The founder of the Motorists’ Association has called on the Government to charge cyclists road tax and force them to pay insurance. Mike Rutherford’s comments were made as part of the Daily Express’s new “Let’s Get Britain Moving” anti-congestion campaign.
The newspaper launched its ‘crusade’ earlier this week, demanding that the Government “sort out Britain’s disgraceful roads NOW.” However, Rutherford, who founded the Motorists Association 20 years ago, set his sights on cyclists and cycle lanes.
“If cyclists want their dedicated lanes and cycle lanes surely they, like drivers, plane users and boat users, should pay for the access. £50 is not a lot and it would help.
“Cyclists should pay their way. Drivers are one of the highest taxed motorists in the world and he or she pay their motoring related taxes, which total about £60billion a year. I don’t know why cyclists are the only ones who are let off from the charges.”
As Carlton Reid, writing over at BikeBiz points out: “Rutherford doesn’t appear to understand that roads are paid for from general and local taxation, not “road tax”. All tax payers pay for roads, not just motorists. Motorists have not paid for roads since 1937.”
As you’d imagine, Rutherford also had something to say about insurance. “Cyclists should be insured. They can run people over and kill them and hurt them. It’s happened, so there should be insurance for bikes.”
His comments came after Lord Alan Sugar recently complained about being held up by engineering works resulting from the creation of one of London’s cycle superhighways. Referring to this incident, Rutherford said: “How does some oik, a complete loser on a bike, go faster than Lord Alan Sugar, who employs a lot of people in this country and is a contributor to Britain?”
Then, in what we can only presume was a reference to his own views, he added: “It’s almost like a comedy sketch.”
Earlier this week, Transport for London announced that it was putting together a 40-strong team of officers with a view to tackling behaviour liable to cause congestion on the roads of the capital. Its main concerns? Not cyclists, but illegally parked cars and delivery vehicles. The city is of course investing heavily in cycle infrastructure having recognised that getting people out of their cars and onto bikes is one of the few ways in which congestion can effectively be tackled.
38 thoughts on “Daily Express campaign calls for cyclists to ‘pay their way’”
My bike(s) are insured, I’m
My bike(s) are insured, I’m insured and I am a loser…… of weight/fat and funilly enough I contribute to the economy also! To all the non cyclist vehicle drivers you don’t pay car tax you pay road fund tax based on emmisions from your vehicle my bike doesn’t emmit any emmisions so I don’t pay road fund tax, but I do pay it for my two cars so probably pay more than you if you only have one car.
I thought we had solved this
I thought we had solved this arguement? Oh wait, that was about whether cyclist should wear helmets. All of the arguements kind of merge into one…
Twat.
Twat.
Which department of the
Which department of the Edifice Of Rutherford do I apply to, to get my Road Tax Exemption for my paltry oik loser’s bicycle, on the basis of the four sets of vehicle excise duty I am already paying for the motor vehicles I own? I wonder if he has any pre-formed opinions about how many adult cycle commuters might actually own a motor vehicle and pay the same “taxes” for it as he does for his?
Do I have to demonstrate that I can achieve an enormous speed regardless of my cycling-or-not status by driving over his foot on my lovely British-built motorcycle?
I’m not sure which order to do various things to demonstrate that all the separate parts of his argument are utterly unrelated, and do not form a whole.
Take no notice. He has been insanely jealous of Clarkson’s reputation and success for years and has made loads of these half-arsed attempts at controversy. If we all ignore him he may go away and get a proper job.
“How does some oik, a
“How does some oik, a complete loser on a bike, go faster than Lord Alan Sugar, who employs a lot of people in this country and is a contributor to Britain?”
So he thinks cyclists are oiks and losers. I take offence at that. The guy is obviously a class conscious dimwit who hasn’t got the mental furniture required to work out how the clever cyclist got through traffic faster than Sugar, and that traffic congestion is predominantly caused by cars, not bikes.
He obviously thinks Sugar should have priority on the roads because he’s an employer and contributor to Britain. Maybe he’s advocating doing away with cycle lanes and have Sugar lanes instead. Maybe he’s just brown-nosing Sugar?
If he encouraged his members to get off their arses and onto bikes it would cause less congestion. He should also be made aware that a great many cyclists are also motorists – and according to an insurance company cyclists are better drivers.
http://road.cc/content/news/172326-insurance-firm-offer-cyclists-cheaper-car-insurance-%E2%80%93-because-theyre-better
I’m all in favour of a road
I’m all in favour of a road tax for cyclists and motorists, just as long as it’s charged in proportion to the damage our prospective vehicles cause.
Engine size or vehicle weight would be a good places to start.
I’d happily pay a couple of hound £s a year as a cyclist and that should cost your average family car by proportion a few thousand a year, it’d be great to see the fuckers and their killing machines priced off the road.
Judging by the recent
Judging by the recent backwards, ill informed claims by backwards, ill informed fuckwits I think that we’re actually gaining some traction.
These sub Clarkson fools will do anything to hold on to their status as motorists, not having the ability or intellect to be identified by anything else – they make a lot of noise as the writing is on the wall; mass uptake of sustainable methods of transport is inevitable, especially in cities. It might be a long way off but we’re slowly turning a corner and starting to have national conversations about what we want our cities and towns to be – society is slowly waking up to the fact that what is good for the majority doesnt fit with an individuals selfish need to pass the costs of their actions on to everyone else. These selfish individuals are starting to be both more vocal and more ridiculous than ever.
Infrastructure is still way below par and cycling uptake rates may be increasing at a glacial rate but I remain certain that in twenty five years bicycles will be the dominant mode of traction in any large connurbation, A big part of this shift is winning the argument against retrograde arseholes like Rutherford – not particularly hard when cycling does have the moral high ground on almost any measure. I ultimately think we should give him enough rope and he will hang himself.
Overall it reminds me of the Ghandi line “At first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win” – the fact that we’re now third on this list actually gives me quite a lot of hope.
Um, what about when Alan
Um, what about when Alan Sugar is riding his bike, like he often does?
Two things:
Two things:
1st Many cyclists have cars, so I am happy to pay a cycle tax if I get a rebate on my expensive car tax and insurance when cycling to work. (i cycle 4 day out of 5)
2nd if all the people in picture above drove cars then the congestion would be worse and average journey would increase
Does anybody actually read
Does anybody actually read the Daily Express?
duzza wrote:
lol, there is that point!
Is this an argument that
Is this an argument that stories like this are actually incitement?
Which i seem to believe is Illegal?
All this is doing is reinforcing the idea that might is right, that cars and there drivers should have free reign and be allowed to trash the environment.
As for £50, my car costs me £20 a year, so £50 is way over the top by any measure! This is before you consider how much money is actually spent on cycle provision and how much i pay in VAT on bike bits per year etc. etc. Or how much of my council tax goes on roads and how much on cycling etc
At least now, with the Cycle
At least now, with the Cycle SuperHighway, Lord Alan Sugar has an alternative if he wants to go much faster and not loose his precious time standing still in the traffic jams.
I suggest him to have a bike ready at the back of the Rolls-Royce so he could jump on it in case of emergency; very classy … and contrary to all those poor
loosersmotorists he has a chauffeur to repatriate the car; a real privilege …frogg wrote:
Has the Express run out of
Has the Express run out of Lady Di conspiracies and scare stories about catastrophic weather?
I like this. Following the
I like this. Following the great blogpost over at https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2015/11/24/cycling-needs-a-backlash/ I can totally get with the “if you’re not causing a furore you’re not doing it right” . If the Express are up in arms about biking, well then biking is moving in the right direction.
I have just looked it up and
I have just looked it up and as we are all in the under 100 threshold band for CO2 emission (g/km), our VED will be zero. I suppose they will need to up the price for polluting vehicles to pay for the extra administration?
I’m quite happy to pay “Road
I’m quite happy to pay “Road Tax” as it doesn’t exist. I would not be happy to pay “Vehicle Emission Duty” (which what I think they are referring to) because I do not produce any – the odd fart aside.
This oik is off to his local
This oik is off to his local MOT station tomorrow morning to check my emissions.
Question:
Where will the hose go? All of my noxious gases are emitted from my exhaust, but my CO2 emissions usually come out the other end, as I huff & puff my way up the hills.
Stop taxing drivers, start
Stop taxing drivers, start taxing drivel.
I am not allow to ride on
I am not allowed to ride on motorways. I expect a discount.
A person can drive a car and pay 0 VED so what sum does this Einstein suggest is a reasonable amount? £50 he says, well if a person has to pay £50 to cycle and £0 to drive then some people will decide to drive instead and he can sit behind them in traffic – well done.
Alternatively he can ask all road users to pay no less than £50. But then he is asking motorists to pay more so thats an immediate fail.
I just ate a really bad curry
I just ate a really bad curry, I’m pretty certain tomorrow’s ride won’t be emission free. I have concerns about my methane footprint and need to know how much road tax I should pay to address this. Probably also trauma counseling for any unfortunate wheel suckers tomorrow.
Well, seems fair to me – so
Well, seems fair to me – so long as we have a pedestrian tax. All those people wearing out the roads which they cross, especially old people who shuffle and youngsters who drag their feet. Some people even want us to pay for lights to help them cross the roads which us motorists have paid for! Outrageous..now where did I put the Mail.
I’m not sure when it happened
I’m not sure when it happened – at least a decade ago. Probably more. But “stupid” became a legitimate point of view – one that required media time in the interests of balance.
I suspect that part of this is due the rise of the internet and places where people only discuss with a self-selecting group, write and read articles supporting their opinions – however wrong. If you point out that someone is wrong, they will just come back with links to a whole bunch of websites that are also wrong. If these websites cite any sources then they are also links to websites that are wrong.
And we end up with vast swathes of people who believe that the most common name for new baby boys in the UK is “Mohammed”, that the earth’s climate hasn’t warmed in the last 15 years, that “a tax disc” pays for roads, that “cyclists are a bigger menace than cars” and that Michael McIntyre is funny.
SteppenHerring wrote:
It started around 2000. Little Britain and Sacha Baron Cohen weaponised stupidity.
This guy hasn’t got a clue
This guy hasn’t got a clue has he! Does he really think that most cyclists don’t own cars and cycle because it’s much easier too. Like the responsible cyclist I am I’m also insured but mainly because I know at some point some in a car will drive into me and I’d like to be able to get my bike repaired as soon as possible.
I count 26 bicycles in space
I count 26 bicycles in space equivalently used by two cars and a motorcycle. Way to much congestion.
I have insurance on my bike,
I have insurance on my bike, and I’m pretty sure bicycles haven’t ever caused a pothole to develop. I pay my purchase taxes and my council tax and my household has two cars. Is this guy asking me to pay *more* in order to ride my bike- to pay more for getting exercise, for keeping my car off the road and reducing congestion and wear and tear on the roads and thus subsidising all the twunts like him who have to be surgically extracted from their cars.
Cycling for local commutes
Cycling for local commutes and local shopping is probably the most ideal form of transport.
Imagine-(looks longingly into the sky dreaming) if the cycling community had a cast iron guarantee that all their ‘road tax’ money was spent solely on creating a segregated linked cycle network, from town to town, city to city. I would be stood at the front of the queue offering to pay and I’m sure other’s wouldn’t quibble.
Cycling for local commutes
Cycling for local commutes and local shopping is probably the most ideal form of transport.
Imagine-(looks longingly into the sky dreaming) if the cycling community had a cast iron guarantee that all their ‘road tax’ money was spent solely on creating a segregated linked cycle network, from town to town, city to city. I would be stood at the front of the queue offering to pay and I’m sure other’s wouldn’t quibble.
It’s nothing more than
It’s nothing more than populist clickbait except rather than one article which will fade away after a couple of days, people will sign up to this one! And they’ll keep clicking back. Winner!
The actual petition is so vague as to be completely meaningless:
“I call upon the Department of Transport to act now to significantly reduce the unacceptable traffic congestion blighting Britain’s roads”
Um, OK how? And what does “significant” mean? 10% reduction? 20%. Everyone who doesn’t read the Express?
Also, they can’t even get the name right, its Department for Transport, not of Transport. Clueless fuckwits.
The Express sums up that awful layer of society, the section that believes that they are perfect hardworking rose-tinted middle England and everything is the fault of others (usually immigrants, benefit cheats or cyclists) and that someone else should sort out all the mess but without taxing or charging them anything. That selfish, self-entitled person who will rant and moan about traffic congestion then get in the car to drive half a mile to the shops without seeing the irony in what they’re doing because the problem isn’t “them”, it’s all the “others”.
Still, they’ll go back to predicting weatherpocalypse in a couple of days and maybe find some evidence that Madeleine McCann is alive and well and living with Princess Diana.
I’m not surprised it’s a
I’m not surprised it’s a Daily Express campaign. Their readers are made up of an army of negative Victor Meldrews who have nothing better to do than find fault with anything and anyone. No doubt they published this rubbish to try and increase their sales figures.
This dope’s head seems to be
This dope’s head seems to be suffering from severe congestion, caused by a jam of polluting old bangers of ideas.
If I paid a tax to use the roads on my bike in proportion to the VED paid for cars, I should end up getting a rebate. As has been pointed out so many times, roads are paid for from general taxation and local rates. I pay income tax already, plus VAT on my expensive bikes and accessories which more than covers the cost of the road use – please remember cyclists don’t use any of the expensive aspects of roads, e.g. motorways and complex junctions, cycles don’t cause wear or damage to roads, they really don’t need much at all compared to cars. Cyclists are often saving car use. They are not polluting and not causing expensive accidents, they don’t cause congestion, in fact do a lot to ease it. Cycling should therefore, oviously, be encouraged, not discouraged by having to be registered and pay even more ‘tax’. VED is an extra contribution to compensate for the amount of pollution and damage to roads paid for by tax payers.
FANTASTIC!!! I am really glad
FANTASTIC!!! I am really glad that this serial masturbator (shame his father wasn’t!) is so agitated. To me it obviously means that the cycle infrastructure is significant enough to be having a negative effect on motor traffic. For too many years cycling infrastructure was just a bit of paint on the roads, with no effect on motor traffic (and hence, of no real benefit to cyclists), so they were not really bothered by it. Now that it’s disruptive, they’re getting pissed off (perhaps understandably so). I think these cries of dismay from motorist lobbyists are a sign of progress for non-motorised traffic.
Don’t waste your breaths talking about what car tax is and how the roads are paid for, or that most cyclists also own cars and therefore pay the same motor-related taxes. Anyone with a braincell can do a little research and find this out.
This is incitement and a form
This is incitement and a form of prejudice and hatred based on ill informed personal opinion. How is it permissable to print this, try a similar slight against an ethnic group for example and watch the backlash.
Cyclists and other vulnerable users have had to tolerate extreme violence and death at the hands of the motoring die hards for decades and frankly his bile is deeply offensive to a group of people who face greater levels of intimudation than modern day sexism, racism or any other ism you can think of.
Ok, someone called you a name or you lost a promotion because the boss is a chauvanist. Least youre alive, cyclists face discrimination daily to far worse levels and where is the government response to tackle that?
Cyclists are discriminated against so why can we not collectively demand change or take UK government to the European Court?
Hopefully this sad individual will get run over by an uninsured ‘poor old motorist’ and get a reality check.
I’m pretty sure there is
I’m pretty sure there is already a network of ‘superhighways’ for motorists (I think they all start with M). Now, I drive so pay ‘road tax’ but I’m pretty sure that even if I didn’t have a car I would still be paying for these motoring superhighways through my income tax etc. Thus it’s fair that Mr Rutherford should help pay for a cycling superhighway. Maybe he should feck off back to Genesis.
It needs cyclists to get
It needs cyclists to get organised and all leave their bikes at home on a certain day and drive instead. Publicise the protest and repeat weakly anti the petrol heads get the message. We are reducing congestion, easing your journey. We are not an inconvenience.