Should cyclists pay road taxes ?

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

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | ... | 22

3428 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3756

Subscriber

#2718245 4-Jun-2021 13:07

Batman: If they already own a car no.

Should EVs pay fuel tax?

its actually road tax, not fuel.

Diesel cars have to pay road taxes in advance, EVs should be doing the same.

SomeoneSomewhere

1882 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1086

Lifetime subscriber

#2718248 4-Jun-2021 13:10

Pavement damage is roughly proportional to the fourth power of vehicle weight. Heavier vehicles do vastly more damage to roads, requiring more frequent resurfacing and stronger bridges. This is a large proportion of why we have RUCs for heavy vehicles. Obviously, cycles' axle weight is negligible.
Tax is used to promote and discourage activities, hence EVs not being charged either a fuel tax nor RUCs. Cycles are an obvious extension to this policy and I believe the saved costs on the health system are considered quite substantial. Do healthcare costs caused by poor air quality come out of the fuel taxes?
On a per-vehicle-trip basis, constructing new cycle routes is probably far cheaper than constructing roads, due to the lower weight and lane widths. Obviously this relies on the route being reasonably heavily used and depends on factors like whether the cyclists are new demand, moved from cars, or moved from public transport - but that applies to new/expanded roads too. It's also less clear-cut if you have to convert lanes/parking into cycle lanes.

That said, I haven't gotten on a bike in years.

blackjack17

1713 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 865

#2718254 4-Jun-2021 13:16

sir1963:

The point was, in spite of road taxes and rates, motorists have been expected to pay even more for some roads.

Do we do the same with the new bridge for cyclists and pedestrians ?

You appear to have a lot of questions but not a lot of personal views /answers

Looking at my latest rates bill 32% of it is going to transport with the bulk of that in roading, most of which goes to motor vehicle infrastructure and that is less than half of the actual cost.

Providing safe effective cycle and pedestrians infrastructure saves money as it means less needs to be spent on motor vehicle infrastructure. The requirements to support a 10-20kg bike and 50-100kg person travelling at ~10-30km/hr is way less than that required to support a 2000kg vehicle travelling at ~50km/hr. Then there is the health and safety savings. The person gets hit by a bike and they get broken bones, hit by a car and they are dead. Environmental savings CO2 and plastic/rubber.

Investing in cycle infrastructure is generally saving everyone money (this bridge is an exception)

Electric kiwi signup credit Sharesies credit

SomeoneSomewhere

1882 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1086

Lifetime subscriber

#2718255 4-Jun-2021 13:20

sir1963:

morphyoss:

Simply put the costs to implement such a system will be much more than any revenue it brings in. Does it revolve around a device on a bike on a pay per KM sort of thing, applied at the time of purchase or some other means? Does it apply to seven year olds as mentioned above?

Thus no matter how many people think its good idea, it will never work. Any tax that brings in less revenue than it costs, is ultimately pointless.

If transport is to become a user pays thing, it needs to be that way across the board - tolls, congestion charging etc. Nothing should be funded out of general taxation, including the indirect costs of ACC, healthcare, pollution etc. I dont think that's the way we should operate as a country, but open to ideas!

Number plates on bikes with plate readers. or RFID type tags. The technology is there.

Seven year olds still have to pay for the swimming pool.

The tech may be there but the tech's not cheap and still won't turn the government a profit. In which case the only reason would be to discourage cycling.

elpenguino

3577 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2940

#2718256 4-Jun-2021 13:20

sir1963:

The whole question is flawed. No you (we) shouldn't be asking cyclists to pay taxes. Because of accelerating climate change and congestion you should be paying cyclists to use the road.

Every person on a bike is a person who is not in a car or less likely, a train or bus.

Cycling is something to be encouraged and rewarded, unless you want to sit in gridlocked traffic.

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

morphyoss

24 posts

Geek
+1 received by user: 12

#2718258 4-Jun-2021 13:21

sir1963:

morphyoss:

Simply put the costs to implement such a system will be much more than any revenue it brings in. Does it revolve around a device on a bike on a pay per KM sort of thing, applied at the time of purchase or some other means? Does it apply to seven year olds as mentioned above?

Thus no matter how many people think its good idea, it will never work. Any tax that brings in less revenue than it costs, is ultimately pointless.

If transport is to become a user pays thing, it needs to be that way across the board - tolls, congestion charging etc. Nothing should be funded out of general taxation, including the indirect costs of ACC, healthcare, pollution etc. I dont think that's the way we should operate as a country, but open to ideas!

Number plates on bikes with plate readers. or RFID type tags. The technology is there.

Seven year olds still have to pay for the swimming pool.

Fair enough, but you are going to require all bicycles nationwide to get a number plate in case they have to cross the new Auckland bridge? Or do you need to have a nation wide network of cameras (at some expense) on all cycle infrastructure around the country? Not to mention the costs of Administrating such a system, renewals, managing change of ownership, maintenance, technology upgrades etc.

Re your swimming pool example, that's fine but it should also apply to all other transport projects too (such as Transmission Gully) which are largely funded from general taxation. I do generally agree with user pays so those that benefit from projects pay for it. Cycling though has other benefits, reduced costs to the healthcare system, reduced pollution etc. So this should all be factored in. Plus councils run pools, i dont think there should be 70 odd different systems depending on where you are in the country.

New World

Shop on-line at New World now for your groceries (affiliate link).

sir1963

3428 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3756

Subscriber

#2718261 4-Jun-2021 13:23

blackjack17:

This old argument.

As someone that cycles into work everyday, I think this bridge idea is a massive waste of money, not saying that the money shouldn't be spent on cycling infrastructure but $700 million on one connection is a waste. We could have 100s of kilometres of protected cycle lanes for the same cost.

As far as the paying "their" way? How would that work?

My 7 year old rides to school some days on a mixture of pavement and road should she be paying?

Think of the logistics of getting people to pay and the return on implementing a system.
A surcharge on a bike? what size bikes? only road bikes or mountain bikes as well?
An annual licence on a bike? On what size bike, kids included? Mountain bikes?
Also the bridge aside, how big are the costs of providing cycling infrastructure. For the most part you simply remove on street parking and put in some paint, maybe some bollards, sure some of the inner city infrastructure is expensive but how much of it is for cyclists and how much for beautification, safety and walkers etc?

If cycling is made safer and more people cycle it reduces the costs for everyone. If 10% of people cycled to work in Auckland (and that would be easily achievable) then the roading costs go down, congestion goes down.

People cite a number of objections as to why cycling can't work in Auckland and most are simply not true.

Too hilly (most of the isthmus is actually pretty flat)
Too wet (I have cycled in almost every day this year and I have been rained on half a doze times at most)
You need to drop the kids off (I cycle in with a three year old on the bike and my 7 year rides or scooters.
Too dangerous (as more people cycle the safer it gets)
Takes to long (my commute is short 4km but it takes between 10 and 15 minutes on a bike and takes between 8 and 40minutes by car)
I can't fit my tools/building supplies/big screen TV on my bike (maybe a bike isn't the best tool for that particular trip but if lots of other people are biking your trip will be quicker)

Simple fact of the matter more people on bikes, public transport, walking, scooters better everyone is even if it doesn't work for your particular usage.

Fixed charge per annum with pay and display tags, just like dogs have to wear to show they are registered for that year.

ALL bikes, lawn mowers pay road tax via the fuel the use, so do motor-x bikes. Off road cycle/mountain tracks cost to put in and maintain. Trampers using DOC huts have to pay for their use.

The standards are for a road lane it is 3.5m, for a cycle lane its 1.6m. So in reality to have cycle lanes on both side its like having a 3rd lane , so I am guessing that cycle lanes add about 50% extra or 1/3 of the total.

Given the new trend of not having off street car parking for residential areas, removing car parking from the street is a really bad idea.

Part of the fare for buses , taxies, Uber, etc etc goes towards road taxes.

As for the objections, they are irrelevant to the question.

Even if 100% of people cycled to work we would STILL need roads for Emergency services, transportation of goods, trades people, building and maintaining infrastructure, transport for the disabled, etc etc etc etc.

Zeon

3926 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 759

Trusted

#2718263 4-Jun-2021 13:25

What if the new proposed bridge, like train stations had a turnstyle area for your bike where you needed to say use your hop card to be let onto the bridge? I'd love to see how much money they collect vs. the cost.....

Speedtest 2019-10-14

blackjack17

1713 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 865

#2718265 4-Jun-2021 13:26

sir1963:

morphyoss:

Simply put the costs to implement such a system will be much more than any revenue it brings in. Does it revolve around a device on a bike on a pay per KM sort of thing, applied at the time of purchase or some other means? Does it apply to seven year olds as mentioned above?

Thus no matter how many people think its good idea, it will never work. Any tax that brings in less revenue than it costs, is ultimately pointless.

If transport is to become a user pays thing, it needs to be that way across the board - tolls, congestion charging etc. Nothing should be funded out of general taxation, including the indirect costs of ACC, healthcare, pollution etc. I dont think that's the way we should operate as a country, but open to ideas!

Number plates on bikes with plate readers. or RFID type tags. The technology is there.

Seven year olds still have to pay for the swimming pool.

Children in Auckland (central Auckland?) are free at swimming pools as it is seen as a public good for children to learn to swim / be exposed and familiar to water

Electric kiwi signup credit Sharesies credit

blackjack17

1713 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 865

#2718266 4-Jun-2021 13:31

sir1963:

A

The standards are for a road lane it is 3.5m, for a cycle lane its 1.6m. So in reality to have cycle lanes on both side its like having a 3rd lane , so I am guessing that cycle lanes add about 50% extra or 1/3 of the total.

B

Even if 100% of people cycled to work we would STILL need roads for Emergency services, transportation of goods, trades people, building and maintaining infrastructure, transport for the disabled, etc etc etc etc.

A Remove on street parking, why should people be able to store their property on public roads when it could be better utilised?

B No one is suggesting removing all cars. Cars and other motor vehicles are very useful. From memory school holiday traffic goes down by around 10%. Congestion is almost absent in school holidays. So if we can reduce car usage by around 10% then we don't have to spend as much upgrading and maintaining roads.

Electric kiwi signup credit Sharesies credit

smidon

91 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 20

#2718267 4-Jun-2021 13:31

A few cents to throw into the kitty.

1. Using cars to commute is grossly inefficient - that is where mass transport shines.

2. Using anything but a car to do location to location errands/tasks is maddening. When you have to take your kids across town after school to their [name the sport] practice you'll understand this. Timke is against you. You're carrying a pile of gear. You often have a 2nd/3rd or more child in the car - who you will drop afterwards. The numbskulls who suggest public transport for this more often than not aren't facing the issue (yet).

3. Cyclists would get far more support and willingness to help if they were better examples of themselves by obeying traffic laws. Whizzing under you at a LH corner in a non-lane (twice this week already), or casually powering through the red (so many) do not endear them to drivers.

never fear, smith is here

Lego

Shop now for Lego sets and other gifts (affiliate link).

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9996

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#2718268 4-Jun-2021 13:32

sir1963:

Lets look at some of the arguments.

Cyclists pay road taxes when they use their car.

As a cyclist and driver of a petrol car that is killing the environment I pay far more in "road taxes" than an EV owner who pays none.

Why should cyclists pay road taxes if EV owners don't?

morphyoss

24 posts

Geek
+1 received by user: 12

#2718271 4-Jun-2021 13:35

Zeon:

What if the new proposed bridge, like train stations had a turnstyle area for your bike where you needed to say use your hop card to be let onto the bridge? I'd love to see how much money they collect vs. the cost.....

I am fairly sure in NZ toll roads can only be put in if there is a viable (non-tolled) alternative for people to use. In Auckland there is no alternative for cyclists, thus is would be applying a different standard. Given the costs of congestion in terms of to the economy, plus in other ways - pollution etc. Doing things to encourage people who choose to to use alternative options to get to work or whereever they are going should be considered a win for everyone.

In saying that, if people are opposed to this new bridge (which i am not sure i support either), then the only option will be to take lanes off the existing bridge for cyclists. Its all paid for (according to arguments already posted on this thread), so no tolling required.

afe66

3181 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1678

Lifetime subscriber

#2718273 4-Jun-2021 13:37

We live in a society where everyone contributes but not everyone benefits.

There are multiple examples of people contributing to things they don't benefit from.

In the general scheme of things cyclists are trivial cost.

I'm of the opinion that the anti cyclist movement is just a convenient target for angry motorists to vent at because they are frustrated annoyed travelers for multiple reasons.

So charge cyclists to use road, so less cyclists and more cars results in more traffic and more frustration.

Increase charges on cars that weight more than a small amount...oh no that will affect me i drive my ute and vent at cyclists.

Most cyclists are also rate players and contribute to roading as is....

sir1963

3428 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3756

Subscriber

#2718276 4-Jun-2021 13:40

morphyoss:

Fair enough, but you are going to require all bicycles nationwide to get a number plate in case they have to cross the new Auckland bridge? Or do you need to have a nation wide network of cameras (at some expense) on all cycle infrastructure around the country? Not to mention the costs of Administrating such a system, renewals, managing change of ownership, maintenance, technology upgrades etc.

Re your swimming pool example, that's fine but it should also apply to all other transport projects too (such as Transmission Gully) which are largely funded from general taxation. I do generally agree with user pays so those that benefit from projects pay for it. Cycling though has other benefits, reduced costs to the healthcare system, reduced pollution etc. So this should all be factored in. Plus councils run pools, i dont think there should be 70 off different systems depending on where you are in the country.

Yes, Nation wide because cyclists use the infrastructure nation wide but currently contribute $0 extra in funding to maintain it. There are natural choke points (bridges, Traffic lights, dedicated cycle paths) where readers can be installed.There is even discussions about replacing fuel based taxes with GPS based systems for vehicles.

The costs of administration don't seem to be a reason not to register cars, motor bikes, etc. Lets just call those costs a strawman.

Have you heard of road taxes ? Motorists contribute about $2 BILLION.

Council run most streets, and costs for that are included in rates, and in some centres they also get 10c/l road taxes for additional funding.

People who use gyms also reduce the healthcare bill, but again they pay extra for that.

The point is, cyclists currently contribute $0 additional fees for the installation and maintenance of the infrastructure that benefits them. They rely on the taxation of the majority who do not use the infrastructure to pay for it.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | ... | 22