Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
 ), and i didn't know this, it seems that the cost (to produce) of a 'free' Band A £0.00 tax disc is £1.37 if bought from a Post Office and £0.95 if bought online, and that cost is taken from the overall tax take of VED.
There are around 2 million Band A vehicles on British roads so thats roughly £2 million spent subsidising Band A vehicles.
Cycles would of course be Band A, there are roughly 25 million cycles in the UK so that would be an extra £25 million added on to the current VED tax haul.
Hmm, not sure many would want that extra burden. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But what would the tax be for, exactly? " Well, some people would like to see cycles 'pay tax' so i explored how it would work under the current VED system. As cycles emit less than 100grms of carbon per Kilometre they would be Band A vehicles and subject to a fee of £0.00. The cost to the exchequer (i.e. taxpayers) would be circa £25 million - just to satisfy the idea that cycles should pay tax. Doesn't look like a good idea to me! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But what would the tax be for, exactly? Well, some people would like to see cycles 'pay tax' so i explored how it would work under the current VED system. As cycles emit less than 100grms of carbon per Kilometre they would be Band A vehicles and subject to a fee of £0.00. The cost to the exchequer (i.e. taxpayers) would be circa £25 million - just to satisfy the idea that cycles should pay tax. Doesn't look like a good idea to me!" It's the assumption that bikes would only be taxed under the current VED system that's flawed. Once you include bikes for VED, you can do lots more including uplift and resell/ scrap the ones which aren't taxed. You'd also have to give each bike a much more easily check able number. That could lead to licence plates. That'd make them more vulnerable to prosecution for traffic offences. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But what would the tax be for, exactly? Well, some people would like to see cycles 'pay tax' so i explored how it would work under the current VED system. As cycles emit less than 100grms of carbon per Kilometre they would be Band A vehicles and subject to a fee of £0.00. The cost to the exchequer (i.e. taxpayers) would be circa £25 million - just to satisfy the idea that cycles should pay tax. Doesn't look like a good idea to me! It's the assumption that bikes would only be taxed under the current VED system that's flawed. Once you include bikes for VED, you can do lots more including uplift and resell/ scrap the ones which aren't taxed. You'd also have to give each bike a much more easily check able number. That could lead to licence plates. That'd make them more vulnerable to prosecution for traffic offences." Well, there doesn't appear to be any plans for an overhaul of the VED system in the pipeline to be fair so we can only go with the current system. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But what would the tax be for, exactly? Well, some people would like to see cycles 'pay tax' so i explored how it would work under the current VED system. As cycles emit less than 100grms of carbon per Kilometre they would be Band A vehicles and subject to a fee of £0.00. The cost to the exchequer (i.e. taxpayers) would be circa £25 million - just to satisfy the idea that cycles should pay tax. Doesn't look like a good idea to me! It's the assumption that bikes would only be taxed under the current VED system that's flawed. Once you include bikes for VED, you can do lots more including uplift and resell/ scrap the ones which aren't taxed. You'd also have to give each bike a much more easily check able number. That could lead to licence plates. That'd make them more vulnerable to prosecution for traffic offences. Well, there doesn't appear to be any plans for an overhaul of the VED system in the pipeline to be fair so we can only go with the current system." Once HM Treasury realises there a shilling or two to be made, that might well change. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But what would the tax be for, exactly? Well, some people would like to see cycles 'pay tax' so i explored how it would work under the current VED system. As cycles emit less than 100grms of carbon per Kilometre they would be Band A vehicles and subject to a fee of £0.00. The cost to the exchequer (i.e. taxpayers) would be circa £25 million - just to satisfy the idea that cycles should pay tax. Doesn't look like a good idea to me! It's the assumption that bikes would only be taxed under the current VED system that's flawed. Once you include bikes for VED, you can do lots more including uplift and resell/ scrap the ones which aren't taxed. You'd also have to give each bike a much more easily check able number. That could lead to licence plates. That'd make them more vulnerable to prosecution for traffic offences. Well, there doesn't appear to be any plans for an overhaul of the VED system in the pipeline to be fair so we can only go with the current system. Once HM Treasury realises there a shilling or two to be made, that might well change." I wouldn't put it past them at all, but they would always balance that against any potential electoral cost.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Technically therefore, pedestrians could be charged for crossing the road considering they exhale CO2 whilst crossing & also occasionally release the odd methane omission when given the hurry-up!! " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Posting here because the other thread was too long. Sorry for the delay, family stuff i'm afraid. OK, on the other thread i made a claim that was challenged so i did a little digging. I was right to say that cycles are legally classed as carriages under an 1888 statute, but it appears that whilst they could potentially be liable to display a tax disc under that statute (for being a carriage) there is currently no mechanism for this to happen, so i got that wrong - my apologies. Conversely, there doesn't appear any explicit exemption for cycles either so it seems that the current exemption is de facto rather than de jure. Interestingly(for me anyway ), and i didn't know this, it seems that the cost (to produce) of a 'free' Band A £0.00 tax disc is £1.37 if bought from a Post Office and £0.95 if bought online, and that cost is taken from the overall tax take of VED.
There are around 2 million Band A vehicles on British roads so thats roughly £2 million spent subsidising Band A vehicles.
Cycles would of course be Band A, there are roughly 25 million cycles in the UK so that would be an extra £25 million added on to the current VED tax haul.
Hmm, not sure many would want that extra burden."All that pedaling causes cyclists to puff and pant, especially up hills. It is a known fact that we exhale co2! I bet cyclists are more polluting than a Prius...lol Now, before you all beat me up, I'm only kidding!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But what would the tax be for, exactly? Well, some people would like to see cycles 'pay tax' so i explored how it would work under the current VED system. As cycles emit less than 100grms of carbon per Kilometre they would be Band A vehicles and subject to a fee of £0.00. The cost to the exchequer (i.e. taxpayers) would be circa £25 million - just to satisfy the idea that cycles should pay tax. Doesn't look like a good idea to me!" surely it would be the cyclists carbon emissions that would need to be measured as they are essentially the source of energy used to power the cycle ? Meaning that the carbon emissions are variable due to the difference in fitness and level of exertions of each individual. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Posting here because the other thread was too long. Sorry for the delay, family stuff i'm afraid. OK, on the other thread i made a claim that was challenged so i did a little digging. I was right to say that cycles are legally classed as carriages under an 1888 statute, but it appears that whilst they could potentially be liable to display a tax disc under that statute (for being a carriage) there is currently no mechanism for this to happen, so i got that wrong - my apologies. Conversely, there doesn't appear any explicit exemption for cycles either so it seems that the current exemption is de facto rather than de jure. Interestingly(for me anyway ), and i didn't know this, it seems that the cost (to produce) of a 'free' Band A £0.00 tax disc is £1.37 if bought from a Post Office and £0.95 if bought online, and that cost is taken from the overall tax take of VED.
There are around 2 million Band A vehicles on British roads so thats roughly £2 million spent subsidising Band A vehicles.
Cycles would of course be Band A, there are roughly 25 million cycles in the UK so that would be an extra £25 million added on to the current VED tax haul.
Hmm, not sure many would want that extra burden.
All that pedaling causes cyclists to puff and pant, especially up hills.
It is a known fact that we exhale co2! I bet cyclists are more polluting than a Prius...lol
Now, before you all beat me up, I'm only kidding!!" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But what would the tax be for, exactly? Well, some people would like to see cycles 'pay tax' so i explored how it would work under the current VED system. As cycles emit less than 100grms of carbon per Kilometre they would be Band A vehicles and subject to a fee of £0.00. The cost to the exchequer (i.e. taxpayers) would be circa £25 million - just to satisfy the idea that cycles should pay tax. Doesn't look like a good idea to me! surely it would be the cyclists carbon emissions that would need to be measured as they are essentially the source of energy used to power the cycle ? Meaning that the carbon emissions are variable due to the difference in fitness and level of exertions of each individual." But all humans produce emissions, whether they are cycling or not - the truck driver who ate a curry then had a breakfast fry-up may well produce more methane than my cereal breakfast! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I recall reading a news story regarding the legal liabilities in relation to rta's between motorists and cyclists, where there is an assumption that the motorist is always held to be to blame. This raised two questions for me, firstly how can making an assumption like this be fair or just and secondly should cyclists be compelled to have insurance in the same way that motorists are." Exactly the same when the law assumes that the guy whose over the limit is at fault - life's a bitch! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But what would the tax be for, exactly? Well, some people would like to see cycles 'pay tax' so i explored how it would work under the current VED system. As cycles emit less than 100grms of carbon per Kilometre they would be Band A vehicles and subject to a fee of £0.00. The cost to the exchequer (i.e. taxpayers) would be circa £25 million - just to satisfy the idea that cycles should pay tax. Doesn't look like a good idea to me! surely it would be the cyclists carbon emissions that would need to be measured as they are essentially the source of energy used to power the cycle ? Meaning that the carbon emissions are variable due to the difference in fitness and level of exertions of each individual. But all humans produce emissions, whether they are cycling or not - the truck driver who ate a curry then had a breakfast fry-up may well produce more methane than my cereal breakfast! "which indicates the potential for misuse of power and/or legislation if it becomes possible to tax human powered vehicles it becomes an easy step to tax pedestrians. All in theory of course because common sense would prevent power brokers from bending or misusing a piece of legislation. wouldnt it !!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I recall reading a news story regarding the legal liabilities in relation to rta's between motorists and cyclists, where there is an assumption that the motorist is always held to be to blame. This raised two questions for me, firstly how can making an assumption like this be fair or just and secondly should cyclists be compelled to have insurance in the same way that motorists are." As it stands i believe there is no assumption under English Law, although there is a movement for a system of assumed liability that many EU nations use. My CTC membership costs £36 per year which gives me free legal cover and £10 million public liability cover. The reason that cover can be offered so cheaply is that statistically speaking they won't need to act on it. Insurance is done for profit so if they are offering £10 million cover they must be pretty sure they won't have to pay out very often or at all. That's because cycles cause practically no damage statistically speaking, whereas motor vehicles cause damage and injury running into many millions. That's probably why insurance isn't a legal requisite. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I recall reading a news story regarding the legal liabilities in relation to rta's between motorists and cyclists, where there is an assumption that the motorist is always held to be to blame. This raised two questions for me, firstly how can making an assumption like this be fair or just and secondly should cyclists be compelled to have insurance in the same way that motorists are. As it stands i believe there is no assumption under English Law, although there is a movement for a system of assumed liability that many EU nations use. My CTC membership costs £36 per year which gives me free legal cover and £10 million public liability cover. The reason that cover can be offered so cheaply is that statistically speaking they won't need to act on it. Insurance is done for profit so if they are offering £10 million cover they must be pretty sure they won't have to pay out very often or at all. That's because cycles cause practically no damage statistically speaking, whereas motor vehicles cause damage and injury running into many millions. That's probably why insurance isn't a legal requisite." I find that both interesting and informative thanks for that. I understand that there isnt an assumption under the law, however the article i reffered to was indicating a common practice by the legal fraternity and insurance companies in assuming who is to blame for accidents. And while i fully understand that the majority of accidents are likely to be the motorists fault, what about the minority where the cyclist is at fault ? Any claim would need to be made against the motorists insurance. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I recall reading a news story regarding the legal liabilities in relation to rta's between motorists and cyclists, where there is an assumption that the motorist is always held to be to blame. This raised two questions for me, firstly how can making an assumption like this be fair or just and secondly should cyclists be compelled to have insurance in the same way that motorists are. As it stands i believe there is no assumption under English Law, although there is a movement for a system of assumed liability that many EU nations use. My CTC membership costs £36 per year which gives me free legal cover and £10 million public liability cover. The reason that cover can be offered so cheaply is that statistically speaking they won't need to act on it. Insurance is done for profit so if they are offering £10 million cover they must be pretty sure they won't have to pay out very often or at all. That's because cycles cause practically no damage statistically speaking, whereas motor vehicles cause damage and injury running into many millions. That's probably why insurance isn't a legal requisite." I lived in a country where car insurance was optional & - guess what? - it worked perfectly well!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I recall reading a news story regarding the legal liabilities in relation to rta's between motorists and cyclists, where there is an assumption that the motorist is always held to be to blame. This raised two questions for me, firstly how can making an assumption like this be fair or just and secondly should cyclists be compelled to have insurance in the same way that motorists are. As it stands i believe there is no assumption under English Law, although there is a movement for a system of assumed liability that many EU nations use. My CTC membership costs £36 per year which gives me free legal cover and £10 million public liability cover. The reason that cover can be offered so cheaply is that statistically speaking they won't need to act on it. Insurance is done for profit so if they are offering £10 million cover they must be pretty sure they won't have to pay out very often or at all. That's because cycles cause practically no damage statistically speaking, whereas motor vehicles cause damage and injury running into many millions. That's probably why insurance isn't a legal requisite. I lived in a country where car insurance was optional & - guess what? - it worked perfectly well!! " interesting !! Where was that ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I recall reading a news story regarding the legal liabilities in relation to rta's between motorists and cyclists, where there is an assumption that the motorist is always held to be to blame. This raised two questions for me, firstly how can making an assumption like this be fair or just and secondly should cyclists be compelled to have insurance in the same way that motorists are. As it stands i believe there is no assumption under English Law, although there is a movement for a system of assumed liability that many EU nations use. My CTC membership costs £36 per year which gives me free legal cover and £10 million public liability cover. The reason that cover can be offered so cheaply is that statistically speaking they won't need to act on it. Insurance is done for profit so if they are offering £10 million cover they must be pretty sure they won't have to pay out very often or at all. That's because cycles cause practically no damage statistically speaking, whereas motor vehicles cause damage and injury running into many millions. That's probably why insurance isn't a legal requisite. I find that both interesting and informative thanks for that. I understand that there isnt an assumption under the law, however the article i reffered to was indicating a common practice by the legal fraternity and insurance companies in assuming who is to blame for accidents. And while i fully understand that the majority of accidents are likely to be the motorists fault, what about the minority where the cyclist is at fault ? Any claim would need to be made against the motorists insurance." TBH i'd not heard of such common practice - most cycle/car insurance claims i've heard of seem to have the insurance company refusing to go more than 50/50 knock-for-knock til the case has gone to court. According to a study done by Westminster Council in car/cycle collisions the driver was at sole fault in 68% of cases, both driver and cyclist at fault in 21% of cases and cyclists at sole fault in the remaining 11% of cases. I've never been involved in a road incident insurance claim so i've no idea whats involved. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In NZ. Once insurance companies know that you actually have that choice of being uninsured it's amazing how much cheaper the premiums become!!! The result is that more than 99% are insured, & if you are incredibly unlucky & get hit by an uninsured driver - it's no different to here! - we ssssoooooooo get ripped off here!!" Every day is a school day! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"TBH i'd not heard of such common practice - most cycle/car insurance claims i've heard of seem to have the insurance company refusing to go more than 50/50 knock-for-knock til the case has gone to court. According to a study done by Westminster Council in car/cycle collisions the driver was at sole fault in 68% of cases, both driver and cyclist at fault in 21% of cases and cyclists at sole fault in the remaining 11% of cases. I've never been involved in a road incident insurance claim so i've no idea whats involved." you live and learn 
Only ever been involved in two incidents with cyclists, one as a witness but it was settled amicably. The other wss 2 d*unk students who decided to cycle home in the early hours with no lights, missed the first one but clipped the 2nd. Made sure that he was ok then marched him to a nearby police station to report the accident, didnt want it coming back to bite me on the ass. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Everyday is a rip off day here! I guess people, understandably, don't know any different, so don't question!" its more a case of inertia tbh
that and the typically british things of not making a fuss and fear of embarrassment | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Broken nails? "Miaowww!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've been knocked off, but the driver admitted responsibility at the scene to the police. He offered to pay for repairs rather than go through his insurance. That was a cheap steel bike, if that happened now the driver might have an unpleasant shock when the bill came in!" Titanium or carbon? Or indeed an expensive steel one? Thinking of a road bike but not sure what flavour yet. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Technically therefore, pedestrians could be charged for crossing the road considering they exhale CO2 whilst crossing & also occasionally release the odd methane omission when given the hurry-up!! "Thats silly... People are not carriages although some of the best are bikes!
However prams and baby buggies and I guess supermarket trolleys could...
and trolleys would be commercial vehicles
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
