Road tax

[Matthew_T]

Werent cyclists the first ones to actually get roads paved? If that is true then motor vehicles should be paying to use our roads.
So the real arguement should be:
"You dont pay road tax"
"Because only you need to pay for the priviledge of using them, I on the other hand introduced them therefore I dont need to pay"

 

[Recycler]

The £20bn is a pretty good guestimate based on the business made during days of low traffic compared to those when logistics firms get stuck in. Firms such as UPS, Royal Mail and co have pretty good understandings of how traffic effects business. Even bus companies have worked out how to best make money around traffic concerns (though monorail systems might be a much better option in the future for fuel costs and traffic issues). The London School of Economics have a history of evaluating these too and they are the source of the £20bn figure.

The best evaluation we have for economics of how much money is brought in via motoring is around £50 billion.
http://www.smmt.co.uk/industry-topics/uk-automotive-sector/#economy-and-business

I think the most important points are these:
- cyclists are not attacking motorists. They are attacking (along with many others, many of whom are also drivers it should be noted) misconceptions about social and environmental impact
- an economy based upon motoring will crash severely when the oil runs out. It is already severely affected when oil prices rise for any reason. It needs an alternative and quickly
- motoring has for many years been seen as progress. Real progress is measured via how sustainably an industry or practice is - as it stands motoring cannot reflect progress on the grounds of space needed, environmental impact, casualty rates risk factor, and the sheer consumption it requires that seems exponential to that which we can provide.

I've got no problem with the figures you quote and I do understand both how they are made up and that they need to be taken into account.
I just think that thwere is little point in using those figure to claim that motoring is being subsidised. It is the wrong way to use the figures, just as it would be wrong to add the £50 billion motoring "input" figure to say that motoring makes a "profit" and therefore, say, fuel duty should be reduced.

However, I think it is wrong to present your case as being one on behalf of cyclists in general and I think that you have moved beyond the realm of cycling and into the area of environmental debate. That debate is undoubtedly important but cycling has only a small contribution to make to it and some cyclists will agree with you, some won't. I suspect that the vast majority of adult cyclists are also drivers, so they wear two hats in these discussions. I certainly do.

Personally I think that all we need state is the simple and obvious point that cycling is more environmentally sustainable than motoring. Beyond that we need to work with what we have....and that includes motoring.

I think it is best to encourage both the authorites to make the roads better for cyclists, and motorists to be more considerate towards cyclist. To do both we need to win them over, rather than batter them over the head with the environmental issue. There are some things that cyclists can do to make themselves better thought of than perhaps they are now.

To be honest, I don't think that I'm expressing myself very well here. I hope that it makes some sense at least.

 

[Recycler]

Werent cyclists the first ones to actually get roads paved? If that is true then motor vehicles should be paying to use our roads.
So the real arguement should be:
"You dont pay road tax"
"Because only you need to pay for the priviledge of using them, I on the other hand introduced them therefore I dont need to pay"

You're stammering again, you're repeating yourself!

Cyclists weren't really the ones who got roads paved. Roads have been paved since Roman times.

What really did change was the discovery of oil in quantity at around the same time as the car arriving on the scene leading to the availability of tars etc in quantity. Roads were improved because of the need to make things better just as much for the horse and cart as the car and bicycle. Certainly certainly bicycles predated the car though.

Anyhow, I'm not sure that your argument would win many friends, but I have told moaners that the bike came before the car so they should shut up!

 

[dawesome]

19th century cyclists paved the way for modern motorists' roads

Car drivers assume the roads were built for them, but it was cyclists who first lobbied for flat roads more than 100 years ago.

Wooden hobbyhorses evolved into velocipedes; velocipedes evolved into safety bicycles; safety bicycles evolved into automobiles.

It's well known that the automotive industry grew from seeds planted in the fertile soil that was the late 19th century bicycle market. And to many motorists it's back in the 19th century that bicycles belong. Cars are deemed to be modern; bicycles are Victorian.

Many motorists also assume that roads were built for them. In fact, cars are the johnny-come-latelies of highways.

The hard, flat road surfaces we take for granted are relatively new. Asphalt surfaces weren't widespread until the 1930s. So, are motorists to thank for this smoothness?

No. The improvement of roads was first lobbied for – and paid for – by cycling organisations.

In the UK and the US, cyclists lobbied for better road surfaces for a full 30 years before motoring organisations did the same. Cyclists were ahead of their time.

When railways took off from the 1840s, the coaching trade died, leaving roads almost unused and in poor condition. Cyclists were the first vehicle operators in a generation to go on long journeys, town to town. Cyclists helped save many roads from being grubbed up.

Roads in towns were sometimes well surfaced. Poor areas were cobbled; upmarket areas were covered in granite setts (what many localities call cobbles). Pretty much every other road was left unsurfaced and would be the colour of the local stone. Many 19th century authors waxed lyrical about the varied and beautiful colours of British roads.

Cyclists' organisations, such as Cyclists' Touring Club in the UK and League of American Wheelmen (LAW) in the US, lobbied county surveyors and politicians to build better roads. The US Good Roads movement, set up by LAW, was highly influential. LAW once had the then US president turn up at its annual general meeting.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/2011/aug/15/cyclists-paved-way-for-roads

 

[downfader]

You're stammering again, you're repeating yourself!

Cyclists weren't really the ones who got roads paved. Roads have been paved since Roman times.

What really did change was the discovery of oil in quantity at around the same time as the car arriving on the scene leading to the availability of tars etc in quantity. Roads were improved because of the need to make things better just as much for the horse and cart as the car and bicycle. Certainly certainly bicycles predated the car though.

Anyhow, I'm not sure that your argument would win many friends, but I have told moaners that the bike came before the car so they should shut up!

The predecessor groups to the CTC and the AA joined forces around the turn of the 20th century to campaign for tarmac'ing. They even campaigned for the removal of the redflag-man:

http://www.roadswerenotbuiltforcars...s-the-first-group-to-push-for-improved-roads/

 

[downfader]

I've got no problem with the figures you quote and I do understand both how they are made up and that they need to be taken into account.
I just think that thwere is little point in using those figure to claim that motoring is being subsidised. It is the wrong way to use the figures, just as it would be wrong to add the £50 billion motoring "input" figure to say that motoring makes a "profit" and therefore, say, fuel duty should be reduced.

However, I think it is wrong to present your case as being one on behalf of cyclists in general and I think that you have moved beyond the realm of cycling and into the area of environmental debate. That debate is undoubtedly important but cycling has only a small contribution to make to it and some cyclists will agree with you, some won't. I suspect that the vast majority of adult cyclists are also drivers, so they wear two hats in these discussions. I certainly do.

Personally I think that all we need state is the simple and obvious point that cycling is more environmentally sustainable than motoring. Beyond that we need to work with what we have....and that includes motoring.

I think it is best to encourage both the authorites to make the roads better for cyclists, and motorists to be more considerate towards cyclist. To do both we need to win them over, rather than batter them over the head with the environmental issue. There are some things that cyclists can do to make themselves better thought of than perhaps they are now.

To be honest, I don't think that I'm expressing myself very well here. I hope that it makes some sense at least.

By sheer definition of what a subsidy is - costs raised outside of direct costs to deal with issues caused via an activity - that is a subsidy.

I've often said this, and I reitterate - cyclists need to know the political and economic factors around transport or they will (and indeed have been many times in the past) pushed out of the debates on infrastructure, planning, funding and even casualty rates. These issues are always raised when cyclists ask for safety or infrastructure (conversations I myself have ended up having with the council and locals down here).

Its all very well to push the benefits of cycling - but other issues are often talked of first within the media, certainly.

 

[Recycler]

The predecessor groups to the CTC and the AA joined forces around the turn of the 20th century to campaign for tarmac'ing. They even campaigned for the removal of the redflag-man:

http://www.roadswerenotbuiltforcars...s-the-first-group-to-push-for-improved-roads/

That's an interesting view but there was a call to improve roads long before that.

The growth of the turnpikes in earlier years was an attempt to improve roads.....it was an early form of privatisation. For years the responsibility for maintaining the roads was down to the local parish. That didn't work and responsibility was given to County Councils. In later years even that wasn't enough and we now have the major roads run, at national level, by the Highways Agency.

Dickens even makes the point about poor roads. There was lobbying long before cars and bikes came and it really started in earnest with the industrial revolution when the need to move goods around became important. Initially the call came because of the need to improve the ability of the horse to get around. Canals, and then railways, also came which enabled goods to be moved nationally, but those goods then needed to be moved locally and the call for local road improvement became even greater. Then the bike came and then, shortly afterwards the car.

In reality the whole thing was an evolutionary process. Changing technology, changing economy and a changing society led to pressure to improve roads. Bikes had a part to play, but we can't really claim that it is all down to us!

Here endeth the history lesson!

 

[Recycler]

By sheer definition of what a subsidy is - costs raised outside of direct costs to deal with issues caused via an activity - that is a subsidy.

I've often said this, and I reitterate - cyclists need to know the political and economic factors around transport or they will (and indeed have been many times in the past) pushed out of the debates on infrastructure, planning, funding and even casualty rates. These issues are always raised when cyclists ask for safety or infrastructure (conversations I myself have ended up having with the council and locals down here).

Its all very well to push the benefits of cycling - but other issues are often talked of first within the media, certainly.

We'll just have to agree to disagree that motoring is subsidised.
We can make figures prove anything and, more importantly, I don't think there is much to be gained by trying to tell motorists something that the majority simply won't agree with. It will simply end up with an arguement about the figures rather than with the real issue of what can be done to imrove things for cyclists.
But I do agree that we do need to be aware of the wider issues.

Whilst there is still a lot more to be done I do actually believe that cycling has made considerable progress over the last ten or twenty years. It has become an issue on the political scene. Local authorities do try to provide better facilites. Tax benefits like B2W exist. etc etc.

I actually do believe that a lot of progress has been made but, particularly with the economy as it is now, it is going to be difficult to get more resources.

 

[subaqua]

http://ipayroadtax.com/itv-ignorance-about-road-tax/why-isnt-beer-tax-used-to-build-better-pubs/

Private motoring is subsidised, motorists are a net drain on the economy.

There is a widespread perception that motorists are already unfairly taxed.
This is simply not true(1). In the year 2002-03 £26.5 billion was raised from fuel and road tax(2). Around £6bn went toward roadbuilding and maintenance that year(3). The cost of policing the roads and the expense incurred by the judicial system is estimated to be between £1bn and £3bn(4), while congestion costs businesses and other drivers £20bn in delay(5).
The costs of the effects of air pollution and accidents due to road transport were estimated at £12.3bn(6) and £16bn(7) respectively.

its not often that i will agree with Dawesome, but this is one of those occasions. I was in wanstead on friday talking to one of the yummy mummy crowd who was bemoaning the fact there will be traffic chaos in
August . I asked her why she didn't use a bicycle for the journeys of less than a mile and she looked at me like i had 2 heads. she didn't understand the benefits of not driving the short distances she was complaining that would take "over an hour to drive" .

 

[Recycler]

its not often that i will agree with Dawesome, but this is one of those occasions. I was in wanstead on friday talking to one of the yummy mummy crowd who was bemoaning the fact there will be traffic chaos in
August . I asked her why she didn't use a bicycle for the journeys of less than a mile and she looked at me like i had 2 heads. she didn't understand the benefits of not driving the short distances she was complaining that would take "over an hour to drive" .

I can't disagree with that. http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/news/topstories/804876.london_cars_move_no_faster_than_chickens/

It's how best to get things to change that is harder to work out.

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

I can't disagree with that. http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/news/topstories/804876.london_cars_move_no_faster_than_chickens/
It's how best to get things to change that is harder to work out.

Ha! "The question Londoners will be asking themselves is whether an extra 1.5mph justifies paying £8 per day". Isn't that the whole point of a congestion charge? Perhaps it isn't high enough.

 

[dawesome]

Look at the media campaigning against Ken's congestion charge, famine and pestilence was predicted, along with a collapse in house prices. None of it happened, and I can't think of a politician with the cojones to suggest extending it. In fact Ken should have made it within the M25 but he would have lost too many East London votes.

Sometimes when I filter on the right of slow-moving traffic drivers veer right to block me, the resentment is so keenly felt. I imagine they are silently screaming

IT WASN'T LIKE THIS IN THE ADVERTS!!!!!!!!

 

[Linford]

Ha! "The question Londoners will be asking themselves is whether an extra 1.5mph justifies paying £8 per day". Isn't that the whole point of a congestion charge? Perhaps it isn't high enough.

Perhaps this is irrefutable proof that the congestion charge was always about raising money, and nothing about improving the situation for the people having to navigate the streets there......

 

[dawesome]

Perhaps this is irrefutable proof that the congestion charge was always about raising money, and nothing about improving the situation for the people having to navigate the streets there......

Who cares? There would be more congestion without the charge, that's for sure. Think of it as like a charge for any other socially unaesthetic act.

 

[Linford]

Who cares? There would be more congestion without the charge, that's for sure. Think of it as a charge for any other socially unaesthetic act.

Can it be any worse than it already is. How do you define congestion ?

There are some awful bottlenecks near me which have been created by putting lights in. When they break down, the traffic starts to flow again. They can create congestion out of the lightest traffic flows, and the addition of bus lanes effectively halves the capacity for stretches of the roads which in themselves creates 'congestion'

I say ditch the bus lanes and turn off the lights but for the peak hours of the day when there is a tangible benefit from them being there, and double the capacity in a stroke