Tax, MOT & Insurance

[darkstar]

VED is Vehicle Emission Duty - with the emphasis being on the word emission. Bikes are about as close as you can get to zero emission (unless you fart), ergo there are no grounds on which to charge VED!

Well unless you go into the whole how much extra food you need to consume to power your bike, therefore added emissions through production and transportation of that food...

 

[Smokin Joe]

It's not that bad though surely? As I said it would encourage people to get rid of their bikes and not buy any for their kids either.

Second hand bikes anyone? I would feel happier buying a second hand bike that had some sort of MOT/Service history to it.

Fixed the first para for you.

Re the second, if you bought one of my bikes you wouldn't get a service histiory either, as I am far more competant at keeping them in perfect condition than some spotty little youth in a cycle shop.

 

[mark barker]

There is no way in hell I'm going to pay any sort of tax for my 6 bikes (and no doubt rising).

Furthermore, why should I pay someone do an "MOT" on my bike when I'm quite proficient at servicing my bikes?

Surely the same argument could be made for many car owners? I know a couple of folks that have built kit cars, so they know their car better than anyone, and yet they still have to get it tested every year!

 

[Plax]

As others have said, road tax doesn't exist anymore it is VED. Car drivers would be cutting their noses to spite their faces if they insist bicycles pay VED. I mean how many billions of pounds would it cost to implement such a scheme? And for what? bicycles will be rated zero emissions and will have to pay NOTHING. Such a ludicrous scheme will be at the tax payers cost, and the Government has far better things to spend our money on. It'll also be nigh on impossible to manage, they can't even manage it properly with cars, let alone bicycles.

With regard to MOT, again what's the point? It will again cost a ridiculous amount of taxpayers money with no benefit to society at large. It's hardly going to save the NHS billions of pounds is it? In fact it will probably end up costing the NHS much more when people pack up cycling altogether and contribute to clogging up the wards with a variety ailments due to lack of exercise.

As for insurance, good idea in principle, but when does it stop? Should everybody have to buy 3rd party insurance anyway? After all pedestrians probably cause and are involved in far more incidents than cyclists, whether it be walking in front of a car or knocking over half a shelf of pickles at Tesco etc. So shouldn't we all be insured against every possible eventuality? Many adult cyclists will have some form of insurance anyway, whether it be through the likes of the CTC or their household insurance.

 

[wafflycat]

Of course road tax exists. It exists in that it is part of the general taxation we all pay. Roads are maintained, built, funded by taxation. So stop your stupid shouting posting and get real. The road system is funded as a result of taxation. Got it now?

Don't be silly. There is no 'road tax' as has been pointed out several times. There simply is no tax specifically for use to pay for the roads as roads are paid for out of general taxation.

Just as the tax on alcohol doesn't pay for pubs...

Now perhaps you can 'get real' and stop being a twit.

 

[mark barker]

Don't be silly. There is no 'road tax' as has been pointed out several times. There simply is no tax specifically for use to pay for the roads as roads are paid for out of general taxation.

Hmm... I'm not seeing the bit where it was said that "road tax" was used to pay for roads... There certainly is a tax that has to be paid if you want to use the roads, so feel free to call that whatever you choose (the government are calling it either car tax or vehicle tax if that makes you feel better).

I just don't understand why (the majority) of cyclists see themselves as different to say moped riders. Similar speeds, same area taken up on the road, so why different rules?

 

[Plax]

Hmm... I'm not seeing the bit where it was said that "road tax" was used to pay for roads... There certainly is a tax that has to be paid if you want to use the roads, so feel free to call that whatever you choose (the government are calling it either car tax or vehicle tax if that makes you feel better).

I just don't understand why (the majority) of cyclists see themselves as different to say moped riders. Similar speeds, same area taken up on the road, so why different rules?

Because it is VED now which is based on emissions. A moped creates far more emissions that a cyclist.

 

[gavintc]

Because, as in most things in life, you need a division point to differentiate between groupings. For vehicles, a motor engine was defined as the division point. If you have one, you are a motor vehicle. Making speed or size the discriminator would be difficult to define. An engine is either 1 or 0 - simples.

So, bicycles are different - the legs are the engine not a little combustion plant. So different rules.

 

[4F]

Hmm... I'm not seeing the bit where it was said that "road tax" was used to pay for roads... There certainly is a tax that has to be paid if you want to use the roads, so feel free to call that whatever you choose (the government are calling it either car tax or vehicle tax if that makes you feel better).

I just don't understand why (the majority) of cyclists see themselves as different to say moped riders. Similar speeds, same area taken up on the road, so why different rules?

And I say again, are you including horses in this as they use the roads as well. What should the rate be for a carthorse compared to a shetland pony ?

And lastly should my 6 year old daughter have to pay this so called tax you are going on about as she rides her bike on the road ?

Sorry but this is really a stupid idea

 

[marinyork]

Hmm... I'm not seeing the bit where it was said that "road tax" was used to pay for roads... There certainly is a tax that has to be paid if you want to use the roads, so feel free to call that whatever you choose (the government are calling it either car tax or vehicle tax if that makes you feel better).

I just don't understand why (the majority) of cyclists see themselves as different to say moped riders. Similar speeds, same area taken up on the road, so why different rules?

One does pay for the upkeep of the roads through council tax and beyond that general taxation. VED is there for quite a few specific reasons to discourage the drawbacks of cars - bicycles don't have any of these drawbacks, so it's not really needed, beyond the practicalities which render it utterly daft.

You've been a very naughty putting it in the cafe rather than commuting, trying to get a better reception I might add.

 

[wafflycat]

Hmm... I'm not seeing the bit where it was said that "road tax" was used to pay for roads... There certainly is a tax that has to be paid if you want to use the roads, so feel free to call that whatever you choose (the government are calling it either car tax or vehicle tax if that makes you feel better).

I just don't understand why (the majority) of cyclists see themselves as different to say moped riders. Similar speeds, same area taken up on the road, so why different rules?

Go right back to the OP's original post

"Should bikes have to pay road tax and have an annual MOT and compulsary third party insurance?

I'm not sure about road tax, although I wouldn't complain too loudly if it was introduced, but I'd expect to see far better cycling facilities as a result."

Add into that the rest of the responses and it's clear that the implication is 'road tax' = paying for the roads. Plus, as too many of us are already aware, a standard moronic motorist chant against cyclists is 'they don't pay road tax' and use it as a (spurious) argument to say cyclists have no right to be on the roads, etc., etc.

The accurate picture is there simply is no 'road tax' as roads are paid for out of general taxation by every single taxpayer, be they motorists, cyclists, pedestrians.

Add into the mix that many of we cyclists are already motorists.

The difference is simple: engine.

 

[Smokin Joe]

One other aspect of taxing, MoTing and insuring cycles is that a licencing scheme with registration numbers would have to be introduced to identify those who have or have not complied. The cost would be horrendous and the benefit would be zero.

Crap idea.

 

[mark barker]

And I say again, are you including horses in this as they use the roads as well. What should the rate be for a carthorse compared to a shetland pony ?

Personally I'd ban horses from the roads, but thats a thread for a different day!

And lastly should my 6 year old daughter have to pay this so called tax you are going on about as she rides her bike on the road ?

I doubt it, in most cases minors are exempt from tax, so I assume that the precedent would stand.

Sorry but this is really a stupid idea

I've not suggested its not. Personally I'd rather see all charges for tax discs (regardless of the title given to it) cancelled and the extra duty put on fuel. That way you'd pay as you use, but I do like the idea of a level playing field and at the moment I'm not convinced thats what we've got.

You've been a very naughty putting it in the cafe rather than commuting, trying to get a better reception I might add.

Hadn't really considered that I posted this in the "wrong" place, but the roadies use roads too. Sorry to all the MTBers though!

 

[marinyork]

I've not suggested its not. Personally I'd rather see all charges for tax discs (regardless of the title given to it) cancelled and the extra duty put on fuel. That way you'd pay as you use, but I do like the idea of a level playing field and at the moment I'm not convinced thats what we've got.

A bit unimaginative. Cars even if they aren't used have plenty of environmental costs, that is what ved is for. It's also a tool for influencing car choice at purchase, something that fuel duty isn't as good at doing. It's a very important tax, it's just that traditionally it wasn't set anywhere high enough at the top end to get these benefits (and before you start going on about no it doesn't influence choice, it's meant for fleets and rentals as much as home car owners and this is important).

 

[Sheffield_Tiger]

Simple reason for "NO"to all:

I need a car. I don't use it much but I do need it for one or two reasons.

If I could only afford to tax, insure, and pay inflated prices for someone to MOT one vehicle, then my bike would have to go, and I would be back to clogging up the roads with an estate car.

The same would happen with anyone considering cycling and using the car less

That would be counter-productive.