed and also their acceleration as they're not allowed to use throttles (original ones were but not any more) and must be pedal assisted which I find in practice limits their acceleration. The law is lagging behind the technology and it seems likely in time e-scooters may be given a similar exemption.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's all a moot point as it will never happen. It will be unworkable in the same way as the dog license became. Imagine proposing that today!

A dog licence would not be a bad idea as it would provide for mandatory training and it being removed if the dog is not properly controlled. But dogs (while I like them) are not an environmentally friendly mode of transport and so are not specifically to be encouraged as per cycling - they are effectively neutral to most who don't have one.

 

[johncrossley]

E-bikes do require insurance, registration etc. unless they meet a strict set of rules under which they can be defined as a bike restricting their power output, their speed and also their acceleration as they're not allowed to use throttles (original ones were but not any more) and must be pedal assisted which I find in practice limits their acceleration. The law is lagging behind the technology and it seems likely in time e-scooters may be given a similar exemption.

Halfords and other mainstream retailers sell both electric bikes and electric scooters. I'd be surprised if any of the electric bikes sold in those shops don't meet those rules. To other road users, legal electric bikes pose little difference in danger to other road users compared to a regular bike, so their sale is not controversial. It is harder to ride an electric bike at high speed because once you go over 25 km/h the motor cuts out, so you are riding a heavy bike unassisted. If anything, cycle enthusiasts hate electric bikes more than anyone else. Therefore I'm surprised Halfords actually sell electric scooters.

 

[typefish]

Did you really mean that? An e-scooter (if it can play a useful role in transport) will be heavier and probably faster than a bike, so much more momentum and damage/injuries caused if it hits something.

Yes, otherwise I wouldn't have posted it.

I guess my experience differs from those on this forum as those in my local area who have been riding e-scooters (either unlawfully or via the trial schemes) have been doing so in a manner that I'd consider to be safer than a large number of cyclists.

 

[Factotum]

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

The same people who pay for the pavements which are only used by pedestrians (and Range Rovers).
Or do you think that pedestrians should pay a pavement tax, have compulsory third party insurance and wear an identification plate.?