Guardian article on another "road tax" myth

[benb]

www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/2011/nov/22/cycling-road-tax-confused

Highlight:

Is this mere pedantry? I'd argue not. It's my firm belief that the road tax myth fuels a persistent sense of entitlement among drivers. Left to broil in traffic jams, worked up to a futile rage at the idea of the "war on the motorist", they are more likely to act aggressively, even recklessly, towards those they feel are getting away with it.

 

[Red Light]

I thought the Confused comment "As we appeal to a mass audience...." was the give away. The purpose of the exercise was a simple one of appealing to the masses.

 

[PpPete]

I would love to have to get a VED disk - for each of my families bikes. Imagine going to the P.O. counter and filling in forms for 16 bikes to be used on the road, and a further 4 or 5 SORNs. Provided of course that, like other low-emission vehicles, they were free !

 

[400bhp]

In some ways I see a point in cyclists having compulsory insurance. It's not particularly expensive too. However, policing it is another matter.

 

[Jezston]

In some ways I see a point in cyclists having compulsory insurance. It's not particularly expensive too. However, policing it is another matter.

Not sure what purpose that would serve - I would speculate that the number of incidents of cyclists damaging people's vehicles through their own fault is pretty tiny, with the proportion of those who would actually bother sticking around if they did even less.

Back to the article - it would be nice if the Guardian would actually print a column pointing this stuff out somewhere where it might actually be read by people who don't already know this.

 

[dawesome]

How much does confused.com's PR person get paid? How can they promote irresponsible guff like this?

 

[Twanger]

Unhealthy cyclists would exhale more CO2 per km than healthy cyclists, I'd guess, so VED for cyclists would encourage people to get healthy and fit. But even a cyclist at death's door would not produce 100gm per km, so I guess it wouldn't matter anyway .

 

[thnurg]

Give confused their due. The video they link in their article does well at highlighting the issues that cyclists face on a daily basis that most non-cycling drivers don't appreciate.

 

[400bhp]

Not sure what purpose that would serve - I would speculate that the number of incidents of cyclists damaging people's vehicles through their own fault is pretty tiny, with the proportion of those who would actually bother sticking around if they did even less.

That is one risk. The other risks are causing a multiple accident where there could be bodily indury or greater property damage. Then there are the risks of hitting a pedestrian, other cyclist etc.

I agree that the incidences are small and the severity might not be that severe (on average), but that serves to make the insurance cheap (as demonstrated by the insurance included in the £30 or so a year fee for joining British Cycling/CTC)

 

[Twanger]

Not sure what purpose that would serve - I would speculate that the number of incidents of cyclists damaging people's vehicles through their own fault is pretty tiny, with the proportion of those who would actually bother sticking around if they did even less.

Back to the article - it would be nice if the Guardian would actually print a column pointing this stuff out somewhere where it might actually be read by people who don't already know this.

If you have insurance you have a resource that lets you handle a motorist, or that motorist's insurer, counter suing in any legal action you may be taking against them. Having insurance is a no brainer.

 

[oldfatfool]

Problem is if insurance was compulsary then just watch the price rocket.

 

[Crackle]

In some ways I see a point in cyclists having compulsory insurance. It's not particularly expensive too. However, policing it is another matter.

We're closer to pedestrians than cars and you're right, how would you administer it.

 

[Twanger]

Problem is if insurance was compulsary then just watch the price rocket.

That's true.

 

[400bhp]

No it wouldn't. Perhaps in the short term but not in the longer term.

CompulsOry

 

[marinyork]

I agree that the incidences are small and the severity might not be that severe (on average), but that serves to make the insurance cheap (as demonstrated by the insurance included in the £30 or so a year fee for joining British Cycling/CTC)

It doesn't demonstrate that at all. It demonstrates particular large organisations can through organising it themselves get insurance at that level. This may be due to the numbers or ease of negotiating a particular deal through one body. Or it could be other factors? Who knows.

Given the 'admin' charges on many types other types of insurance that is more widespread, I am somewhat more sceptical than you are that you would have insurance at these 'low' levels and that if it was compulsory and for the individual to find cover themselves through specialist cover for that alone. The way to go would probably be to tag it onto some other type of insurance that costs a lot more to try and counteract this.