Should cyclists pay road taxes ?

Forums › Transport (cars, bikes and boats) › Should cyclists pay road taxes ?

1 | ... | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22

Mad Scientist
29760 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2730040 17-Jun-2021 11:21

I'll fly to Auckland with my bike and bring all my extended family so I can cycle across the bridge all the way to Devonport and wave to the cars as I cross the bridge :)

Hopefully the Aucklanders won't get too upset :(

frankv

5680 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2730048 17-Jun-2021 11:25

MikeB4:

As for charging cyclists RUCs, that is stupidity. Many cyclists own motor vehicles and already pay road tax along with other taxes or are there exemptions I don’t know about. Many cycles are never ridden on roads, I don’t ride on the roads due to homicidal motorists. There are a lot of cyclists that are minors and don’t earn. Lastly how much damage does a cycle do to the road surface? The administration and enforcement of this ludicrous notion would soak up any funds generated and the net result would be negative. The costs to accommodate transport alternatives can be funded out of current taxes and charges.

RUCs are Road *User* Charges, which are designed to be (approximately) proportional to the amount of use a motorist makes of the roads. Whilst they are riding their bike, they are not using the car, and are not paying RUCs. So, whether a cyclist also owns a car is irrelevant. Whether someone is a minor or otherwise not earning, they are still subject to RUCs if they drive a car. Whilst repair of damage is one use of RUCs, so is construction of new roads. Other countries have successfully implemented bicycle registration and charging. I don't see why NZ couldn't. Off-road bicycles could be exempt from registration, with a penalty if they're caught on the road.

Having said all that, I agree with Mike's second paragraph, except with respect to the bridge. Just because NZ could charge cyclists RUCs doesn't mean it's a good idea.

sir1963

3260 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#2730057 17-Jun-2021 11:45

MikeB4:

I wasn’t going to come out of retirement from Geekzone but this thread has just got to me. Why is it whenever something is proposed or implemented for cycling, a viable green transport, be it a simple cycle lane or a bridge the crying and hand waving that ensues is ridiculous. This seldom occurs for the billions spent on new roads like all the expressways, bridges, tunnels constructed in recent years or planned. If they had proposed dedicated shuttles the cries would be heard in the Chathams.Every cycle lane installed attracts a childish response from entitled bigots, yes bigots, the anti cyclist nonsense is the new bigotry that is harming Aotearoa, it is sickening and dangerous. As for charging cyclists RUCs, that is stupidity. Many cyclists own motor vehicles and already pay road tax along with other taxes or are there exemptions I don’t know about. Many cycles are never ridden on roads, I don’t ride on the roads due to homicidal motorists. There are a lot of cyclists that are minors and don’t earn. Lastly how much damage does a cycle do to the road surface? The administration and enforcement of this ludicrous notion would soak up any funds generated and the net result would be negative. The costs to accommodate transport alternatives can be funded out of current taxes and charges.

The adoption of green transport alternatives such as cycles is not a luxury it is a necessity for the future of our planet and it certainly does not harm folks to get off their butts, out of their cars and try riding a bike but just be aware there are motorists that will attempt to hurt you like the ones that have deliberately swerved at my wife forcing her to go up over the curb to avoid being hit. I know change can be hard to accept but we all need to accept the world is changing and we must change and accept cycling and other alternatives to motor vehicles. I applaud the Poneke City Councils’ plan to ban cars from Lambton Quay, Wiilis and Manner streets. It is a step in the right direction to reduce the dependency on cars. I also applaud the Tamaki Makaurau Councils’ bridge plan. The bridge is building for the long term and not the normal short-sighted way councils and government do it which is refreshing.

1. Motorists pay about $4 Billion is fuel and RUC taxes.

2. The facts that you pay for one thing does not entitle you to something else for free (ie you pay for roads while you use it.)

3. It is NOT just the damage. It is the cost to build.

4. I regularly see cyclists going through red lights, cycling at night with no lights, riding on the footpath, etc etc.

5. Swimming is also good for your health, pools costs rate payers, swimmers have to pay an entrance fee. So just paying rates is not enough.

6. 100% of the NZ economy ultimately relies on motor vehicles, as does emergency services. You even need trucks to build cycle paths.

7. Electric cars/bikes rely on rare earth minerals, there are some very big holes in the ground to extract them. Same for materials used to build bikes.

8. I am amused by cyclists who do not believe that they should pay anything extra for cycleways that benefit them, makes it safer, quicker, easier. And paying $1 a day is just way too much.

9. Other significant infrastructure projects (Labour bridge, Mt Maunganui Bridge, Norther express tunnel) charge(d) users on top of all the other taxes motorists pay.

10. The Dutch, at best, 35% of people cycle and their cities are more compact, flat, have historically narrow roads. Some houses need to use the canals to ship furniture into them. NZ has less than 2% cyclists.

11. Another Billion put into the rail system would serve more people, you could even have a bike friendly carriage for cyclists from further out of town.

12. Electronic metering is cheap and easy, its pretty much just the same as using a sign on/sign off bus pass.

13. Everyone ultimately uses footpaths during their week, they are critical to commerce, just ask those impacted by the Auckland rail disruption on Victoria, they are wanting $50 Million + in compensation

14. No one is talking about taxing children, that is just cyclists hysteria , same with playgrounds, etc etc etc etc. (shame on people using kids this way).

15. The options are not just 100% user pays/ or user pays $0, there is a big area in between, how about cyclists pay something ? Would a safe cycle bridge not be worth $1 each way ?

16. This is NOT a hate cyclists campaign, again emotive BS to justify paying $0.

17. NONE of this means motor vehicles do not need to go electric, but this will take time, and even then we will STILL need vehicles that burn some kind of fuel.

18. The BS about how altruistic cyclists are to motorists is just that BS. Should cyclists pay me when I walk ?, no. I ride share, and use public transport mostly, and pay something for both.

sir1963

3260 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#2730060 17-Jun-2021 11:48

sxz:

MikeB4:

I wasn’t going to come out of retirement from Geekzone but this thread has just got to me. Why is it whenever something is proposed or implemented for cycling, a viable green transport, be it a simple cycle lane or a bridge the crying and hand waving that ensues is ridiculous. This seldom occurs for the billions spent on new roads like all the expressways, bridges, tunnels constructed in recent years or planned. If they had proposed dedicated shuttles the cries would be heard in the Chathams.Every cycle lane installed attracts a childish response from entitled bigots, yes bigots, the anti cyclist nonsense is the new bigotry that is harming Aotearoa, it is sickening and dangerous. As for charging cyclists RUCs, that is stupidity. Many cyclists own motor vehicles and already pay road tax along with other taxes or are there exemptions I don’t know about. Many cycles are never ridden on roads, I don’t ride on the roads due to homicidal motorists. There are a lot of cyclists that are minors and don’t earn. Lastly how much damage does a cycle do to the road surface? The administration and enforcement of this ludicrous notion would soak up any funds generated and the net result would be negative. The costs to accommodate transport alternatives can be funded out of current taxes and charges.

The adoption of green transport alternatives such as cycles is not a luxury it is a necessity for the future of our planet and it certainly does not harm folks to get off their butts, out of their cars and try riding a bike but just be aware there are motorists that will attempt to hurt you like the ones that have deliberately swerved at my wife forcing her to go up over the curb to avoid being hit. I know change can be hard to accept but we all need to accept the world is changing and we must change and accept cycling and other alternatives to motor vehicles. I applaud the Poneke City Councils’ plan to ban cars from Lambton Quay, Wiilis and Manner streets. It is a step in the right direction to reduce the dependency on cars. I also applaud the Tamaki Makaurau Councils’ bridge plan. The bridge is building for the long term and not the normal short-sighted way councils and government do it which is refreshing.

Agreed, all round.

Next OP will want pedestrians to pay a footpath user tax.

Personal attacks ?

Not cool.

elpenguino

3419 posts

Uber Geek

#2730062 17-Jun-2021 11:51

sir1963:

MikeB4:

The adoption of green transport alternatives such as cycles is not a luxury it is a necessity for the future of our planet

<SNIP>

1. Motorists pay about $4 Billion is fuel and RUC taxes.

<SNIP>

You mention the taxes motorists currently pay as if that is the most important thing but some things are not currently accounted for:

1 - the cost of motoring on the environment. Motorists get a free ride for the green house gases, pollution of air and water

2 - congestion.

If you really want to move to a user pays scheme where each mode of transports pays for all the costs incurred, then OK, I'll agree. But only if motorists pay their share of costs for the above.

Most of the posters in this thread are just like chimpanzees on MDMA, full of feelings of bonhomie, joy, and optimism. Fred99 8/4/21

Handsomedan

7281 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2730066 17-Jun-2021 11:58

MikeB4: I also applaud the Tamaki Makaurau Councils’ bridge plan. The bridge is building for the long term and not the normal short-sighted way councils and government do it which is refreshing.

I have to disagree with you here, Mike.

The Auckland bridge plan is narrow minded and kneejerk at best.

The very idea that a small minority of Aucklanders will get a bridge exclusively for their use at MASSIVE cost is laughable.

As I have previously stated - make it a bridge that actually serves the people of the North Shore - a large area with a diverse population: make it public transport and cycle/pedestrian/wheelchair/scooter friendly.

Use all that money to make a viable transport option for the MAJORITY, not the minority. After all - the majority are paying for it.

A billion dollars is a lot to spend on a project that is for one small group only.

I'm not anti-cycling (as I have stated many times here) and am a cyclist myself, living on the North Shore of Auckland - the very place that is to be served by this plan...I won't use the bridge more than a couple of times, as it'll have novelty value and I'll feel like I should use it if I am paying towards it. I certainly am not going to be tempted to ride 17km each way to work on this, though...either on my bike or my eScooter.

Handsome Dan Has Spoken.
Handsome Dan needs to stop adding three dots to every sentence...

Handsome Dan does not currently have a side hustle as the mascot for Yale

*Gladly accepting donations...

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2730079 17-Jun-2021 12:30

@Handsomedan The proposed bridge may or may not be the best plan but at least consideration to something other than another road is being proposed and that is what I applaud similar to the planned Te Awakairangi-Poneke cycle way here in the capital. Maybe a pedestrian/cycle tunnel is an alternative for Tamaki Makaurau. I feel the engineering requirements for such a project given our seismic and volcanic considerations would possibly exclude this.

I have long held the belief that adding more and more motor vehicle capacity is not the answer to congestion or pollution. Provision of sustainable green transport alternatives is the long term answer.

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

sir1963

3260 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#2730090 17-Jun-2021 12:42

elpenguino:

You mention the taxes motorists currently pay as if that is the most important thing but some things are not currently accounted for:

1 - the cost of motoring on the environment. Motorists get a free ride for the green house gases, pollution of air and water

2 - congestion.

If you really want to move to a user pays scheme where each mode of transports pays for all the costs incurred, then OK, I'll agree. But only if motorists pay their share of costs for the above.

1: Now account for the benefits, transportation of food, equipment, people, medical supplies, etc etc etc etc. Our $200 Billion GDP is reliant on vehicles.

We can certainly add in all those costs you want, ultimately you will end up paying more for everything in your life.

2: Too few cyclists in NZ to make any meaningful difference. Monet would be better spent on improving public transport.

3: I already covered the all or nothing argument, and its rubbish.

SaltyNZ

8218 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#2730091 17-Jun-2021 12:44

sir1963:

Our $200 Billion GDP is reliant on vehicles.

So the benefits are already accounted for - and even if they somehow weren't, are you really trying to suggest that nobody here believes there are any?

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2730093 17-Jun-2021 12:51

sir1963:

1: Now account for the benefits, transportation of food, equipment, people, medical supplies, etc etc etc etc. Our $200 Billion GDP is reliant on vehicles.

We can certainly add in all those costs you want, ultimately you will end up paying more for everything in your life.

2: Too few cyclists in NZ to make any meaningful difference. Monet would be better spent on improving public transport.

3: I already covered the all or nothing argument, and its rubbish.

1. There are a better alternatives to the current transport methods that will reduce the dependancy on road transport.

2. Provision of safe cycleways will promote the use of cycles as a much needed alternative to get people out of their cars. Remember there were too few Horseless Carriages at the beginning of the 20th century yet the infrastructure to support them was built.

sir1963

3260 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#2730099 17-Jun-2021 12:58

MikeB4:

sir1963:

1: Now account for the benefits, transportation of food, equipment, people, medical supplies, etc etc etc etc. Our $200 Billion GDP is reliant on vehicles.

We can certainly add in all those costs you want, ultimately you will end up paying more for everything in your life.

2: Too few cyclists in NZ to make any meaningful difference. Monet would be better spent on improving public transport.

3: I already covered the all or nothing argument, and its rubbish.

1. There are a better alternatives to the current transport methods that will reduce the dependancy on road transport.

2. Provision of safe cycleways will promote the use of cycles as a much needed alternative to get people out of their cars. Remember there were too few Horseless Carriages at the beginning of the 20th century yet the infrastructure to support them was built.

1. currently, no there is not.

2. Gross over statement, the majority of people are far more likely to use public transport.

The horseless carriage was a means to increase commerce, reduce labour costs. Roads were originally built for horse drawn wagons, cars used the existing infrastructure.

sxz

761 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2730100 17-Jun-2021 13:02

sir1963:

Personal attacks ?

Not cool.

Hey man, no attack intended. It was a serious point. If you want to charge cylists a charge to use a cycle lane (or road), surely it's just as (i)logical to charge walkers to use a footpath, since that's also infrastructure that needs to be built and maintained. A line has to be drawn somewhere, and for now, it's been drawn at cars. Presumably because they take up all the room and cause all the problems.

sxz

761 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2730103 17-Jun-2021 13:05

MikeB4:

I have long held the belief that adding more and more motor vehicle capacity is not the answer to congestion or pollution. Provision of sustainable green transport alternatives is the long term answer.

It's a good belief, as it's a proven scientific fact. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand

I remember learing about it at Uni many, many years ago as part of a city planning course. More of a problem for young citys that have grown after cars became commonplace.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2730108 17-Jun-2021 13:13

@sir1963 Thinking outside the square is required by everyone. Simply put we cannot continue as we are and changes are no longer optional, that luxury has long passed and we all need to look at alternatives. For example the hundreds of trucks travelling up and down SH1 every minute of the day is absolute stupidity and is not sustainable and made more stupid considering there are alternatives.

The tens of thousands of single occupant vehicles going in and out and around our cities hourly is stupid and unsustainable. The provision of sustainable alternatives like safe cycleways is logical, sustainable and vital and require much less capital costs and operational costs than the provisions for cars. Trying to charge RUCs for cycles is simply not feasible as the cost of administration and enforcement would out strip returns and thus would add to our problems not solve any problems.

shk292

2853 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2730111 17-Jun-2021 13:16

sxz:
MikeB4:

I have long held the belief that adding more and more motor vehicle capacity is not the answer to congestion or pollution. Provision of sustainable green transport alternatives is the long term answer.

It's a good belief, as it's a proven scientific fact. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand

I remember learing about it at Uni many, many years ago as part of a city planning course. More of a problem for young citys that have grown after cars became commonplace.

Surely you could apply the same argument to any mode of transport? You just have to look at mass transit systems in other countries to know that congestion isn’t a feature solely of cars. You could say that there is no point in building fast passenger rail to Hamilton because that will only encourage people to commute from there, and before you know it the trains we’ll be full

1 | ... | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22