Matt B said:Wrong. I'm pro equal treatment of /all/ road users - tax wise,
insurance wise, law wise, traceability wise and rights wise. Whether
that means abolishing taxes, number plates, compulsory insurance and
other and "special" treatments for motorists, or introducing it for
other classes of user is the debate.
What you are missing is the principle of proportionality. This requires
that those who have the greatest potential to cause harm or who have
historically been harm causers, would require stricter regulation. And
those who require more expensive facilities should pay proportionately
for them.
Looking up the relevant cost estimates for road building, a road
suitable for cycles/horses costs about 5.000 pounds per km, excluding
ground costs. A single carriageway A-road costs about 2 million per km.
Proportionately that would be a VED for cycles of 1 pound per year,
which would probably cost around 15 pounds per cycle per year to
collect, plus the associated problems linked to cycle recycling.
The cost of cycle induced injuries is even more skewed in favour of the
cyclist. Excluding deaths/injuries to the operator, the ratio of costs
incurred is in excess of 1/1000. Requiring an average cycle insurance
policy of around 3-4 pounds a year for third party cover.
You may quibble about number of miles travelled, but these costs are
purely on existence of the vehicle and there are approximately the same
number of bikes and motor vehicles on the road.
In conclusion, from a social point of view, it is not worth collecting
specific taxes from cyclists.
As regards identification, cars are essentially anonymous as, with a
small numebr of exceptions, they look very much like every other car of
that model. Cyclists on the other hand are identified as people. There
may be tens of thousands of a particualr make and colour of car in a
region, but an individual pedestrian or cyclist is easier to trace
because they are generally local and identifiable as people.
Extending identification plates to cycles would be a bureaucratic
nonsense, costing more to deliver than the saving to society. It ranks
up there with branding all citizens so they can be identified on CCTV.
NI number branded on all clothing so that my kids can be identified as
they walk dowwn the street? No option to borrow a coat as it has the
wrong number on it.
Once again Matt B's ideas lack proportionality and have a skewed idea
of 'fair share' that is far removed from socially appropriate.
...d
