Pothole crisis worsened by heavy vehicles... but make cyclists pay road tax, concludes GB News journalist; Philippa York responds to Lance Armstrong trans comments; Alex Dowsett battles the club 10 (+ state of TT scene discussion) + more on the live blog

Must be something in the name. 

This is where the radical agenda from Trans bullies and the Hard Left get free rein from a subservient Mainstream media. 

No one has the brains or guts in the media to question statements like "everyday in the UK there's a debate on my right to participate fully in society". 

What rights don't Trans people have? 

Ah yes, the ''hard left'' are totally in control of the media! I'm just going to roll around on the floor laughing for a few hours. Thanks for that, made my day. Keep 'em coming.

You need to read before you post.

"get free rein from a subservient mainstream media" is what it means, anyone daring to say anything but Woke rubbish simply won't have a job. Post a Trans / UKR etc flag on you bio, trot out the party line that men are actually women, and keep on marching. The Observer and The Guardian are Hard Left media organisations like that. 

Laughing on your own on the floor for hours? Sounds like you need to go for a ride. Cycling benefits mental health.  

Well they do say that laughter is the best medicine (in the mainstream media) so please keep posting.

I would like to see vehicle tax changed to some equation like 

Rate = X*vehicle weight*(CO2/mile+1)*Miles driven per year

where X is a factor which puts a normal small family car driven the average amount somewhere near where it is now and people who use big heavy vehicles or drive a lot or produce a lot of pollution pay their fair share while those who have cars but don't use them or choose small, non polluting vehicles pay less. That would stop the most damaging to the road and the environment vehicles getting away without paying for the damage they do while also rewarding those who make greener choices. 

why "C02/mile+1"?

Also (not necessarily one for you) - should the C02/mile calculation be done during the vehicle MOT? Am thinking of those altered cars that sound ridiculous, that must be burning through a load of fuel - the manufacture C02/mile calculation wouldn't apply to their vehicle!

ohhh - would it be better to stick a tax onto the cost of fuel, so people that drive more/ have big fuel guzzling vehicles, pay more?

HoldingOn wrote:

ohhh - would it be better to stick a tax onto the cost of fuel, so people that drive more/ have big fuel guzzling vehicles, pay more?

There's already quite a lot of tax on fuel in the form of duty and VAT, and it doesn't capture EVs. As mentioned in my other post, scaled road pricing may well end up being the solution. 

HoldingOn wrote:

why "C02/mile+1"?

So EV's don't pay nothing, if it was 0 it would make the total come out as 0 overall. They should pay for their use of the road, the damage they do to it and the pollution created from things like tyre wear spitting microplastics into the atmosphere.  

Patrick9-32 wrote:

HoldingOn wrote:

why "C02/mile+1"?

So EV's don't pay nothing, if it was 0 it would make the total come out as 0 overall. They should pay for their use of the road, the damage they do to it and the pollution created from things like tyre wear spitting microplastics into the atmosphere.  

And they will in <2 years...

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/introduction-of-vehicle-excis...

Weight of an EV is a red herring BTW.  The incremental damage/particulates/rubber waste done by a 25%* heavier 1.5-2.0T EV is neglible compared to that of any multi-ton truck, coach, bus etc.

*Skoda Enyaq is approx 25% heavier than the equivalent Kodiaq

While you're doing your numbers on all this, what's the coefficient of child labour mining for Cobalt in Africa for EV batteries vs. the vector of Uyghur slave labour in China producing solar panels? 

Patrick9-32 wrote:

I would like to see vehicle tax changed to some equation like 

Rate = X*vehicle weight*(CO2/mile+1)*Miles driven per year

where X is a factor which puts a normal small family car driven the average amount somewhere near where it is now and people who use big heavy vehicles or drive a lot or produce a lot of pollution pay their fair share while those who have cars but don't use them or choose small, non polluting vehicles pay less. That would stop the most damaging to the road and the environment vehicles getting away without paying for the damage they do while also rewarding those who make greener choices. 

Way too complex to administer IMO. I suspect there will be a move to blanket road pricing with perhaps various tiers based on vehicle type / class. 

Don't see that it is. All that info is already in the system from ved and mot records, so it would be straight forward to calculate.
Unless you refer to the X variable and trying to get it to be representative for a typical average mile driver.

Upload your strava to DVLA.gov and get a tax refund for every km covered and a one time bonus for every KOM achieved!

mitsky wrote:

I remember reading years ago about a cost-benefit analysis comparison between modes of transport.

...

Anyone know of an updated version of the report?

There was an infographic by The Discourse, recently quoted/RT'd here:

https://twitter.com/seattle4ron/status/1673373781702877184

Some numbers from Bristol Cycling campaign:
https://www.bristolcycling.org.uk/who-pays-for-our-roads/

And don't forget that air pollution "is the largest environmental risk to public health": - BMJ, 15 May 2023

https://www.bmj.com/content/381/bmj.p1037

In 2020 the BHF claimed that particulate-related air pollution could kill 160,000 people in the UK by the end of this decade.

"In London alone, air pollution contributes to in excess of 9,400 premature deaths every year, and costs the health system between £1.4 and £3.7 billion per year, as well damaging buildings and biodiversity through the formation of pollutants into acid rain."

From https://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/node/33224

Additionally, no-one can argue with the fact that choosing active travel has many benefits for the individual's mental and physical health, as well as externally for everyone around you. More people cycling and walking could save the NHS (and UK taxpayers) a fortune.

Exeter Cycling campaign stated that, according to the DfT Value of Cycling Report in 2016, "Per sq metre, cycle parking delivers 5 x higher retail spend than car parking"

https://twitter.com/exetercycling/status/835109563091267585

The whole 'cyclists should pay road tax' argument also ignores that fact that most cyclists also drive and many will already be paying a tax on their vehicle(s). I pay £160 VED per year for my car to sit on the driveway all week while I cycle to work. Whenever possible I also cycle into town, to appointments, club committee meetings, to delivery or collect items etc.

Facts about cars from Brent Toderian:

https://twitter.com/BrentToderian/status/1591982100840067072

We could spend many hours collating convincing, strong factual data about the benefits of active travel and conversely the horrendous effects of motor traffic but in the end the people in power - government, councils, and decision-makers in business etc - don't give a shit. They don't care one bit about our health, about public and personal finances or the environment / climate change.

They and their dog-whistle media puppets prefer to be outraged about out-groups, including demonising cyclists and how they should wear helmets, hi-viz, daytime lights etc so we are a better target for abuse and distracted drivers to hit-and-run.

Simon E wrote:

They and their dog-whistle media puppets prefer to be outraged about out-groups, including demonising cyclists and how they should wear helmets, hi-viz, daytime lights etc so we are a better target for abuse and distracted drivers to hit-and-run.

Essential to get the Road Collision Reporting Guidelines made mandatory for the mainstream media so that Attitude and Behaviour will change.
The Department of Culture Media and Sports to be responsible for enforcement not some voluntary IPSO Editors Code of Conduct that does nothing about hate speech.

100% agree.
You may like https://www.facebook.com/groups/3331869633536303/

Untill 1988 there was a dog licence of 37p (£1.20 in todays money I think) which was abolished as it was costing more than it collected and lots of owners didn't bother.

The Clifton Suspension Bridge charges £1 in each direction for motor vehicles.  Bicycles and pedestrians cross for free.

Once upon a time, they charged (IIRC) two pence for a pedestrian or a cyclist to cross, but gave up because it was costing more to deal with than it collected.

Keeping a mid size dog emits around 5 tonnes of CO2 a year. So it would actually make sense to charge dog and other pet owners like cats for keeping them. If that reduces their numbers so much the better, the number of birds killed by domestic cats is humongous.

marmotte27 wrote:

Keeping a mid size dog emits around 5 tonnes of CO2 a year. So it would actually make sense to charge dog and other pet owners like cats for keeping them. If that reduces their numbers so much the better, the number of birds killed by domestic cats is humongous.

I'll go down this rabbit hole…an average size dog will be responsible for between 500 kg and 1 tonne of CO2 per annum, still a very large number but nothing like 5 tonnes. Professor Mike Berners-Lee (relation) of the University of Lancaster, who specialises in calculating carbon footprints, estimates the average dog's carbon footprint at 770 kg per year. 

In terms of cats, yes they do kill a huge number of birds per year but a large proportion of those are birds that are already sick or injured. It is not only generally agreed by experts that cat depredation makes no difference to the size of bird populations but also that without the domestic cat rat populations would run wild; rats predate on birds' eggs and so bird populations would, counterintuitively, be severely negatively affected by an absence of cats.

BalladOfStruth wrote:

I, for one, support the idea of a weight/wear-and-tear based road tax for cyclists.
 

The way I see it, there's two ways it can go: either they keep the rates for motor vehicles as they are and scale the rates for bicycles from that (using the weight over each axle equation - I don't know if anyone has the table to hand), meaning that we'd pay some minuscule fraction of a penny that would cost the Government hundreds of times more to actually claim in admin than it would be worth. OR, we can set the bike tax at some nominal fee that is actually viable for the Government to claim (say £2, for example), and scale the vehicle rates up from that, meaning a mid-sized family hatch costs about £6,000 a year. 
 

Either way, it'd be fucking hilarious. 

we could get the government to take a tax of £1 on the purchase of every new bike to cover the "road tax" for the first 100 years of use, then complain that the same should be done for cars.

Thanks for the breakdown, and giving me no need to waste my own time. Thanks for being a hero!