UKC

I just got given the 'road tax' line for the first time

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 Trevers 14 Aug 2014
Until today, I genuinely thought it was a myth that real people believed this.

What an utter Backpfeifengesicht!

Pretty worked up right now

/rant
In reply to Trevers:

He/she is a moron. Ignore them
 Bob 14 Aug 2014
In reply to Trevers:

Neither do:

ld Vehicles – vehicles constructed before 1st January 1973 that are not used for hire or reward or in connection with a trade or business.
Fire Engines/Fire Service Vehicles
Ambulances and Health Service Vehicles
Mine Rescue and Lifeboat Vehicles
Vehicles for Disabled People
Limited Use Vehicles – vehicles used for the purposes of agriculture, horticulture or forestry that are only used on public roads in passing between different areas of land occupied by the same person. The distance travelled on public roads between two such areas of land must not exceed 1.5 kilometres.
Tractors/Agricultural Engines
Agricultural lift and loading vehicles
Since 1st January 2002 an additional category of vehicle falls within the Agricultural Machine Taxation Class (Tax Class 40) and attracts a nil rate of duty. To qualify for this additional category there are certain criteria. Vehicles must be:
Designed for off road use; and
Designed to lift and load; and
Used solely in agriculture, horticulture or forestry.
Please note that digging machines will not fall within the scope of the Agricultural Machine tax class.

Mowing Machines
Steam Powered Vehicles
Electrically Propelled Vehicles
Snow Ploughs/Gritters
Trams
Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycles
Pedestrian Controlled Vehicles

So you should have replied that given the poor state of the roads he obviously wasn't paying enough
 rallymania 14 Aug 2014
In reply to Bob:



> So you should have replied that given the poor state of the roads he obviously wasn't paying enough

gaffaw!
OP Trevers 14 Aug 2014
In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:

> He/she is a moron. Ignore them

I try to. I'm fine with people being morons. When they're morons in a deadly weapon with an agenda against you, it's hard not to get your hackles raised.

It's also not nice when it's 3 morons in a row.

I needed a rant but I'm feeling better now, thanks UKC
 Oli Greg 14 Aug 2014
In reply to Trevers:

I've had this at work a few times, my reply is that VED is calculated on the vehicles emissions and as a pedal bike creates zero emissions it would be tax exempt.
OP Trevers 14 Aug 2014
In reply to BikeClimbWalk:

> I've had this at work a few times, my reply is that VED is calculated on the vehicles emissions and as a pedal bike creates zero emissions it would be tax exempt.

Wasn't there a lawyer in America who challenged this because cyclists breathe more? :P
 Bob 14 Aug 2014
In reply to BikeClimbWalk:

It would be even better to work out a chart of emissions vs VED (presumably a straightish line) and extrapolate it down to zero emissions which would show that bicycles would attract negative VED, i.e. you'd be paid to ride a bike!
 Toby_W 14 Aug 2014
In reply to Trevers:

Let me think, I want to get this right.

Though I agree they are morons it was your fault, you should have been more careful and avoided that road. Maybe you could hop on the pavement when you see a car and wave nicely so as not to upset them.



Cheers and don't let it spoil your day.

Toby
 Oli Greg 14 Aug 2014
In reply to Trevers:
But the cyclist is not the vehicle. If that was the case, for cars motorbikes you would have to go combine the vehicle and driver emissions.

Also I believe it cost the DVLA around £9 (not sure where I got this figure from, but it's stuck in my head), so actually tax exempt/zero emission vehicles cost the DVLA
Post edited at 13:54
 d_b 14 Aug 2014
In reply to Trevers:

Surely they mean vehicle excise duty? There hasn't been such a thing as road tax for a very long time.
 RBonney 14 Aug 2014
In reply to Bob:
That wouldn't be too bad, maybe I could get a tax reduction on my camper van because I cycle to work and the shops

Might get more people cycling with an incentive like that
Post edited at 14:02
 hokkyokusei 14 Aug 2014
In reply to Trevers:

> Wasn't there a lawyer in America who challenged this because cyclists breathe more? :P

Not a lawyer, Washington State Rep.
https://scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/t1.0-9/s720x720/555422_1015135...
OP Trevers 14 Aug 2014
In reply to Toby_W:

> Let me think, I want to get this right.

> Though I agree they are morons it was your fault, you should have been more careful and avoided that road. Maybe you could hop on the pavement when you see a car and wave nicely so as not to upset them.

>

> Cheers and don't let it spoil your day.

> Toby

I guess an explanation is in order...

Cycling along a narrow local residential road on the way back from the station, I come to a section where there are roadworks in the oncoming lane, and a sign giving me priority over oncoming traffic. Nothing along the single lane stretch so I proceed, as any good car driving citizen would. Then a van comes along and pulls into the bit and drives right at me. I stop in the middle and point out that it's my priority. He shouts at me about me feeling the need to use the whole width of the road then drives around me on the pavement. Two more cars in the distance, but they haven't yet reached the give way sign at their end, so I keep cycling. Then they both do exactly the same as the van. The first goes 'yeah but you're on a bike', the second rounds of the debate with 'pay your bloody road tax'.

I don't buy your suggestion I'm afraid. I wasn't in any immediate danger that required evasive action. Hopping onto the pavement might avoid the immediate confrontation, but in the long term it reinforces any belief that motor vehicles have right of way over bikes at all times.
OP Trevers 14 Aug 2014
In reply to BikeClimbWalk:

> Also I believe it cost the DVLA around £9 (not sure where I got this figure from, but it's stuck in my head), so actually tax exempt/zero emission vehicles cost the DVLA

You mean to process each payment and tax disc?

I once saw someone argue on a message that cyclists should have to apply for a tax disc for their bike. They were well aware of the fact that the cyclists would pay nothing, but they felt it was unfair that they don't have to go through the same hassle as drivers. In terms of wasteful and pointless government policy, that would be right up there!
 Oli Greg 14 Aug 2014
In reply to Trevers:

Yes to process the application/payment and issue a tax disc.
OP Trevers 14 Aug 2014
In reply to BikeClimbWalk:

Sorry, now that I've reread your sentence it does make sense.
 Rog Wilko 14 Aug 2014
In reply to Trevers:
My reply to this is "Cyclists are on the road as of right, whereas motor vehicle drivers have to purchase a licence"
Ste Brom 14 Aug 2014
In reply to Trevers:

You pay income tax, therefore you pay for the roads.
You pay VAT, therefore you pay for the roads.
You pay transportation aspects of any goods you buy, therefore you pay for the roads.

People who pay road tax are paying for the damage they cause to the roads.
Therefore, they are the ones destroying the roads you paid for.

Well done on your restraint!
 Toby_W 14 Aug 2014
In reply to Trevers:

Sorry Trevers I wasn't being serious just trying to be funny. Typically there's some video of a bike being run into by a car reversing onto a cycle track, to which someone always replies the cyclist should have done more to avoid being run over but they're not blaming the cyclist.

I did put two winky smiley faces.

Have a lovely rest of your day, nothing but sympathy from me.

Cheers

Toby
 Brass Nipples 14 Aug 2014
In reply to Trevers:
"Road tax" (which it's not) pays for about 2 inches of road. So enjoy driving on your 2 inches but say the f@ck off the rest iof the road network should have been your reply.
Post edited at 19:42
 The Potato 14 Aug 2014
In reply to Trevers:

Im following freddie mercurys command - get on your bikes and ride!
 nufkin 15 Aug 2014
In reply to Rog Wilko:

> My reply to this is "Cyclists are on the road as of right, whereas motor vehicle drivers have to purchase a licence"

The frustrating thing is that it's always so hard to have a nuanced argument with drivers in the middle of traffic (even when you can thing of a scathing retort). I generally have to resort to having the argument in my head as I pedal along after the incident. Pent-up vexation takes at least 5% off any hill
OP Trevers 17 Aug 2014
In reply to Toby_W:

Gotcha, sorry
 ByEek 18 Aug 2014
In reply to Trevers:

I can't help thinking that both sides have it wrong. Sure, there is no such thing as road tax, but then the V10 application form for a "Tax disc" does not mention Vehicle Excise Duty either.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/2...

So what is it?
 Bob 18 Aug 2014
In reply to ByEek:

That got me wondering - what's the difference between "tax" and "duty"? From http://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-duty-and-tax/ it seems that duty is payable on things whereas people pay tax on income of whatever sort. From that I'd say it's a "Duty" as it's payable on goods/services not income.
 ByEek 18 Aug 2014
In reply to Bob:

So where does VAT sit?
 Bob 18 Aug 2014
In reply to ByEek:

It's a duty called a tax!

When you get to "services" it does seem a grey area as someone like a solicitor will be VAT registered and charge VAT on their bill which is income. But usually it applies to goods.

The whole thing's a mess and my head is going to explode!
 ByEek 18 Aug 2014
In reply to Bob:

> The whole thing's a mess and my head is going to explode!

I agree. But regardless, it is more or less completely irrelevant to what is one of those dull pedantic threads that achieves nothing.
 Mike Stretford 18 Aug 2014
In reply to ByEek:

> But regardless, it is more or less completely irrelevant to what is one of those dull pedantic threads that achieves nothing.

Why the hell did you resurrect it then!?! It seems it achieved the original aim of the op letting of some steam after an incident.
OP Trevers 18 Aug 2014
In reply to ByEek:

> I agree. But regardless, it is more or less completely irrelevant to what is one of those dull pedantic threads that achieves nothing.

It achieved something very valuable. It gave me the chance to rant when I'd been worked up and the support of others helped me get over it
 Brass Nipples 18 Aug 2014
In reply to Trevers:

Regardless of what you call it how much road would the amount of £200 pay for?
 Niall B 18 Aug 2014
In reply to Orgsm:

To build a new road... £2800 would get you one metre length of 7.3m width carriageway, two 2m wide footways, street lighting and drainage so £200 would buy 71mm worth....
 robbo99 18 Aug 2014
In reply to Trevers:

i dont know why some motorists feel the road tax argument is a valid one.

what i care about more (particularly when trying to get out of central london at the weekend) is if the cyclist has any insurance, and indeed bothers to wear a helmet.

Like any other road user, if he/she rams into me and its their fault, i would expect to claim for repairs. If they're a poor sod (literally) then i cant sue them and end up footing the bill and paying a higher premium.

Roads are seriously dangerous places to be, whether youre sat in a metal machine, or on one. Be socially responsible and get insured. Be interested to know who has BMC insurance, is a cyclist and doesnt have cycling insurance
 Toby_W 18 Aug 2014
In reply to robbo99:

You'll be pleased to know that if you're in any of the cycling bodies then you have insurance. Though no doubt the worst bikers like the worst drivers will not have this cover. Cycling is actually a fairly low risk pass time despite some road users ( both cyclist and drivers) best efforts.

Cheers

Toby
 wintertree 18 Aug 2014
In reply to robbo99:

> what i care about more (particularly when trying to get out of central london at the weekend) is if the cyclist has any insurance, and indeed bothers to wear a helmet.

Do you care if pedestrians bother to wear helments? I believe that would have a more beneficial effect for more people... Or you could judge cyclists on subscribing to a cargo cult view of safety, and one is going to make no difference to the organ damage and broken bones that cause most problems after a crash with a motor vehicle...

My god, look at those people going to the pub without their helmets on. Socially irresponsible. Makes up a much larger fraction of A&E business....
 robbo99 18 Aug 2014
In reply to wintertree:

That did make me chuckle, thanks for biting on helmets!

> Do you care if pedestrians bother to wear helments?

Probably not a bad idea, tho it might be more relevant for joggers using the road perhaps. I think you missed the point.

> My god, look at those people going to the pub without their helmets on. Socially irresponsible. Makes up a much larger fraction of A&E business....

fantastic idea! I'd suggest tho helmets be given on exit of the pub, with full face helmets available on request/friend recommendation.

OP Trevers 19 Aug 2014
In reply to robbo99:

This thread was about a specific incident of unprovoked abuse directed against a person on a bike.

Why is it now about things that cyclists could do to not piss other people off as much? I already have enough to pay attention to on my bike... Must I also be held responsible for the actions of every other person who has ever used a bike ever?

And for the record, mandatory insurance for cyclists is a stupid idea. Down that route lies madness. Must children also be insured? Is there a different level of insurance for those who wish to cycle on the road or on a pavement? Does my premium decrease if I 'behave' and use the cycle paths, even though they're more likely to get me ksi? Why don't pedestrians also require insurance, since in London particularly they're pretty damn dangerous? Do obese pedestrians, or the disabled, need to pay more?
In reply to Trevers:

Just A thought: Is it possible the motorists in question, having used the internet and read papers that might mention how annoyed cyclists get about such things, used the 'road tax' comment to wind you up?
 wintertree 19 Aug 2014
In reply to robbo99:
> I think you missed the point.

What was it? That pedestrians and joggers should have insurance as well? Presumably people pushing shopping trolleys round supermarket carparks? I suspect they do far more damage to cars than cyclists, looked at from a total financial view point.

Actually, thinking back, when I had a car it collected several dints, scratches and dents from other cars in car parks, and zero damage from cyclists. To be socially responsible, surely every car should have a unique smartwater marker in its paint that is centrally registered to owners, so that I could find out who did this damage and claim of their insurance? This would help many more people than getting cyclists to carry third party insurance...
Post edited at 10:55
 Jimbo C 19 Aug 2014
In reply to Trevers:

Idiot.

Some people don't seem to realise that many people who own bikes also own cars. And also the fact that road maintenance is not funded by the proceeds of VED.
 dazwan 27 Aug 2014
In reply to Trevers:

I think the whole road tax argument is funny, but what I find most worrying is the fact that three cars basically ignored the fact you had right of way and put you, a vulnerable road user in danger. I sincerely hope you collected some number plates and reported this to the police (for all the good it will do). This isn't just inconsiderate, this is downright dangerous, as it sounds like the van driver knowingly drove directly at you knowing you were in the road and ignored the fact that had he hit you, you could easily have been killed or seriously injured.

I'm of the opinion that the more of these events that get reported, the more pressure there is on the govt. to start to do something about it.
OP Trevers 28 Aug 2014
In reply to dazwan:

Wow, I thought this thread had gone away a long time ago.

I don't use a cycle headcam since I feel the roads have actually been getting safer over the last couple of year, but I wouldn't have done anyway since it's just about a mile along quiet roads between my house and station. I don't feel I was in any particular danger either since they were slow moving and I stood my ground in the middle of the road.

I was more upset by the fact that it was three in a row, and the face to face nature of it. Most altercations are more or less anonymous and therefore feel less personal, but this time it was clear I was being abused because I was on a bike.

I'd handle the same situation a bit differently if it occurred again, but hey, live and learn

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...