Should Cyclists pay road tax and insurance?

242
Found 24th Aug 2017
Reading some news articles about people getting badly injured or dying as a result of being hit by bikes.
I'm surprised that as users of the road, where there is a chance for them to be injured or cause injury they do not seem to require insurance or need to pay a road fund licence. I'm also a little unclear on requirements for safety gear.

Not a dig at the styles of riding or whether cyclists are law-abiding. Just curious as to why one can simply buy a bike and use it on the road regardless of the dangers that abound.
Community Updates
  1. Misc
Groups
  1. Misc
Top comments
As an avid cyclist, I would happily pay a cycle tax if it meant a nationwide network of safe reliable roads solely for cyclists would be built.
No no no
When people use bikes ,it saves on congestion and saves on fumes .

So you want to tax people for going about the rite way ? By making less traffic and less pollution
Yes they should contribute something to the Road Tax.

Millions have been spent on cycle tracks and still they persist in riding on the road (or the pavement).
No. Mobility scooters however...
242 Comments
No no no
When people use bikes ,it saves on congestion and saves on fumes .

So you want to tax people for going about the rite way ? By making less traffic and less pollution
Insurance maybe as currently who pays if a cyclist damages a car say, but then how do you police it? would every bike need a number plate and linked to an address like a car, but if insurance isn't reasonable it'll remove the casual cyclists due to cost and effort to be 'road legal'

road tax doesn't exist
Edited by: "winifer" 24th Aug 2017
No I don't think they should. And I don't own a road bike or any lycra clothing.
I do agree that cyclists should have insurance but I wish people would realise there is no such thing as road tax. It is a emissions charge, Cars that emit more pollution pay a larger charge. Everyone pays for the upkeep of the roads it comes out of your income tax so cyclist if they work do pay road tax.
Negative
Yes they should contribute something to the Road Tax.

Millions have been spent on cycle tracks and still they persist in riding on the road (or the pavement).
I think some form of personal liability insurance isn't a bad idea. If I hurt someone by crashing into them on a bike, dropping something on them or generally any sort of accident it would make sense that they are eligible for compensation.
Making it specific to riding a bike would simply put people off riding or be too difficult to enforce due to the change of bike, peoples age and ability etc. At least general personal liability isn't linked to the bike I ride, plus if I have a 5 year old that causes an accident, the 5 year could in theory have it's own insurance... or be linked to the parents insurance.

In truth though, despite all of the above being said. Is this really an issue? Was it a talking point before the coverage in the news? Is it really a problem that needs solving? I don't think so really.
No. Mobility scooters however...
Predikuesi8 m ago

Yes they should contribute something to the Road Tax.Millions have been …Yes they should contribute something to the Road Tax.Millions have been spent on cycle tracks and still they persist in riding on the road (or the pavement).



There still isn't any such thing as road tax.
They should have insurance and a number plate
Error4404 m ago

They should have insurance and a number plate


Sarcasm?
CoeK1 m ago

Sarcasm?


No, they jump red lights, go on pavement fast etc
Error44055 s ago

No, they jump red lights, go on pavement fast etc



Oh dear, ok then.
Predikuesi21 m ago

Yes they should contribute something to the Road Tax.Millions have been …Yes they should contribute something to the Road Tax.Millions have been spent on cycle tracks and still they persist in riding on the road (or the pavement).


As already mentioned ITT and for many similar threads road tax doesn't exist

VED is based on emissions and as electric cars and similar ULEV are zero VED how can anyone think that cyclists should pay?

As for the general topic only 3 AFAIK cyclists have been convicted, in the last 10 years, of an equivalent dangerous driving offence. A cyclists and their cycle do not weigh upwards of 1 tonne and cannot in most cases exceed 30mph on city streets so the risk to the public is, as proved by the amount of convictions, very very rare.

We already have a legal requirement to have VED and insurance and to pass a test as well as an MOT yet we still get 100's of "drivers" convicted daily of failure to comply yet OP thinks we should now question cyclists?

Hey I hate the odd cyclist who RLJ's or doesn't check before changing lanes/direction or rides on the footpath but there are more bad drivers which are a greater risk to other pedestrians/road users that needs to be fixed before we can consider cyclists.
Edited by: "philphil61" 24th Aug 2017
winifer27 m ago

Insurance maybe as currently who pays if a cyclist damages a car say, but …Insurance maybe as currently who pays if a cyclist damages a car say, but then how do you police it? would every bike need a number plate and linked to an address like a car, but if insurance isn't reasonable it'll remove the casual cyclists due to cost and effort to be 'road legal' road tax doesn't exist


mopeds are insured, why not cycles, give em a reg plate because a few cyclists are dangerous, just like a few drivers.
I think we should make joggers pass a pavement test, require them to have licence plates and pay jogger insurance. They should also have speed limits unless they are Mo Farah.

I'm sure it will be totally worth the time and money to do that.
philphil613 m ago

As already mentioned ITT and for many similar threads road tax doesn't …As already mentioned ITT and for many similar threads road tax doesn't existVED is based on emissions and as electric cars and similar ULEV are zero VED how can anyone think that cyclists should pay?As for the general topic only 3 AFAIK cyclists have been convicted, in the last 10 years, of an equivalent dangerous driving offence. A cyclists and their cycle do not weigh upwards of 1 tonne and cannot in most cases exceed 30mph on city streets so the risk to the public is, as proved by the amount of convictions, very very rare.We already have a legal requirement to have VED and insurance and to pass a test as well as an MOT yet we still get 100's of "drivers" convicted daily of failure to comply yet OP thinks we should now question cyclists?Hey I hate the odd cyclist who RLJ's or doesn't check before changing lanes/direction or rides on the footpath but there are more bad drivers which are a greater risk to other pedestrians/road users that needs to be fixed before we can consider cyclists.


Yes that is all well and good but I once saw a cyclist cycling on the wrong side of the path in my local park. Therefore we should create a whole new system to account for my limited personal experience of this event.
sparx198124 m ago

I think some form of personal liability insurance isn't a bad idea. If I …I think some form of personal liability insurance isn't a bad idea. If I hurt someone by crashing into them on a bike, dropping something on them or generally any sort of accident it would make sense that they are eligible for compensation. Making it specific to riding a bike would simply put people off riding or be too difficult to enforce due to the change of bike, peoples age and ability etc. At least general personal liability isn't linked to the bike I ride, plus if I have a 5 year old that causes an accident, the 5 year could in theory have it's own insurance... or be linked to the parents insurance.In truth though, despite all of the above being said. Is this really an issue? Was it a talking point before the coverage in the news? Is it really a problem that needs solving? I don't think so really.


Should every pedestrian also have insurance....just in case?

Should every burglar/bag snatcher/shop lifter have insurance?
philphil611 m ago

Should every pedestrian also have insurance....just in case?Should every …Should every pedestrian also have insurance....just in case?Should every burglar/bag snatcher/shop lifter have insurance?



Not a bad idea, if the burglar is caught we claim their insurance, if they get away we claim our own insurance.

No joke, there will be some on here that think that's a good idea.
CoeK3 m ago

Yes that is all well and good but I once saw a cyclist cycling on the …Yes that is all well and good but I once saw a cyclist cycling on the wrong side of the path in my local park. Therefore we should create a whole new system to account for my limited personal experience of this event.



Question 1
A - Are you trolling
B - It's meant to be sarcasm
C - You've got nothing better to do until your benefit gets paid
D - Something else

Please only reply with a letter (A B C D) nothing more, nothing less
philphil611 m ago

Question 1A - Are you trollingB - It's meant to be sarcasmC - You've got …Question 1A - Are you trollingB - It's meant to be sarcasmC - You've got nothing better to do until your benefit gets paidD - Something elsePlease only reply with a letter (A B C D) nothing more, nothing less



Can I have all 4? It says a lot about this site that you can't automatically tell I was being sarcastic
CoeK22 m ago

There still isn't any such thing as road tax.


philphil6110 m ago

As already mentioned ITT and for many similar threads road tax doesn't …As already mentioned ITT and for many similar threads road tax doesn't existVED is based on emissions and as electric cars and similar ULEV are zero VED how can anyone think that cyclists should pay?As for the general topic only 3 AFAIK cyclists have been convicted, in the last 10 years, of an equivalent dangerous driving offence. A cyclists and their cycle do not weigh upwards of 1 tonne and cannot in most cases exceed 30mph on city streets so the risk to the public is, as proved by the amount of convictions, very very rare.We already have a legal requirement to have VED and insurance and to pass a test as well as an MOT yet we still get 100's of "drivers" convicted daily of failure to comply yet OP thinks we should now question cyclists?Hey I hate the odd cyclist who RLJ's or doesn't check before changing lanes/direction or rides on the footpath but there are more bad drivers which are a greater risk to other pedestrians/road users that needs to be fixed before we can consider cyclists.



Whatever it's called, cyclists should pay it too.
Predikuesi37 s ago

Whatever it's called, cyclists should pay it too.



Lets pretend they do, since their charge would be 0 anyway.
Predikuesi2 m ago

Whatever it's called, cyclists should pay it too.


OK but based on current rules because the emissions of the cyclists is "almost zero" (have to include farts) the total payable would be £0.00

And that would help the other road users/government how?
CoeK6 m ago

Can I have all 4? It says a lot about this site that you can't …Can I have all 4? It says a lot about this site that you can't automatically tell I was being sarcastic


lol
I would love to know how a policy gets decided on for insurance. Do they want the measurement of the circumference of your thighs so they can judge what speed you will be going.

Can pensioners get a classic leg policy?
Will young people be charged more because their lack of hairy legs reduces their wind resistance?

Important questions need answered.
philphil6119 m ago

As already mentioned ITT and for many similar threads road tax doesn't …As already mentioned ITT and for many similar threads road tax doesn't existVED is based on emissions and as electric cars and similar ULEV are zero VED how can anyone think that cyclists should pay?As for the general topic only 3 AFAIK cyclists have been convicted, in the last 10 years, of an equivalent dangerous driving offence. A cyclists and their cycle do not weigh upwards of 1 tonne and cannot in most cases exceed 30mph on city streets so the risk to the public is, as proved by the amount of convictions, very very rare.We already have a legal requirement to have VED and insurance and to pass a test as well as an MOT yet we still get 100's of "drivers" convicted daily of failure to comply yet OP thinks we should now question cyclists?Hey I hate the odd cyclist who RLJ's or doesn't check before changing lanes/direction or rides on the footpath but there are more bad drivers which are a greater risk to other pedestrians/road users that needs to be fixed before we can consider cyclists.


^this
can we first do something about the idiot motorists who park on or increasingly just use pavements as an extension of the road !
Insurance yes , road tax nope.
As an avid cyclist, I would happily pay a cycle tax if it meant a nationwide network of safe reliable roads solely for cyclists would be built.
I think they should all wear helmets and not use phones while cycling they wobble all over the place and expect everyone else to dodge them and this is on pavements !!!
From a FOI request

31778853-D8ffp.jpg

As for Charlie Alliston's case
He was riding a fixie with no front brake - deserved to be convicted

IMHO, although I haven't seen any evidence, if someone walks into the road whilst looking at their mobile and not paying attention to traffic on that road then they are asking for trouble
But as already stated, he did have a responsibility to ride a road legal cycle and therefore the option to brake and potentially avoid killing the "jaywalker"
No such thing as road tax. We all pay for the road, and cycle paths (few and far between mind you). Those with vehicles that produce emissions do contribute the most to the road, that is true. But they also cause more wear and tear.

Now that's out of the way. There's an incentive to cycling. I won't explain the good about it, I'm sure you all know. Educating cyclist is more important. It's the lack of respect for the road and those on it that stands out like a sore thumb. Not just cyclist either. Insurance would not help much in my opinion. It would put people off cycling which isn't a good thing no matter what you think. There does need to be something done though, either through more facilities, courses, etc.
Carley9 m ago

As an avid cyclist, I would happily pay a cycle tax if it meant a …As an avid cyclist, I would happily pay a cycle tax if it meant a nationwide network of safe reliable roads solely for cyclists would be built.


You shouldn't need "safe reliable roads solely for cyclists"

You need all road users to adhere to the law
No helmet no compensation if involved in an accident.

No working lights no compensation if involved in an accident

No reflective clothing no compensation if involved in an accident.

I would have the same for car drivers using a phone or not wearing a seatbelt.

ALL cyclists should be required to have public indemnity, and an identify plate on their bikes. You want to cycle on the roads then you have insurance and are identifiable.

Coek et al can't cope with this basic concept although will be on here asking for advice when a cyclists leaves a 6 inch scratch on their Fiat Punto wanting to know where they stand.
Problem is that we want to encourage people to stop using their cars and use their bikes instead so this will be counter productive.
philphil618 m ago

You shouldn't need "safe reliable roads solely for cyclists"You need all …You shouldn't need "safe reliable roads solely for cyclists"You need all road users to adhere to the law




There are extensive stretches of the roads in Manchester specifically for cyclists - which I, as a non cycling taxpayer, would be happy to see rolled out on a larger scale.

31779005-DyOPw.jpg
Edited by: "RossD89" 24th Aug 2017
Of course not. Any money made by any form of tax will not offset the lost revenue for the cycling industry...

It is likely that fewer bikes will be sold, meaning the government will get less VAT, without mentioning job losses. Also where are you drawing the line? Does a 6 year old who is learning to cycle with stabilisers need to pay? I certainly hope not.

Whenever this comes up, I just think it is just a few self centered motorists who are angry (or other reasons) with cyclists for whatever reason just trying to get their own back. Why not just enjoy people cycling, after all, apart from manufacturing, it is not harming the environment unlike the cars and lorries who all so often come so close to causing fatalities to cyclists (yes I am aware that cyclists cause injuries too and are frequently idiots themselves).

With it being revealed today that 41% of 40-60 year olds don't even go for a 10 minute brisk walk A MONTH (yes there may be plausible reasons why...) surely the government should be trying to promote cycling, not tax it.
RossD8912 m ago

There are extensive stretches of the roads in Manchester specifically for …There are extensive stretches of the roads in Manchester specifically for cyclists - which I, as a non cycling taxpayer, would be happy to see rolled out on a larger scale.[Image]


Round here the bikes get a bigger section then the pedestrians and they don't take any notice of it anyway or maybe its because they don't like being next to the road. They also ignore the colour coded sides in the underpasses riding all over the place, basically they don't care full stop. Had plenty of run ins with the idiots, at least they get what they deserve in the end, Darwinism.

Theres a crossroads here and they are always racing the lights and flitting between behaving like road users and pedestrians when it suits them, pretty often it doesn't end well there.
RossD8925 m ago

There are extensive stretches of the roads in Manchester specifically for …There are extensive stretches of the roads in Manchester specifically for cyclists - which I, as a non cycling taxpayer, would be happy to see rolled out on a larger scale.[Image]


Nottingham has a fantastic cycle route throughout the city and are doing even more for cyclists (and ULEV)

I've been a keen cyclist but ill health stops me so now I have powered 2 wheeler but during my cycling era there were good cycling paths covered in broken glass or the odd pedestrian walking in the cycling path or even over hanging branches that blocked the path so most cyclists (including myself) would use the 60mph single lane road.

As per your comment/image - yes if the cycle route is sound and well planned/maintained cyclists should not be using the road IMHO

But we get back to the same old issue that will not be solved until those in authority enforce the law to it's full extent and sentencing reflects the crime.

If every road user followed all the laws and the Highway Code and any other rules then yes we'd have the occasional accident but I'm guessing the number of deaths by vehicles would plummet.
He admitted that she was not using her mobile he made that up
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text

    Top Discussions