All these fatalities

[theclaud]

Through lower taxes.

However using your argument as cyclists aren't actually paying anything (no VED or fuel duty) then cyclists can't actually be subsiding motorists either.

The point is that just about everyone, including cyclists, is subsidising motorists. It's called general taxation.

 

[humptygocart]

cyclists aren't actually paying anything

I don't have to pay tax any more?

Woo!!!

 

[BentMikey]

Respect to you mattybain, at least you're willing to see the mistake in your assumptions. I'm not really into the green thing, not as much as I should be, but humpty is right on the very real cost of each road fatality - some place the figure much higher than the £1.5 million per death.

The 4 out of 5 figure comes from an RAC study, which one might argue is biased towards motorists. I saw a recent reference to a US study, that showed cyclists could be found at fault in only 1 in 10 collisions with a motorvehicle. Of course neither of those stats relate to the fact that cyclists have a lot of crashes all on their own, with no involvement of any other vehicle/person. That's not what we're discussing here though.

 

[BentMikey]

So matty, no selective anything now. Do you agree, on a net basis, that everybody subsidises motorists, based on all the revenues raised by driving, and all the costs to society, including road building and maintenance, pollution, NHS costs, deaths, policing, etc.?

 

[sadjack]

humptygocart

I have found your posts very thought provoking. Thanks for taking the time and trouble to post #78.

 

[mattybain]

The point is that just about everyone, including cyclists, is subsidising motorists. It's called general taxation.

This is the point, that isn't true.

Look at it from a financial perspective and real costs only i.e. money in or out to the governement.

It is clear from the figures that drivers pay much more into the government then is paid out.

Again let me stress I am only talking about acutal money flows, I don't think anyone is arguing with that.

If there wan't this excess then everyone would pay more in tax.

I accept there are lots of other things that have no financial costs just that we aren't paying out for them.

I guess if we looking at longterm costs we would factor these costs in as well (environmental clean up) but that would be a radical shift in current government thinking.

 

[humptygocart]

"Whenever we write about bike/car "interactions" we get a lot of
complaints that cyclists bring much of this upon themselves by blowing
through red lights and stop signs, and generally cycling aggressively.

While convalescing after being hit by a truck, Dr. Chris Cavacuiti of
the University of Toronto had some time to study the statistics and
concluded otherwise. He is interviewed by Bet McIlroy in the U of T's
Experience Research:

Who causes accidents—cyclists or drivers?

While there is a public perception that cyclists are usually the cause
of accidents between cars and bikes, an analysis of Toronto police
collision reports shows otherwise: The most common type of crash in
this study involved a motorist entering an intersection and either
failing to stop properly or proceeding before it was safe to do so.
The second most common crash type involved a motorist overtaking
unsafely. The third involved a motorist opening a door onto an
oncoming cyclist.






The study concluded that cyclists are the cause of
less than 10 per cent of bike-car accidents in this study.




The available evidence suggests that collisions have far more to do
with aggressive driving than aggressive cycling..."

More:
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/08/cyclists-cause-10-percent-of-...

 

[garrilla]

WHilst it is true to say driver's pay a greater share of their income in duties than none drivers does not mean they are subsidising the rest as it has been shown that this is set off against greater benefits. By the way, I suspect that I pay more as a cyclist on cycling related-VAT each year than my wife pays VED on her car and VAT on maintenance. I pay nothing for Fuel Duty, its true, but then I get my fuel from food.

 

[Davidc]

Through lower taxes.

However using your argument as cyclists aren't actually paying anything (no VED or fuel duty) then cyclists can't actually be subsiding motorists either.

Those cyclists (and others) without cars pay taxes which help provide the (at least) £2000 per year indirect subsidy per private car, including mine, with real money.

I pay about £600 a year in taxes on my car. It would be a lot more if I didn't use my bike for most local journeys. I have a car partly because I need it for work, and partly as a result of the Beeching cuts. £600 is hugely less than the cost to the country of me using that car for 5000 miles a year.

I pay about £100 a year in taxes on my bikes (all VAT). That is hugely more than the cost to the country of me using the bikes for 2000 miles a year.

Using my bikes is subsidising my use of my car.

 

[BentMikey]

""The AQS 2007 stated simply 'estimated to reduce life expectancy of every person in the UK by an average of 7-8 months with an equivalent health cost of up to £20 billion each year'," he wrote."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/apr/20/premature-deaths-london-pollution

 

[humptygocart]

It is clear from the figures that drivers pay much more into the government then is paid out.

Only if you discard the external costs, claim they are "spurious" with no explanation and make allegations of corrupt research with no real evidence, as you have done Matty.

Once you factor in the real, tangible external costs of motoring then you realise drivers receive a huge public subsidy.

 

[theclaud]

Look at it from a financial perspective and real costs only i.e. money in or out to the governement.

It is clear from the figures that drivers pay much more into the government then is paid out.

Again let me stress I am only talking about acutal money flows, I don't think anyone is arguing with that.

There's nothing unreal or abstract about the social and environmental costs of motoring. It's your distinctions that are arbitrary.

 

[mattybain]

So matty, no selective anything now. Do you agree, on a net basis, that everybody subsidises motorists, based on all the revenues raised by driving, and all the costs to society, including road building and maintenance, pollution, NHS costs, deaths, policing, etc.?

I have learnt a lot from this interesting discussion. Hats off to humpty for his thought provoking posts and for actually posting some credible evidence.

However the point is that we are not paying for environmental damage at the moment so you can't factor it in.

As I keep saying based on the acutal inflows and outflows of cash as it stands drivers are keeping other taxation lower than it should be.

I now agree that drivers should probably pay more but then we should be spending more on recitfying the damage we are causing to the environment.

 

[mattybain]

WHilst it is true to say driver's pay a greater share of their income in duties than none drivers does not mean they are subsidising the rest as it has been shown that this is set off against greater benefits. By the way, I suspect that I pay more as a cyclist on VAT each year than my wife pays VED on her car. I pay nothing for Fuel Duty, its true, but then I get my fuel from food.

Good argument but food is zero rated.

 

[mattybain]

It is clear from the figures that drivers pay much more into the government then is paid out.

Only if you discard the external costs, claim they are "spurious" with no explanation and make allegations of corrupt research with no real evidence, as you have done Matty.

Yes well as I keep saying we are not actually paying out these costs so yes the are "supurious" when it comes to looking at REAL inflows and outflows.

Can you not accept that?

You can argue they should be included when looking at how much drivers pay but that is not what we are discussing. In fact as I said in an earlier post I am all for increased fuel duty.