Pay attention to discourse around cycling for long enough online, down the pub, on radio phone-ins or talk shows and you are sure to hear mention of ‘road tax’ eventually, but it is not cyclists who are going to be asked to pay vehicle excise duty (or VED, to give it its proper name) by Jeremy Hunt in next week’s Budget.
The Daily Mail is reporting the Chancellor will use Thursday’s Budget to change the current Treasury rules and require owners of emission-free vehicles to pay VED for the first time in a bid to plug a projected £7 billion shortfall.
Chancellor Hunt yesterday warned he would be forced to make “eye-watering” decisions in next week’s Budget, with an estimated £54 billion hole in public finances to fill and a “tough road ahead” for the UK.
The news comes as the Bank of England warned we could be facing a two-year recession, the longest on record, but is likely to be controversial as it will be a disincentive for motorists to switch to electric vehicles.
The Mail’s political editor Jason Groves reports extending VED to electric vehicle owners comes as the Treasury has “mounting concern” that “the drive for net zero will rob the government of huge tax revenues paid by motorists”.
Emission-free vehicles are exempt from the £165 standard VED rate and the £335 premium supplement for vehicles costing more than £40,000, and the Treasury fears more people switching to electric could result in £7 billion lost in VED and £27 billion in lost fuel duty.
What is ‘road tax’?
Road tax or vehicle excise duty (VED) is a tax collected by the DVLA, with vehicle owners paying at least the first year based on the CO2 emissions of their vehicle. While vehicles registered prior to April 2017 pay annually primarily on their official CO2 emissions, vehicles registered after April 2017, after the first year, pay an annual fixed rate of £165 (plus the luxury £335 supplement if the list price is more than £40,000).
The Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that in 2022-23 VED will raise £7.2 billion, equivalent to around £250 per household and 0.3 per cent of national income.
113 thoughts on “‘Road tax’ is coming… but not for cyclists”
Insanity.
Insanity.
Put the increase on low mpg gas guzzlers.
When petrol came back down in
When petrol came back down in price why wasn’t the tax decrease put back on?
Because petrol hasn’t come
Because petrol hasn’t come back down in price. Hope that helps.
You’d think at this juncture that the scales would fall from people’s eyes and see that the motorist is treated as a simple cash cow for the treasury, rather than this being a “tax on emissions”, or whatever excuse is given.
It’s come down 30p a litre in
It’s come down 30p a litre in the last month or so, not far off pre-pandemic level. Saw £1.59 today. Deisel well over 185 still
Rakia wrote:
So we should be. Vehicle use has a massive effect on obesity, diseases linked to gas and particulate emissions, and a huge cost to the government to maintain and improve the roads for an ever growing number of heavier and heavier vehicles. Motorists absolutely should be taxed accordingly.
Absolute rubbish. Vehicles
Absolute rubbish. Vehicles are no more a cause of obesity than roads are a cause of vehicle accidents.
Obesity is usually caused by people being lazy, and accidents are usually caused by negligence.
On vehicles harming health, nothing could be further from the truth. Since cars came into existence, life expectancy has increased in every country. It’s obvious why, cars are one of the primary engines of economic growth and prosperity. Without it, society wouldn’t have today’s remarkable health outcomes.
Rakia wrote:
This is why you should be turfed from this site for obvious trolling (as you have been so many times in the past). Nobody could actually genuinely be that stupid and still be above ground.
Of course! Increases in life
Of course! Increases in life expectancy certainly isn’t due to increased prosperity, the most peaceful period in history, and modern medicine! Oh no, it’s because of… *Checks notes* the cancer-causing, fossil-fuel-burning, internal combustion engine. I think that being able to report misinformation on sites like this (so it can be duly removed) should be a legal requirement.
“Since cars came into
“Since cars came into existence, life expectancy has increased in every country.”
So it’s cars, not medicine, improved sanitation, an increase in living stanards, decrease in multinational wars, reduction in smoking, increase in activity, pensions, welfare support…that has lead to increased life expectancy?
Well I might as well give up work and just drive all day long.
Do you deliberatly post complete crap?
“the motorist is treated as a
“the motorist is treated as a simple cash cow for the treasury” Yet more wisdom. Yet so wrong.
And if anyone is so stupid to
And if anyone is so stupid to believe that it has not come back down in price, then on the price on the giant lit up board, just outside my flat, which had read £1.90 and is now down to £1.60 and has been for several weeks.
Even a child knows this.
Even a child knows this.
https://www.racfoundation.org
https://www.racfoundation.org/data/uk-pump-prices-over-time
You’re welcome.
That chart shows that petrol
That chart shows that petrol today is an average price of £1.64 a litre down from £1.90 in July, so absolutely exactly what ktache said.
Taking about people who
Taking about people who couldn’t “genuinely be that stupid and still be above ground”, here’s Rendel Harris pretending that 165p a litre means petrol has “come back down” to pre-pandemic levels of circa 122p a litre.
If you’re going to keep trolling, at least put some effort in son
Nigel Garrage wrote:
I didn’t say that Nigel, so you’re either, again, very, very stupid or being a lying troll. I suspect a mixture of the two.
You get less like the
You get less like the intelligent person you claim to be and more like a slightly sad Walter Mitty every time you post.
You now resort to mixing up 3 previous posts from 3 different posters and quoting the bastardised result as if it was a direct quote from Rendel. How sad you must be.
So this is how logical people
So let’s rewind:
Ktache states: “When petrol came back down in price why wasn’t the tax decrease put back on?”
I state: “Petrol prices haven’t come back down” and produce evidence to show this to be factually correct.
Rendel Harris then trolls: “That chart shows that petrol today is an average price of £1.64 a litre down from £1.90 in July, so absolutely exactly what ktache said.”
I then outed his trolling by pointing out petrol was formerly 122p a litre. You will note that he took on ktache’s false assertion with his claim.
You (who has previously claimed to act with courtesy and decorum) then rudely and falsely accuse me of being a “slightly sad Walter Mitty”, despite me pointing out incontrovertible facts.
Ad hominem attacks are not only crude, but are prima facie evidence of someone who has no intellectual argument.
Let’s rewind. You quoted
Let’s rewind. You quoted something that wasn’t said by the person you attributed it to, whether or not that was what he intended. That’s bad form.
On the other point, I immediately apologised for offending you with a typo. You ignored the apology and questioned my intelligence. Sorry but that’s declaring open season for me to pick up on every single falsehood or mistake you post. Happy to call it quits, all you need to do is stop with the snide remarks about other people’s education. Your call.
Expecting who has had
Expecting who has had multiple usernames and multiple bans to be reasonable is well, unreasonable.
What do you hope to achieve?
On reflection, I think I
On reflection, I think I simply allowed myself to be wound up by someone who doesn’t know the first thing about me making slurs about what he perceives to be my standard of education and my intelligence. Perhaps he hit a weak point, perhaps I like to make my own mind up about someone rather than just accept what others say about them, perhaps I was just naive but to me it’s pretty telling that having given him several opportunities to engage constructively there has been absolutely no response to either of those offers and no change in his tone where he continues to attack what he sees as my low level of intelligence. He clearly has no interest in reasoned debate, can’t accept that anyone could hold a valid opinion that differs from his world view and continues to try to enforce a view that I am intellectually lacking whilst he is innately superior. I see enough people like that on TV everyday, with politicians of all sides and almost all nationalities preferring to proclaim their polarised ideological credentials rather than work to solve the many and varied challenges we face. I don’t need to interact with any more of them on here. Time to simply ignore his ilk. Those willing to engage constructively, even if they hold polar opposite views to me on the topic under discussion will probably still be engaged with as normal.
No, you are wrong
No, you are wrong
the tax cut brought in earlier this year is what was being talked about. Not prepandemic costs of fuel.
fuel costs are back down from their peak, which was what the tax cut was meant to alleviate. As the price has dropped the tax cut shoukd be reversed.
oh, and piss of Nige.
Votes.
Votes.
Wait until next week .
Wait until next week 🙂 .
I’d perhaps predict an increase for next year onwards. It will help emissions going forward, so could be a green flag to wave.
Surely the problem is that
Surely the problem is that VED has been changed for new cars not the old ones. So my son’s old 59 plate diesel focus was still only £30.
thats a tricky one because of
thats a tricky one because of needing to factor in the “paid for” costs of production.
I’d certainly like to see some way of making the equivalent electric model thousands cheaper than the ICE model. We need to aggressively drive people away from new ICE cars that will still be on the road in 2030.
Tricky one that. I’d support
Tricky one that. I’d support increases in line with inflation, but I see the argument around that rates should be changed significantly (especially for diesels). The problem I have with that is that people buy new cars based on the information available at the time. There was a massive push to buy diesels because they were thought to be significantly better for the environment. We now know of course that’s BS, but I don’t think that well intentioned people should be punished.
Diesel is worse than petrol
Diesel is worse than petrol for local air quality, causing respiratory diseases. But petrol is worse for CO2, which is making the planet uninhabitable for humans. Opinions vary about which is worse.
There are precedents for changing the treatment of cars after good-faith purchase, with ULEZs etc, and it tends to be poorer people with older vehicles who are affected. Edinburgh is planning to ban most pre 2006 petrol cars. Whether that will make any significant difference in return for the problems it will cause poorer people is unknown.
This was inevitable, given
This was inevitable, given the uptake of evehicles and the losses to the treasury, but sadly, it removes one of our most useful ripostes when told that bicycles don’t pay tax, which was “neither do electric cars.” Still, I’m sure we’ll think of something.
Given the grasping nature of the tories, I’m not sure that they’ll stop at cars; ebikes next?
I think they’ll stick with
I think they’ll stick with the current division – below 15.5mph / 250 W are bicycles; above are mopeds.
Seems quite tidy.
Things like microcars may be a more interesting boundary blurrer.
Recent reseach has shown that
Recent reseach has shown that tyre and brake wear contribute significantly towards particulate emissions – probably on a par or worse than the best modern fossil fuel engines.
Ok all cars emit from tyres and brakes, and fossil fuel engines produce other noxious gases, but electric vehicles are obviously not completely emission free, so maybe VED is warranted – but should be proportional and significantly less than fossil fuel vehicles.
The logic probably extends to particles emitted by bicycles tyres/brakes but suspect due to the significant weight difference the proportional VED would be fractions of pennies and cost more to collect.
It’s all about magnitudes of
It’s all about magnitudes of harm though. We KNOW climate change is likely to kill millions and cost trillions. Particulates are the less evil.
Although from a “politics”
Although from a “politics” perspective people are interested in themselves and their immediate surroundings. Global issues are distant in space and time. So it’s much easier to get people interested talking about risk of asthma locally (do cute kittens get asthma? That’d help the campaign). Witness what happened with LTNs – “uncaring middle class liberals don’t care that Salima’s now being KILLED by all the traffic FORCED to idle in congestion down her street.”
It’s inevitable. The treasury
It’s inevitable. The treasury needs the funds and fuel duty is going to run out very quickly. I believe the rise in electric and death of more traditional fueled vehicles will reach a tipping point almost overnight. Anyone looking to replace their car now should be considering electric… and as soon as demand drops below a certain level fuel stations will close meaning the change will accelerate.
I’d be in favour of a mileage charge.
It’s a bit like the LPG
It’s a bit like the LPG/Autogas phase. Used to be there was a pump at every service station, now you need to plan your journey in almost the same way as an EV driver. The difference though is that long haul delivery vehicles won’t be electric any time soon, and that’s a big part of service station demand
This is what the Germans are
This is what the Germans are building for long haul electric vehicles.
https://youtu.be/_3P_S7pL7Yg
Darn, that will be one less
Darn, that will be one less argument to use on the “cyclists should pay RoAd Tax” front. How much then for a bike – if it will shut you up? (it won’t)
I’ve never yet seen a driver
I’ve never yet seen a driver attempt to ram a green plated car off the road – but I have had a “You don’t pay road tax” “Neither do you” exchange with an electric car driver.
Cyclists don’t cause potholes
Cyclists don’t cause potholes, yet are put at the most risk by them. We should get tax back.
Sensible move. All cars
Sensible move. All cars should be taxed. Most of their harm is done by car-ness rather than petrol-ness.
However, I did think at first this was going to be about road pricing rather than VED.
Time to take hirsute’s advice
Time to take hirsute’s advice (and others) I think, having been guilty myself. It’s all very well going for bait occasionally, but when someone’s all but erected a sign saying “fIsHiNG hErE” and is casting about with a bit of old crisp wrapper on a string, or is just lobbing rocks into the water…
On “good ways to complain /
On “good ways to complain / take a critical stance” I would suggest the libertarian middle-aged grumpiness of BikesnobNYC. And lo, he’s only covered the recent “close pass on child”, the tyre extinguishers, driving under the influence and some other stuff in all in one bloviation. I don’t agree will all the takes there but he writes it better than most. Plus he has at least paid his dues at cycling, cycle activism, getting your kids cycling and indeed to the bank for his car.
I don’t know if I would say
I don’t know if I would say he was a libertarian, definitely not in the trump, tea party sort of way, maybe liberal, but with a bit of a socialist bent, not quite Bernie or Elizabeth Warren, but getting there in a new York democrat way.
Definitely Grumpy!
Apologies – I was forgetting
Apologies – I was forgetting that words don’t translate across the pond. I was meaning “doesn’t take anyone he thinks is telling him what to do” – probably the key is in the “…NYC” part!
It was that he’d recently been taking a pop at e.g. some of the active travel folks and/or people who complain a bit about cars, those getting overexcited about COVID or global warming…
Liberty, personel freedom
Liberty, personel freedom maybe. But with a conscience.
Not gun toting, truck driving?
I used to find Bikesnob quite
I used to find Bikesnob quite amusing and thoughtful but parts of that piece sounds like a middle-aged man shouting into the wind.
chrisonatrike wrote:
Yes maybe…the thing is that Nigel will continue his nonsense whether ignored or challenged, as he’s shown before in his many iterations – he’s so desperate that he came back this time pretending to be a foreigner, like some sad twat in the local trying to come back in with a false moustache after being barred. It surely is time that road.cc mods take some action, they’ve banned him at least twice under different usernames for racism and other offences, if he’s allowed to return simply by generating a new account it makes a mockery of any pretence that the site is moderated in any meaningful way.
They PBUs, they will all push
They PBUs, they will all push it a bit far, again, and become CBUs.
Can’t help themselves…
I think like hawkinspeter I
I think like hawkinspeter I’ve got bored of the repetition. If it is the same folks then they can be safely ignored. They’ve shown what they want out of interactions – nothing new will come of it. If you don’t want to play their game, don’t play with them!
But they are never left
But they are never left unchallenged so the alternate hypothesis is not tested.
Do you have any evidence that
Do you have any evidence that road.cc moderators have really banned anyone? Do we have any evidence that there are moderators? Could road.cc afford monitors if it wanted them?
I’ve always guessed that the trolls get bored and tour all the websites/fora/swamps that they can find.
Superpython/behindthebikeshed
Superpython/behindthebikeshed/cyclinginbeastmode was banned.
On multiple occasions, well 3 times (at least), though he wasn’t really a troll, went too far on some things. Unlike some, proper cyclist.
Xena got banned, full on conspiracy nutter, obsessed with YouTube. But loved their bicycles, and shockingly light ones at that. Came back, banned again.
Some get banhammered, almost all trace of them is removed, makes some threads read very strange.
Great Eastern/Enjoy the Ride
Great Eastern/Enjoy the Ride (formerly known as Nigel Garrage et al, currently operating as Rakia) was definitely banned for racism and other misdemeanours, which is why it’s so ridiculous that they’re allowed back under a new account with no attempt (bar their first week of pretending they were a foreigner) to disguise themselves whatsoever. Makes rather a mockery of the process, really.
Yes, as all their posts were
Yes, as all their posts were removed.
Moderators is just just a generic term for maintaining the site. I doubt anyone has a full time job moderating.
I’m not aware that road.cc
I’m not aware that road.cc has dedicated “moderators” as such but I’ve definitely seen comments from the staff writers (Dave Atkinson, John Stevenson etc.) to the effect that they can and do ban users (temporarily or permanently) if they feel appropriate. There’s also the role of “Community Editor” currently held by Simon MacMichael https://road.cc/content/news/introducing-our-new-community-editor-292277
.
.
Needs something to take
Needs something to take account of mass and torque and mileage.
Although the fairest way is likely to be too oblique for most people.
Tiny city ecars, should be
Tiny city ecars, should be encouraged. Lower tax than pointless huge ewankpanzer.
Like a Canta? https://www
Like a Canta? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9ly7JjqEb0
Or a Leitra? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQINk7Mnn5s
(I apologise again – it seems lycrist infiltration has taken place and the last is not a *e-car* but an ebike. Or is it?)
At first it a good idea but
At first it a good idea but after a year or two we’ll have the same traffic as a full size car I think Japan had this idea
If I were in charge, VED
If I were in charge, VED wouldn’t be banded, and it would have nothing to do with tailpipe emissions, which local pollution charges like the ULEZ would target instead. VED bands, like Council Tax bands, are essentially caps on the top end. We don’t need them.
I’d implement a simple calculation along the lines of:
(weight_in_tons ^4) * (width_in_m ^2) + (list_price/100) = annual VED
This would give rough VED amounts as follows:
VED is a ludicrously outdated
VED is a ludicrously outdated concept. Given that the supposed purpose of ‘road tax’ is to fund highway maintenance, vehicles with highest kerb weight should by charged accordingly.
I agree that taxation on cars
I agree that taxation on cars should increase with the damage caused (though in my opinion distance traveled is much more significant than kerb weight – a 10tonne lorry driven 6mi will cause significantly less damage than a 2tonne car driven 20,000mi), but VED is certainly not an outdated concept.
VED never was intended to pay for the maintenance of roads. VED goes into the general fund, and road maintenance is paid from the general fund, so there is no direct link for VED paying for road upkeep.
The purpose of VED was to reduce CO2 emissions – a significant greenhouse gas and contributor to climate change. The fact that so many cars now have such low (or nil) VED payable is a clear sign that this particular government policy has worked.
If the government removes VED now without replacing it with something that keeps CO2 emissions low, all that good work could be undone.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
This is not quite true, from early 20th century to 1937, the Road Fund was hypothecated for the building and maitenence of roads, from then on until (IIRC) 2001, it was a flat rate per vehicle class, and tnen a scale of bands were introduced based on CO2 emissions. This made way for the “rush for diesel”, as these were more fuel efficient and had lower CO2 output. Ultimately, so many vehicles became either exempt or very low rate (less than £100), the latest scheme was introduced where vehicles registered after March 2017 attract a flat annual rate (currently £165), with a an uplift to £520 for the first 5 years if the list price new was over £40k.The first year rate is still a sliding scale based on emissions, however this is year 1 only.
Note that none of these are retrospective – a vehicle registered in 2000 will pay a flat rate, one registered between 2001-2017 will pay the emissions based rate, anything after March 2017 will pay the flat rate.
In my opinion, the way ahead has to be a usage based scheme.
mark1a wrote:
Yes – and apparently even during the period when the Road Fund was hypothecated to road maintenance, the pot was infamously used for other purposes anyway, so it became known as the Raid Fund.
Good move. Forget the
Good move. Forget the emissions, the fact is that many EVs are huge. And they cause congestion too, even if they are not pumping emissions out. The excise duty should be to encourage drivers not to drive everywhere when there are viable options.
All electric cars do is move
All electric cars do is move the exhaust emissions somewhere else. Everything else remains the same (energy and resource usage, size, road wear, humans crashing them into things, noise once they’re going above 20mph or so, particulates from brakes and tyre wear, taking up space when parked, need for infra for fuelling the vehicles…). Now emitting elsewhere does have benefits: a) you get economies of scale / your emissions may “just” be CO2 and not all the soot / catalytic converter particles that ICEs give you and b) renewables and nuclear can contribute. So it is a form of harm minimization and not to be sneezed (or coughed) at. It does add the issue of “lots of batteries” though.
EVs have a raft of extra
EVs have a raft of extra resourse needs and waste outputs associated with electronics, electric motors, batteries etc. Small EVs are useful in cities to reduce air pollution, but EVs are just as impactful on the ecosphere as fossil fuel vehicles. The only rational approach is reduction of resourse use and waste production.
chrisonatrike wrote:
Don’t forget that EVs are significantly heavier than ICE vehicles and so they produce comparatively more tyre pollution. Thanks to their weight, they probably produce more brake dust pollution, but they sometimes use regenerative braking, so I don’t know how they compare.
The other issues with EVs are that their batteries can’t be easily recycled and their batteries require nickel, cobalt and lithium to be mined which is a toxic and filthy process. There’s also the question of how our electricity infrastructure needs to be changed to deal with potentially millions of EVs.
There’s advantages to EVs, but the real advantage comes from people using smaller vehicles for personal transport e.g. e-cycles, e-scooters.
I odn’t thinks that is quite
I don’t thinks that “just moves the exhaust emissions somewhere else” is quite right. Though I am with you on “a form of harm minimisation” – but so is everything.
They are significantly reduced by decarbonisation of electricity supply.
The radio programme pushed on here a few days ago – “Net Zero : A Very British Problem” Transport episode (strange title – it is a more universal problem). quoted a figure of 75% less carbon emitted over the lifecycle of electric vs fossil fueled car.
It’s at about 27:15.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001c6wp
Background
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-how-electric-vehicles-help-to-tackle-climate-change/
mattw wrote:
Does that include the production of the vehicle? There was a recent study (made by Volvo, so possibly a pinch of salt required) which indicated that EVs are so much more polluting to build that they need to do 70,000 miles to break even with a ICE’s “total carbon footprint”.
I’d like to see the sums
I’d like to see the sums (will probably go check). Comparing “like with like” is more tricky. I’ll accept “better than present”. However I am slightly suspicious of numbers and there is definitely frank lying in favour of a good story (“zero emissions!”).
Although you’ve got to draw the line somewhere we have been more-or-less consciously ignoring the “externalities” of many of our “goods” and especially cars. Hence the common trope of “I’m a cash cow! Do you know that UK motorists pay *far* more than the cost of building roads!” – well maybe, but not enough to cover the cost of health care, damage to buildings, bollards and bridges etc.
Our “clean” power comes of course with its own fossil fuel budget e.g. transporting the materials and maintaining the structures, the vast amounts of concrete and steel manufactured for this etc.
We’ve outsourced a lot of our manufacturing from the West to places where the percentage of energy coming from fossil fuels (and more polluting ones at that) is much higher than here. Another “emit elsewhere” even when we can say “look – no smoky exhausts or chimneys at my factory here!” Of course that issue may be similar between electric vehicles and existing ICE vehicles. I don’t know what difference the extra weight / batteries make in terms of “carbon budget”. I’m pretty sure that e.g. Chinese-run mining concerns in Africa (or scouring the sea bed) don’t come with an “environmentally approved” or “future proof” stamp.
That was based on the average
That was based on the average carbon intensity for electricity worldwide.
In the UK (where electricity is far less carbon intensive) it would be about 40-45000 miles depending on time of day that you charged.
IIRC according to said study lifetime carbon emissions for an EV were 12 tonnes lower than for an ICE equivalent.
I agree that taxation should
I agree that taxation should encourage a reduction in driving.
Unfortunately VED does nothing of the sort. You pay the same regardless of mileage.
A tax that varied with mileage, vehicle size and fuel would be a far better option.
I had a discussion with
I had a discussion with someone once, he complained about sitting in traffic every day on his way to work. He spent about an hour and a half in congestion, travelling to and from work, a journey that he could do on a bike using a nature trail shared path in 20 minutes.
After I patiently explained it to him, he still didn’t get it.
I occasionally have to travel
I occasionally have to travel across Cardiff from one work site to another.
I’m usually on my bike and am invariably the first team member there.
The usual reaction is disbelief. How can a bike possibly be faster than a car?
Just tax fuel and include
Just tax fuel and include third party insurance. I reckon £3 a litre would be a good start.
For a long time (pre-EV) I
For a long time (pre-EV) I always thought that was the way ahead, would wipe out VED & insurance evasion at a stroke, but it’s difficult to tax domestic electricity so would not catch EVs.
mark1a wrote:
That’s an excellent point and a difficult one to solve. I guess it would be easy to tax public charging points and may be some kind of tax on batteries which will presumably need to be replaced more often if used more.
Putting some of the tax on to brake parts and tyres would also be a partial solution.
It would encourage electric car take up while the problem is being looked at though, which I guess is a good start.
That would certainly be the
That would certainly be the neatest way of doing it.
Probably nearly impossible politically though. If it was done gradually it might be achievable but unfortunately then we’d be at the point were most cars were EVs by the time it was up to speed.
However, given that we’re about to get walloped with all manner of tax rises this is the probably the best opportunity to get it done.
The Daily Fail, what kinda
The Daily Fail, what kinda cretin reads that shhhhhhite?
Surprised no-one has
Surprised no-one has mentioned “Road Pricing” yet. It certainly seems to me that the logic for road pricing is compelling.
It is, in theory, flexible enough to deal with pretty much all of the issues raised – the calculation could include a factor for vehicle size/weight, a factor for vehicle tailpipe emissions, a factor for time of day, a factor for location etc.
A bit sad day for us who
A bit sad day for us who cycle. I will be 100% honest, I am not that afraid of cars hitting me, but of cars emmiting fumes that practically cannot be avoided by any commuter and are especially diesel ones, as confirmed by WHO, cause cancer.
Electric cars have to be financially supported. It is though absurd to support expensive cars like most electric cars are. A incentive system for small electric cars should be proposed but it is meaningless supporting a Tesla or a Taycan, given of course that their fuel burning alternatives are even more aggressively taxed.
cyclisto wrote:
It’s disingenuous to financially support electric cars whilst doing nothing to promote e-bikes and e-scooters despite them being far better for inner city use and reducing traffic congestion. With current battery technology, electric cars are far too heavy which increases their pollution substantially. Until batteries have a far greater energy density, we’re better off looking at shrinking the vehicles (two wheels good) which has multiple advantages (though not for the car manufacturers who have to justify their very expensive car building factories).
Good point. Although
Good point. Although following the logic of today where we’re still subsidising the use of private ICE vehicles * it is harm-mitigation to subsidise electric vehicles at least as much…
I think the failure of the government to offer incentives for ebikes is kind of an admission that the built environment isn’t as safe for them as it should be currently. Or rather recognition that people don’t cycle now so they won’t cycle on an ebike either. (I suspect for some emotional “but cycling!” reasons they’re more likely to plump for scooters if they do. To be fair those are also cheaper / handier / a literal easier fit with storage solutions and existing public transport for multi-modal commuting etc.)
* Yes, it’s really not “cash cow” – because if you take in *all* the costs including not just building and maintaining infrastructure but also health costs etc. even though “I pay my tax and insurance” and we add tax to fuel, there’s still a net cost to everyone for having this.
chrisonatrike wrote:
I’d rather my tax money didn’t go to line the pockets of electric car manufacturers considering that our infrastructure will need more expenditure to cope with the considerable load from lots of cars being charged. With smaller vehicles, the chances are that the electric grid will cope, but cars require a lot more juice due to their excessive weight.
There’s also the health benefits that come from people using e-bikes and e-scooters as even e-scooter riders will likely walk a distance to find an available one and are not stuck inside a steel, pollution trap. I don’t think subsidising electric cars is a good idea at all – we need to re-think public transportation and how we want people moving around in the future.
Incidentally, I was reading Sabine Hossenfielder’s inestigation into the feasibility of green/electric planes: https://backreaction.blogspot.com/2022/10/can-we-make-flying-green.html . She reasons that energy density is the critical factor with planes and batteries just don’t cut it. It’s a similar situation with cars – to get the desired performance, you have to add lots of batteries and their weight reduces the performance, so you have to add even more batteries to move the batteries around.
Of course e-bikes and plain
Of course e-bikes and plain bicycles themselves should be heavily promoted with the costs coming from taxing big cars, heavily on ICE and less on electric. Scooters with 8 inch wheel I am not very sure whether they should be on roads on safety issues.
EVs are heavy, but not all. I believe 80% of families who have a second car, can satisfy their transport needs with a Mitsubishi MIEV, about a ton heavy.
And yes I know that there is a debate about the life circle pollution of EVs with rare earths that cannot be recycled and blood lithium and bird killer wind turbines and so on, but I don’t really see that pollution whereas I do actually breath shit every ICE car accelerates and smell like shit after even short rides in heavy traffic. So I support electric all the way, but cheap and small, not to invent a new status symbol…
cyclisto wrote:
There is no “of course” about it at all. Only in some dystopian nightmare world of negative deindustrialisation and a return to the agrarian middle ages would such a thing be seen as beneficial.
Did you know that in 1765, just as Britain started to industrialise, life expectancy was less than 39 years old? People opposed to industralisation on “safety/think of the children”, “pollution” grounds were then referred to as luddites, and for good reason.
Just because it’s become fashionable in certain “green/socialist” circles to start worshipping at this particular altar doesn’t make it correct, and certainly will not advance humanity or make it safer. Denying historical fact is a mistake humanity has repeated over and over again, but eschewing the data and pretending motorised vehicles are a destroyer, rather than a liberator, is a particularly odd distortion of reality.
I understand your point. But
I understand your point. But now people in developed countries die mostly from cancers and not having enough exercise/being overweight, not starvation and lack of basic medicine. We are not in 1765.
In their defence, Rakia is
In their defence, Rakia is still in 1765. It’s a wonder they can even use a website tbh.
I’d say they struggle. They
I’d say they struggle. They can’t remember their username and have to keep making new ones.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
what a shock to read another nonsense PBU post. ?
I’m amazed Rakia hasn’t gotten banned yet.
You think people should be
You think people should be banned because they have a different opinion to you? this isn’t The Guardian comment section..
It’s about people who have
It’s about people who have been banned before coming back yet again under another username.
grOg wrote:
It’s not about the different opinion, but about the bad faith trolling. If someone is just posting to garner a reaction and continually spouts lies and misinformation to push their anti-cyclist agenda and to start arguments, then I think it’s reasonable to ban them. There’s also the issue of them having been previously banned and they skirt around that by creating a new login – it would seem reasonable for them to be banned again when discovered.
(What is the Guranida’s comment section like? I very rarely visit the comments)
It’s also worth noting that
It’s also worth noting thatcar ownership didn’t hit levels where the majority of “working” households had one until, what? the late 60s/early 70s? at which point the life expectancy was 72.12, vs today’s 72.98. So life expectancy increases since the industrial revolution can’t really attributed to the existence of cars.
There are other ways of getting people around, and for journeys that are short enough that they have no business being made by car (about 65% of them), we should be investing in other methods. We should also do things such as look at introducing the 4-day week (which has been demonstrated in multiple trials to have no negative affect on productivity), and make WFH a legal right for all job roles that support it. Finally, according to the last transport stats I read, the most common reason given for a car journey being made is “leisure”, not “commuting”, so it can hardly be argued that promoting active travel/public transport, and discouraging unnecessary cars use will lead to “deindustrialisation”.
An interesting is how this
An interesting is how this all happened on the US West Coast in the 1920s / 1930s.
Rakia wrote:
I was under the impression that the Luddite movement was more about “don’t take my job and push me into (greater) poverty”.
Rakia wrote:
And did you know that was two decades before the British started to settle Australia, and therefore it’s quite clear that British settlement in Australia has more than doubled life expectancy over the last 240 years?
This is idiotically weak, even for you. Just to at least slightly alleviate your ignorance, Luddites did not oppose industrialisation on the grounds of safety or pollution at all but because they objected to the new mechanised processes taking work away from skilled artisans.
I’m afraid I’m not going to
I’m afraid I’m not going to respond to any more of your posts Rendel until you explain how you’re going to get to a hospital without taking an ambulance (aka a van with a stretcher and medical equipment inside).
You’re all too quick to dismiss the obvious health benefits conferred by technological advancements, which is the very definition of neo-luddism. The excuses given are secondary, whether it’s “automation will cost us our jobs”, or “they spew out pollution”, or “think of the children”. All these arguments are spurious.
And when you have a comments section full of baseless conspiracy theories such as “[electric car] subsidy is designed to funnel money to car manufacturers and has little to do with addressing our very real issues around transportation”, then it’s important that voices of reason are allowed to be heard.
Technical solutions are the way forward out of global warming, not reversing centuries of human progress. After all, no one here is talking about banning Zwift are you, despite the fact it burns electricity, requires extra manufacture of turbo trainers/bikes, and uses far more of the earth’s resources than just going for a bike ride outside? You aren’t switching off your phones and comuputers and abandoning the internet are you, despite it consuming so much power?
Aww, it’s hard to admit when
Aww, it’s hard to admit when you’re wrong, isn’t it?
You appear to think that you have something of a zinger in this “what will you do if you need an ambulance?” trope. It shouldn’t really need explaining, but as you’re obviously having comprehension difficulties, one can actually be in favour of having ambulances without being in favour of people using private cars to drive half a mile to the supermarket. They’re not the same thing, you see, and indeed if there were fewer private cars on the road then ambulances would be able to do their job much more efficiently.
You have claimed that increased life expectancy is directly attributable to the development of the automobile. Increased life expectancy is, in the main, down to the development of penicillin and other antibiotics, improvements in surgical hygiene and technique, and vaccinations. You’re going to have to work that pro-car shoehorn pretty hard to try attributing any of those to the development of the automobile.
I believe there are no
I believe there are no reasonable people fantasizing the extermination of all motor vehicles. Otherwise there would be a big industry to ride bicycles from the Far East where they are being produced.
But they can get less and they can be cleaner and still have attractive cities to live in. The Dutch seem happy people to me.
Amen. The Netherlands is not
Amen. The Netherlands is not a fantasy utopia either. They have plenty of issues – their cycling infra is not perfect (just an order of magnitude better than everyone else’s), they may have become a bit complacent, they’re not particularly “green” (they certainly seem to love [re]-building stuff), they’re still fans of the motor vehicle (they own LOTS of cars and it’s a good place to drive in) and nor do they avoid long-distance travel.
What they have done* is tame the car a bit and move a significant fraction of short journeys to be by cycling instead. (And presumably walking too – it’s a safe place and a great place to be a pedestrian). In addition they’ve facilitated making longer journeys by public transport rather than car. That has had benefits both economically but also in terms of quality of life and “local places”.
* While remaining a rich western democracy; hardly needs said except some people say some really odd things on this site!
Life expectancy was not
Life expectancy was not improved by industrialisation; clean water and medical advances made a big difference to infant deaths and people dying of things like simple infections.
Would it be the case that
Would it be the case that life expectancy was so low because of the high infant mortality rate? I think that life expectancy would have been a good bit higher than 39 for those who survived infancy.
cyclisto wrote:
I can certainly relate to the immediacy of ICE air pollution and I do prefer to cycle around EVs. I just think that there’s a particular narrative being pushed by MSM (especially the BBC) that electric cars are the only answer when they only solve a couple of issues. When you consider the extra advantages of small two or three-wheeled personal electric vehicles, then it’s insane that the problematic tech is being subsidised, but not the actual solution. It seems obvious to me that the subsidy is designed to funnel money to car manufacturers and has little to do with addressing our very real issues around transportation.
The only tangible benefit of
The only tangible benefit of EV’s around cyclists is the lack of exhaust fumes; they are still heavy, fast motorised vehicles that pollute waterways with rubber particulate matter from their tyres and hurt cyclists just as much if they hit them..
grOg wrote:
I agree, although they’re also quieter which I think is an advantage. Too often noise pollution isn’t mentioned.
They are when they’re
They are when they’re stationary, but above a certain speed (20-25mph?) most of the noise a car makes is tyre noise. If you’re walking down a freely-moving main road, a Tesla going past you is just as loud as anything else.
Like the late great Ivor
Like the late great Ivor Cutler I think the negative effect of noise is underappreciated. Road noise from motor vehicles is the theme music of our cities.
Notjustbikes has a good video on exactly this subject.
My ‘E-Bike’ is ~13kg!
My ‘E-Bike’ is ~13kg. I think.
(11kg hybrid + Gruber Assist iirc, so quite vintage.).
I thought E-Bikes were in the Cycle to Work scheme, whatever it is called. Do they not also get travel expenses like a car?
Now that the “black box”
Now that the “black box” technology has been proven, I’m surprised that road pricing isn’t being implemented. It seems to me to be much fairer to price EVs for using the road than simply to have one.
Regular VED should be abolished and fuel duty cut, so it’s all about usage rather than ownership.
This could only be acceptable
This could only be acceptable as a replacement for fuel duty – not an addition.
Although any new tax somehow always finds a way to charge a bit more.