Off Topic Budget 2015

Currently reading:
Off Topic Budget 2015

Oh goody, yet another "It's not Road Tax, it's Emissions-linked Vehicle Excise Duty" argument.

I rather think, aside from looking like pedants, people who argue the "It's not Road Tax, it's ELVED" (all too often in youtube helmet camera videos that show nothing more than situations that a half competent cyclist should be able to read ahead for or situations that the camera owner puts themselves in deliberately to make some sort of point) thing about animosity towards cyclists are rather missing the point.

Surely the bigger point is that if you think paying for the roads (whether that is actually the case or not) gives you some sort of priority or right over those that don't then you're a colossal **** who shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a ton of metal that will do well over a hundred miles an hour.

Ring fencing is still a crap idea either way.
 
Last edited:
Rather than multi-quote I'll deal with one or two points raised earlier in this thread.

1)
Concerning the driver who, after knocking off a cyclist is reported as posting that it was her right of way. Right is a word that's bandied about quite a lot of late and it's often misunderstood. My interpretation anyway, is that a right is something that can't be taken away unless there is a specific law that allows that to happen. For instance, anything that we do naturally, or would do, regardless of the society we live in. For instance, breathing, eating or going to the toilet. Regardless of what crime we commit in this country, you can't be stopped from breathing. It's what we'd do wherever we live. However, driving is a privilege not a right, so a court can stop you from driving. It's highly unlikely that a court would stop you from cycling, however, you could be stopped from cycling in a particular area. For instance if you are involved in criminality that involves a bicycle in a shopping precinct.

The Blue Badge is a privilege not a right. Like a driving licence you have to earn the ability to use it and it can be taken away if you misuse it. You can't be stopped from walking by a court. With that in mind, a pedestrian will always have "Right of way" over all other road users except where it is illegal to walk. For instance on a motorway.

2)
Cost of running a car. According to the AA, the cost of running a car that costs up to £13,000 and that covers 10,000 miles per year works out at around 37 pence per mile.

However, in this context I think it's a case of the cost to the public purse that matters more. In terms of injury, most cases where a cyclist comes into contact with a vehicle, the chances of the driver receiving more injuries than the cyclist are quite remote, unless of course he or she suffers a heart attack as a result. On that basis, the cost to the NHS will be greater in the case of someone on two wheels as opposed to four. If the cyclist hits a lamp post, apart from injury, the cost to the public will be nil. If a car hits a lamp post, there may well be injury to the driver and/or passengers but the council, or the driver's insurance will have to pay for a new street light; there may be diversions while the road is cleared which could involve the Police and the electricity company may also have to deal with any damage.

A cyclist hitting a group of people waiting at a bus stop would probably result in few, if any injuries to bystanders. A car hitting the same queue could result in multiple deaths.

3)

Cyclists v. Drivers. Although there are still some t***s about on cycles, subjectively I'd say the percentage of those who ride stupidly has gone down even if the overall numbers have gone up. This could well be down to the increasing number of those who've taken up cycling since the London Olympics and the advent of the Cycle to Work scheme, many of those are riding new bikes and wearing protective gear and are already drivers so tend to think differently from the old style anarchic bike riders.

One way to think about cyclists if you're a driver is that that cyclist is one less car driver in front of you on the way to work and it's much easier to overtake someone riding at 15 mph than it is someone driving at 25. Less queues at the traffic lights and more spaces in car parks.

A lot of the attitude to cyclists is the same as that shown towards motorcyclists, in as much as it's not that drivers don't like them per se, but that they can do some things that the driver can't do, such as go down the outside of a queue of cars and accelerate very quickly away from the lights; or, in the case of cyclists, not pay any VED, insurance, IPT, VAT or fuel duty. And they don't have to pay to park when they get to work.
As with others on here, we have vehicles we pay VED on. In the Beard household we have two push bikes, one 2001 Alfa 156, one Alfa Giulietta, one FIAT Panda and one Yamaha FJ1200. The 156 is the one we use the least yet costs the most to tax, followed by the Yam which we also use relatively little. Between that little lot we pay around £600 a year!
 
Last edited:
Cost of running a car. According to the AA, the cost of running a car that costs up to £13,000 and that covers 10,000 miles per year works out at around 37 pence per mile.
This is my point.

AA calculates the purchace price, depreciation, insurance, VED, servicing etc as well as fuel costs.

Price and depreciation shouldn't come into the mix IMHO. They may use "an average" for this, but in that average, there are HUGE variations. You can buy an adequate car for a couple of hundred quid and not service it. All you need is fuel. When something goes wrong with it, you scrap it and buy another one for a couple of hundred quid. You don't HAVE to own a top of the range Merc or even a lovely new Fiat500.

Meanwhile you have VED and insurance of course, but those things are unavoidable and has nothing to do with mileage or use. Therefore you cannot count them. It's like having a TV Licence. You pay it, but you could watch telly 24/7/365 or not at all, but you still pay if you own a telly.

Running a car costs fuel. 40mpg works out at 15p per mile at £6 per gallon.
 
Rather than multi-quote I'll deal with one or two points raised earlier in this thread.

1)
Concerning the driver who, after knocking off a cyclist is reported as posting that it was her right of way. Right is a word that's bandied about quite a lot of late and it's often misunderstood. My interpretation anyway, is that a right is something that can't be taken away unless there is a specific law that allows that to happen. For instance, anything that we do naturally, or would do, regardless of the society we live in. For instance, breathing, eating or going to the toilet. Regardless of what crime we commit in this country, you can't be stopped from breathing. It's what we'd do wherever we live. However, driving is a privilege not a right, so a court can stop you from driving. It's highly unlikely that a court would stop you from cycling, however, you could be stopped from cycling in a particular area. For instance if you are involved in criminality that involves a bicycle in a shopping precinct.

The Blue Badge is a privilege not a right. Like a driving licence you have to earn the ability to use it and it can be taken away if you misuse it. You can't be stopped from walking by a court. With that in mind, a pedestrian will always have "Right of way" over all other road users except where it is illegal to walk. For instance on a motorway.

2)
Cost of running a car. According to the AA, the cost of running a car that costs up to £13,000 and that covers 10,000 miles per year works out at around 37 pence per mile.

However, in this context I think it's a case of the cost to the public purse that matters more. In terms of injury, most cases where a cyclist comes into contact with a vehicle, the chances of the driver receiving more injuries than the cyclist are quite remote, unless of course he or she suffers a heart attack as a result. On that basis, the cost to the NHS will be greater in the case of someone on two wheels as opposed to four. If the cyclist hits a lamp post, apart from injury, the cost to the public will be nil. If a car hits a lamp post, there may well be injury to the driver and/or passengers but the council, or the driver's insurance will have to pay for a new street light; there may be diversions while the road is cleared which could involve the Police and the electricity company may also have to deal with any damage.

A cyclist hitting a group of people waiting at a bus stop would probably result in few, if any injuries to bystanders. A car hitting the same queue could result in multiple deaths.

3)

Cyclists v. Drivers. Although there are still some t***s about on cycles, subjectively I'd say the percentage of those who ride stupidly has gone down even if the overall numbers have gone up. This could well be down to the increasing number of those who've taken up cycling since the London Olympics and the advent of the Cycle to Work scheme, many of those are riding new bikes and wearing protective gear and are already drivers so tend to think differently from the old style anarchic bike riders.

One way to think about cyclists if you're a driver is that that cyclist is one less car driver in front of you on the way to work and it's much easier to overtake someone riding at 15 mph than it is someone driving at 25. Less queues at the traffic lights and more spaces in car parks.

A lot of the attitude to cyclists is the same as that shown towards motorcyclists, in as much as it's not that drivers don't like them per se, but that they can do some things that the driver can't do, such as go down the outside of a queue of cars and accelerate very quickly away from the lights; or, in the case of cyclists, not pay any VED, insurance, IPT, VAT or fuel duty. And they don't have to pay to park when they get to work.
As with others on here, we have vehicles we pay VED on. In the Beard household we have two push bikes, one 2001 Alfa 156, one Alfa Giulietta, one FIAT Panda and one Yamaha FJ1200. The 156 is the one we use the least yet costs the most to tax, followed by the Yam which we also use relatively little. Between that little lot we pay around £600 a year!

The only thing that really hacks me off about cyclists is that when the council goes to the trouble and expense of building a cycle track - a proper one separated from the road and not just a bit of red paint, some cyclists will still insist on riding on the road.Normally it's the serious fully lycra'd up ones. It wouldn't be unreasonable to say that cyclists should have to use cycle tracks.
 
Sorry, but you're obviously not a cyclist!

Cycling facilities are more often than not, cycling farce-ilities. :D
The ones locally here are laid out so you have to give way at every junction, driveway and entrance even though you are going straight on. You are seriously at risk of being "left hooked". This is only one of the problems.

The ones I see tend to be strewn with litter, gravel, dog poo, glass ............ and pedestrians. Cycle farce-ilities prevent the cyclist from making good progress and if you're like me who does 100miles a week by bike, there's no way on God's Earth that I would use a cycle track/path/farce-ility.

In 1800 and something, the bicycle was declared a "carriage". ie a vehicle for carrying the person, and as such belongs on the roads. Bicycles pre-date the motor vehicle too.

Read the Highway Code.
https://www.gov.uk/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82
Read rules 61 to 64 incl. specifically. Note rule 64 too, and THAT should be enforced very strictly indeed.

Regards,
Mick.
 
I would say road tax has nothing to do with being responsible for your own actions and looking out for others regardless of your chosen method of transportation.

I find 66 interesting of those rules personally, so those who ride two abreast on little country roads or busy roads are contravening the highway code..also the part "be considerate of other road users, particularly blind and partially sighted pedestrians. Let them know you are there when necessary, for example, by ringing your bell if you have one. It is recommended that a bell be fitted." Seems to be forgotten by most.
 
The only thing that really hacks me off about cyclists is that when the council goes to the trouble and expense of building a cycle track - a proper one separated from the road and not just a bit of red paint, some cyclists will still insist on riding on the road.Normally it's the serious fully lycra'd up ones. It wouldn't be unreasonable to say that cyclists should have to use cycle tracks.
You have a point, however, I also agree with Mick's comments below. Near where I live is a very large junction with a lot of fast moving traffic. It is J24 of the M60 where it meets the M67 and A57. When travelling west towards Manchester, about 100 yards before the roundabout, there is a turning on the left off the A57, which at that point is a 40mph dual carriageway. This takes you off the main road and over the M60, rejoining the A57 after the junction. It carries a purpose built shared pedestrian/cyclist route. When I cycle I always use it; without exception. There are those who choose not to. And I have to say that they usually are the "lycra'd up ones". They are almost certainly trying to beat their, or their friends, personal best on Strava. They've altered the layout of the junction which should have virtually engineered the cyclist out of the equation. Alas, some still choose to ride on the road at that point.

This entails riding up the bus lane to the point where they have to move out across traffic that is in turn moving in to the point where the bus lane ends in order to gain access to the M60 towards the west. Once out there and riding between two lanes of traffic they then have to enter the roundabout which has traffic coming from the east on the M60 to join the A57 towards the west and much of which will either cross the path of the cyclist or come up behind them at (often) a much higher speed. To my mind this is lunacy.

It also brings to mind an ex-colleague of mine who was cycling to work early one morning and was going ahead at a roundabout, 2nd exit when he was struck from behind by a driver who was joining from the junction he'd just passed. As this was in the days before no-win, no-fee compensation law firms, he received about £100 to pay for a new bike. He returned after a few months but over the years he developed Spondolitis (sp?) and was in almost constant pain every day. Every morning if the weather was cold he'd have to stick a bean bag in the micro-wave to try and lessen the pain. Last year he underwent an operation to try and alleviate the problem but, to add insult to injury, the surgeon worked on the wrong vertebrae which has left him permanently crippled and almost unable to walk unaided. He eventually lost his job and has just been awarded £259,000. Personally I'd rather do without the pain.

Sorry, but you're obviously not a cyclist!

Cycling facilities are more often than not, cycling farce-ilities. :D
The ones locally here are laid out so you have to give way at every junction, driveway and entrance even though you are going straight on. You are seriously at risk of being "left hooked". This is only one of the problems.

The ones I see tend to be strewn with litter, gravel, dog poo, glass ............ and pedestrians. Cycle farce-ilities prevent the cyclist from making good progress and if you're like me who does 100miles a week by bike, there's no way on God's Earth that I would use a cycle track/path/farce-ility.

In 1800 and something, the bicycle was declared a "carriage". ie a vehicle for carrying the person, and as such belongs on the roads. Bicycles pre-date the motor vehicle too.

Read the Highway Code.
https://www.gov.uk/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82
Read rules 61 to 64 incl. specifically. Note rule 64 too, and THAT should be enforced very strictly indeed.

Regards,
Mick.
Several years ago I phoned the Highways Department of our local council and spoke with one of their engineers. I asked him why there were now bus lanes in areas that never suffered with congestion holding up buses, and how much this was costing the rate payers. His reply was that it wasn't costing us anything as the government of the day was providing the funding. I asked if this was the same with cycle lanes and tracks and he agreed it was. The council was simply meeting government targets. The implication of this, to me, was that they didn't actually care about the lanes and, in the few places that a separate cycle path was put in they were too narrow for even the sweeping machines used on pavements to work on. Ergo, they didn't get cleaned.

One of my bugbears has for a long time been cycling on the pavement. I'll agree that for a young child this may well be the best option. But, and it's a big but, when it comes to adults there really is no excuse. I cycle and, apart from one specific exception, never use the footpaths to ride on. In addition, at that location I can ride along the pavement without actually committing an offence. Previously, the Cops were too busy to enforce this offence and PCSOs weren't trained, even though it was within their power to deal with this. Now more and more are trained. I recently saw some video footage taken by GMP on an enforcement operation near the university. The clips included a student riding along the pavement swerving between pedestrians with his hands in his pockets. Well, it was cold. Another was riding along the same stretch of pavement while listening to music via earphones and at the same time texting.

One thing that I found interesting was the comments of people as they were being given their Fixed Penalty Notices.

Car drivers who were ticketed for running red lights, creeping up to the Advanced Stop Line and driving in the bus/cycle lanes commented that "Why don't you do something about those bloody cyclists. They're a f*****g menace.

When cyclists were ticketed they said.....well, I think you can guess what they said. Cyclists also claimed that what they were doing wasn't illegal. It just goes to show that a little knowledge really is a dangerous thing.

I would say road tax has nothing to do with being responsible for your own actions and looking out for others regardless of your chosen method of transportation.

I find 66 interesting of those rules personally, so those who ride two abreast on little country roads or busy roads are contravening the highway code..also the part "be considerate of other road users, particularly blind and partially sighted pedestrians. Let them know you are there when necessary, for example, by ringing your bell if you have one. It is recommended that a bell be fitted." Seems to be forgotten by most.

Have to agree with you that paying VED has nothing at all to do with being responsible. Otherwise there wouldn't be many magistrates' courts. Although the numbers are different, the M60 has been resurfaced along most of its length every couple of years; in fact they are working on it near Stockport as I type this. By contrast, the Fallowfield Loop, an old railway line that is used by pedestrians and cyclist was surfaced about 10 years ago and hasn't been done since. Motor transport, without a shadow of a doubt has far, far higher infrastructure costs and the money has to come from somewhere.
 
Last edited:
Have to agree with you that paying VED has nothing at all to do with being responsible. Otherwise there wouldn't be many magistrates' courts. Although the numbers are different, the M60 has been resurfaced along most of its length every couple of years; in fact they are working on it near Stockport as I type this. By contrast, the Fallowfield Loop, an old railway line that is used by pedestrians and cyclist was surfaced about 10 years ago and hasn't been done since. Motor transport, without a shadow of a doubt has far, far higher infrastructure costs and the money has to come from somewhere.

I agree entirely that the money has to come from somewhere and have no problem with the new system at all. The government finds itself in the position where most new cars are in a lower tax bracket than the ones they replace or free so tax receipts are falling year on year as the older cars drop out of the system. It shores up future revenue while guaranteeing it to be spent on roads...

The behaviour of parties on the roads..that is a matter for law enforcement not the taxation system.
 
The behaviour of parties on the roads..that is a matter for law enforcement not the taxation system.
Utterly agree, but who's going to pay for it?

Dunno about where you live, but we hardly ever see the coppers out and about. As far as I know, road/traffic patrols are way down their priority list. They turn out if there's an "accident", but that's all.

Cheers,
Mick.
 
Utterly agree, but who's going to pay for it?

Dunno about where you live, but we hardly ever see the coppers out and about. As far as I know, road/traffic patrols are way down their priority list. They turn out if there's an "accident", but that's all.

Cheers,
Mick.

I get your point but The Police fall under council tax/general taxation rather than any sort of road specific taxation so to me that is a separate issue.
 
58400640.jpg
 
Back
Top