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

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 CO2 production, so your argument is invalid.

From https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/vehicle-excise-duty/vehicle-excise-duty

Quote:

The current VED structure based on CO2 bands was introduced in 2001 when average UK new car emissions were 178 gCO2/km. The Band A threshold of 100 gCO2/km below which cars pay no VED was introduced in 2003 when average new car emissions were 173 gCO2/km. Since then, to meet EU emissions targets average new car emissions have fallen to 125 gCO2/km. This means that an increasingly large number of ordinary cars now fall into the zero- or lower-rated VED bands, creating a sustainability challenge and weakening the environmental signal in VED. This is set to continue as manufacturers meet further EU targets of 95 gCO2/km set for 2020. Additionally, the system results in significant unfairness as owners of newer cars pay little or no VED while owners of older cars generally pay higher rates.

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:

VED is quite clearly based on CO2 production, so your argument is invalid.

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:

hawkinspeter wrote:

VED is quite clearly based on CO2 production, so your argument is invalid.

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.

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:

Why are people chasing their own tails over this?

I feel some image is missing here...

hirsute wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

Why are people chasing their own tails over this?

I feel some image is missing here...

Sorry - I was off making a coffee before perusing my collection of suitable photos.

hawkinspeter wrote:

DrJDog wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

VED is quite clearly based on CO2 production, so your argument is invalid.

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.

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?

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 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 implementation of VED which I agree is flawed - scrap it and put more tax on the fuel.

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:

As VED does not take mileage into consideration it cannot be based on CO2 production.

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.

Rich_cb wrote:

The amount of time you wish to access the road network is, however, directly proportional to the amount of VED you pay.

Have you started early on the Xmas sherry?

Merry Xmas to you, anyhow.

Explain how that statement is wrong?

Does VED take mileage in to account?

Rich_cb wrote:

Explain how that statement is wrong? Does VED take mileage in to account?

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 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:

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 tell us. 

How much road does it use?

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 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:

I've merely stated that VED is a fee payable by certain vehicles to use the road network.

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:

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?

So by rights non-tax payers shouldn't be allowed on the roads. I'd vote for that.

Rich_cb wrote:

...Most motorists pay a fee to use the roads, cyclists do not. .

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:

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?

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 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:

Pluto, planet.

Road tax, VED.

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 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 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.  

Sounds like a job description for a gigolo.

brooksby wrote:

Quote:

"Why don't you use the cycle lane?" Because there's a lorry parked in it

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!"...?

Yes.