Active Travel

[Happier diner]

31 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

But not in relation to their bicycle.

They may have paid it in respect of a car they own.

This tired old argument has no logic.

If I have two cars I’m not excused paying VED on car B because I have already paid it on car A. Cyclists for some reason don’t get this, or pretend they don’t.

I'd save the wear and tear on your finger ends. It will never happen. Pointless argument.

[The Bastard]

15 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

I'd save the wear and tear on your finger ends. It will never happen. Pointless argument.

Yep. When you travel, conversations would stop going "The Isle of Man ? Isn't that the place where you burn homosexuals ?"  to "The Isle of Man ? Isn't that the place where you burn homosexuals and make people pay tax on their bicycles ?". Not the forward-looking modern business centre image that we really want tbh.

[The Bastard]

1 hour ago, The Voice of Reason said:

But not in relation to their bicycle.

They may have paid it in respect of a car they own.

This tired old argument has no logic.

If I have two cars I’m not excused paying VED on car B because I have already paid it on car A. Cyclists for some reason don’t get this, or pretend they don’t.

Umm. VED is legally on motor vehicles. There's nothing in the law that says they need to pay vehicle duty, so cyclists are complying fully with the law if they ride on the road, as they're entitled to do.  Even if they don't pay VED on a vehicle, they still pay for the roads through taxes such as VAT.

I find it odd that gammons who complain about bicycles on the roads are also so fundamentally opposed to funding cycle paths that take bicycles away from other motor traffic. You'd think they'd be in in favour of creating more cycle routes if they had any sense.

Edited February 10, 2023 by The Bastard

[The Voice of Reason]

55 minutes ago, The Bastard said:

Yep. When you travel, conversations would stop going "The Isle of Man ? Isn't that the place where you burn homosexuals ?"  to "The Isle of Man ? Isn't that the place where you burn homosexuals and make people pay tax on their bicycles ?". Not the forward-looking modern business centre image that we really want tbh.

Why do you think it would project a bad image ( taxing bikes that is, not burning homosexuals)?

Its more aligned with “ the user pays” principle ( and I know the tax isn’t ring fenced for road maintenance blah blah blah) 

I think it would be largely welcomed here and other jurisdictions would applaud us for it and perhaps even think about adopting that model for themselves.

 

Edited February 10, 2023 by The Voice of Reason

[The Bastard]

Just now, The Voice of Reason said:

Why do you think it would project a bad image ( taxing bikes that is, not burning homosexuals)?

Its more aligned with “ the user pays” principle ( and I know the tax isn’t ring fenced for road maintenance blah blah blah) 

They already pay. The tax isn't ring fenced for road maintenance (as you say).

[The Voice of Reason]

9 minutes ago, The Bastard said:

They already pay. The tax isn't ring fenced for road maintenance (as you say).

No you misunderstand. I have to pay this tax (VED or whatever you want to call it ) in order to use my car on the road.  I can’t say I can legally drive on the road because I paid some VAT when I bought some cotton pyjamas  from Marks and Spencer (or whatever)

Which equivalent tax are cyclists “ already paying”?

Edited February 10, 2023 by The Voice of Reason
Addition of question mark at the end

[The Voice of Reason]

1 hour ago, Happier diner said:

I'd save the wear and tear on your finger ends. It will never happen. Pointless argument.

I know you are right. But I just find this level of selfishness so irritating.

[HeliX]

2 hours ago, The Voice of Reason said:

But not in relation to their bicycle.

They may have paid it in respect of a car they own.

This tired old argument has no logic.

If I have two cars I’m not excused paying VED on car B because I have already paid it on car A. Cyclists for some reason don’t get this, or pretend they don’t.

When they're using their bicycles they're not causing wear on the roads, but they're still paying VED. It's pointless putting VED on cyclists. We should be encouraging cycling, not discouraging it.

[HeliX]

double

Edited February 10, 2023 by HeliX

[The Voice of Reason]

11 minutes ago, HeliX said:

When they're using their bicycles they're not causing wear on the roads, but they're still paying VED. It's pointless putting VED on cyclists. We should be encouraging cycling, not discouraging it.

But it’s not just about causing wear on the roads.

Its also the cost of building new roads, roundabouts, road gutter cleaning, installing traffic lights ( not that cyclists pay them much heed) painting pedestrian crossings, installing drainage, painting line markings etc etc which benefit all road users.

We should be asking cyclists to pay their fare share of all these costs. User pays and all that.

If motorists have to pay a tax to use the roads then it’s only right that cyclists should do too. End of.

 

 

[The Bastard]

25 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

No you misunderstand. I have to pay this tax (VED or whatever you want to call it ) in order to use my car on the road.  I can’t say I can legally drive on the road because I paid some VAT when I bought some cotton pyjamas  from Marks and Spencer (or whatever)

Which equivalent tax are cyclists “ already paying”?

You say you "have" to pay that tax - because the law says you have to. Cyclists don't have to and there's no law that says they do. They can legally use the roads without paying VED. Simples.

They don't need to pay tax, but cyclists also contribute to the upkeep of the roads through all other forms of tax they pay. That includes VED from other vehicles, the VAT they pay on everything they buy, income tax on their earnings. This is about the 5th time someone has pointed that out to you.  

[HeliX]

3 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

But it’s not just about causing wear on the roads.

Its also the cost of building new roads, roundabouts, road gutter cleaning, installing traffic lights ( not that cyclists pay them much heed) painting pedestrian crossings, installing drainage, painting line markings etc etc which benefit all road users.

We should be asking cyclists to pay their fare share of all these costs. User pays and all that.

If motorists have to pay a tax to use the roads then it’s only right that cyclists should do too. End of.

 

 

Should we make non road users exempt from paying taxes that go towards road maintenance?

It's stupid. Taxing cyclists would raise approximately fuck all, would be yet another thing that requires 200 civil servants to manage, and all it'd achieve is putting people off picking healthy ways to travel. Utterly pointless.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

9 minutes ago, The Bastard said:

You say you "have" to pay that tax - because the law says you have to. Cyclists don't have to and there's no law that says they do. They can legally use the roads without paying VED. Simples.

You are just stating the facts that everyone is aware of.

The discussion is should cyclists be contributing in the same way that motorists do.

And you’ve not come up with any convincing reason why they shouldn’t. You merely keep reiterating more facts that cyclists pay income tax, VAT etc. Big bloody deal!

 

[TheTeapot]

Only a really horrible person could honestly support a road tax for bicycles. You'd have to have some twisted hatred burning away inside. It's an absolutely appalling thing to want to support. 

[The Bastard]

1 minute ago, The Voice of Reason said:

You are just stating the facts that everyone is aware of.

The discussion is should cyclists be contributing in the same way that motorists do.

And you’ve not come up with any convincing reason why they shouldn’t. You merely keep reiterating more facts that cyclists pay income tax, VAT etc. Big bloody deal!

They ARE contributing in the same way that everyone else is. That's how tax works.

You even said it yourself that VED isn't ring-fenced for the roads, so goes into the same tax pot as everyone else. You don't seem to understand that new road schemes are capital projects, not related to maintenance though, so it's clear we're dealing with someone who has only a very simplistic understanding of things.

Everyone who pays tax funds capital projects and centrally-funded works like road maintenance and keeping the schools and airport open and the police funded.

People without driving licenses don't get a refund on road maintenance, but they can still walk down the road if they want. They can even cycle, roller skate or ride a horse or mobility scooter down them. Their taxes fund the roads, just like they do for schools, so they have a perfect right to use them. Their taxes built them and maintain them.

Cars are a massive expense for society. They cost tens of millions to provide infrastructure, parking, signage, inspection, accident aftermath, policing. Since you're obsessed with the idea that the user pays, that would tie in nicely with drivers paying more tax for their vehicles, since they consume the majority of the expensive projects and services involved.

Your overly-simple argument would extend to insisting that  pedestrians pay an additional tax on top of all the money they already pay through taxes for capital projects and maintenance, since they are apparently using the roads too. None of that makes sense.