to think that not only should ALL cyclists wear helmets, but ...

[Tokyotwist]

the Government should build proper cycle tracks and cyclists should pay road tax to use said tracks.

Just that

a lot of cycle helmet threads atm...

II don't know how easy it would be to make cycle tracks. Inner city areas might prove difficult. I think cycle tracks are good though generally. Why not?

My husband says the same thing - that cycle tracks should be built along all roads.

Can you imagine that though? How many thousands of miles of cycle tracks would that be? And mostly it would involve compulsory purchase of land at the side of roads.

Most roads are simply not wide enough to have a cycle track taken out of them, iyswim.

So what does that leave you with?
Knocking down houses and shops?
Removing bits of gardens?
Or creating cycle tracks that run wherever it's easiest, not alongside roads. So you've got 2 different road networks to maintain.

Just not workable, is it?

Cyclists pay council tax
doesn't that pay for such things as cycle paths?

Cycle tracks bring their own problems - namely pedestrians that can't differentiate between footpaths and cycleways... it's a nightmare and very dangerous.

I pay road tax, you don?t,? is an insult sometimes thrown at cyclists by motorists, a barb that says cyclists don?t pay for the roads so shouldn?t be on the roads
Funny thing is that quite a lot of cyclists also drive cars so do pay road taxes.

Actually I don't see it as a them and us issue. I would like to cycle. I don't feel safe doing so, so I would like, and I'm sure everyone will agree the world needs a greener alternative to cars, a track which is for me as a cyclist that cars can't park on, or bully me off. In exchange I am quite willing to pay for the privilege.

I have started cycling a bit. I am still finding it a bit nerve-wracking tbh, especially buses, cars pulling out

Roads are for all users. And orginally built for cyclists.
And road tax is not a tax to use roads. Its a vehicle operating licence duty for the right to operate a large machine on a public highway

this is a load of cock. Do you really think that roads were built for cyclists? Is that that what the Romans used to travel up and down britain to conquer it then? I think not ..... Horses and carts maybe?

And secondly, a tax disc is actually called a Road fund licence (as the name suggests it is there to fund roads) so essentially it is a tax to use roads.

however As the last government clearly didn't quite grasp the concept and linked road tax rates to carbon emissions (bizarrely) it made certain cars tax free whilst hammering other motorists (esp those who have large families / tow caravans / live in rural areas needing 4x4s etc., etc., etc..

I do agree that all adult cyclists should be forced to pay a road fund licence as provision for cycles (cycle lanes, crossings etc) is also expensive and shouldn't be funded by motorists who have already been fucked over a thousand times by any number of unfair taxes.

Clearly though, before this could be implemented, it would be necessary to reform our current unfair road tax policy.

I think it just separates cyclists and motorists, encouraging them to think each other party are unreasonable/dangerous.

The anger that seems to exist between the two groups is shocking, especially given that most motorists own a bike.

Worst of all studies have shown that vehicle drivers perceive cyclists as less vulnerable when wearing cycle helmets and take more risks over taking them etc! Personally I find a helmet completly claustraphobic and I seem to be less aware of my surroundings.

and another thing..... how come cyclists going through red lights / drink driving / riding on pavements are largely ignored by the old bill?

It also totally pisses me off when they decide to lean on my car in traffic (I usually throw the passenger door wide open when they do this lol)

I'm not wearing a bloody helmet. Fine for youngsters, but for all the reasons listed above I disagree in yet another law being brought in.

I've seen that study as well cargirl.

massivemammaries you are utterly charming and a little deluded - do you really think the vast majority of adult cyclists don't already paid road tax and that if they are using their bike their car is parked on their driveway not using the road?

@chipping .... do you not know thwt if you have 2 cars, you pay 2 lots of tax? or car and motorbike? 2 lots of tax! It doesnt matter what you are driving at the time, if you own it, you pay tax on it. Why should cyclists be any different?

Sounds like a good idea, but wouldn't we have to extend it further?

As people have said, cyclists who also have cars will have already paid road tax, but are using their cars less. Car owners who also have bikes will now be paying bike tax, whether or not they're using them. We'd also have to decide whether you pay to license each bike / car, or whether you pay some kind of 'right to cycle / drive' tax.

Most logically, since most people have both a bike and a car, we ought to charge both the car tax and the bike tax per mile travelled, rather than as a flat payment. Probably trackers would need to be fitted to the cars and the bikes in order to track usage.

Now, people would be paying explicitly to use their roads, their cycle paths, but not their use of pavements. Presumably, therefore, we should also charge an explicit pavement tax. People who pay high levels of road / bike path tax would presumably not be using pavements, and so should pay less pavement tax.

Pavement tax could perhaps be rebated for areas of the country where there are few pavements.

Cars / bikes / people from outside the UK could pay some kind of flat fee entitling them to a certain amount of road / cycle path / pavement usage during their stay in the UK.