Cyclists should be banned off certain roads

A bike licence should cost at least enough to cover its administration.

Then it would need to be at least £30.

Now try telling a family of four that they have to fork out £120 pounds a year for owning bikes.

I know people on benefits that have bikes (some bought at the tip for a tenner) so they can cycle in the park with their kids.

bike licences are just asshatery for the sake of it, they solve no problem, they are not fair, and they are completely unenforceable to those who don't care to follow the law.

But if I drove an electric car I'd pay less.

Which still shows you still fail to understand the basic point, what tax you pay, has nothing to do with what service you receive.

No one who advocates that cyclists should "pay their fair share" follows that logic through.

I don't know about your unicorn, but I have a feeling that identification plates for cyclists might just happen.

Buy a lottery ticket then, it's about as likely.
 
Sponsored Links
AronSearle";p="3168647 said:
and they are completely unenforceable to those who don't care to follow the law./quote]


Most of what you post is eminently sensible Aron, but for Heaven's sake.....

nothing is enforceable for those who don't give a toss - that is self-evident.
 
AronSearle";p="3168647 said:
A bike licence should cost at least enough to cover its administration.

Then it would need to be at least £30.
Good - I have to pay for insurance, road tax etc

Now try telling a family of four that they have to fork out £120 pounds a year for owning bikes.
The thirty pounds per year could be an insurance against causing mayhem on the roads

I know people on benefits that have bikes (some bought at the tip for a tenner) so they can cycle in the park with their kids.
Good for them. Instead of spending a tenner, the money could have been spent on food and then all can go for a walk

bike licences are just asshatery for the sake of it, they solve no problem, they are not fair, and they are completely unenforceable to those who don't care to follow the law.
Why asshatery, completley the wrong terminology IMHO. Anyone on the road should pay - end of

But if I drove an electric car I'd pay less.

Which still shows you still fail to understand the basic point, what tax you pay, has nothing to do with what service you receive.

No one who advocates that cyclists should "pay their fair share" follows that logic through
Cyclists pay bugger all to the coffers - I know the argument that we all pay taxes and contribute. Nice one. Better still if cyclists contributed too.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: JBR
If I as a driver decide to occasionally use my bike instead of my car, should I have to pay an additional levy for the honour?
 
Sponsored Links
and they are completely unenforceable to those who don't care to follow the law.


Most of what you post is eminently sensible Aron, but for Heaven's sake.....

nothing is enforceable for those who don't give a toss - that is self-evident.

Don't be silly.

Enforcing car laws is easier because of how difficult it is to own a car without it being tied to your address, and the ability (or not) to conceal it, same with theft, robbery, speeding, counterfeiting etc. All crimes have degree's of enforceability.

There is something like 30 million bikes in circulation, you have kids, you have second hand bikes, you have no registration of ownership, the easy ability to store it indoors, and anyone can fake a numberplate (It can be done with cars, but it is much easier to detect and chase them).

It's a significantly bigger logistical issue to enforce a licensing scheme on bikes, so much so it seems impossible.

Cyclists pay b*****r all to the coffers - I know the argument that we all pay taxes and contribute. Nice one. Better still if cyclists contributed too.

Why don't you try learning to quote properly, learning to read arguments, and learning to make an intelligent counter argument to my points rather than just repeating the same original argument.

The thirty pounds per year could be an insurance against causing mayhem on the roads

So what you are saying is that maggies poll tax would have eliminated criminals, after all, if a tax on bikes stops bike crime, a tax on people stops all crime.

Genius!
 
asshatery

I had to look that up - probably because, spelt properly in proper English, it should be 'arse-hattery'. The more the years go by, the more our ancient and noble language becomes defiled by Americanisms. You should be ashamed of yourself.

But if I drove an electric car I'd pay less.

Which still shows you still fail to understand the basic point, what tax you pay, has nothing to do with what service you receive.

No one who advocates that cyclists should "pay their fair share" follows that logic through.

I have to confess that I don't follow your logic. I agree it's nothing to do with services received, so for what reason do motorists have to pay road tax whilst cyclists do not? Why the differentiation?
 
If I as a driver decide to occasionally use my bike instead of my car, should I have to pay an additional levy for the honour?

Of course, if you have two cars you pay 2x road tax (to be abolished in 2015) you're still using he road, same with bloody horse riders.
 
There is something like 30 million bikes in circulation, you have kids, you have second hand bikes, you have no registration of ownership, the easy ability to store it indoors, and anyone can fake a numberplate (It can be done with cars, but it is much easier to detect and chase them).

It's a significantly bigger logistical issue to enforce a licensing scheme on bikes, so much so it seems impossible.

Nonsense. Police officers could stop any arrogant lycra-clad cyclist not displaying a number plate and prosecute him (they are mostly 'hims').

Fake plates could be identified easily (using ANPR) if legally-obtained plate details were added to the records of motor vehicles.

Simples!
 
...road tax (to be abolished in 2015)...

Are you saying that we won't have to pay after next year?

Oh, wait. I'm being silly aren't I? They won't abolish it without replacing it with something else. Window tax? Air tax?
 
so for what reason do motorists have to pay road tax whilst cyclists do not? Why the differentiation?

I don't know why you find this concept so hard to understand.

Why do you pay fuel duty, it raises far more money than is spent on roads, why do you pay VAT on goods, when you pay VAT on a TV, what government service are you using that means you have to pay it, wear and tear on the airwaves? When you pay stamp duty on a house, what arbitrary service are you paying for the use of, what about national insurance, should disabled people not get disability payments as they don't pay much tax,

What about VAT on clothing, are you paying for wear and tear on...what?

Individual taxes have little to do with the services available, it's all just ways of collecting money or arbitrarily punishing or encouraging certain behaviour (think sin taxes = cigs, alcohol).

You want to argue "I have to pay it, why shouldn't you", fine, what if I pay twice as much tax as you, gonna follow that logic through, not just cherry pick what taxes I should pay, no, I don't think so somehow, nonsense argument.

What you pay has nothing to do with what you get.
 
Car/road tax doesn't exist, it's vehicle excise duty, you are paying for the priveledge to own and use a car

Eg

My car costs £250 ish yet a Prius costs nothing, it's all to do with emissions.
 
Life would be a whole lot simpler if we lived in a truly socialist world. Then money and taxes wouldn't come into it ;)
 
JB. Stop calling it Road Tax! That was abolished in 1937!!

http://ipayroadtax.com/

Listen, I don't drive a car at all. I don't cycle. I can hardly bloody walk.

So where's my flippin' rebate?
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top