Times Letters

DavidR said:

"Matt B" <[email hidden]> wrote in

Quoted message said:

DavidR said:

"Matt B" <[email hidden]> wrote

>DavidR wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>Where do you get the idea that motorists & cyclists are a different
>>species?
>
>Where do /you/ get the idea that I've got that idea?

Because you talk about the unfairness of "motorists" paying tax and
"cyclists" not.

That's right, it /is/ unfair.

No, it could only be unfair if people were forced against their better
judgement to have a car.

No, it's unfair because it targets those with no other choice, and is
not related to income.

Quoted message said:

But what are we talking about - the tax on motoring or the distinction
between cycling & motoring?

Well, the distinction manifests itself as tax, amongst other things.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I am a person that has been offered a choice to make some of my journeys
free of tax.

And why should motorists pay tax to be such then? Are motorists better
paid than anyone else? Is it only the wealthy who rely on cars?

No, the individual makes the judgement on whether the benefit of the car
outweighs the cost.

No, some have to go without other things because their transport is
essential to their livelihoods.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Some people choose not to use it and then complain about it.

Some of the more privileged may have the choice. Surely those with more
choices should pay more taxes for the luxury.

What? Only the privileged can afford to ride a bike?

No, in many cases the necessity of a car precludes other choices and
recreations, such as cycling.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That's whingeing, not unfairness.

What is - not having any realistic option?

Many people doing the whinging *do* have realistic options!

That's as maybe, but picking on motorists to bear the lion's share of
the tax burden is indefensible.

--
Matt B

Matt B said:

David Martin said:

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.

Why though should that principle only apply to motoring and /no/ other
activity bar smoking and drinking?

I was unaware that the vast majority of UK law had disappeared
overnight. You will find that there are a host of regulations covering
what people with the potential to cause harm can do.

Quoted message said:

Even if it /were/ proportional that would be a start. As it is it free,
unless in a motor.

For only certain values of free. Monetarily free at the point of use,
maybe (but not exclusively) , but we all pay the social costs of roads.
As I sit here I have to turn the tele up over the sound of the traffic
outside. Funnily enough, I can't hear the cyclists or pedestrians (and
there are plenty).
I also am restricted from using the roads as I would like because of
the demands of those who insist on travelling in heavy boxes at 30mph.
I'm never in fear of my life from being run over or bumped into by the
other road users in the centre of Dundee (NMV area).

...d

Matt B said:

Quoted message said:

No, it could only be unfair if people were forced against their better
judgement to have a car.

No, it's unfair because it targets those with no other choice, and is
not related to income.

There are always choices. Unfortunately one has to try to maximise the
benefit from limited means. There are things I have to go without
because of some of the choices I have made. That is life.

The prime tax on motoring is on fuel. It is an incentive to be more
fuel efficient (ie not pissing in the pool so much) and is progressive
in that the more you consume, the more you pay.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But what are we talking about - the tax on motoring or the distinction
between cycling & motoring?

Well, the distinction manifests itself as tax, amongst other things.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>I am a person that has been offered a choice to make some of my journeys
>free of tax.

And why should motorists pay tax to be such then? Are motorists better
paid than anyone else? Is it only the wealthy who rely on cars?

No, the individual makes the judgement on whether the benefit of the car
outweighs the cost.

No, some have to go without other things because their transport is
essential to their livelihoods.

Well that is life, isn't it. We all have to go without some things due
to the choices made.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>Some people choose not to use it and then complain about it.

Some of the more privileged may have the choice. Surely those with more
choices should pay more taxes for the luxury.

What? Only the privileged can afford to ride a bike?

No, in many cases the necessity of a car precludes other choices and
recreations, such as cycling.

Sometimes, when the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks
like a nail.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>That's whingeing, not unfairness.

What is - not having any realistic option?

Many people doing the whinging *do* have realistic options!

That's as maybe, but picking on motorists to bear the lion's share of
the tax burden is indefensible.

Motorists (as in car owners) have the majority of the income in the
country so they should pay most of the tax. 90% of cyclists are also
car owners.

...d

David Martin said:

Matt B said:

Even if it /were/ proportional that would be a start. As it is it free,
unless in a motor.

For only certain values of free. Monetarily free at the point of use,
maybe (but not exclusively) , but we all pay the social costs of roads.

But some pay at the point of use, yet the payment isn't used to
ameliorate the problem, but to reduce income tax.

Quoted message said:

As I sit here I have to turn the tele up over the sound of the traffic
outside. Funnily enough, I can't hear the cyclists or pedestrians (and
there are plenty).

Yes, we get that problem in summer from lawn mowers in the area, and all
year round from DIY power tools.

Quoted message said:

I also am restricted from using the roads as I would like because of
the demands of those who insist on travelling in heavy boxes at 30mph.
I'm never in fear of my life from being run over or bumped into by the
other road users in the centre of Dundee (NMV area).

Same with me. How wonderful it would be if we could provide the
motorways to keep cars away from other roads.

--
Matt B

Matt B said:

Quoted message said:

I also am restricted from using the roads as I would like because of
the demands of those who insist on travelling in heavy boxes at 30mph.
I'm never in fear of my life from being run over or bumped into by the
other road users in the centre of Dundee (NMV area).

Same with me. How wonderful it would be if we could provide the
motorways to keep cars away from other roads.

I don't want a motorway running past my house to take traffic on this
main road into the centre of Dundee. Your 'motorways everywhere' dream
is unaffordable and unworkable. And as the sound of traffic is directly
related to the speed of travel, it would make more noise and
disturbance.

...d

Matt B said:

Peter B said:

"Matt B" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

If motoring taxes were abolished and cycling taxes were introduced
to replace them would cyclists support the building of motorways
exclusively for motorists' use?

Pay attention troll,

Ahem.

Quoted message said:

how many cyclists on this group support the building on
"cycle facilites" in their present format or have demanded them in
any format?

Were /you/ paying attention - I did say "whether they want them or
not". They are provided - you may well be ungrateful.

The majority, of cycle facitilies are provided with the intention of
benefitting to the motorist. The majority of schemes exist to encourage
people to use a cycle instead of a car. The person who chooses to use the
cycle is taking up less road space and contributing less congestion than the
car users who remain.

For every cyclist on the road, the remaining car driver benefits from a
slightly less congested road.

As the vast majority of adult cyclists also have cars, they could choose to
use the car which has already paid its VED for the year. Instead they are
choosing to not add to the congestion which others face. So, if anything,
the car user who continues to drive should be paying for more of these
cyclists to free up the road space (I'll fix a small box to the back of my
bike, and you can put a pound a week as I trundle over your bridge, that
will save the admin costs of the money going via the government ).

- Nigel

--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/

David Martin said:

Matt B said:

Quoted message said:

I also am restricted from using the roads as I would like because of
the demands of those who insist on travelling in heavy boxes at 30mph.
I'm never in fear of my life from being run over or bumped into by the
other road users in the centre of Dundee (NMV area).

Same with me. How wonderful it would be if we could provide the
motorways to keep cars away from other roads.

I don't want a motorway running past my house to take traffic on this
main road into the centre of Dundee. Your 'motorways everywhere' dream
is unaffordable and unworkable. And as the sound of traffic is directly
related to the speed of travel, it would make more noise and
disturbance.

...d

David, as virtually the last troll wrestler left, you wouldn't consider
taking this discussion with MattB off list would you?

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

David Martin said:

Matt B said:

Quoted message said:

No, it could only be unfair if people were forced against their better
judgement to have a car.

No, it's unfair because it targets those with no other choice, and is
not related to income.

There are always choices. Unfortunately one has to try to maximise the
benefit from limited means. There are things I have to go without
because of some of the choices I have made. That is life.

Yes, yet motoring, [censored] and alcohol are the only choices prohibitively
taxed against.

Quoted message said:

The prime tax on motoring is on fuel. It is an incentive to be more
fuel efficient (ie not pissing in the pool so much) and is progressive
in that the more you consume, the more you pay.

Why only motor fuel? Why not gas? Why not electricity? Why not coal?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>I am a person that has been offered a choice to make some of my journeys
>>free of tax.
>
>And why should motorists pay tax to be such then? Are motorists better
>paid than anyone else? Is it only the wealthy who rely on cars?

No, the individual makes the judgement on whether the benefit of the car
outweighs the cost.

No, some have to go without other things because their transport is
essential to their livelihoods.

Well that is life, isn't it. We all have to go without some things due
to the choices made.

The difference, and the distortion is that it is punitive tax here which
makes the difference. Yachting isn't taxed, flying isn't, why only
motoring?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>Some people choose not to use it and then complain about it.
>
>Some of the more privileged may have the choice. Surely those with more
>choices should pay more taxes for the luxury.

What? Only the privileged can afford to ride a bike?

No, in many cases the necessity of a car precludes other choices and
recreations, such as cycling.

Sometimes, when the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks
like a nail.

Most people can tell if they need a car or not.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>That's whingeing, not unfairness.
>
>What is - not having any realistic option?

Many people doing the whinging *do* have realistic options!

That's as maybe, but picking on motorists to bear the lion's share of
the tax burden is indefensible.

Motorists (as in car owners) have the majority of the income in the
country so they should pay most of the tax. 90% of cyclists are also
car owners.

You know and I know that that (motorists income) isn't the reason motor
fuel is taxed so heavily - it does not differentiate between pauper and
millionaire drivers - they all pay the same.

--
Matt B

Matt B said:

You know and I know that that (motorists income) isn't the reason motor
fuel is taxed so heavily - it does not differentiate between pauper and
millionaire drivers - they all pay the same.

--
Matt B

You have no clue whatsoever what real poverty is. Anyone owning and
operating a car in this country is rich beyond the wildest imaginings
of many third world citizens, and has not the slightest right to feel
put upon in any way regarding taxes.

LSMike said:

You have no clue whatsoever what real poverty is. Anyone owning and
operating a car in this country is rich beyond the wildest imaginings
of many third world citizens, and has not the slightest right to feel
put upon in any way regarding taxes.

I think everythign after the fourth word in that sentence was redundant.
However undeniably true it is.

--
Guy

Matt B said:

Quoted message said:

DavidR said:

"Matt B" <[email hidden]> wrote

>Cyclists, purely because they are cyclists, do not pay more tax than
>non-cyclists, yet are provided with facilities and privileges on the
>public road, whether they want them or not, which are /only/ for the use
>of cyclists - it is like abolishing all motoring taxes and providing
>motorways out of general taxation. OTOH motorists, who pay all the same
>taxes as cyclists do, also pay, purely because there /are/ motorists,
>taxes on top of all the others, equivalent to about 10% of the national
>tax revenue.

Where do you get the idea that motorists & cyclists are a different
species?

exactly, it is a false dichotomy. People pay into the general taxation
pot. Facilites of various kinds are payed for out of this pot. People
are entitled to use these facilities subject to fulfilling any
qualifying requirements.

If motoring taxes were abolished and cycling taxes were introduced to
replace them would cyclists support the building of motorways
exclusively for motorists' use?

I probably wouldn't support it. I might even lobby against it. I
almost certainly wouldn't do this by using a larger vehicle to cut
motorists up while shouting "get off my road, you should be on he
motorway (which I bloody paid for)". for the same reasons I don't now
(even though I did pay for it)

best wishes
james

LSMike said:

Matt B said:

You know and I know that that (motorists income) isn't the reason motor
fuel is taxed so heavily - it does not differentiate between pauper and
millionaire drivers - they all pay the same.

You have no clue whatsoever what real poverty is.

How can you possibly know that? Are you just stupid or are you being
deliberately offensive?

Quoted message said:

Anyone owning and
operating a car in this country is rich beyond the wildest imaginings
of many third world citizens,

In what way is that relevant when the economy and the tax system we are
discussing is that of the UK.

Quoted message said:

and has not the slightest right to feel
put upon in any way regarding taxes.

In an equitable tax system the amount you pay into the general pot is
based upon the amount of 'disposable' income you have, or at least on
what you earn. Fuel duty is completely indiscriminant.

--
Matt B

David Martin said:

Matt B said:

Quoted message said:

I also am restricted from using the roads as I would like because of
the demands of those who insist on travelling in heavy boxes at 30mph.
I'm never in fear of my life from being run over or bumped into by the
other road users in the centre of Dundee (NMV area).

Same with me. How wonderful it would be if we could provide the
motorways to keep cars away from other roads.

I don't want a motorway running past my house to take traffic on this
main road into the centre of Dundee.

Another NIMBY prepared to sacrifice a safe and efficient tomorrow for
your today?

Quoted message said:

Your 'motorways everywhere' dream
is unaffordable and unworkable.

But we've already seen how easily affordable it is, and what a
difference it could make to the quality of life for us all.

Quoted message said:

And as the sound of traffic is directly
related to the speed of travel,
it would make more noise and
disturbance.

Your perception of the sound though depends on how far away it is, what
materials are between you and it, and a whole host of other things which
you choose to ignore.

--
Matt B

Nigel Cliffe said:

Matt B said:

Peter B said:

"Matt B" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

how many cyclists on this group support the building on
"cycle facilites" in their present format or have demanded them in
any format?

Were /you/ paying attention - I did say "whether they want them or
not". They are provided - you may well be ungrateful.

The majority, of cycle facitilies are provided with the intention of
benefitting to the motorist. The majority of schemes exist to encourage
people to use a cycle instead of a car. The person who chooses to use the
cycle is taking up less road space and contributing less congestion than the
car users who remain.

I don't think so. The 'facilities' I've seen cause congestion and
haven't encouraged many if any others to use bikes.

Quoted message said:

For every cyclist on the road, the remaining car driver benefits from a
slightly less congested road.

No they don't, because more road is taken than is freed.

Quoted message said:

As the vast majority of adult cyclists also have cars, they could choose to
use the car which has already paid its VED for the year. Instead they are
choosing to not add to the congestion which others face. So, if anything,
the car user who continues to drive should be paying for more of these
cyclists to free up the road space

He is, through fuel duty, thus subsidising those you travel without
paying any.

Quoted message said:

(I'll fix a small box to the back of my
bike, and you can put a pound a week as I trundle over your bridge, that
will save the admin costs of the money going via the government ).

Hehe.

--
Matt B

Tony Raven said:

David, as virtually the last troll wrestler left, you wouldn't consider
taking this discussion with MattB off list would you?

Do you wish to shield your fellow URCers from the embarrassing reality
of the selfish stance many here take?

--
Matt B

Matt B said:

Quoted message said:

As the vast majority of adult cyclists also have cars, they could choose to
use the car which has already paid its VED for the year. Instead they are
choosing to not add to the congestion which others face. So, if anything,
the car user who continues to drive should be paying for more of these
cyclists to free up the road space

He is, through fuel duty, thus subsidising those you travel without
paying any.

We have already established (see above) that the difference in required
infrastructure and maintenance costs are of an order of 1000/1 between
a bike and a car.

Given an annual expenditure of £10 pounds on bicycling for an
estimated average of 30 miles a year (this takes into account the many
mouldering virtually unused in garden sheds up and down the land), that
gives a tax take of about 5p per mile. This is essentially a fixed tax
cost for bikes.

For a car, the tax take is somewhat larger, and converges at around 20p
per mile (work it out yourself.) as the distance makes fuel duty the
only significant component.

Cars require 1000 times the facility cost so should pay 1000 times as
much towards every mile.
Doesn't look like they do does it?.

Proportionally, it looks like cyclists are over-contributing by about
5p per mile. Maybe I will find that box for the back of my bike.

...d

Matt B said:

Another NIMBY prepared to sacrifice a safe and efficient tomorrow for
your today?

Today's car travel is neither safe nor efficient.

Matt B said:

Nigel Cliffe said:

Matt B said:

Peter B wrote:

> "Matt B" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> news:[email hidden]...

> how many cyclists on this group support the building on
> "cycle facilites" in their present format or have demanded them in
> any format?

Were /you/ paying attention - I did say "whether they want them or
not". They are provided - you may well be ungrateful.

The majority, of cycle facitilies are provided with the intention of
benefitting to the motorist. The majority of schemes exist to
encourage people to use a cycle instead of a car. The person who
chooses to use the cycle is taking up less road space and
contributing less congestion than the car users who remain.

I don't think so. The 'facilities' I've seen cause congestion and
haven't encouraged many if any others to use bikes.

That might be because they are poorly designed.
Your original point was about being cyclists being subsidised by the
provision of cycle facilities, regardless of whether they are being used.
Now its moved to one about the quality (or lack) of the designs.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

For every cyclist on the road, the remaining car driver benefits
from a slightly less congested road.

No they don't, because more road is taken than is freed.

I think your argument just went into another universe.

When I ride my bike along the road (rarely in a cycle lane), it takes the
space of a bicycle, plus the clearance required around it to avoid
collisions. When I drive my car it takes the space of a car, plus the
clearance space to avoid collisions (the old 2-second rule is a good
starter). At any speed, my car takes considerably more road space than my
bicycle. Therefore, I create far more congestion when I take my car on the
road than when I use my bicycle.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

As the vast majority of adult cyclists also have cars, they could
choose to use the car which has already paid its VED for the year.
Instead they are choosing to not add to the congestion which others
face. So, if anything, the car user who continues to drive should
be paying for more of these cyclists to free up the road space

He is, through fuel duty, thus subsidising those you travel without
paying any.

Ah, so I understand now. You argue that those who choose to use a fuel
efficient means of transport should subsidise those who do not. Thus,
drivers of Micras (etc) should be paying to help those poor individuals who
have to put ten times as much fuel per mile into their Rolls or Hummer. Do
I also have to pay your Rolls-Hummer tax when I choose to walk, rather than
use the car to get to the shops (about a mile away in my case).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

(I'll fix a small box to the back of my
bike, and you can put a pound a week as I trundle over your bridge,
that will save the admin costs of the money going via the government
).

Make that a large box.

--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/

Matt B said:

Nigel Cliffe said:

For every cyclist on the road, the remaining car driver benefits from a
slightly less congested road.

No they don't, because more road is taken than is freed.

Nonsense, cyclists take up much less room than cars. You forgot not
only the much bigger space the car itself occupies, but also the large
spaces in front of and behind each car, which increases with increasing
speed.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

As the vast majority of adult cyclists also have cars, they could choose to
use the car which has already paid its VED for the year. Instead they are
choosing to not add to the congestion which others face. So, if anything,
the car user who continues to drive should be paying for more of these
cyclists to free up the road space

He is, through fuel duty, thus subsidising those you travel without
paying any.

No, wrong. It is cyclists who pay far more than their fair share of
road costs.

Matt B said:

LSMike said:

Matt B said:

You know and I know that that (motorists income) isn't the reason motor
fuel is taxed so heavily - it does not differentiate between pauper and
millionaire drivers - they all pay the same.

You have no clue whatsoever what real poverty is.

How can you possibly know that? Are you just stupid or are you being
deliberately offensive?

No, I think, as Guy said, you've demonstrated this yourself rather
well.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Anyone owning and
operating a car in this country is rich beyond the wildest imaginings
of many third world citizens,

In what way is that relevant when the economy and the tax system we are
discussing is that of the UK.

You made it relevant when you tried to say motorists are poor and put
upon with underserved taxes. In actuality they are neither poor nor
put upon.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and has not the slightest right to feel
put upon in any way regarding taxes.

In an equitable tax system the amount you pay into the general pot is
based upon the amount of 'disposable' income you have, or at least on
what you earn. Fuel duty is completely indiscriminant.

Not really, no. Why shouldn't motorists pay their fair share? Right
now I don't think they pay anything close to what they cost UK society.