Safe Speed Forums

Because that's how discussion forums work! I've no beef with motoring taxes being dragged into the argument, so I didn't feel the need to say anything. I DO, however feel strongly enough about your posts regarding motoring taxation to make comment. Basically, to put it another way, if YOU are riding a pushbike, YOU are contributing LESS money to the exchequer than if YOU are driving a car!

That's debatable.

If I'm driving my car instead of riding my bike, at the time I'm burning fuel which I've paid tax and VAT on. I'm still burning fuel when I'm riding my bike in the form of the food I've eaten but it probably costs less (depends what it is of course).

BUT, if I'm driving my car I'm causing more damage to infrastructure, causing more congestion, polluting more, all of which costs money.

So if you add it all up are you sure I'm not taking MORE money from the exchequer when I'm driving my car?

(have to say this is a moot point, unless you think for instance Richard Branson, who probably pays more tax that you do, should gain some sort of special access to taxpayer funded infrastructure and services, like he can push in front of you at the library queue for instance? Patent nonsense as you can see)

I don't have a problem with the argument that cars do more damage to the infrastructure than pushbikes (and, indeed, the environment). Nor do I have a problem with them being taxed more heavily as a result (although I do think the taxes are somewhat excessive). The only think I have a problem with is cyclists trying to claim some sort of "moral high ground" just because "road tax" isn't spent ONLY on the roads! (And what's more, if all the "road tax" WAS spent on the roads, we'd have MUCH better roads than we currently do, so assuming it gets spent on other things AS WELL AS the roads, then the users of those other things can jolly well lay off "motorist bashing" - which gets a bit tiresome every now and then)!

In terms of the net benefit (or dis-benefit) to the exchequer as a result of the motor car, I'd welcome the opportunity to scrutinise any figures you might care to provide, but my gut feeling is that if the UK banned cars tomorrow, the money it would save by ridding our streets of these evil, polluting, congesting, murdering, machines, wouldn't even come close to paying the unemployment benefits of all the people directly or indirectly employed in the car industry LET ALONE making any kind of net improvement to the public purse!

Nobody is doing that as far as I can see. What I see is people saying "cyclists shouldn't be allowed to be on MY roads I pay for with MY road tax" and then being challenged for holding such a ridiculous stance.



Cars don't have to be evil murdering machines if driven carefully.

Pollution IS a major issue in our towns and cities; this needs to be sorted quickly.

The car production industry in the UK was, and probably still is, a SUBSIDISED industry.

I suspect you mean with man if front with red flag



And again ,i hear pedestrians saying the same thing about pavements .



So is the rising danger of rogue cyclists who believe themselves out side the law . The one common ground between pedestrians and drivers is the cyclists apparent divine right to endanger lives- their own and others. If a car drove with two wheels on the pavement scattering pedestrians there'd be an outcry . If anyone complains about cycling on the pavement then they're a moaning old goat .

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

I feel it's much the other way round, if anything! Motorists fed up to the back teeth with being routinely fleeced at every opportunity; always being blamed for everything - (even yourgoodself, if I recall correctly, advocating an automatic presumption of guilt on the part of the motorist in any accident involving a motor vehicle and a cyclist?); whilst seeing cyclists getting increasingly militant about asserting their rights when it comes to road use, but rather less enthusiastic when it comes to shouldering their share (or indeed any share) of the costs or responsibilities associated with doing so!



I seem to remember you've made the claim about the car industry being "subsidised" before, but, as someone who works in the car industry, I can't quite see it myself? How do you work that out? I know the company I work for pays corporation tax, and employs a load of people who each pay income tax, sells cars that get taxed, and has second and third tier suppliers who also pay corporation tax and employ people who pay income tax! It's absolutely true that we get some grants when it comes to R&D, but they're small, and usually "matched" funding or are often simply tax breaks (i.e. not paying quite as much of it as we normally would under normal trading circumstances)! If we're being "subsidised" I think our accountants have been missing something for quite a few years now!

Quite right. The only industry that I am aware of that's being subsidised, is the public sector scrounging industry.

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

You're still not quite getting the whole "motoring taxes do not pay for the roads" thing are you.




Ridiculous generalisation.

Never had you down as the Daily Mail type there graball...

You sure we don't subsidise the motoring industry? Don't forget to take into account things like grants, the cost of schooling the employees, government bailouts, cheap loans etc...

Correct! Motoring taxes do not pay for the roads. That's obvious. If they DID we'd have MUCH better roads! As it is, they pay for OTHER THINGS AS WELL (like, maybe, cycle paths)??? I really don't know how I can make it any simpler for you, but if the government spends LESS on the roads than it collects in motoring taxes, isn't it blindingly obvious that motoring taxes not only cover the costs of the road network but also pay for other things AS WELL?


A generalisation brought about largely by your repeated insistence that there should always be a presumption of guilt on the motorist's part in any accident between a motorist and a cyclist!

Yes, absolutely 100% sure you don't subsidise (certainly my sector of) the motor industry! Grants I've already covered. Government bailouts? Not that I've seen! Contravenes EU competition laws for a start! Cheap loans? Yes, you sometimes get attractive deals to set up in areas of high unemployment. Why do you suppose that is? Do you imagine there might be some net benefit to the community, perhaps? And the jewel in the crown...

...the cost of schooling the employees...

Sorry, but is it ONLY motor industry employees who get schooled? I reckon that's scraping the bottom of the barrel to the point where it's started leaking Weepy!

You're still not quite getting the whole "motoring taxes do not pay for the roads" thing are you.



You're still conflating the two, what have motoring related taxes got to do with road spending?





Seeing as they're not ring fenced for road spending why aren't they all spent on our nuclear weapons capability, or the national health?

Do you think all alcohol taxes pay for pubs, or all smoking taxes pay for lung surgery?

And you think the only cost to society that comes from motor vehicle use is spending on roads?




...also between a motorist and a pedestrian and a cyclist and a pedestrian.

It's pretty standard across most of the world, including the USA, that the driver of the larger vehicle has a responsibility to not strike more vulnerable road users and when they do so they have to prove there was nothing they could have done to avoid the collision, including slowing down or just being more careful.

BTW calling it a presumption of guilt is a strawman, it's not a presumption of guilt.

http://www.roadpeace.org/change/fair_co ... index.html

No. I don't read the Mail, what makes you think that I do?

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

No, I'm not! (...just like you're not getting the "only a fraction of motoring taxes pays for the roads" thing)...


NOT AS MUCH AS THEY OUGHT TO HAVE!



I expect some of them ARE! (You've got a lot to thank us motorists for, haven't you)?!


No, of course not! They go into the same "general taxation" pot that motoring taxes go into! You know - the same pot that all those cycling taxes go into... oh, er, hang on a minute...


No. Nor did I ever claim that to be the case. In my game, I'm only too aware that the use of motorised transport has disadvantages too. The motor industry is constantly working towards mitigating and in some cases, eliminating those. If you've got a better idea for transport in the 21st century that doesn't involve cars, let's hear it. If (like the rest of society) you feel that on balance, motorised transport brings more benefits to society than drawbacks, then what are you moaning about?



Just because it happens in some places, doesn't make it the right thing to do though, does it? Do you have any credible figures to suggest that deaths and serious injuries to cyclists are fewer in those countries that operate such policies than in those that don't?

They don't though, motoring taxes have nothing to do with road spending.

So I can say part of the taxes collected via income tax cover all costs associated with road spending. What does that leave motoring taxes to pay for?

BTW, there is a tax directly related to road spending, check your council tax bill, part of that will be budgeted for spending on local roads, so, council tax can be directly linked to road spending.

You can't say:

"road spending comes out of general taxation"

and then say:

"motoring taxes go into general taxation"

and then say:

"motoring taxes have nothing to do with road spending"!

because mathematically, it simply can't be true!!!

You can't say whether any particular "pound coin" spent on the roads came from a car driver paying his Vehicle Excise Duty or a car driver paying his fuel duty, or a cyclist paying his income tax or council tax.

What you CAN say, however, is that cycle paths or the bike-to-work scheme were most certainly NOT financed out of "cycling taxation"!

No, they're funded out of general taxation and council tax, just like roads, what's your point?

i think what Mole is trying to get over to you, which you are having great trouble grasping or purposely acting "stupid" over, is that any given person in the uk, who pays taxes, would contribute more to the economy if they owned a car and a not a bike than if they owned a bike and no car...is this clear enough for you?

OR to put it really simply for you.

If two identical brothers A and B who had identical jobs and lifestyles and tax expenses but brother A owned a car whereas brother B owned a bike and no car, then Brother A would be contributing more towards brother B's cycling than brother B would towards brother A's car use. (probably still too complicated though)

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

A motorist will be making contributions towards "general taxation" when driving his car, that would not be made by a cyclist when riding his bike.

(Or see Graball's explanation above)