Compulsory Insurance and VED

[Smudge]

Only my experience but I have never come across a policy where it's automatically included, it just maybe that we look at different ends of the cost spectrum, I detest insurance so will almost always take the cheapest option, in 40+ years I have only ever claimed on any insurance once.

I do hope you are right, but I do think that electric motored motorcycles/mopeds will be subject to VED

My Volvo diesel is still only £30 a year, it's ridiculous, I have a friend whose BMW is only £30 he does 50K a year, my kit car is £250+ does less than 2K (in fact this year likely to be less than 1K) surely his emissions will be greater than mine

Which is why i believe VED should be scrapped and the duty put on fuel instead.

 

[Deleted member 26715]

Which is why i believe VED should be scrapped and the duty put on fuel instead.

100% agree, the more miles/fuel you use the more you pay,

 

[numbnuts]

100% agree, the more miles/fuel you use the more you pay,

Yes as an old fart I only do 1000 miles per year, but have to pay £265

 

[Smudge]

Putting the VED on fuel would not only be a fairer system, but i believe it would actively encourage people to use other forms of transport like bikes and public transport at times. Especially for short journeys in town which are the most polluting.
But the government must have considered this and decided that annual VED on vehicles give them more revenue.... and that's all they are interested in.

 

[Deleted member 26715]

Putting the VED on fuel would not only be a fairer system, but i believe it would actively encourage people to use other forms of transport like bikes and public transport at times. Especially for short journeys in town which are the most polluting.
But the government must have considered this and decided that annual VED on vehicles give them more revenue.... and that's all they are interested in.

Although I agree with the idea of putting the revenue on the amount of fuel, but we may disagree on the reason the Government don't do it, I think it's down to lobbying, the motor industry, the road haulage association & possibly the CBI would all be against it & they have a bigger sway than the Green's (not the political party but people in general)

 

[byegad]

My CTC/BritishCycling [I swap between them as prices vary.]covers third party insurance.
I took my Cycling Proficiency, aged 10, the RAC/ACU test and then my motorcycle test age 17 and my driving test a week later, by which time I was 18 and I trained as a driving instructor at 25.

Passing any extra cycling test will not be a problem. So I have nothing to fear in this.......

BUT! Requiring these of all cyclists will kill off cycling in the young almost instantly as parents will not want to pay for little Jonny or Jenny's road insurance and the test will be only available to taken at a certain age, or do they expect 4 to 7 yr olds to be tested?

The extra costs to the NHS in the future will make its viability much less likely.

 

[classic33]

Putting the VED on fuel would not only be a fairer system, but i believe it would actively encourage people to use other forms of transport like bikes and public transport at times. Especially for short journeys in town which are the most polluting.
But the government must have considered this and decided that annual VED on vehicles give them more revenue.... and that's all they are interested in.

And if more vehicles on the roads were cycles, would they start looking at these. Most are single user only after all.

Given that cycling is classed by some insurers as an extreme sport, if insurance became mandatory would they reclassify it.



"And if it more" changed to read "And if more"

 

[Smudge]

I know one thing for me personally, if bicycles started have legislation on them like insurance, ved etc, i would start losing interest in them pretty quickly. The biggest attraction of them for me is the freedom of them and the minimal running costs.

 

[TheDoctor]

If anyone can explain why a cyclist should pay more VED than the driver of the £35000 BMW i3 I'd be delighted to hear it.
And vehicle drivers are the ones bringing all the risk to the party. That's why they're required to have insurance.

 

[kynikos]

It's clear from all the noises coming from government, as opposed to click bait media, that VED for cycles isn't going to happen.

As for insurance, as an adult you have liability to third parties whatever you're doing be it driving a car, cycling or simply walking along the street. Whether or not it's compulsory it's sensible to have insurance cover if you have any assets you'd rather not lose - ask Mr Hazeldean who's now facing bankruptcy, loss of his house etc.

 

[Andy in Germany]

So im covered whichever way it goes....but with climate change, congestion, pollution etc etc causing already big issues for the planet. It would be utter stupidity to start tackling cyclists for no apparent gain

Aye, but this is politicians we're talking about. Utter stupidity seems to be their speciality at the moment...

 

[jowwy]

Aye, but this is politicians we're talking about. Utter stupidity seems to be their speciality at the moment...

thats a discussion that im not awilling to enter into.......

 

[Andy in Germany]

If the government did decide to do this I see all kinds of expensive problems. How old does the rider have to be before paying 'tax' or needing insurance? How will that be enforced? Four year olds being stopped to check their paperwork is in order? Or perhaps they'll start at twelve. I can just imagine a copper wanting to spend the morning checking insurance on pink bicycles.

On the other hand, a mountain bike here is sold as 'sports equipment' so would they need a numberplate? and are the police going to be required to stop anyone on an MTB who rides on a road, which means anyone going to ride on an MTB track would be forced to transport the bike by car/train or by walking, or...

Our kids had to take a test before they were covered by the school insurance and technically they should wear a helmet to be covered, but try telling that to a 16 year old who is late, doesn't want to wear a helmet and says he lost it at school. What chance would a licencing drive have in the face of reluctant teens?

 

[KneesUp]

Putting the VED on fuel would not only be a fairer system, but i believe it would actively encourage people to use other forms of transport like bikes and public transport at times. Especially for short journeys in town which are the most polluting.
But the government must have considered this and decided that annual VED on vehicles give them more revenue.... and that's all they are interested in.

I don't even think it would raise less revenue - it would be fairly easy to make it revenue neutral at the first implementation, and then you could easily take in more - there is about 40 billion litres of petrol and diesel sold in the UK each year. VED raises about £6 billion in revenue, so if you add 15p per litre and scrap VED the net result is about the same - but if you add 15.1p per litre you would raise £40 million extra, and no-one would notice the difference.

I think it isn't being done because it is very slightly hard sell to the voters who would be told by The Daily Heil to be cross that it was going to COST THE AVERAGE MOTORIST AN EXTRA £10 TO FILL UP or whatever.

 

[Milkfloat]

The problem with moving the tax to fuel is that it hits rural areas hard. Rural areas would need proper services if they are to survive, before duty is moved to fuel.