Should cyclists pay road tax?

[JJDT]

The idea is great but will it practical? How will it be enforced, currently there are many rules of the road that needs to be adhered to that are actually not enforced? Two examples: stopping at red trafiic lights and stopping at a stop street. The traffic police is nowehere...the only thing that we see is an unmanned speed camera. In the old days the traffic police were more visible on the roads and mostly the rules were followed.

How many cyclists will actually pay...just a few law abiding riders and the pro's that will be forced.

The traffic police whould then be more visible for this to actually work...but on the flip side we will become easy targets as the chances of getting away are very slim.

Our biggest problem is that we do not care for each other...it is everybody for himself/herself...and the other biggest factor is that we have become more impatient. Everybody should be more relaxed and once we have achived this the less problems we will have with each other (cyclist vs motorist).

[JJ]

I might be mistaken, but isn’t there a form of tax rebate/refund in the UK when you buy a bicycle for commuting purposes? I’m sure I read something somewhere in those lines. A bicycle licence would then make sense if used for commuting, show your license when buying a bicycle and get some tax relief. Obviously the onus would be on you to prove that said bicycle was used for commuting purposes.

[MORNE]

jnsmith's idea of incentives rather than a full on levy would make better sense as mentioned.

 

you would get licensed...learn to not ride like a chop hopefully....be officially held accountable. other road users too, since they would be forced to acknowledge you as a licensed road user now and not a pedestrian taking up space in the road. as an incentive then....you then qualify for tax subsidies if you can prove that you cycle more than you drive for instance. if you have ever doen business internationally you wil agree that South Africans are someof the most stingy bastards on earth. we dont want to pay for anything....and always want discount on everything. getting tax relief for cycling would mean more people will cycle haha. win win.

[eddy]

 like a whole system/perception/operation/implementation rethink

 

We live in an imperfect part of an imperfect world and ideally we'd remove all risks from our lives and make it better for everyone. 

 

But our society is limited by having to do the most with scarce resources. As much as we'd like to, practically we can't fix everything at the same time and we should sequence things so we do the things that remove the greatest evil or that provides the biggest benefit to the most people first.

 

But we also live in a world where we are reactive and demand that "something must be done" whenever a tragedy that fires the emotions of the Twitter mob strikes. So it is admirable that you want to be proactive. I mean that.

 

However, regulation and laws should be made on the back of data driven decisions, not on what seems like a good idea because people are outraged and vocal about it on talk radio. 

 

 

If the intention is to improve road safety we should focus first on where the biggest danger lies. In 2017, out of the ~20 000  deaths on our roads 5 339 were pedestrians. (it has consistently been around the 25-30% mark).  If we accept that we can't do everything first, is that not where we should start and should the debate not be taken in than direction rather than the one we feel passionate about?

 

Should we not focus the resources of the legislators, the civil service in all its administrative and enforcement guises on reducing that number rather than imposing on them and society another layer of unenforceable bureaucracy that will have far less of an impact other than make us feel that at least something has been done?

 

Again, it is a necessary debate, but I am on the side of doing the greatest good first.

[Starchboy]

I might be mistaken, but isn’t there a form of tax rebate/refund in the UK when you buy a bicycle for commuting purposes? I’m sure I read something somewhere in those lines. A bicycle licence would then make sense if used for commuting, show your license when buying a bicycle and get some tax relief. Obviously the onus would be on you to prove that said bicycle was used for commuting purposes.

 

 

Yes there is. Rules are here:

 

https://www.cyclescheme.co.uk/the-rules-of-cycle-to-work

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Stretch]

Always the most ignorant comment by anti cyclists. All taxes go into a big pool and get distributed accordingly.. There is no dedicated tax that only goes to the road. Cyclists indirectly already pay taxes though the purchase of the bike etc.. It's like asking pedestrians to put in a coin to power up a street light as they walk home

Edited January 30, 2020 by Stretch

[Grease_Monkey]

Seeing as I already pay nearly half of my monthly salary towards tax which goes to a bunch of state owned enterprises which I do not make use of + road tax for cars + tolls + etc + etc + etc. I'm gonna go with a simple no on this.

[Dirkitech]

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.

Take on one issue at a time, because you're going to need the focus to defend your flawed suggestions. They play carmageddon because everyone is entitled to thinking they have the right of way always, not because the rules say "they aren't allowed to run me over".

Also if you think the k53 is a good form of driving then this whole post of yours is moot already.

 

I'll gladly pay a special tax that only gets spent on building/maintaining cycling lanes and pedestrian markers to cross over and keep out of cycling lanes.

[The Guy in Pink]

If we had the Dutch model of road design where the roads in the cities are primarily designed for bicycles and pedestrians, with motorised transport  a secondary consideration, a cycling tax would make sense.  

[Eddy Gordo]

Seeing as I already pay nearly half of my monthly salary towards tax which goes to a bunch of state owned enterprises which I do not make use of + road tax for cars + tolls + etc + etc + etc. I'm gonna go with a simple no on this.

Agreed, I would say, maybe if you already pay onroad tax, that you should cover you. However, this government taxes you on everything.

So if you only have a bicycle and no car or motorbike, then I suppose yes. Only because years ago you had to buy a license at the post office

[jnsmith]

I'll gladly pay a special tax that only gets spent on building/maintaining cycling lanes and pedestrian markers to cross over and keep out of cycling lanes.

 

Yeah - except that (as far as I'm aware) pretty much no "tax" that we pay here gets ring-fenced, it all just goes to the general fiscus and then doled out to departments / provinces / municipalities however Treasury sees fit.

 

[Shebeen]

in an ideal world, YES!

mainly because it would just be an easy way to invalidate one of the braindead anti-cycling arguments.

 

in reality, it would probably not be that much, if you're looking at road wear and tear - dedicated cycle lanes cost money, but then so do pavements and we don't charge pedestrians for the,.

 

You can buy a bicycle from game for R300, surely the licence fee couldn't be above R100/annum. I doubt the admin and collection fees are going to end up leaving much for the actual pot so not much point.

 

 

https://momentummag.com/free-rider-myth/

[Duane_Bosch]

Ooooh. Taxing groups of people because they annoy us. I like this idea.

 

Can I please add the following to the list?

 

• Vegans on their soap boxes
• Religious fanatics
• Public pissers
• Telemarketers
• Jaywalkers

The ridiculousness of my comment matches the ridiculousness of taxing cyclists.

Edited January 30, 2020 by Duane_Bosch

[Hamstring]

NOOOOOOOOOO dont give the government a platform to get more moneys off us taxpayer 

[The Guy in Pink]

I might be mistaken, but isn’t there a form of tax rebate/refund in the UK when you buy a bicycle for commuting purposes? I’m sure I read something somewhere in those lines. A bicycle licence would then make sense if used for commuting, show your license when buying a bicycle and get some tax relief. Obviously the onus would be on you to prove that said bicycle was used for commuting purposes.

Yes, my daughter when living in London made use of it.   Basically your employer buys the bike for you and they are permitted to deduct 100% as an business expense, as well claiming as the VAT refund.   You pay your employer back via a salary deduction, and the cost is deducted from your taxable salary.  The Govt. ends up funding more that 60% of it.  

[BigDL]

I might be mistaken, but isn’t there a form of tax rebate/refund in the UK when you buy a bicycle for commuting purposes? I’m sure I read something somewhere in those lines. A bicycle licence would then make sense if used for commuting, show your license when buying a bicycle and get some tax relief. Obviously the onus would be on you to prove that said bicycle was used for commuting purposes.

It allows your company to buy you a bike for commuting, break the payments over 12 months and deduct the payments from your salary each month pre tax. The only requirement is that you commute with the bike at least once per week, but there is zero enforcement of that rule. I stand to be corrected, but I think it was originally introduced to promote health rather than impact congestion. My current employer didn’t offer it until recently, but in the three months since they offered it, there are five people in my team who are now commuting by bike instead of car, which, if extrapolated across the city, could have a massive impact on congestion. Not to mention the long term benefit to the health service etc