Tax cyclist idea.........pedestrians next?

gzoladz · 14-10-2008 06:24AM #1

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/tax-cyclists-836410---paris---smoke-it-out---shaving-1498046.html

14-10-2008 06:39AM

We've paid tax. It's called VAT.

14-10-2008 07:05AM

Now thats what the word Counterproductive was created for.:D

Thomas_S_Hunterson · 14-10-2008 07:07AM

Indo letters lol

Silly idea

mikemac · 14-10-2008 07:16AM

If every cyclist in city areas get pissed off and went and bought themselves a car, then you'd realy see traffic worth complaining about!

Don't complain about the commuting cyclist, they are doing you a favour, even if it's not immediately obvious
Less traffic and zero wear and tear on the roads, everyone wins.

I doubt those fantasically engineered cycle lanes we have cost much either

Lumen · 14-10-2008 07:22AM

I'm in favour, although €10 is too low to be worthwhile. €40 maybe.

Licences would also be a good idea, with a similar points system to cars.

No, I'm not trolling.

mikemac · 14-10-2008 07:25AM

Do you expect a 6 year old kid cycling to school to get a licence?

Though I am in favour for school children to maybe do a course for a few hours on cycling in traffic. A cycling garda (wrong term, you know what I mean) could do it.

14-10-2008 07:26AM

Lumen wrote: »

I'm in favour, although €10 is too low to be worthwhile. €40 maybe.

Licences would also be a good idea, with a similar points system to cars.

No, I'm not trolling.

That carry on prevents people from cycling ,everyone has the right to cycle ,rich or poor.

14-10-2008 07:32AM

micmclo wrote: »

Do you expect a 6 year old kid cycling to school to get a licence?

Though I am in favour for school children to maybe do a course for a few hours on cycling in traffic. A cycling garda (wrong term, you know what I mean) could do it.

I'd like the situation where at the start of every year in primary and secondary school a talk is given on road safety, with a sizeable segment of it on cycling and cycling to school. It's possible this is in place since I was in school though.

mikemac · 14-10-2008 07:34AM

Myth wrote: »

It's possible this is in place since I was in school though.

It was.

"Watch out kid, wear that lid" was the slogan (let's not go into a helmet debate)

Was in retro forum, I'll see can get a link

Lumen · 14-10-2008 07:38AM

311 wrote: »

That carry on prevents people from cycling ,everyone has the right to cycle, rich or poor.

Why?

Cycling costs money, like driving. If someone can't afford a few euros a year for road tax, they probably can't afford lights, batteries, helmet etc.

We have a benefits system which gives poor people money for things other people can afford. By your argument, food, electricity and housing should also be free for everybody.

14-10-2008 07:46AM

Lumen wrote: »

Why?

Cycling costs money, like driving. If someone can't afford a few euros a year for road tax, they probably can't afford lights, batteries, helmet etc.

We have a benefits system which gives poor people money for things other people can afford. By your argument, food, electricity and housing should also be free for everybody.

Thats not my argument ,not at all. It is nanny ruling at it's worst ,having tax on cyclists.
What if we were to have a shared bike scheme in the city ? ,how would it be possible to enforce licence requirements?
If tourists travelled here ,how would they partake in cycling activities ?

Families who use bicycles as there only means of transport ,because they have no choice. Why should they have to pay for the privilige.

I think cyclists should pay a contribution to an orginisation ,but privatetly and subsidised by the government in part. That orginisation should enforce rules and regulations.

mikemac · 14-10-2008 07:47AM

Lumen wrote: »

If someone can't afford a few euros a year for road tax, .

Nobody in Ireland pays road tax

Cabaal · 14-10-2008 07:53AM

So hang on, people like the idea of a 10e cycle tax and want to waste Garda time so that they enforce it instead of Gardai actually spending time on real issues such as motorists with no insurance, speeding etc

Yeah that'll work :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Lumen · 14-10-2008 07:58AM

311 wrote: »

Thats not my argument ,not at all. It is nanny ruling at it's worst ,having tax on cyclists.

Agreed, but how is it worse than tax on motorists?

311 wrote: »

What if we were to have a shared bike scheme in the city ? ,how would it be possible to enforce licence requirements?

Those bikes would come with licences.

311 wrote: »

If tourists travelled here ,how would they partake in cycling activities ?

Foreign drivers manage.

311 wrote: »

Families who use bicycles as there only means of transport ,because they have no choice. Why should they have to pay for the privilige.

What about families who use cars or buses as their only means of transport, because they have "no choice"? Cycling is a choice.

311 wrote: »

I think cyclists should pay a contribution to an orginisation ,but privatetly and subsidised by the government in part. That orginisation should enforce rules and regulations.

If the contribution is mandatory, that's no different to a tax. So you agree with me.

seamus · 14-10-2008 07:58AM

I wouldn't have a problem with this if we had a cycling infrastructure, which we don't.

As it is, we share the roads with cars and the roads would exist even if cyclists didn't.

Morgan · 14-10-2008 07:59AM

Lumen wrote: »

I'm in favour, although €10 is too low to be worthwhile. €40 maybe.

Licences would also be a good idea, with a similar points system to cars.

No, I'm not trolling.

I assume this would be a tax on each bicycle - like motor tax. Some riders on this forum would be in trouble then

.

In that case it would raise the cost of bicycles - by a large proportion on cheap bikes. This would serve as a disincentive to new cyclists at a time when the government is encouraging people to cycle. It would therefore be counterproductive.

In fact, the British government is doing the opposite. Their Cycle to Work scheme allows individuals to buy bikes VAT free through their employer.

Finally, the letter writer assumes that all cyclists are riding out of some "concern for the environment" and therefore would be happy to pay for the privilige. I believe these riders to be in the vast minority. Most people cycle because it's cheap, fast and convenient.

Jaysus, maybe I should write a letter to the Independent.:D

Lumen · 14-10-2008 08:01AM

micmclo wrote: »

Nobody in Ireland pays road tax

I pay over a grand a year for two fuel-efficient family cars.

Road tax is enforced by the guards, which is stupid. They have better things to be doing, like managing accidents and pulling over dangerous road users.

Road tax enforcement should be done by the Revenue.

Mr. Presentable · 14-10-2008 08:01AM

Cabaal wrote: »

So hang on, people like the idea of a 10e cycle tax and want to waste Garda time so that they enforce it instead of Gardai actually spending time on real issues such as motorists with no insurance, speeding etc

Yeah that'll work :rolleyes::rolleyes:

The tax would be daft. Let cyclists spend their €10 on putting lights on their bikes, and have the Gardai enforce that!

14-10-2008 08:02AM

Lumen wrote: »

If the contribution is mandatory, that's no different to a tax. So you agree with me.

It would be a private orginisation like I said ,who enforce the regulations themselves.
Christ everyone knows what happens when the government gets their paws on anything.

blorg · 14-10-2008 08:04AM

Why cycling, as the OP says, what's next? A pedestrian tax, but only if you want to walk into the city centre?

An amount of money so low as to be meaningless in any case and only a deterrent to an activity that is in general positive for all of society, reducing congestion and strain on the health service for everybody.

The idea in the letter that cycle lanes are "paid for by motorists" is also laughable. I earn above the average wage and correspondingly pay more in tax than the average man on the street; as such I could as well argue that I pay for the motorways and resent not being allowed to cycle on them

Oh wait, it's the Indo.

Lumen · 14-10-2008 08:10AM

Why should people be "encouraged" to cycle using financial incentives? That's nanny-state social engineering. Where does it stop - free bikes for everybody?

I choose to cycle. It's brilliant. If someone else chooses to walk, drive, bus or sit on their arse, I could care less.

I do care about cyclists taking a serious, responsible attitude to what they are doing. I spent much of my commute in the dark this morning (on the bike) dodging unlit cyclists - they're bloody dangerous.

I don't know whether taxing and licensing cyclists is practical. I just think that it's not an immediately abhorrent idea, to me anyway.

blorg · 14-10-2008 08:13AM

Lumen wrote: »

I pay over a grand a year for two fuel-efficient family cars.

Road tax is enforced by the guards, which is stupid. They have better things to be doing, like managing accidents and pulling over dangerous road users.

Road tax enforcement should be done by the Revenue.

You don't pay "road tax", you pay VRT on the purchase of the car and an annual motor tax. This goes into the general taxation pool and is not used to pay for maintaining the roads. You could as well say a heavy cigarette smoker or whiskey drinker pays for the roads through excise duty.

Given that motor tax is now based on CO2 emissions I will be happy with a tax regime for bicycles along similar lines

blorg · 14-10-2008 08:17AM

Lumen wrote: »

Why should people be "encouraged" to cycle using financial incentives? That's nanny-state social engineering. Where does it stop - free bikes for everybody?

The use of taxation and tax breaks to further social goals is not exactly a radical idea. Motor tax itself falls into this category being based explicitly on CO2 emissions. Tax on cigarettes and drink is another obvious example. Why do we give people tax breaks on health insurance and pension contributions, is this "nanny-state social engineering?"

I do care about cyclists taking a serious, responsible attitude to what they are doing. I spent much of my commute in the dark this morning (on the bike) dodging unlit cyclists - they're bloody dangerous.

There are already laws requiring lights on bikes; enforcing them would make a lot more sense than a meaningless tax.

Lumen · 14-10-2008 08:18AM

blorg wrote: »

Given that motor tax is now based on CO2 emissions I will be happy with a tax regime for bicycles along similar lines

Motor tax is only based on CO2 emissions because we have communists the Green Party in power

Lumen · 14-10-2008 08:21AM

blorg wrote: »

The use of taxation and tax breaks to further social goals is not exactly a radical idea.

I didn't say it was radical. I said I didn't agree with it.

blorg wrote: »

Tax on cigarettes and drink is another obvious example. Why do we give people tax breaks on health insurance and pension contributions, is this "nanny-state social engineering?"

I don't agree with those other things either.

blorg wrote: »

There are already laws requiring lights on bikes; enforcing them would make a lot more sense than a meaningless tax.

I agree, but they are not exclusive. Taxation is a Revenue issue. Lights are a road safety issue for the police.

Raam · 14-10-2008 08:27AM

Tax cyclists, a ridiculous notion.
Here is one mans (short) take on it.

Morgan · 14-10-2008 08:30AM

blorg wrote: »

Tax on cigarettes and drink is another obvious example. Why do we give people tax breaks on health insurance and pension contributions, is this "nanny-state social engineering?".

Lumen wrote: »

I don't agree with those other things either.

I don't follow your argument. You disapprove of taxes on drink and cigarettes but you are in favour of a tax on bicycles?

What would be the purpose of this tax? To generate revenue? To discourage cycling? Something else?

Raam · 14-10-2008 08:31AM

Morgan wrote: »

What would be the purpose of this tax? To generate revenue? To discourage cycling? Something else?

The guy in the letter thinks the tax will...

...allow the common motorist give way more easily to the sometimes meandering cyclist.

Chips Lovell · 14-10-2008 08:33AM

Lumen wrote: »

Motor tax is only based on CO2 emissions because we have communists the Green Party in power

Mucco · 14-10-2008 08:39AM

This question pops up every now and then, mostly when some motorist stuck in traffic gets annoyed at the cyclists whizzing by. I question how a tax would be calculated.

Based on emmissions
Cyclists don't have emmissions, so this is a non-starter

Based on road use
Cyclists use a tiny amount of road space compared to cars, maybe 10%. So we'd have to be taxed at 10% of the car price. But what about road damage?
Road damage increases to the cube (at least) of axle weight. My bike weighs 10kg, the average car weighs over 1000kg, 100 times as much. 100 cubed is 1 million. In effect we don't damage the roads, so a reduction in the tax to take account of this would lead us to paying nothing basically.

I'm not sure how much it costs to collect a tax, but I'd guess a €10 tax as suggested in the letter would not be worthwhile.

TinyExplosions · 14-10-2008 08:40AM

My view is that I'd have no problem paying an amount of cycling tax if -and only if -it would improve our conditions on the road. As it is, we get stupid cycle lanes in the worst part of the road that most drivers don't even seem to notice, let alone care about. Pedestrians don't pay walking tax, and yet get a separate, safe, generally well maintained walking track that cars are made stay off... why can't we get something similar!

Lumen · 14-10-2008 08:40AM

Raam wrote: »

Tax cyclists, a ridiculous notion.
Here is one mans (short) take on it.

"Less Pollution". Diesels are taxed lower than petrols in Ireland due to lower CO2. Consequently, the air is filled with particulates from the exhausts. The motor tax system is therefore not designed to minimize pollution that actually matters to people, particularly cyclists.

"Less congestion." There are already positive incentives to cycle. I don't see that taxing cyclists would significantly increase car use - cyclists too poor to run a car or pay the tax would use public transport or walk; cyclists who can afford a car probably have one but currently cycle for reasons other than economy.

"Cyclists are moving traffic calming measures....In theory this should lead to safer roads." That's just ridiculous.

"Cyclists don’t damage the road." A cycling tax would be significantly lower than road tax to reflect this. Resurfacing is not the only cost - the integration of cycle lanes with other parts of the road system costs money and adds complexity.

"Cycling Reduces Cost of NHS.". So does drinking a glass of wine a day and taking an aspirin. Where do I get my free booze and pills?

flickerx · 14-10-2008 08:42AM

Lumen wrote: »

Why should people be "encouraged" to cycle using financial incentives? That's nanny-state social engineering. Where does it stop - free bikes for everybody?

Lumen · 14-10-2008 08:46AM

TinyExplosions wrote: »

My view is that I'd have no problem paying an amount of cycling tax if -and only if -it would improve our conditions on the road.

Exactly. You don't pay, you don't get a say - that's how society works to a large extent. Some car drivers (not me!) resent the presence of cyclists on "their" roads.

Cyclists should be treated as first-class road users. This would be easier to achieve if they were seen to contribute to the upkeep of the road system in the same way that other road users are.

Raam · 14-10-2008 08:46AM

Lumen wrote: »

"Less Pollution". Diesels are taxed lower than petrols in Ireland due to lower CO2. Consequently, the air is filled with particulates from the exhausts. The motor tax system is therefore not designed to minimize pollution that actually matters to people, particularly cyclists.

"Less congestion." There are already positive incentives to cycle. I don't see that taxing cyclists would significantly increase car use - cyclists too poor to run a car or pay the tax would use public transport or walk; cyclists who can afford a car probably have one but currently cycle for reasons other than economy.

"Cyclists are moving traffic calming measures....In theory this should lead to safer roads." That's just ridiculous.

"Cyclists don’t damage the road." A cycling tax would be significantly lower than road tax to reflect this. Resurfacing is not the only cost - the integration of cycle lanes with other parts of the road system costs money and adds complexity.

"Cycling Reduces Cost of NHS.". So does drinking a glass of wine a day and taking an aspirin. Where do I get my free booze and pills?

I think you are getting blighted by your own argument.
You should post those comments on that guys blog, let him defend his own arguments.

Raam · 14-10-2008 08:47AM

Lumen wrote: »

Exactly. You don't pay, you don't get a say - that's how society works to a large extent. Some car drivers (not me!) resent the presence of cyclists on "their" roads.

Cyclists should be treated as first-class road users. This would be easier to achieve if they were seen to contribute to the upkeep of the road system in the same way that other road users are.

We do contribute, as was explained earlier by Blorg.

Mr. Presentable · 14-10-2008 08:50AM

Mucco wrote: »

This question pops up every now and then, mostly when some motorist stuck in traffic gets annoyed at the cyclists whizzing by. I question how a tax would be calculated.

Based on emmissions
Cyclists don't have emmissions, so this is a non-starter

.

Methane's an emission. And so's CO2, which cyclists put out more of than motorists (note I said motorists, not cars)

blorg · 14-10-2008 08:50AM

@Lumen - your position is really so bizarre it is hard to get a grip on even for discussion. You are against the use of taxation to further social goals although it is used for this purpose in just about every developed country in the world.

You are against tax breaks on health insurance and pensions, which would have the effect of reducing voluntary contributions to both, further overloading our public services and increasing tax for everybody. (Unless of course your answer is to drop entirely the public pension and health service, which I suspect it may be.)

But lets stick a tax on cycling?

What sort of tax regime would be your ideal? It's hard to fathom.

Do you even think roads should be paid for out of public taxation _at all_? Why not have a system of private roads _everywhere_ (not just motorways) - pedestrians, cyclists and motorists all have to pay (proportionately, presumably) to use them. This could be handled through some sort of easy-pass system. Everyone paying for their usage although some would suggest that such an approach to infrastructure might have a generally negative effect on the economy.

As for cycle lanes I would be very happy myself to see the back of them entirely.

seamus · 14-10-2008 08:51AM

Lumen wrote: »

Exactly. You don't pay, you don't get a say - that's how society works to a large extent. Some car drivers (not me!) resent the presence of cyclists on "their" roads.

But most of us do pay. We either pay income tax (which also funds the roads) or we own a car or motorbike and thus pay road tax. We also pay VAT on goods and services which go towards funding roads. So there isn't a single person on this island who doesn't pay for the roads one way or another.

So the idea that the roads "belong" to any one set of society is an argument used by morons and isn't even worth consideration.

Morgan · 14-10-2008 08:52AM

Lumen wrote: »

Some car drivers (not me!) resent the presence of cyclists on "their" roads.

Maybe there should be a €10 tax on ignorance in that case

Lumen · 14-10-2008 08:53AM

flickerx wrote: »

I wish I was flexible enough to achieve that, it would really help in headwinds.

Any tips?

Seriously though, just trying to contribute to the debate. No-one likes tax; I wasn't expecting a chorus of approval from a cycling forum.

Budget today should be interesting...

Raam · 14-10-2008 08:53AM

Lumen wrote: »

Budget today should be interesting...

Jeebus, imagine they DO introduce it!

TinyExplosions · 14-10-2008 08:55AM

Raam wrote: »

Jeebus, imagine they DO introduce it!

We could all cycle down and protest

Chips Lovell · 14-10-2008 08:59AM

Lumen wrote: »

Exactly. You don't pay, you don't get a say - that's how society works to a large extent. Some car drivers (not me!) resent the presence of cyclists on "their" roads.

Cyclists should be treated as first-class road users. This would be easier to achieve if they were seen to contribute to the upkeep of the road system in the same way that other road users are.

We do pay. Motor Tax would only cover a small fraction of the annual roads budget, yet motorists cause the most damage to roads, need the most space and get their own exclusive (and expensive I might add) roads, i.e. motorways.

Last year's Motor Tax take was €955 million. The NRA's road building budget for the next 6 years is in the region of €2 billion per annum. And that's just for new roads. You also need to take into account how much local authorities spend every year on maintenance of existing roads.

rflynnr · 14-10-2008 08:59AM

Lumen wrote: »

I do care about cyclists taking a serious, responsible attitude to what they are doing. I spent much of my commute in the dark this morning (on the bike) dodging unlit cyclists - they're bloody dangerous.

I don't know whether taxing and licensing cyclists is practical. I just think that it's not an immediately abhorrent idea, to me anyway.

Lumen, perhaps I'm missing something but I still haven't heard your rationale for introducing an additional tax on cyclists (I say additional because last time I bought a bike, I believe I paid VAT.) The original letter in the Independent that started this thread was based on the hoary, old, and faulty premise that Motor Tax pays for the roads. It doesn't nor has it ever. (If it did, we wouldn't be paying tolls.) Even before the introduction of C02 based charging motor tax was based on an attempt to claw back the negative externalities (costs) associated with the prevalance of cars in society. These costs include the need to build transport infrastructures (i.e. roads) BUT ALSO (for example) the increased health care costs brought about by respiratory complaints associated with living in an industrial society. Obviously it would be impossible to levy those costs on individual cars, so the tax is amortised across the whole category of vehicles.

Given this, what similar negative externalities could one point to as a consequence of using bikes as a mode of transport? At a stretch, one could argue that the behaviour of individual "dangerous" cyclists results in broader costs to society but this is the result of the behaviour of individuals - it's not something that is inherent to bicycles as a class of vehicle. Indeed, on reflection, in economic terms, the externalities associated with bikes are almost exclusively positive. Because cyclists tend to be fitter, they're less vulnerable to illness and as a consequence constitute less of a drain on the resources of the health care system

Furthermore, what's the relevance of your point about dangerous cyclists to taxation? Are you suggesting that if people had to pay a tax to use their bikes that they'd behave more responsibly? It's not an argument that is supported by the actual behaviour of those (including myself) paying motor tax.

Lumen · 14-10-2008 09:03AM

blorg wrote: »

your position is really so bizarre it is hard to get a grip on even for discussion. You are against the use of taxation to further social goals although it is used for this purpose in just about every developed country in the world.

My position is probably very different to yours, but I hope it's self-consistent.

blorg wrote: »

You are against tax breaks on health insurance and pensions, which would have the effect of reducing voluntary contributions to both, further overloading our public services and increasing tax for everybody. (Unless of course your answer is to drop entirely the public pension and health service, which I suspect it may be.)

Voluntary contributions to public pensions? You've confused me. FWIW, I think the health service should be entirely funded out of general taxation, and free at the point of use.

blorg wrote: »

What sort of tax regime would be your ideal? It's hard to fathom.

A simple one. I'd rather there were no road user taxes. VAT on car sales and fuel is sufficiently simple. Since we're not in that position, it seems fair that all road users should contribute to their upkeep. Pedestrians are not road users - roads are an obstacle to them, at least in the city.

blorg wrote: »

Do you even think roads should be paid for out of public taxation _at all_? Why not have a system of private roads _everywhere_ (not just motorways) - pedestrians, cyclists and motorists all have to pay (proportionately, presumably) to use them. This could be handled through some sort of easy-pass system. Everyone paying for their usage although some would suggest that such an approach to infrastructure might have a generally negative effect on the economy.

I think you've extrapolated or misunderstood. Tolls are inefficient and complicated. Roads should be paid for out of either general taxation or road user taxes (I'd prefer general taxation).

blorg wrote: »

As for cycle lanes I would be very happy myself to see the back of them entirely.

Me too.

rflynnr · 14-10-2008 09:11AM

Lumen wrote: »

I'd rather there were no road user taxes.

"Road user taxes"?. Lumen, this is a category of tax you have essentially invented to support your argument. This can't be stated enough: there is not now, nor has there ever been, something called "Road Tax". It's "motor tax". This is not a small semantic distinction. Indeed understanding the difference is critical to this discussion. Otherwise it will continue to proceed with the participants basing their positions on quite different premises.

Lumen · 14-10-2008 09:11AM

rflynnr wrote: »

John, perhaps I'm missing something but I still haven't heard your rationale for introducing an additional tax on cyclists (I say additional because last time I bought a bike, I believe I paid VAT.)

And last time I bought a car, I paid VAT, VRT and motor tax. There are already additional taxes for other road users. I'm arguing from the perspective of fairness.

rflynnr wrote: »

The original letter in the Independent that started this thread was based on the hoary, old, and faulty premise that Motor Tax pays for the roads. It doesn't nor has it ever. (If it did, we wouldn't be paying tolls.)

"Motor tax" may not cover the costs of the roads, but I imagine "motor taxes" (including VRT) do. I haven't checked this though.

rflynnr wrote: »

Even before the introduction of C02 based charging motor tax was based on an attempt to claw back the negative externalities (costs) associated with the prevalance of cars in society. These costs include the need to build transport infrastructures (i.e. roads) BUT ALSO (for example) the increased health care costs brought about by respiratory complaints associated with living in an industrial society. Obviously it would be impossible to levy those costs on individual cars, so the tax is amortised across the whole category of vehicles.

As stated earlier, the current motoring tax system has nothing to do with health care costs, or else it wouldn't encourage people to buy diesels. Modern petrol cars contribute almost nothing to respiratory illness.

rflynnr wrote: »

Given this, what similar negative externalities could one point to as a consequence of using bikes as a mode of transport?

I don't buy the "negative externalities" arguments, much discussed earlier. You may do, so we disagree.

Furthermore, what's the relevance of your point about dangerous cyclists to taxation? Are you suggesting that if people had to pay a tax to use their bikes that they'd behave more responsibly? It's not an argument that is supported by the actual behaviour of those (including myself) paying motor tax.

It might take off the road people too cheap to buy lights.

blorg · 14-10-2008 09:12AM

Lumen wrote: »

I think you've extrapolated or misunderstood. Tolls are inefficient and complicated. Roads should be paid for out of either general taxation or road user taxes (I'd prefer general taxation).

You will be happy then, as that is primarily what roads are paid for out of, general taxation

flickerx · 14-10-2008 09:13AM

rflynnr wrote: »

"Road user taxes"?. John, this is a category of tax you have essentially invented to support your argument. This can't be stated enough: there is not now, nor has there ever been, something called "Road Tax". It's "motor tax". This is not a small semantic distinction. Indeed understanding the difference is critical to this discussion. Otherwise it will continue to proceed with the participants basing their positions on quite different premises.

this man (or woman) has landed the killer blow.
there isnt going to be a 'crank' tax on cyclists, so i think we can all chill.
indo letter writers talk a lot of crap.

Tax cyclist idea.........pedestrians next?

Comments