Should cyclists have to pay ‘road tax’?

How kind, Bob. I absolutely agree that they should comply with the law.

In my view, cyclists are making a valuable contribution by not polluting the atmosphere or using up our reserves of fossil fuels. If they cycle to work, they are not going to be commuting long distances either.

I’m not sure how we do get cyclists to comply with the law. I have had to jump out of the way on the pavement too many times.

Horse riders who use the roads don’t pay tax. Other exemptions are agricultural, horticultural, forestry, electric, steam vehicles, vehicles for the disabled, mowing machines. As electric vehicles are exempt it seems to be reasonable to exempt other non-polluting transport – like cycles. Should pre-1/1/77 vehicles also be exempt?

VED must be paid for agricultural vehicles etc. unless they cover very short distances on public roads, for example between farm fields. I looked into this in connection with using dumpers and a small crane.

You wonder how well this is observed. When on the road, with or without trailers, they can be a hazard to other traffic if they are not well maintained “ imposing MOT tests on standard tractors and livestock trailers, used by thousands of farmers, would mean more needless red tape as well as increased costs in return for little safety benefit.. As other road users must have roadworthy vehicles I wonder why these should be exempt.

I share your concerns, Malcolm. I mentioned before that anyone can check the tax and mot status of vehicles online using the registration numbers: https://vehicleenquiry.service.gov.uk

Tractors have to pay the tax if they drive on roads further away than 5 miles from the farm centre. At least, that’s the case here.

Officially: “Vehicles used just for agriculture, horticulture and forestry
This includes tractors, agricultural engines and light agricultural vehicles used off-road. It also includes ‘limited use’ vehicles used for short journeys (not more than 1.5 kilometres) on the public road between land that’s occupied by the same person.”

Of course what happens and the rules often differs. Cycling offers many examples. 🙁

Thanks, Wave; thought 5 miles sounded too much when I posted it. The Police are pretty hot on it around here.

This comment was removed at the request of the user

Rachael-jane – If there were no four-wheeled vehicles there would be no need for the types of road we now have. Cyclists could manage on pathways and tracks. Even slow moving horse-drawn waggons and stagecoaches did not have the benefit of high-quality and well-graded roads with roundabouts and fly-overs but they had to pay tolls for the maintenance of turnpike roads.

We pay for the roads through all forms of taxation including income tax and value added tax so cyclists are contributing too. Cyclists might also be paying council tax which pays for the maintenance of local roads and street lighting.

Cyclists can buy insurance but it isn’t compulsory since there is little perceived risk of them inflicting much damage or injury on other road users.

Bicycles are almost self-testing; if something is broken it doesn’t work.

There is no additional charge [other than the cost of fuel] to drivers for travelling from A to B however far apart they are or how frequently the journey is made.

Many [if not most] cyclists also drive cars so they already pay for the roads.

Should pedestrians pay to use footpaths and pavements?

I fail to understand why taxis can use bus lanes. Why should one form of car be so privileged? Do taxi occupants somehow deserve speedier journeys than the rest of us?

This comment was removed at the request of the user

Civil action can be taken against a cyclist in the event of an accident. It would be in their interests to take out insurance to cover that.

Young children are also cyclists. How do you deal with them and where do you draw the line? Pedestrians can also be a source of accidents, particularly when inebriated. Should they have to have compulsory insurance? Hose riders?

I sympathise with the notion, but making a claim against another person who causes damage or injury does not require there to be compulsory insurance.

I may need to learn more about “hose riders” – is this the latest kidz craze 😉

…or did you mean “horse riders” 😀

W?C readers may be shocked to learn that bicycles can be freely purchased and ridden away from stores, into the the melee of local roads, cycle paths and pavements and without any compulsory PPE (e.g. crash helmets, light eye protection or gloves/knee pads/body armour).

There are no requirements for age and identity checks on the purchasers of these potentially dangerous devices, or for their retailers to hand over any written evidence of vehicle road worthiness at the time of purchase.

There also seem to be no mandatory requirements for the training or licencing of riders.

Unconfirmed reports here claim that, earlier this week, at a local charity shop, a certain middle aged W?C regular made an impulse purchase of a second hand bike, allegedly “for a friend”, and then just rode (or was it wobbled) off into Gloucester traffic.

Shame! These villains need locking up – bring back the stocks, I say.

The funding for highways comes from more sources than vehicle excise duty, including from people who do not own a vehicle.

Cyclists do pay tax – council tax and VAT to name but two forms that contribute to highway maintenance expenditure. Many cyclists are children, unlike car drivers.

Out of the millions of cyclists I doubt that a disproportionate number of them are offenders. I also doubt that a disproportionate number of offenders [on the roads] are cyclists.

As has already been said, the registration of bicycles and/or of cyclists would be an administrative nightmare, produce a very unreliable database, and would cost more than it is worth. Cars and other vehicles are recognisable by make, colour and registration mark [number plates]; that is not the case for bicycles.

There is no necessity to impose these burdens on cyclists; they do little damage to other road users, their vehicles or the highways infrastructure. If they ride in more hazardous areas, after dark, or in heavy traffic they will be sensible and insure themselves. Bicycle insurance [for loss or damage] is commonly available within household policies.

Neither are electric bikes subject to tax or compulsory insurance. In London I recently saw an electric scooter zipping along; it is, apparently, illegal to use one on the public highway but no one bothers. Quite right too. However it would be very sensible for the owners to have third party insurance.

You don’t need to tax and insure a horse drawn carriage either.

Let’s not make the world more complicated than it need be.

Also, pedestrians do not pay road tax 😉

Cyclists aren’t vehicles either 🙂 they’re real people too.

I just like to think of them as “mechanised pedestrians”.

Given the precedents under which certain eco friendly vehicles pay zero road tax, I think it is obvious that cyclists and pedestrains should not pay road tax.

What is this widespread “offending by cyclists” that so concerns Mr Walters [above]? And how much damage do cycles cause to the highways infrastructure that might justify a payment? And what is the advantage of trying to register bicycles?

Before motorised vehicles arrived, our roads merely had to be satisfactory for horse-drawn vehicles and bicycles; there was no need for roundabouts and traffic signals, millions of warning signs, street lighting and white lines everywhere. Why should cyclists contribute to that when they have actually suffered heavily from the increase in motorised traffic?

I detect the whiff of revenge in some of these comments, that cyclists are somehow getting away with something by riding on the roads free of charge. A tiny handful occasionally ride irresponsibly or unsafely, but I reckon most of the contact incidents on the public highway are the fault of bad drivers in motor vehicles and the poor maintenance of motor vehicles and their loads.

In my opinion it is the dangers of bad driving and heavy traffic that are forcing cyclists to ride on the pavements which then puts pedestrians at risk.

A cyclist is one less person taking up a large amount of road space in a car, and produces no pollution (well, maybe a little 🙂 ). Cycling should be encouraged. It keeps people fit, they don’t damage the roads, and they are less likely to be late for work.

Should we impose tax on all electric cars? Why not – they still take up road space and help create jams; get them to use electric bikes instead? 🙁

I am lucky to be able to cycle into the village or into town on a shared pavement/cycle path. Thankfully there are rarely any cyclists that use the path as a racetrack.

I would be happy for public money to be spent on making cycling safer. Why discourage electric cars by taxation when they can help improve air quality in our cities?

Because they still contribute to congestion and use electricity whose generation produces pollution. They also create some administration costs at the DVSA. But I’d make it a relatively low tax.

Collecting low taxes might cost more than it raises. Of course generating electricity produces pollution but the priority must surely be to tackle the illegal levels of nitrogen dioxide in our cities. I would like to see the dirty old diesels off the road – ones that produce soot during acceleration.

No doubt taxation of electric vehicles will come, but why hit the early adopters who are trying to do something positive?

They already benefit greatly from duty free and low tax fuel, as well as grants to buy their vehicles. So I’d suggest they can afford to make a (small) contribution to the costs of providing an oversight organisation and the means to travel.

The cost of electric cars is beyond the means of many who have to rely on old cars for their essential transport. Don’t we need to consider these people who might only be able to run an older diesel?

I’d rather see grants going towards providing clean, affordable and convenient public transport in our towns and cities so most don’t need to clog the roads with personal transport.

Scrappage schemes can help get rid of polluting cars, but to prevent exploitation these need to be restricted to those who have owned a car for a length of time and do not have access to another vehicle. We do have a recent topic on electric cars where this discussion would be more relevant.

Do you ride a bike, Malcolm? I’m going to get on mine to go down to the village.

If I’ve read the gov statistics correctly, there are 9 million diesel cars on the road that were more than 3 years old in 2017, so pre Euro 6 engines. That is an awful lot to scrap, and even if an unattractive £1000 was offered that would cost the taxpayer £9 bn. I’d suggest that money would be better invested in city and town public transport, with the most polluting vehicles banned from entering to reduce pollution.

What do you do with HGVs and other delivery vehicles, almost all diesel? Perhaps have them deliver out of hours?

Unfortunately the person I would travel with is disabled, so going by bike would be a bit tricky. Maybe I should think about getting one of these?

I’m sorry to hear that, but I’m sure there must be short journeys where you travel alone. You have frequently advocated bikes and electric bikes.

I have suggested it would be good if Which? reviewed electric bikes, including 2-seaters, to see which offer good range, durability and construction. I’d like to see a UK company making them, but not produced in Singapore – made at home.

Do you cycle at all, Malcolm?

I would be interested in an electric bike myself, but a folding one that will fit in the car. A Which? report would help me know what to look for but I would want to try before I buy.

I did look at buying a folding bike and was offered one (British made by AS Bikes) that is virtually unused. It has tiny 12 inch wheels and was hard to pedal – no doubt why it was donated to our society. By trying it, I was able to find out that it was of little use to me. I have a friend with a folding electric bike and he is happy to lend it to me for evaluation.

Plenty here Which? could review:
https://www.e-bikesdirect.co.uk/electric-bikes/folding-electric-bikes/

But why do bicycles need to be numbered? – and why do they need to be on “an equal footing with other vehicles used on public roads”?

Bicycles are not vehicles, not motorised, generally travel at low speed and rarely exceed the limits, cannot cause much harm or damage [except to the rider when hit], do not require third party insurance, and do not justify the expense of a general identification and record-keeping procedure.

At this rate, it’s only a matter of time before someone suggests licensing umbrellas.

I thought we already did? I bought my brolly licence only last month; good discount, too, from a chap who operates the Government mobile licensing company. Tricky to find him, though; always moving around.

I see someone doesn’t like our humour, in here: both Derek and I have had our exchanges marked down. I wonder if some people have their sense of humour extracted surgically – at birth, perhaps?

Oh no – perhaps we’re being admonished for off-topic behaviour…

Back more on topic, voluntary bicycle numbering systems are often advocated as a means to aid the recovery of lost or stolen bicycles to their rightful owners.

If so, then perhaps VED need only be applied to those entering such voluntary schemes for road bikes.

Further to discussions on an fair and equitable value for the applicable charge, we have seen that:

Small motorcycles pay £19/year.

Eco cars pay £0/year.

Cars, even eco ones, cause congestion

Bicycles cause less pollution that even eco cars, because even EVs and PHEVs need the provision of power stations somewhere.

Those making regular use of bicycles are likely to be fitter and healthier than the general population, so will place less of a strain on the NHS.

For those reasons, I think a fair VED charge must be less than the lowest car VED rate, which is zero.

Hence, to achieve that, the VED rate would have to be negative, so that those registering bikes would, in effect, be paid to do so, as a subsidy and thank you for their consideration and greater eco savvy.

That’s good logic, Derek. I’m never understood why low emissions cars should have very low or zero VED.

I am sure it won’t last.

If memory serves me right, the dedicated cycleway between Abingdon and Culham was created as a road safety measure to protect cyclists from deaths and injuries caused by the drivers of cars and goods vehicles.

In general, I think cyclists as a whole suffer far more deaths and injuries than they cause:

independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cycle-safety-laws-new-kim-briggs-death-warning-against-witch-hunt-a7960291.html

Until someone can provide any justification for registering bicycles the administrative cost of doing so is irrelevant.

Cycleways are provided out of the general highways budget in order to reduce the conflict between vehicles and bicycles and make the roads safer for all users. An enormous number of cyclists don’t have a segregated cycle track within twenty miles of where they ride their bikes so why they should be charged for such provision?

I don’t know whether it is envy or revenge but this Conversation seems to give rise to an unpleasant desire for retaliation against cyclists.

I agree with John that this seems to have become a convo for the outing of cyclist haters.

As a long standing motorcycle lobbyist, I’m somewhat bemused by the current point and purpose of VED for light vehicles (vans, cars, m/cycles etc.) because I think fuel duty provides a more effective and fairer way of raising taxation from road users, hence VED serves little point, other than to force folk to keep up MoT’s and insurance certs.

And, now that VED discs aren’t required, couldn’t the same ANPR technology that just checks registration numbers for valid VED, just directly check the MoT and insurance data bases instead?

It could, providing there were sufficient resources put into identifying those who don’t bother with such niceties. On a local forum members have been gnashing their collective teeth at the number of uninsured and untaxed vehicle doing the rounds. Finally, some started to get clamped, but it’s taken quite a while.

RM, I don’t think anyone here has condoned offending by cyclists.

That said, I’d view motorists calling out cyclists for offending as a “pot kettle black” issue.

My personal experience is that getting behind the wheel of a car makes it all too easy for me (and, perhaps also, others…) to break the law, not least by means of minor (and sometimes not so minor) violations of speed limits.

I’m actually not aware of any recent posts here that seem to be seeking revenge against motorists (or if so, for what crimes in particular ???). From what I can see, most of those supporting arguments against VED here for cyclists are themselves either current or retired motorists.

This Conversation has been going for about seven years now and there has been a full range of attitudes expressed and quite a bit of humour in places.

Another Conversation on whether cyclists should have to wear helmets also provoked very strong views for and against.

Latest cycling wheeze is to cycle straight across pedestrian crossings expecting other vehicles to slam on their anchors. What is confusing about the word pedestrian? Pedestrian crossings are for pedestrians not idiots in charge of road vehicles to cross. Dismount and then cross.

It is no longer called Vehicle Excise Duty, Denat. It is officially referred to as Car Tax.

The major benefit of bicycles is that they do not damage the roads but the safety issues involved lead to, and justify, significant public expenditure – largely due to the behaviour of drivers of motorised vehicles.

Yes, Phil, technically VED remains in place, but from a consumer viewpoint, and for the normal car owner, the term “car tax” is now used by the DVLA in its literature and website, and VED does not get much of a mention unless you explore the inner workings of the vehicle taxation system where the complications of applicable dates, emissions, and vehicle classes are revealed. At our level, and for discussing the possible taxation of bicycle owners, I think Car Tax will do.

People are still entitled to refer to Road Fund Tax and Vehicle Excise Duty if they wish but they might increasingly find that they have to explain themselves!

That might be so but cyclists hardly affect the surfaces of the roads. If the only road users were on bicycles or on foot the roads would last for ever with little need for maintenance and not much need for roundabouts, traffic signals, fly-overs, white lines, cats’ eyes, parking controls, or speed limits. Getting goods around might be more difficult but canals and the railways could come back into their own. There is absolutely no need to tax bicycles.

I realised that Jane’s message did not say there was any need to tax bicycles but it did suggest that the use of roads was a taxable activity, so in the spirit of this Conversation – which is all about the notion of taxation on cyclists [with “road tax” in quote marks] – I thought I would reinforce the message that comes through the Conversation that there is no need to apply a tax to bicycles.

I appreciate that many people take a different view, and some vehemently believe that cyclists are a menace who should be taxed for riding on our roads, but there have not been many – if any – convincing arguments why that is necessary.

You mention the registration of cycles: I can’t see what that would achieve.

Third party insurance: What damage can a bicycle do to a vehicle or the highway infrastructure? Are cyclists causing injuries or death to other road users?

Road and cycle path upkeep: As I wrote above – what do bicycles do to our highways that requires a financial contribution from their riders?

A small fee: I suggest the cost of collecting and enforcing it would outweigh its yield.

I hope that, as fellow citizens, cyclists are not in any way exempted from the laws that bind us all.

G h, your argument seems to be that because SOME cyclists break the law, ALL of them should pay road tax and carry compulsory insurance.

I’m afraid I think that is illogical and unjust. I think those who break the law can already be prosecuted and those who cause damage or other losses or injury to other road users can already be sued for damages.

G h – I agree with Derek. Having insurance will not make the cyclists about whom you complain improve their proficiency or road skills.

The cost of administering an excise duty scheme with registration would far exceed the likely revenue from the duty.

Neither of these ideas would improve the behaviour of vehicle drivers, some of whom do not make sufficient allowance for cyclists or give them enough room on the road.

With an expansion of cycling being officially encouraged now to improve health and reduce obesity, the government is unlikely to impose any burdens on cyclists. Drivers will have to show more tolerance to cyclists as numbers increase, drive more carefully, and exercise more consideration for all road users. It is worth bearing in mind that neither cyclists nor pedestrians have an accelerator whereas a motorist can make up lost time quite easily. I feel sure that when cyclists consider that they are getting fairer treatment their own attitudes will improve.

Progress is already being made on new highway designs where conflicts can arise and this should make conditions much safer for both classes of road user.

Phil, the traditional reason for charging VED to fund road maintenance, as opposed to the costs of policing errant motorists.

So a fair and reasonable approach to VED for bicycles ought to follow that approach.

Then, following the zero rating of the most eco friendly cars, it would be difficult to argue that bicycles should be charged more.

As regards the theme of this Convo, insurance (either compulsory or not) is a bit of a red herring.