This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
I'll just leave this here: http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest-news/cyclists-pay-road-tax-hold-...
2
7
2
1
1
8
4
In reply to Baron Weasel:
Is that the same thing as sh!t stirring
> Nope - I was just bringing it to your attention.
Is that the same thing as sh!t stirring
8
In reply to Baron Weasel:
Mrs ripper pays no 'road tax' on her diesel Citroen thanks to its supposedly low emissions. Not sure, then, by what measure they'd assess the emissions-based level of VED a cyclist should pay?
Mrs ripper pays no 'road tax' on her diesel Citroen thanks to its supposedly low emissions. Not sure, then, by what measure they'd assess the emissions-based level of VED a cyclist should pay?
6
In reply to Andy Hardy:
Unfortunately, this probably means that the long overdue review of road crime sentencing will be pushed back even further
> She's got bigger fish to fry right now.
Unfortunately, this probably means that the long overdue review of road crime sentencing will be pushed back even further
2
In reply to ianstevens:
You're lucky that there isn't a tax on pedantry
> We'd struggle ot pay a tax that hasn't existed since the 30's. Idiots.
You're lucky that there isn't a tax on pedantry
3
6
In reply to ripper:
Surely if there was an equivalent duty applied to cyclists, then they should be paying us money for breathing in traffic fumes?
> Mrs ripper pays no 'road tax' on her diesel Citroen thanks to its supposedly low emissions. Not sure, then, by what measure they'd assess the emissions-based level of VED a cyclist should pay?
Surely if there was an equivalent duty applied to cyclists, then they should be paying us money for breathing in traffic fumes?
4
In reply to timjones:
Pedantry maybe, but an important distinction nonetheless. If cyclists were made to pay VED (based on emissions of course) then it would cost the cyclist exactly £0.
> You're lucky that there isn't a tax on pedantry
Pedantry maybe, but an important distinction nonetheless. If cyclists were made to pay VED (based on emissions of course) then it would cost the cyclist exactly £0.
Post edited at 11:08
4
In reply to ianstevens:
I guess the importance of the distinction is a matter of opinion
> Pedantry maybe, but an important distinction nonetheless. If cyclists were made to pay VED (based on emissions of course) then it would cost the cyclist exactly £0.
I guess the importance of the distinction is a matter of opinion
1
9
In reply to Baron Weasel:
I read the link and it's a rather (deliberately ?) misleading title.
This has nothing to do with Theresa May - it's something that one *sshole wants to put to her.
Those of us who use 2 wheels could equally come up with a petition demanding the death penalty for any 4-wheel driver killing any 2-wheeler or pedestrian.
But it wouldn't be anything to do with May unless and until it reached the threshold whereupon it can be put to Parliament.
I read the link and it's a rather (deliberately ?) misleading title.
This has nothing to do with Theresa May - it's something that one *sshole wants to put to her.
Those of us who use 2 wheels could equally come up with a petition demanding the death penalty for any 4-wheel driver killing any 2-wheeler or pedestrian.
But it wouldn't be anything to do with May unless and until it reached the threshold whereupon it can be put to Parliament.
11
In reply to ianstevens:
to be fair I often emit a fair bit when I'm out on the bike... although good luck to anyone who wants to try measuring it
> Pedantry maybe, but an important distinction nonetheless. If cyclists were made to pay VED (based on emissions of course) then it would cost the cyclist exactly £0.
to be fair I often emit a fair bit when I'm out on the bike... although good luck to anyone who wants to try measuring it
2
In reply to Baron Weasel:
Its 'vehicle tax', as DVLA generally calls the VED on all its web pages and leaflets etc.
For Band A cars (up to 100 g/km) it is £0/year: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/5...
Cycling (based on some average bike assumptions) is likely to responsible for CO2 emissions of around 20 g per km: https://www.eta.co.uk/2011/12/13/co2-emissions-from-cycling-revealed/
So if equality with cars is required, bikes are Band A. Job done on the tax side.
Insurance is another issue. I do have some sympathy (as a cyclist) with a call for cyclists to have some form of third party insurance when on public highways. Though how that would be put in place and enforced, who knows. Perhaps give everyone de-facto free bike insurance, paid for via the vehicle tax (lol).
I have some insurance cover via home contents (public liability cover during 'private pursuits"). Not sure if that would cover people cycling to work though (not an issue for me).
So for many of us: job done already on insurance.
Its 'vehicle tax', as DVLA generally calls the VED on all its web pages and leaflets etc.
For Band A cars (up to 100 g/km) it is £0/year: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/5...
Cycling (based on some average bike assumptions) is likely to responsible for CO2 emissions of around 20 g per km: https://www.eta.co.uk/2011/12/13/co2-emissions-from-cycling-revealed/
So if equality with cars is required, bikes are Band A. Job done on the tax side.
Insurance is another issue. I do have some sympathy (as a cyclist) with a call for cyclists to have some form of third party insurance when on public highways. Though how that would be put in place and enforced, who knows. Perhaps give everyone de-facto free bike insurance, paid for via the vehicle tax (lol).
I have some insurance cover via home contents (public liability cover during 'private pursuits"). Not sure if that would cover people cycling to work though (not an issue for me).
So for many of us: job done already on insurance.
1
In reply to ChrisJD:
I've never really understood why this isn't done for all road users, why there is a market in essentially compulsory third party liability insurance, why it isn't socialised like we do with health. Scratch that, I do know why, it'd benefit the young who don't vote and cost the investors in insurance providers.
jk
> Insurance is another issue. I do have some sympathy (as a cyclist) with a call for cyclists to have some form of third party insurance when on public highways. Though how that would be put in place and enforced, who knows. Perhaps give everyone de-facto free bike insurance, paid for via the vehicle tax (lol).
I've never really understood why this isn't done for all road users, why there is a market in essentially compulsory third party liability insurance, why it isn't socialised like we do with health. Scratch that, I do know why, it'd benefit the young who don't vote and cost the investors in insurance providers.
jk
3
In reply to ChrisJD:
you'd have to take into consideration the average amount that people produce anyway, otherwise youre taxing someone to live. according to the first result on google, its a little over 1kg per person per day. So, do we get 50 miles a day for free?
> For Band A cars (up to 100 g/km) it is £0/year: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/5...
> Cycling (based on some average bike assumptions) is likely to responsible for CO2 emissions of around 20 g per km: https://www.eta.co.uk/2011/12/13/co2-emissions-from-cycling-revealed/
you'd have to take into consideration the average amount that people produce anyway, otherwise youre taxing someone to live. according to the first result on google, its a little over 1kg per person per day. So, do we get 50 miles a day for free?
3
In reply to La benya:
From the link:
"The calculations included emissions associated with production, maintenance and fuel. The figures were based on a heavy 19kg European-style town bike built using 14.6kg of aluminium, 3.7kg of steel and 1.6kg of rubber and the cost of producing the extra calories consumed by a cyclist rather than a motorist."
19 kg bike, lol!
So a pretty conservative figure
From the link:
"The calculations included emissions associated with production, maintenance and fuel. The figures were based on a heavy 19kg European-style town bike built using 14.6kg of aluminium, 3.7kg of steel and 1.6kg of rubber and the cost of producing the extra calories consumed by a cyclist rather than a motorist."
19 kg bike, lol!
So a pretty conservative figure
In reply to Baron Weasel:
I use a bicycle on the roads, I also pay road tax (VED) and have third party insurance, do i win a prize ?
I use a bicycle on the roads, I also pay road tax (VED) and have third party insurance, do i win a prize ?
2
In reply to Dark-Cloud:
I occasionally use a bicycle.
I also have a car (for when I need it) and pay Vehicle Excise Duty for it.
However I commute by motorcycle every day and pay VED on that.
I should be due a rebate !!!
(As should anyone who cycles or motorcycles to work and leaves the car at home).
I occasionally use a bicycle.
I also have a car (for when I need it) and pay Vehicle Excise Duty for it.
However I commute by motorcycle every day and pay VED on that.
I should be due a rebate !!!
(As should anyone who cycles or motorcycles to work and leaves the car at home).
2
In reply to ripper:
to be fair I often emit a fair bit when I'm out on the bike... although good luck to anyone who wants to try measuring it
Is that why you're called ripper?
to be fair I often emit a fair bit when I'm out on the bike... although good luck to anyone who wants to try measuring it
Is that why you're called ripper?
2
In reply to ChrisJD:
They should definitely get points on there driving licence for careless cycling.
They should definitely get points on there driving licence for careless cycling.
2
10
In reply to Jim 1003:
Would you like to read your comment again Jim? Before someone points out the ridiculous part...
You're quickly becoming my favourite troll on these forums.
> They should definitely get points on there driving licence for careless cycling.
Would you like to read your comment again Jim? Before someone points out the ridiculous part...
You're quickly becoming my favourite troll on these forums.
10
1
In reply to Baron Weasel:
But why stop there? Surely pedestrians should pay road tax and be insured too? In fact anyone even looking out of the window and enjoying the beautiful sight of a road should pay tax too.
But why stop there? Surely pedestrians should pay road tax and be insured too? In fact anyone even looking out of the window and enjoying the beautiful sight of a road should pay tax too.
6
In reply to ianstevens:
>"We'd struggle ot pay a tax that hasn't existed since the 30's. Idiots."
These things can be reintroduced as and when required.
That is the point of Government. We think of things we would collectively like put in place to make the country a better place and task a Government with bringing it to fruition.
Seems perfectly sensible to me to have a cyclist's "Road Tax" to fund all that white paint on cycle lanes that keeps them safe from cars, buses and lorries.
>"We'd struggle ot pay a tax that hasn't existed since the 30's. Idiots."
These things can be reintroduced as and when required.
That is the point of Government. We think of things we would collectively like put in place to make the country a better place and task a Government with bringing it to fruition.
Seems perfectly sensible to me to have a cyclist's "Road Tax" to fund all that white paint on cycle lanes that keeps them safe from cars, buses and lorries.
Post edited at 14:32
3
4
In reply to La benya:
Troll or not it's an interesting point.
If someone holds a driving licence and can't even manage to cycle safely and within the law a few points on the licence might be in order.
> Would you like to read your comment again Jim? Before someone points out the ridiculous part...
> You're quickly becoming my favourite troll on these forums.
Troll or not it's an interesting point.
If someone holds a driving licence and can't even manage to cycle safely and within the law a few points on the licence might be in order.
2
3
In reply to Jim 1003:
How would you propose to sanction cyclists without driving licences or children?
How would you propose to sanction cyclists without driving licences or children?
5
In reply to JLS:
Pedestrian tax to cover pavements too?
> Seems perfectly sensible to me to have a cyclist's "Road Tax" to fund all that white paint on cycle lanes the keeps them safe from cars, buses and lorries.
Pedestrian tax to cover pavements too?
1
In reply to ChrisJD:
I suspect not - have yyou ever tried to lift one of those Dutch Shopper bikes ?
> 19 kg bike, lol!
> So a pretty conservative figure
I suspect not - have yyou ever tried to lift one of those Dutch Shopper bikes ?
In reply to MG:
Indeed. I think we also need to get the visually impaired to cough up for those bumpy slabs at crossings. And don't get me started on schools and hospitals... full of free-loading children and sick people.
Indeed. I think we also need to get the visually impaired to cough up for those bumpy slabs at crossings. And don't get me started on schools and hospitals... full of free-loading children and sick people.
Post edited at 14:38
5
In reply to timjones:
But the two are effectively unrelated. you get a driving licence for driving. putting penalty points on it for anything other than driving offences is ridiculous. you may as well put points on for tax evasion or domestic abuse.
I'm not saying the idea of a licence that is endorseable for cycling is ridiculous, just the idea of using someones driving licence to do that job.
But the two are effectively unrelated. you get a driving licence for driving. putting penalty points on it for anything other than driving offences is ridiculous. you may as well put points on for tax evasion or domestic abuse.
I'm not saying the idea of a licence that is endorseable for cycling is ridiculous, just the idea of using someones driving licence to do that job.
In reply to JLS:
yeah! and can we have a tax for the people that waste public money on paint and cycle lanes that arent fit for purpose and dont work?
i'd also like to tax you for walking, using hand rails and any other activity in the public realm actually. there is a thing called council tax that covers most of this in your local area, mind.
> Seems perfectly sensible to me to have a cyclist's "Road Tax" to fund all that white paint on cycle lanes that keeps them safe from cars, buses and lorries.
yeah! and can we have a tax for the people that waste public money on paint and cycle lanes that arent fit for purpose and dont work?
i'd also like to tax you for walking, using hand rails and any other activity in the public realm actually. there is a thing called council tax that covers most of this in your local area, mind.
2
In reply to Baron Weasel:
Interesting to consider the emissions angle.
A cyclist has positive CO2 emissions per mile on a par with a decent electric vehicle full of people (normalised to CO2 per person in the vehicle), so there is an argument for VED. Indeed less CO2 will be released in solar electric motoring than in food powered human cycling. However it's at a level that is *currently* exempt from VED.
The cyclist however has a negative particulates and NOx emission as their lungs filter crap out of the air. In some operating modes a Tesla EV achieves the same.
So why not make cyclists pay a zero cost VED and pay them for their negative particulate emissions? Great way to decrease unemployment in Swansea and keep the DVLA busy....
I might not be entirely serious...
Interesting to consider the emissions angle.
A cyclist has positive CO2 emissions per mile on a par with a decent electric vehicle full of people (normalised to CO2 per person in the vehicle), so there is an argument for VED. Indeed less CO2 will be released in solar electric motoring than in food powered human cycling. However it's at a level that is *currently* exempt from VED.
The cyclist however has a negative particulates and NOx emission as their lungs filter crap out of the air. In some operating modes a Tesla EV achieves the same.
So why not make cyclists pay a zero cost VED and pay them for their negative particulate emissions? Great way to decrease unemployment in Swansea and keep the DVLA busy....
I might not be entirely serious...
Post edited at 15:12
4
In reply to La benya:
You can (or could, the law might have changed) get points on your license for "going equipped" for stealing a car. You don't have to be driving to be done for that.
In reply to ChrisJD:
It's perfectly possible to get points without having a licence, eg for driving without a licence (think: under-age joyrider). The points are held over until you do get a licence (Section 45 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act, according to my sources). So in theory it's possible to get a licence, and immediately be banned from driving under the totting-up rule.
Although to reply to your exact question: cyclists with neither a driving licence nor children are obviously aberrant deviants intent on the downfall of society, and should be shot on sight. Or they could could invest in a comma.
> But the two are effectively unrelated. you get a driving licence for driving. putting penalty points on it for anything other than driving offences is ridiculous. you may as well put points on for tax evasion or domestic abuse.
You can (or could, the law might have changed) get points on your license for "going equipped" for stealing a car. You don't have to be driving to be done for that.
In reply to ChrisJD:
> How would you propose to sanction cyclists without driving licences or children?
It's perfectly possible to get points without having a licence, eg for driving without a licence (think: under-age joyrider). The points are held over until you do get a licence (Section 45 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act, according to my sources). So in theory it's possible to get a licence, and immediately be banned from driving under the totting-up rule.
Although to reply to your exact question: cyclists with neither a driving licence nor children are obviously aberrant deviants intent on the downfall of society, and should be shot on sight. Or they could could invest in a comma.
3
In reply to La benya:
One could perhaps get points on a driving licence whilst cycling (and as a result of ones cycling) under the code MS56 - incitement to motor racing on the highway. Certainly that was my intent when overtaking on a bicycle some friends as they drove down the old backup road into Cala Ganone...
> But the two are effectively unrelated. you get a driving licence for driving. putting penalty points on it for anything other than driving offences is ridiculous.
One could perhaps get points on a driving licence whilst cycling (and as a result of ones cycling) under the code MS56 - incitement to motor racing on the highway. Certainly that was my intent when overtaking on a bicycle some friends as they drove down the old backup road into Cala Ganone...
1
In reply to Martin W:
Or plead hardship and keep racking the points up.
> So in theory it's possible to get a licence, and immediately be banned from driving under the totting-up rule.
Or plead hardship and keep racking the points up.
In reply to :
AS this ridiculous petition was partly in response to a clampdown by the west midlands police on motorists behaviour around vulnerable road users it's worth reading thier blog on the subject
One of the key passages for all the haters
'So drivers need to expect a zero tolerance approach for any offence involving a vulnerable road user, or an offence that could contribute to a collision involving a vulnerable road user. The only way to change driver behaviour and concentrate minds on looking out for vulnerable road users and change driving habits is through enforcement, and the resulting fear of being prosecuted. Now for those who will no doubt be spitting out their finest percolated roasted bean brew at this moment screaming £what about the cyclists !£ well££.statistical analysis shows they aren£t to blame, innocent in the majority of KSI collisions it would be a waste of our time, and thus public time and money to concentrate on cyclist behaviour. The figures speak for themselves££.driver£s don£t let your prejudices get in the way of the truth££.'
Have a read
https://trafficwmp.wordpress.com/2016/09/09/junction-malfunction-and-a-new-...
AS this ridiculous petition was partly in response to a clampdown by the west midlands police on motorists behaviour around vulnerable road users it's worth reading thier blog on the subject
One of the key passages for all the haters
'So drivers need to expect a zero tolerance approach for any offence involving a vulnerable road user, or an offence that could contribute to a collision involving a vulnerable road user. The only way to change driver behaviour and concentrate minds on looking out for vulnerable road users and change driving habits is through enforcement, and the resulting fear of being prosecuted. Now for those who will no doubt be spitting out their finest percolated roasted bean brew at this moment screaming £what about the cyclists !£ well££.statistical analysis shows they aren£t to blame, innocent in the majority of KSI collisions it would be a waste of our time, and thus public time and money to concentrate on cyclist behaviour. The figures speak for themselves££.driver£s don£t let your prejudices get in the way of the truth££.'
Have a read
https://trafficwmp.wordpress.com/2016/09/09/junction-malfunction-and-a-new-...
Post edited at 15:40
2
In reply to Martin W:
Not according to this exhaustive list of endorseable offences.
https://www.gov.uk/penalty-points-endorsements/endorsement-codes-and-penalt...
Yes, and i wonder just how effective a deterrent that is...
> You can (or could, the law might have changed) get points on your license for "going equipped" for stealing a car. You don't have to be driving to be done for that.
Not according to this exhaustive list of endorseable offences.
https://www.gov.uk/penalty-points-endorsements/endorsement-codes-and-penalt...
> In reply to ChrisJD:
> It's perfectly possible to get points without having a licence, eg for driving without a licence (think: under-age joyrider).
Yes, and i wonder just how effective a deterrent that is...
1
In reply to Martin W:
>Or they could could invest in a comma.
It would be easier for you to stop being a tosser
>Or they could could invest in a comma.
It would be easier for you to stop being a tosser
2
In reply to Baron Weasel:
I'd pay £10 a year road tax if it guaranteed all the potholes getting filled, but i fear the only getting filled with my already taxed tenner would be the Conservatives Christmas p*ss-up pot !!!!!
I'd pay £10 a year road tax if it guaranteed all the potholes getting filled, but i fear the only getting filled with my already taxed tenner would be the Conservatives Christmas p*ss-up pot !!!!!
2
In reply to fred99:
I have a car and motorbike and pay VED on both of them - the bike actually costs me ~2.5 times what the car costs, despite the engine being ~1/3 of the size (2l diesel -v- 650cc petrol).
I also have bikes and use whichever I feel like for the given journey, including commuting, depending on weather, distance, enthusiasm, time and passengers. I'd love to see the equation that works out how much I should pay/be owed :-D
I have a car and motorbike and pay VED on both of them - the bike actually costs me ~2.5 times what the car costs, despite the engine being ~1/3 of the size (2l diesel -v- 650cc petrol).
I also have bikes and use whichever I feel like for the given journey, including commuting, depending on weather, distance, enthusiasm, time and passengers. I'd love to see the equation that works out how much I should pay/be owed :-D
In reply to ChrisJD:
I also don't necessarily have a problem with having specific insurance, but it could be an admin nightmare, given the number of bikes I've got, the range of replacement values and intended use. Would have to be some sort of multi-bike policy, but I can see insurers rubbing their hands and watching the £££s racking up - oh, so I see you use one for commuting? Well, let's just add another 30% for that risk...
> Insurance is another issue. I do have some sympathy (as a cyclist) with a call for cyclists to have some form of third party insurance when on public highways. Though how that would be put in place and enforced, who knows. Perhaps give everyone de-facto free bike insurance, paid for via the vehicle tax (lol).
> I have some insurance cover via home contents (public liability cover during 'private pursuits"). Not sure if that would cover people cycling to work though (not an issue for me).
> So for many of us: job done already on insurance.
I also don't necessarily have a problem with having specific insurance, but it could be an admin nightmare, given the number of bikes I've got, the range of replacement values and intended use. Would have to be some sort of multi-bike policy, but I can see insurers rubbing their hands and watching the £££s racking up - oh, so I see you use one for commuting? Well, let's just add another 30% for that risk...
In reply to LastBoyScout:
Actually I should imagine it would be reasonably cheap. There's only so much damage a bike can do, so 3rd party liability would be minimal (comparative to driving for example). Property insurance is a well known cost, but again 3rd party costs are limited as cyclists tend to bounce off things.
If a car insurance policy is £300 on average (guess), then cyclist fully comp would never be more than £50 (industry educated guess). fluctuating on price of bike and rider profile.
Actually I should imagine it would be reasonably cheap. There's only so much damage a bike can do, so 3rd party liability would be minimal (comparative to driving for example). Property insurance is a well known cost, but again 3rd party costs are limited as cyclists tend to bounce off things.
If a car insurance policy is £300 on average (guess), then cyclist fully comp would never be more than £50 (industry educated guess). fluctuating on price of bike and rider profile.
1
In reply to La benya:
Switzerland had a compulsory scheme but binned it off since apparently it was non cost effective. More was spent administrating it than was coming in and I dont think raising the costs was considered feasible.
There is a reason why CTC can throw it in as part of membership and likewise home insurance often include it as standard.
> Actually I should imagine it would be reasonably cheap.
Switzerland had a compulsory scheme but binned it off since apparently it was non cost effective. More was spent administrating it than was coming in and I dont think raising the costs was considered feasible.
There is a reason why CTC can throw it in as part of membership and likewise home insurance often include it as standard.
1
In reply to La benya:
^ Actually you get it wrong every time, you can get penalty points and be disqualified wither you have a driving licence or not, how do you think disqualified drivers and those with out a driving licence are dealt with.
> Would you like to read your comment again Jim? Before someone points out the ridiculous part...
> You're quickly becoming my favourite troll on these forums.
> You're quickly becoming my favourite troll on these forums.
^ Actually you get it wrong every time, you can get penalty points and be disqualified wither you have a driving licence or not, how do you think disqualified drivers and those with out a driving licence are dealt with.
4
1
In reply to Jim 1003:
Yes but only for driving offences. As mentioned in the link I posted above. Swing and a miss. And you're meant to be a professional aren't you?
Yes but only for driving offences. As mentioned in the link I posted above. Swing and a miss. And you're meant to be a professional aren't you?
4
In reply to wintertree:
They have no co2 emissions as those are in relation to fossil fuels. I.e. Extracting it out of the ground and introducing it back into the atmosphere contributing to global warming. Breathing is part of the natural cycle and has no net effect on global warming.
They have no co2 emissions as those are in relation to fossil fuels. I.e. Extracting it out of the ground and introducing it back into the atmosphere contributing to global warming. Breathing is part of the natural cycle and has no net effect on global warming.
Post edited at 20:26
In reply to Lion Bakes:
The bike CO2 g/km take into account emissions from production of the bike and emissions to produce the extra food consumed to power the bike.
The bike CO2 g/km take into account emissions from production of the bike and emissions to produce the extra food consumed to power the bike.
In reply to Lion Bakes:
Wrong. It doesn't matter where CO2 comes from, it goes in to the atmosphere. For example, If everyone cycles we need more food, releasing more CO2 into the air. If they don't cycle, we can sequester CO2 into it wood instead of food.
It's all about the balance, not if the cycle is "natural" or not.
> They have no co2 emissions as those are in relation to fossil fuels. I.e. Extracting it out of the ground and introducing it back into the atmosphere contributing to global warming. Breathing is part of the natural cycle and has no net effect on global warming.
Wrong. It doesn't matter where CO2 comes from, it goes in to the atmosphere. For example, If everyone cycles we need more food, releasing more CO2 into the air. If they don't cycle, we can sequester CO2 into it wood instead of food.
It's all about the balance, not if the cycle is "natural" or not.
In reply to wintertree:
Right, but that CO2 was only fixed out of the atmosphere in the last ~5 years. We can keep CO2 levels constant while growing more food for everyone to eat.
(At least as long as we only look at the CO2 coming out of people's mouths. I suppose if you consider the secondary CO2 released as part of the supply chain bringing the food to market, fertilized, tractor fuel etc, then there is a slight rise in CO2 for cycling compare to sitting on the sofa doing nothing.)
> Wrong. It doesn't matter where CO2 comes from, it goes in to the atmosphere. For example, If everyone cycles we need more food, releasing more CO2 into the air.
Right, but that CO2 was only fixed out of the atmosphere in the last ~5 years. We can keep CO2 levels constant while growing more food for everyone to eat.
(At least as long as we only look at the CO2 coming out of people's mouths. I suppose if you consider the secondary CO2 released as part of the supply chain bringing the food to market, fertilized, tractor fuel etc, then there is a slight rise in CO2 for cycling compare to sitting on the sofa doing nothing.)
In reply to wintertree:
What's the environmental cost of clinical obesity with the infrastructure and expense that could be spent on renewables.
I'd guess that the environmental impact of the construction of an electric car + a person breathing normally + 4 tyres replaced + maintenance + effect on the road due to the weight + energy to recharge the vehicle + infrastructure required for that would outweight a guy eating and breathing slightly more than average.
Although perhaps the electric car driver drives to the gym every week and overall eats and breathes the same anyway.
> Wrong. It doesn't matter where CO2 comes from, it goes in to the atmosphere. For example, If everyone cycles we need more food, releasing more CO2 into the air. If they don't cycle, we can sequester CO2 into it wood instead of food.
> It's all about the balance, not if the cycle is "natural" or not.
What's the environmental cost of clinical obesity with the infrastructure and expense that could be spent on renewables.
I'd guess that the environmental impact of the construction of an electric car + a person breathing normally + 4 tyres replaced + maintenance + effect on the road due to the weight + energy to recharge the vehicle + infrastructure required for that would outweight a guy eating and breathing slightly more than average.
Although perhaps the electric car driver drives to the gym every week and overall eats and breathes the same anyway.
Post edited at 23:20
1
In reply to bigbobbyking:
Yes but if we grow less food we can sequester more carbon.
A slight rise? Cycling is on a par with a modern diesel car full of people and driven sensibly in terms of CO2 per person per mile.
It's a minor miracle that cars can deliver similar CO2 per mile whilst going 5x faster and carrying luggage. As they move to solar battery electric they'll be cleaner than cycling depending on how you look at it.
> Right, but that CO2 was only fixed out of the atmosphere in the last ~5 years. We can keep CO2 levels constant while growing more food for everyone to eat.
Yes but if we grow less food we can sequester more carbon.
> (At least as long as we only look at the CO2 coming out of people's mouths. I suppose if you consider the secondary CO2 released as part of the supply chain bringing the food to market, fertilized, tractor fuel etc, then there is a slight rise in CO2 for cycling compare to sitting on the sofa doing nothing.)
A slight rise? Cycling is on a par with a modern diesel car full of people and driven sensibly in terms of CO2 per person per mile.
It's a minor miracle that cars can deliver similar CO2 per mile whilst going 5x faster and carrying luggage. As they move to solar battery electric they'll be cleaner than cycling depending on how you look at it.
1
In reply to FreshSlate:
Probably less than the cost of type 2 diabetes if everyone cycled everywhere and raised their food intake to match.
My initial post that's riled people up so much wasn't as serious as the replies it's generated. Cycling takes extra energy over being on a couch. So does driving. It doesn't matter where the Carbon associated with that energy came from, only where it goes.
> What's the environmental cost of clinical obesity with the infrastructure and expense that could be spent on renewables?
Probably less than the cost of type 2 diabetes if everyone cycled everywhere and raised their food intake to match.
My initial post that's riled people up so much wasn't as serious as the replies it's generated. Cycling takes extra energy over being on a couch. So does driving. It doesn't matter where the Carbon associated with that energy came from, only where it goes.
1
In reply to wintertree:
What? Have I missed a link between cycling and type 2 diabetes?
> Probably less than the cost of type 2 diabetes if everyone cycled everywhere and raised their food intake to match.
What? Have I missed a link between cycling and type 2 diabetes?
In reply to FreshSlate:
Loosely speaking the more you eat the sooner you get type 2 diabetes. You need to match calories in with calories out. If I cycled to work and back every day I'd need to almost double my daily calorie intake - after shedding the belly. This would put my at elevated risk of type 2 diabetes and cholesterol issues.
Or I could use rooftop solar and an EV and grow carbon sequestering wood instead of food, reducing CO2 levels, and not double my food intake and lower my risk of various diseases.
> What? Have I missed a link between cycling and type 2 diabetes?
Loosely speaking the more you eat the sooner you get type 2 diabetes. You need to match calories in with calories out. If I cycled to work and back every day I'd need to almost double my daily calorie intake - after shedding the belly. This would put my at elevated risk of type 2 diabetes and cholesterol issues.
Or I could use rooftop solar and an EV and grow carbon sequestering wood instead of food, reducing CO2 levels, and not double my food intake and lower my risk of various diseases.
3
In reply to wintertree:
Eating more sugar raises the odds but there's no proportional relationship between calories and diabetes like you suggest. Getting out and doing a bit of excercise is going to be more beneficial than not.
Also according to the American Diabetes Association, physical excercise:
"*Helps keep your blood glucose, blood pressure, HDL cholesterol and triglycerides on target
*Lowers your risk for pre-diabetes, type 2 diabetes, heart disease and stroke
Relieves stress"
> Loosely speaking the more you eat the sooner you get type 2 diabetes. You need to match calories in with calories out. If I cycled to work and back every day I'd need to almost double my daily calorie intake - after shedding the belly. This would put my at elevated risk of type 2 diabetes and cholesterol issues.
Eating more sugar raises the odds but there's no proportional relationship between calories and diabetes like you suggest. Getting out and doing a bit of excercise is going to be more beneficial than not.
Also according to the American Diabetes Association, physical excercise:
"*Helps keep your blood glucose, blood pressure, HDL cholesterol and triglycerides on target
*Lowers your risk for pre-diabetes, type 2 diabetes, heart disease and stroke
Relieves stress"
Post edited at 23:41
1
In reply to FreshSlate:
"A bit of exceecise" is a far cry from an additional 2000 k calories 5 times a week. There are all sorts of medical issues that can crop up relating to excercising and eating that much every single day.
Why the hell would I risk knackering my body on a commute instead of barely degrading an EV? Suspension components are far easier to change than human body parts. Get a few people in said EV and it's using a similar energy per person to move things about, and I don't need an energy hungry shower at work to get the sweat off, I don't need a nightly shower to get the sweat off again, I don't need changes of clothes thrice daily so I have less than half the laundry load.
Also there is no energy penalty in having a car (as you edited a previous message to say) as even when I cycle to work I have the car for myriad other reasons.
Edit: as for your edit - it all depends on how much physical excercise, doesn't it... I don't think constant excercise at 2000kcal/day is a good idea as many commutes would demand.
> Eating more sugar raises the odds but there's no proportional relationship between calories and diabetes like you suggest. Getting out and doing a bit of excercise is going to be more beneficial than not.
"A bit of exceecise" is a far cry from an additional 2000 k calories 5 times a week. There are all sorts of medical issues that can crop up relating to excercising and eating that much every single day.
Why the hell would I risk knackering my body on a commute instead of barely degrading an EV? Suspension components are far easier to change than human body parts. Get a few people in said EV and it's using a similar energy per person to move things about, and I don't need an energy hungry shower at work to get the sweat off, I don't need a nightly shower to get the sweat off again, I don't need changes of clothes thrice daily so I have less than half the laundry load.
Also there is no energy penalty in having a car (as you edited a previous message to say) as even when I cycle to work I have the car for myriad other reasons.
Edit: as for your edit - it all depends on how much physical excercise, doesn't it... I don't think constant excercise at 2000kcal/day is a good idea as many commutes would demand.
Post edited at 23:44
2
In reply to wintertree:
Where have you got the 2000 k figure from?
How far are you commuting? 2000 calories is a 6 hour bike ride, you'd be struggling to make time for work on top of that.
> "A bit of exceecise" is a far cry from an additional 2000 k calories 5 times a week. There are all sorts of medical issues that can crop up relating to excercising and eating that much every single day.
Where have you got the 2000 k figure from?
How far are you commuting? 2000 calories is a 6 hour bike ride, you'd be struggling to make time for work on top of that.
Post edited at 23:53
1
1
In reply to FreshSlate:
About 15 miles each way with a lot of hills. So 30 miles, I reckon of 50kCal per mile without hills so 1500 kCal plus hills.
Even if it was 1000 kCal a day it would still likely be to much to be healthy and sustainable in the long run.
I used to love commuting 4 miles each way by bike, did it for 6 years. Now I live further away. As do quite a few people; 10 miles may be closer to the average than 15. Even ignoring the potential long term health consequences of cycling this much continuously the loss of time would be severe. All this is drifting far from my initial point that bicycles aren't that much better in terms of emissions than a decent car full of people. Even that was clearly a throwaway point...
> Where have you got the 2000 k figure from?
> How far are you commuting?
About 15 miles each way with a lot of hills. So 30 miles, I reckon of 50kCal per mile without hills so 1500 kCal plus hills.
Even if it was 1000 kCal a day it would still likely be to much to be healthy and sustainable in the long run.
I used to love commuting 4 miles each way by bike, did it for 6 years. Now I live further away. As do quite a few people; 10 miles may be closer to the average than 15. Even ignoring the potential long term health consequences of cycling this much continuously the loss of time would be severe. All this is drifting far from my initial point that bicycles aren't that much better in terms of emissions than a decent car full of people. Even that was clearly a throwaway point...
3
In reply to Baron Weasel:
Moving away from the 'road tax' non issue, I personally think it's a very good idea for cyclists to be insured.
It is actually a membership condition of many cycling clubs - even recreational riders - that they carry a minimum third party insurance. The most basic Membership of British Cycling or Cycling UK ( formerly Cyclists Touring Club) carries automatic third party insurance, and legal cover. It doesn't cost a fortune - particularly when you consider how much people are prepared to spend on their bikes and all of the kit to go with it.
Moving away from the 'road tax' non issue, I personally think it's a very good idea for cyclists to be insured.
It is actually a membership condition of many cycling clubs - even recreational riders - that they carry a minimum third party insurance. The most basic Membership of British Cycling or Cycling UK ( formerly Cyclists Touring Club) carries automatic third party insurance, and legal cover. It doesn't cost a fortune - particularly when you consider how much people are prepared to spend on their bikes and all of the kit to go with it.
1
3
In reply to Lord of Starkness:
Many if not most 'proper' cyclists are insured. Do you really think that a teenager on a £99 sports direct mountain bike is going to get insurance. What about kids riding to school ? There is a massive problem with uninsured cars on the roads that actually cause real damage and injuries, this is where limited resources should be directed rather than at the perceived issues caused by cyclists. Of course there are some accidents caused by cyclists but the number is tiny compared to motor vehicles . To requote the west midlands police
Now for those who will no doubt be spitting out their finest percolated roasted bean brew at this moment screaming “what about the cyclists !” well…….statistical analysis shows they aren’t to blame, innocent in the majority of KSI collisions it would be a waste of our time, and thus public time and money to concentrate on cyclist behaviour. The figures speak for themselves…….driver’s don’t let your prejudices get in the way of the truth…….'
Many if not most 'proper' cyclists are insured. Do you really think that a teenager on a £99 sports direct mountain bike is going to get insurance. What about kids riding to school ? There is a massive problem with uninsured cars on the roads that actually cause real damage and injuries, this is where limited resources should be directed rather than at the perceived issues caused by cyclists. Of course there are some accidents caused by cyclists but the number is tiny compared to motor vehicles . To requote the west midlands police
Now for those who will no doubt be spitting out their finest percolated roasted bean brew at this moment screaming “what about the cyclists !” well…….statistical analysis shows they aren’t to blame, innocent in the majority of KSI collisions it would be a waste of our time, and thus public time and money to concentrate on cyclist behaviour. The figures speak for themselves…….driver’s don’t let your prejudices get in the way of the truth…….'
5
In reply to Baron Weasel:
The petition is cleverly worded 'click bait' designed to get people's attention and the Facebook link directs people to the West Midlands Police post on clamping down on close passes.
It's certainly getting a lot of attention and probably has taken in a lot of people, include people on this thread and Cycling News Weekly amongst others.
Why don't people ever read things fully before jumping to conclusions and going off at the deep end?
World's gone mad.
.
The petition is cleverly worded 'click bait' designed to get people's attention and the Facebook link directs people to the West Midlands Police post on clamping down on close passes.
It's certainly getting a lot of attention and probably has taken in a lot of people, include people on this thread and Cycling News Weekly amongst others.
Why don't people ever read things fully before jumping to conclusions and going off at the deep end?
World's gone mad.
.
1
In reply to wintertree:
Worthy points to consider, but never mind all that; it'd likely all count as a contravention of Rule 5.
> There are all sorts of medical issues that can crop up relating to excercising and eating that much every single day. ..Why the hell would I risk knackering my body on a commute instead of barely degrading an EV? Suspension components are far easier to change than human body parts. Get a few people in said EV and it's using a similar energy per person to move things about, and I don't need an energy hungry shower at work to get the sweat off, I don't need a nightly shower to get the sweat off again, I don't need changes of clothes thrice daily so I have less than half the laundry load...I don't think constant excercise at 2000kcal/day is a good idea as many commutes would demand.
Worthy points to consider, but never mind all that; it'd likely all count as a contravention of Rule 5.
In reply to wintertree:
Hmm. The energy of a 2 min shower will get an EV about a mile down a road. If your commute is that short then you should probably be walking never mind cycling. Even with 'a few' people in the car.
But you're right that a 2000 Calorie commute is unreasonable. But it also isn't realistic in that it would suggest about 60 miles and 4 hours there and back. A more typical commute (10 miles each way) at 700 Cals per day is perfectly sustainable and doesn't take much longer than driving (in city traffic).
> ... Get a few people in said EV and it's using a similar energy per person to move things about, and I don't need an energy hungry shower at work to get the sweat off, I don't need a nightly shower to get the sweat off again,...
Hmm. The energy of a 2 min shower will get an EV about a mile down a road. If your commute is that short then you should probably be walking never mind cycling. Even with 'a few' people in the car.
But you're right that a 2000 Calorie commute is unreasonable. But it also isn't realistic in that it would suggest about 60 miles and 4 hours there and back. A more typical commute (10 miles each way) at 700 Cals per day is perfectly sustainable and doesn't take much longer than driving (in city traffic).
1
In reply to Marek:
Add another mile for the getting home shower, and another 2.5 miles for a 700kcal consumes in the cycle. Now we're up to 4.5 miles. Load 4 people into the EV and you're up to 18 miles for the same energy cost.
I'd have put that closer to 1000 kCal than 700 but each to their own. Not sure how sustainable it is for many people to turn up cold and sodden to work every day - which is what happens if cycling in winter city traffic.
My original point was simply that cycling uses a comparable amount of energy (with associated CO2 emissions) to EVs under some conditions, so under current rules they'd be zero rated for VED.
> Hmm. The energy of a 2 min shower will get an EV about a mile down a road.
Add another mile for the getting home shower, and another 2.5 miles for a 700kcal consumes in the cycle. Now we're up to 4.5 miles. Load 4 people into the EV and you're up to 18 miles for the same energy cost.
> But you're right that a 2000 Calorie commute is unreasonable. But it also isn't realistic in that it would suggest about 60 miles and 4 hours there and back. A more typical commute (10 miles each way) at 700 Cals per day is perfectly sustainable and doesn't take much longer than driving (in city traffic).
I'd have put that closer to 1000 kCal than 700 but each to their own. Not sure how sustainable it is for many people to turn up cold and sodden to work every day - which is what happens if cycling in winter city traffic.
My original point was simply that cycling uses a comparable amount of energy (with associated CO2 emissions) to EVs under some conditions, so under current rules they'd be zero rated for VED.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...