Should a 'road tax' be introduced for cyclists?

[Meerkat]

they just should not mix with 'real' cycles.

Why not? They shouldn't (legally) be going any faster

 

[Failed Unit]

I do wonder about the 'saved by my helmet tales' - the helmet is a big old protuberance so must get hit lots of times when the head would be tucked in and wouldn't.
Also the way many people wear their helmet looks more likely to strangle them than save their head - way back off the face, or on top of a bulky hat.

I have one.

i car hit me on a roundabout as they didn’t see I was already on it. I broke their windscreen with my helmet. Although I can’t claim it saved my life, it certainly significantly reduced my head injuries. The impact still broke my back.

Saying that the fact I hit my head at all was unfortunate. I could have just as easily used another part of my body to break the windscreen.

 

[johncrossley]

E-bikes are not as bad as cars, but they can surely cause serious injury or worse in a collision, they just should not mix with 'real' cycles.

I favor speed limits for cyclists too.

Once the motor cuts out at 25 km/h it is harder for a cyclist to maintain that speed compared to a normal bike because of the extra weight of the battery.

 

[biko]

E-bikes are not as bad as cars, but they can surely cause serious injury or worse in a collision, they just should not mix with 'real' cycles.

E-bikes don’t go that much faster than ‘real’ cycles. E-bikes are limited to 25 km/h (in the Netherlands, I presume it’s similar in the UK). On my normal bike I regularly need to brake in tunnels because people are limited by their e-bikes and I’m not. The main thing that causes e-bikes to be a bit higher in the accident statistics is because elderly people use e-bikes relatively often and they do go faster than they otherwise would. However, their reaction time is longer than of other people, so they go sometimes a bit faster than is safe for them. These accidents also mostly involve e-bikes and cars, not cyclists among each other.

Mixing e-bikes and regular bikes isn’t a problem as the speeds are similar and the weight is also comparable. A bigger problem is mopeds which do go quite a bit faster and are heavier.

 

[Meerkat]

I have one.

i car hit me on a roundabout as they didn’t see I was already on it. I broke their windscreen with my helmet. Although I can’t claim it saved my life, it certainly significantly reduced my head injuries. The impact still broke my back.

Saying that the fact I hit my head at all was unfortunate. I could have just as easily used another part of my body to break the windscreen.

There will always be individual examples (I hope you made a good recovery). I could quote the time i went over a bonnet and slid ten yards down the road, without hitting my head.
Pretty sure we would save more lives by making car drivers wear helmets, but that would be disproportionate, as compulsory helmet wearing is. Leave it up to the individual to assess their risk, and don't try to sway them with terrifying adverts that dissuade people from cycling at all.

 

[biko]

There will always be individual examples (I hope you made a good recovery). I could quote the time i went over a bonnet and slid ten yards down the road, without hitting my head.
Pretty sure we would save more lives by making car drivers wear helmets, but that would be disproportionate, as compulsory helmet wearing is. Leave it up to the individual to assess their risk, and don't try to sway them with terrifying adverts that dissuade people from cycling at all.

Indeed. It has been found many times that the health benefits of encouraging cycling by not needing to wear a helmet outweigh the benefits of a helmet. The best way of protecting cyclists is by giving them dedicated infrastructure so that the probability of accidents reduces and impact of accidents reduces. Someone can then decide if they want to protect themselves further by wearing a helmet but most people won’t do it anymore as it’s a hassle to take the helmet to every activity.

 

[Failed Unit]

There will always be individual examples (I hope you made a good recovery). I could quote the time i went over a bonnet and slid ten yards down the road, without hitting my head.
Pretty sure we would save more lives by making car drivers wear helmets, but that would be disproportionate, as compulsory helmet wearing is. Leave it up to the individual to assess their risk, and don't try to sway them with terrifying adverts that dissuade people from cycling at all.

Still working through it thanks. But agree compulsory helmets isn’t the answer. The driver made a mistake. These things happen but such accidents put people off cycling. Taxing them definitely will. My experience of cycle paths (irrespective of tax) is crossing roads is dangerous as some cars don’t respect the priority when turning off the main road. (suspect that is on for a different threas)

But I personally pay as much VED for my bike as I do for my car. My insurance for my bike is about 1/5 of what I pay for my car. My bike does about 2000 miles per year. My car 8000 so cost per mile the insurance is about the same. But the risk of me causing a 3rd party serious injury on my bike is much less. (Especially when on the road)

 

[Meerkat]

Indeed. It has been found many times that the health benefits of encouraging cycling by not needing to wear a helmet outweigh the benefits of a helmet. The best way of protecting cyclists is by giving them dedicated infrastructure so that the probability of accidents reduces and impact of accidents reduces. Someone can then decide if they want to protect themselves further by wearing a helmet but most people won’t do it anymore as it’s a hassle to take the helmet to every activity.

I dispute that the gain from dedicated cycle infrastructure is worth the absolutely vast cost and disruption of providing it in Britain in a way that meets our highway standards and is good enough that people use it rather than just stay on the roads.
The best way to make cycling safer is to have more cyclists - then the drivers will be used to them, and probably cyclists themselves.

 

[Failed Unit]

Indeed. It has been found many times that the health benefits of encouraging cycling by not needing to wear a helmet outweigh the benefits of a helmet. The best way of protecting cyclists is by giving them dedicated infrastructure so that the probability of accidents reduces and impact of accidents reduces. Someone can then decide if they want to protect themselves further by wearing a helmet but most people won’t do it anymore as it’s a hassle to take the helmet to every activity.

it would certainly stop me using a hire bike in a city. As you say taking the helmet to cycle from say Kings Cross - Oxford St would probably mean I wouldn’t cycle.

 

[py_megapixel]

I dispute that the gain from dedicated cycle infrastructure is worth the absolutely vast cost and disruption of providing it in Britain in a way that meets our highway standards and is good enough that people use it rather than just stay on the roads.

Disruption to what, exactly?

 

[johncrossley]

I dispute that the gain from dedicated cycle infrastructure is worth the absolutely vast cost and disruption of providing it in Britain in a way that meets our highway standards and is good enough that people use it rather than just stay on the roads.
The best way to make cycling safer is to have more cyclists - then the drivers will be used to them, and probably cyclists themselves.

The Netherlands used to have cyclists sharing the road with cars, leading to a huge drop in cycling and mass protests in the 70s, which is why they built their cycle paths. Sharing the road with cars is OK on quiet residential roads, but not on main roads.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I dispute that the gain from dedicated cycle infrastructure is worth the absolutely vast cost and disruption of providing it in Britain in a way that meets our highway standards and is good enough that people use it rather than just stay on the roads.
The best way to make cycling safer is to have more cyclists - then the drivers will be used to them, and probably cyclists themselves.

The only way you will ever get Old Mrs Smith to cycle to the shops is if there are no cars. Hence dedicated facilities are essential.

 

[biko]

I dispute that the gain from dedicated cycle infrastructure is worth the absolutely vast cost and disruption of providing it in Britain in a way that meets our highway standards and is good enough that people use it rather than just stay on the roads.
The best way to make cycling safer is to have more cyclists - then the drivers will be used to them, and probably cyclists themselves.

It is doable. The Netherlands didn’t have many cycling paths until the ‘70s. It is not that hard to convert parts of pavements or a lane to a separated cycle path. My main problem with British cycle paths (not only a British problem, also in France for example) is that junction design is very bad.

People won’t cycle if there aren’t good facilities. So dedicated infrastructure is necessary

 

[The Ham]

You won't get fewer parked cars though, just the opposite. People won't give up their cars entirely so when they are out cycling then their cars will be parked up causing issues as you describe. More cycling, more parked cars, more problems. Developers should take some of the criticism for building new developments with tiny access roads.

It does depend on if the extra cycling reduces car ownership. If it does then parking becomes less of an issue. Paired with car clubs (so there's access to a car when needed) there's the potential to reduce the need to own a car.

In the last 15 years my wife and I have shared one car as for local travel (with cycling and walking often been how I get to work, although for some of that time paired with rail travel) as we had access to bikes. Compare that to the majority of our current neighbours who have at least 2 vehicles per house.

The other factor to consider is that we currently have 3 children and live in an area which meets the government definition of rural (settlement of less than 10,000 people), so by many accounts should "entitle" is to have two cars.

I dispute that the gain from dedicated cycle infrastructure is worth the absolutely vast cost and disruption of providing it in Britain in a way that meets our highway standards and is good enough that people use it rather than just stay on the roads.
The best way to make cycling safer is to have more cyclists - then the drivers will be used to them, and probably cyclists themselves.

Which is why the rules on cycle provision have been updated, so that walking/cycling routes should be at grade and indicate clearly that they have priority over motor traffic.

Whilst the best way is to have more cyclists so drivers get used to them being around, that's unlikely to happen with the volume of traffic which we have on our roads. As such providing cycle infrastructure is the way that we'll see more people cycling, which ultimately would increase the numbers cycling in roads.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It does depend on if the extra cycling reduces car ownership. If it does then parking becomes less of an issue. Paired with car clubs (so there's access to a car when needed) there's the potential to reduce the need to own a car.

In the built up areas of the very large cities (i.e. in no particular order London, Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham, Edinburgh, Glasgow and possibly Bristol and Leeds) plus the two "classic" university cities of Oxford and Cambridge given the way people tend to live and work very locally in those two, perhaps.

Elsewhere, no chance. We need to forget trying to reduce car ownership and concentrate on things that cause people to leave it on the driveway for the local urban journeys that do the most harm. Public transport to/from the other smaller cities and towns of the UK is nowhere near good enough to dispense with car ownership, and won't ever be without significant additional subsidy. For instance if you look at the Home Counties, it's all about getting to London, and if you look at the North evening services are too basic.

If I lived in the built up area of London I absolutely would not have a car. In MK, even with excellent cycling facilities and even if I had access to a car club, I would not even contemplate not owning one unless medically disqualified.

 

[The Ham]

In the built up areas of the very large cities (i.e. in no particular order London, Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham, Edinburgh, Glasgow and possibly Bristol and Leeds) plus the two "classic" university cities of Oxford and Cambridge given the way people tend to live and work very locally in those two, perhaps.

Elsewhere, no chance. We need to forget trying to reduce car ownership and concentrate on things that cause people to leave it on the driveway for the local urban journeys that do the most harm. Public transport to/from the other smaller cities and towns of the UK is nowhere near good enough to dispense with car ownership, and won't ever be without significant additional subsidy. For instance if you look at the Home Counties, it's all about getting to London, and if you look at the North evening services are too basic.

If I lived in the built up area of London I absolutely would not have a car. In MK, even with excellent cycling facilities and even if I had access to a car club, I would not even contemplate not owning one unless medically disqualified.

I wasn't saying no cars in a household, rather fewer cars in a household and I can say, as I've been coping 99% of the time with just one car in an area which has a population of 1/30th of that of MK and currently with 3 children under 10, that it's possible.

Yes there's times when one car doesn't work, but then the cost of rail, taxi, or car hire isn't so great that it's worth having a second car. Likewise it would be easier if there was a car club car.

Our three kids have swimming lessons (which are within a distance which can be cycled, although we haven't done that much). The issues we face are often related to attending birthday parties in the nearby towns, however it's still fairly rare that they conflict with other things we wish to do.

Driving is too often the first choice of travel, when it may not be the best thing to do and sometimes doesn't save much time compared to other options.

 

[LOL The Irony]

Living in an area full of lycra types, TAX THEM. It's the only way to deter them from their recklessness and stupidity. Little Timmy on his way to school gets a pass.

it would certainly stop me using a hire bike in a city. As you say taking the helmet to cycle from say Kings Cross - Oxford St would probably mean I wouldn’t cycle.

Walk or take the damn tube.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I wasn't saying no cars in a household, rather fewer cars in a household and I can say, as I've been coping 99% of the time with just one car in an area which has a population of 1/30th of that of MK and currently with 3 children under 10, that it's possible.

I would agree going to one car per household is doable for many people if only one needs it to commute - I know a couple in that position in MK, indeed. However, going to zero cars is much harder. However, the poor quality of regional public transport in the SE that isn't going to London rules it out for a good many households. For instance, if you live in a random estate in MK and need to commute to Aylesbury, you are going to end up with an end to end journey of nearing two hours for about 12 miles, which nobody in their right mind is going to do. The North's rail network is often slated, but it is feasible to do a lot more "random" commutes by public transport in the North than it is in the South East where it's mostly all about London and only London.

Living in an area full of lycra types, TAX THEM. It's the only way to deter them from their recklessness and stupidity.

They are taxed. There's a lot of VAT on a 5 grand road bike.

Little Timmy on his way to school gets a pass.

All utility cycling needs "a pass" as it is by definition superior (in terms of health and the effect on the environment) to every other mode of transport other than foot.

 

[LOL The Irony]

They are taxed. There's a lot of VAT on a 5 grand road bike.

Not nearly enough. All road racers should come with a minimum £1000 'I think I'm Sir Chris Hoy' tax (Yes, I would call it that). Also all lycra cycling products would have an additional 20% tax on top of any other taxes such clothing incurs.

Also I'd make helmets mandatory, but not those pathetic polystyrene things. They'd have to be the same spec as skateboard & BMX helmets so they actually do a better job at protecting their head. Wearing of high visibility clothing would also become mandated, with the bare minimum being a vest that covers your torso. High powered and strobing lights would also be banned, as only emergency services and highways vehicles should have strobing lights.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not nearly enough. All road racers should come with a minimum £1000 'I think I'm Sir Chris Hoy' tax (Yes, I would call it that). Also all lycra cycling products would have an additional 20% tax on top of any other taxes such clothing incurs.

20% (VAT) of £5000 is £1000.

Also I'd make helmets mandatory, but not those pathetic polystyrene things. They'd have to be the same spec as skateboard & BMX helmets so they actually do a better job at protecting their head.

I suggest you do some reading about helmet specifications before coming up with any more such ignorant diatribe.

 

[Dave W]

Weird, why would a road bike user want to be a track cyclist? Or are you just trying - and failing - to be edgy?

I commute on a hybrid (although not since I was last regularly in the office in Autumn 2020) - riding in London has got better over tha time. I’ve never worn lycra to commute - my substantial beer gut won’t fit.

This sort of wibble really betrays how the motor lobby is in the head of society. For every one tit acting out on a bike there are a hundred drivers. But cyclists should all be responsible and be taxed and insured and we should be able to see them from a mile away, lest they inconvenience the poor motor car driver.

And that attitude is why people don’t get on bikes.

 

[LOL The Irony]

20% (VAT) of £5000 is £1000.

No, the £1000 would be on the cheap one that's like £300-500.

I suggest you do some reading about helmet specifications before coming up with any more such ignorant diatribe.

Enjoy getting pulled over in my world then. I'm not suggesting that it would stop you head getting squashed by a HGV

Or are you just trying - and failing - to be edgy?

No, I don't like cyclists, specifically and mainly the lycra type who think they own the road. (There are other road users who act like this *coughlandroverdriverscough* but I shouldn't have to say this)

I commute on a hybrid

Not a road racer, so gets a pass.

I’ve never worn lycra to commute - my substantial beer gut won’t fit.

Why anyone would want to wear lycra to rid a bicycle?

For every one tit acting out on a bike there are a hundred drivers.

Tits are tits and they all need stamping out. Also motorists say the same about cyclists.

and we should be able to see them from a mile away, lest they inconvenience the poor motor car driver.

Cars now have to have daytime running lights to make them more visible to other road users. If you guys want to feel and be safer, wearing some high viz would be a start, it's not rocket science.

And that attitude is why people don’t get on bikes.

I don't want to get on a bike because I'm warmer and safer in a car, or on a bus, or a train. Also, it's pretty hard to fall off a car, bus or train. And it's another thing to worry about if I go into a shop, when I could've just walked there.

 

[JohnMcL7]

E-bikes don’t go that much faster than ‘real’ cycles. E-bikes are limited to 25 km/h (in the Netherlands, I presume it’s similar in the UK). On my normal bike I regularly need to brake in tunnels because people are limited by their e-bikes and I’m not. The main thing that causes e-bikes to be a bit higher in the accident statistics is because elderly people use e-bikes relatively often and they do go faster than they otherwise would. However, their reaction time is longer than of other people, so they go sometimes a bit faster than is safe for them. These accidents also mostly involve e-bikes and cars, not cyclists among each other.

Mixing e-bikes and regular bikes isn’t a problem as the speeds are similar and the weight is also comparable. A bigger problem is mopeds which do go quite a bit faster and are heavier.

You're correct, exactly the same limits here so the assist is only up to 15.5mph and no throttles allowed now so must be pedal assist. I find the same that mixing e-bikes and normal bikes isn't a problem especially now when there's a lot more e-bikes around here. I see a lot of complaints about the e-bike limits being too tight but I think they're sensible allowing people to go a bit faster than they could normally and get help with headwinds and hills not go too fast. I'm not a powerful cyclist but easily faster than an e-bike except on hills of course, it's always a bit of relief when I see a cyclist catching me and then realise it's an e-bike rider.

I only started cycling because I had a diesel car which I thought the turbo was failing on and it was an early DPF model so I wanted to avoid short trips. That car is now long gone but I do most of my transport with the bike especially in town since I can avoid the traffic and park the bike wherever I want, the maintenance costs for the miles done are extremely low and it's not just hugely improved my physical fitness but it's fantastic for my mental health.

I strongly agree about needing dedicated cycling infrastructure and studies on the continent shows it pays for itself many times over especially at a time when congestion, pollution and lack of exercise are such major problems.

 

[XAM2175]

Or are you just trying - and failing - to be edgy?

It's his thing.

 

[The Ham]

No, the £1000 would be on the cheap one that's like £300-500.

The problem with such a policy is that for many the tax that they pay as a cyclist would still be tiny and so wouldn't generate much.

For example, you'd exempt hybrids, so my £350 mountain bike (when new circa 16 years ago) wouldn't be charged. However even if that I can get up to a decent speed at times (there's a flat section of road where cars doing 30 aren't going much faster than me.

That's with the most Lycra I wear being within my underwear, typically I cycle wearing jeans and a t-shirt.

However even if the tax was applied to every bike (assuming no drop in cycle sales) the annual tax income from such a tax would be circa £3.3bn. However I can assure you that if a cyclist had to pay that sort of amount of money there would be significant calls for a massive increase in cycle infrastructure.

Of course the most likely outcome would be the import of cycles from France, booze cruises may be mostly a thing of the past, however with savings of £1,000/bike there would be a significant advantage in going and buying one from France.

Of course the other loophole would be to buy the bits separately and build your own, as again you'd make a significant saving.

If course the net result would be far fewer cyclists, but much more congestion. Higher bills for the NHS due to the population being less healthy and the impact of more pollution.

We'd also need to build on more of our countryside to facilitate the extra cars, with the associated increase in council costs for the extra maintenance. This could also create issues due to more hydrocarbons ending up in water courses.

Chances are it would make rail use fall too, due to more people owning a car anyway and so less likely to use rail. Which in turn could increase the need for additional rail subsidy.

There's likely to be other unintended consequences as well.

The way to ensure that cyclists to follow the rules of the road would be to have a dash cam and submit the footage of cyclists breaking the law to the police. As whilst it wouldn't lead to many convictions it'll be enough that the police will know where the for spots are (that's assuming that you actually catch more than a few doing so, as chances are you'll catch many many more drivers doing so).

 

[Failed Unit]

Living in an area full of lycra types, TAX THEM. It's the only way to deter them from their recklessness and stupidity. Little Timmy on his way to school gets a pass.

Walk or take the damn tube.

Clearly trolling but I will bite with a couple of points.

taking the tube has zero health benefits. Hopefully cycling with help get my heart rate up, reduce my chance of obesity and therefore reduce my chance of needing the NHS. Clearly you haven’t noticed the covid pandemic. TfL don’t want anyone using the tube and have spent the last 2 years actively discouraging tube / bus users. Surely I shouldn’t use the tube because i will catch covid (if I believe the hype) .

As for reckless cycling- I hate the people that do it as it fuels peoples irrational comments. Run red lights? Lots of cars do. I can tell while waiting at a pedestrian crossing when a car / bike is going to do it. But in both cases taxes don’t work. Motorists constantly complain they are overtaxed but many of the behave in ways that are dangerous to other road users. Parking on paths (forcing pedestrians onto the road to pass their vehicle). Speeding. Running red lights Etc. tax doesn’t stop this happening and it won’t stop aggressive cycling. If you have £500 budget you will just get a lower spec bike, but you will still get a bike.

insurance and number plate? don’t stop cars breaking the law otherwise we wouldn’t need enforcement measures. Some drivers don’t think twice about parking on a double yellow line as they just pay the fine, move on and do it again.

However cycling does help promote a healthy lifestyle which driving does not. In a crash involving a bike the cyclist normally takes some pain, unlike a car driver. If a car driver hits a pedestrian after running a red light they are not personally impacted so no incentive not to do it again. A bike will at least have some physical injuries for their stupidity.

Will leave it there as it is clear from other posts you are anti cycling so you dont wont accept an arguments that don’t match your views?

 

[Falcon1200]

No, I don't like cyclists

Which, in just five words, sums up the entire rationale behind the 'road tax for cyclists' demands.

 

[stuu]

Which, in just five words, sums up the entire rationale behind the 'road tax for cyclists' demands.

Absolutely.

I would suggest pretty much every mile cycled is revenue positive to the government, through reduced congestion, lower emissions and better health.

Cycling infrastructure is very cheap relative to standard road construction, and needs next to no maintenance either, the benefits far outweigh the costs

 

[Failed Unit]

I would disagree with zero maintenance. Lots of cycle routes are damaged by tree routes (but still useable)

 

[johncrossley]

Which, in just five words, sums up the entire rationale behind the 'road tax for cyclists' demands.

At least he's honest! I recently spent days debating with people who said they wanted integration yet clearly had so many reservations about it. Although it is of course concerning that it is socially acceptable to express those cycling views.