So wearing a helmet is of no use if you fall off in a non-vehicular collision?
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Should a 'road tax' be introduced for cyclists?
- Thread starter py_megapixel
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
In fact cycle helmets are designed and tested to protect against a fall from your bike onto the sharp edge of a kerbstone - that is the specification.
There are plenty reasons you might fall off without any intervention from another road user, such as (at this time of year) black ice, or all year round spilt oil or mud, or a large pothole or dropped grid.
That said, another road user can still cause this sort of fall, e.g. I was once pushed off sideways by a bus which had overtaken me pulling in too early and pushing me against the kerb.
Yet again the ignoring rules is mainly an envy thing from motorists. Cyclists ignore rules because they are small and agile so can do so without crashing or causing problems for other users. Its not that motorists are angels who willingly obey all the rules, they are just envious because cyclists can get away with it. If it bothers them that much they should get out of their car and get on a bike and ride past the traffic too.
The thing that gets me is that (and I am tempting fate here) I fell off my bike quite a few times as a kid (including some spectacularsk) and dont ever remember hitting my head - I assumed I just kept it up of tucked in.
I'm convinced many of these 'look at my helmet, it saved me' stories (the dents and scratches, not the smashed ones!) are cases where the helmet is hitting because it is so much bigger and an unprotected head wouldn't have done.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
It's possible. I never used to wear one and have myself fallen off a number of times (and been involved in a very serious collision with a car where I was thrown up in the air) and on none of those occasions did I hit my head.
FWIW I do now wear one but it is because I am on permanent blood thinners (ironically as a result of DVTs/PEs likely to have been caused by the damage to my leg in the accident* above) and so a bang to the head could be very serious.
* Not to be used as an argument against cars, because it was completely my fault - but of course had I been on a segregated path it could not have occurred.
A car came onto a roundabout and I hit the side of it so hard that I flew over the bonnet and went sliding about ten yards down a side road! Without hitting my head.
The legal help via CTC membership was very useful - proper London lawyers that his insurance took seriously and I got a nice little payout (for a teenager).
Defo recommend the CTC for the legal backing and third party insurance.
A helmet also increases the size of your head and thus reduce the chance of an impact. In some cases it can reduce the effect of the impact though.
The one time I was unconscious as a kid was when I was running around the house and ran into the garage door. Scraped by shins a few times on my bike though.
No doubt some will say it should be mandatory to wear shinpads on a bike and helmets while running around, while ignoring the thousands killed or seriously injured every month by motorists (including those dying of head injuries as car occupants who recklessly do not wear helmets)
Like your post - i was making a general comment about how some can't accept plurality of viewpoint.
I can't comment as a cyclist as i don't cycle but last time i tried it i was scared silly and thought i'm not doing that again. I walk a lot, drive when expedient (under 5k per year) and use trains and planes a lot and buses where convenient i.e. rarely. All I can do is comment as what I do based on the simple fact I want everyone to be safe on roads and streets. I do know a lot of cyclists and they complain about other cyclists just as i complain about other drivers although bad drivers are often easy to spot as their cars have Audi written on them (light blue touch paper and stand back!)
There is some irony available when considering this thread in juxtaposition with the thread (and discussions elsewhere) on the TV Licence.
One is a thread where people who do not use said services object to paying a "tax" for them, the other is a thread where it is suggested people ought to pay a 'tax' for using something simply because they have to pay one for something similar. Charging cyclists VED would be like enforcing a TV licence on people without a TV...
One is a thread where people who do not use said services object to paying a "tax" for them, the other is a thread where it is suggested people ought to pay a 'tax' for using something simply because they have to pay one for something similar. Charging cyclists VED would be like enforcing a TV licence on people without a TV...
biko
Member
Will help of course if you fall on the head, but the chance is quite low as others have explained. The main reason why people wear them is because of fear of being run over. The other PPE for cyclists is definitely only needed because of motorised traffic.
I understand it can be quite scary for the first time, but after some practice it will become easier and more fun. Unfortunately, the UK isn't a very nice place to learn cycling as the facilities are generally not good enough and the hills also don't help for unexperienced cyclists.
Surreytraveller
On Moderation
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 3,905
Start charging cyclists for road tax after motor vehicle drivers start getting charged road tax
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I think this is a bit technical, and the thread title should really be "Should Vehicle Excise Duty at a non-zero rate be applicable to bicycles?"
It is indeed true that there is no tax actually called "road tax", but it is the most common colloquial term for the tax which is actually called "Vehicle Excise Duty", which is understandable as it is a tax chargeable for keeping or using a vehicle on, er, the road.
As VED is emissions based, maybe it should be levied on beans rather than bikes
py_megapixel
Established Member
Yes, but it creates the irritating misconception that VED income is ring-fenced for road maintenance, which it isn't.
I've known it colloquially called "car tax" as well, which is much more closely aligned with what it is. Though the question "Should car tax be introduced for cyclists?" is a bit of an obviously silly one - as there would be no reason at all for the answer to be yes, unless the cyclist in question already owns a car, in which case the answer is definitely yes.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
To be fair it's more "ICE powered motor vehicle tax" - it is applicable to motor vehicles that are not cars, e.g. motorcycles, vans, buses...
Your latter point is relevant to the thread, too - pretty much all of the kind of cyclist the OP wishes to hate (Lycra-clad road cyclists on expensive bikes, rather than utility cyclists on an old mountain bike they got for a tenner because that's the only way to get to work or kids playing in the street on their BMX) do pay Vehicle Excise Duty, because they typically also own at least one car, quite possibly two, and very often a premium, powerful one commanding a high rate, too.
py_megapixel
Established Member
The OP is me... I don't think my posts come across as hating any kind of cycling, at least I certainly hope not!
341o2
Established Member
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2011
- Messages
- 2,014
No thanks, the other day I and several others were directed to stop at a zebra crossing by the lollipop man, along comes a cyclist and rides across the crossing without stopping or apparently without concern for any children who might be crossing.
adamedwards
Member
- Joined
- 4 Apr 2016
- Messages
- 796
We can all easily quote a specific incident where one person in a car or on a bike did X. That doesn't make the case for taxation on cycles as the costs would massively outweigh the income as with Dog Licences.
My favourite example is of a car driver who simply did not stop at a Pelican crossing when I was pushing my youngest in her pram. The driver roared through at 50 even though the other lane was stopped. If I had pushed my daughter out into the road 2 secs earlier she would now be dead.
But I don't then call for all cars to be banned or taxed because of that one incident, just the assertive policing of dangerous drivers and that their punishments fit their crimes, in this case attempted manslughter.
My favourite example is of a car driver who simply did not stop at a Pelican crossing when I was pushing my youngest in her pram. The driver roared through at 50 even though the other lane was stopped. If I had pushed my daughter out into the road 2 secs earlier she would now be dead.
But I don't then call for all cars to be banned or taxed because of that one incident, just the assertive policing of dangerous drivers and that their punishments fit their crimes, in this case attempted manslughter.
brad465
Veteran Member
Insurance yes, and I've been an insured cyclist for almost 9 years, but identifying plates and paying road tax no. Cycling is a very beneficial mode of transport, not just for environmental reasons, but is cost effective and convenient. Bringing more regulation/admin into it will make it too discouraging.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I think rather than mandating cycle insurance it might be better if we went the way of Germany and generally as an individual carried personal liability insurance which would (like the clause in home insurance often does) cover many day to day activities including cycling.
If you hadn't been wearing the helmet, I doubt you'd have hit your head. The helmet debate is an interesting one. Statistically, pedestrians are slightly more likely to be killed on the roads than cyclists. I've no doubt that many die from serious head injuries which could be prevented by wearing a helmet but we don't expect pedestrians to wear a helmet when walking on or close to a road.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.
Road Tax was abolished around 80 years ago, I think the PM was Winston Churchill,
Roads are paid from general taxation.
If road tax was reintroduced as in direct revenue to construct and maintain roads, many motorists would be unhappy, the bill for road repairs and construction divided by the number of vehicles, may well be a lot more is a lot more than the levels of VED we pay.
VED is purportedly based on CO2 emissions, my Honda 125 SuperCub motorbike is £21 / annum, it returns upto 190 mpg, and I assume has a very small CO2 output, far less than a car, It is a puzzle that such a modest vehicle, top speed 60 mph and 3 times the mpg of a small car is VED taxed so highly compared to a small car.
Small cars in categories A,B,C, pay £0, £20, £30 per annum respectively
postscript,
The Co2 emission figure of the SuperCub is 34gm/km, the £21 VED is the same as a car in VED B 101 - 110 gm/km, "I'm being ripped off"
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Drivers and passengers of motor vehicles suffer head injuries of severity in vehicle accidents, for the case of making cyclists wear helmets, the same case can be applied to motorists and passengers.
Cycling is not a dangerous activity, the risk is very exaggerated by media and misconception. regular cycling improves the cardiovascular system therefore delaying the onset of heart and lung issues afflicting the elderly, in general terms the net effects upon health of cycling are positive, on balance the positives for health outweigh the negatives of accidents and injuries.
Last edited:
biko
Member
Exactly, the danger comes from the motorised vehicles. Without any car on the road, I doubt many people would even consider using a helmet unless insecure about their stability.
341o2
Established Member
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2011
- Messages
- 2,014
Yes, of course, it is always the motorist's fault.
I've recently, on three occasions been forced to stop to avoid a head on collision with a cyclist riding on the wrong side of the road,
Having said that, I don't believe cyclists should be taxed, because the tax is levied on motor vehicles. If there were to be as bicycle tax, then one would have to consider a horse tax, then a pedestrian tax
Haywain
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 3 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 24,781
No, it’s not always the motorist’s fault but it is always the case that the larger, heavier, more powerful vehicle does offer the greatest danger to those outside of it.
biko
Member
I never said that. I only said that the risk is so much lower if there are no cars that no one would ever think about wearing a helmet except when having trouble with keeping stable or cycling at a high speed.
The Highway agency spends about £4b a year on capital and maintennece, and councils are similar. Call it £10b.
There's about 30 million cars, so that would work out to be £330 per year, if you didn't charge anything for HGVs. Which would be crazy -- someone doing 2000 miles a week and almost always parking on the road would pay the same as someone doing 20 miles a week and parking on their own property.
UK total traffic is about 350 billion miles, that would work out to be a cost of 3p per mile instead.
Now if you wanted to charge by damage caused, damage is proportional to axel weigh tot the 4th power -- a 3 ton car causes 5 times the damage than a 2 ton car.
Any tax on a bike would make cars unaffordable (a £1/year tax on a bike would translate to £1000/year on a small car and £3k/year on a large car) even before factoring in the longer mileage, and lorries would be unable to move.
VED should be completely abolished and replaced with either a per-damage-mile, per-polution, and per-square-meter-seconds (perhaps with a time and location element) tax.
There's growing evidence that poor air quality is directly related to higher rates of lung cancer, including the latest research which identifies a new theory on how it causes it:
www.bbc.co.uk
Given this, it is improbable that any suggestion of taxing cycles would gain much traction, given how little pollution a cycle produces.
Now many would have hoped that EV's would have helped, and whilst they do reduce the number of PM 2.5 particles it still results in about 90% still being produced sure to tyre wear and then only from the lightest of EV's, the largest EV's actually generate more:
https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/4a4dc6ca-en/index.html?itemId=/content/publication/4a4dc6ca-en
It goes on to say, in relation to non exhaust emissions (so as they're EV's this isn't the total emissions, as there would be a similar fall from the exhaust emissions):
Now whilst cycling will produce some PM2.5 particles these will be in far lower numbers than would be the case as cycles are so much lighter and have much smaller areas in contact with the road.
As such the health reasons for VED will remain strong, even into the era of EV's, for motor vehicles. However no such related case is likely to be possible to be made for cycles. Until such a case can be made (unlikely given the significant health benefits cycling provides, to the point where they more than offset the risk of harm from being a cyclist) the suggestion to tax cyclists is likely to be as difficult one to make.
One important question, when is taxed payed by cyclists? Would we tax 7 year olds (most would have learnt to cycle by then)? 10 or 11 year olds (when many are likely to be offered bike ability at school and are likely to start to use the roads rather than footways)? 16 year olds (when they could earn money to pay the tax themselves)? 17 year olds (when we already tax them through VED)? 18 year olds (as they are adults)? 21 year olds (so most can cycle tax free whilst at Uni)?
Both the health reasons and the question of when do we start taxing would need to be dealt with before a cycle tax is likely to be considered, anyone wish to put forward a case as to why on health grounds cycling needs taxing and a suitable age at which such a cycle tax should be implemented?
Cancer rules rewritten by air-pollution discovery
Research shows that cancers might not always be caused by DNA mutations, as previously thought.
www.bbc.co.uk
Given this, it is improbable that any suggestion of taxing cycles would gain much traction, given how little pollution a cycle produces.
Now many would have hoped that EV's would have helped, and whilst they do reduce the number of PM 2.5 particles it still results in about 90% still being produced sure to tyre wear and then only from the lightest of EV's, the largest EV's actually generate more:
https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/4a4dc6ca-en/index.html?itemId=/content/publication/4a4dc6ca-en
It goes on to say, in relation to non exhaust emissions (so as they're EV's this isn't the total emissions, as there would be a similar fall from the exhaust emissions):
Now whilst cycling will produce some PM2.5 particles these will be in far lower numbers than would be the case as cycles are so much lighter and have much smaller areas in contact with the road.
As such the health reasons for VED will remain strong, even into the era of EV's, for motor vehicles. However no such related case is likely to be possible to be made for cycles. Until such a case can be made (unlikely given the significant health benefits cycling provides, to the point where they more than offset the risk of harm from being a cyclist) the suggestion to tax cyclists is likely to be as difficult one to make.
One important question, when is taxed payed by cyclists? Would we tax 7 year olds (most would have learnt to cycle by then)? 10 or 11 year olds (when many are likely to be offered bike ability at school and are likely to start to use the roads rather than footways)? 16 year olds (when they could earn money to pay the tax themselves)? 17 year olds (when we already tax them through VED)? 18 year olds (as they are adults)? 21 year olds (so most can cycle tax free whilst at Uni)?
Both the health reasons and the question of when do we start taxing would need to be dealt with before a cycle tax is likely to be considered, anyone wish to put forward a case as to why on health grounds cycling needs taxing and a suitable age at which such a cycle tax should be implemented?
Last edited:
Falcon1200
Established Member
(Take it 'put forward a car' should read 'put forward a case'?!!)
IMHO many of those demanding a cyclist tax, bike number plates etc, have been annoyed or delayed at some stage by (possibly) inconsiderate bike riders, have not been on a bike themselves since they were about 12, if at all, and it is simply a knee-jerk reaction.
Yes sorry corrected.
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
The only dangerous cycling I've seen in recent times is the cycling done by Deliveroo/UberEats delivery riders. And I'd say the standard of cycling has less to do with the mode of transport and more to do with the business model of UberEats and Deliveroo placing unrealistic demands on riders. Better they're on a bicycle than a moped though.
I think that's pretty much it, and by "inconsiderate" they mean "daring to be riding slowly on the road".
The roads are full of things going slower than a car: tractors, horses, horseboxes, HGVs, caravans. If drivers are always having to take "evasive action" to avoid "dangerous cyclists", perhaps the problem is really the driver.
I think that's pretty much it, and by "inconsiderate" they mean "daring to be riding slowly on the road".
The roads are full of things going slower than a car: tractors, horses, horseboxes, HGVs, caravans. If drivers are always having to take "evasive action" to avoid "dangerous cyclists", perhaps the problem is really the driver.
- Status