Home

Yes, yes, yes, we should all "get some road tax" according to many motorists. Depressingly tedious, as we all know, but the history lesson about abolition in 1937 is unlikely to be received with philosophical acceptance by many drivers during the briefest of "traffic light discussions". And despite there being a surprising number of official exemptions (covered very well on Carlton Reid's excellent "I Pay Road Tax" website) the expectation seems to be that cyclists should be paying something, even if that's plainly unfair.

But what if we did pay something? Would that mean less hassle on the road? Less aggression, fewer "punishment passes", less verbal diarrhea at traffic lights, less resentment of our presence in "their space" on "their roads"? Could we improve cycle safety by paying some sort of token "road tax" very visibly, and in a way that motorists can understand? I say we can, and I'm wondering if anyone out there agrees.

I'm suggesting an annual cycling "tax disc", similar in size and appearance to a vehicle tax disc, and issued by DVLA using current mechanisms (ie post offices or online). The issuing of the tax disc would be dependant on proof of third party insurance. Although there would be no vehicle registration number as such, the serial number would link the tax disc holder to their details at DVLA. The price would be perhaps £5, essentially as a token payment. The tax disc could be attached to a bike in a slimline tax disc holder, perhaps where a race number is normally fixed. Registration would be entirely voluntary, to avoid being a barrier to cycle uptake.

The advantage of such a system would be to show, very visibly to motorists, that the cyclist is insured, registered, and an official holder of a "tax disc", so satisfying demands of those who want cyclists to indeed be insured, registered, traceable, and "paying road tax" (even though we know that is a little unfair) and at five pounds a year would represent more than the current per capita spend nationally, so essentially we could argue that point at every level, both politically and "on the street". Although there would be many cyclists who wouldn't want to subscribe to such a scheme, the satisfaction of being able to point at a "tax disc" would be enormous. And inevitably, even though DVLA receipts aren't ringfenced, there would potentially be more money for cycle related projects.

I don't think we should be too concerned about such a scheme being voluntary, rather than compulsory, since many motorists (around 10 percent apparently) see insurance and VED as optional too. The main thing is to make a start, something that many serious cyclists, tired of the "road tax" conflict, may welcome.

Anyway, this might be one of my radical idea too far, but I'd really appreciate peoples' views.

28 comments

Avatar
Leviathan [1977 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

'slimline tax disc holder', really, and ruin my cool lines, or just have it ripped off, or have to take it off every time I park on the street. The word 'token' sums it up really. The current system at least allows us to have a comeback about emissions etc, but £5 is a pointless bureaucratic nonsense. Drivers will consider that derisory and virtually no different to nothing. I could spend £5 on Panini stickers, or £5 on a panini instead. And who wants the start the thin end of the wedge.

Avatar
freespirit1 [224 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

How about like zero emission cars that have no VED, you go to the post office, produce your insurance and get a disc.

No need for £5, the mechanisms are already there.

Avatar
giff77 [1251 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

I really don't think that having a 'disc' attatached to ones bike will make any difference. In fact I think that it will only reinforce the misconception that road users pay for the roads. The token charge probably wouldn't even cover the admin, printing the discs etc. You will still have the motor industry et al still referring to VED as road tax and motorists will still attempt to exercise their 'might is right' mentality towards the more vulnerable.

Suggest you wind that window down and get some fresh air in your cab mate  3 but keep the ideas coming  1

Avatar
Neil753 [447 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
giff77 wrote:

I really don't think that having a 'disc' attatached to ones bike will make any difference. In fact I think that it will only reinforce the misconception that road users pay for the roads. The token charge probably wouldn't even cover the admin, printing the discs etc. You will still have the motor industry et al still referring to VED as road tax and motorists will still attempt to exercise their 'might is right' mentality towards the more vulnerable.

Suggest you wind that window down and get some fresh air in your cab mate  3 but keep the ideas coming  1

According to Carlton Reid, "a Freedom of Information request submitted to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, the cost of a tax disc is £1.47 for those bought at a Post Office, and 95p for those bought online".

Yes, it is a misconception, but such a widespread one that maybe it would be easier to just call it road tax and be done with it. When you see videos of cyclists explaining that there's no such thing as road tax you just know it's just going in one ear and out of the other.

I appreciate your points, though.

Avatar
Neil753 [447 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
bikeboy76 wrote:

'slimline tax disc holder', really, and ruin my cool lines, or just have it ripped off, or have to take it off every time I park on the street. The word 'token' sums it up really. The current system at least allows us to have a comeback about emissions etc, but £5 is a pointless bureaucratic nonsense. Drivers will consider that derisory and virtually no different to nothing. I could spend £5 on Panini stickers, or £5 on a panini instead. And who wants the start the thin end of the wedge.

I never thought of the risk of theft of the disc. I wonder if motorbike riders have problems with the theft of tax discs.

True, it could be the thin end of the wedge, but it would be voluntary, so no risk of being forced to pay it. I see it as a way to end all the arguments on the roads. Ie, if drivers harrang cyclists about "road tax" then you would only have to point to the tax disc. But, I agree, it is an unusual concept.

Avatar
arfa [747 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

Hate to say this but with the anti cycling lobby, whatever you pay is never going to be enough as you'd still get "pay your way" etc

Avatar
Neil753 [447 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
freespirit1 wrote:

How about like zero emission cars that have no VED, you go to the post office, produce your insurance and get a disc.

No need for £5, the mechanisms are already there.

True. If the £5 fee is unpalatable then your suggestion would be a possible alternative solution. But the scheme would cost roughly one pound per cyclist per year to administer, which would come out of general taxation, which might put peoples' backs up.

Avatar
freespirit1 [224 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

I ride a motorcycle and never had one swiped from it, had a couple taken from cars over the years.

It was more aggro replacing the discs than the windows!!

As for putting peoples backs up you are probably right as I have had the I pay more than you lobbed at me.

Avatar
Leviathan [1977 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
Neil753 wrote:

True, it could be the thin end of the wedge, but it would be voluntary, so no risk of being forced to pay it. I see it as a way to end all the arguments on the roads. Ie, if drivers harrang cyclists about "road tax" then you would only have to point to the tax disc. But, I agree, it is an unusual concept.

It wouldn't be the end of the argument but the start of one. At least at the moment a motorist using the 'road tax' argument is wrong even if many of them don't know or don't care about the difference. If you introduced a scheme and then make it voluntary you instantly give some weight to the argument. You would be handing a stick to bad drivers, "Oh look you ain't got no tax," how could a voluntary scheme do anything but stigmatize casual bikers.

Avatar
giff77 [1251 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
Neil753 wrote:
giff77 wrote:

I really don't think that having a 'disc' attatached to ones bike will make any difference. In fact I think that it will only reinforce the misconception that road users pay for the roads. The token charge probably wouldn't even cover the admin, printing the discs etc. You will still have the motor industry et al still referring to VED as road tax and motorists will still attempt to exercise their 'might is right' mentality towards the more vulnerable.

Suggest you wind that window down and get some fresh air in your cab mate  3 but keep the ideas coming  1

According to Carlton Reid, "a Freedom of Information request submitted to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, the cost of a tax disc is £1.47 for those bought at a Post Office, and 95p for those bought online".

Yes, it is a misconception, but such a widespread one that maybe it would be easier to just call it road tax and be done with it. When you see videos of cyclists explaining that there's no such thing as road tax you just know it's just going in one ear and out of the other.

I appreciate your points, though.

Yeah, usually when I try explaining to work colleagues their eyes just glaze over. I feel that whatever you do there will always be antipathy towards cyclists as the bicycle is no longer seen as a viable form of transport but a toy.

Avatar
Neil753 [447 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
bikeboy76 wrote:
Neil753 wrote:

True, it could be the thin end of the wedge, but it would be voluntary, so no risk of being forced to pay it. I see it as a way to end all the arguments on the roads. Ie, if drivers harrang cyclists about "road tax" then you would only have to point to the tax disc. But, I agree, it is an unusual concept.

It wouldn't be the end of the argument but the start of one. At least at the moment a motorist using the 'road tax' argument is wrong even if many of them don't know or don't care about the difference. If you introduced a scheme and then make it voluntary you instantly give some weight to the argument. You would be handing a stick to bad drivers, "Oh look you ain't got no tax," how could a voluntary scheme do anything but stigmatize casual bikers.

Hmm. Yes, I concede your point. There is, of course, the concept of getting rid of VED totally, increasing the duty on fuel and just having an "insurance disc". How would you feel about a voluntary insurance disc for cyclists?

Avatar
giff77 [1251 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

No problems with an insurance disc. I know that the Republic of Ireland have these and have done for many years for vehicles. Meanwhile in Northern Ireland you have to display a MOT disc alongside your VED disc. Though how would you find an increase in duty on fuel what with your being a lorry driver? I know it is something that my own dad was very much for and he was a lorry driver also.

Avatar
reallyunique [5 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

I wish this were a good idea, I really do. If all it took was a single payment to appease the motorists and equalise the status of all road users, I'm sure even pedestrians could be convinced to sign up. But it is hardly that simple.

Motorists hate cyclists because cars go so fast that bikes seem to be in their way. They hate cyclists because they can cut through traffic in a way that makes the investment of thousands of to sit in a traffic jam seem like a bit of a waste. Cyclists are law-breakers, dangerous, out of control, and most importantly, not "us".

I am not against the registration of bikes (could help with theft), prosecution for breaking the rules is reasonable even prudent. Regulation should be feared and where possible avoided but it is inevitable and embracing sensible rules is part of the path to integration. Cyclists are already regulated though the rules are poorly enforced mostly because infractions of the rules are far less dangerous than those involving cars. Pedestrian regulations are even less rigorously enforced.

Pay tax and then there'll be insurance, duties on parts, requirements for helmets, high-vis, MOT style testing and, of course, a cycling licence. And after doing all that you'll still be "only a bloody bike". Motorcyclists have similar taxes and regulations to cars and yet are hardly less likely to hear SMIDSY or get shouted at for weaving though traffic. "Those damned motorbike couriers" was a common cry from taxi drivers when I was younger. Appeasement is never the answer, the British should remember this better than anyone.

But if not appeasement then what? History would suggest that only a witches brew of education, legislation and perseverance will improve things. None of this is easy. Education takes money and planning and effort. Legislation takes pressure and money and compromise. Perseverance takes self control and determination. Even then the outcome is uncertain. Now that I list some alternatives I can see why appeasement is appealing. If only it were a good idea.

Avatar
OldRidgeback [2620 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

It'd cost more to set up a system than it's worth. It'd mean bikes would need registration, otherwise the discs could be transferred from bike to bike. So what about race bikes that are very occasionally ridden on the road? They'd need registration too.

It is not a practical proposition.

Avatar
Leviathan [1977 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
Neil753 wrote:

There is, of course, the concept of getting rid of VED totally, increasing the duty on fuel and just having an "insurance disc". How would you feel about a voluntary insurance disc for cyclists?

That is a completely different idea and might actually have legs. But don't expect the 'Fuel tax' lobby to accept any change without strikes and blockades. It is the way it is because taxation often has to balance controlling behavior and maximizing revenues.

Avatar
Neil753 [447 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
reallyunique wrote:

I wish this were a good idea, I really do. If all it took was a single payment to appease the motorists and equalise the status of all road users, I'm sure even pedestrians could be convinced to sign up. But it is hardly that simple.

Motorists hate cyclists because cars go so fast that bikes seem to be in their way. They hate cyclists because they can cut through traffic in a way that makes the investment of thousands of to sit in a traffic jam seem like a bit of a waste. Cyclists are law-breakers, dangerous, out of control, and most importantly, not "us".

I am not against the registration of bikes (could help with theft), prosecution for breaking the rules is reasonable even prudent. Regulation should be feared and where possible avoided but it is inevitable and embracing sensible rules is part of the path to integration. Cyclists are already regulated though the rules are poorly enforced mostly because infractions of the rules are far less dangerous than those involving cars. Pedestrian regulations are even less rigorously enforced.

Pay tax and then there'll be insurance, duties on parts, requirements for helmets, high-vis, MOT style testing and, of course, a cycling licence. And after doing all that you'll still be "only a bloody bike". Motorcyclists have similar taxes and regulations to cars and yet are hardly less likely to hear SMIDSY or get shouted at for weaving though traffic. "Those damned motorbike couriers" was a common cry from taxi drivers when I was younger. Appeasement is never the answer, the British should remember this better than anyone.

But if not appeasement then what? History would suggest that only a witches brew of education, legislation and perseverance will improve things. None of this is easy. Education takes money and planning and effort. Legislation takes pressure and money and compromise. Perseverance takes self control and determination. Even then the outcome is uncertain. Now that I list some alternatives I can see why appeasement is appealing. If only it were a good idea.

You present a very good case. I guess I'm very much in the appeasement camp, when it comes to drivers and cyclists. Peace in our time would be nice.

Avatar
Neil753 [447 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
giff77 wrote:

No problems with an insurance disc. I know that the Republic of Ireland have these and have done for many years for vehicles. Meanwhile in Northern Ireland you have to display a MOT disc alongside your VED disc. Though how would you find an increase in duty on fuel what with your being a lorry driver? I know it is something that my own dad was very much for and he was a lorry driver also.

I'm not an owner operator, but we all try and save as much fuel as we can these days. However, I think a shift extra fuel duty, rather than a fixed annual VED, would encourage everyone to drive more frugally. It's a tricky subject for high mileage operators, that's for sure.

Avatar
OldRidgeback [2620 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

To make such a system work properly, all bicycles would need to have a licence plate, like a car or a motorcycle. otherwise, the tax discs could easily be stolen and transferred. It's because the tax disc on a motorcycle bears the motorcycle's registration number that it is effectively valueless to steal.

So all bicycles in the UK would then have to be registered on the Police National Computer, adding to the complexity. If children's bicycles were exempt however, would this mean they'd still be allowed on roads? Because if not, there would need to be additional legislation to allow them to be used on pavements legally. Remember that children's bicycles may get traded in or exchanged after 12 months as a child grows up.

Are you beginning to see how much bureaucratic complexity and cost bicycle licencing would add? Remember too that every time a bicycle was stolen, the owner would need to register this (which some people don't bother with if it's an old/cheap bike at present) because then any offences committed would might be attributed to the owner. The same would be true for people selling on bicycles.

Do you honestly think the police would be keen to see bicycle licencing since they'd be faced with an additional heap of paperwork?

And if the system was voluntary, what percentage of cyclists would bother?

But since wage earning cyclists are tax payers anyway and their taxes go towards funding infrastructure spending, what possible value do you think a small charge would actually provide, other than making modern life rather more complex than it already is?

Avatar
DaveE128 [536 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

I'm with reallyunique here.

The thing is, the reason these motorists hate cyclists is nothing to do with tax. It's because they are too impatient and self-absorbed to put up with having to wait a few seconds to pass cyclists safely. The tax argument is just an excuse for verbal abuse against people they can't seem to identify with that they see as being "in their way".

(and yes, I drive at least as much as I cycle in terms of time)

Offering to pay money to try to placate these bullies will not work, they will simply demand more. I think the allusion to the Munich Agreement is rather apt! (though obviously on a completely different order of magnitude!)

I think education is the only way forward, and it will take long time to achieve a culture shift.

Avatar
Neil753 [447 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
OldRidgeback wrote:

To make such a system work properly, all bicycles would need to have a licence plate, like a car or a motorcycle. otherwise, the tax discs could easily be stolen and transferred. It's because the tax disc on a motorcycle bears the motorcycle's registration number that it is effectively valueless to steal.

I wasn't thinking of a licence plate, just the serial number on the tax disc would be sufficient. A thief would be unlikely to want to steal a tax disc because being caught in posession of a traceable tax disc would be pretty dumb. If they nicked the bike they would throw the tax disc away, just like throwing a SIM card away if your mobile phone gets stolen. Because the tax disc would only cost a nominal amount, it would be no big deal to just buy another one.

OldRidgeback wrote:

So all bicycles in the UK would then have to be registered on the Police National Computer, adding to the complexity. If children's bicycles were exempt however, would this mean they'd still be allowed on roads? Because if not, there would need to be additional legislation to allow them to be used on pavements legally. Remember that children's bicycles may get traded in or exchanged after 12 months as a child grows up.

I'm only proposing a voluntary arrangement, for adult owners. There would be very little additional cost because the DVLA systems already exist, but certainly the five pounds would more than cover the admin.

OldRidgeback wrote:

Are you beginning to see how much bureaucratic complexity and cost bicycle licencing would add? Remember too that every time a bicycle was stolen, the owner would need to register this (which some people don't bother with if it's an old/cheap bike at present) because then any offences committed would might be attributed to the owner. The same would be true for people selling on bicycles.

I hear you, but the whole point of this idea is to reduce conflict and improve attitudes towards cyclists, which will in turn reduce the 600 million annual cost resulting from KSIs involving cyclists. It would be optional, so if you got your bike nicked you could either forget about it or buy another tax disc. If the thief was thick enough to keep your tax disc then you would actually have a higher chance of getting your bike back. No extra admin, no hassle, just a simple voluntary scheme.

OldRidgeback wrote:

Do you honestly think the police would be keen to see bicycle licencing since they'd be faced with an additional heap of paperwork?

If it meant less attrition on the road, then yes. There would be no paperwork for the police, because there's no legal requirement to report a bike as stolen, so a win win situation.

OldRidgeback wrote:

And if the system was voluntary, what percentage of cyclists would bother?

I don't know, but probably as high a percentage as those who buy poppies to mark armistice day, through a combination of publicity, desire and peer pressure; so perhaps 50 percent? Certainly enough to improve attitudes on the roads, imho. But I could be wrong, who knows.

OldRidgeback wrote:

But since wage earning cyclists are tax payers anyway and their taxes go towards funding infrastructure spending, what possible value do you think a small charge would actually provide, other than making modern life rather more complex than it already is?

I take your point, and you are right, but perhaps, as cyclists, we can go that extra mile for the common good. The fee might be small, and they uptake may only be small (at least initially) but the benefits, in terms of a reduction in really nasty aggression towards cyclists, could be huge.

Avatar
giff77 [1251 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

I sincerely don't believe that having a 'disc' attatached to your bike will reduce aggression and antipathy. Many motorists generally do not like a slower vehicle in front of them. They will tailgate and bully that person out of their way. Today on the way home a rigid forced his way past me at a pinch point, missed my arm by about a foot or so. He then braked to swing left into his employers yard. And all to save several seconds. He had no excuse.

I managed to talk to the transport manager who apologised. Though I'm not sure if he will follow through. I hope he does and I see an improvement in the driving skills of his operators. My nightmare scenario is that I may receive further punishment passes as many people will look for revenge rather than take responsibility on the road. The company's name is now added to my onelifeid as a first port of call if anything happens to me.

Avatar
Welsh boy [293 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

A very poor idea if you dont mind me saying so, all you are doing is giving in to pressure from the minority of motorists who are in the wrong and ignorant. What next? Buckle to pressure from them to use cycle tracks which, no doubt, would then lead to us being forced of certain/all roads? No to the "tax disc" idea. We have as much right to be on the road as horses and milk floats, neither of which pay "tax" but both of which are given consideration by motorists. We will not get respect if we give in to the ignorant few.

Avatar
OldRidgeback [2620 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
Neil753 wrote:
OldRidgeback wrote:

To make such a system work properly, all bicycles would need to have a licence plate, like a car or a motorcycle. otherwise, the tax discs could easily be stolen and transferred. It's because the tax disc on a motorcycle bears the motorcycle's registration number that it is effectively valueless to steal.

I wasn't thinking of a licence plate, just the serial number on the tax disc would be sufficient. A thief would be unlikely to want to steal a tax disc because being caught in posession of a traceable tax disc would be pretty dumb. If they nicked the bike they would throw the tax disc away, just like throwing a SIM card away if your mobile phone gets stolen. Because the tax disc would only cost a nominal amount, it would be no big deal to just buy another one.

OldRidgeback wrote:

So all bicycles in the UK would then have to be registered on the Police National Computer, adding to the complexity. If children's bicycles were exempt however, would this mean they'd still be allowed on roads? Because if not, there would need to be additional legislation to allow them to be used on pavements legally. Remember that children's bicycles may get traded in or exchanged after 12 months as a child grows up.

I'm only proposing a voluntary arrangement, for adult owners. There would be very little additional cost because the DVLA systems already exist, but certainly the five pounds would more than cover the admin.

OldRidgeback wrote:

Are you beginning to see how much bureaucratic complexity and cost bicycle licencing would add? Remember too that every time a bicycle was stolen, the owner would need to register this (which some people don't bother with if it's an old/cheap bike at present) because then any offences committed would might be attributed to the owner. The same would be true for people selling on bicycles.

I hear you, but the whole point of this idea is to reduce conflict and improve attitudes towards cyclists, which will in turn reduce the 600 million annual cost resulting from KSIs involving cyclists. It would be optional, so if you got your bike nicked you could either forget about it or buy another tax disc. If the thief was thick enough to keep your tax disc then you would actually have a higher chance of getting your bike back. No extra admin, no hassle, just a simple voluntary scheme.

OldRidgeback wrote:

Do you honestly think the police would be keen to see bicycle licencing since they'd be faced with an additional heap of paperwork?

If it meant less attrition on the road, then yes. There would be no paperwork for the police, because there's no legal requirement to report a bike as stolen, so a win win situation.

OldRidgeback wrote:

And if the system was voluntary, what percentage of cyclists would bother?

I don't know, but probably as high a percentage as those who buy poppies to mark armistice day, through a combination of publicity, desire and peer pressure; so perhaps 50 percent? Certainly enough to improve attitudes on the roads, imho. But I could be wrong, who knows.

OldRidgeback wrote:

But since wage earning cyclists are tax payers anyway and their taxes go towards funding infrastructure spending, what possible value do you think a small charge would actually provide, other than making modern life rather more complex than it already is?

I take your point, and you are right, but perhaps, as cyclists, we can go that extra mile for the common good. The fee might be small, and they uptake may only be small (at least initially) but the benefits, in terms of a reduction in really nasty aggression towards cyclists, could be huge.

Let's be honest. Most people probably wouldn't bother with a voluntary scheme that charged them £5 for something of no demonstrable value. I very much doubt it'd reach a 50% take-up and I think in reality it'd be lucky to hit 10%.

People wear poppies for other reasons entirely - in memory of those who died in two world wars. I don't see the connection with a voluntary bicycle taxation scheme.

I already pay VED for my car and for my two motorbikes (and most adult cyclists are car drivers as well anyway). All this scheme will do is increase my household costs, particularly since we have 10 bikes in the family.

But are you sure the £5 would cover all the costs involved? I'm not convinced. And what actual benefit would this add to the treasury? Because if it isn't going to add a benefit, then it's pointless to introduce and will fool no one as to its value or purpose.

For those choosing not to opt for a system of no monetary benefit, would they not be at risk from even greater aggression from motorists?

Bear in mind that many racing bikes don't have serial numbers, so they would need licence plates. To give such a system some value to the authorities it would require to have some purpose, such as allowing bicycles and their owners to be identified.

Here's the rub. As the other post makes clear, all this would be doing is pandering to the ignorant and misguided views of those motorists who don't understand how road funding works and who don't understand that while a slow moving cyclist may cause them a momentary delay, the real increases in their journey times come from other motor vehicles on the roads.

Avatar
Carlton Reid [132 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

Cue: "Cyclists only pay a fiver, I pay hundreds of pounds!"

Yet motorists don't shout 'get off the road, you don't pay for it' to low CO2 cars which pay the same as cyclists, i.e. £0.

====

'Why does the motorised majority want cyclists to be taxed and pay for licences & number plates?'

When you hear a call for compulsory cycle training, bicycle licensing and bike taxes (“just pennies a day, why would you object to that?”) it’s not a call for fair-play, it’s a call to drive everywhere.

Those who want cyclists to be trained, registered, pay ‘road tax’ and a bike tax, and apply for licences to cycle don’t want to share the road with lots of licensed, fee-paying, trained cyclists, they want less cyclists full-stop. The ‘no pay, no say’ crowd would use any payment as a “but you don’t pay enough” argument.

From http://ipayroadtax.com/licensed-to-cycle/licensed-to-cycle/

Avatar
arrieredupeleton [576 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

One thought: Maybe our £5s are better spent on a full page advert in the national press, Evening Standard etc. setting a clear message about us all being road users, some just more vulnerable than others. etc etc. etc. It should be a message about safety, respect and obeying the laws of the road (for all parties).

This could be overseen by Sustrans/BC/London Cycling Campaign/Road CC etc. Although I'm sure Carlton Reid and retailers (such as a certain London based boutique cycle clothing shop) could 'assist' in their various ways.

I know nothing of such advertising costs but with corporate backing and kickstarter funding, it might be worth trying...

I think this is more likely to help change drivers' and the general public's perception of cyclists than anything else bar a requirement to ride a bike as part of your driving test.

Avatar
glynr36 [637 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

I'll pay, inline with the current system, so that's £0. Same as I pay now...

Avatar
Simon E [2720 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
Neil753 wrote:

I guess I'm very much in the appeasement camp, when it comes to drivers and cyclists. Peace in our time would be nice.

Appeasement doesn't work.

This issue has nothing to do with whether or how much cyclists should pay to be allowed on the road. The kind of drivers we're talking about don't care, they just want to take their own frustration out on someone they consider 'inferior'. VED is not a license to use the road, it's a tax on vehicle ownership.

And will pedestrians, horse riders etc have to display a valid disc too? I pay VED for a car that sits on the drive all week. Should I get a rebate for that?

Peace will only come when all of the people piloting big, powerful, dangerous vehicles take their responsibility towards all other road users seriously. Cyclists are not obstructions or a hindrance; we are people - sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters - getting from A to B just like everybody else.

Avatar
Shep73 [211 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
Neil753 wrote:
bikeboy76 wrote:

'slimline tax disc holder', really, and ruin my cool lines, or just have it ripped off, or have to take it off every time I park on the street. The word 'token' sums it up really. The current system at least allows us to have a comeback about emissions etc, but £5 is a pointless bureaucratic nonsense. Drivers will consider that derisory and virtually no different to nothing. I could spend £5 on Panini stickers, or £5 on a panini instead. And who wants the start the thin end of the wedge.

I never thought of the risk of theft of the disc. I wonder if motorbike riders have problems with the theft of tax discs.

True, it could be the thin end of the wedge, but it would be voluntary, so no risk of being forced to pay it. I see it as a way to end all the arguments on the roads. Ie, if drivers harrang cyclists about "road tax" then you would only have to point to the tax disc. But, I agree, it is an unusual concept.

Yes, I used to keep my tax disc under my seat cowel or people would nick them. But it's not really road tax is it and drivers can't really aim that at cyclists as our money does not go towards roads.