Jenny Jones takes "a different approach" to road tax debate

stumps wrote:

Get rid of the excise licence completely and put it on the price of a litre of petrol. It means the people who use the roads more pay more.

Completely agree. It's the only sensible course of action.

Currently a normal family car that emits 200g/km pays about half the VED than a Ferrari that emits 400g/km does. Yet the average mileage of a family car is 12000 miles a year, the average mileage of a Ferrari is about 2000. I'm not suggesting everyone should have Ferraris but the current system clearly targets people who are perceived to have the money to pay the tax rather than the people who actually produce the emissions, which is pretty crap.

Ghedebrav wrote:

... or, weirdly, aggressive knobheads making dog noises - anyone else had that?!

Yeah, someone shouted "Where's your dog?" at me as I cycled past them recently. No idea what that's about.

Housecathst wrote:

As I cyclist I would "love" to pay a road tax if it get motorist off my back (we all know it wouldn't) .

That being said it would have to be directly proportional between bikes and cars. It could be based on engine size or weight of the vehicle (both reasonable ways of determining how much damage a vehicle would do to a road). As a cyclist I would happily pay in the region of £1000 a year for the use of the roads. Putting all vehicles on that kind of sliding scale of taxation would make the average family car in excess of £10,000 year to drive on the roads, hopefully pricing the great unwashed off the roads along with scum bags in their rusting white vans making the roads a much more pleasant place to be.

Perhaps as you got fitter and lost weight you paid less...now that's an incentive.

I'd rather advocate for a financial incentive to ride to work. There are plenty of known benefits from cycle commuting and it's time to put a dollar figure on the savings to society.

We have a hypothocated petrol tax and car registration here which is currently around 67 cents a litre. There's still 2-3 Billion dollars worth of public funds going towards roads out of a total road bill of around 10 Billion (pop 4.4 mil - 2.8 mil cars - average distance driven ~10,000 km per year). http://www.gw.govt.nz/assets/Transport/Regional-transport/Pics/NewFolder...

Housecathst wrote:

As I cyclist I would "love" to pay a road tax if it get motorist off my back (we all know it wouldn't) .

That being said it would have to be directly proportional between bikes and cars. It could be based on engine size or weight of the vehicle (both reasonable ways of determining how much damage a vehicle would do to a road). As a cyclist I would happily pay in the region of £1000 a year for the use of the roads. Putting all vehicles on that kind of sliding scale of taxation would make the average family car in excess of £10,000 year to drive on the roads, hopefully pricing the great unwashed off the roads along with scum bags in their rusting white vans making the roads a much more pleasant place to be.

There's an even simpler route. I point out to my cycle-bashing colleagues that I would be very happy to pay VED on the same basis that they do: As it's emissions based I'd pay nothing, but the administration costs of millions of cyclists would have to go somewhere, logically onto the VED paid by motorists. They soon change their minds then.

Pub bike wrote:

As I was being shunted up the back mudguard by an idiot in a black Mercedes Vito taxi this morning (you know who you are) whilst waiting at a red traffic light behind two cars, I thought to myself…wouldn’t it be nice if there was a cycle lane up the left side of the A12 then I could get from London to Colchester in 3 hours rather than the 5 it takes on the back-roads. It is easily wide enough.

Have you reported the taxi driver to his employers?

ibike wrote:

Why do you call it a "debate"?

It's a simple matter of correcting an inaccuracy.

I'm with you on that. In trying to increase her own visibility on the issue she has in effect turned an erroneous load of tosh into one side of a debate so she could be on the other. In so doing she has actually taken this idiot seriously and given him the status of protagonist in a debate. Cooke is wrong. Just wrong. Taxpayers pay for roads the costs from general taxation and VED or fuel taxes are not hypothecated. More importantly most all adult cyclists are also drivers and income tax payers.

So yes I am a cyclist and I do contribute to congestion and pollution when I am driving my car, but not when I am cycling but I pay for the roads as a taxpayer whether I am walking, running, cycling, riding a horse, riding a motorbike, driving a car or van or lorry or whether I never use them at all.

It would have been far better to make this point than for her to have engaged this Cooke idiot. Because you know what it has more impact. That pedestrian waiting to cross at a junction while most motorists ignore the fact that they should give way to pedestrians at junctions is also paying for the roads.

Does Jenny wear a lid? Don't think I've ever seen her under one.

ron611087 wrote:

Does Jenny wear a lid? Don't think I've ever seen her under one.

Does it matter in the slightest?

Does Jenny wear a lid? Don't think I've ever seen her under one.

earth wrote:

And we don't ride on Motorways.

I would if I could, they are so smooooth.

NO! This is not a helmet debate. Stop that right now. We don't need another off topic slanging match.

bikeboy76 wrote:

earth wrote:

And we don't ride on Motorways.

I would if I could, they are so smooooth.

They're not actually - motorway road surfaces are actually rougher than normal roads to help reduce spray when wet and to increase grip for braking.

Motorways smooth? i dont think so, maybe in a coach but on a 23mm tyre it would be a juddering misery

earth wrote:

And we don't ride on Motorways.

Cometh the day when the "cycling party" wins the election those motorways will be ours