Should a 'road tax' be introduced for cyclists?

[JohnMcL7]

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.

You're right that most e-bikes are the legal ones but that's not what I was referring to, it was to highlight that there is an exclusion for e-bikes available but there isn't for e-scooters currently so technically there are e-bikes and I suspect in time there will be an exclusion for e-scooters as well. It's not that e-scooters are being unnecessarily punished and e-bikes aren't it's just the law is lagging.

As for cycle enthusiasts hating e-bikes more than anything else I don't find that to be true in general at all, more just a vocal minority and it's not just e-bikes they hate but many other bike related items as well, it's just an irritating snobbery I've been at the end of for many different bike parts/designs mostly because they're new technology and they don't like change. I cycle with a number of different groups and pre-covid was helping beginners and general cyclists get into cycling and for the most part people on e-bikes were openly welcomed and personally I think they're a fantastic technology, I'd much rather have more people out on e-bikes than in their cars and e-bikes make cycling far more accessible.

I don't the like the illegal e-bikes nor e-bike riders who post strava times as if on a standard bike but both are pretty rare in my experience.

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.

Yes, that is very different from my experiences and the current date from the trials which have shown e-scooters to be significantly more dangerous than bicycles.. Although technically they're illegal whatever they do here since there's no trials, every single one I've seen has been on the pavement and at speed as well. I do get irritated with cyclists on pavements as well but I tend to find it's mostly slow riders not confident enough for the road and haven't had any faster e-bike riders or similar belt past me on the pavement.

I had wondered if the e-scooters riders were on the pavement because whatever they do it's illegal anyway however the data from the trials shows those ones are frequently ridden on the pavement as well and having seen how badly an e-scooter is on the road due to the small wheels, poor brakes and narrow bars they simply don't seem well suited to use on roads.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Every person on a bicycle is an extra person not in a car.....

But it is an extra item on the roads. If you have one, two, three, four people in a car, they are all contained in a single mode of transport.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Jan 2022 ==

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.?

Stop giving Rishi Sunak new ideas for raising tax revenue,,,,

 

[The Ham]

But it is an extra item on the roads. If you have one, two, three, four people in a car, they are all contained in a single mode of transport.

Indeed, however with average car occupancy rates of up to 1.4 for the vast majority of cars the occupants switching to a cycle would reduce traffic.

In traffic modelling terms a cycle using the carriageway is 1/2 of a car, however it's only really going to impact the capacity of the road at junctions (as is the case with all traffic). Whilst it may cause delays to traffic at other locations, typically such delays are small even if the car has to follow a cycle for 2 minutes (which when traveling at 30 would be a mile, so a very long time to do so) the delay is often less than 1 minute (unless on a faster road, however cycles are typically much rarer on such roads) and delivering on how fast the cycle is going could be less than 20 second. However such a long time without the cyclists being overtaken would be fairly rare without encountering something else which slowed the car down so reducing the delay to sub 9 second or the cyclists going a different way or letting the other traffic past if there was no other potential for the cars to pass.

However where cycling makes a big difference is when they are parked. Cars can often take out an entire lane of traffic (is not that uncommon for residential roads to be narrowed so that only a single vehicle can pass). As such this has a much larger impact of traffic delays for many than general junction capacity, if there were fewer parked cars it would mean it was much easier to get about and park at either end

Withina typical length of a parked car (5m) it is fairly easy to park 8 cycles, there are few cars which can even carry that many and far fewer which do so routinely (i.e. more than 25% of the miles they travel), however that's still only part of the picture, as there's the space required for cars to manoeuvre to park, if you were to look at a station which had space to park 100 cycles and then looked at the space in the car park required to park 100 cars and it would likely be much smaller (typically 1,250m2 for the car park vs less than 190m2 for the cycle parking, even allowing for a dedicated area of cycle parking on one side of a dedicated path to access it, in reality often the paths to access it are also shared with pedestrians and so the dedicated space required is often much much smaller).

It's similar with buses, in modelling terms they count as two cars, however often carry more than 8 people (typically 5 cars worth of people).

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Indeed, however with average car occupancy rates of up to 1.4 for the vast majority of cars the occupants switching to a cycle would reduce traffic.

And be a boon to those who see cycles as an easy theft crime and there will be more people to sell them on to by different methods.

 

[dgl]

As I understand the big difference between legal e-bikes and e-scooters are that e-bikes need you to pedal to make them work (the e bit just helps) whereas an e-scooter needs no physical effor to use.

 

[Meerkat]

e-bikes seem to be used by those who want to cycle a bit further, or keep cycling as they get older (ignoring the lazy mountain bikers who use them to get up hills)
From observation eScooters are used by those who would otherwise walk, cycle, or get the bus - I'm not buying that they are green at all, very much the opposite.

 

[Failed Unit]

However where cycling makes a big difference is when they are parked. Cars can often take out an entire lane of traffic (is not that uncommon for residential roads to be narrowed so that only a single vehicle can pass). As such this has a much larger impact of traffic delays for many than general junction capacity, if there were fewer parked cars it would mean it was much easier to get about and park at either end

Withina typical length of a parked car (5m) it is fairly easy to park 8 cycles,

I do find this actually an interesting cause of conflict.

i sometimes get car drivers taking the trouble to wind down the window and tell me to cycle on the path as I am taking their road space. Pay tax etc.

I always catch them up at the next red light, or even better overtake them at a row of parked cars as I can pass them without going into the middle of the road and traffic coming the other direction isn’t impacted by me doing so.

i prefer to ride in town down the side streets for that reason, the bike is quicker as the parked cars don’t bother it. I do find it odd the some motorist think the cyclist is the evil one, but most town / city roads are now single lane because of parked cars. Put a double yellow down to improve traffic flow you get “where can I park my car now?” With them not thinking that having 3 cars in a 3 person household they might be the cause of the problem. I am noticing more roads that used to be two lanes now down to 1 with cars parked on them. so taxing bikes isn’t going to get road space back. Increasing tax on 2nd / 3rd cars might. . Don’t get me started on couriers, some of which think they can park anywhere (including paths forcing footpath users onto the road to pass them)

But seriously it is more difficult to use the bike as part of integrated transport. I often used to cycle to station use the train and the cycle to final destination. However LNER have reduced cycle space and made booking bikes more difficult if a change of train is required. This is a trend that has gone on for years. (Although the guards van / dvt wasn’t a good use of space). Taxing bikes would certainly kill off the few people that use their bikes in this way and definitely not encourage others.

happy with the e-bikes. It gets people using bikes on routes where they cant tackle the gradients, e-scoters I am not sure about.

 

[NoOnesFool]

No , there shouldn't be a road tax for cyclists. Bicycles do not add to pollution. Bicycles don't damage the tarmac with sheer weight like cars do. Bicycles spend a lot of their time on off road trails and in cycle lanes ( which are often blocked by selfish car drivers).

 

[Bletchleyite]

e-bikes seem to be used by those who want to cycle a bit further, or keep cycling as they get older (ignoring the lazy mountain bikers who use them to get up hills)
From observation eScooters are used by those who would otherwise walk, cycle, or get the bus - I'm not buying that they are green at all, very much the opposite.

A couple of escooters is environmentally preferable to a bus, even an electric one, though. A full bus less so, but hire scooters are a reasonable answer to sparsely used evening bus services and access to low demand places.

 

[D365]

But it is an extra item on the roads. If you have one, two, three, four people in a car, they are all contained in a single mode of transport.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Jan 2022 ==


Stop giving Rishi Sunak new ideas for raising tax revenue,,,,

And be a boon to those who see cycles as an easy theft crime and there will be more people to sell them on to by different methods.

I really can’t tell if you’re arguing for or against cycling.

 

[Factotum]

No , there shouldn't be a road tax for cyclists. Bicycles do not add to pollution. Bicycles don't damage the tarmac with sheer weight like cars do. Bicycles spend a lot of their time on off road trails and in cycle lanes ( which are often blocked by selfish car drivers).

I disagree. E-bikes should be taxed at the same rate as E-cars. And pedal cycles at the same rate as pedal cars

 

[GB]

However where cycling makes a big difference is when they are parked. Cars can often take out an entire lane of traffic (is not that uncommon for residential roads to be narrowed so that only a single vehicle can pass). As such this has a much larger impact of traffic delays for many than general junction capacity, if there were fewer parked cars it would mean it was much easier to get about and park at either end

You won't get fewer parked cars though, just the opposite. People won't give up their cars entirely so when they are out cycling then their cars will be parked up causing issues as you describe. More cycling, more parked cars, more problems. Developers should take some of the criticism for building new developments with tiny access roads.

 

[ComUtoR]

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

A 'cycle tax' could be applied at point of sale. It could be linked to the cost of the bike (via a %) or added as a flat tax or say £10.

I'd then like to see the funds specifically ring fenced for "cycling schemes"

 

[AlterEgo]

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

If everyone had to pay only for the services they personally used, you’d soon find yourself out of pocket.

 

[johncrossley]

The mere fact that this thread exists shows there's a problem. In many other countries it would be a given that you need to encourage cycling as much as possible, so hardly anyone would be interested in debating it.

 

[telstarbox]

A 'cycle tax' could be applied at point of sale. It could be linked to the cost of the bike (via a %) or added as a flat tax or say £10.

I'd then like to see the funds specifically ring fenced for "cycling schemes"

I did wonder about that, but the admin for a small bike shop could be punitive - which might strengthen the position of big chains (or absorbing the tax themselves as a promotion). There is already full rate VAT on cycles.

How would you allocate the tax money regionally? Probably more bikes are sold in areas where the infrastructure is already good, so do those areas get even more funding at the expense of low-cycling areas?

Would a mountain bike be 'unfairly' taxed because most infrastructure schemes would be used by hybrid and road bikes?

 

[GB]

I don't think they should have a tax in the same way as vehicles but I do think riders should be required to wear helmets, high viz and lights at the least. That in its own way is a tax while promoting safety. It's mind boggling that they are considered one of the highest vulnerability categories (about to be moved 2nd from top in the priority hierarchy: for what its worth) but half of them don't seem to care about their own safety and there is precious little law to compel them to.

 

[johncrossley]

I don't think they should have a tax in the same way as vehicles but I do think riders should be required to wear helmets, high viz and lights at the least

Lights yes, not helmets or high viz. Those things only discourage cycling and make people think that it is a dangerous activity. People who are nervous about cycling (i.e. the people who we want to attract to cycling) won't do it if there is a perception of it being dangerous. If you want to protect cyclists then give them cycle paths.

 

[Meerkat]

Has anyone explained what problem this is supposed to be solving? Bikes cause inconsequential road wear, use little capacity and have almost zero social costs (in fact probably the opposite due to riders being healthier). What is the purpose of this tax, other than assuaging the envy of car drivers?

I don't think they should have a tax in the same way as vehicles but I do think riders should be required to wear helmets, high viz and lights at the least.

Absolutely, categorically not (except lights which are already a legal requirement in the dark). Helmet compulsion has a negative effect on health as the main result is a dramatic drop in cycle use (the Dutch manage without......)
The best way to make cycling safer is to get more cyclists on the road, so drivers are used to them. The best way to do that would be to stop going on about helmets as though riding to the shops is like storming the trenches.

 

[telstarbox]

Indeed. I've cycled regularly for the last five years and although I've worn a helmet, it's only come into use against low hanging tree branches
Most of the recent cyclist fatalities in London have been via crushing (often from HGVs) and a helmet wouldn't have prevented death.

 

[Meerkat]

Indeed. I've cycled regularly for the last five years and although I've worn a helmet, it's only come into use against low hanging tree branches
Most of the recent cyclist fatalities in London have been via crushing (often from HGVs) and a helmet wouldn't have prevented death.

I do wonder about the 'saved by my helmet tales' - the helmet is a big old protuberance so must get hit lots of times when the head would be tucked in and wouldn't.
Also the way many people wear their helmet looks more likely to strangle them than save their head - way back off the face, or on top of a bulky hat.

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

People talk and write about encouraging cycling. I think they often mean encouraging transfer from car to cycle. Less motoring, more cycling.

I wish they would use a few more words to make this clear.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I disagree. E-bikes should be taxed at the same rate as E-cars.

So £0.

And pedal cycles at the same rate as pedal cars

Don't be silly.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Jan 2022 ==

People talk and write about encouraging cycling. I think they often mean encouraging transfer from car to cycle. Less motoring, more cycling.

I wish they would use a few more words to make this clear.

No, cycling is to be encouraged generally due to being good low impact exercise. Even for its own sake.

 

[ComUtoR]

I did wonder about that, but the admin for a small bike shop could be punitive - which might strengthen the position of big chains (or absorbing the tax themselves as a promotion). There is already full rate VAT on cycles.

Any added rate should be called a 'Cycle Duty'

How would you allocate the tax money regionally? Probably more bikes are sold in areas where the infrastructure is already good, so do those areas get even more funding at the expense of low-cycling areas?

Allocating money is difficult but if there were funds that have been ringfenced specifically for cycling then it could be a fund where local councils could apply for funding local schemes. This could reduce the burden on local government and also support local councils who are actively supporting cycling.

Would a mountain bike be 'unfairly' taxed because most infrastructure schemes would be used by hybrid and road bikes?

Maybe but my 'scheme' would be to promote cycling as a whole, rather than the narrow minded and often poorly implemented road schemes. Places like this
https://www.cyclopark.com/ could be funded from any duty raised from a 'cycle tax' I often wonder why Cycling comes down to Car Vs Bike when there is so much more. Especially after our epic gold wins during the recent Olympics.

 

[edwin_m]

Any added rate should be called a 'Cycle Duty'

Allocating money is difficult but if there were funds that have been ringfenced specifically for cycling then it could be a fund where local councils could apply for funding local schemes. This could reduce the burden on local government and also support local councils who are actively supporting cycling.

Maybe but my 'scheme' would be to promote cycling as a whole, rather than the narrow minded and often poorly implemented road schemes. Places like this
https://www.cyclopark.com/ could be funded from any duty raised from a 'cycle tax' I often wonder why Cycling comes down to Car Vs Bike when there is so much more. Especially after our epic gold wins during the recent Olympics.

I'd suggest there should be an extra tax on cars, used to fund measures to protect pedestrians and cyclists from the risks they are exposed to by having to share space with those cars.

 

[ComUtoR]

I'd suggest there should be an extra tax on cars, used to fund measures to protect pedestrians and cyclists from the risks they are exposed to by having to share space with those cars.

Maybe you should start a thread with that suggestion. This thread is about a 'road tax' for cycles.

Personally If I bought a new bike and I was told that there was an extra £10 due to help fund a local cycling scheme (such as the one I posted) I wouldn't have any issue paying it. The whole cycle vs car debate is frankly quite tedious. However, I do feel that cycling is worthy of promoting as part of an active and healthy lifestyle and I would happily pay a 'tax' to support it if the funds were then properly allocated rather than vanishing into the ether.

 

[NoOnesFool]

I disagree. E-bikes should be taxed at the same rate as E-cars. And pedal cycles at the same rate as pedal cars

You're not gonna be off work for weeks if you are run over by an E-bike though.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You're not gonna be off work for weeks if you are run over by an E-bike though.

Though what he says is already true, both cost £0 pa.

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

You're not gonna be off work for weeks if you are run over by an E-bike though.

E-bikes are not as bad as cars, but they can surely cause serious injury or worse in a collision, they just should not mix with 'real' cycles.

I favor speed limits for cyclists too.

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

According to Cycling UK there are about 5 million bikes in regular use, so a 'cycle tax' at say £10pa is not going to raise that much revenue. As an example, the very commendable Chorlton to Manchester 'Busy Beeway' (currently under construction along Barlow Moor Road) is costing £13.4m for 5km so not that many schemes could be afforded each year. It would also be an administrative nightmare - will all the other little used bikes stashed in garages and sheds have to be declared SORN - and what about children's bikes? The Netherlands had a bicycle tax until 1940 (abandoned ironically by the occupiers) because it was more hassle than it was worth. Reading the BTL comments on cycling articles in the Daily Mail ( I know, someone has to) you do get the feeling that it is wanted as a 'punishment tax', rather like a close 'punishment overtake'. How dare a cyclist get in the way of my hulking great SUV going to Sainsbury's or picking the kids up. We need to encourage, not discourage, sustainable means of transport of which cycling is a part.