The Luxembourg Project

[soulstyledevon]

Those living furthest from their workplace would potentially gain most from a per mile cycle-to-work tax break.

Everyone would benefit from lower CO2 emissions.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Very good Amarillo.
I like this a lot.

 

[Borris]

Giving tax breaks based on miles pedaled to work would be an invitation to all kinds of fraud.

Cyclists are already being rewarded by not having to pay anything towards the costly road network. Just because someone already pays tax by owning a car, isn't a relevant response. If it were then it should be those that don't have bicycles that should be receiving a rebate. Yes, we all pay tax in many forms and car drivers pay said taxes in order to use the road network. You can't use your vehicle on the public roads without VED and insurance so why should cyclists be permitted to do so? They are using exactly the same facilities.

As cyclists don't contribute towards road repairs and new infrastructure then the only answer seems to be to tax the motorist more and restrict still further their use of the roads that they are already paying a fortune towards. If the future is city centres devoid of cars and full of cycles then why shouldn't the cyclist make a contribution towards the cost?

Up until 1799 no one paid income tax. Just because cyclists have never paid for the priveledge of riding on public roads before doesn't mean it should always be thus.

Don't get me wrong, this isn't a subject that I feel passionately about and I am perfectly happy with things as they are. Cyclists are free to cycle where so ever they please and long may that continue. However if the cycling lobby are insistent on an expensive cycle only infrastructure then these questions should at least be asked.

 

[soulstyledevon]

Vehicle Excise Duty is emissions based.
Bicycles don't emit any poisonous emissions, therefore no tax is required.
Also, bicycles don't damage the road surface.

 

[Amarillo]

Giving tax breaks based on miles pedaled to work would be an invitation to all kinds of fraud.

Cyclists are already being rewarded by not having to pay anything towards the costly road network. Just because someone already pays tax by owning a car, isn't a relevant response. If it were then it should be those that don't have bicycles that should be receiving a rebate. Yes, we all pay tax in many forms and car drivers pay said taxes in order to use the road network. You can't use your vehicle on the public roads without VED and insurance so why should cyclists be permitted to do so? They are using exactly the same facilities.

As cyclists don't contribute towards road repairs and new infrastructure then the only answer seems to be to tax the motorist more and restrict still further their use of the roads that they are already paying a fortune towards. If the future is city centres devoid of cars and full of cycles then why shouldn't the cyclist make a contribution towards the cost?

Up until 1799 no one paid income tax. Just because cyclists have never paid for the priveledge of riding on public roads before doesn't mean it should always be thus.

Don't get me wrong, this isn't a subject that I feel passionately about and I am perfectly happy with things as they are. Cyclists are free to cycle where so ever they please and long may that continue. However if the cycling lobby are insistent on an expensive cycle only infrastructure then these questions should at least be asked.

If there was VED on bicycles I'd pay it with about the same level of enthusiasm as I pay VED for our cars. But it is not cyclists fault that there is no VED on bicycles, so why blame cyclists for not paying extra for riding their bikes - it is not cyclists people should be targeting for there being no VED on bicycles, it is the politicians you need to convince; given the Swiss experience with the Velo Vignette, I expect politicians would be unwilling to introduce such a duty - but you never know.

 

[WelshGas]

Vehicle Excise Duty is emissions based.
Bicycles don't emit any poisonous emissions, therefore no tax is required.
Also, bicycles don't damage the road surface.

Emissions based Yes, but CO2 only.

I've yet to meet a cyclist, therefore, who doesn't emit CO2. Well not a live one anyway.

 

[owen_h]

With the exception of motorways (which cyclists aren't allowed on) road building & maintenance is paid from out of general taxation. So if a adult cyclist pays income tax, council tax, vat on products (including their bike), vehicle excise duty, tobacco duty etc etc etc they are contributing to the building and maintenance of the roads.
VED isn't ring fenced to roads or for the benefit of only those paying it in the same way tobacco duty doesent go to the lung cancer wards of the NHS.

 

[Amarillo]

Emissions based Yes, but CO2 only.

I've yet to meet a cyclist, therefore, who doesn't emit CO2. Well not a live one anyway.

As a layman, I would guess that a cyclist emits less CO2 per mile than a pedestrian.

 

[Borris]

Vehicle Excise Duty is emissions based.
Bicycles don't emit any poisonous emissions, therefore no tax is required.
Also, bicycles don't damage the road surface.

Sorry, I may not have made myself clear enough. I'm not really talking about what happens currently but looking towards the future.

Taxes are levied for a range of reasons or excuses. Goverments have to raise said taxes to pay for their commitments. All standard stuff. Currently if you run a vehicle costing less than £40k with zero emissions you pay no VED but that won't always be the case. If the current system is to tax drivers for their vehicle's emissions then why does a zero emission Tesla cost £320 per year in VED? Hence my use of the word excuse! Excuses change to suit the demand for revenue. The long gone window tax has suddenly come to mind.

I agree that bicycles don't comply with the current VED regime but again that system will almost certainly be changed radically in the not too distant future. If the take up of zero emission electric vehicles is as high as the Government wants it to be then they will have do something imaginative to regenerate that missing tax revenue.

Cyclists are using the roads in ever increasing numbers, roads that need to be built and maintained and now apparently, adapted for their specific use. No they don't damage the road surface but the surface has to be put there in the first place and there after maintained. My point is: there are finite resources available so if specific infrastructure is required then should cycling always be the free ride it currently is?

 

[Borris]

If there was VED on bicycles I'd pay it with about the same level of enthusiasm as I pay VED for our cars. But it is not cyclists fault that there is no VED on bicycles, so why blame cyclists for not paying extra for riding their bikes - it is not cyclists people should be targeting for there being no VED on bicycles, it is the politicians you need to convince; given the Swiss experience with the Velo Vignette, I expect politicians would be unwilling to introduce such a duty - but you never know.

I'm not blaming or attacking anyone and the VED issue isn't the point. I'm merely posing a question. If cyclists are ever taxed, which I doubt, they wouldn't/couldn't use the current system. Why shouldn't cyclists contribute towards the upkeep of the roads they share with other paying traffic? Whether it's a practical proposition is not for me to decide.

 

[Beeechke1]

Cyclist don't need specific infrastructure government/local council choose to build it to encourage more people to leave the car behind and cycle so they can reduce congestion and hit their air quality targets

 

[Amarillo]

Cyclists are using the roads in ever increasing numbers, roads that need to be built and maintained and now apparently, adapted for their specific use. No they don't damage the road surface but the surface has to be put there in the first place and there after maintained. My point is: there are finite resources available so if specific infrastructure is required then should cycling always be the free ride it currently is?

I think it is fanciful to suggest a prospect of human propelled vehicles being taxed in a similar way to mechanically propelled vehicles. Think more broadly than bicycles to skateboards, scooters, supermarket trolleys, zimmer frames, etc. I can see a stronger case for electric bikes, electric scooters, mobility scooters, etc. But to tax a kid's tricycle!!!???

 

[Borris]

Cyclist don't need specific infrastructure government/local council choose to build it to encourage more people to leave the car behind and cycle so they can reduce congestion and hit their air quality targets

I know.

 

[Amarillo]

Why shouldn't cyclists contribute towards the upkeep of the roads they share with other paying traffic? Whether it's a practical proposition is not for me to decide.

The contribution is already made - VAT on the bicycle itself, general taxation of the cyclist, and most adult cyclists pay VED on one or more motor vehicles.

There's a very good reason why no country in the world has a specific tax on cyclists. A few have limited registration schemes. Indeed, my cargo trike has a registration number or some sort of identification stencilled on the rear. Perhaps @Wiggly Woo can help? The first character is "heaven", the final character is "factory".

 

[WelshGas]

As a layman, I would guess that a cyclist emits less CO2 per mile than a pedestrian.

Ii doubt it. CO2 limits are calculated in gms/km. If the cyclist travelled at the same speed as a pedestrian there would be a possible marginal difference due to the work to overcome the resistance of the gears but a cyclist travels at a higher speed than a pedestrian so over the same distance more energy would be expended because of the higher speed although the journey would be completed more quickly.

 

[Borris]

I think it is fanciful to suggest a prospect of human propelled vehicles being taxed in a similar way to mechanically propelled vehicles. Think more broadly than bicycles to skateboards, scooters, supermarket trolleys, zimmer frames, etc. I can see a stronger case for electric bikes, electric scooters, mobility scooters, etc. But to tax a kid's tricycle!!!???

I am posing a legitimate question. I am not referring to kids tricycles or zimmer frames etc etc which are not usually to be found using Britain's roads. As for taxation by "a similar way to mechanically propelled vehicles", I have already said that that is impractical so unlikely.

 

[Amarillo]

I am posing a legitimate question. I am not referring to kids tricycles or zimmer frames etc etc which are not usually to be found using Britain's roads. As for taxation by "a similar way to mechanically propelled vehicles", I have already said that that is impractical so unlikely.

Indeed. But if a tax on cyclists is being proposed, you will need to consider other forms of wheeled transport or trailer. Why should someone riding a bicycle to work face a tax while another person roller skates to work for no additional tax. It is easy to draw the line between licensed road users and unlicensed road users. And what about equestrians? We've recently seen a spate of untaxed canoeists using the highway.

 

[owen_h]

As owners of vehicles that are heavier than the average car we should be very wary in advocating a taxation scheme that is related to damage done to the road network caused in the main by vehicle weight .
Found this table of comparative damage (admittedly based on an American study)
https://streets.mn/2016/07/07/chart-of-the-day-vehicle-weight-vs-road-damage-levels/

Hummer H2 = 2900kg ie about the same as a Cali. Thus we should be paying 21x the VED of an 'average' car to use a Cali on the roads.
On the flip side 10p should cover the damage caused by my bike for the next 1000 years. Quite happy to pay that (probably on purchase to save the annual admin costs). Especially if it eliminates the 'you haven't paid so your not entitled' attitude of many.
Capital changes (new infrastructure) comes back to my earlier point in that its paid for generally not by the specific users. To do otherwise would open many cans of worms. Should people without children pay for schools & teachers? Should my colleague who doesn't drive at all (or have a bike) pay the part of council tax that goes to roads. (i'm not seriously advocating either of these). Road building is in my mind the same sort of argument, its for the benefit of most people so paid for from a central 'pot'.
My argument would be that I do pay (tax) for the road network. I could decide to use one of my bikes, the california, other little car (£20pa VED), or feet to make a journey (possibly not the kayak yet but who knows in the future). Whatever method I choose gives me no more or less entitlement to the road /pavement than any other person based or the choice of transport.
A tax on cycles would (theoretically*) be another way of raising revenue but dont pretend its justified to pay for or be entitled to use the roads. Taxes such as this are often cited /justified to try and modify behaviour (e.g. drink or smoke less). How does trying to reduce cycling help (environment / congestion / health).

* Admin & enforcement costs likely to far outstrip any money raised.

 

[Borris]

You forgot to mention stilts, Pogo sticks and hover boards.

I'm not sure how relevant your examples are? I try to avoid cities, London especially. If you are telling me that the use of roller skates to get to work is widespread or that there has been a return to the wide spread use of gee-gees on the Capital's streets I will be amazed. Whilst amusing, are your examples that relevant to this discussion?


As I've said before, "I am perfectly happy with things as they are. Cyclists are free to cycle where so ever they please and long may that continue. However if the cycling lobby are insistent on an expensive cycle only infrastructure then these questions should at least be asked".

 

[TripleBee]

Free doesn't exist. All has to be paid anyhow. In Limburg (Belgium) there used to be free public transport. The elderly people could use the tram and buses for free from the age of 60+.
The thing that happened was that when I went to school by tram, most of the time I had to stand up in the middle of the tram while my parents paid €250 per year for my subscription, and through their taxes they had paid the "free" tickets for the elderly, who could sit down all day long from De Panne to Knokke and back.
When we then finally could have a sit down on a 55 minute trip, if there were elderly people entering the tram, they were sighing because they could not sit down in rush hour on my parents paid tickets.
I coped with that for 1 year and then bought my first car (Golf 2) to do the same trip in 25 minutes, always being able to sit down, saving my parents my subscription for the tram. In return they paid some of my gas instead.
Luckily they turned both initiatives back, as the one who has the use of it, has to pay.

Now I go to work, only 12 km from home, but I barely take the bike because it takes me 45 minutes to get to work, instead of 15 minutes by California.
Yes, I was one of the first to say I'd buy an electric bike, but not a 25km/h bike. It had to be the 45 one, as I drive up to 35 km/h with back wind. Unluckily, in the morning when the earth is heating up, there is some headwind, direction of the sea, and in the evening the wind turns the other way around, so I end up going only 18 - 22 km/h, which is the speed of a simple electric bike.
But because I have to buy a number plate for the bike and they are starting to find out more rules against the speed pedelecs, I will keep polluting the air with my lovely van instead.
First they are trying to force us on bikes and then they find out rules to discourage us.

 

[Amarillo]

You forgot to mention stilts, Pogo sticks and hover boards.

I'm not sure how relevant your examples are? I try to aviod cities, London especially. If you are telling me that the use of roller skates to get to work is widespread or that there has been a return to the wide spread use of gee-gees on the Capital's streets I will be amazed. Whilst amusing, are your examples that relevant to this discussion?


As I've said before, "I am perfectly happy with things as they are. Cyclists are free to cycle where so ever they please and long may that continue. However if the cycling lobby are insistent on an expensive cycle only infrastructure then these questions should at least be asked".

I think these questions are relevant. If you are starting to debate taxing cyclists, you will also need to consider other human powered transport modes. Why should a cyclist be paying when a scooterist or roller bladist doesn't? Is is the pedals and chain which make the bicycle a special case worthy of VED?

There is widespread use of horses around here by the police. There is also a local rag and bone man who uses a horse and cart - personally I think he should be awarded an annual grant from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport rather than pay VED.

 

[Bellcrew]

Free doesn't exist. All has to be paid anyhow. In Limburg (Belgium) there used to be free public transport. The elderly people could use the tram and buses for free from the age of 60+.
The thing that happened was that when I went to school by tram, most of the time I had to stand up in the middle of the tram while my parents paid €250 per year for my subscription, and through their taxes they had paid the "free" tickets for the elderly, who could sit down all day long from De Panne to Knokke and back.
When we then finally could have a sit down on a 55 minute trip, if there were elderly people entering the tram, they were sighing because they could not sit down in rush hour on my parents paid tickets.
I coped with that for 1 year and then bought my first car (Golf 2) to do the same trip in 25 minutes, always being able to sit down, saving my parents my subscription for the tram. In return they paid some of my gas instead.
Luckily they turned both initiatives back, as the one who has the use of it, has to pay.

Now I go to work, only 12 km from home, but I barely take the bike because it takes me 45 minutes to get to work, instead of 15 minutes by California.
Yes, I was one of the first to say I'd buy an electric bike, but not a 25km/h bike. It had to be the 45 one, as I drive up to 35 km/h with back wind. Unluckily, in the morning when the earth is heating up, there is some headwind, direction of the sea, and in the evening the wind turns the other way around, so I end up going only 18 - 22 km/h, which is the speed of a simple electric bike.
But because I have to buy a number plate for the bike and they are starting to find out more rules against the speed pedelecs, I will keep polluting the air with my lovely van instead.
First they are trying to force us on bikes and then they find out rules to discourage us.

Great tram system, no equivalent anywhere on our south coast from Cornwall to Kent.
Bikes are fine on quiet roads/cycle ways in reasonably weather, when you only have fairly light things to carry otherwise they are proven to be potentially lethal and impractical.

 

[Borris]

I think these questions are relevant. If you are starting to debate taxing cyclists, you will also need to consider other human powered transport modes. Why should a cyclist be paying when a scooterist or roller bladist doesn't? Is is the pedals and chain which make the bicycle a special case worthy of VED?

There is widespread use of horses around here by the police. There is also a local rag and bone man who uses a horse and cart - personally I think he should be awarded an annual grant from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport rather than pay VED.

Maybe you're right, however amongst the examples you've mentioned, it is only the cycling lobby that appear to be asking for expensive dedicated facilities. As I've already said, "If cyclists are ever taxed, which I doubt, the current VED system wouldn't/couldn't be used.



Emergency Service vehicles are exempt from VED so Police horses would be exempt as well. As for Steptoe, I can't see Arold coughing up if he could evade it.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

[Amarillo]

Maybe you're right, however amongst the examples you've mentioned, it is only the cycling lobby that appear to be asking for expensive dedicated facilities. As I've already said, "If cyclists are ever taxed, which I doubt, the current VED system wouldn't/couldn't be used.



Emergency Service vehicles are exempt from VED so Police horses would be exempt as well. As for Steptoe, I can't see Arold coughing up if he could evade it.

[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
Rowers, canoeists and sailors in Chichester Harbour need to pay for each boat they have to use the harbour.

https://www.conservancy.co.uk/assets/files/cms_item/41/d-Scale_of_Charges_2020_2021_WEBSITE_LAYOUT-u6f0CSKOq1.pdf

 

[Paulfwb]

Is it time for free public transport within the UK to tackle our inner city pollution and congestion problems...?

I mainly ride to work, then drive the 5 miles if the weathers bad.
I could get the bus, just a short walk away. But don’t...

Think I would be happy to pay a little extra tax to cover public transport and would be happy to see a Motorway Tax similar to France.

Thoughts...

Weiterleitungshinweis

I live in Switzerland and the public transport is like it was once in the UK, safe, clean and very punctual. This is because it is viewed as part of the national infrastructure and so is supported by the government. Free markets do not always work, especially when it comes to national infrastructure.

 

[soulstyledevon]

I live in Switzerland and the public transport is like it was once in the UK, safe, clean and very punctual. This is because it is viewed as part of the national infrastructure and so is supported by the government. Free markets do not always work, especially when it comes to national infrastructure.

The Swiss train system is an absolute joy to use.
I used the train last month from Zurich airport to Flumserberg. Planned my route online and every train was spot on time, clean and efficient. The way they should be.