Time to tax cyclists (From The Oxford Times)

It's a pity that we still get this kind of self interested suggestion. UK road tax is based on carbon emissions, and bikes are low and Jaguars high on carbon emissions. Perhaps Jaguar and other car users can use the Park & Ride rather than drive into Oxford and contribute to their own congestion, air pollution and general rise in obesity. There are plenty of cycle manufacturers in the UK if you want to create UK jobs.

Firstly, there is no such thing as road tax. Its VED, which is levied based upon emissions; cycles, like electric cars, don't directly create emissions. So, like electric car owners, cyclists wouldn't be paying VED.
Interestingly cars that currently are excluded from VED still need a tax disc, and of course the admin charge for that is paid for by other motorists; would you like your own VED to go even higher because cyclists would have to get a free disc too? No? Then please, for the love of all that is good, could you stop repeating the rather tired old whinge that cyclists should pay road tax?

I have written on this subject previously. As a cyclist, I would love to to be charged Vehicle Excise Duty for my bike.

It would give me a whole load of benefits. No more being told I should pay 'road tax', The tax disc could even help to serve as a theft deterrent, by being a unique, nationwide, identifying system for bikes.

Car drivers are the ones that should be demanding that cyclists don't have to pay VED. Why? Because of the cost to them. In 2010, 3.5 million bikes were sold. The cost to issue a tax disc in 2012 is £1.65 per disc. Therefore just for bikes that were sold in 2010, their first tax disc would have cost the tax paying public £5.7 million.

Where would the cost of that increase in the cost of issuing tax discs be met from? Either it would have to be paid through general taxation, and so everyone would pay for a scheme that if implemented correctly, would be of benefit to very few people, OR it could be paid for by increasing the cost of Vehicle Excise Duty to take into account the extra overheads. This would mean an increase of over 25% for most drivers, just so that the demands of a few who think that cyclists should have a pretty disc on their bikes can be met.

Drivers therefore should be demanding that the status quo of cyclists not paying Vehicle Excise Duty is not changed, as it it likely that they will end up paying for my tax disc, and the underlying database that would need to be created to hold all of the details

See http://mrdrem.blogsp
ot.co.uk/2012/05/why
-id-love-to-pay-vehi
cle-excise-duty.html for more details, and sources for the costs and numbers of bikes.

The entire basis of this article is flawed. First of all, 'Road-tax' doesn't exist, no-one has paid 'Road-Tax' since 1937, when it was abolished by Winston Churchill. Roads are funded out of general taxation - all taxpayers pay for the roads. VED is an emissions tax, not a charge to use the road.
Many cyclists run a car, for which they pay VED.

The killer fact for Mr. Clarke's ill thought-out idea, is that Band 'A' vehicles, or are VED-exempt for a wide number of reasons, qualify for a zero-cost VED, while Mr. Clarke bizarrely wants to impose a special charge on cyclists. It is worth pointing-out that Mr. Clarke has not shown any evidence for his figure, a figure for which he almost certainly has no supporting evidence. Mr. Clarke's hidden agenda is thereby clearly exposed for what it is – rampant cyclophobia – he apparently is gripped by a hatred of people who ride bicycles.
http://ipayroadtax.c
om/licensed-to-cycle
/licensed-to-cycle/

There can be no doubt that such a charge levied on cycling would require registration and number-plates. There is a long history of bicycle registration schemes, most have been dropped, those that remain are primarily aimed at discouraging bicycle theft. Compulsory bicycle registration schemes have repeatedly shown to be counter-productive, by discouraging cycling and all enlightened societies eventually realise that the benefits of cycling are so great that its must be encouraged, not discouraged. It is also perhaps worth noting that like Mr. Clarke, the Third Reich was very keen registering bicycles.
Could this be a case of using one-eyed logic?
http://www.embacher-
collection.at/radsei
ten/7-23-SIRONVAL-Sp
ortplex-en.html

Motorists do not pay the full costs of motoring. The external costs of motoring, are those that are not paid for by motoring taxes and duties, but are foisted upon the wider pool of tax-payers, which means that drivers are being subsidised, by those who do not drive. These external costs are huge, in the order of many tens of billions of pounds. Not all externalities of motoring have an easily calculated financial value, despite this they are still negative impacts.
Comparison of the wider cost of transport in English urban areas (per annum, 2009 prices and values) Excess delays £10.9 billion; Collisions £8.7 billion ; poor-air quality £4.5 billion -£10.6 billion; Physical inactivity £9.8 billion; GHGs £1.2 billion -£3.7 billion ; noise-amenity £3billion -£5billion . That totals £38.1billion -£48.7 billion.
Figures from: The wider costs of transport in English urban areas in 2009 – Cabinet Office
http://bit.ly/ygtc1M

In stark contrast to motor-vehicles, cycling has multiple external benefits and few if any discernible external costs. For instance, encouraging people out of their cars and onto bicycles benefits drivers by reducing congestion and benefits everyone by reducing air and noise pollution.
Cycling has been shown to be beneficial to society and the wider economy. In monetary terms, the estimated benefit from every additional 109 utility cyclists who cycle instead of drive three times per week over 30 years was one million pounds. Note: they don't have to be the same people. For details, see the report.
Planning for Cycling Report to Cycling England 18/12/08
http://www.webcitati
on.org/673EZyALN

Road surface damage is generally proportional to the fourth power of axle weight. Based upon this, One laden HGV does as much damage as ~146,000 small cars, ~19,000 medium cars, or ~2.3 billion bicycles. (yes billion).

Mr. Clarke complains about some temporary congestion caused by cycling in one city on one day, when motor-vehicles, the overwhelming majority of which are cars, clog almost every road in towns and cities every day throughout the UK. Surely the answer is road-pricing for motor-vehicles i.e. motorists.
Could Mr. Clarke once-again, be guilty of using one-eyed logic?