Motor Taxes

[ans]

I think I liked you better when you were a fat pie eating bastard instead of a preaching treehugging fitness freak.

[Slim]

I think I liked you better when you were a fat pie eating bastard instead of a preaching treehugging fitness freak.

 

Only cos I was healing your dying arse in raids.

[Cambon]

If anything, cyclists should be paid, which is why many governments invest into promoting cycling. They have a positive effect on the road, for every motorist that's cycling instead is less polution, less wear on the roads, he's getting healthier so less drain on the NHS and they calm traffic speeds which despite what motorists think is a good thing. Most of the expensive road infrastructure isn't required by cyclists, it's only there because of cars. You wouldn't need roundabouts, traffic lights and wide roads if there were only cyclists, you wouldn't need speed cameras or even speed limits and the enforcement of same, drunk driving and the associated social costs would also pretty much go away.

 

If there were only cyclists they would have to tax you to make up for all the lost revenue.

[Slim]

If there were only cyclists they would have to tax you to make up for all the lost revenue.

 

Depends. You're assuming there's a net gain on motorists, I disagree. I think once you add up the costs, from massive infrastructure capital and running costs, accidents, negative health cost through pollution and obesity, I think cars cost us far more than is raised through either vehicle or fuel duties.

 

Vehicle duty is also pretty insignificant in terms of revenue, the big revenue generator from cars is tax on fuel. If people stopped buying fuel, they wouldn't stop spending that money, they'd spend it on something else and what they spend it on would still be liable for duty.

[WTF]

I disagree that cyclists should pay any type of tax for use of the roads. Cycling is one of the few freedoms that is available for all to enjoy and it is an erosion of liberties when it is taxed. What next, a cycling licence, insurance, permits, tests, age restrictions......?????

 

I do agree that cyclist should take responsibility for their actions on the road and otherwise, just as pedestrians should!

They should also be prosecuted for careless or dangerous riding, they have to realise that they put others at risk as much as themselves.

 

Agree.

 

If anything, cyclists should be paid, which is why many governments invest into promoting cycling. They have a positive effect on the road, for every motorist that's cycling instead is less polution, less wear on the roads, he's getting healthier so less drain on the NHS and they calm traffic speeds which despite what motorists think is a good thing. Most of the expensive road infrastructure isn't required by cyclists, it's only there because of cars. You wouldn't need roundabouts, traffic lights and wide roads if there were only cyclists, you wouldn't need speed cameras or even speed limits and the enforcement of same, drunk driving and the associated social costs would also pretty much go away.

 

 

maybe eventually, but every cyclist at present is sniffing up exhaust fumes by the lungfull, so maybe 'fitter' in some respects, but other issues to come later??

[Animal]

I think I liked you better when you were a fat pie eating bastard instead of a preaching treehugging fitness freak.

 

Slim, yesterday.

 

(Halo not pictured.)

[triskelion]

I define a free loader as someone who freely uses/benefits from something paid for by other people. i.e. the roads.

 

(I know "road tax" is not a hypothecated tax but it is clearly against natural justice for cyclists not to contribute their share. In fact not only do they not pay their way they are a bloody nuisance to those who do)

But almost all cyclists will also own cars and pay tax like everyone else...

[The Voice of Reason]

I define a free loader as someone who freely uses/benefits from something paid for by other people. i.e. the roads.

 

(I know "road tax" is not a hypothecated tax but it is clearly against natural justice for cyclists not to contribute their share. In fact not only do they not pay their way they are a bloody nuisance to those who do)

But almost all cyclists will also own cars and pay tax like everyone else...

 

Yes they pay tax for their car not their pushbikes. That's like saying I pay my rates so I don't need to buy a television licence.

[The Voice of Reason]

I disagree that cyclists should pay any type of tax for use of the roads. Cycling is one of the few freedoms that is available for all to enjoy and it is an erosion of liberties when it is taxed. What next, a cycling licence, insurance, permits, tests, age restrictions......?????

 

 

Well why on earth not, would probably make the roads (and pavements) safer. there are zillions of freedoms that are available for all to enjoy. freedom to walk, freedom to shop, freedom to go to a football match, freedom to eat, freedom to swim etc etc etc. I enjoy my freedom to have the odd pint - is it an erosion of my liberty that I have to pay duty on my beer?

[Slim]

WTF: Even so, changing motorists to cyclists reduces the effects of that pollution.

 

Yes they pay tax for their car not their pushbikes. That's like saying I pay my rates so I don't need to buy a television licence.

 

Yes, which is just as daft as saying a vehicle license pays for the road.

 

Well why on earth not, would probably make the roads (and pavements) safer. there are zillions of freedoms that are available for all to enjoy. freedom to walk, freedom to shop, freedom to go to a football match, freedom to eat, freedom to swim etc etc etc. I enjoy my freedom to have the odd pint - is it an erosion of my liberty that I have to pay duty on my beer?

 

Walking, on pavements as part of the roads? Surely if your argument holds water, walkers would have to pay tax too? The fundamental flaw in your argument is that your vehicle license doesn't directly pay for the road, so your whole argument is nonsense.

[The Voice of Reason]

WTF: Even so, changing motorists to cyclists reduces the effects of that pollution.

 

Yes they pay tax for their car not their pushbikes. That's like saying I pay my rates so I don't need to buy a television licence.

 

Yes, which is just as daft as saying a vehicle license pays for the road.

 

Well why on earth not, would probably make the roads (and pavements) safer. there are zillions of freedoms that are available for all to enjoy. freedom to walk, freedom to shop, freedom to go to a football match, freedom to eat, freedom to swim etc etc etc. I enjoy my freedom to have the odd pint - is it an erosion of my liberty that I have to pay duty on my beer?

 

Walking, on pavements as part of the roads? Surely if your argument holds water, walkers would have to pay tax too? The fundamental flaw in your argument is that your vehicle license doesn't directly pay for the road, so your whole argument is nonsense.

 

 

I've already acknowledged that the vehicle license does not pay directly for the road.( please read earlier post). However it does contribute to the pot that does pay for the road. Without that contribution I am not allowed to use the road. Why should cyclists be any different Your argument is as valid as saying drivers of Ford cars should pay the road tax yet those driving Volkswagens should be exempt.

With respect it would not surprise me if you and your cycling chums make your posts piggy backing on someone else's wireless broadband connection as that is the sort of behaviour you are advocating and probably see nothing wrong with.

[Slim]

I've already acknowledged that the vehicle license does not pay directly for the road.( please read earlier post). However it does contribute to the pot that does pay for the road. Without that contribution I am not allowed to use the road. Why should cyclists be any different Your argument is as valid as saying drivers of Ford cars should pay the road tax yet those driving Volkswagens should be exempt.

With respect it would not surprise me if you and your cycling chums make your posts piggy backing on someone else's wireless broadband connection as that is the sort of behaviour you are advocating and probably see nothing wrong with.

 

Without that license, you're not allowed to use the vehicle in public. It's got nothing to do with the road, it's the fact it's public that makes for the license requirement. I'm not sure why you resent cyclists so much, but the financial argument is no justification, you're completely wrong.

 

I don't understand your new bizarre comparison either. Some cars are exempt, or heavily discounted, classic cars for example. Should they not be on the roads either? Are they free loaders too?

 

As to paying into pots, I pay vat and income tax, my rates pay for road services too such as street lighting. I contribute to the roads.

[The Voice of Reason]

I've already acknowledged that the vehicle license does not pay directly for the road.( please read earlier post). However it does contribute to the pot that does pay for the road. Without that contribution I am not allowed to use the road. Why should cyclists be any different Your argument is as valid as saying drivers of Ford cars should pay the road tax yet those driving Volkswagens should be exempt.

With respect it would not surprise me if you and your cycling chums make your posts piggy backing on someone else's wireless broadband connection as that is the sort of behaviour you are advocating and probably see nothing wrong with.

 

Without that license, you're not allowed to use the vehicle in public. It's got nothing to do with the road, it's the fact it's public that makes for the license requirement. I'm not sure why you resent cyclists so much, but the financial argument is no justification, you're completely wrong.

 

I don't understand your new bizarre comparison either. Some cars are exempt, or heavily discounted, classic cars for example. Should they not be on the roads either? Are they free loaders too?

 

As to paying into pots, I pay vat and income tax, my rates pay for road services too such as street lighting. I contribute to the roads.

 

 

Sorry, could you explain how I can use my vehicle "in public" without being on the road!

 

I don't resent cyclists themselves ("some of my best friends are cyclists"). What I do resent is their arrogance that their use of the road is somehow more "worthy" than other road users and that they should be accorded special privileges (like not paying road tax - we all pay income tax VAT etc but this does not excuse car owners from paying road tax. )

I believe the financial argument alone is justification however there are other reasons for most people not being keen on cyclists a major one being that of road safety. If one drives from Douglas to Peel (or vice versa) on a Sunday morning one is met with a phalanx of lurid lycra clad pedallers riding two or three abreast blocking the highway, chatting to each other, generally holding up the traffic and making overtaking hazardous. If they were to ride single breast with due consideration for other road users they would not attract such animosity.

In conclusion I believe that cyclists are there own worst enemy. If they acknowledged that they should make some form of contribution to the roads (albei€t indirectly) and did not endanger other road users they would be more welcome members of the road users community.

 

However I suspect we'll have to agreee to disagree.

[Slim]

Sorry, could you explain how I can use my vehicle "in public" without being on the road!

 

I'm just trying to get it into your head that your vehicle license is just that, a license for your vehicle. It isn't paying for the road. I don't get how you're continuing to argue that you're somehow more deserving of the road than cyclists, when you don't pay directly towards the roads.

 

I don't resent cyclists themselves ("some of my best friends are cyclists"). What I do resent is their arrogance that their use of the road is somehow more "worthy" than other road users and that they should be accorded special privileges (like not paying road tax - we all pay income tax VAT etc but this does not excuse car owners from paying road tax. )

 

And classic cars? Electric cars? Horses? Pedestrians? Do they deserve the same selfish scorn that you treat cyclists with?

 

I believe the financial argument alone is justification however there are other reasons for most people not being keen on cyclists a major one being that of road safety. If one drives from Douglas to Peel (or vice versa) on a Sunday morning one is met with a phalanx of lurid lycra clad pedallers riding two or three abreast blocking the highway, chatting to each other, generally holding up the traffic and making overtaking hazardous. If they were to ride single breast with due consideration for other road users they would not attract such animosity.

In conclusion I believe that cyclists are there own worst enemy. If they acknowledged that they should make some form of contribution to the roads (albei€t indirectly) and did not endanger other road users they would be more welcome members of the road users community.

 

So what you're basically saying is you hate cyclists because they think they're more worthy road users, because you think you are more worthy than other road users? Your basically selfish, right?

 

If a cyclist is only taking up one side of the road, he's occupying the same space as a car. The highway code says you have to give him that much space, so two abreast is no more hazardous than one, provided you're giving enough room. He's on a bike, he's not welcome on the pavement, he's not welcome on the road, he's vulnerable, he's risking his life, doesn't he deserve a bit of patience? Is you're life so important and your time so precious that you can't wait a few seconds to overtake a pair of cyclists safely on a sunday morning?

[The Voice of Reason]

So what you're basically saying is you hate cyclists because they think they're more worthy road users, because you think you are more worthy than other road users? Your basically selfish, right?

 

If a cyclist is only taking up one side of the road, he's occupying the same space as a car. The highway code says you have to give him that much space, so two abreast is no more hazardous than one, provided you're giving enough room. He's on a bike, he's not welcome on the pavement, he's not welcome on the road, he's vulnerable, he's risking his life, doesn't he deserve a bit of patience? Is you're life so important and your time so precious that you can't wait a few seconds to overtake a pair of cyclists safely on a sunday morning?

 

"two abreast is no more hazardous than one" Eh? I don't believe that's a commonly held perception. Is it not normal courtesy to facilitate the passage of other others on the public highway?"

 

"he's vulnerable, he's risking his life" Well whoppe dah are cyclists some sort of super heroes? (it might explain their bizarre outfits)

 

I have always waited to overtake a pair of cyclists safely. I don't have a bloody choice!. Much as a find this behaviour irresponsible , reprehensible and annoying I have no wish to endanger the lives of either cyclists or myself. Unfortunately they don't seem to show the same consideration.

 

I'm afraid it is you who is displaying selfish scorn towards those who fund your activities.

 

To all those cyclists who do behave responsibly (and there are many) I would stress that these comments are not directed at you, Enjoy your cycling (although I do still think you should pay your way!)