Should road bicycle users/cyclists be taxed and insured?

[Passiflora]

And therefore have number plates?

[malumbu]

No

[OutOfFocus]

I think those that are using it for business (eg deliveroo et al) should.

[rendelharris]

Road bicycle users and cyclists? Oh come on, tax one but not both.

Blatant low-quality trolling.

[nxjen]

M'Fakazi Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Absoluteley yes. And have to pass a proficiency

> test.

I agree

[snowy]

Passiflora Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> And therefore have number plates?

You?re a real amateur at this.

[nxjen]

The original post is a valid question and of course it?s those who regard cycling, and the freedom of the cyclist, as a religion who belittle and demean the question with snideness and accusations of trolling. S/he may have provoked a response but this is not trolling.

[rendelharris]

nxjen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The original post is a valid question and of

> course it?s those who regard cycling, and the

> freedom of the cyclist, as a religion who belittle

> and demean the question with snideness and

> accusations of trolling. S/he may have provoked a

> response but this is not trolling.

If taken in isolation, no. If taken in the context of her continued and repeated attempts on the General ED thread to promote car use and belittle cycling (including several times immediately prior to establishing this thread) it's simply trying to be childishly provocative, or trolling. If I put up a thread saying "Should all private cars be banned from Southwark?" - not even making a case or stating a position on it - you and others would rightly accuse me of trolling.

As for the question, it's been done to death in a million other public fora, newspaper and TV debates, etc etc. It's not as though she's suddenly come up with some revelatory new concept. Trolling, pure, simple and obvious.

Trolling (v): the deliberate act of making random unsolicited and/or controversial comments on internet forums with the intent to provoke an emotional knee jerk reaction from unsuspecting readers to engage in a fight or argument

You couldn't find a more obvious example.

[Seabag]

They should have seatbelts I feel, and wear full face helmets and leathers, like proper bikers.

[JoeLeg]

Hold on, let me just get the essentials:

🍚 and 🍺....

This should be good. Carry on...

[DaveR]

Should road bicycle users/cyclists be taxed and insured?

The very short answer is 'no'

The short, rude answer is 'no - why don't you f%ck off'

The short polite answer is 'no, and there is no good reason for it. The fact that some people don't like cyclists is not a good reason'.

And the long answer is 'There's no such thing as road tax, just excise duty on cars. Like there is on fags and booze but not on cakes or gloves or hammers or cat food. No reason to put it on bikes rather than hammers. Compulsory insurance is a political decision but essentially is required where there is a clear public need for it i.e. the risk of an indemnity being required but not met is widespread and/or serious. You need insurance to keep a tiger but not a dog. You need insurance to set off a firework display for the public but not to wave sparklers about in your garden. You need special insurance to drive a bus full of passengers, regular insurance to drive a car, and no insurance to ride a bike. These all make sense.

[Captain Marvel]

I like all those

[Angelina]

There is a fantastic move to encourage cyclists in London - see all the cycle routes.

This is to the detriment of cars (taking up their precious lanes) - of which there are far too many anyway, so this is a good thing.

More bikes = less cars.

I think there should be a system for rewarding car drivers who change to cycling commute instead.

So, no - no tax on bikes.

[rendelharris]

DaveR Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Should road bicycle users/cyclists be taxed and

> insured?

>

> The very short answer is 'no'

>

> The short, rude answer is 'no - why don't you f%ck

> off'

>

> The short polite answer is 'no, and there is no

> good reason for it. The fact that some people

> don't like cyclists is not a good reason'.

>

> And the long answer is 'There's no such thing as

> road tax, just excise duty on cars. Like there is

> on fags and booze but not on cakes or gloves or

> hammers or cat food. No reason to put it on bikes

> rather than hammers. Compulsory insurance is a

> political decision but essentially is required

> where there is a clear public need for it i.e. the

> risk of an indemnity being required but not met is

> widespread and/or serious. You need insurance to

> keep a tiger but not a dog. You need insurance to

> set off a firework display for the public but not

> to wave sparklers about in your garden. You need

> special insurance to drive a bus full of

> passengers, regular insurance to drive a car, and

> no insurance to ride a bike. These all make

> sense.

Trolling doesn't deserve such a good answer, but very well put.

[Nigello]

No, but fines should be levied on those who don't have working lights front and rear. Too many times I see cyclists with no lights and no reflective gear, posing a danger to themselves and others. (No car, no motorbike, no cycle, just legs)

[rendelharris]

Nigello Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> No, but fines should be levied on those who don't

> have working lights front and rear. Too many times

> I see cyclists with no lights and no reflective

> gear, posing a danger to themselves and others.

> (No car, no motorbike, no cycle, just legs)

Agree - when being driven by Mrs H at night I feel like a navigator in a plane, acting as a spotter for hazards in the form of cyclists on black bikes in black clothes and black helmets or hats. Why anyone would do anything so utterly suicidal when an adequate set of lights can be had for a fiver is beyond me.

[exdulwicher]

  Quote

No, but fines should be levied on those who don't have working lights front and rear. Too many times I see cyclists with no lights and no reflective gear, posing a danger to themselves and others.

I love the irony in this statement (and you see this sort of thing every week on forums, newspaper letters columns etc about cyclists all in black, no lights etc that are seen).

So they're seen then?!

Same way that you see pedestrians and trees and dogs and cats and parked cars and rubbish bins and other unlit things like debris in the road.

If I jump a traffic light while wearing dark clothing, every motorist for half a mile around will see me.

If I have fluoro kit and bright flashy lights, I'll still get "sorry mate, I didn't see you..."

;-)

[Nigello]

Yeah, I see them - as a pedestrian (stated in my post), travelling slowly and able to stop without having to move forward several yards at speed before I do so! Sitting in a car or van could well be a different matter.

[rendelharris]

> I love the irony in this statement (and you see

> this sort of thing every week on forums, newspaper

> letters columns etc about cyclists all in black,

> no lights etc that are seen).

>

> So they're seen then?!

>

> Same way that you see pedestrians and trees and

> dogs and cats and parked cars and rubbish bins and

> other unlit things like debris in the road.

>

> If I jump a traffic light while wearing dark

> clothing, every motorist for half a mile around

> will see me.

> If I have fluoro kit and bright flashy lights,

> I'll still get "sorry mate, I didn't see you..."

>

> ;-)

Got to say, nobody is more pro cyclist than me, in either theory or practice, but can't agree with you on that one. Yes, you will eventually see a cyclist in black on a dark night and poorly lit road, when s/he comes into the scope of the headlights; for me, observing as a passenger, that moment is often terrifyingly close to a fatality. Yes, as with light jumpers etc etc it is frequently used by motorists as a stick with which to beat us (not that I think Nigello was), but my concern is for the cyclist. Why in the name of arse would you not avail yourself of at least the bare minimum equipment to help car drivers see you? Riding at night is inherently risky, there are a million un-MOT'd and uninsured cars on the road, there are drunk drivers, drug drivers, drivers on 'phones, drivers with poor eyesight/night vision, speeding drivers...any cyclist who doesn't make themselves decently visible wants their head examined. If it takes the prospect of fines to make them see sense, I'm all for it (not that anything would be done, given the failure to tackle 'phone use, speeding etc).

Oh. I seem to feel quite passionately about this.

[ed_pete]

1, are there any other countries where cyclists are licensed and taxed?

2, do you honestly think its a good use of police time to check if cyclists are licensed

[Passiflora]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> nxjen Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > The original post is a valid question and of

> > course it?s those who regard cycling, and the

> > freedom of the cyclist, as a religion who

> belittle

> > and demean the question with snideness and

> > accusations of trolling. S/he may have provoked

> a

> > response but this is not trolling.

>

> If taken in isolation, no. If taken in the

> context of her continued and repeated attempts on

> the General ED thread to promote car use and

> belittle cycling (including several times

> immediately prior to establishing this thread)

> it's simply trying to be childishly provocative,

> or trolling. If I put up a thread saying "Should

> all private cars be banned from Southwark?" - not

> even making a case or stating a position on it -

> you and others would rightly accuse me of

> trolling.

>

> As for the question, it's been done to death in a

> million other public fora, newspaper and TV

> debates, etc etc. It's not as though she's

> suddenly come up with some revelatory new concept.

> Trolling, pure, simple and obvious.

>

> Trolling (v): the deliberate act of making random

> unsolicited and/or controversial comments on

> internet forums with the intent to provoke an

> emotional knee jerk reaction from unsuspecting

> readers to engage in a fight or argument

>

> You couldn't find a more obvious example.

Oh dear, I'm now a troll, whatever that is on here?

[Passiflora]

snowy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Passiflora Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > And therefore have number plates?

>

> You?re a real amateur at this.

Why would I be a amateur? Number plates are legal on cars etc so why not on bikes?

[snowy]

Passiflora Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> snowy Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Passiflora Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > And therefore have number plates?

> >

> > You?re a real amateur at this.

>

> Why would I be a amateur? Number plates are legal

> on cars etc so why not on bikes?

Because it?s nonsensical and a policy topic that has been reviewed by greater minds than yours for years. You sound like this:

"Alice laughed: "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible things." "I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

Read the answers you were given above. Think about the concept of proportionality. Get back to us when you?ve looked at why it doesn?t exist (apart from in Switzerland and a few random US states)and won?t exist and then get back to us when you process them.

[rendelharris]

Passiflora Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Why would I be a amateur? Number plates are legal

> on cars etc so why not on bikes?

So are steering wheels, seatbelts and windscreen wipers. Bikes are not cars, thank goodness. Suggest you research the concept of the syllogistic fallacy ("My dog has four legs and a tail. My cat has four legs and a tail. Therefore my dog is a cat."). Cars carry them, therefore why not bikes? Why not then pedestrians? Wheelchairs? Pushchairs? Skateboards?

Even you can't (I really hope) be so foolish as to genuinely believe this would be a good, or even workable, idea. It was just poor quality trolling, and glad to see it has been treated as such.

[malumbu]

Oh here we go again. Too many people are dying due to poor air quality. We are facking the planet up due to burning fossil fuel. Let's have a go at the cyclists then. At its most extreme tolerate a bit of antisocial behaviour recognising the enormous benefits to society.

Focusing on the real culprits, drivers feel they have a right to drive what they want, how they want, where they want, when they want. Overturn that culture and we can move on.

Most road users manage to coexist fairly peacefully. I may shout at pedestrians, cyclists and motor vehicles but a tiny fraction of those I encounter each day and in the hope that calling someone a dangerous wonker will eventually influence them to act otherwise. I have plenty of nice interaction too.

We have a representational democracy and governments are influenced by the popular (right wing) press, but generally sense prevails and nonsense like that proposed will have been properly considered and rightly rejected no doubt on many occasions. Do write to your MP to get to raise with DfT because it would be an interesting reply