Cyclist ‘nearly decapitated’ by pallet-spilling driver; Barriers removed on bike lane… because drivers kept crashing into them; Study coming on Kensington cycle lane; G launches cycling club; Derbyshire cops ‘road tax’ gaffe + more on the live blog
SUMMARY
Covid-19 has "got" Luke Rowe
Covid got me! See ya in 2021 ladies and gents. Merry Christmas & a Happy New Year ya filthy animals !!! 🎄
— Luke Rowe (@LukeRowe1990) December 22, 2020
The Ineos rider joins the unfortunate (and quite long) list of pro cyclists who have caught coronavirus in 2020, with Rowe appearing to confirm via the tweet above that he has tested positive.
One of the first to test positive was Fernando Gaviria at the UAE Tour back in February, and the Colombian then caught it again in October. He’ll be relieved to find out that the entire UAE Team Emirates squad are likely be the first on the World Tour to be vaccinated against the disease, with the team’s owner Mauro Gianetti telling Gazzetta dello Sport earlier this month: “In January we want to vaccinate the entire team, the riders and all staff members.”
"Why don't you use the cycle lane?" Because there's a lorry parked in it
If in doubt, park in the bike lane.
South West City Way, Scotland Street this afternoon.#Glasgow pic.twitter.com/LXnP340YS9
— Glasgow Deliveroo Rider (@RiderGlasgow) December 22, 2020
Another day, another blocked bike lane… and another reason to link to this feature.
Just a dude, choppin' wood with his 'e-tree trimmer'
With the wood that’s up for the chop secured on a pallet far more carefully than a certain truck driver’s in the shocking video below, this cunning fella has repurposed his Husqvarna e-bike and turned it into a useable saw (the original footage appeared on the Swedish brand’s Instagram story). Bet you never saw that coming…
The Transcontinental Race set to go ahead in 2021 with revised route
A race manual for the eighth edition of the self-supported epic now exists, detailing route changes and some alterations to the way the event is run to ensure it is Covid-secure.
The TCR organisers say in the manual: “It remains difficult to predict exactly what the summer of 2021 may look like; given the recent fluctuations in cases of COVID-19 and lockdowns in some countries over the past months. It is clear
that a complete ‘return to normal’ is not imminent and we shall all have to continue to manage the health and safety of ourselves, our loved ones and the most vulnerable in our society as best we can.
We must attempt to balance our personal freedom with mitigating the spread of the virus and protecting the most vulnerable in our communities. The news regarding vaccines is encouraging and, as difficult as it is to predict, we may expect leisure travel to be possible in July 2021 with requirements to quarantine, vaccine and/or present negative COVID-19 test results at borders/prior to travel.
“It is important that TCRNo8 riders consider the probability of time constraints and additional expense incurred by travel during COVID-19 when making any travel arrangements.”
It’s thought that the finish will be in Thessaloniki instead of Burgas, and the predicted start date is 27th July 2021, departing from Brest. If all goes to planned, the 2021 winner should roll in almost exactly two years after Fiona Kolbinger arrived at the finish line, having dominated the race which was also her first ever ultra-distance cycling event.
Just how blocked is Kensington High Street's inside lane? Coventry's bicycle mayor to publish results showing how often the former segregated cycle lane is blocked by vehicles
For the last 2 weeks, I’ve been using Google’s AI platform to monitor what % of time the space, previously occupied by a cycle lane carrying thousands of people per day, is blocked by parked vehicles.
Who wants to guess what % of time it’s blocked? Results in the media soon. pic.twitter.com/dTzt646dUT
— Adam Tranter (@adamtranter) December 23, 2020
Adam Tranter says he has used Google’s AI platform “to monitor what % of time the space, previously occupied by a cycle lane carrying thousands of people per day, is blocked by parked vehicles” on the former segregated cycle route on Kensington High Street. He has invited his Twitter followers to guess the percentage, with guesses ranging from 66% (Jeremy Vine’s bet) through to 95%.
The sad sight of this well-used former segregated cycle lane being blocked by vehicles for large portions of the day has become the subject of a tongue-in-cheek Twitter account, originally called ‘Is the white BMW in the RBKC cycle lane still there?’, but now named in tribute to a white van that regularly blocks the route instead. The account admin says they are “looking forward” to the results of the study, and is still posting daily updates.
And just like that, it was gone
Replaced instead, by an example of how parked vehicles cause congestion. pic.twitter.com/dhlIUzRdBc
— Is the van in the RBKC cycle lane still there? (@KensingtonVan) December 22, 2020
Mystery surrounds shocking viral video showing a driver 'almost decapitating' a cyclist then knocking over a pedestrian with loose pallets
Where there’s a blame there’s a claim! 🤠 pic.twitter.com/jXqdyMu1L6
— Danny Bam (@WigansDannyB) December 21, 2020
The video, which first surfaced on Facebook and has now gone viral, shows the driver of a tow truck carrying a dangerously loaded pile of wooden pallets. With a plank of wood hanging off the left side, at 0:17 into the clip the plank comes inches away from hitting a cyclist. At 0:57 a piece of wood and a pallet falls off the van, knocking over a pedestrian, with the driver seemingly oblivious.
Some people on social media criticised the cameraman for appearing to see the funny side and not attempting to stop the driver; however another clip shows the driver and passenger approach the driver of the truck further along the road.
They did stop him haha pic.twitter.com/diIsQsigGN
— mike lee (@micklee86) December 21, 2020
With the driver’s number plate clearly visible, we hear one of the men tell the truck driver that he “twatted” the pedestrian with the fallen wood. The truck driver appears to reply: “Oh right mate.”
It’s not clear when the footage was filmed, who filmed it, or how serious the pedestrian’s injuries were. We’ve contacted Greater Manchester Police for comment.
Festive 500 in a day - road.cc and off.road.cc Matt Page sets off on mammoth 500km challenge at midnight
Anger over sentence for man convicted of assaulting two cyclists in Richmond Park
Royal Parks Police tweeted that 60-year-old Stephen Diaz was yesterday found guilty of common assault against two cyclists in London’s Richmond Park back in April. His received a conditional discharge and £600 costs at Wimbledon Magistrates Court yesterday, and numerous people have now expressed disappointment and anger at the sentence.
Wow. What a joke of a sentence.
— Nadine (@nadine_ansorg) December 22, 2020
Why was he given a conditional discharge? What extenuating circumstances could possibly justify that for an assault?
— Andrew Buss (@ambuss) December 22, 2020
Royal Parks Police explained why the trial was delayed but refused to comment on the sentence, adding: “The delay in the trial at court was due to the backlog at the courts because of COVID. The incident was as a result of a confrontation between two cyclists and two pedestrians on the road going from Sheen Cross to The Royal Ballet School.
“It would not be appropriate that we pass comment on the sentence handed down, it is a decision for the courts.”
Concrete barriers removed on Boston cycle lane... because drivers kept crashing into them
Boston decided to remove the concrete barriers protecting a bike lane because too many drivers were hitting the concrete barriers 🤷🏼♂️ pic.twitter.com/p6O640fejF
— wanye (@_wayneburkett) December 22, 2020
If you thought the reasons given for removing the some London cycle routes were bad, Boston in the US has gone one better by taking away protective cycle lane barriers because some drivers were apparently drifted towards and hitting them.
The Boston Globe reports that the cycle lane, on a stretch of Massachusetts Avenue, had concrete slab barriers installed in November following the death of a cyclist who was killed by a tractor-trailer driver; however the barriers had led to a rise in car crashes according to the Boston Transportation Department.
While many on social media expressed anger and bemusement at the decision, Becca Wolfson, executive director of the Boston Cyclists Union, commented: “We can’t focus on individual behaviour. It doesn’t mean it’s allowable behaviour, but it means the system has to change in a way that stops that behaviour.”
Wolfson suggested that instead of the low-lying barriers, they should be quickly replaced with a “vertical element such as flex posts to better capture drivers’ attention”… pretty much exactly like the wands ripped up on Kensington High Street earlier this month…
Geraint Thomas has launched his own cycling club
G says “everyone is welcome” in his new club, called GTCC, and is asking for those interested to submit their ideas for what makes a great cycling club. A Tour de France winner ain’t a bad start… you can find out more on the club’s Facebook group here.
Derbyshire Police make 'road tax' gaffe
Clueless. @DerbysPolice pic.twitter.com/B9ZizHWtXZ
— Pompey Cyclist (@PompeyCyclist) December 23, 2020
The problem arose when Pompey Cyclist asked the force to edit a section on their website that says the public can ‘report a vehicle that doesn’t have road tax’. They replied: “Good afternoon, Road Tax is still valid, even when cars have nil charge they are still required to apply for it.”
And these are the folks keeping us pedestrians and cyclists safe*
Very worrying.
*I believe it’s blind luck that more pedestrians and cyclists aren’t killed in my area
— Neil E (@Neil_Elkins) December 23, 2020
Hi @DerbysPolice, I’ll just leave this herehttps://t.co/xR18divQTu
— Brian Shannon (@BrianShannon123) December 23, 2020
Some weren’t very pleased with the reply – but we understand that Derbyshire Police are now going to rectify the error.
23 December 2020, 09:29
23 December 2020, 09:29
We won't be too disappointed if you don't do it in one day like our own Matt Page, honestly...
15 tips to complete the Rapha Festive 500 and knock off the kilometres with ease
Looking to make the most of the festive season for your fitness? Here’s how to smash Rapha’s Christmas challenge in the lead up to the new year
23 December 2020, 09:29
Help us to bring you the best cycling content
If you’ve enjoyed this article, then please consider subscribing to road.cc from as little as £1.99. Our mission is to bring you all the news that’s relevant to you as a cyclist, independent reviews, impartial buying advice and more. Your subscription will help us to do more.
71 Comments
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Latest Comments
who don’t want disc brakes or tubeless tyres I DO want disc brakes because they're better, and I DON'T want tubeless tyres because they're a right faff.
Very pleasant to read such a positive article. A rare treat here.
Regardless of whether such a test would be workable, Carera's remarks are stupid and naive. Of course there might be doping. That spectre will never go away. Some of Pogaçar's performances are just insane, they beggar belief. Is he doping? I don't think so. Can I be 100% sure? Of course not.
I'm predominantly a roadie, and I might be wrong so please don't shoot me down, but I think the article is as much about innovation and creativity in the bike industry (plus the debate about, if it ain't broke, stop trying to fix it!). I'm sure innovations in road have crossed to MTB but in recent decades a lot of innovations in MTB appear to have made there way to Road - disc brakes, tubeless tyres, groupset & derailleur designs including bigger cassette ratios etc. - which again I appreciate there's plenty of road purists out there who don't want disc brakes or tubeless tyres, but love them or hate them, these features are now the standard when you buy a road bike. Cheers, Andy
Caravaggio let you use his picture? If not then be careful as from what I’ve heard he’s got quite a temper.
How dare you road.cc. Now I'm back to "0 days without seeing a MTB" and my Friday evening biscuit is a total write-off.
Amazing value for 30 bucks. Add a few stars there rockafella
How much of Halfrauds profits are due to them charging 15% commission on the cycle to work scheme they somehow have tied up so many companies to? Profiting off local bike shops and making more off sales than the IBD does, all because some clueless person in HR doesn't care what cycle scheme they choose, and employees get charged more too.
I'm currently sat next to a bike - but I'm not riding it, not is it on the road. Nor in Surrey. Remove me!
@MaxiMinimalist I see you retain your strange obsession with the claim that the only way Decathlon, a global entity with €16.8 billion revenues for whom the cycle team is an essential primary promotional tool for their kit and bikes, will be able to keep Seixas with a sugar daddy cheque from the owner of their co-title sponsor. Why is this? Incidentally Seixas is not winning the next Tour in any case unless Jonas and Tadej both crash out, so the question is unlikely to arise.
71 thoughts on “Cyclist ‘nearly decapitated’ by pallet-spilling driver; Barriers removed on bike lane… because drivers kept crashing into them; Study coming on Kensington cycle lane; G launches cycling club; Derbyshire cops ‘road tax’ gaffe + more on the live blog”
Be interested to hear what
Be interested to hear what Greater Manchester Police have to say. You’d think it was an absolute slam dunk prosecution. Even without injuring a pedestrian it’s a dangerous insecure load: “This offence carries 3 penalty points and a licence endorsement for the driver. The court may also give the driver an unlimited fine.”
The people filming did stop
The people filming did stop the vehicle but should’ve done so earlier. And they found the situation funny rather than worrying.
TV screen or windscreen, it’s
TV screen or windscreen, it’s just entertainment to some. Until it happens to them.
I always say that to my kids
I always say that to my kids when they’re watching You’ve Been Framed.
So many of the clips on there, you think “If only they’d also shown the ambulance arriving…”.
My guess at what will happen
My guess at what will happen is that the registered keeper of the vehicle will say he doesn’t know who was driving at the time and the police will say they aren’t able to take it any further.
Quote:
And its even a properly segregated lane with a kerb and everything. Did that truck driver seriously think, “Gosh – this is a nicely laid out layby!”…?
brooksby wrote:
Yes.
yep pretty much, I remember
yep pretty much, I remember challenging a power network company who had parked all their vans and kit in bit of segregated cycle lane on my work run ,whilst they worked on a nearby cable fault, and their view was exactly that, it was just a bit of service road,there werent any no parking signs or lines, and by parking there they werent “blocking the road” and keeping traffic flowing.
Exactly, where was he
Exactly, where was he expected to park? On the double yellow where he might have provoked the animosity of other drivers. That would be crazy.
on the no loading or
on the no loading or unloading at any time double yellow lines you mean…well quite 🙂
though why on earth a truck that size needs to be delivering stuff in a city centre environment, what was it picking up a yacht ?
Awavey wrote:
But surely they are committing an obstruction? Or do we need a test case to prove it?
Truck driver is the guy on
Truck driver is the guy on the Pavement looking at the camera. Obviously delivering there and can’t be arsed where he parks as long as it is close.
You’re probably right – I
You’re probably right – I hadn’t noticed him.
Stephen Diaz; Managing
Stephen Diaz; Managing Director at Richmond Park Consulting Ltd, “…proven man management skills with the ability to work under pressure.”
He might want to revise his self-assessment there.
Sounds like a job description
Sounds like a job description for a gigolo.
On his LinkedIn profile
On his LinkedIn profile Stephen Diaz claims:
“proven man management skills…[and] ability to work under pressure”
Shame that doesn’t include not assaulting members of the public that raise his ire.
Pluto, planet.
Pluto, planet.
Road tax, VED.
Does it really fuckin matter what it’s referred to? It’s still the same thing. You KNOW what they are referring to and “road tax” just happens to be what many people refer to VED as. Road tax could also include fuel duty and other taxes paid which involve the use of operating a vehicle on the road. So there is some logic in using the term “road tax”. I really don’t think not being technically correct is worth making such a fuss.
Also the Hollowtech bottom bracket bearings on one of my bikes has a flange on them. Never seen ones like that before. What’s the purpose of that flange and where could I source one online?
You know Pluto isn’t
You know Pluto isn’t officially a ‘planet’ any more, right? 😉
brooksby wrote:
Not wishing to be pedantic, but it is actually a dwarf planet…
brooksby wrote:
Exactly. It’s still the same thing, and it would still be the same thing if I called it a qwijibo.
Yes it does matter. Don’t
Yes it does matter. Don’t mention it, pleased to be of service.
Titanus wrote:
Of course it fuckin does – why would you refer to a tax that hasn’t been levied in approaching a century unless you were being mischievous or just plain ignorant?
And your parallel with Pluto is bollocks by the way….
Captain Badger wrote:
I’m just saying that people informally refer to stuff that may or may not be the official term for it. In this case road tax for VED but we know what they mean.
You think my parallel with Pluto is bollocks, NASA found a rock further away than Pluto that sort of resembles wonky nads.
You sound very upset btw. Hope things improve for you over Christmas.
You do indeed have a point,
You do indeed have a point, people may refer to it as “road tax”, but, and here is the real point, do the police, and their spokespeople on social media, have any responsibility to be in any way accurate?
I, and many of us seem to think they do…
It obviously does matter as
It obviously does matter as idiots keep on misinterpreting what it’s for and then punishing cyclists because of it.
Names can be changed for good reason – the best example I can think of was back in the 1950s when “flammable” became the preferred adjective over “inflammable”. It was a significant safety hazard, but maybe you don’t think that people being burnt is worth making such a fuss?
I’m with Titanus on this one.
I’m with Titanus on this one.
For the vast majority of motorists there is no practical difference between VED and Road Tax.
VED is a charge you have to pay every year in order to use the public road network.
Road Tax was a charge you had to pay every year in order to use the public road network.
Arguing about pooled or ring fenced funds is meaningless to most people.
Most motorists pay a fee to use the roads, cyclists do not.
That’s the crux of the matter and semantics make no difference.
Most motorists pay a fee to
Most motorists pay a fee to use the roads, cyclists do not.
But that is the problem there, that definition. Most motorists pay a fee to pollute and it should be sold that way by every “official” channel at least. Having the Police still refer to it as Road Tax on their official publications perpetrates the myth of what is being paid for.
They don’t pay a fee to
They don’t pay a fee to pollute.
They are free to pollute as much as they want on private land.
They pay a fee to pollute when using the public road network.
That is the crucial difference.
Rich_cb wrote:
They pay a fee to pollute when using the public road network. That is the crucial difference.— Rich_cb
And there you have it Rich, you do understand afterall. They are not paying to use the road – they are paying to use a polluting vehicle on the public highway
It is the pollution that is taxed, not the use of the road…
You only pay the fee if you
.
Rich_cb wrote:
.
Quite
Quite
.
.
Rich_cb wrote:
.
(No subject)
duplicate post
Captain Badger wrote:
Whoever like that, thanks, glad you appreciate it. One of my best gags!
But it isn’t the pollution
But it isn’t the pollution that is taxed at all, is it? If I ‘tax’ my car and for whatever reason don’t drive it, I still pay the same as someone who drives 40,000 miles per year.
DrJDog wrote:
It’s poorly implemented – I’d rather that it was scrapped and instead the tax should be levied on the fuel. That’d make it a bit fairer and certainly easier to administer.
hawkinspeter wrote:
I wouldn’t scrap it, but I agree that fuel duty should be much higher. I would use the VED as an instrument to guide people to make sensible choices when buying cars in the first place. Factors could include carbon footprint of manufacture, third party safety, inflicted road damage for example.
Taxing vehicles based on
Taxing vehicles based on estimated road damage would be a good one (in my opinion). However, that would have next to no effect on cars and would significantly affect the haulage industry (road damage is roughly proportional to the fourth power of vehicle weight).
hawkinspeter wrote:
Indeed it would. Any cost would be passed on by the hauliers down teh chain to the consumer, who in my opinion need to understand the cost of the damage to infrastructure and environment.
DrJDog wrote:
The pollution is taxed. To be more specific you pay for a licence which allows you to pollute. You pay one upfront fee to pollute as much s you want.
In any case the point remains, you don’t pay to use the road – the road is free to use for all. It’s what you choose to use on the road that is taxed, according to the nature of the pollution it generates.
DrJDog wrote:
yes and no. your VED doesn’t change bu they will also be paying a lot more than you in fuel duty. This is why I think VED should be scrapped and the costs moved to fuel. Let those using the fuel and causing the pollution pay the costs.
Also makes collection of revenue easier, all the admin associated with collecting from each vehcile owner every year, chaing the ones that don’t pay sending out reminders beforehand etc. We know longer need the beaurocracy of a tax disc to prove someone did MOT and insure their car at last once a year.
Rich_cb wrote:
Unfortunately you’re wrong. You don’t pay a fee to use the road network. You pay a fee which licences you to operate a polluting vehicle when not on private land.
There is no exception for cyclists, any more than there is an exception for carriages, horses, pedestrians, roller skaters or anything else. Exemptions are only for vehicles with zero local emissions (eg electric vehicles) or low emitters – my i10 is only about £30 a year, whereas my Scenic is best part of x10 that cost.
There is no fee to use roads (except for toll roads, which are generally either private or motorway), they are the public highway and available to all – free at the point of need. What is taxed is motor vehicles on the basis of emissions
Whether some ill-informed people appreciate the distinction is moot when faced with the actual fact.
Hope that clears things up
Captain Badger wrote:
Unfortunately you’re wrong. You don’t pay a fee to use the road network. You pay a fee which licences you to operate a polluting vehicle when not on private land.
There is no exception for cyclists, any more than there is an exception for carriages, horses, pedestrians, roller skaters or anything else. Exemptions are only for vehicles with zero local emissions (eg electric vehicles) or low emitters – my i10 is only about £30 a year, whereas my Scenic is best part of x10 that cost.
There is no fee to use roads (except for toll roads, which are generally either private or motorway), they are the public highway and available to all – free at the point of need. What is taxed is motor vehicles on the basis of emissions
Whether some ill-informed people appreciate the distinction is moot when faced with the actual fact.
Hope that clears things up— Rich_cb
Not really. so you don’t pay a fee to use the road network. You pay a fee which licences you to operate a polluting vehicle when not on private land.
Since a vehicle polutes whether on public or private land it’s not really a fee on poluting vehicles then is it. It’s just another tax, it just happens to be related loosely to polution.
As for the term ‘road tax’, do a google search and see who the top slot is held by – yes it’s the govt. There are also thousands of results from respected organisations who also refer to VED as road tax. Why is this? It’s because that’s how many refer to VED.
Getting hung up on what it is called is pedantic. Cyclists don’t pay because this tax is related to emissions, it has bugger all to do with what it is called or what it is used for – hopefully we can at least agree on that.
But you’re blatantly wrong
But you’re blatantly wrong about “paying to use the public road network” – VED is paying to pollute the air.
Also, stating “motorists pay a fee to use the roads, cyclists do not” is also incorrect as roads are a product of our taxes, so most cyclists will also be paying to use the roads unless they somehow manage to avoid all taxes.
The problem with your
The problem with your argument is that VED is not related to pollution.
CO2 production is a product of vehicle efficiency and mileage.
As VED does not take mileage into consideration it cannot be based on CO2 production.
A car parked on a street all year produces no CO2 yet pays full VED.
An identical car that does 20,000 Kms in 6 months and is then SORNed for the remaining 6 produces large amounts of CO2 yet pays half the amount of VED.
There is no relationship between amount of CO2 produced and VED paid. There is a direct relationship between amount of time legally allowed to use the public road network and the amount of VED paid.
VED is a fee to use the roads. That doesn’t mean that cyclists don’t pay towards the road network. It just means we don’t pay a fee to access the road network.
VED is quite clearly based on
VED is quite clearly based on CO2 production, so your argument is invalid.
From https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/vehicle-excise-duty/vehicle-excise-duty
The reformed VED system retains and strengthens the CO2-based FYRs to incentivise uptake of the very cleanest cars whilst moving to a flat SR in order to make the tax fairer, simpler and sustainable. To ensure those who can afford the most expensive cars make a fair contribution, a supplement of £310 will be applied to the SR of cars with a list price (not including VED) over £40,000, for the first 5 years in which a SR is paid.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Absolute rot. It’s based on the CO2 production of a tested sample of the car over 100km, not the CO2 production of your car in use.
I drive 2000 miles a year in my car, and pay £330 a year.
A driver in a 2.0 Ford Mondeo turbo diesel driving 40,000 miles a year pays £30.
Who is clearly producing more CO2? And I pay 10 times more in VED? Crazy system.
DrJDog wrote:
Absolute rot. It’s based on the CO2 production of a tested sample of the car over 100km, not the CO2 production of your car in use.
I drive 2000 miles a year in my car, and pay £330 a year.
A driver in a 2.0 Ford Mondeo turbo diesel driving 40,000 miles a year pays £30.
Who is clearly producing more CO2? And I pay 10 times more in VED? Crazy system.— hawkinspeter
I didn’t state that it was based on the use of the car, but merely that it is based on CO2 production (which you yourself state).
Why are people chasing their own tails over this?
hawkinspeter wrote:
I feel some image is missing here…
hirsute wrote:
Sorry – I was off making a coffee before perusing my collection of suitable photos.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Our friends don’t like to be wrong, and will argue night is day for it to be otherwise. They are entrenched and can’t ask for a ladder – they keep on digging.
Note it started out on whther road tax and VED are the same – now it’s down to the efficacy of the tax system (without accepting they were wrong on the initial point)
How much CO2 does my example
How much CO2 does my example parked car produce?
It’s based on efficiency.
Which on its own gives us absolutely no idea about CO2 production.
You’re now arguing with the
You’re now arguing with the implementation of VED which I agree is flawed – scrap it and put more tax on the fuel.
I agree it’s flawed but that
I agree it’s flawed but that doesn’t invalidate my point or validate yours.
CO2 production is, by definition, the product of vehicle efficiency and distance travelled.
As a consequence it is impossible for current VED rates to be based on CO2 production. VED are based on the rate that CO2 is produced not the actual amount of CO2 produced.
It’s an important distinction as it disproves the argument that VED is a tax on pollution.
Paying VED allows you to use the public road network, the amount of CO2 you actually produce whilst doing so has precisely no impact on the rate of VED you pay.
The amount of time you wish to access the road network is, however, directly proportional to the amount of VED you pay.
Rich_cb wrote:
That statement of yours is incorrect which invalidates your argument.
My point was that VED is intended to take pollution into account and the relevant page on gov.uk supports that statement.
Have you started early on the Xmas sherry?
Merry Xmas to you, anyhow.
Explain how that statement is
Explain how that statement is wrong?
Does VED take mileage in to account?
Rich_cb wrote:
You’ve got that backwards – you made the claim (about VED being directly proportional to time spent on public roads) so you should provide evidence to back that claim up.
Anyhow, I don’t think this discussion is enlightening anyone at this point, so I’m unlikely to respond (unless I start on the sherry).
Merry Xmas to you all!
VED is proportional to the
VED is proportional to the time that you want access to the public roads.
If you park your car on a road for 6 months you have to pay 6 months worth of VED. If you park your car in a garage for the same period you have to pay zero VED.
You only have to pay VED if you want to use the road. The amount you pay per year is directly related to the amount of time you want access to the roads.
If you require access to the roads for the full 12 months you will pay twice as much as if you require access for 6 months.
There is no relationship between amount of VED paid and actual CO2 produced.
A car driven on the road for 6 months and garaged for the following 6 months would be charged half the rate of a car parked on the road for 12 months despite the fact the car parked in the road would produce no CO2 at all.
Merry Christmas to you too!
Rich_cb wrote:
You tell us.
How much road does it use?
Road maintenance and
Road maintenance and construction is paid for by general taxation, which every wage earner pays.
In any case, I’ve got a car and two motorbikes. Does that mean I’ve got three times as much right to ride any of my bicycles than a car driver with just one vehicle?
You’ve misunderstood my
You’ve misunderstood my argument.
I have not argued that paying VED grants you any special privileges.
I’ve merely stated that VED is a fee payable by certain vehicles to use the road network.
In that respect it is identical to road tax and for most motorists there is no discernible difference other than semantics.
Rich_cb wrote:
The car doesn’t pay, the keeper does. But only to keep a polluting vehicle for use on the public highway. Use certain vehicles and you get reduced fee or an exemption. However, road users (eg everyone who uses the road) are only subject to any duty if opting to use one of these polluting vehicles
Therefore not a road tax, but a pollution tax…..
OldRidgeback wrote:
So by rights non-tax payers shouldn’t be allowed on the roads. I’d vote for that.
Rich_cb wrote:
1) I have a car on my drive, so I am still paying that fee. If I choose to use my bike instead of the car it is wins all round, no fuel costs for me, less congestion in front of other drivers, less wear on the roads and less pollution.
2) Do the drivers complain about electric vehicle users not paying for roads? No, because it isn’t an issue of fairness of payment, it is just a made up excuse because they don’t like the perception of being delayed in their journey by a cyclist, and they want cyclists off the roads.
3) How we are in the state that paying £30 a year VED somehow confers extra priviliges to road users is a mystery to me. If people are choosing high fuel consumption vehicles and so paying more VED that is their choice, lower tax alternatives were available. VED is such a tiny proportion of my annual tax bill as not to be noticable.
hawkinspeter wrote:
That’s definitely an exception. I have came across old gas cylinders with “inflammable” on them and can see how that could be confusing. In that respect, inflammable is literaly worse than the N word.
But, I’d consider that using
But, I’d consider that using the term “road tax” also leads to some drivers endangering other road users because it makes them feel entitled. As it’s both incorrect and dangerous, we should make an effort to correct people when they use it.
Merry Xmas!
Titanus wrote:
Yes it matters, and the reason it matters is why Churchill abolished it. If you call it road tax the drivers will assume that they own the roads and no-one else has any rights.
If you do get into the “road
If you do get into the “road tax” argument try asking if paying more road tax should grant greater “rights” to use the road. If they agree then ask if they wouldn’t mind pulling over to let HGVs past.
Blimey, what a needlessly
Blimey, what a needlessly embittered argument about a tax we don’t even pay on our bikes and e-bikes.
For what it’s worth, I’m in favour of promoting the term “VED” simply because it’s that much harder for gammons to pronounce out of their car windows at speed.
Obviously there are no Daily
Obviously there are no Daily Mail campaigns, local Facebook groups against the congestion and pollution on Kensington High Street. Becuase there is non now that the cyclist have been put back in their place.