It seems there really is a road tax again. In his seventh Budget as chancellor – the first Conservative Budget in 19 years – George Osborne has announced reforms to Vehicle Excise Duty which will see money raised earmarked for road network improvements.
Osborne said:
“I will return this tax to the use for which it was originally intended. I am creating a new roads fund from the end of this decade – every single penny raised from VED in England will go into that fund to pay for that sustained investment our roads so badly need.”
Road tax was abolished in 1937 and replaced by Vehicle Excise Duty, the proceeds of which have up until now gone into the general Treasury fund. References to "road tax" are of course often made by drivers as a means of suggesting they have more right to the roads than cyclists (or indeed than pedestrians or horse riders).
A new system of Vehicle Excise Duty will be brought in for new cars from 2017 and while no extra revenue will be raised, the Chancellor claims it will be "more secure". It will be emissions-based in the first year, after which there will be three levels – zero emission, standard and premium. Around 95 per cent of vehicles are expected to fall into the standard category, which will cost £140 a year.
Under the new system, cars emitting 0g/km CO2 will pay nothing – the same as a cyclist. Or at least it would be the same as a cyclist if a 2010 study hadn’t found that the people who cycle the most are likely to own at least two cars. Cars with a list price above £40,000 will attract a supplement of £310 per year for the first five years in which the standard rate is paid
The Chancellor also froze fuel duty for the rest of the year.
CTC is concerned that today’s announcements could effectively create a 'road fund' and lead to calls for a similar tax on cyclists to pay for the Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy. The original 'Road Fund' was abolished in 1937 thanks to opposition from Chancellor Winston Churchill who argued that spending motor taxes only on roads would lead to motorists assuming a 'moral ownership' of them.
Roger Geffen MBE, Policy and Campaigns Director at CTC, the national cycling charity, said:
"George Osborne has today reversed Winston Churchill's most sensible transport decision. Given this, it is therefore a relief that Parliament and the Prime Minister are already committed to cycling investment, and to 'cycle-proof' all road and traffic schemes to ensure cycling is properly designed into them from the outset.
"However, CTC still believes this is a doubly regressive policy, raising more tax from cleaner cars to build more roads, when councils are struggling to maintain the ones we’ve got. And we still want to know how much the Government will allocate to the promised Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy, and when they will confirm this.”
Jason Torrance, policy director at Sustrans, commented:
"Vehicle Excise Duty is a tax on pollution: those cars which create the most greenhouse gases are taxed most heavily. Siphoning that revenue into a new Roads Fund will inevitably lead to further pollution and undermines its original purpose.
"Over this parliament alone £15bn will be spent on new roads. Research proves that creating more road capacity will lead to increased demand, and therefore more miles driven.
“The Chancellor has kept the tax on fuel frozen at 57.95p a litre for more than four years, which is a populist policy but one which fails the public in that it serves only to lock them into having to use their cars.
“With physical inactivity, pollution and congestion increasing across the UK, investing in cycling and walking is an economic silver bullet and government must act across all departments to secure significant investment. Government must create a Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy that guarantees long-term funding for active travel.”




















80 thoughts on “Road tax is back – Chancellor announces Vehicle Excise Duty reforms that will see money raised reserved for road improvements”
Divide and conquer.
Divide and conquer.
Maybe we as cyclists should
Maybe we as cyclists should start displaying VED discs on our bikes, zero value of course based on emissions. Wonder how much that would cost the treasury to administer?
kwi wrote:Maybe we as
Wouldn’t be so quick to assume it will be zero, the BBC are reporting 95% of drivers will pay £140 a year. What proportion of cars are zero emission today???? Suggests that virtually all new cars will be rated the same. Although they also say pegged to emmissions, so f*** knows how that works!!!!
IMO it would make more sense to scrap VED, and just add a few pence on to fuel costs.
Looks like the idea of dissuading drivers from using polluting vehicles has gone out the window. Drive WTF you like, screw the environment!
The chancellor must be on
The chancellor must be on drugs….
Well, that looks like a yes.
zanf wrote:The chancellor
But at least he’s knocked the prossies on the head:
http://usvsth3m.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/george-osborne-with-natalie-rowe1.jpg
farrell wrote:zanf wrote:The
But at least he’s knocked the prossies on the head:
— zanf
Knocking prossies on the head is usually what precedes stuffing them in a suitcase and dumping them in the Regents Canal.
Will this make driving more
Will this make driving more expensive, and thus encourage a shift to cycling?
Ramuz wrote:Will this make
As I read it no, not really, if you buy/PCP/Lease/etc a brand new car, which isn’t cheap (but not stupidly expensive either), in my case my £20 a year polo will goto £140 a year (if the BBC numbers are right).
If you are looking at secondhand cars a few years old, who knows??? will they reband existing or continue with the existing rates???
If however you buy some stupidly polluting Range Rover sport then rather than 400 in the first year it looks like you will still be paying £140!
I would wait for the final details, but I am not hopeful!
mrmo wrote:
If you are
Only new cars not existing cars.
1st yr will be £2k on a RR Sport. But I can’t see that’ll stop you buying one if you can afford one in the first place.
Ramuz wrote:Will this make
No it means that the chancellor hates cyclists and more drivers will feel justified in being tw~ts on the road because they are paying ‘road tax’.
kie7077 wrote:Ramuz
There has been a trend lately, that despite the current tide of a modal shift towards cycling, that all authorities seem to be planning towards a big shift back to driving.
TfL’s long term plan is an increase in driving over the next 30 years. Oil is currently at its lowest price for quite a while and negotiations with Iran are going ‘well’.
Cars isolate and insulate people from each other. With the current trend, expect more divide and rule tactics.
I almost think the “road tax”
I almost think the “road tax” element is designed to be a distraction. This is what you should be concerned about:
If you buy a small efficient car, you’ll be paying £140 more, currently £0. If you buy a great big urban tank, you’ll pay £350 less, currently £490.
Almost all vehicles will pay the same £140 rate, this will mean more urban tanks.
bikebot wrote:I almost think
First year tax is £2000 on a ‘great big urban tank’, so only cheaper in the 6th year (maybe).
found the bit in the budget,
found the bit in the budget, ALL new cars will be charged at £140 a year except those that are zero emission. (Table 2.5)
and cars listed at over £40,000 will pay an extra £310 a year for the first 5years after registration.
It may be of no surprise but CTRL F on the budget document for the word cycling returned no results….
Plenty of talk about money to spend on roads.
As mrmo says we need to wait
As mrmo says we need to wait for the finer detail. But as I read it when you **buy a new vehicle you are no longer exempt** for the first year of duty. And any vehicle made after 2017 will fall into one of three bands. Any existing vehicle will continue in the existing band sit looks like.
All this does is ring fence VED for roads and as it will not be enough all other general taxation will continue to be used as well.
Sadly all those drivers out there with single IQ figures will continue to be convinced that their ‘road tax’ pays for the road. Maybe we can convince them they are paying for the roads twice now.
Edit ** are currently exempt
Really – return of road tax!
Really – return of road tax! Thanks, that’ll help.
Cue anti-cyclist twitter meltdown.
We should campaign for the
We should campaign for the associated literature and public information over this new tax to clearly state that cyclists fall into the zero emissions group (along with zero emissions cars).
Why not increase VAT on sale
Why not increase VAT on sale of ALL new cars to 25% and then add a 10% congestion tax to the sale price?
Ring fence 10% of all VED collected for improving cycling infrastructure i.e. dedicated segregated routes as in Holland.
As ‘road tax’ will be paying
As ‘road tax’ will be paying for the roads, what will the savings be on Council tax?
teaboy wrote:As ‘road tax’
None. What this article omits to mention (as did the Chancellor, but not the Treasury’s full report) is that this road fund is purely for the “Strategic Road Network”. That’s operated by Highways England (formerly the Highways Agency) and accounts for only 2%-3% of total road length (although a third of all traffic and two thirds of freight).
Councils’ funding will be cut again in September’s Spending Review, probably causing more red-faced outrage on the part of Sun-readers who assume that Town Hall Bureaucrats are squandering Their Road Tax.
It doesn’t even make economic
It doesn’t even make economic sense. Hypothecating taxes doesn’t increase the tax take – it just cuts down on the flexibility of the government. Politics is what drives this, and appealing to the Mr Toad vote. It’s depressing.
Edgeley wrote:It doesn’t even
I guess now we know what Clarkson, J. was doing after leaving Top Gear – advising the Treasury…
brooksby wrote:Edgeley
If I remember correctly, he advocates (or used to) just putting the tax cost onto the price of fuel…..not that it’s important we know what he thinks about anything though!
LarryDavidJr wrote:brooksby
If I remember correctly, he advocates (or used to) just putting the tax cost onto the price of fuel…..not that it’s important we know what he thinks about anything though!— Edgeley
Actually makes a kind of sense? those who use the system pay the most? those who use it very rarely pay less?
and it’d be pence in the £ kinda increase really? with the cost of petrol going up again who would notice.
3…2…1…
Brian Cooke is
3…2…1…
Brian Cooke is a TfL board member.
Like clockwork bikebot, like
Like clockwork bikebot, like clockwork. I wonder if he wakes up at night in cold sweats dreaming of cyclists 👿
Arno du Galibier wrote:Like
No, thats the angina.
bikebot wrote:3…2…1…
I would suggest he should consider a more active lifestyle, perhaps he should consider cycling to work. He appears to be a little over weight, and with the associated health issues I don’t see why I should have to fund an A&E visit if he has a heart attack….
mrmo wrote:bikebot
I would suggest he should consider a more active lifestyle, perhaps he should consider cycling to work. He appears to be a little over weight, and with the associated health issues I don’t see why I should have to fund an A&E visit if he has a heart attack….— bikebot
It’s been suggested before. But if you’re a cyclist, he’ll block you on twitter and his account is now private. Of course he’s still making transport decisions that affect everyone in London (though expect him to disappear as soon as Boris is gone).
bikebot wrote:mrmo
I would suggest he should consider a more active lifestyle, perhaps he should consider cycling to work. He appears to be a little over weight, and with the associated health issues I don’t see why I should have to fund an A&E visit if he has a heart attack….— mrmo
It’s been suggested before. But if you’re a cyclist, he’ll block you on twitter and his account is now private. Of course he’s still making transport decisions that affect everyone in London (though expect him to disappear as soon as Boris is gone).— bikebot
If you do vote Tory and a cyclist surely Goldsmith would be an ideal choice ? Surely he is pro cycling ?
As for Labour think Khan is, Jowell is.
If any serious cyclist voted
If any serious cyclist voted Tory in May you deserve this. I am proud I would never vote for that scum or UKIP so I can rant on at leisure.
This is nothing but a sop to the UKIP faction, try and divide those who pay and do not. Of course the vast majority of us drive so pay VED now so those who say that I do not, can STFU.
http://www.bikebiz.com/news/r
http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/tories-resurrect-cyclist-baiting-road-tax/018100
Some interesting comment on the original reasons it was scrapped here.
Quote:1st yr will be £2k on a
That’ll knacker the lease market. 😀
In 2012/13 the government
In 2012/13 the government raised approx £25 billion in fuel duty and £6 billion in VED.
It spent approx £8 billion on road infrastructure.
Source RAC foundation
http://www.racfoundation.org/motoring-faqs/Economics#a14
So Osbourne’s statement is just political posturing and meaningless in financial terms.
Privileged c*nt changes taxes
Privileged c*nt changes taxes to help other privileged c*nts. No news there.
Anyone who voted in this shower of pricks, serves you right. Shame the rest of us have to live with it.
Most comments here seem to
Most comments here seem to assume that those who had been able to recognise the difference between VED and road tax in the past, are now going to start mowing cyclists off the road left right and centre.
Most comments here seem to
Most comments here seem to assume that those who had been able to recognise the difference between VED and road tax in the past, are now going to start mowing cyclists off the road left right and centre.
Let’s take one, if not the
Let’s take one, if not the only positive point from this… They are saying that all of the money raised will be ploughed back into the roads…
I would happily welcome better maintained and higher quality roads with open arms. Not only are they safer to cycle on, but safer foe drivers around the cyclist as they won’t be dodging drains and potholes every 10 metres!
PhillBrown wrote:Let’s take
Except as Sean highlighted. 6 billion raised from VED and 8billion spent on roads. Even the fact that motorists will no longer be exempt from the first year this money raised will not cover the shortfall and the roads will continue to be funded from general taxation which also includes the duties raised from fuel. It is further posturing to the the motoring lobbies.
Nowhere in this budget can I find anything to cover sustainable transport be it trains, buses or bicycles which would take more vehicles off our roads and in the long term relieve the NHS.
Am I missing something here?
Am I missing something here? Why so angry people?
I watched the relevant bit in the budget and didn’t think it was too bad. Ok, the wording insinuates, that more money from it will be going towards roads (giving the cyclists don’t pay tax etc. people some ammo), but nobody knew that anyway. Also, the emissions based way they’re doing it from 2017 was always how it would have to be done.
And tbh, raising the fuel duty isn’t a way to get people to cycle. Plus I rely on a motor vehicle too. I can’t cycle everywhere (though, I try).
Maybe they should rename it Vehicle emissions duty or something.
Am I going mad here? Its
Am I going mad here? Its still VED, not ‘road tax’.
as far as I can tell, all this is just a smoke screen for a tax cut?
And the notion that the tax revenue raised by the VED is being ring-fenced to pay for roads is just rubbish political posturing. This is not a new tax, and road building is not a new expense (although it does sound as though the government is looking to build more roads). Tax money is spent on roads, and you can claim it came from anywhere. You might as we say ‘VAT is ring fenced to pay for the NHS’
Must be Mad wrote:..the
Not if they plan to hypothecate “road tax” and resurrect the “road fund”, which is exactly what Gideon has said they are planning to do:
“..I am creating a new roads fund from the end of this decade – every single penny raised from VED in England will go into that fund..”
Must be Mad wrote:….You
If only the vat from my wiggle spend was ring fenced for cycling infrastructure.
It does say zero emission
It does say zero emission vehicles will still pay zero.
so sadly economic activity is
so sadly economic activity is still ruling the roost… any attempt to get more people out of cars and into active travel it appears is being blocked because that would reduce our ‘economic activity’ and hence our GDP and thus make it look like we’ve gone into recession…
oh and it would also reduce motor and oil company profits…
they’ve been well and truly captured by the road lobbies…
Brilliant, best move anyone
Brilliant, best move anyone could do for the cycling/road tax argument.
“Why don’t you get off the road, you don’t road tax?”
“Actually my good friend, I do pay road tax, it’s just I’m zero rated”
Cue cyclist pedalling away.
Yorkshie Whippet
Because they always hang around to engage in conversation … :/
Brian Cooke is just a
Brian Cooke is just a dinosaur. Consider that he is part of TfL yet cannot comprehend that cyclists have zero emissions so will pay the same as band zero vehicle owners…. NOTHING.
Nothing changes, business as usual. If you feel that strongly about it have a jersey printed with “Zero Emissions = Zero Road Tax”
So seems you’re “scum” if you
So seems you’re “scum” if you *horror* dared vote Conservative, but the same people who say that are fed up of being called “scum” by those motorists who use the “you don’t pay road tax” line.
I guess you’re all allowed to be hypocrites?!
I wouldn’t call Tory voters
I wouldn’t call Tory voters ‘scum’ – most of them are merely misguided fools. No, the ‘scum’ are the ones actually in power…
“I don’t have to pay this
“I don’t have to pay this new-fangled road tax, because the roads are mine and my pedestrian friend’s by right.”
Suits me.
THERE IS NO ROAD TAX. THIS IS
THERE IS NO ROAD TAX. THIS IS STILL A TAX ON CARS, NOT ROAD USAGE
There will be another election before the end of the decade, and even IF the torys are still in government, still plenty of time to gorget this if tax revenue is needed elsewhere.
As other have pointed out, its a totally empty gesture then the tax collected from VED is less than the total road spend.
Its Just political spin to appeal to the Mr toad crowd
Must be Mad wrote:THERE IS NO
Doesn’t matter. If it goes ahead as described then it will be a hypothecated tax that “pays for roads” which only motor vehicles are liable to pay.
That’s clearly divisive and justifies the “you don’t pay for the roads” criticism.
It will be used to justify reducing spending on cycling infra, or introducing a bicycle tax, or both.
GrahamSt wrote:If it goes
Maybe but only in the minds of ignorant people, and you won’t change them anyway.
80% of cyclists own a car. Mine is not zero-rated so I will be paying the tax DESPITE using my bicycle for most my journeys. So any ignorant jerk who wants to argue about it can pay my ‘Road Tax’ for me in October.
I have been paying VED since 1989. Almost every year until 2001 I paid twice because I also rode a motorcycle. I have never considered that this bought me any kind of privilege.
I was cycling down a local
I was cycling down a local road recently when a HGV driver leans out of his window ” get of the road you fucking twat”.
At least he has the bollocks to say what he thinks, unlike all the cockwombles who just want to frack the last bit of value from oil whilst talking shite about growth.
I would invite irate
I would invite irate motorists to inspect my zero emission badge.
Seriously, I doubt a new fund will undo the years of local neglect to our roads, most of it will go on bypasses and motorway upgrades. Your local innercity through route will still be down to the council and dug up to buggery by Virgin Gas and Welsh Amazon Water.
Surely he has to include a
Surely he has to include a line on the table which reads
Cyclists £0
Anthony2303 wrote:Surely he
Not really. Without looking at the legislation I’d guess VED only applies to “motorised vehicles” or somesuch.
Unless you want him to enumerate every possible roadgoing vehicle… Unicycles, recumbents, tricycles, horse, horse and cart, pony and trap…
I can’t see this making much
I can’t see this making much of a difference as to how that certain type of driver views a ‘non road tax paying’ cyclist. They already believe cyclists have no rights to be on the road, informing them ‘road tax’ was abolishing in 1937 won’t make them change their minds neither will the zero emission argument.
So that explains the near
So that explains the near misses I had on the way to work today. Thanks Ozzy. =D> =D>
been thinking about this, VED
been thinking about this, VED is being used to fund strategic roads, that was what was clearly stated. SO drivers have no right to use any roads that aren’t motorways or other major routes. They aren’t paying for them so have no right to use them!!!!!
Just using the road tax logic…..
To avoid confrontation just
To avoid confrontation just disguise your bike as a huge, slow moving penis then just tell people you are driving a Toyota Prius…..most people are unable to tell the difference.
Complete faffing and a waste
Complete faffing and a waste of time. Just spend the money where it needs to be spent, i.e. do your job and budget, it is what the res of us do. Moron.
What next? Speeding ticket fines revenue to be ring fenced to pay for new road signs? Parking fines will directly contribute the trident missile programme?
“…while no extra revenue
“…while no extra revenue will be raised…”
Yes, of course, because politicians do things for the good of it.
matheson wrote:”…while no
the red book afterwards confirms it will raise extra taxes along with for example insurance tax hikes ..
hearing the AA moan about that eh ?
I don’t understand the
I don’t understand the relation between the pollution and the need to maintain roads. If there are only zero emission vehicles, you don’t need to maintain the roads?
Plus, if you think of electric cars as zero emission vehicles you’re completely wrong; how much nuclear power plants do you need to run them? Heck of a lot. So much wrong that as of now nobody knows what to do with nuclear waste … It’s just another genre of pollution!
Completely clueless politicians. err, they are just very well paid corporate representatives .
CheapMonk wrote:I don’t
Could you be any more utterly ignorant, good grief.
Have you never heard of renewable energy? Vehicle Emissions Duty is to encourage people to pollute less, electric cars pollute less. The more renewable energy we install, the less electric cars pollute.
CheapMonk wrote:I don’t
You’re right about zero emissions vehicles being fairly polluting, but not down to the nuclear power plants. We’re still very dependant on burning fossil fuels for our electricity. Like it or not, nuclear waste is a relatively small problem compared to our co2 issues. Nuclear is the only realistic way forwards at the moment. Obviously, i’d prefer wind, tidal and solar, but we can’t build enough to sustain us (even if we could get past all the anti renewable idiots).
New Nuclear plants are much more efficient, producing less waste and even green peace is now backing them!
robthehungrymonkey
You’re right about zero emissions vehicles being fairly polluting, but not down to the nuclear power plants. We’re still very dependant on burning fossil fuels for our electricity. Like it or not, nuclear waste is a relatively small problem compared to our co2 issues. Nuclear is the only realistic way forwards at the moment. Obviously, i’d prefer wind, tidal and solar, but we can’t build enough to sustain us (even if we could get past all the anti renewable idiots).
New Nuclear plants are much more efficient, producing less waste and even green peace is now backing them!— CheapMonk
Nuclear is horribly expensive and with half a century to decide, still no-one knows what to do with the waste. And accidents, the nuclear industry have proven many times that they are incapable of getting nuclear power without making a huge mess of it.
And Greenpeace do not support nuclear, get your facts straight.
Nuclear Power and Nuclear Energy Dangers | Greenpeace
Nuclear power | Greenpeace UK
The transfer of energy to the
The transfer of energy to the vehicle from the power plant is another inefficiency. Unless the power generated is from nuclear of renewable then electric vehicles are a poor idea. Their only benefit is to reduce air pollution in cities.
Quote:The transfer of energy
I can see that a new nuclear power station is probably the most efficient and reliable form of power generation at present.
However, still not sure what we do with nuclear waste: World civilisation has been around for about 6000 years tops (including the time when we built mud cities and cut people’s hearts out to make the sun rise); we’ve had nuclear power for, say, 70 years, and we have nuclear waste with a half life the far side of 10,000 years…
(Basically, we need someone to invent a working Mr Fusion unit like on Back to the Future 2. Household waste, garden waste – pop it in Mr Fusion.)
MInd you – we’d still have to maintain the roads.
brooksby wrote:I can see that
Bury it in concrete or underwater or fire it into the sun. The waste issue shouldn’t put us off the best source of energy that we have.
Roads? Where we’re going, we don’t need roads.
And another about nuclear, if
And another about nuclear, if we were to derive all of our electricity from nuclear (and forget about electric cars) there would only be a 20 year supply of uranium. Nuclear is expensive, reprocessing nuclear fuel is extremely expensive. Getting uranium from seawater is both extremely expensive and also very resource intensive (oil!!!).
Nuclear is a dead end – a very expensive dead end with a horribly long waste legacy for very little gain.
The world can be powered 100% renewables when you stop trying to limit renewables to just wind + solar.
▶ Powering the World With Wind, Water, and Sunlight: Mark Jacobson at TEDxPaloAltoHighSchool – YouTube
▶ The storage necessity myth: how to choreograph high-renewables electricity systems – YouTube
kie7077 wrote:And another
Are you saying coal power stations over nuclear? You’re arguing against nuclear with renewables (which is obvious to people that care). My point and one i’ve heard from a lot of clever people in sustainability, is that at some point you have to be real and get rid of the coal fired power stations. At the moment, that means nuclear. As much as i’d love it not to, renewables aren’t going to embraced universally.
I think it’s pretty clear
I think it’s pretty clear what I’m saying, we don’t need coal or nuclear.
kie7077 wrote:I think it’s
In an ideal world, I completely agree. However, consider the opposition a wind turbine in the middle of nowhere gets… we don’t live in an ideal world. That was all I was trying to say.
I’d much rather we were all renewable. Shall we all move to Iceland or Chili?
The “emissions” thing is just
The “emissions” thing is just a red herring everyone seems to fall for. VERA, the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 states in its introduction
“A duty of excise (“vehicle excise duty”) shall be charged in respect of every mechanically propelled vehicle…”
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/22/section/1
It’s not emissions that governs whether a road user must pay VED or not, it is mechanical propulsion. It makes a decent kind of sense, the roads having originally been constructed (and still being legally also) for foot and hoof traffic. Mechanical propulsion gives road users a means of benefiting unfairly from a resource provided at public expense. Any move to make the roads pay-to-use makes them private, not public. Winston was right.
To be honest, I don’t mind
To be honest, I don’t mind these challenges – it drives innovation in lower forms of green technology. As far as I understand, there still will be a low (cost free) tax band for the cleanest forms of driver technology. The VED should be based on emissions and damage to the road caused. From my experience vehicles such as HGV, Buses, Vans and Cars all cause damage to the road whereas a bicycle does not.
As I’ve said, for a cyclist who cycles 500 miles a month and works in research in this area – hopefully it will drive for more innovation as the clean credentials are a valuable USP.
So, who pays for the
So, who pays for the pavements which are er, next to the road?
“it is therefore a relief
“it is therefore a relief that Parliament and the Prime Minister are already committed to cycling investment, and to ‘cycle-proof’ all road and traffic schemes to ensure cycling is properly designed into them from the outset.”
FFS the CTC have believed this lie? I thought they were more savvy.