Should Cyclists Pay Road Tax

Capt'n Midnight

Stephen-mx3 wrote: »

I was just trying to convey an honest opinion, no need to be sarcastic. For people that primarily use the roads as an unavoidable service, there should be charges.

Taking that logic to the extreme cyclists should be paid to use the roads.

Because cyclists use vehicles that do negligable damage to the road surface ( 4th power of axle loading, one HGV does more damage than 100,000,000 cyclists ) and more importantly by reducing the number of cars / buses on the road they actually cause reduce the overall damage done. Similar story with parking.

Car parking meters break even wrt to repairs to pavements caused by illegal parking/kerbing.




Remember when held up by a cyclist that every cyclist you see would otherwise mean another car on the road and so you'd be another 10 -30m further back

Stephen-mx3

But every single HGV on the road is a neccesity

endacl

Stephen-mx3 wrote: »

But every single HGV on the road is a neccesity

They only became so because we ripped up our extensive rail network. We don't do infrastructure well here.

Chips Lovell

I'm cool with it as long as pedestrians have to pay a footpath tax. Those feckers get all that free infrastructure for nothing.

Stephen-mx3

endacl wrote: »

They only became so because we ripped up our extensive rail network. We don't do infrastructure well here.

Agree, but those are the cards we've been dealt.

Also, currently, HGV drivers/companies pay infinite times as much as cyclists in road tax

endacl

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

I'm cool with it as long as pedestrians have to pay a footpath tax. Those feckers get all that free infrastructure for nothing.

And an arse tax for sitting on a bench in Stephen's Green.

Seaneh

Stephen-mx3 wrote: »

Reported :rolleyes:

Why was my post reported...

You are less than clueless.

endacl

Stephen-mx3 wrote: »

Agree, but those are the cards we've been dealt.

Also, currently, HGV drivers/companies pay infinite times as much as cyclists in road tax

Motor tax? Nobody pays a penny in road tax...

Mods, could 'road tax' please be added to the list of banned phrases? It would shorten these daft threads.

DanWall

They should pay insurance in case they scratch my car whilst sneaking up the inside curb

A0

stephen97 wrote: »

i say yes, motorcyclists have to pay and receive no benefits in terms of parking, bus lanes. but cyclists get cycle lanes and parking places without contributing

I say no.

endacl

DanWall wrote: »

They should pay insurance in case they scratch my car whilst sneaking up the inside curb

You should leave space. For the other road users. That's what I do when I'm driving. I appreciate it when I'm cycling.

Aineoil

I don't think that cyclists should pay motor tax because they do take cars off the road and they don't add to pollution.

I don't have the option to cycle to work as I have a round trip of 90 kms a day. Sometimes people in cars are mean to cyclists. I think the bottom line is that we need to respect all road users - pedestrians, cyclists and motorists.
I hate having to pay road tax but it's life.

In one way I would argue that we should stop the begrudgery - ok I pay road tax because I drive a car but why inflict that on cyclists and pedestrians.

Just a question, do they charge cyclists in any other country?

endacl

Aineoil wrote: »

I don't have the option to cycle to work as I have a round trip of 90 kms a day.

Yeah you do. You're just lazy!

Seaneh

Stephen-mx3 wrote: »

Agree, but those are the cards we've been dealt.

Also, currently, HGV drivers/companies pay infinite times as much as cyclists in road tax

Nobody pays road tax, everyone pays tax, some of which is put towards the roads though.

endacl

Seaneh wrote: »

Nobody pays road tax, everyone pays tax, some of which is put towards the roads though.

I believe Bono doesn't! I read about it on d'internet.

Capt'n Midnight

Stephen-mx3 wrote: »

But every single HGV on the road is a neccesity

No they aren't.

They should only be used on motorways / ports / industrial areas / distribution centres. Local deliveries in other areas should be by smaller vehicles.

Look at the way the tonnage has crept up over the years, including the supertrucks and port tunnel. Even for a long time afterwards the only tall trucks I saw were ones with the top section looking like it was riveted on as an afterthought.

A lot of the stuff in those trucks is excess packaging much of which only exists for marketing purposes.

irish bloke

Katunga wrote: »

as due to the weight of a bicycle does not cause any ware to the roads. I say this as a motorist.

Are you sure abt that??

Aineoil

endacl wrote: »

Yeah you do. You're just lazy!

I am up at six as it is!!! Yeah you know I am lazy!;)

stephen97

irish bloke wrote: »

Are you sure abt that??

omg where is the saddle?

Odysseus

SnakePlissken wrote: »

No, they don't.

They do pay tax, what makes you think motorbikes owner do not pay motor tax?

I wish we didn't, but we do.

Seaneh

JerCotter7 wrote: »

Where did you see that motorists cost more than they pay in motor tax? Which is before the 50%+ of fuel costs that goes to the government.

In 2008, 2009 the take for motor tax was about €850million and €835million respectively, the cost of building and maintaining roads in those two years was €1.4billion and €1.2billion respectively.

I don't have a link at the minute and couldn't be arsed trawlling for one but feel free to try prove me wrong.

Also, the levy on fuel has nothing nothing to do with roads.


edit:

Infact, even motor tax has nothing to do with road maintenance, it goes to a central fund and gets used to pay for local authority services, just like every other tax, it doesn't go into a magic account called "da roads" and get used only for road building/maintenance.

irish bloke

Seaneh wrote: »

Also, the levy on fuel has nothing nothing to do with roads.

Well what's it for so, Angela's Reich???

irish bloke

stephen97 wrote: »

omg where is the saddle?

I think that's what referred to as missing in action

Seaneh

irish bloke wrote: »

Well what's it for so, Angela's Reich???

Well yeah, paying back bank debt, paying for nurses and teachers and social workers and public parks and politicians holidays and all the rest.

irish bloke

Seaneh wrote: »

Well yeah, paying back bank debt, paying for nurses and teachers and social workers and public parks and politicians holidays and all the rest.

so people who don't have cars have to pay less for these services??

JerCotter7

Seaneh wrote: »

In 2008, 2009 the take for motor tax was about €850million and €835million respectively, the cost of building and maintaining roads in those two years was €1.4billion and €1.2billion respectively.

I don't have a link at the minute and couldn't be arsed trawlling for one but feel free to try prove me wrong.

Also, the levy on fuel has nothing nothing to do with roads.


edit:

Infact, even motor tax has nothing to do with road maintenance, it goes to a central fund and gets used to pay for local authority services, just like every other tax, it doesn't go into a magic account called "da roads" and get used only for road building/maintenance.

So if motor tax also has nothing to do with roads why do you keep bringing it up?

Motorists pay well in excess of how much damage they do to the roads.

Seaneh

JerCotter7 wrote: »

So if motor tax also has nothing to do with roads why do you keep bringing it up?

Motorists pay well in excess of how much damage they do to the roads.

The entire thread is about how "motorists pay "road tax"" and cyclists are freeloading scroungers...


Not my fault the idea of taxing cyclists (again) to use the road is stupid, I didn't come up with the idea.

Seaneh

JerCotter7 wrote: »

Motorists pay well in excess of how much damage they do to the roads.

Do they? Have any evidence of that? Why then do we need EU grants for just about every road project we've had in the last 30 odd years?

Seaneh

irish bloke wrote: »

so people who don't have cars have to pay less for these services??

The logical way to look at it would be that people who don't have cars aren't leeching money from those services, seeing as the motor tax take is far less than the cost of building maintaining roads, as the figures I posted earlier show. Since motorists cost more than they contribute in taxation on their motoring, maybe we should tax them even more and when they are covering their costs, they we can worry about cyclists (who do next to no damage to the roads, reduce traffic congestion, reduce polution, reduce healthcare costs and so on).

Duck Soup

If there were no attendant costs to cyclists using Irish roads, I'd say they shouldn't pay road tax.

But since there is a growing network of cycle lanes that needed to be maintained, and an increasing number of traffic lights specifically for those lanes, then they are costing money. So they should pay road tax.

endacl

Duck Soup wrote: »

If there were no attendant costs to cyclists using Irish roads, I'd say they shouldn't pay road tax.

But since there is a growing network of cycle lanes that needed to be maintained, and an increasing number of traffic lights specifically for those lanes, then they are costing money. So they should pay road tax.

First sensible point in favour for quite a while now. I disagree, but well done on making a good point on the topic.

Seaneh

Duck Soup wrote: »

If there were no attendant costs to cyclists using Irish roads, I'd say they shouldn't pay road tax.

But since there is a growing network of cycle lanes that needed to be maintained, and an increasing number of traffic lights specifically for those lanes, then they are costing money. So they should pay road tax.

As I said earlier, if the cycle lanes are properly designed and properly built and properly maintained, then you'd have an argument I(a shíte one mind, but an argument nonetheless). But as it is, the cycle path network in Ireland is almost completely useless.

JerCotter7

Seaneh wrote: »

Do they? Have any evidence of that? Why then do we need EU grants for just about every road project we've had in the last 30 odd years?

You yourself just said the deficit from just motor tax was 600 and 400 million. With the main cost of running a car being fuel. I think it's safe to say that fuel levies easily brought in that much each year.

endacl

irish bloke wrote: »

so people who don't have cars have to pay less for these services??

Well, yes. I choose to have a car, and motor tax is an attendant cost to my choice to have one. If I couldn't justify the cost of keeping and running a car, I wouldn't have one. Everybody pays more/less tax on goods and services, depending on whether or not they choose to use them.

If you had made the argument based on duty paid at the pump, your point would have been equally invalid.

Seaneh

JerCotter7 wrote: »

You yourself just said the deficit from just motor tax was 600 and 400 million. With the main cost of running a car being fuel. I think it's safe to say that fuel levies easily brought in that much each year.

But fuel levies aren't used for roads, so it's redundant.

The entire idea that "drivers pay road tax, why don't cyclists" is redundant.

Nobody pays road tax.

We all pay for the roads.

Capt'n Midnight

Stephen-mx3 wrote: »

Also, currently, HGV drivers/companies pay infinite times as much as cyclists in road tax

LOL

I'll say it again. Trucks do way more damage.

Trucks are allowed 5,000Kg per wheel. This is 100 times more than a combination of bike and rider of 100Kg. 4th power means that the truck will do 100,000,000 times as much damage per wheel, take the number of wheels into account and it's closer to half a billion times as much damage.

€5,195 divided half a billion ways is pretty close to zero.





Update on HGV's weight increases

http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/1986/02/19/00046.asp In 1983, regulations were made providing for a very significant increase in the maximum permissible gross vehicle weight from 32 tons to 38 tonnes (37.4 tons) for a five or six axle articulated truck or road train,

http://www.rsa.ie/RSA/Your-Vehicle/Vehicle-Standards/Weights--Dimensions-/46-tonne-weight-limit/ From 1st April 2013 six axle (3+3) articulated vehicle combinations will be allowed operate at a gross combination weight of 46 tonnes.



http://www.irishtimes.com/news/cyclists-in-dublin-double-survey-1.1254789
Nearly one in every 10 (8.8 per cent) of journeys taken in the capital now is on a bike, the latest figures show. So yeah cyclists are reducing drving and parking congestion by a good bit.

Seaneh

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

LOL

I'll say it again. Trucks do way more damage.

Trucks are allowed 5,000Kg per wheel. This is 100 times more than a combination of bike and rider of 100Kg. 4th power means that the truck will do 100,000,000 times as much damage per wheel, take the number of wheels into account and it's closer to half a billion times as much damage.

€5,195 divided half a billion ways is pretty close to zero.





Update on HGV's weight increases

http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/1986/02/19/00046.asp In 1983, regulations were made providing for a very significant increase in the maximum permissible gross vehicle weight from 32 tons to 38 tonnes (37.4 tons) for a five or six axle articulated truck or road train,

http://www.rsa.ie/RSA/Your-Vehicle/Vehicle-Standards/Weights--Dimensions-/46-tonne-weight-limit/ From 1st April 2013 six axle (3+3) articulated vehicle combinations will be allowed operate at a gross combination weight of 46 tonnes.



http://www.irishtimes.com/news/cyclists-in-dublin-double-survey-1.1254789
Nearly one in every 10 (8.8 per cent) of journeys taken in the capital now is on a bike, the latest figures show. So yeah cyclists are reducing drving and parking congestion by a good bit.

Well, then, that's that settled then.


If I only have to pay €0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001c, I'm grand with that!

JerCotter7

Seaneh wrote: »

But fuel levies aren't used for roads, so it's redundant.

The entire idea that "drivers pay road tax, why don't cyclists" is redundant.

Nobody pays road tax.

We all pay for the roads.

But motor tax doesn't go towards roads directly either. Some of both taxes end up there.

Also I'm not arguing in favour of taxing cyclists. To even make financial sense it would want to be about €100 per year and then no one would cycle. I'm just saying your point about motorists doing more damage than they pay for is wrong.

Coutinho 10

I paid my Local Property Tax and this is to be used by my local authority to provide me with leisure amenities as part of the tax I believe a cycle lane is part of this tax so therefore I am paying a road tax.

irish bloke

endacl wrote: »

Well, yes. I choose to have a car, and motor tax is an attendant cost to my choice to have one. If I couldn't justify the cost of keeping and running a car, I wouldn't have one. Everybody pays more/less tax on goods and services, depending on whether or not they choose to use them.

If you had made the argument based on duty paid at the pump, your point would have been equally invalid.

If you look back, I was not talking about motor tax. I was replying to a post stating fuel tax does not go on road maintenance but for schools, teachers, banks etc.

My point is, why should non motorists not have to pay for these services.

By the by a motor vehicle is not always a life choice and in many cases is a necessity.

Seaneh

JerCotter7 wrote: »

But motor tax doesn't go towards roads directly either. Some of both taxes end up there.

Also I'm not arguing in favour of taxing cyclists. To even make financial sense it would want to be about €100 per year and then no one would cycle. I'm just saying your point about motorists doing more damage than they pay for is wrong.

No it's not.

They pay less in motor tax than they cost in damage.


That was my point.

The government levy on fuel is entirely separate.

Seaneh

irish bloke wrote: »

By the by a motor vehicle is not always a life choice and in many cases is a necessity.

And in those cases the purchase of a motor vehicle is usually highly subsidised by the government, thankfully.

But in 99.9999999999999% of cases, people choose to drive, they don't need to.

JerCotter7

Seaneh wrote: »

No it's not.

They pay less in motor tax than they cost in damage.


That was my point.

The government levy on fuel is entirely separate.

But motor tax doesn't go directly towards the roads. So in that case motorists pay 0 for road upkeep?

irish bloke

Seaneh wrote: »

The logical way to look at it would be that people who don't have cars aren't leeching money from those services, seeing as the motor tax take is far less than the cost of building maintaining roads, as the figures I posted earlier show. Since motorists cost more than they contribute in taxation on their motoring, maybe we should tax them even more and when they are covering their costs, they we can worry about cyclists (who do next to no damage to the roads, reduce traffic congestion, reduce polution, reduce healthcare costs and so on).

That doesn't answer your argument that fuel tax does not go towards road maintenance, but rather goes towards paying back bank debt, paying for nurses and teachers and social workers and public parks and politicians holidays and all the rest.

If what you are saying is right then motorists are paying more for these services then non motorists. Is that fair??

Jimoslimos

It would be completely unworkable to try tax everybody with a bike. The resources required to police it would be astronomical. You could try implement it at point of purchase, like VAT, but then everybody would go across the border - thereby damaging local business.

- Would every child/teen also be required to tax and insure their bikes? Can see that being popular.

- Is there any country where something like this has been tried, and how do other countries, such as the Dutch afford their network of cycle paths?

suicide_circus

ders no roadtaks, its moter taks

Seaneh

JerCotter7 wrote: »

But motor tax doesn't go directly towards the roads. So in that case motorists pay 0 for road upkeep?

But it is a tax for the privilege of using a motor vehicle on the road.

Motorists pay more towards road upkeep than peds and cyclists (and public transport users), but they do more damage than peds and cyclists (and public transport users).

The point of this thread was "cyclists dont pay to use the road".
They do, we all do.

I pointed out that road users don't pay as much for the privilege of using motor vehicles on the road as they cost in road damage (which is a direct consequence of their road use).

Are you going to now try and argue that motor tax isn't a direct tax on the privilege of using the road?

Capt'n Midnight

Seaneh wrote: »

Well, then, that's that settled then.


If I only have to pay €0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001c, I'm grand with that!

The trick is to pay €0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000015c by "mistake" and then ask for a refund.

Seaneh

irish bloke wrote: »

That doesn't answer your argument that fuel tax does not go towards road maintenance, but rather goes towards paying back bank debt, paying for nurses and teachers and social workers and public parks and politicians holidays and all the rest.

If what you are saying is right then motorists are paying more for these services then non motorists. Is that fair??

Do you have any proof that motorists are paying more than than they cost?

irish bloke

suicide_circus wrote: »

ders no roadtaks, its moter taks

Well said