Cyclists !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

winkyincanada posted:
audio1946 posted:

the cost of these lanes for the tax payer is high , they should be trialed out surely .   cyclist should also pay for in the form of road tax too

I'll pay a tax when the number of motorists killed and injured by cyclists and pedestrians each year equals the number of pedestrians and cyclists killed and injured by motorists. Or when the pollution I cause by cycling equals the pollution caused by driving the "average" car. Or when the road damage my bike causes equals the road damage that a car causes.

"taxation" should be based on measures such as "occupation" or "utilisation", not the irrelevant features above.

 

winkyincanada posted:
Erich posted:
winkyincanada posted:
audio1946 posted:

the cost of these lanes for the tax payer is high , they should be trialed out surely .   cyclist should also pay for in the form of road tax too

I'll pay a tax when the number of motorists killed and injured by cyclists and pedestrians each year equals the number of pedestrians and cyclists killed and injured by motorists. Or when the pollution I cause by cycling equals the pollution caused by driving the "average" car. Or when the road damage my bike causes equals the road damage that a car causes.

In one word:  Never.

Yep. That's my point. Motorists are taxed and charged to compensate for the enormous costs that our choice to drive imposes on the environment and on others. By contrast, my choice to cycle imposes very little cost on others, and once the reduction in health care costs are factored in, is  perhaps a net benefit.

That's a load of rubbish !

Motorists are taxed because they have money and it's relatively easy to get them to part with it on the basis of "usage" ie in the form of fuel duty.

 

Poor old Don. Every 2-3 pages he completely forgets everything he's been told, and starts again. It's as if his retentive memory has completely gone, along with his ability to comprehend simple facts. And Don do please learn to understand English grammar. Your latest howler is "all manor of well-rehearsed excuses". Really? Given your enormous age you'd be expected to know stuff like this by now, along with all the other errors that punctuate your wild attempts at getting your point across but which cumulatively remove even more credibility from your already shaky stance.

Let's have a quick recap for you Don. Everybody pays for the roads, it's called taxation. We pay PAYE or are self employed and pay on demand. We buy a car, it attracts VAT. We also pay VED, but can pay none if we buy the sort of car that the govt would prefer us to have. We pay a bit extra per mile on top with fuel duty and VAT on fuel duty.

The same applies to a bike Don. The going rate for a half decent bike these days starts at about £500, so there's £100 straight to HM Treasury. We might buy a plastic hat @ £50+ so another tenner goes into the pot. Lycra is perfect for riding so a couple of pairs of shorts, a few tops, gloves, bad weather protection, shoes and maybe a pair of overshoes for winter, that's going to add up quite quickly, let's say £200, so there's another £40 to HMRC. A lot of people will go for more decent stuff but let's stay low to avoid accusations of exaggeration. Lights - cheap tat for a tenner, or something good and doubled up, it's easy to get to a couple of hundred quid on half decent lights. Mine were. What about the toys, like a Garmin for example, or a decent bike computer? Again a couple of hundred is routine.  Let's not dwell on  those who buy a bike worth about £3k plus £300 worth of Garmin and then renew clothing annually happily shelling out £100+ on individual items of clothing, and their contribution to the local economy by cycling in groups to local cafes at the weekend. 20 cyclists turning up at your little cafe on a Saturday afternoon for a coffee & a slice of cake is handy boost to that small business Don.

Our fuel duty is the VAT on a Mars Bar or equivalent. You don't ride 20 miles to office and do it purely on fresh air. So your pet peeve that we don't pay for usage, well that's tosh too.

Add it all up and cyclists and cycling make quite a contribution towards govt coffers, as well as funding this £4bn industry that creates jobs and wealth further afield. 

To summarise: most members of society pay in to the national pot, and cyclists contribute some more towards it from their cycling purchases. As we're a civilised nation we don't stop people from using the roads just because they haven't paid. It's a shared national resource, we have many that are free at point of use because as a civilised nation we've chosen to do that.

Your obsession - and that's what it is, an absolute obsession - is misguided because you focus only on one part of usage. To repeat the above point, we've all paid already as members of society and then paid more as cyclists, but cyclists aren't charged a specific additional fee raised through VED and a specific fuel duty equivalent. Why not?  Because - yet again - the net benefit to society is hugely positive in terms health, well-being, pollution, congestion, and the lack of damage to the roads for comparable journeys. You've been made aware of this though, every 3 pages and still you fail to make any meaningful counterclaim. Maybe Don you live your life by ignoring awkward issues and imagine that if you ignore them they don't count. It doesn't work that way; it hasn't worked for your grammar, punctuation and use of idiom, and doesn't work for this discussion that you seem so keen to show yourself up in.

You have a specific issue with cycling infrastructure. To be clear on this - cycling infrastructure benefits everybody, not just cyclists. It separates cyclists from vehicular traffic in some urban landscapes, so there should be a drop in collisions & therefore NHS use. It encourages cycling so reduces the load on PT as well as reducing the volume of traffic in our cities. And it reduces pollution. It's a big win-win, and it's perfectly valid to bear that cost from current taxation - it's yet another example of a shared national resource that benefits society. And away from the urban sprawl there's no need to create cycle lanes and special provision; I don't want the English countryside to be spoilt with miles of cycle-specific lanes that benefit absolutely nobody. Most of those roads are fine as they are thanks.

What's needed is for all road users to learn that road space has to be shared with anybody who happens there. That mentality is such a great leap forward; if you could only grasp it Don the world would be a slightly improved place.

I just remembered that Don can't deal with more than a couple of paragraphs at a time.

Don - cyclists pay their usage by buying stuff that they wouldn't otherwise buy, to go cycling. For us it's bikes, clothing, toys and cake at a cafe. Motorists usage costs are extracted from fuel duties. Driving causes damage in so many different ways, and cycling is exactly the opposite.

ChrisR_EPL posted:

The same applies to a bike Don. The going rate for a half decent bike these days starts at about £500, so there's £100 straight to HM Treasury. We might buy a plastic hat @ £50+ so another tenner goes into the pot....

Cycle helmets are VAT FREE - Yippee! : )

However i may of paid VAT on the blood group sticker i bought for mine, but that only cost a quid in total : /

Debs

naim_nymph posted:
ChrisR_EPL posted:

The same applies to a bike Don. The going rate for a half decent bike these days starts at about £500, so there's £100 straight to HM Treasury. We might buy a plastic hat @ £50+ so another tenner goes into the pot....

Cycle helmets are VAT FREE - Yippee! : )

However i may of paid VAT on the blood group sticker i bought for mine, but that only cost a quid in total : /

Debs

Well done Debs, I'm proud of you ............

I probably paid VAT on my Driving Gloves and Car-Coat............ (I like to feel i'm playing my part as a responsible member of society)

...........and VAT on the cleaning products that I use to keep the interior and bodywork of my cars looking nice !!! ........and cleaning the cars helps to get me outdoors and keep fit, thus reducing the burdon on the entire NHS system at a stroke (OMG - that was an unintentional pun !)

Don finally clicks. The more you buy, the more you contribute. It doesn't have to be named as a specific tax, it still adds to the pot. You buy motoring goods however voluntarily, you're contributing. Just like those of us with a load of cycling gear.

Finally.

You're a burden btw, not a burdon. 

ChrisR_EPL posted:

I just remembered that Don can't deal with more than a couple of paragraphs at a time.

Don - cyclists pay their usage by buying stuff that they wouldn't otherwise buy, to go cycling. For us it's bikes, clothing, toys and cake at a cafe. Motorists usage costs are extracted from fuel duties. Driving causes damage in so many different ways, and cycling is exactly the opposite.

What kind of toys do you buy from a cafe? I'm sure you meant tea and cakes. It should be enshrined in law that all cycle rides of greater than 60 miles require a tea, coffee and cakes stop!

Don Atkinson posted:
naim_nymph posted:
ChrisR_EPL posted:

The same applies to a bike Don. The going rate for a half decent bike these days starts at about £500, so there's £100 straight to HM Treasury. We might buy a plastic hat @ £50+ so another tenner goes into the pot....

Cycle helmets are VAT FREE - Yippee! : )

However i may of paid VAT on the blood group sticker i bought for mine, but that only cost a quid in total : /

Debs

Well done Debs, I'm proud of you ............

I probably paid VAT on my Driving Gloves and Car-Coat............ (I like to feel i'm playing my part as a responsible member of society)

...........and VAT on the cleaning products that I use to keep the interior and bodywork of my cars looking nice !!! ........and cleaning the cars helps to get me outdoors and keep fit, thus reducing the burdon on the entire NHS system at a stroke (OMG - that was an unintentional pun !)

Has anyone really bought a car coat since 1975?

Hungryhalibut posted:
Don Atkinson posted:

Well done Debs, I'm proud of you ............

I probably paid VAT on my Driving Gloves and Car-Coat............ (I like to feel i'm playing my part as a responsible member of society)

...........and VAT on the cleaning products that I use to keep the interior and bodywork of my cars looking nice !!! ........and cleaning the cars helps to get me outdoors and keep fit, thus reducing the burdon on the entire NHS system at a stroke (OMG - that was an unintentional pun !)

Has anyone really bought a car coat since 1975?

OMG, looks like it's time for a new one already !

In another thread, winky has highlighted discussions taking place regarding the possibility of some sort of highway "occupation" or "utilisation" charge in Vancouver. His main point being that charging cyclists was not part of the discussion.

We haven't established whether this is an oversight on the part of the contributors, or whether the exclusion has been already debated and a concensus reached that cyclists will not be subject to any charging scheme.

London might not be typical of other towns and cities. However a quick glance at London's travel modes reveals that :-

37% of trips are by public transport (Train, bus, taxi)

36% of trips are by car

24% of trips are by foot ie walking

2% of trips are by bicycle

The largest group of bicycle trips are undertaken by 30 - 50 year olds who are mainly fit, white, males. People up to the age of about 15 and those over the age of about 55 appear to be remarkable by their absence from this form of transport., but do feature in the "walking" and "public transport" groups.

Whether the journey demographic in Vancouver is similar, I don't know, but it seems strange that such a small, well-defined group of travellers in London, appear to be convinced that a disproportionate amount of highway infrastructure should be re-allocated to their use (exclusive or otherwise) at no charge for this use. I do appreciate that the Santander cycle scheme might well cover more than its supply and administration, but the use of private cycles doesn't.

 

https://ecf.com/news-and-event...uters-european-trend

I like the idea of getting a tax break for riding my bike to work (natch). The cost of subsidised private motorized vehicles is eye-watering at 4.1 billion euros per year. What's that about? I guess they figure that the 4000 people who die each year in Belgium alone from the polluting effects of motorised traffic is also an issue worthwhile of some attention at least.

https://www.welovecycling.com/...undabout-just-bikes/

They built this in the Netherlands. Where nobody pays any form of "cycle tax". In fact no-body in the world actually pays any form of cycle tax (except in Oregon in the US where I understand a small levy is applied to bicycle purchases). 

It doesn't seem likely to me that Don is onto something that makes sense if only everyone would get on-board with his "vision".

In other news, a lane of the Cambie Street bridge (which is a main commuter route into downtown Vancouver) is to have one of its many lanes converted to a protected cycle lane. Naturally the internet is aflame with hate speech towards cyclists as a consequence. It is not a route I ever ride, but if it gets people out of their cars, with all the benefits that entails, I'm all for it.

Don Atkinson posted:

.

.....but it seems strange that such a small, well-defined group of travellers in London, appear to be convinced that a disproportionate amount of highway infrastructure should be re-allocated to their use (exclusive or otherwise) at no charge for this use. I do appreciate that the Santander cycle scheme might well cover more than its supply and administration, but the use of private cycles doesn't.

 

It is not strange. The benefits of cycling as a means of transport are significant, and not to be discouraged. The share of cycling as a means of transport is increasing. Good infrastructure is a key to it continuation. (B.T.W. the prevalence of young-ish males as cycle-warriors is largely due to the perceived  and real risks of dealing with motorised traffic. Female cyclists seems less keen to take that on). Your ridiculous cycle-tax proposals would reverse the beneficial trend of increased cycling to detriment of everybody, including the motorists.

What actually seems strange to me is that we just shrug our shoulders and accept the punishing toll that our addiction to private vehicles continues to extract.

Your cycle-tax suggestions remain utterly idiotic, no matter how many times you make them. They are unsupported by policy-makers anywhere in the world. You're not some sort of visionary who has any answers here. You just come across as a bitter old man with some sort of axe to grind.

While I am not advocating charges for cyclists or anything like that - there is a problem here in Devon, and so presumably elsewhere.  The country roads here are not particularly wide - often single track, and very often with just about enough room for vehicles to pass in opposite directions.  When I drive into Exeter, for instance, it is extremely common to come across a mile or two tailback of vehicles behind a lone cyclist peddling along at whatever speed they do.  The extra fuel used by all these vehicles travelling at about 10mph, maybe 15 in places, down to 4 or 5 on the uphills, is probably significant, and a lot more than the cyclist is saving by using a bike rather than a car or public transport.  I'm not sure what can be done to mitigate this.  The cyclist, of course, has a perfect right to use the road (though it might be possible for them to pull in on occasion to let the traffic by, but that never happens).  

Beachcomber posted:

While I am not advocating charges for cyclists or anything like that - there is a problem here in Devon, and so presumably elsewhere.  The country roads here are not particularly wide - often single track, and very often with just about enough room for vehicles to pass in opposite directions.  When I drive into Exeter, for instance, it is extremely common to come across a mile or two tailback of vehicles behind a lone cyclist peddling along at whatever speed they do.  The extra fuel used by all these vehicles travelling at about 10mph, maybe 15 in places, down to 4 or 5 on the uphills, is probably significant, and a lot more than the cyclist is saving by using a bike rather than a car or public transport.  I'm not sure what can be done to mitigate this.  The cyclist, of course, has a perfect right to use the road (though it might be possible for them to pull in on occasion to let the traffic by, but that never happens).  

That’s a good point. Maybe the council could install passing places specifically to assist and encourage cyclists to let cars go by - though as the last thing a cyclist wants is to lose momentum uphill, they would be best at the tops of hills, possibly except on long drags where less fit cyclists might welcome a break.

Of course, if all those motorists were to go by bike, or train if a long journey...

Well, it's about 30 miles of country road for me, and similar distances for lots of other people round here.  Buses are not practical - there aren't many and they take a huge amount of time to make the journey.  Train is do-able (there's one an hour), and you keep fit, I suppose, because you usually have to stand all the way in one or both directions.  Sometimes a little difficult getting onto the train because of the bikes that are on it, but they are often very crowded anyway.  The problem is that the population is very spread-out.  There is often little practical choice but to drive places (and there are not many train stations because Beeching closed them down).

winkyincanada posted:

https://ecf.com/news-and-event...uters-european-trend

I like the idea of getting a tax break for riding my bike to work (natch). The cost of subsidised private motorized vehicles is eye-watering at 4.1 billion euros per year. What's that about? I guess they figure that the 4000 people who die each year in Belgium alone from the polluting effects of motorised traffic is also an issue worthwhile of some attention at least.

https://www.welovecycling.com/...undabout-just-bikes/

They built this in the Netherlands. Where nobody pays any form of "cycle tax". In fact no-body in the world actually pays any form of cycle tax (except in Oregon in the US where I understand a small levy is applied to bicycle purchases). 

It doesn't seem likely to me that Don is onto something that makes sense if only everyone would get on-board with his "vision".

In other news, a lane of the Cambie Street bridge (which is a main commuter route into downtown Vancouver) is to have one of its many lanes converted to a protected cycle lane. Naturally the internet is aflame with hate speech towards cyclists as a consequence. It is not a route I ever ride, but if it gets people out of their cars, with all the benefits that entails, I'm all for it.

Sarcasm doesn't become you, winky.

winkyincanada posted:
Don Atkinson posted:

.

.....but it seems strange that such a small, well-defined group of travellers in London, appear to be convinced that a disproportionate amount of highway infrastructure should be re-allocated to their use (exclusive or otherwise) at no charge for this use. I do appreciate that the Santander cycle scheme might well cover more than its supply and administration, but the use of private cycles doesn't.

 

It is not strange. The benefits of cycling as a means of transport are significant, and not to be discouraged. The share of cycling as a means of transport is increasing. Good infrastructure is a key to it continuation. (B.T.W. the prevalence of young-ish males as cycle-warriors is largely due to the perceived  and real risks of dealing with motorised traffic. Female cyclists seems less keen to take that on). Your ridiculous cycle-tax proposals would reverse the beneficial trend of increased cycling to detriment of everybody, including the motorists.

What actually seems strange to me is that we just shrug our shoulders and accept the punishing toll that our addiction to private vehicles continues to extract.

Your cycle-tax suggestions remain utterly idiotic, no matter how many times you make them. They are unsupported by policy-makers anywhere in the world. You're not some sort of visionary who has any answers here. You just come across as a bitter old man with some sort of axe to grind.

I know it hurts you that not everybody agrees that cyclists should be given exclusive access, free of charge to our highway infrastructure. I'm certainly not bitter and don't have any axe to grind.. But if we "all" converted (or were forced to convert) to cycling (including the frail and elderly) the politicians would raise income tax, VAT, etc and it would be fair and reasonable.

But given that it's only 2% of poeple who cycle - and this won't significantly change, and further, this option isn't viable to a significant section of our community, it strikes me that a charge on cycling is perfectly reasonable. I appreciate that you don't agree.

Beachcomber posted:

I suspect, too, that many cyclists would treat passing places with the same disdain they often show for red lights.  (nearly run over last night by a cyclist ignoring traffic lights on my walk to the train station, for instance)

You may be right with some, though others actually are not comfortable holding up traffic and would move aside if they could, but having regard for the energy demand to which I alluded in my last post. And of course I recognise the reality of travel in rural areas particularly, or if you have a lot of stuff to carry (though in India and China bikes seem to be able to carry an awful lot, including the kitchen sink!). Beeching was the scourge of public transport.

As for jumping red lights, as a commuting cyclist I have nothing but distain for such people, not only causing a hazard to other road users, but giving the rest of us a bad name. Same goes for jumping the lights by using the pavement to bypass them! Or riding in dark clothing on a dull day and not using lights when it’s dark.

Don Atkinson posted:

I know it hurts you that not everybody agrees that cyclists should be given exclusive access, free of charge to our highway infrastructure. I'm certainly not bitter and don't have any axe to grind.. But if we "all" converted (or were forced to convert) to cycling (including the frail and elderly) the politicians would raise income tax, VAT, etc and it would be fair and reasonable.

But given that it's only 2% of poeple who cycle - and this won't significantly change, and further, this option isn't viable to a significant section of our community, it strikes me that a charge on cycling is perfectly reasonable. I appreciate that you don't agree.

But what does your idiotic and unworkable proposed charge achieve? Nothing positive, other than to remove cyclists from the roads. It will generate no significant revenue and result in the construction of no new cycling infrastructure. It will likely cause the removal of any that exists already. It will increase motorised traffic but provide little in the way of funding for more car lanes. It will increase the burden on our environment, and on our health systems. It's just a stupid idea, Don. I get that it hurts you that no-one seems to buy your so-called "vision". But that's because it is utterly idiotic.

Beachcomber posted:

....... it is extremely common to come across a mile or two tailback of vehicles behind a lone cyclist peddling along at whatever speed they do........

In all my years of cycling and driving (including a few years spent in Southeast England), I have never seen what you describe. Not even close.

Innocent Bystander posted:
Beachcomber posted:

I suspect, too, that many cyclists would treat passing places with the same disdain they often show for red lights.  (nearly run over last night by a cyclist ignoring traffic lights on my walk to the train station, for instance)

You may be right with some, though others actually are not comfortable holding up traffic and would move aside if they could, but having regard for the energy demand to which I alluded in my last post. And of course I recognise the reality of travel in rural areas particularly, or if you have a lot of stuff to carry (though in India and China bikes seem to be able to carry an awful lot, including the kitchen sink!). Beeching was the scourge of public transport.

As for jumping red lights, as a commuting cyclist I have nothing but distain for such people, not only causing a hazard to other road users, but giving the rest of us a bad name. Same goes for jumping the lights by using the pavement to bypass them! Or riding in dark clothing on a dull day and not using lights when it’s dark.

I also have utter disdain for my fellow cyclists and fellow motorists jumping red lights. Here in downtown Vancouver, as a pedestrian, when the crossing light turns green for you to cross, it is vital (for one's health) that one waits a second-or-two for the speeding motorist that has entered the intersection on late-orange or even red to clear the crossing, and to wait for the impatient right-turning  motorist who crosses the pedestrian crossing ahead of pedestrians just as it turns green. Yeah cyclists do this stuff too (drives me nuts) but is is most definitely the red-light jumping and aggressive motorists who present, by far, the greatest danger to pedestrians in the downtown, Motorists violently and gruesomely kill people regularly on our city streets (a 15 year-old girl was run down and killed on a pedestrian crossing just yesterday). Cyclists don't.

winkyincanada posted:
Beachcomber posted:

....... it is extremely common to come across a mile or two tailback of vehicles behind a lone cyclist peddling along at whatever speed they do........

In all my years of cycling and driving (including a few years spent in Southeast England), I have never seen what you describe. Not even close.

Nor have I, in various parts of UK, though from rptime to time isolated cases of up to a couple of dozen cars . However, I do know that a lot of Cornish roads are particularly narrow and twist and turn with poor forward visibility, so I can picture it happening there of all places.

Innocent Bystander posted:
winkyincanada posted:
Beachcomber posted:

....... it is extremely common to come across a mile or two tailback of vehicles behind a lone cyclist peddling along at whatever speed they do........

In all my years of cycling and driving (including a few years spent in Southeast England), I have never seen what you describe. Not even close.

Nor have I, in various parts of UK, though from rptime to time isolated cases of up to a couple of dozen cars . However, I do know that a lot of Cornish roads are particularly narrow and twist and turn with poor forward visibility, so I can picture it happening there of all places.

i've seen this plenty of times, though... (and not a cyclist in sight!)

Innocent Bystander posted:
winkyincanada posted:
Beachcomber posted:

....... it is extremely common to come across a mile or two tailback of vehicles behind a lone cyclist peddling along at whatever speed they do........

In all my years of cycling and driving (including a few years spent in Southeast England), I have never seen what you describe. Not even close.

Nor have I, in various parts of UK, though from rptime to time isolated cases of up to a couple of dozen cars . However, I do know that a lot of Cornish roads are particularly narrow and twist and turn with poor forward visibility, so I can picture it happening there of all places.

Nor me, funnily enough. 

ChrisR_EPL posted:

I just remembered that Don can't deal with more than a couple of paragraphs at a time.

Don - cyclists pay their usage by buying stuff that they wouldn't otherwise buy, to go cycling. For us it's bikes, clothing, toys and cake at a cafe. Motorists usage costs are extracted from fuel duties. Driving causes damage in so many different ways, and cycling is exactly the opposite.

Sorry, but most people, pretty close to 100% buy clothing, lots of car toys to be had for the automotive enthusiast and motorists stop for cake at cafe as well, in fact they buy extra for family and friends since they have the extra capacity to carry it home. 

Cyclists should have no problem paying an annual usage fee for all the bike lanes that are maintained in cities and other places and for services provided for them to use the roadways. 

seakayaker posted:
ChrisR_EPL posted:

I just remembered that Don can't deal with more than a couple of paragraphs at a time.

Don - cyclists pay their usage by buying stuff that they wouldn't otherwise buy, to go cycling. For us it's bikes, clothing, toys and cake at a cafe. Motorists usage costs are extracted from fuel duties. Driving causes damage in so many different ways, and cycling is exactly the opposite.

Sorry, but most people, pretty close to 100% buy clothing, lots of car toys to be had for the automotive enthusiast and motorists stop for cake at cafe as well, in fact they buy extra for family and friends since they have the extra capacity to carry it home. 

Cyclists should have no problem paying an annual usage fee for all the bike lanes that are maintained in cities and other places and for services provided for them to use the roadways. 

I certainly don't have any problem paying for my share of transport infrastructure through my taxes. But lots of things are subsisdised. Transit riders don't pay the full cost of bus services. Health care is provided here in Canada without direct cost to the recipient for many services. Motorists don't explicitly pay the full cost of the health impacts on others that their driving causes. We don't pay the full cost for the environmental damage that the extraction and burning of fossil fuels in our cars causes. We don't pay a per-day fee for parking on the street in a lot of cases. We don't pay directly for the routine and violent carnage on the roads we cause. And cyclists don't explicitly pay for cycling infrastructure or road occupancy. But in our modern society, there is give and take. Policies are formed to both be efficient, and to encourage activities that benefit us all.

winkyincanada posted:
seakayaker posted:
ChrisR_EPL posted:

I just remembered that Don can't deal with more than a couple of paragraphs at a time.

Don - cyclists pay their usage by buying stuff that they wouldn't otherwise buy, to go cycling. For us it's bikes, clothing, toys and cake at a cafe. Motorists usage costs are extracted from fuel duties. Driving causes damage in so many different ways, and cycling is exactly the opposite.

Sorry, but most people, pretty close to 100% buy clothing, lots of car toys to be had for the automotive enthusiast and motorists stop for cake at cafe as well, in fact they buy extra for family and friends since they have the extra capacity to carry it home. 

Cyclists should have no problem paying an annual usage fee for all the bike lanes that are maintained in cities and other places and for services provided for them to use the roadways. 

I certainly don't have any problem paying for my share of transport infrastructure through my taxes. But lots of things are subsisdised. Transit riders don't pay the full cost of bus services. Health care is provided here in Canada without direct cost to the recipient for many services. Motorists don't explicitly pay the full cost of the health impacts on others that their driving causes. We don't pay the full cost for the environmental damage that the extraction and burning of fossil fuels in our cars causes. We don't pay a per-day fee for parking on the street in a lot of cases. We don't pay directly for the routine and violent carnage on the roads we cause. And cyclists don't explicitly pay for cycling infrastructure or road occupancy. But in our modern society, there is give and take. Policies are formed to both be efficient, and to encourage activities that benefit us all.

I think many of us would accept that your summary of taxation and funding contributions illustrates the current state of affairs, ie cyclists don’t explicitly pay for cycling infrastructure or road occupancy. Motorists are denied access to that infrastructure unless they first pay VED and (with the insignificant exception of a few ev cars) buy their fuel and in doing so, pay per mile for using that infrastructure.

Don Atkinson posted:
winkyincanada posted:
seakayaker posted:
ChrisR_EPL posted:

I just remembered that Don can't deal with more than a couple of paragraphs at a time.

Don - cyclists pay their usage by buying stuff that they wouldn't otherwise buy, to go cycling. For us it's bikes, clothing, toys and cake at a cafe. Motorists usage costs are extracted from fuel duties. Driving causes damage in so many different ways, and cycling is exactly the opposite.

Sorry, but most people, pretty close to 100% buy clothing, lots of car toys to be had for the automotive enthusiast and motorists stop for cake at cafe as well, in fact they buy extra for family and friends since they have the extra capacity to carry it home. 

Cyclists should have no problem paying an annual usage fee for all the bike lanes that are maintained in cities and other places and for services provided for them to use the roadways. 

I certainly don't have any problem paying for my share of transport infrastructure through my taxes. But lots of things are subsisdised. Transit riders don't pay the full cost of bus services. Health care is provided here in Canada without direct cost to the recipient for many services. Motorists don't explicitly pay the full cost of the health impacts on others that their driving causes. We don't pay the full cost for the environmental damage that the extraction and burning of fossil fuels in our cars causes. We don't pay a per-day fee for parking on the street in a lot of cases. We don't pay directly for the routine and violent carnage on the roads we cause. And cyclists don't explicitly pay for cycling infrastructure or road occupancy. But in our modern society, there is give and take. Policies are formed to both be efficient, and to encourage activities that benefit us all.

I think many of us would accept that your summary of taxation and funding contributions illustrates the current state of affairs, ie cyclists don’t explicitly pay for cycling infrastructure or road occupancy. Motorists are denied access to that infrastructure unless they first pay VED and (with the insignificant exception of a few ev cars) buy their fuel and in doing so, pay per mile for using that infrastructure.

It's not motorists who are denied access, it is their cars. All people enjoy free access to our transport corridors unless they choose a motorised vehicle as a way to travel along it. Then, rightfully, they are subject to significant regulation and cost-recovery, such is the dangerous and destructive nature of their choice. People may choose to avoid such impost by walking or cycling freely along the transport corridors that we, as a society have preserved for all to use. Of course, that choice comes with a risk that someone in a car runs them down.

Really do people still think they are directly paying to use the roads?  Nobody has paid a tax linked to road usage in the UK since 1937 when Road Tax was abolished, and a tax on vehicles introduced.  So that’s it really - 21 pages of <your words here> on an argument that doesn’t exist based on some backward notion that cyclists don’t pay for something nobody else pays for either!  Except of course as has been pointed out, that we all pay various forms of tax every day that is used to run the country including funding infrastructure.

VED is nothing to do with road use.  It is just another way to tax a purchase many can’t avoid.  It has of course evolved, probably each time the exchequer realised the last change was resulting in too little tax, e.g linked to CO2, then oops, CO2 and car value...

For the sake of transparency, I have 3 cars (2 of which have inflated VED costs, one becasue of emissions I’m afraid and another due to price) and two bikes - road and mountain.  That would mean by the way, that if VED was a road use tax, I’d have paid three times on the premise that if I only had one car I would have paid to use it on the roads every day of the year if I wanted. I would then be entitled to waste some of my investment in 3 years of road use per year paying VED and ride a bike for a change...

winkyincanada posted:
Don Atkinson posted:
winkyincanada posted:
seakayaker posted:
ChrisR_EPL posted:

I just remembered that Don can't deal with more than a couple of paragraphs at a time.

Don - cyclists pay their usage by buying stuff that they wouldn't otherwise buy, to go cycling. For us it's bikes, clothing, toys and cake at a cafe. Motorists usage costs are extracted from fuel duties. Driving causes damage in so many different ways, and cycling is exactly the opposite.

Sorry, but most people, pretty close to 100% buy clothing, lots of car toys to be had for the automotive enthusiast and motorists stop for cake at cafe as well, in fact they buy extra for family and friends since they have the extra capacity to carry it home. 

Cyclists should have no problem paying an annual usage fee for all the bike lanes that are maintained in cities and other places and for services provided for them to use the roadways. 

I certainly don't have any problem paying for my share of transport infrastructure through my taxes. But lots of things are subsisdised. Transit riders don't pay the full cost of bus services. Health care is provided here in Canada without direct cost to the recipient for many services. Motorists don't explicitly pay the full cost of the health impacts on others that their driving causes. We don't pay the full cost for the environmental damage that the extraction and burning of fossil fuels in our cars causes. We don't pay a per-day fee for parking on the street in a lot of cases. We don't pay directly for the routine and violent carnage on the roads we cause. And cyclists don't explicitly pay for cycling infrastructure or road occupancy. But in our modern society, there is give and take. Policies are formed to both be efficient, and to encourage activities that benefit us all.

I think many of us would accept that your summary of taxation and funding contributions illustrates the current state of affairs, ie cyclists don’t explicitly pay for cycling infrastructure or road occupancy. Motorists are denied access to that infrastructure unless they first pay VED and (with the insignificant exception of a few ev cars) buy their fuel and in doing so, pay per mile for using that infrastructure.

It's not motorists who are denied access, it is their cars. All people enjoy free access to our transport corridors unless they choose a motorised vehicle as a way to travel along it. Then, rightfully, they are subject to significant regulation and cost-recovery, such is the dangerous and destructive nature of their choice. People may choose to avoid such impost by walking or cycling freely along the transport corridors that we, as a society have preserved for all to use. Of course, that choice comes with a risk that someone in a car runs them down.

OMG, for the life of me, that fact had never crossed my mind..........................

.............talk about nit-picking !

winkyincanada posted:
Don Atkinson posted:
winkyincanada posted:
seakayaker posted:
ChrisR_EPL posted:

I just remembered that Don can't deal with more than a couple of paragraphs at a time.

Don - cyclists pay their usage by buying stuff that they wouldn't otherwise buy, to go cycling. For us it's bikes, clothing, toys and cake at a cafe. Motorists usage costs are extracted from fuel duties. Driving causes damage in so many different ways, and cycling is exactly the opposite.

Sorry, but most people, pretty close to 100% buy clothing, lots of car toys to be had for the automotive enthusiast and motorists stop for cake at cafe as well, in fact they buy extra for family and friends since they have the extra capacity to carry it home. 

Cyclists should have no problem paying an annual usage fee for all the bike lanes that are maintained in cities and other places and for services provided for them to use the roadways. 

I certainly don't have any problem paying for my share of transport infrastructure through my taxes. But lots of things are subsisdised. Transit riders don't pay the full cost of bus services. Health care is provided here in Canada without direct cost to the recipient for many services. Motorists don't explicitly pay the full cost of the health impacts on others that their driving causes. We don't pay the full cost for the environmental damage that the extraction and burning of fossil fuels in our cars causes. We don't pay a per-day fee for parking on the street in a lot of cases. We don't pay directly for the routine and violent carnage on the roads we cause. And cyclists don't explicitly pay for cycling infrastructure or road occupancy. But in our modern society, there is give and take. Policies are formed to both be efficient, and to encourage activities that benefit us all.

I think many of us would accept that your summary of taxation and funding contributions illustrates the current state of affairs, ie cyclists don’t explicitly pay for cycling infrastructure or road occupancy. Motorists are denied access to that infrastructure unless they first pay VED and (with the insignificant exception of a few ev cars) buy their fuel and in doing so, pay per mile for using that infrastructure.

It's not motorists who are denied access, it is their cars.All people enjoy free access to our transport corridors unless they choose a motorised vehicle as a way to travel along it. Then, rightfully, they are subject to significant regulation and cost-recovery, such is the dangerous and destructive nature of their choice. People may choose to avoid such impost by walking or cycling freely along the transport corridors that we, as a society have preserved for all to use. Of course, that choice comes with a risk that someone in a car runs them down.

Funny that ! When I explained this to the bus driver last week, he told me to" F**k Off"

Next week i'll explain it more clearly...."my aquaintance, winkincanada says....."......let me try to guess what he will say...!

Judge posted:

Really do people still think they are directly paying to use the roads?  Nobody has paid a tax linked to road usage in the UK since 1937 when Road Tax was abolished, and a tax on vehicles introduced.  So that’s it really - 21 pages of <your words here> on an argument that doesn’t exist based on some backward notion that cyclists don’t pay for something nobody else pays for either!  Except of course as has been pointed out, that we all pay various forms of tax every day that is used to run the country including funding infrastructure.

VED is nothing to do with road use.  It is just another way to tax a purchase many can’t avoid.  It has of course evolved, probably each time the exchequer realised the last change was resulting in too little tax, e.g linked to CO2, then oops, CO2 and car value...

For the sake of transparency, I have 3 cars (2 of which have inflated VED costs, one becasue of emissions I’m afraid and another due to price) and two bikes - road and mountain.  That would mean by the way, that if VED was a road use tax, I’d have paid three times on the premise that if I only had one car I would have paid to use it on the roads every day of the year if I wanted. I would then be entitled to waste some of my investment in 3 years of road use per year paying VED and ride a bike for a change...

The answer to that is simple: shift all car duty onto fuel, pricing it for private use at a sufficiently high rate that people feel bike is a so much more sensible means of transport, and with health benefits' too (especially with a lot fewer cars on the road.

It then wouldn't make any difference how many cars you have, as you can only drive one at a time. People who do need to drive on occasion would feel they're getting value for money as the roads would be so much clearer.

And with Brexit, no need to worry about the knock-on effect on the motor industry if fewer people buy cars because there's precious little produced in UK anymore anyway, and what is here will probably leave.

Judge posted:

Really do people still think they are directly paying to use the roads?  Nobody has paid a tax linked to road usage in the UK since 1937 when Road Tax was abolished, and a tax on vehicles introduced.  So that’s it really - 21 pages of <your words here> on an argument that doesn’t exist based on some backward notion that cyclists don’t pay for something nobody else pays for either!  Except of course as has been pointed out, that we all pay various forms of tax every day that is used to run the country including funding infrastructure.

VED is nothing to do with road use.  It is just another way to tax a purchase many can’t avoid.  It has of course evolved, probably each time the exchequer realised the last change was resulting in too little tax, e.g linked to CO2, then oops, CO2 and car value...

For the sake of transparency, I have 3 cars (2 of which have inflated VED costs, one becasue of emissions I’m afraid and another due to price) and two bikes - road and mountain.  That would mean by the way, that if VED was a road use tax, I’d have paid three times on the premise that if I only had one car I would have paid to use it on the roads every day of the year if I wanted. I would then be entitled to waste some of my investment in 3 years of road use per year paying VED and ride a bike for a change...

Try this......

1.rescind the VED on each of your cars

2. take each one of your cars onto the road system

3. draw attention of a policeman to the fact that you have your car on the highway

4. report back here what happend (*)

Cheers

Don

(*) I'm only guessing here, but I bet there is some kind of link between VED and the right to put your car on the road.

Now try the same exercise with your push bike, and again i'm guessing, but..............

QED

Don Atkinson posted:
winkyincanada posted:

It's not motorists who are denied access, it is their cars. All people enjoy free access to our transport corridors unless they choose a motorised vehicle as a way to travel along it. Then, rightfully, they are subject to significant regulation and cost-recovery, such is the dangerous and destructive nature of their choice. People may choose to avoid such impost by walking or cycling freely along the transport corridors that we, as a society have preserved for all to use. Of course, that choice comes with a risk that someone in a car runs them down.

Funny that ! When I explained this to the bus driver last week, he told me to" F**k Off"

Next week i'll explain it more clearly...."my aquaintance, winkincanada says....."......let me try to guess what he will say...!

You deliberately missed the bit where I said "motorised". (OK, the first sentence does not mention buses)

Don Atkinson posted:
winkyincanada posted:
Don Atkinson posted:
.
 

I think many of us would accept that your summary of taxation and funding contributions illustrates the current state of affairs, ie cyclists don’t explicitly pay for cycling infrastructure or road occupancy. Motorists are denied access to that infrastructure unless they first pay VED and (with the insignificant exception of a few ev cars) buy their fuel and in doing so, pay per mile for using that infrastructure.

It's not motorists who are denied access, it is their cars. All people enjoy free access to our transport corridors unless they choose a motorised vehicle as a way to travel along it. Then, rightfully, they are subject to significant regulation and cost-recovery, such is the dangerous and destructive nature of their choice. People may choose to avoid such impost by walking or cycling freely along the transport corridors that we, as a society have preserved for all to use. Of course, that choice comes with a risk that someone in a car runs them down.

OMG, for the life of me, that fact had never crossed my mind..........................

.............talk about nit-picking !

Not nit-picking at all. People can absolutely choose free access to the roads. I do so every day. The regulations and taxes levied on motoring are only becasue they are motorised vehicles, and really has nothing to do with the person in them. (Because of the propensity of motorised vehicles to do great harm to others, operators must also be licensed, of course.)

Don Atkinson posted:
Judge posted:

Really do people still think they are directly paying to use the roads?  Nobody has paid a tax linked to road usage in the UK since 1937 when Road Tax was abolished, and a tax on vehicles introduced.  So that’s it really - 21 pages of <your words here> on an argument that doesn’t exist based on some backward notion that cyclists don’t pay for something nobody else pays for either!  Except of course as has been pointed out, that we all pay various forms of tax every day that is used to run the country including funding infrastructure.

VED is nothing to do with road use.  It is just another way to tax a purchase many can’t avoid.  It has of course evolved, probably each time the exchequer realised the last change was resulting in too little tax, e.g linked to CO2, then oops, CO2 and car value...

For the sake of transparency, I have 3 cars (2 of which have inflated VED costs, one becasue of emissions I’m afraid and another due to price) and two bikes - road and mountain.  That would mean by the way, that if VED was a road use tax, I’d have paid three times on the premise that if I only had one car I would have paid to use it on the roads every day of the year if I wanted. I would then be entitled to waste some of my investment in 3 years of road use per year paying VED and ride a bike for a change...

Try this......

1.rescind the VED on each of your cars

2. take each one of your cars onto the road system

3. draw attention of a policeman to the fact that you have your car on the highway

4. report back here what happend (*)

Cheers

Don

(*) I'm only guessing here, but I bet there is some kind of link between VED and the right to put your car on the road.

Now try the same exercise with your push bike, and again i'm guessing, but..............

QED

QED doesn't actually add anything to your idiotic "logic". I am perhaps dumber for having read it.

Likes (0)
×
×
×
×