Scottish govt plans to boost cycling by… taxing cyclists
Joined up government: How to encourage something by taxing it?
Scotsflag.gif
Scottish civil servants have suggested a road tax on cyclists in Scotland in a document whose principal aim is to boost the numbers of Scots on bikes. The idea is contained in the Scottish Government's draft Cycling Action Plan (CAP) for Scotland – public consultation on the draft plan has just closed. The centrepiece of the plan is a Government target that by 2020, 10 per cent of all journeys in Scotland are by bike.
The CAP does not say how the Scottish Government would square the circle of encouraging more cycling by taxing people who ride bikes. Nor does the draft proposal address the issue of double taxation. Scots who pay council tax or income tax will already have contributed to the upkeep of both local and national roads, and Vehicle Excise Duty (road tax) is not an entry fee to use the Queen's highways which belong to everybody (well, the Queen technically) and are paid for by everybody, it is merely a contribution towards the amount of wear and tear a vehicle causes – and not a full one either.
Given that the wear and tear caused to the roads by a bicycle is virtually nil, were cyclists to be charged on the same basis as motorists, the cost of collecting the tax (like the old dog licence) would be far greater than the revenue raised. If cyclists were to be charged on a different basis… stand back and wait for the inevitable explosion.
Indeed that explosion has already come, with Scottish cycling and green groups being loudly vocal in their opposition. A number of the cycling organisations that contributed to the plan also say that the road tax proposal was slipped in at the last minute without their knowledge. Peter Hayman, the CTC's representative in Scotland, and a CAP board member, is reported as saying that the road tax proposal was not in the draft version that he saw before it went off to civil servants for final preparation, and he has attacked the proposal as being "completely impractical".
Whether a road tax on Scottish cyclists will ever see the light of day has to be extremely doubtful – such measures have been proposed before and have failed to pass a basic reality test along the lines of how would it be implemented and enforced without costing far more than it could ever hope to raise?
The Scottish draft plan makes no mention about how such a tax would be collected from cyclists but, according to a report in Scotland on Sunday, civil servants favour a licensing system, with bikes having number plates, administered by local authorities. Ken Livingstone memorably suggested something similar a few years back for London before all the many pitfalls of such a system became clear – not least the heinous cost of implementing and then enforcing such a system. Shortly afterwards the proposal was quietly dropped. More recently, the US state of Oregon proposed taxing cyclists that proposal too was greeted with predictable ire.
One other aspect of the proposal which doesn't seem to have been thought through is that if cyclists are forced to pay a tax to use the roads they might expect something back for their money in the form of better road design, and stricter enforcement of existing traffic laws, all of which would cost even more money.
Well at least it would have the advantage that ignorant drivers would have to get a new shout rather than 'you dont pay road tax' or similar
Also if they did bring it in surly the answer is ride on pavements.
Paying taxes will encourage people to cycle? What madness is this?
OldRidgeback
I'm sorely tempted to click "Flag as offensive" !!
Number plates, eh? Yesterday was absolutely beautiful and I saw loads of families and individuals out on their bikes, bikes which certainly usually lie in garages unused. If they had to worry about the legality of using their bikes there is NO chance they would have been out.
We pay these idiots to have these stupid ideas!
Grr. al.
yet more bureaucracy gone completely mad .... is there
no end to their greed for our limited supply of money ?
come the revolution .....
still on the 3rd switch-back of Bwlch !
Some pithy quotes from Robert Burns would be as apt now as they were when he wrote them. I can think of a few.
Here's a thing - I've three bicycles so would I have to pay tax for all of them? We have nine bicycles in the house in fact, so would all have to be registered? Bear in mind that three of the nine are BMX race bikes and are not used on road. So would race bikes that are not for road use have to be registered? And what about thoe rusty old wrecks lingering in sheds and gardens the antion over, would they face being registered or the crusher?
So much for a green alternative.
On a similar note, a dullard of a politician tried to introduce a ruling saying that all motorcycles, even ones used for racing or kept in museums, would have to be registered or face crushing. This was thrown out when the DfT realised how mind numbingly expensive this would be. The dullard politician carried on with his quest regardless, despite being told it was a hopeless case. The DfT finally managed to stop the move, on grounds of complete unworkability.
OldRidgeback
Is Scotland running short of money?
The CTC has a PDF document that answers 10 common questions on this issue and other common misconceptions. The file is here. It's worth reading IMHO.
And I already pay what ignorant people call 'Road Tax'. Perhaps I should request a refund for the 90% of the time I spend on my bike instead.
Yep, the more time I spend riding my bicycle(s), the less time I'm wearing down the road using my car, which is of course taxed. As for the road tax I pay on my motorbike, I don't seem to get any safety benefits from the DfT which appears to have zero interest in motorcycle safety. Oh and the motorbike causes fractionally little more road wear than any of my bicycles.
OldRidgeback
ah yes, seems like another ill-thought-through panic measure to try and restock the coffers
not all carbon is the same.
The road tax system is now geared to reward green cars- you only pay £35 per year for an efficient TDI. How much greener is a bike? They should pay you to ride!
Rewarding drivers of low emission cars is no bad thing but it's a bit ridiculous that small 4 stroke motorcycles, which use even less fuel and produce less emissions, are more costly to tax.
OldRidgeback
Of course they are running out of money! That's the trouble with socialism, running out of other people's money. Public servants and Scottish ones at that, don't you just get fed up with them? Go get a real job.
Keith M
yeah that's what you need some conservative types in charge, like President Bush maybe… oh wait a minute he gave umpty billion of other people's money to a load of bankers, that was well spent 
Darned if I do…
Not wishing to stray off topic here, no, no, no would never want to do that, but isn't the SNP the government in Scotland - last time I looked they weren't socialists.
And as far as I can see the big difference up there is that they spent money on the people who need it like the old and the young of course what they should have done was to shovel a few billion of other people's money in the direction of all those needy banks rather than people who live in Scotland. What dunderheads
Obviously the taxing cycling IS a stupid idea
Oh dear. Now go and actually read the original article in The Scotsman. Pay particular attention to the last line. The one where the Scottish Govt spokesperson says that there are NO plans to tax bicycles.
Such is the standard of journalism on this country that (a) what was once Scotlands leading quality newspaper is prepared to print such garbage and (b) the gullible and uninformed are prepared to repeat it ad nauseum. You see, when you live north of the border, you learn to see through such unionist-leaning bile.
That may well be true druidh, but the suggestion is in the draft plan and our story does say that it is extremely unlikely ever to happen, indeed in an earlier version of the story we said this was merely civil service kite flying exercise… which doesn't stop it from being stupid, as was Ken Livingstone's similar idea.
I've got no brief for the Scotsman either way, but the reason Scotland's leading newspaper is prepared to print such garbage is because it's news.
As to the quote at the end of the piece in Scotland on Sunday, well they would say that wouldn't they, and just to play devils advocate would a licence be a tax?
either it's in the CAPS or it's not. If it is is, it's news, no matter what the Government spokesman might or might not say - i'll bet they're not the one rubber stamping whatever comes out of the consultation.
365 responses on the scotland on sunday website: nice to see the usual hackneyed old arguments get played out north of the border too
Tony, will you admit that your headline is, at the very least, misleading? The Scottish Government does NOT plan to boost cycling by taxing cyclists. And why not include the quote from the government spokesperson in your article? Ah - I guess that makes the whole thing a lot less interesting and generates fewer clicks for your website eh?
There's a plan (the CAPS) whose aim is to boost cycling, and it includes a draft proposal for a cycling road tax. isn't there?
if a spokesman says "there are no plans to tax cyclists for using the roads", and such a plan exists, even in consultation form, then it's the spokesman that is misleading, not the headline.
Tags |
Singletrack MTB mag
road.cc on YouTube
18 comments