The Glade 4.0

1) Correct, but irrelevant.
2) Correct.
3) That article is stupid.


It doesn't really matter if the official name is VED tax. It's commonly referred to in the UK as "road tax." That's why a Google search yielded me a bajillion results that all pointed to the VED.

Just like the official name isn't Obamacare, but when we talk about it people still know what we mean.


I'm not sure what the objection is here. This ***** ran somebody off the road and thinks that person doesn't pay tax. Both of those things are wrong. There is no disagreement on either point.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

I read it. I fail to see the point you're trying to make. The tweeter was being a moron, but they correctly pointed out that they were paying 'road tax' on their vehicle and the cyclist was not for the 'vehicle' they were riding.

Regardless of what it actually pays for, it is still called 'road tax' at least colloquially. It doesn't earn the tweeter right-of-way or anything else, despite what the tweeter thinks.

"Road Tax" is not a tax to use the roads. Its a common bullshit argument to imply that cyclists shouldn't be on the roads because they don't pay for them.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

It's silly to argue over the tax, when there are so many other reasons cyclists shouldn't be on the roads.

VED most certainly is a tax that is required to operate a vehicle on public roads. It's in the definition, easily searchable, and failure to acquire the tax disc would make that vehicle illegal to operate on a public road (unless it's an exempt vehicle).

The argument that bicycles should also pay VED is a valid argument.

The argument that you get to run cyclists off the road just because they don't pay it is NOT a valid argument.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Oh? Do tell.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Fair enough. VED though, is based off of carbon emissions, and since bikes don't emit co2, the VED on them would be £0.

Her argument (the blonde bint in the OP) being that "Cyclists don't pay to use the roads" is not a valid argument either. VED doesn't pay for the roads.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

As you're significantly less CO2 efficient than most modern Euro-spec cars, Arafys; the only problem here is that the Brits have figured out to tax cyclists, yet.

_________________

Depends on my diet. :p

And generally speaking, I'd be ok with registering or whatever. Here's $20/year to abolish the ridiculous argument forever.

I mean, I already pay $500+/year just to drive my Traverse on the roads, so eh, what's another $20?

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Unless is was a flat rate, which it probably should be. Alternative methods (such as for bicycles or heavy trucks) exist. The only reason it's based on CO2 is that the greenniks are winning in the UK.



True, it goes into the general fund. But given that the tax is most directly affiliated with road use, it has both earned the current usage and created complaints towards cyclists (however warranted or unwarranted those complaints are obviously varies based on your perspective).


The alternative to making cyclists buy a tax disc would be to overhaul the program entirely. This is probably what they really should do, since it's just a general tax anyway.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Eh, under exercise, you produce more CO2 per kilometer than a Fiesta, and you are the engine of your bicycle. Of course, my comment was supposed to be snark.

_________________

It is easier to start with the inverse of that.

The only reason cyclists should be on the road is that if their bike speed drops below 55 mph then they will explode. Even then I'd say most cyclists shouldn't be on the road.

_________________

So where should they be? Certainly not sidewalks, where they're illegal to be ridden in many states.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Certainly you can agree that sharing the road with cars is not an ideal place for bicycles? Current laws notwithstanding.

Tie balloons to it and float. NMP.

_________________

Bicyclists shouldn't be allowed on any road that has a speed limit of over 35 mph.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Ideally there would be bike lanes on every road.

Unfortunately, there aren't, so motorists must learn to share the road. Far Right as Practicable laws, 3 foot passing laws, all are intended to keep the cyclist safe.

I'm not fond of riding on a 6 lane road with no breakdown lane on the right, but it is legal for me to do so. I ride FRAP, and tend to be generally polite around motorists. I stop at reds, slow almost to a stop at stop signs to check traffic at lower volume intersections and stop if necessary. If I'm crossing a road, I'll scooch over left to let people turn right behind me.

Funny story about that, We have a 2 mile loop (that has a bike lane) by my house that is bisected by a major street. I was waiting (in the bike lane mind you) for the light to change, and I heard a truck pull up behind me. I scooched over, and waved the dude by. As he pulled up to turn right past me, he yelled "You're not a car!"

I didn't really have a coherent response for that. He drove off, and I waited for the light some more.

Yes, I realize that there are some terrible douchebag cyclists out there. However, there are FAR more terrible douchebag drivers. Difference is, a cyclist isn't going to kill a driver, but a driver can easily kill a cyclist.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

You are riding your bicycle in a dangerous environment. The onus is on you to protect yourself, not on everybody else to pay special attention to you. That is the backlash cyclists are getting right now. Roads used to be for horses and horse-drawn carriages, once, but you don't hear equestrians ***** about how the roads aren't suitable for their needs. Transportation technology has evolved past the bicycle, just as surely as it has evolved past the horse. Perhaps that's where the cyclists should go - some sort of bicycle park, like how equestrians ride horses on tracks set up specifically for horseback riding.

You complain, "Where do bicycles go?" and then add, "We can't go on the sidewalk because that's illegal." That's a bullshit excuse. We damn well could put bicycles on the sidewalk. Those laws could be changed, and would actually be a fair compromise. Cyclists aren't interested in a fair compromise. They aren't interested in a reasonable solution. Cyclists want to ***** and complain, and demand everyone treat them like special snowflakes.

As for this, "No road tax," nonsense, go suck a lemon. Motorists have to pay personal property taxes on their automobiles. Motorists have to pay licensing fees to drive, and licensing fees for each individual car. That money may not go to provide for the road, but it is paid for using the road. Make no mistake, if license fees and personal property tax on automobiles suddenly dropped by half, road maintenance would be the first budget item to get cut. There is indeed a "road tax." Now, if you were arguing that since you own a car and pay to maintain a driver's license, you're paying that tax just like motorists, I'd be with you on that one. Since you're not making that argument, you can suck it.

While we're on the subject of paying to use the road, motorists have to carry liability insurance. What sort of liability insurance does a cyclist have to carry? They can and do cause accidents.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

I can, and do protect myself when riding. I do whatever I have to to not be on major thoroughfares without either a bike lane or breakdown lane.

Sidewalks aren't a good compromise, because then, where do we put the pedestrians?

The fair compromise I'd like to see is motorists not being utter douchebags and laughing about hitting a cyclist with their car. Not being shitheads to someone obeying the law and riding in the bike lane like we're supposed to. Paying attention to piloting their four thousand pound vehicles.

I don't think that's too much to ask.


What about motorized scooters that can barely hit 30mph? Should they not be allowed on the arteries? A strong cyclist on a good bike is as fast or faster than a person on a crappy scooter.


And I made that argument like 6 posts back:

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

The onus is on everyone on the road to protect themselves, and take steps to reasonably protect others. That includes non-vehicular traffic.

As for the taxes, pretty much everyone pays taxes that in some way end up going to support public infrastructure like roads. Public facilities are exactly that, public, and they aren't more or less the purview of any one person because of the amount of taxes they pay.

With regard to cyclists causing accidents, yes they can and do, but they do not cause anywhere near the number or severity of accidents that motorists cause.

Cyclists should be on the roads, and everyone else should, within reasonable limits, be aware of them. I don't even ride bikes myself, but there is nothing wrong with sharing the road with them. For the most part, they are not asking to be special snowflakes. They're asking for people not to act like oblivious assholes, and the same lack of attention that causes bike accidents contributes to vehicle accidents as well.

But hey, a bicycle park! What a fantastic idea! We can build those whereever people want to ride bikes!..... oh wait.. that's everywhere. Well, they can just drive to one... even if they live in the middle of Nebraska... or a place where there's no money available to build one nearby... Hmm.. guess they'll just ride in the street then anyhow.. oh wait! Let's make a law so they can't!.. Yeah, more laws, that's a great idea.

Gee, what do we complain about all the time around here?

Yeah, let's do that. Cool. Then 5 years from now we can read about some cyclist riding on the roads in protest, getting arrested, and then you can talk about "gummint" and "pigs" and pretend those are the problems, instead of citizens - like you - that are all about less government until it involves regulating someone else for your own convenience.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

They may be paying taxes to support public infrastructure like roads, but they may not be paying taxes to actually support the roadway infrastructure. MODoT, for instance, declares its funding sources as motor fuel tax, motor vehicle sales tax, and the occasional bond initiative. I haven't looked at any of the other state DoTs, nor have I investigated USDoT. It's possible that other states may be funding in part from income tax revenue or general sales tax. Any Federal funding sources are beyond my desire to track. However, I think it's reasonable to assume that most states handle the public roadways fairly similarly. So while owning and operating a motor vehicle, you're contributing to the public roadways to the extent that you are using them. While public roadways are not the purview of any one person, they are more or less the purview of one class, that being motor vehicles. Obviously, there are variations in usage. A residential roadway, for instance, is reasonably expected to have a higher variety of usage. Foot traffic, skates and skateboards, bicycles, and motor vehicles. Contrast this with a main thoroughfare. Pedestrians and roller skaters should stay off of Broadway, for instance, except where designated crossings are marked. A highway is even more restrictive. But cyclists demand special dispensation. Why? A professional sprinter can achieve, roughly, 52 mph. Can't sustain it for long, but can achieve it. A professional peloton averages 25-28 mph on level ground. The average cyclist, on flat terrain, averages about 17-18 mph. In a 15-mph school zone, a hobby cyclist is barely breaking the law. In a 25-mph residential area, the average cyclist is probably not disrupting traffic. In a 35-mph thoroughfare, that cyclist is probably becoming a danger to themself and others, disrupting the flow of traffic and distracting the drivers of motor vehicles.

_________________

I don't particularly see that they are doing any of that.

In any case, like I said, the exact funding source is irrelevant. Yes, roads are primarily for motor vehicles, but not exclusively so. By definition, they are public, and we do allow animals, pedestrians, and vehicles not designed for road travel (farm equipment) upon them. Trying to differentiate who pays how much taxes to what source and to what degree they are entitled to utilize public services is an insurmountable cliff of problems, both of practicality and fairness.

We place certain limits on them (for example, none of the above are permitted on controlled-access freeways) but we don't just make blanket "They houldn't be on the road!" rules.

I don't really see that cyclists are demanding special consideration beyond what's inherent to riding a bike. A great deal of it is the same was what motorcyclists ask for, and a motorcycle is, without a doubt, a motor vehicle suitable for road travel. Some of the demands get a little carried away; for example it is obvious that not every road can have a bike lane due to funding or engineering limitations. Contrary to the assertions of motorcyclists, loud pipes do not save lives or at least not in any quantifiable way.

We have cyclists all over the place down here. I'm not one of them, but I have yet to see a traffic problem caused by cyclists, and they regularly ride on major roads with speed limits of 55mph. Not controlled-access freeways, but major state routes. People run on them too, and it isn't a problem, and this area is not lightly populated or lacking in major traffic.

Bicyclists should not demand special consideration, but just being allowed to use the roads, and people being aware of things in the road other than other motor vehicle is not a major demand.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I don't ride a bicycle, haven't since my early 20s when my sense of balance went south. Many of my coworkers do and the acting director of the department I work for used to commute (25+ moles each way) right up until his time and response time specifically had the greater demand of being an acting director placed on it and took that choice away from him.

I support Mus on this, and the tax argument is stupid. Just a crazy person seeking a reason to excuse her crazy.

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones

This is true at least from a practical perspective.

The driver of a car involved in an automobile/bicycle collision is unlikely to be harmed. Hell, it's possible his car won't even be damaged. The cyclist, on the other hand, is in mortal danger.


From a legal perspective, the results of an automobile accident can have dire consequences to the penalties that drivers face if the accident was caused by a traffic violation. There are usually both felony charges that can be laid if by some violation of minor traffic code you cause a death. (I believe in Canada they are "reckless driving" - as opposed to the traffic law "careless driving," and "vehicular manslaughter.") This means there is a strong legal incentive for an automobile driver to be even more careful around bicycles and even motorcycles. Of course, with a vehicular manslaughter conviction, you're still in better shape than the dead cyclist, so the cyclist still has more incentive to be careful.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

This is being a bit narrow minded.

Bikes can cause accidents without being directly involved.

One simple expample. Cars might swerve or veer into oncoming traffic in order to avoid a cyclist in their lane.