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

You know Pluto isn't officially a 'planet' any more, right?

brooksby wrote:

You know Pluto isn't officially a 'planet' any more, right?

Not wishing to be pedantic, but it is actually a dwarf planet...

brooksby wrote:

You know Pluto isn't officially a 'planet' any more, right?

Exactly. It's still the same thing, and it would still be the same thing if I called it a qwijibo.

Yes it does matter. Don't mention it, pleased to be of service.

Titanus wrote:

Pluto, planet.

Road tax, VED.

Does it really fuckin matter what it's referred to?....

Of course it fuckin does - why would you refer to a tax that hasn't been levied in approaching a century unless you were being mischievous or just plain ignorant?

And your parallel with Pluto is bollocks by the way....

Captain Badger wrote:

Titanus wrote:

Pluto, planet.

Road tax, VED.

Does it really fuckin matter what it's referred to?....

Of course it fuckin does - why would you refer to a tax that hasn't been levied in approaching a century unless you were being mischievous or just plain ignorant?

And your parallel with Pluto is bollocks by the way....

I'm just saying that people informally refer to stuff that may or may not be the official term for it. In this case road tax for VED but we know what they mean.

You think my parallel with Pluto is bollocks, NASA found a rock further away than Pluto that sort of resembles wonky nads.

You sound very upset btw. Hope things improve for you over Christmas.

You do indeed have a point, people may refer to it as "road tax", but, and here is the real point, do the police, and their spokespeople on social media, have any responsibility to be in any way accurate?

I, and many of us seem to think they do...

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?

I'm with Titanus on this one.

For the vast majority of motorists there is no practical difference between VED and Road Tax.

VED is a charge you have to pay every year in order to use the public road network.

Road Tax was a charge you had to pay every year in order to use the public road network.

Arguing about pooled or ring fenced funds is meaningless to most people.

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

That's the crux of the matter and semantics make no difference.

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

But that is the problem there, that definition. Most motorists pay a fee to pollute and it should be sold that way by every "official" channel at least. Having the Police still refer to it as Road Tax on their official publications perpetrates the myth of what is being paid for. 

They don't pay a fee to pollute.

They are free to pollute as much as they want on private land.

They pay a fee to pollute when using the public road network.

That is the crucial difference.

Rich_cb wrote:

...

They pay a fee to pollute when using the public road network. That is the crucial difference.

And there you have it Rich, you do understand afterall. They are not paying to use the road - they are paying to use a polluting vehicle on the public highway

It is the pollution that is taxed, not the use of the road...

.

Rich_cb wrote:

.

Quite

.

duplicate post

Captain Badger wrote:

duplicate post

Whoever like that, thanks, glad you appreciate it. One of my best gags!

Rich_cb wrote:

.

But it isn't the pollution that is taxed at all, is it? If I 'tax' my car and for whatever reason don't drive it, I still pay the same as someone who drives 40,000 miles per year.

DrJDog wrote:

But it isn't the pollution that is taxed at all, is it? If I 'tax' my car and for whatever reason don't drive it, I still pay the same as someone who drives 40,000 miles per year.

It's poorly implemented - I'd rather that it was scrapped and instead the tax should be levied on the fuel. That'd make it a bit fairer and certainly easier to administer.

hawkinspeter wrote:

DrJDog wrote:

But it isn't the pollution that is taxed at all, is it? If I 'tax' my car and for whatever reason don't drive it, I still pay the same as someone who drives 40,000 miles per year.

It's poorly implemented - I'd rather that it was scrapped and instead the tax should be levied on the fuel. That'd make it a bit fairer and certainly easier to administer.

I wouldn't scrap it, but I agree that fuel duty should be much higher. I would use the VED as an instrument to guide people to make sensible choices when buying cars in the first place. Factors could include carbon footprint of manufacture, third party safety, inflicted road damage for example.

Taxing vehicles based on estimated road damage would be a good one (in my opinion). However, that would have next to no effect on cars and would significantly affect the haulage industry (road damage is roughly proportional to the fourth power of vehicle weight).

hawkinspeter wrote:

Taxing vehicles based on estimated road damage would be a good one (in my opinion). However, that would have next to no effect on cars and would significantly affect the haulage industry (road damage is roughly proportional to the fourth power of vehicle weight).

Indeed it would. Any cost would be passed on by the hauliers down teh chain to the consumer, who in my opinion need to understand the cost of the damage to infrastructure and environment. 

DrJDog wrote:

But it isn't the pollution that is taxed at all, is it? If I 'tax' my car and for whatever reason don't drive it, I still pay the same as someone who drives 40,000 miles per year.

The pollution is taxed. To be more specific you pay for a licence which allows you to pollute. You pay one upfront fee to pollute as much s you want.

In any case the point remains, you don't pay to use the road - the road is free to use for all. It's what you choose to use on the road that is taxed, according to the nature of the pollution it generates.

DrJDog wrote:

But it isn't the pollution that is taxed at all, is it? If I 'tax' my car and for whatever reason don't drive it, I still pay the same as someone who drives 40,000 miles per year.

yes and no. your VED doesn't change bu they will also be paying a lot more than you in fuel duty. This is why I think VED should be scrapped and the costs moved to fuel. Let those using the fuel and causing the pollution pay the costs.

Also makes collection of revenue easier, all the admin associated with collecting from each vehcile owner every year, chaing the ones that don't pay sending out reminders beforehand etc. We know longer need the beaurocracy of a tax disc to prove someone did MOT and insure their car at last once a year.

Rich_cb wrote:

I'm with Titanus on this one. For the vast majority of motorists there is no practical difference between VED and Road Tax. VED is a charge you have to pay every year in order to use the public road network. Road Tax was a charge you had to pay every year in order to use the public road network. Arguing about pooled or ring fenced funds is meaningless to most people. Most motorists pay a fee to use the roads, cyclists do not. That's the crux of the matter and semantics make no difference.

Unfortunately you're wrong. You don't pay a fee to use the road network. You pay a fee which licences you to operate a polluting vehicle when not on private land.

There is no exception for cyclists, any more than there is an exception for carriages, horses,  pedestrians, roller skaters or anything else. Exemptions are only for vehicles with zero local emissions (eg electric vehicles) or low emitters - my i10 is only about £30 a year, whereas my Scenic is best part of x10 that cost.

There is no fee to use roads (except for toll roads, which are generally either private or motorway), they are the public highway and available to all - free at the point of need. What is taxed is  motor vehicles on the basis of emissions

Whether some ill-informed people appreciate the distinction is moot when faced with the actual fact.

Hope that clears things up

Captain Badger wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

I'm with Titanus on this one. For the vast majority of motorists there is no practical difference between VED and Road Tax. VED is a charge you have to pay every year in order to use the public road network. Road Tax was a charge you had to pay every year in order to use the public road network. Arguing about pooled or ring fenced funds is meaningless to most people. Most motorists pay a fee to use the roads, cyclists do not. That's the crux of the matter and semantics make no difference.

Unfortunately you're wrong. You don't pay a fee to use the road network. You pay a fee which licences you to operate a polluting vehicle when not on private land.

There is no exception for cyclists, any more than there is an exception for carriages, horses,  pedestrians, roller skaters or anything else. Exemptions are only for vehicles with zero local emissions (eg electric vehicles) or low emitters - my i10 is only about £30 a year, whereas my Scenic is best part of x10 that cost.

There is no fee to use roads (except for toll roads, which are generally either private or motorway), they are the public highway and available to all - free at the point of need. What is taxed is  motor vehicles on the basis of emissions

Whether some ill-informed people appreciate the distinction is moot when faced with the actual fact.

Hope that clears things up

Not really. so you don't pay a fee to use the road network. You pay a fee which licences you to operate a polluting vehicle when not on private land. 

Since a vehicle polutes whether on public or private land it's not really a fee on poluting vehicles then is it. It's just another tax, it just happens to be related loosely to polution.

As for the term 'road tax', do a google search and see who the top slot is held by - yes it's the govt. There are also thousands of results from respected organisations who also refer to VED as road tax. Why is this? It's because that's how many refer to VED.

Getting hung up on what it is called is pedantic. Cyclists don't pay because this tax is related to emissions, it has bugger all to do with what it is called or what it is used for - hopefully we can at least agree on that. 

But you're blatantly wrong about "paying to use the public road network" - VED is paying to pollute the air.

Also, stating "motorists pay a fee to use the roads, cyclists do not" is also incorrect as roads are a product of our taxes, so most cyclists will also be paying to use the roads unless they somehow manage to avoid all taxes.