Road tax

[Boris Bajic]

Do zero emission vehicles like Prius's's's carry a disk with a '£0.00' on it?
If so, perhaps us cycling critters can be issued with the same thing

I drive a 1961 roadster that has such a tax disc.

But in order to obtain it, I must prove that it's passed an annual roadworthiness test and that I have insurance on it.

I'm not sure that's a road most cyclists would want to go down. I certainly don't.

 

[Dan B]

Nor most pedestrians either, I suspect

 

[captain nemo1701]

All this is being lost on me..........Why should we cyclists be concerned about low emmision cars being given cheaper tax. Its an ongoing project to encourage car manufacturers to clean up exhaust gasses....Wots the problem with that ?

It's because it perpetuates the myth in the media and society as a whole that road tax still exists and motorists are the only ones entitled to use the roads since they 'pay for them'. I recently saw an ad for electric bikes which stated that if you bought one, you would save on road tax.

 

[Boris Bajic]

It's because it perpetuates the myth in the media and society as a whole that road tax still exists and motorists are the only ones entitled to use the roads since they 'pay for them'. I recently saw an ad for electric bikes which stated that if you bought one, you would save on road tax.

I do sometimes wonder whether this oft-mentioned myth is only there if you're looking for it.

There is much in this world to get cross about or disagree with, but this seems a trifling bagatelle in the wider scheme of things.

I may have been very lucky, but in forty years of cycling It's never been mentioned to me by another road user that I don't pay Road tax.

This may be because I tend not to to be confrontational and have been lucky in recent years to avoid incidents which might result in angry exchanges.

It may also be be because I prefer to see everyone on tarmac as just another road user, whether in a 38-tonne artic, an LTDA black cab or on a bicycle.

I fear these threads decrying the perpertrators of the Road Tax myth may just be another trench being dug in the imagined battle line between groups of road users. There is no need for this enmity and there is no need to get cross.

The "You don't pay Road Tax" argument as apparently used against cyclists is flawed, laughable, puerile and petty. To rile against it may also be three of those things.

Have a cup of tea and a slice of cake. Get cross about Lady Ga-Ga or the moles under your lawn instead.

Just be thankful that unlike many others, at least you don't pay Road Tax. Surely that's a good thing, not a bad thing.

 

[Dan B]

Lady Ga-Ga

Both original and good

 

[mr_hippo]

Today I had a ham butty for dinner.
I could also have said
Today I had a ham butty for lunch.
or
.Today I had a ham sarnie for dinner
or
Today I had a ham sarnie for lunch.
or
Today I had a ham sandwich for dinner
or
Today I had a ham sandwich for lunch
That is 6 ways of saying the same thing! Does it really matter to you what sentence I use? No? So why are you getting upset when someone says road tax? Some people may be under the impression that it pays for the road; there are some people who think that the earth is flat!
Stop worying about it, it's not rocket surgery, is it? If it still bothers you, go to ebay and put 'life' in the search box and get one!
Now what shall I have with the chicken I am having for my tea - pommes frites, french fries or chips?

 

[dawesome]

Driven to Kill: Vehicles as Weapons.

University of Alberta associate professor of Public Health J. Peter Rothe researched just this topic for his book Driven to Kill: Vehicles As Weapons.

He writes about intentional violence of all types aided by automobile. A central theme of this book, according to Dr Rothe, is that “police investigations are not engaged on the assumption that a driver deliberately uses his vehicle as a weapon for maiming or killing a pedestrian, cyclist, or other roadway users.”

“Stress! Vengeance! Impatience! Entitlement! Aggression! Mood! are prominent factors,” in traffic crashes, says Rothe, but accident investigations still focus on engineering and mechanical factors rather than the human element.
He has a chapter on violence against cyclists in particular, violence which is motivated by a motorist’s feeling of entitlement to the road and irritation that cyclists don’t pay a mythical “road tax” amongst other imagined sins and shortcomings. “A ‘might is right’ mentality erupts in some drivers,” Rothe writes, “that pushes them to discipline [cyclists], to teach them a lesson, which sometimes means steering their cars into bikes, pulling into the bikers paths, or purposely swerving into marked bike lanes.” [page 112]

Rothe covers much more than just car vs bike and road rage incidents in his book. He has a section devoted entirely to what he calls the “Immediate Zone” — the murderer plans and uses his car as the murder weapon. “The car,” he prosaically writes, “makes direct contact with a victim.”
Rothe doesn’t set out to demonize automobiles in his book, but to point out that automotive violence is a reflection of our violent culture. Instead of seeing vehicular violence as a normal, naturally occurring part of our transportation infrastructure, he wants to reframe it as a public health issue.
Book: Driven to Kill: Vehicles As Weapons by J. Peter Rothe. 2008.

http://ibikelondon.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/parliamentary-cycle-safe-debate-start.html


Anyone who thinks this resentment, sometimes leading to violence, doesn't exist is very naive.

 

[Boris Bajic]

(Some text removed for the sake of brevity)

... Anyone who thinks this resentment, sometimes leading to violence, doesn't exist is very naive.

If you can tell us what you think may be causing this resentment in you Dawesome, we might be able to help.

 

[dawesome]

As long as you think using a vehicle as a weapon against vulnerable road users is ok you're very much part of the problem.

 

[dawesome]

That's the reality, you don't have to look far to see similar views, used to bolster the sense of entitlement and bullying of out-groups. There's research on it:

http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newsletters/53/article11.html

Numerous experiments have been conducted which show that group labels affect people's perceptions, even when the labels are quite artificial. Intergroup bias3is a systematic tendency to evaluate one's own membership group (the 'in-group') or its members more favourably than a non-membership group (the 'out-group'). Bias includes behaviour (discrimination: 'cyclists shouldn't be allowed on the road because they slow me down'), attitude (prejudice: 'why should the council spend money on cyclists when they don't pay tax and don't have to have insurance') and cognition (stereotyping: 'you cyclists are all the same, always jumping red lights and never having lights').

Tajfael and Turner say that intergroup bias creates or protects in-group status leading to positive social identity for in-group members, thereby satisfying their need for positive self esteem. Factors such as group-identifying characteristics (mode of transport, skin colour, sexuality, even simple labels), group size, status and power (majority versus minority), the extent to which members feel threatened (livelihood, physical danger), the way in which one rates members of another group (particularly whether this is done on a negative or positive scale) and, maybe, personality or predisposition to bias, are all cited as influencing intergroup bias.

Social theory talks about 'implicit measures', where bias is automatically activated by the mere presence of the attitude object (does that sound familiar?). Faster responses to negative traits in an out-group and to positive traits in an in-group are commonplace.

Basford, Reid, Lester, Thomson and Tolmie, 2002, ​

Drivers' perceptions of cyclists​

, TRL Report TRL549, Transport Research Laboratory (​

​

www.trl.co.uk/static/dtlr/cycling/TRL549.pdf​

).​

 

[Boris Bajic]

As long as you think using a vehicle as a weapon against vulnerable road users is ok you're very much part of the problem.

I'm pretty certain that nobody on this forum thinks the use of a vehicle as a weapon is acceptable. I may have imagined this, but I have a feeling that da Vinci once said the nonsequitur is the last refuge of the mindf*cked zealot.

However, da Vinci quotes or not, I accept that I lose on this one.

My forty years of happy cycling must have been enjoyed in a fog of blithe optimism, naivety and ignorance.

I will try to get as cross about psychotic, resentful, impatient motorists as some other posters seem to be and see if that rubs off some of this unwelcome naivety that is holding me back so much.

Grrrrr! Grrrrrr! No.... It doesn't seem to be working.

As much as I try to be , it keeps going back to . Sorry.

 

[dawesome]

I'm pretty certain that nobody on this forum thinks the use of a vehicle as a weapon is acceptable.

Yours was a trolling post, I responded in kind. You have a tendency when unable to think of something constructive to simply troll the thread.

 

[subaqua]

If you can tell us what you think may be causing this resentment in you Dawesome, we might be able to help.

I think he resents everybody and everything especially if they don't fit his understanding

 

[downfader]

Lets look at this another way (as Gaz suggested) to make cyclists "pay and display" VED you would have to:

- change the law.
This is the most fundamental obstacle stopping VED on cycling. The mobile phone laws initial Bills pressed before parliament were around £30-40 million to draft, the actual law change cost more iirc (over £100 million more I think on top)

- Police said new law.
This incorporates test legal cases to push through and validate the change. These are often difficult and more expensive than standard prosecutions as you will have to employ some pretty nifty legal bods to scrutinise every legal aspect.

The Police also need training. This too costs money. (I'm sure our resident officers will tell you the stuff they had to brush up on regarding the mobile phone in cars and new licensing legislation for public venues). They cant just go out there and say "you're nicked!" They have to follow a set process to increase the likelyhood of sucessful prosecution or fine.

-Again, the courts and legalbods would themselves need specific training

- then you need regulations on how the VED is displayed and where on the bike, just as with motorcycles

- another legal obstacle - how do you identify each disc with each bike? Not all bikes have frame numbers. You'd be open for registration laws. Once bikes have to be registered then whats the point in riding, you have to go through these hoops for cars, might as well drive.

Envelope maths...
There are around 2 bikes for every person in the UK. 140 million bikes, lets say nationally. If all have to be registered and display VED thats an awful lot of admin, way more so than the private motoring (some 25 million domestic cars used in the UK) and all for free. It could:

- spell the end of free VED for people like the disabled and co
- mean thousands of bikes taken to the tips
- mean thousands of cyclists getting caught out, not considering that would be happening (much like the mobile law - though riding without VED does not pose a risk to others)
- mean thousands give up cycling (I think I would certainly reconsider)

In fact - I think there is a better option: abolish VED altogether! On cars, on motorbikes, on lorries even. Amalgamate the taxation into an easy tax on fuel instead, or through the insurer. IMVHO vehicle excise duty doesnt actually encourage the use of greener cars, when really we should be using other options 75% of the time...

 

[dawesome]

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.

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

Doubtless some cyclists do get angry when careless, irresponsible and aggressive motorists put their lives at risk. However, when it comes to so-called 'road rage' it is motorists who are overwhelmingly the perpetrators and cyclists the victims. What's more the courts are notoriously lenient when it comes to delaying with motorists who attack or deliberately run down cyclists.
Consider the case a few years back of Carl Baxter, who deliberately drove over a cyclist called Stephen Kirwin and his six-year-old daughter, Emily, who was in a trailer. The cyclist was seriously injured, whilst the girl was in coma for six days and left with brain damage. The driver was sentenced to a paltry 2 years (i.e. less than 12 months) and astonishingly given only a 2 year driving ban.

In another case another motorist called Andrew Hart came up behind a 62-year-old cyclist called Alan Scott whilst driving his'4x4' down a narrow lane. The cyclist pulled over and stopped at the side of the road to let the driver past. The drive then stopped, went back to the cyclist and attacked him for 'getting in his way', leaving him with a broken shoulder. This injury caused a blood clot and as a consequence the cyclist died a few days later. Another driver who witnessed the attack said that the cyclist was 'slightly built' and had done nothing to provoke the attack. Hart was found guilty of manslaughter but incredibly the judge gave Hart only a 9 month suspended sentence. That is, effectively no penalty at all.

Unfortunately, such cases are far from exceptional. They also stand in stark contrast to the cases one reads about where cyclists have been violently arrested by the police after shouting at drivers who have put their lives at risk.