Cyclists, insurance and road tax

Fighting Tao

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Where did you find this vehicle that doesn't emit tyre particles and brake pad particles?

Flying saucers?

AndrewJRenko

Sono Topolino wrote: »

Because right now I'm getting it in the ass for owning a car, but no credit for planting trees non-commercially. Yet some yuppie gets 50% off his bike.

Still peddling (pun intended) of the 50% off?

The yuppie planted non-commercial trees too btw.

magicbastarder

You are repeating the same basic mistake.
If 12‰ of red light breakers are cyclists, and 25% of road users are cyclists, this does *not* mean that 50% of cyclists are RLJers.

Spook_ie

ted1 wrote: »

You only get sued if you have insurance. A solicitor won’t take a case if he knows that there’s no money to pay for out

There's always money be it from an attachment to earnings or by seizure of goods, don't be fooled by that old saying

magicbastarder

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Where did you find this vehicle that doesn't emit tyre particles and brake pad particles?

It's zero *tailpipe* emissions. Don't forget the emissions required to generate the electricity.

magicbastarder

magicbastarder wrote: »

You are repeating the same basic mistake.
If 12‰ of red light breakers are cyclists, and 25% of road users are cyclists, this does *not* mean that 50% of cyclists are RLJers.

And actually, the funny thing is, those stats would paint cyclists in a very good light.

Fighting Tao

magicbastarder wrote: »

It's zero *tailpipe* emissions. Don't forget the emissions required to generate the electricity.

Don’t be mentioning the dirty little secret. Shhh.


Regardless. They are still using electric motors. Hence the motor tax.

Spook_ie

Captain Flaps wrote: »

There's no elephant in the room. You're paying a tax for the car that you own which is based on emissions. You are not paying a tax to use the road because the roads are paid for by general taxation, everyone pays for their upkeep regardless of usage. You pay a seperate tax on your private motor vehicle. It's the same way that you pay property tax if you own a house and you don't if you don't. I'm sorry if I'm being snarky but this is a really black and white discussion and you're looking for grey areas.

It isn't a gray area, you pay taxation to use a vehicle legitimately on a public road, you can call it a motor tax if you like but it doesn't need to have a working motor to need it, you can call it an emissions tax but it doesn't have to have any emissions to be liable for it.

AndrewJRenko

Spook_ie wrote: »

Actually it's a valid question, if 12% of the offenders were cyclists but (for arguments sake) say 24% of vehicles were cyclists then that surely means that for every 100 cars and bicycles that 50% of cyclists broke the red light?

Why is the percentage of offending road users relevant? Is this some kind of gold star competition to find the best team, or is it about identifying dangerous behaviours that need to be stopped?

If the latter, then you might want to focus on the 88% of red light jumping done by the 1-4 tonne vehicles. If you focus on anything else, stop pretending that you're interested in safety.

magicbastarder

But let's run with your maths. It means that 88% of RLJers are motorists, but 75% of road users are motorists, so 117% of motorists are RLJers.

AndrewJRenko

Spook_ie wrote: »

There's always money be it from an attachment to earnings or by seizure of goods, don't be fooled by that old saying

You can't get blood out of a stone. You won't get a seizure or attachment order unless there is excess assets to seize or excess income to attach.

rizzodun

Spook_ie wrote: »

It isn't a gray area, you pay taxation to use a vehicle legitimately on a public road, you can call it a motor tax if you like but it doesn't need to have a working motor to need it, you can call it an emissions tax but it doesn't have to have any emissions to be liable for it.

I've seen better arguments in the conspiracy theory thread to be fair.

Mad stuff altogether.

Cheerful Spring come back, all is forgiven.

Spook_ie

Sleeper12 wrote: »

The cycling forum is an echo chamber. Nothing against cyclists or cycling but not the best forums to visit if you have an opinion on hi viz jackets etc.



I'm a motorist and have been since the mid 80s. In all that time I have never paid or been asked to pay direct taxes of any kind for roads.




I tax my car or van every year since the 80s. Before we had Internet or online we did it by post or went in & paid directly. In all this time I have never visited the road tax office nor have I ever sent payments to the road tax office. I just googled it and it came up with nothing on the road tax office.

What country do you live in? In Ireland you must pay motor tax if you have a car, van, motorbike etc but road tax is totally optional. The only road tax in Ireland are toll roads. You can choose to use these or not. Therefore you can choose to pay road tax or not.

Funny you mention since the 80's

Motor tax revenue to be paid directly to central government
Exchequer finances rearranged so funding of domestic water services can come from State
Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 20:30

Previously some motor tax revenues – along with the money from local property charges – were paid into the Local Government Fund, which has traditionally gone to fund local authority spending on roads. Just over €1 billion in motor tax went into the fund this year.

Spook_ie

NickNickleby wrote: »

Fair enough, I probably overreacted to what I saw as a put-down.

I am not a member of the "tax-the-cyclist-brigade". But, I can't see past what I see as a de-facto Road Tax.

Once upon a time, motor tax rates were based upon unladen weight. Then it was Horsepower, and now its emissions. When all vehicles are zero emission, I expect the rating will be something like annual mileage or the like. But we'll have a long wait for that. I've always felt that motor tax (God, I'm really starting to hate the expression) should be abolished and roads funded by additional fuel tax. The more you use the roads, the more fuel you use, therefore the more tax you pay.

Probably the first sensible thing I've read so far

km991148

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Still peddling (pin intended) of the 50% off?

The yuppie planted non-commercial trees too btw.

Yeah but that typo just sounds like you are just needling them..

mr potato head

Sono Topolino wrote: »

A better question is why tax road usage at all. Just blanket tax carbon on everything - from beef to tyres to cars/bikes/electric vehicles. And give a credit for planting trees.

Because right now I'm getting it in the ass for owning a car, but no credit for planting trees non-commercially. Yet some yuppie gets 50% off his bike.

Production
ICE Petrol - 5.6 Tonnes CO2e
EV - 8.8 Tonnes CO2e
Dutch commuter bike - 0.096 Tonnes CO2e
E-Bike - 0.134 Tonnes CO2e

To reach €10 tax on dutch bike = €104/Tonne C02e
ICE Petrol - 5.6 Tonnes CO2e = €583 Tax
EV - 8.8 Tonnes CO2e = €915 Tax

Use CO2
ICE Petrol - 162-259 g CO2e/km
EV - 45-90g CO2e/km (Irish Grid)
Bike - 16 g CO2e/km
Ebike - 9 g CO2e/km

If we are charging based on distance used, the fairest way, cars should pay 10-28 times the tax rate per km used.

That's before we take the CO2e of infrastructure, maintenance and parking into account. I'm guessing it's going to have a similar split if not even more.

AndrewJRenko

Sono Topolino wrote: »

I am prepared to pay the true cost of car ownership.
.

Great to hear this commitment - let's start with making ALL parking fee paying, given the true cost of providing space and managing facilities.

So no more free parking at the retail park or shopping centre, no more free parking at your workplace, no more free parking on the suburban road outside your house - you'd support these measures to get motorists to pay the true cost of parking, right?

km991148

mr potato head wrote: »

Production
ICE Petrol - 5.6 Tonnes CO2e
EV - 8.8 Tonnes CO2e
Dutch commuter bike - 0.096 Tonnes CO2e
E-Bike - Unknown

To reach €10 tax on dutch bike = €104/Tonne C02e
ICE Petrol - 5.6 Tonnes CO2e = €583 Tax
EV - 8.8 Tonnes CO2e = €915 Tax

Use CO2
ICE Petrol - 162-259 g CO2e/km
EV - 90-120 g CO2e/km (Irish Grid)
Bike - 16 g CO2e/km
Ebike - 9 g CO2e/km

If we are charging based on distance used, the fairest way, cars should pay 10-28 times the tax rate per km used.

That's before we take the CO2e of infrastructure, maintenance and parking into account. I'm guessing it's going to have a similar split if not even more.

Ah come on now, don't ruin this thread with numbers and thought out answers..

Spook_ie

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Noone is taxed for using a road. They are taxed for emmissions. This has already been said 30 times on this thread.




The only demand I have seen is to not be run over which I don't think is unreasonable. What other demands are there?

NO NO NO and again 30 times NO they're not, I could have the stinkiest most polluting diesel engine running in a vehicle rigged up to pump water and because it would be subject to SORN there wouldn't be any taxation on it, if it was on a farm I wouldn't even pay half the fuel tax because of green diesel prices

km991148

Spook_ie wrote: »

NO NO NO and again 30 times NO they're not, I could have the stinkiest most polluting diesel engine running in a vehicle rigged up to pump water and because it would be subject to SORN there wouldn't be any taxation on it, if it was on a farm I wouldn't even pay half the fuel tax because of green diesel prices

Yep. You pay a tax to use an MPV in a public place.

Where it gets interesting tho is that the claim is often made that it is to use the roads (which is also false). However due to them banding it based on emissions (or an approximation of such, pre 2008) it is pretty close to a tax on emissions (or out another way, close to being a tax in using the air).

Pinch Flat

Surprised nobody mentioned a tax on hi vis yet

km991148

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Surprised nobody mentioned a tax on hi vis yet

I bet those builders don't even pay road tax on the wheelbarrows!

Spook_ie

magicbastarder wrote: »

your maths is incorrect. you're conflating the numbers on the road with the numbers breaking red lights.

No I'm not, I'm saying that the figures being bandied about to chastise drivers of motor vehicles have insufficient detail to make that call.

mr potato head

km991148 wrote: »

Ah come on now, don't ruin this thread with numbers and thought out answers..

I wouldn't mind, I drive an EV and would be doing myself out of a lot of money if I used this

MrStuffins

Taxing cyclists eh?

Spook_ie

magicbastarder wrote: »

do zero emissions car run on well wishes?
or have you bought into the bolloxology that they're zero emissions?

Does your cycling run on zero food consumption? or do you believe in your own bolloxology?

Spook_ie

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Ever hear of an electric motor? The ’motor’ in ‘electric motor’ is the same as ‘motor’ in ‘motor tax’.

So you have no objections then to electrically assisted bicycles and electric scooters paying motor tax then?

Spook_ie

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Where did you find this vehicle that doesn't emit tyre particles and brake pad particles?

Do you have to change brake components and tyres on a bicycle, wonder where all the bits you wore off went?

AndrewJRenko

Spook_ie wrote: »

Do you have to change brake components and tyres on a bicycle, wonder where all the bits you wore off went?

Yes, I do, but I wasn't the one talking about zero emission vehicles.

And amount of particles coming off bike tyres and brake pads is negligible relative to a car.

MrStuffins

Cars wreck the road the cyclists. I'd like to see an increase in Motor Tax to subsidise repairs for bicycles ruined by damage done by cars.

Why should cyclists pay for damage done by cars?