Should cyclists pay road taxes ?

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

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ... | 22

932 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 304

#2718318 4-Jun-2021 14:51

The cost of building thousands of kilometers of footpaths is <insert large number here>

100% of that money is coming from Rates/Taxes and there is $0 additional funding from walkers

Maybe the outrage should be directed at the seemingly exorbitant cost of building cycleways, rather than at the people who will make use of them

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2718320 4-Jun-2021 14:55

I thought green energy was the way of the future, and a cycleway/bridge is part of that. Exercise = better health outcomes. I assume e-scooters and e-bikes are allowed, so again, using green energy to get some cars off the main bridge, tourist attraction.

Commutes. If its too far to cycle, valid use cases are e-bikes and e-scooters

Why make cyclists pay? That will discourage a health beneficial activity, both by way of better health and less emissions.

We are supposed to be moving forward not backward or sideways.

GregV

932 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 304

#2718325 4-Jun-2021 15:03

A recurring theme in this thread (and any other discussion when this topic comes up) is 'cyclists' and 'they'.

It is not a secret, exclusive group. Jump on a bike, and you are now a cyclist, and one of them. You might even like it!

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2718330 4-Jun-2021 15:11

GregV:

A recurring theme in this thread (and any other discussion when this topic comes up) is 'cyclists' and 'they'.

It is not a secret, exclusive group. Jump on a bike, and you are now a cyclist, and one of them. You might even like it!

Yes. That crowd. IMO that crowd to me is the lycra set that own the road, but most cyclists are regular people. But yeah, bias is heavy in some threads, I can't believe the intricate details some have come up with as regards charging cyclists. Mates your local Council needs you in the Rates Billing Team!

sir1963

3428 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3756

Subscriber

#2718332 4-Jun-2021 15:18

GregV:

The cost of building thousands of kilometers of footpaths is <insert large number here>

100% of that money is coming from Rates/Taxes and there is $0 additional funding from walkers

Maybe the outrage should be directed at the seemingly exorbitant cost of building cycleways, rather than at the people who will make use of them

Most (significant majority) people at some stage every day use a footpath, even if it only walking from shop to shop, visiting their neighbours, or standing on to catch a bus, or from a carpark to their place of work. Cyclists are far less than 10% of the population.

And not all footpaths are publicly funded, the house I used to own was down a private right of way (15 houses) and the footpath was owned by the residents (as was the street lighting, and other facilities). Each residential address had to pay $30 a year for the street lights.

The flip side of this is of course the homeowners mow the berm for the council, so those home owners do contribute more $$ than just their rates.

The reason cycleways are so expensive is that they are built to the same standards as roads so they will not break up quickly as car/truck traffic crosses over them. Building to 2 different standards would actually increase costs.

When they are built as an extension to footpaths they are cheaper to build.

mudguard

2328 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1250

#2718335 4-Jun-2021 15:24

Registration for bikes is laughable, does that include your daughter's pink Huffy? Will she need a licence to buy, compulsory third party insurance, ACC component?

Now for the serious bit. What would the bridge actually look like? I vaguely recall being told that the Harbour Bridge was so high to allow ships underneath. If the bike bridge was the same that would be a pretty grunty gradient to get over. All kinds of hills aren't noticeable in car, but on a bike...

For disclosure I own possibly more than six mountain-bikes, have two cars and drive 50,000kms a year, so perhaps some of those KMS can be credited towards the new bridge seeing I'm a non contributing cyclist.

Dell

Shop now for Dell laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

sir1963

3428 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3756

Subscriber

#2718338 4-Jun-2021 15:28

tdgeek:

I thought green energy was the way of the future, and a cycleway/bridge is part of that. Exercise = better health outcomes. I assume e-scooters and e-bikes are allowed, so again, using green energy to get some cars off the main bridge, tourist attraction.

Commutes. If its too far to cycle, valid use cases are e-bikes and e-scooters

Why make cyclists pay? That will discourage a health beneficial activity, both by way of better health and less emissions.

We are supposed to be moving forward not backward or sideways.

Why not ask cyclists to contribute ?

What exactly makes cyclists so special ?

People who swim get health benefits, yet still have to pay pool entrance fees. Actually on that basis I would love to have someone else pay for my Golf membership.

blackjack17

1713 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 865

#2718339 4-Jun-2021 15:29

sir1963:

GregV:

The cost of building thousands of kilometers of footpaths is <insert large number here>

100% of that money is coming from Rates/Taxes and there is $0 additional funding from walkers

Maybe the outrage should be directed at the seemingly exorbitant cost of building cycleways, rather than at the people who will make use of them

When they are built as an extension to footpaths they are cheaper to build.

And they become less effective and more dangerous. People pull out of their drive way quickly and they pull out to the road. If I am traveling along at 20-30Km/hr it is an accident waiting to happen. Dual use pavements are good for kids travelling slowly but no use for commuters.

Dozens if not hundreds of kilometres of cycle lanes could be added for minimal cost if the council was willing.

Remove on street parking on arterial roads, a bit of paint and maybe some plastic bollards. Kids can cycle to school, people can cycle safely.

Electric kiwi signup credit Sharesies credit

mattwnz

20520 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4798

#2718340 4-Jun-2021 15:30

Owners of electric vehicles don't currently pay road user charges yet would create more wear on the roads, and also contribute far more to congestion. . Congestion is what requires increasing capacityand wear is what leads to maintainence costs.
Cyclists don't really cause any congestion and wear is negligible. Likewise we need to encourage more cycling for health which reduces health care costs. So charges are not justified. Maybe they would be more justified with electric bikes especially if they lead to congestion.

GregV

932 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 304

#2718341 4-Jun-2021 15:33

sir1963:

Most (significant majority) people at some stage every day use a footpath, even if it only walking from shop to shop, visiting their neighbours, or standing on to catch a bus, or from a carpark to their place of work. Cyclists are far less than 10% of the population.

So wouldn't it be great, if by providing these fit-for-purpose cycleways, most people at some stage every day would be able to use a cycleway to get from shop to shop, visit their friends and neighbours, or cycle to work?

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2718343 4-Jun-2021 15:34

sir1963:

Why not ask cyclists to contribute ?

What exactly makes cyclists so special ?

People who swim get health benefits, yet still have to pay pool entrance fees. Actually on that basis I would love to have someone else pay for my Golf membership.

They dont wear out the roads.

Builds just for them such as cycleways and this bridge will contribute to the health of the users, reduce emissions, reduce congestion for those that see the growing cycleway capability as feasible for commuting.

Cyclists aren't special unless you are a car driver I guess

A pool is quite a cost to maintain let alone build, and the foot traffic so to speak probably isn't that high. Yes, agree with gold membership, but that's a private club, so its esentially a non profit business that wants to break even so you support that business

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

mattwnz

20520 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4798

#2718346 4-Jun-2021 15:39

sbiddle:
To answer the actual question - I would be happy to pay a fee as a cyclist to be able to ride from the Wellington CBD to the Hutt and not risk my life every day I do that. I would argue however that I shouldn't have to do that - if public transport can be heavily subsidised like it is why should I have to pay at all?

With traffic being as bad as it is now in Wellington it's a 45 - 50 min drive home for me most days, and I'd say over the course of a month probably 3 days where that drive takes close to 60 mins.

On average it'd take me around 55 mins to ride home, with that variance being from about 50 - 60 mins depending on things like wind and getting through traffic in the CBD. That time is on my mountain bike as I don't have a road bike at present so you'd easily take another 5+ mins off that time with on a road bike.

That is a good point about public transport being subsidised. Cyclists use of the roads is also essentially being subsidised in a similar sort of way and is totally justified for the same sorts of reasons. Eg reducing congestion and demand on roads from cars

I wouldn't want to ride a road bike on some of wellingtons roads due to the uneven roads and potholes. Mountain bike tyres are probably safer

sir1963

3428 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3756

Subscriber

#2718349 4-Jun-2021 15:47

mudguard:

Registration for bikes is laughable, does that include your daughter's pink Huffy? Will she need a licence to buy, compulsory third party insurance, ACC component?

Now for the serious bit. What would the bridge actually look like? I vaguely recall being told that the Harbour Bridge was so high to allow ships underneath. If the bike bridge was the same that would be a pretty grunty gradient to get over. All kinds of hills aren't noticeable in car, but on a bike...

For disclosure I own possibly more than six mountain-bikes, have two cars and drive 50,000kms a year, so perhaps some of those KMS can be credited towards the new bridge seeing I'm a non contributing cyclist.

You get to spend your money ONCE. Road taxes are for roads and you have simply paid for what you have used.

Registration of bikes can been easily done with modern technology. And if all you do is used off road tracks rather than paved/sealed cycltracks in cities there would be no fees to collect as you would not be going past any scanner. In effect this would work the same way congestion fees work in other countries. If you do not enter, you do not pay.

As for the pink huffy, if they loose control and hit a parked car, then yes, they (and their parents) can be held liable for damages.

mudguard

2328 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1250

#2718350 4-Jun-2021 15:47

sir1963:

Why not ask cyclists to contribute ?

What exactly makes cyclists so special ?

People who swim get health benefits, yet still have to pay pool entrance fees. Actually on that basis I would love to have someone else pay for my Golf membership.

I don't use public libraries, generate one wheelie bin of rubbish every two months. Why not user pays on everything? I pay a golf membership too and only use that once a week, however I'm not sure the course I play at pays market value rates so it's subsidised.

sir1963

3428 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3756

Subscriber

#2718351 4-Jun-2021 15:49

mattwnz:
sbiddle:

To answer the actual question - I would be happy to pay a fee as a cyclist to be able to ride from the Wellington CBD to the Hutt and not risk my life every day I do that. I would argue however that I shouldn't have to do that - if public transport can be heavily subsidised like it is why should I have to pay at all?

With traffic being as bad as it is now in Wellington it's a 45 - 50 min drive home for me most days, and I'd say over the course of a month probably 3 days where that drive takes close to 60 mins.

On average it'd take me around 55 mins to ride home, with that variance being from about 50 - 60 mins depending on things like wind and getting through traffic in the CBD. That time is on my mountain bike as I don't have a road bike at present so you'd easily take another 5+ mins off that time with on a road bike.

That is a good point about public transport being subsidised. Cyclists use of the roads is also essentially being subsidised in a similar sort of way and is totally justified for the same sorts of reasons. Eg reducing congestion and demand on roads from cars

I wouldn't want to ride a road bike on some of wellingtons roads due to the uneven roads and potholes. Mountain bike tyres are probably safer

But bus passengers are NOT 100% subsidised, and the bus still has to pay road user taxes.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ... | 22