Looking like a commuter is safer ...

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Of course it is, if I didn't want to use it on the road then I certainly would not pay the RFL or insurance.

How the government and councils wish to allocate their spending is upto them but regardless, you can polish a turd many ways and it is still a turd.
 

John the Monkey

Frivolous Cyclist
Location
Crewe
Of course it is, if I didn't want to use it on the road then I certainly would not pay the RFL or insurance.

Let's try again.

You pay tax on goods and services that enable road use.

That tax is not allocated specifically (hypothecated) to building or maintaining roads, any more than tax on alcohol is allocated to supporting the brewing industry.
 
By very definition, the road fund licence, previously known as road tax, was brought about to licence a motor vehicle for use on the road.

Without the licence, it is not allowed to be kept or used on the road, therfore it is a tax specificly for the purposes of using a motorvehicle on the road.

Effectively it is the same debate that occurs with National Insurance Contributions, it is put into the same pot as any other tax, or annual public licence or by whatever new found name the government decides to call a tax but is collected in the name of a specific purpose, that may or may not be fully allocated for the sole use of that specific purpose.
 

MrHappyCyclist

Riding the Devil's HIghway
Location
Bolton, England
Of course it is, if I didn't want to use it on the road then I certainly would not pay the RFL or insurance.

John's explanation is good. Sorry if I was being a bit obtuse. I did provide a link to the site that explains it all, but I guess that was a bit hidden.

Now, you may say that this is just being pedantic, but I think it really does matter. There are too many motorists out there who believe they "own" the roads by virtue of the "road tax" that they believe they pay, and that cycles are only there on sufferance; to be tolerated but not willingly. Some of these motorists even use this to excuse their appallingly dangerous behaviour when driving near cyclists.

In fact, the converse is true. Everyone has the right to use the roads, which are public spaces that belong to everyone and are paid for by everyone who pays taxes. Everyone is also allowed to bring motor vehicles to that public space, but only on licence and only after having undertaken training and testing, due to the amount of danger that motor vehicles bring to the space.

Every time we use the term "road tax", we are reinforcing the prejudices of those arrogant driver who think they own the road. This is why it matters.
 

BentMikey

Rider of Seolferwulf
Location
South London
Of course it is, if I didn't want to use it on the road then I certainly would not pay the RFL or insurance.

How the government and councils wish to allocate their spending is upto them but regardless, you can polish a turd many ways and it is still a turd.

What is RFL? If you mean road fund licence, then it was abolished by Churchill in the 1930s to stop oik car drivers and motorcycle riders trying to claim that they owned the public highway. There is no road tax, so if you're paying some, you're giving it to the government for nothing.
 

joebingo

Über Member
Location
London, England
Of course it is, if I didn't want to use it on the road then I certainly would not pay the RFL or insurance.

How the government and councils wish to allocate their spending is upto them but regardless, you can polish a turd many ways and it is still a turd.

Oh no! look what you've started... Never question the CC commuting section on their in depth knowledge of the abolition of the Road fund license and the inception of VED, as well as the various different tax funds which do pay for the roads. The number of times we get told by drivers that raod tax means they can attempt to kill us has made us a bit anorak-y.
 
It would appear to have created a sense of arroagance from a few cyclists that often causes the rage by which so many other cyclists fall victim to.
 
OP
OP
cyberknight

cyberknight

As long as I breathe, I attack.
It would appear to have created a sense of arroagance from a few Motorists that often causes the rage by which so many other cyclists fall victim to.

Edited for accuracy

Come on i know someone has the link on how much roads cost to maintain and how much is collected form VED showing that even if it went solely to fund the upkeep of roads it is still to little by many factors.

Are you saying you have more right to be on the road because you pay more VED than a lower emission car ?
 
Roads are dangerous because of the arrogance and stupidity of various different road users, from pedestrians to lorry's.

It takes one idiot for the road to become a dangerous place, the number of idiots that wander across the main road looking at their i-pods is quite scary, yet the second a motorist hits them, it's the big dangerous motorist at fault, for as far as society is concerned motorists guilty until proven innocent.

If you go out with the attitude "givin' it large" then you will find trouble, and it would seem that there are some cyclists who are going out of their way to find trouble.
 
OP
OP
cyberknight

cyberknight

As long as I breathe, I attack.
So by making the point that being overtaken with about 6" between me and 2 tons of metal and shouting "too close " because i feel threatened by another road users dangerous driving that causes them to stop , jump out and use threatening behavior is giving it large?.
 
Top Bottom