Should cyclists pay road taxes ?

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

1 | ... | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12768

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2730582 18-Jun-2021 11:49

This thread is is just circling to the point it makes me nauseated. It's not an ideas seeking thread but an effort for the OP to try and gain approval for a predetermined bias. It does highlight though the anti-cyclist bigotry that is prevalent in our society. Ka kite ano.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

sir1963

3428 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3756

Subscriber

#2730585 18-Jun-2021 11:50

jfanning:

sir1963:

The bus pays RUC to cover the cost, + the drivers and the company pay taxes and rates.

Libraries need cleaning, they are free. Playgrounds need mowing/maintenance but they are free, footpaths need maintenance/cleaning and they are free

Free buses do not imply the driver does not get paid

Buses are using existing roads, there is nothing new to build for them

We should be encouraging people to get out of their cars and use public transport. One bus can take 50+ people, and they do it over longer distances than cyclists will typically travel each day.

Swimmers get exercise, reducing healthcare costs, but they still pay an entrance fee, even when they walk or cycle to the pool. If healtht were a priority swimming would be free too.

People on buses pay rates and taxes too, and when they use their car they pay fuel or RUC + any regional fuel tax to pay for services like buses.

And maintenance is not the only cost, there is the cost of creation, cycle lanes are not built for free, they are costing in Christchurch about $1000 for every man, woman and child who live there.

Any reason you give as to why cyclists should not have to pay can be applied to other areas with just as much validity.

And the most honest answer I have seen is that if cyclists had to pay, they would stop cycling.

All of the other reasons be damned, health, congestion, etc etc etc, it can all be ignored so long as someone else pays.

Why are you saying the bus drivers pay rates and taxes? I thought you said this didn't matter?

Libraries are not free, they are fully funded by the and for the rate payers in the district

Playgrounds are not free, they are fully funded by the rate payers in the district

Footpaths are not free, they are funded by the rate payers in the district

Buses are not free, as they are only partially funded by the rate payers in that area, what is so hard about this that you don't understand?

There is no reason to charge cyclists, the amount of damage they do to the road is next to nothing, the cost to handle payments is excessive and doesn't work. Other countries have tried and this has failed. They don't enforce the helmet law, how would they enforce this?

They don't enforce the red light, orange light, passing, speeding laws now for cars, why and how would they enforce a registration cost for bikes?

Swimmers pay extra because the cost of the swimming pool is only partially paid by rate payers, they are not fully funded, and will never be so, there is no way that the public will accept fully funding these things, why are you having so many issues understanding this. Why are you getting so upset by something that really has no impact on your life?

And if all the arguments cyclists use to justify them not paying anything extra were valid, buses and swimming pools would be free too, for the same reasons.

frankv

5705 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3666

Lifetime subscriber

#2730620 18-Jun-2021 13:05

sir1963:

Personally, I have no problems paying for the facilities I use that benefits me, and I do pay.

Cyclists, not so much.

Public transport is hugely subsidised (because it reduces congestion and pollution), e.g. Auckland Transport gets 11% of its income from fares, but spends 35% of its expenditure on public transport. So you are paying about 1/3 of what it actually costs, with the rest being paid by Auckland ratepayers and NZ taxpayers in about equal measure. I won't question that *you* would be happy to pay the total cost of your use of public transport, but many other people wouldn't. So it is subsidised, to get more people on your bus.

So, why is it OK to subsidise buses for some people, and not OK to subsidise cycling for others? It appears that your biggest issue is that cyclists want 100% subsidy whereas you're only getting 2/3?

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1684

ID Verified

Trusted

#2730629 18-Jun-2021 13:17

Guys, seriously, don't bother. Let @sir1963 have his soapbox and just stop engaging. This is just beyond ridiculous at this point.

sir1963

3428 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3756

Subscriber

#2730635 18-Jun-2021 13:38

frankv:

sir1963:

Personally, I have no problems paying for the facilities I use that benefits me, and I do pay.

Cyclists, not so much.

Public transport is hugely subsidised (because it reduces congestion and pollution), e.g. Auckland Transport gets 11% of its income from fares, but spends 35% of its expenditure on public transport. So you are paying about 1/3 of what it actually costs, with the rest being paid by Auckland ratepayers and NZ taxpayers in about equal measure. I won't question that *you* would be happy to pay the total cost of your use of public transport, but many other people wouldn't. So it is subsidised, to get more people on your bus.

So, why is it OK to subsidise buses for some people, and not OK to subsidise cycling for others? It appears that your biggest issue is that cyclists want 100% subsidy whereas you're only getting 2/3?

I would be happy for cyclists to get a 70% subsidy.

The problem is, everyone except cyclists are happy to pay , the ONLY acceptable cost to them is $0

sir1963

3428 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3756

Subscriber

#2730637 18-Jun-2021 13:49

Kyanar:

Guys, seriously, don't bother. Let @sir1963 have his soapbox and just stop engaging. This is just beyond ridiculous at this point.

Not talking and not listening is even worse.

I am not forcing anyone to agree with me, I am finding out WHY those with a differing POV disagree , then arguing the merits of those reasons.

consistency is key.

If you argue saving the health system is a reason to pay $0, they it applies to swimming too as the same outcome is achieved.

Geekzone

Want to support Geekzone and browse the site without the ads? Subscribe to Geekzone now (monthly, annual and lifetime options).

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1684

ID Verified

Trusted

#2730641 18-Jun-2021 13:54

sir1963:

Not talking and not listening is even worse.

I am not forcing anyone to agree with me, I am finding out WHY those with a differing POV disagree , then arguing the merits of those reasons.

No, you are not. You are replying to every single person with the same rubbish argument. Not once have you presented anything new and compelling, and when challenged just repeat the same thing over and over again like a four year old debating "I know you are but what am I". It's not mature, it's not constructive, and it just doesn't need to go on for 22 pages. That's the only thing I'll say on this topic.

sir1963

3428 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3756

Subscriber

#2730657 18-Jun-2021 14:14

Kyanar:

sir1963:

Not talking and not listening is even worse.

I am not forcing anyone to agree with me, I am finding out WHY those with a differing POV disagree , then arguing the merits of those reasons.

No, you are not. You are replying to every single person with the same rubbish argument. Not once have you presented anything new and compelling, and when challenged just repeat the same thing over and over again like a four year old debating "I know you are but what am I". It's not mature, it's not constructive, and it just doesn't need to go on for 22 pages. That's the only thing I'll say on this topic.

Pot Kettle Black.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16319

Lifetime subscriber

#2730675 18-Jun-2021 14:38

sir1963:

Pot Kettle Black.

I left this ridiculous thread several posts ago when I realised all you care about is having the last word. But this statement, which you keep repeating, really irritates me so I invite you to substantiate it: "The problem is, everyone except cyclists are happy to pay , the ONLY acceptable cost to them is $0"

So okay, please cite the research, surveys, and any other data you have that proves this assertion or shut the f up about it! What source can you point to that unequivocally proves that all cyclists, or even any of them, actually believe this? How many cyclists have you interviewed who say they want to pay $0 to cycle? Names and quotes, please.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

1 | ... | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22