Scotland's cycling tax

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
Brimstone wrote:

As always, it depends. Roads were only tarmaced thanks to the
invention and use of the pnuematic tyre which has a sucking effect.
Prior to that a fine gravel surface over increasingly larger stones
wsa perfectly adequate for horses and iron tyred vehicles, plus
pedestrians and and other livestock.

The main reason for metalling roads was dust, which is a factor of
both the pneumatic tyre and much heavier and faster traffic. I don't
believe there was a significant dust problem attributed to cyclists.

I was once told on one of these newsgroups that it was cyclists who started
the idea of road surfaces being sealed.

David Damerell writes:

Quoting Paul Rudin :
"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:
On Sep 14, 10:32Â*am, lardyninja wrote:
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com...ment-in-talks-...
I don't have a problem with cyclists paying proportionally for the
cost of roads.
The problem is with the concept of VED being a payment for a service
- it's not, it's just another tax.

Guy knows that. You really should have read the rest of his article.

I did.

I was expressing my disagreement with his statement and giving reasons
why.

There are many ways that you can estimate what's "proportional", but
it's missing the point... we just don't want to go there in the first
place.

On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 18:33:05 +0100, Matt B
wrote:

Why should "impact on infrastructure" be taken into account for bikes -
it isn't for any other vehicle?

Yes it is. Larger vehicles, within bands, pay more VED than smaller
vehicles. Though there are some exceptional cases: veteran cars and
low emitting vehicles, etc.

On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 10:45:54 +0100, "mileburner"
wrote:


"lardyninja" wrote in message
...


http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com...ver.5642372.jp

In principle, I think the idea is good. Someone has to pay for the roads so
howsabout starting with the people who use them?

Like... most people who live and breathe, you mean? Even the dead
usually make at least one last journey as a road user.

However, the cost of administration would undoubtedly be high and the
policing would difficult.

That's an understatement.

In fact, the more I think about it, we should not be paying for this damage
by way of council tax, but higher rates of VED should be levied to cover the
cost. That way cyclists and pedestrians will not be contributing to the
damage to roads caused by vehicles.

ITYM *motor* vehicles: bicycles are also vehicles. The heavier motor
vehicles supply shops with their goods. Some of which most living,
breathing people need just to stay living and breathing. Food, for
example. I guess we could all have soup piped along with the gas,
electricity[1] and water, though. I imagine croutons would make it
down a suitable bore pipe on Onion Soup Days.

[1] Well, OK, not exactly 'piped'.

--
-Pip

Tom Crispin twisted the electrons to say:
Increase VAT to 20%, and zero rate VAT for products made entirely from
recycled or sustainable materials, with the onus on the manafacturer
to prove that the product is made from recycled or sustainable
materials.

EU rules would prohibit 0% VAT, however putting such products into
(already existing) 5% VAT band would be fine. You could also have
another band for products that where less than 100% recycled /
sustainable, 15% for products of at least 75% but less than 100%
perhaps?
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

In article ,
Brimstone wrote:

As always, it depends. Roads were only tarmaced thanks to the invention and
use of the pnuematic tyre which has a sucking effect. Prior to that a fine
gravel surface over increasingly larger stones wsa perfectly adequate for
horses and iron tyred vehicles, plus pedestrians and and other livestock.

Not really. The sucking effect with narrow tyres at low speeds is
negligible, and I doubt that became critical until they abolished
the red flag rule. Wikipedia concurs.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

wrote:
In article ,
Brimstone wrote:

As always, it depends. Roads were only tarmaced thanks to the
invention and use of the pnuematic tyre which has a sucking effect.
Prior to that a fine gravel surface over increasingly larger stones
wsa perfectly adequate for horses and iron tyred vehicles, plus
pedestrians and and other livestock.

Not really. The sucking effect with narrow tyres at low speeds is
negligible, and I doubt that became critical until they abolished
the red flag rule. Wikipedia concurs.

AFAIK the red flag rule did not apply to bicycles.

On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 18:27:12 +0000 (UTC), Alistair Gunn
wrote:

Tom Crispin twisted the electrons to say:
Increase VAT to 20%, and zero rate VAT for products made entirely from
recycled or sustainable materials, with the onus on the manafacturer
to prove that the product is made from recycled or sustainable
materials.

EU rules would prohibit 0% VAT, however putting such products into
(already existing) 5% VAT band would be fine. You could also have
another band for products that where less than 100% recycled /
sustainable, 15% for products of at least 75% but less than 100%
perhaps?

A great many things are already zero-rated: children's clothes, most
foods, books, newspapers, agricultural and aviation fuel, for example.

In article ,
Brimstone wrote:

As always, it depends. Roads were only tarmaced thanks to the
invention and use of the pnuematic tyre which has a sucking effect.
Prior to that a fine gravel surface over increasingly larger stones
wsa perfectly adequate for horses and iron tyred vehicles, plus
pedestrians and and other livestock.

Not really. The sucking effect with narrow tyres at low speeds is
negligible, and I doubt that became critical until they abolished
the red flag rule. Wikipedia concurs.

AFAIK the red flag rule did not apply to bicycles.

Sigh. I never said that it did. If you think about it, the sucking
effect is the converse of the aquaplaning effect - and just how often
have you aquaplaned on a bicycle? I did point out that it's a feature
of wide tyres at high speeds - neither of which applied to bicycles
of that era.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Tom Crispin twisted the electrons to say:
EU rules would prohibit 0% VAT, however putting such products into
(already existing) 5% VAT band would be fine. You could also have
another band for products that where less than 100% recycled /
sustainable, 15% for products of at least 75% but less than 100%
perhaps?
A great many things are already zero-rated: children's clothes, most
foods, books, newspapers, agricultural and aviation fuel, for example.

Yes, but AIUI countries are not allowed to add new items to the zero
rated list. Nor are they allowed to re-add said items if they are ever
removed. Minimum VAT rate is 15% with, optionally, 2 other lower bands
which must be between 5% and 15%.
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...