Should cyclists pay road tax?

[eddy]

ok then maybe refphrase....should cyclists who use the road be made to sit a cycling specific k53 test?

 

 

Possibly.

 

So if I understand your correctly now, this is an argument for a "cycling license" issued to the cyclist after proving his competence, rather than a "bicycle tax" levied on each bicycle ?

[MORNE]

snip

 

So if a bicycle license make me more legit in the eye of other road users, I would be very happy to pay my few cents per year.

 

snip

 

Lastly, if some sort of tax is levied specifically to build bicycle lanes (and it is actually spent on bicycle lanes) I would wholeheartedly support it

this is at the core of what i think people were getting at this morning on the radio....and what the topic is trying to explore. an actuall k53 ish licence - new rules that dont even exist yet...to make it safer for everybody using the roads....and secondlt...yes....more infrastructure that can start coming from it.

Thats what i mean when i say "semantics" tax, levies licence...whatever. i think thats was what at the core of peoples misplaced frustration this morning.

[MORNE]

Possibly.

 

So if I understand your correctly now, this is an argument for a "cycling license" issued to the cyclist after proving his competence, rather than a "bicycle tax" levied on each bicycle ?

YES. and see the next post. semantics 

 

edit: like a whole system/perception/operation/implementation rethink

Edited January 30, 2020 by morneS555

[coppi]

I think this is the reason it will never fly - anecdotally the bicycle fees were largely implemented to discourage and reduce the numbers of black cyclists on the roads.

Bull

I grew up in Hillcrest Natal and it was pretty remote in those days. Plenty black commuters on bikes as there was no transport for them really.

Apartheid was backward and evil, but that sort of control is necessary to know how many pets and bikes are out there................

[dsw]

Many years ago during bad old apartheid we paid pet and bicycle fees. Used to get a little metal disc that fitted on the seat bracket for all to see and pets carries disc on their collars........................

 

Back in the days the traffic cops sometimes visited the schools to check whether the bicycles in the stands had the metal licence discs on. Every now and then they would even check whether the brakes work property and whether there the bike was fitted with a rear mudguard reflector.  As far as I remember they only gave verbal warnings but did not really issue fines. 

[Dirkitech]

cars still try and run me over when I ride my motorcycle lawfully licensed with all taxes applied, what makes you think adding taxes and licenses for bicycles will make it any different to what it is. Sounds delirious 

[MORNE]

cars still try and run me over when I ride my motorcycle lawfully licensed with all taxes applied, what makes you think adding taxes and licenses for bicycles will make it any different to what it is. Sounds delirious 

you are thinking about it very one dimensionally. thats not the whole argument. free your mind man :lol:COMPLETE RETHINK. 

They play carmageddon with you because of the system and the way we are taught the rules and how they are applied and enforced. Total redesign of what constitutes a licenced road user basically at k53 level on BOTH sides.

Edited January 30, 2020 by morneS555

[RaymondC]

One word for this topic.... "Tsek"

[Skubarra]

you are thinking about it very one dimensionally. thats not the whole argument. free your mind man :lol:COMPLETE RETHINK. 

They play carmageddon with you because of the system and the way we are taught the rules and how they are applied and enforced. Total redesign of what constitutes a licenced road user basically at k53 level on BOTH sides.

 

Something else worth saying is that the vast majority of recreational cyclists own cars so we pay road tax & have K53 licenses anyway. Would it really make a difference if you add a cycling component? Cyclists don't break road laws because they don't know the laws.

Edited January 30, 2020 by Skubarra

[MORNE]

Something else worth saying is that the vast majority of recreational cyclists own cars so we pay road tax & have K53 licenses anyway. Would it really make a difference if you add a cycling component? Cyclists don't break road laws because they don't know the laws.

yes...but i also mentioned that you need "seperate/different" licences if you own a lorry, a motorcycle, a car etc. it changes what you are tested on and how to use the road. as already mentioned....if you get pulled over while on you motorcycle or in your 15 ton lorry....you cant show them your code B licence card.....it is irrelevant in that instance. 

yes alot of the rules are common....but they differ in operation of said vehicleon roads...do's and don'ts. maybe it will be a start.

Edited January 30, 2020 by morneS555

[BuffsVintageBikes]

cars still try and run me over when I ride my motorcycle lawfully licensed with all taxes applied, what makes you think adding taxes and licenses for bicycles will make it any different to what it is. Sounds delirious 

 

Spot on, just another money making scheme for an inept government to fleece the middle class. Riding with a helmet is also law and how many commuters do you see wearing helmets? #f#ckem

[devocean]

My non cycling colleague's response to whether cyclists should pay road tax: "yes, they definitely should pay road taxes and still not be on the road"

 

I've no faith in any drivers changing their attitude towards cyclists unless they become cyclists themselves, no matter how well you ride and obey the rules of the road. 

 

But once you accept that, riding defensively and assuming drivers don't see you or care, cycling on the roads is a whole lot less stressful.

[jnsmith]

This is an interesting proposal, but I'd like to add a few points to the discussion.

1. As has been mentioned, we don't have a "road tax" as such, but we do have fuel levies, vehicle licence fees, etc. None of this money is ring-fenced for road infrastructure but goes into the general fiscus, as does all the VAT on whatever bicycle parts you purchase, etc.
2. The maintenance of the existing roads is affected by the weight of the vehicles that use the roads. Check out roads where there are frequently heavy lorries and you'll often see that the tar warps like someone has sat down on a leather couch and the surface is all wobbly.
3. With that in mind, bicycles contribute effectively zero to road wear-and-tear in comparison with cars.
4. Every person on a bicycle (for commuting anyway, not necessarily training or recreational cycling) is a net win for the maintenance of traffic infrastructure. And since traffic is highly non-linear, if even a few % of motorists commute on a bicycle instead, the general population gets to work considerably quicker. This will save the economy money which would otherwise be wasted sitting in traffic.

I therefore propose that cycle commuters receive some sort of subsidy rather than a tax. It may encourage significantly more motorists not to drive, and therefore the roads will need less maintenance - thus saving the fiscus more money than what the subsidy would cost (IMO).

 

The suggestion for cyclists to have some kind of K53 licence is quite reasonable, I can't say I really have much of an opinion on that. I've been out on the road cycling since I was 12 or 13 though, so obviously an entirely different set of rules would need to apply. Perhaps having cyclist education as a subject in schools may help? (In the way that Americans do it with driving.)

[guidodg]

no no and then no....it would simply be squandered 

 

but maybe they should pay some kind of third party insurance...this has been proposed in the EU for ebikes

Edited January 30, 2020 by guidodg

[jnsmith]

My non cycling colleague's response to whether cyclists should pay road tax: "yes, they definitely should pay road taxes and still not be on the road"

 

I've no faith in any drivers changing their attitude towards cyclists unless they become cyclists themselves, no matter how well you ride and obey the rules of the road.

I really can't understand motorists' attitudes towards cyclists. If they have to move out to overtake for some reason this makes them super angry, as though you've just driven over their dog or dumped refuse in their garden.

 

It's as though they don't understand that if every cyclist were in a car, traffic would be two or three times as bad. I'm sure they wouldn't be happy about that.

[MORNE]

snip

 

I therefore propose that cycle commuters receive some sort of subsidy rather than a tax. It may encourage significantly more motorists not to drive, and therefore the roads will need less maintenance - thus saving the fiscus more money than what the subsidy would cost (IMO).

 

valid points and nice addition to the idea. Maybe becoming a licensed and legal road user with a cycling licence becomes away for you to benefit from these "tax subsidies" since that is literally the only way for them to know who rides a bike and who doesn't like in the past (as mentioned by someone else). maybe you'd even have to log rides to prove you are actually contributing. cool ideas.