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 | 10 | 11 | ... | 22

1713 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 865

#2718375 4-Jun-2021 16:41

Dingbatt:

frankv:

Except maybe when the cycle lane is on an $800M bridge.

Yes, imagine if they spent that money on, oh I don’t know, some EV charging infrastructure?

or cycle lanes.

As a cyclist the bridge is a dumb idea. A number of pro cyclist blogs/organisation have already come out and said that it is way over kill and a dumb idea.

$800 million could do so much to make cycling safer and easier in the cities and do so much to reduce congestion.

Electric kiwi signup credit Sharesies credit

KrazyKid

1247 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 616

#2718381 4-Jun-2021 16:51

Interesting thread.

Did you have a counter to the climate change argument?

I'm also not sure how you think a 10x in heath cost savings is a bad thing along with reducing congestion and CO2. Sure if it was the only saving maybe, but when combined with other benefits...

And are you now in favor of only toll cycleways, dropping the idea of a road user charge for cyclists?

I think that we are 5 pages in and there has not been any posts I recall supporting your point of view either says your are in a minority or cyclists are way more passionate than non cyclists on this site.

SomeoneSomewhere

1882 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1086

Lifetime subscriber

#2718393 4-Jun-2021 17:23

You're focusing on the roading-targetted taxes as paying for all roading-related costs. They don't.

Perhaps if you considered total roading expenditure per person (from all sources, be it income tax, GST, fuel tax... the general government bucket), you'd find that the difference in cost between what the government spends on cyclists and cars is quite a bit more than the extra RUCs, rego, fuel etc. that the government collects. Perhaps cyclists (and those who work from home) should be refunded a portion of their taxes for not contributing to the need to upgrade the road network.

Or we consider that the aim of taxation is not, and basically never has been, to be 'fair' in that sense.

sir1963:

Jase2985:

@sir1963 have you found a pot of gold under a rainbow for the government to use to pay for all this? because the management and day to day running of this will cost many many times more than it will bring in.

Based on automated congestion charging, toll collection etc used overseas, I doubt there would be significant costs.

One could argue there are significant costs for dog registration, but we have it.

So close, and yet, so far. The reason all of the above is charged, whether or not the revenue exceeds the cost to collect it, is to discourage the activity. They don't want congestion, so charge you for causing it. We do want cyclists, so don't charge them extra fees.

And just for the sake of argument, the 1000/day figure for the new bridge seems on the low side. Roughly 400 people cycle each way Petone-Ngauranga, based on old figures, a much smaller population at end, and worse distance, weather, and road conditions.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2718404 4-Jun-2021 17:48

blackjack17:

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.

I agree. Parking is for you or me catching up, families, friends, its NOT for general parking.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2718406 4-Jun-2021 17:50

mattwnz: 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.

Agree, but e-bikes are still cycles. BUT an e-bikes range and ease can leave the car in the garage. One car less on the commute

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2718408 4-Jun-2021 17:53

mattwnz:

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

Lets go the EV way. Penalise cars, subsidise cycles or e-bikes, or e-scooters. In an ideal world, we use green transport for the last mile(s) Money is awesome, as it can create or reduce a behaviour.

Geekzone

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

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2718409 4-Jun-2021 17:55

sir1963:

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.

Where do EV's fit in? They wear the rod out but cyclists don't. Both EV's and cyclists are green, so you want to incentivise both.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2718410 4-Jun-2021 18:00

sir1963:

and as I say, What exactly makes cyclists so special that they should contribute nothing extra towards the cycle lanes they are going to use ?

CONGESTION

CLIMATE CHANGE

Cyclists , or in fact anyone who uses Public Transport, are not special. But, we could avoid this bridge cost by deciding to allocate Harbour Bridge lanes to GREEN non cars. That way there is no extra 700 Million cost, cars continue to use the bridge, now cyclists can too, win/win

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2718411 4-Jun-2021 18:02

KrazyKid:

Charging all road users fairly makes sense and is hard to argue against.

Ignoring the rest of your post, that I agree with, there is no need to charge cyclists as they dont wear out the roads.

#Sorted

sir1963

3428 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3756

Subscriber

#2718412 4-Jun-2021 18:05

SomeoneSomewhere:

So close, and yet, so far. The reason all of the above is charged, whether or not the revenue exceeds the cost to collect it, is to discourage the activity. They don't want congestion, so charge you for causing it. We do want cyclists, so don't charge them extra fees.

And just for the sake of argument, the 1000/day figure for the new bridge seems on the low side. Roughly 400 people cycle each way Petone-Ngauranga, based on old figures, a much smaller population at end, and worse distance, weather, and road conditions.

So let me get this right, by your logic they charge people at swimming pools because they don't want people to use them ?

And here is some info about the Auckland Harbour Bridge

About 170,000 vehicles cross the bridge each day (as of 2019), including more than 1,000 buses, which carry 38% of all people crossing during the morning peak.

I really don't think the loss of 1000 cars from this figure will make much difference.

sir1963

3428 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3756

Subscriber

#2718413 4-Jun-2021 18:06

tdgeek:

KrazyKid:

Charging all road users fairly makes sense and is hard to argue against.

Ignoring the rest of your post, that I agree with, there is no need to charge cyclists as they dont wear out the roads.

#Sorted

Sure, and we can save even more money by not building cycleways. If you don't build it, you don't have to maintain it.

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.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2718414 4-Jun-2021 18:08

sir1963:

well for a start:

100% of commerce relies on roads.

100% of emergency services relies on roads

100% of tourism relies on roads

100% of infrastructure relies on roads

100% of the health system relies on roads

100% of the education system relies on roads

100% of construction relies on roads

The majority of the work force relies on roads

And road users contribute an additional $2 Billion in road user taxes (and $300 Million GST on top of those taxes) compared to cyclists $0.

Ok, so I, as just a citizen can bypass those costs, as I am not any of them, and deduct 70c per litre from my fuel costs? I agree.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2718415 4-Jun-2021 18:10

sir1963:

Sure, and we can save even more money by not building cycleways. If you don't build it, you don't have to maintain it.

Too many beers? We could reduce roads as well to maintain that argument. Use cycles, e-cycles, e-scooters, feet to bridge that last mile.

antonknee

1133 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1145

#2718417 4-Jun-2021 18:16

Wow what a thread, and started on a ridiculous proposition. Was the OP stuck in traffic this morning as a bike whizzed past congestion-free and so now has a vendetta against cyclists?

The simple answer is sir1963’s plan is unworkable, but thankfully it’s also unnecessary. Cycling is cheaper than driving - end of (take into account infrastructure, societal costs, health outcomes, climate change, congestion, cost of a bike vs car).

In any case, we don’t have user pays for everything in this country and if we did - it wouldn’t be cyclists footing the big bills.

Disclosure - haven’t ridden a bike for transport since I was about 10.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2718418 4-Jun-2021 18:16

Wow. This thread is quite interesting. There is a hatred towards cyclists. There is a love towards cars. That's the theme of this thread. Congestion, climate change, quality of life are clearly unimportant.

This country hates taxes yet we have proponents of fees fees and more fees. We have a low wage economy. We have climate change. Is there no real issue with trying to change things for the future?

It seems not

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | ... | 22