US lawmaker blames bicycle breath for global warming gas A Washington state representative has uncovered a previously under-reported source of greenhouse gas: huffing and puffing cyclists. Ed Orcutt, who lists "Tax relief" at the top of his legislative priorities and who was 2000's Washington Young Republican Federation Man of the Year, emailed the owner of a Tacoma, Washington, …
Why? He is right after all: cyclists produce CO2 and use public roads. It is only fair that they also pay the penalties and taxes. Granted, a smaller amount should be asked of them, but his logic is sound. Factor in drivers having to sit behind cyclists in a lower gear, thereby increasing the amount of CO2 that their cars produce,and it makes even more sense. My car uses 8.5 liters per 100km in top gear, but 10.5 in third, which is where I'm stuck in if I have to follow a cyclist. I reckon it's unfair that I have to pay for that extra 25 odd percent CO2 my car produces.
Ok Troll, I shall with some reluctance feed you:
I don't doubt for a second that your car uses more fuel per km when following a cyclist. What about when you're in a jam caused by too many cars for the road? I suggest the rise in fuel usage you get when stuck behind a cyclist pales into insignificance in comparison with the fuel usage you get when stuck behind a thousand cars (mostly with one person in them) all trying to go to the same place at the same time.
Walkers also produce CO2 whilst travelling along the pavement. Perhaps we should tax them too. And as for them causing the lights to change at pedestrian crossings when briefly our fuel usage rises to infinite per km, well my word, maybe we should actually ban walking.
You don't *have* to pay that extra 25 odd per cent you know - you could always try cycling instead.
A few points of order:
1. I use the same amount of fuel whether I'm stuck behind one cyclist or 1000 cars.
2. When walkers use a pavement constructed specifically for the purpose of walking, then yes, they should be paying for its upkeep.
3. I would rather pay a few pounds extra for fuel than have to spend a thousand on a new bike and all that safety gear your nanny government would force me to wear.
@VaalDonkie
1. No you don't. I certainly don't anyway. When I'm stuck behind 1000 cars, people are walking past me. I'm completely stationary for long periods. Clearly I'm using more fuel, for parts of that I'm doing zero miles per gallon. And that's not counting the other 999 cars also spewing stuff out.
2. Are pavements constructed specifically for the purpose of walking? Perhaps they are constructed for the purpose of not driving upon. Who knows!
3. My nanny government permits me to cycle wearing nothing but a thong if I so wish. Luckily - for me but moreso for everyone else - I don't own a thong
1. No you don't. I certainly don't anyway. When I'm stuck behind 1000 cars, people are walking past me. I'm completely stationary for long periods. Clearly I'm using more fuel, for parts of that I'm doing zero miles per gallon. And that's not counting the other 999 cars also spewing stuff out.
There is this little thing called "Stop-Start" just thought I'd let you all know :)
"There is this little thing called "Stop-Start" just thought I'd let you all know :)"
A lot of people don't know what that is. I didn't till I had a hire car and found its engine cut out when I stopped. Coming from an old banger that you'd prefer to leave running, I was a little surprised.
Even some radio adverts took the piss out the phrase with a manager saying "don't all our vans start and stop." Surely that joke would be enough to alert someone that not everyone knows all the jargon.
"There is this little thing called "Stop-Start" just thought I'd let you all know :)"
You know I wonder about the whole stop-start thing. Sure you might spend a little less in fuel, but doesn't stopping and re-cranking the engine every couple of minutes cause extra stress to the parts? As soon as the thing stops, the oil starts flowing back into the sump unless you have some kind of sticky MagnatecTM-like addition to it.
Then you get that lovely metal-on-metal contact until it starts flowing again.
"3. I would rather pay a few pounds extra for fuel than have to spend a thousand on a new bike and all that safety gear your nanny government would force me to wear."
Like the politician, you're now making shit up.
Cyclists are not 'required' to wear anything, except to have lights on their bike when it's dark (which about half of them do in my experience, hence the dozen bike-shaped kill markings on my car door).
Yep, we have different rules in the UK to those in the US (like for motorcycle clothing/helmets), and I guess individual states might have some of their own special regulations. El Reg needs to remind commenters that we are a diverse bunch and apart from often talking complete bollox because we can, also may confuse because our laws and customs differ quite alot.
How about having a country flag option for commenters?
"Cyclists are not 'required' to wear anything..."
Ah but here in Oz they are required by law to wear a silly hat made of foam and carbon fibre. I suspect there is also some law which requires that:
a) They must wear lycra at all times
b) Said lycra is to be a minimum of one size too small to contain their flabby bits
These days I try not to look. Mines the one with the peril (and cyclist) sensitive sunglasses in the pocket
Okay so I'll explain this like you are a child since you really sound like one....
So cars are big and heavy and have lots of power so over time they break up the road surface, which costs lots of money to fix, people are not heavy enough to effect the road surface either on foot or on a bike, which is why it is idiotic to claim that cyclists and walker should pay road tax, even after those people have already paid tax for things like foot paths.
Silly people who claim these things are really stupid because they are just blaming other people instead of putting pressure on the government to spend the money they collect in road tax on the actual roads instead of on other stupid things like illegal wars, not to mention all the tax they collect on fuel.
But you in your car, well you are probably obese due to lack of exercise, and cost the NHS billions in heart, blood thinning, anti-inflamatory and diabetes medicines. Also because you are so unfit, it means your concentration levels and reaction times will suffer making it more likely for you to have an accident.
Car drivers should have a black box installed that shows that when they make a journey less than 4 miles long they get a `health tax' added on. 60 quid per infraction I think is fair. Oh yes and one penalty point. That will get you walking to the corner shop.
"Car drivers should have a black box installed that shows that when they make a journey less than 4 miles long they get a `health tax' added on. 60 quid per infraction I think is fair. Oh yes and one penalty point. That will get you walking to the corner shop."
I guess you were trying to make a point there, but suggesting anything under 4 miles should be walked is just a LITTLE excessive don't you think? My 2 (one either side) elderly disabled neighbours for example, or the grand-daughter of one of them who is 8 months pregnant, or the person with a bad back, or in fact anyone who isn't extra-super fit and has an extra couple of hours to do that 4 miles each way walk rather than drive (sigh).
My elderly disabled neighbours are not fit to drive cars no - which is why they get driven by someone else (e.g. husband, daughter, even me) to in-essential things like visits to their doctor etc. Or did you mean to suggest that if you can't walk at least 4 miles then you need to be housebound? same for the pregnant girl, she shouldn't be allowed out if her journey is under 4 miles while her husband is at work during the day?
"Car drivers should have a black box installed that shows that when they make a journey less than 4 miles long they get a `health tax' added on. 60 quid per infraction I think is fair. Oh yes and one penalty point"
So if my wife is away, I'm supposed to walk four miles with my four-year-old son, in -10c weather, in the dark, in pounding sleet, so I can get him some cough medicine?
I'm supposed to walk to work or to go grocery shopping when it's 30c and blazing sun in the summer, and haul my milk and eggs back the same way?
Sometimes I wonder about people...
2. Barring the few who drive directly from garages at home to garages at work, essentially everyone in a metropolitan area uses sidewalks. And frankly, those of us treading kilometers of it with shoe leather are probably contributing less to the sidewalk's deterioration than those driving a couple of meters across it in a car.
3. Whose nanny government? The left bank of the Potomac is pretty persnickety, but I see people riding all over without helmets.
by your logic (nearly) every living thing on the planet pollutes by producing CO2*. The only way to stop it is to remove oxygen from the atmosphere. This sounds like a start of idiot politicians wanting to introduce an "Air Tax"
*maybe we can give plants a tax break for reversing the process...
So much fail here...
- In a 30mph/50kph limit, you will not be in top anyway - likely 4th or even 3rd. Nor will you be cruising at a constant speed. In town you have junctions, lights, bus stops, pedestrian crossing etc. Frankly cyclists are the least of your worries.
- In town (it's been proven in London many times) that cycling is faster than driving. I'm an "above average" cyclist, and I get held up by cars.
- Public roads are funded through council taxes, not VED. So unless all cyclists are homeless, they pay. They are also subject to normal road rules, and if they have a driving licence can even accumulate tickets and points (in theory...but rarely in practise).
- Your car only does 8.5 in ideal conditions. That's a gas guzzler. I'd hardly be quibling about 25% if I was you - if you can afford to feed it, you're paying your dues.
- Not everyone lives in London you know. Nor does everyone drive around town. I spend 95% of my commute on a freeway, doing 120km/h (that's about 65 imperial horse dongs or 700 cubed furlongs).
- Again, not every country on earth works like Britain, hence the taxes employed in upkeep does not come from the same source.
a) Cyclists are not allowed on Freeways (assuming US)
b) Even a cyclist mental enough to do this, Freeways have hard shoulders. They would not ride in the traffic unless they wanted to die
c) Freeways are 2 lanes wide and fast, and if you're approaching at your 120kph, the last thing you would be doing is slowing down to follow a cyclist. If you are, please - walk - to the nearest Police station and hand in your licence.
Good example. In most states and provinces, (including Washington:RCW 46.61.160) It is illegal to ride a bicycle on limited access highways so if this situation can arise (there is a bike in your lane in a place where you can legally go 120kph) then there is clearly eitther a signage or an enforcement problem (and certainly a safety issue). Now my question as a cyclist is: what's my fair share of the tax for that roadway that I am not permitted to use. What about roadways that I am permitted to use as a 2nd class citizen (stay out everyone's way, don't use the left turn bays etc.)? How about depreciation? Trucks cause several dollars/km damage just from their sheer weight. How much of that should I, as a cyclist, pay? Safety? if I'm paying "my share' I expect the same level of safety as the cars get: proper signage, separated lanes, separate signalling etc.
LSV is really the elephant in the room here. Nobody with money wants to talk about how we can work towards LSVs because they would greatly harm the auto and oil industries and motorists are entirely unwilling to relinquish any existing rights to the 40-60% of urban land that they currently get to use for almost free.
"And you're stuck behind a bicycle?"
Upvote for that laugh!
Reminded me of a routine by Emo Phillips:
"I was travelling down the freeway the other day, minding my own business, when some jerk pulled behind me and kept blowing his horn. I didn't flip him the bird or anything, I like to think I'm above that. So I just ignored him and kept on wakking."
What? My car has 6 forward gears and sod all torque yet it'll happily cruise along in 6th at 30mph. If you're spending most of your time at 30 in 3rd, you need to make your way to the nearest naughty step and think about what you've done.
Not everyone has a 7 litre big-block engine under the hood. If it has 6 forward gears and comfortably cruises at 30mph in top gear, I can promise you it has a lot more than "sod all" torque.
30mph in top gear? Most cars in this country probably wouldn't make it up a 1:100 gradient like that. Think 1.3 litre Ford Fiesta. A friend's classic BMW M535 might make it like that, but that's three and a half litres of fun that sits on the spot making smoke from the tyres if you even think about twitching the accelerator too hard.
My Saab 9-5 has a 2.3 liter turbo 4 that makes about 230hp and flat torque from 1500rpm up, with a five speed box, and it's running at < 2000 revs in third at 30mph. It sits at about 2k in fifth at 65; trying to run in top gear at 30 would be absurd - what, 600rpm? Given that it idles at 900, I think that would be asking rather a lot.
Unless the 6-forward guy has a car that's geared for 45mph, I call proverbial bullshit.
Road damage is proportional to axle weight to power of 4
So if your car weighs a ton that's 8 times even my weight and you probably do at least 8 times the speed/distance so I'd be happy to pay 1/32000 of your roadtax for my usage of the road - so long as you pay the admin for collecting it since it worries you so much.
Taxes for walking?
There is a logic to say, if you use the path, you must pay for it, however there is a converse logic to say if you wanted to walk from A to B you must be allowed to do it safely, if people want a road then it's approprate that there is some separation, this would normally be a sidewalk/path, so yes a pedestrian will use a path, but only because they are using the protection provided by the road builder.
Paths are not needed, yes they are convienient, but if you don't have roads, you don't need paths (generally).
"Why? He is right after all: cyclists produce CO2 and use public roads. It is only fair that they also pay the penalties and taxes. Granted, a smaller amount should be asked of them, but his logic is sound. Factor in drivers having to sit behind cyclists in a lower gear, thereby increasing the amount of CO2 that their cars produce,and it makes even more sense. My car uses 8.5 liters per 100km in top gear, but 10.5 in third, which is where I'm stuck in if I have to follow a cyclist. I reckon it's unfair that I have to pay for that extra 25 odd percent CO2 my car produces."
This shit is so off the scale! How retarded?
I cycle with my half-horsepower engine (I only have two legs) and breathe and fart just as much as any car driver. Car drivers don't follow me. They pass me. Or, when they're in traffic, I pass them. In fact any time a car is going less than 15 mile per hour, except when we're at traffic lights:-), I'll be passing them.
So, for a journey across town, I'll do 15 miles per hour average whilst the car drivers still sit in their traffic jams drinking fuel and belching smoke.
There's also the small issue of fitness. Cycling is the best form of exercise to get the circulation going. This, in theory at least, keeps me fitter than the driving community and out of hospital.
But the best thing is that I ride on the roads for free and don't pay any taxes nor mandatory insurance. You know what, I don't give a fuck. I see it as a tax on lazy bastards in their cages.
It was a dumb statement but it was technically correct. Compared to someone sitting at home on the sofa or in a car a cyclist's body does produce more CO2. That CO2 is a pollutant (in the current world view) and so what we need is more people to 'Get off their bikes and stay at home!' to paraphrase a certain famous comment.
This frothing at the mouth is EXACTLY why normal folks don't get along with cyclists. Cyclists think they're precious little jewels who don't need to follow the same rules as everyone else (like coughing up money or obeying the rules of the road) and throw a hissy fit if you hold them to the same standards they hold others.
The real troll here is environMENTALism.
Cyclists think they're precious little jewels who don't need to follow the same rules as everyone else (like coughing up money or obeying the rules of the road) and throw a hissy fit if you hold them to the same standards they hold others
Whereas car owners who think they're better than everything else on the road is ok is it? And that all other road users are inferior or that rulings and amenities to provide safety to other road users is somehow a discrimination against them? Well, well...
It should be noted, I despise the red light and pavement riders as well. Really doesn''t do the image of cyclists any favours. And i'm a cyclist!
By that logic,.....running shoes should also be taxed....Joggers contribute to the pollution as well.
In fact...anyone currently living should be taxed a "living tax" since while they are alive and breathing...they are contributing to the problem. :-)
The more pets you own...the more tax you should then have to pay.....Give me a break!
Bigger government is NOT the solution People.
He may be an idiot. In fact, I'm fairly sure he is. However, the logic is sound. If we consider CO2 a pollutant, then it follows that anyone or anything that's releasing it into the environment in any significant is polluting said environment. All this shows is how retarded it is to classify CO2 as a pollutant.
Tax cyclists, not only do they breath more but they hold up cars, forcing drivers to accelerate past them increasing CO2.
Tax caravans as they create more CO2 with their gas bottles and the increased fuel consumption towing them.
Tax sex, increased laboured breathing during and then having the munchies afterwards using up vital resources .
Tax going for a sh*t for the production of greenhouse gasses and the loss of work productivity.
Tax tax just to be pedantic about it.
Finally they found a way to put a tax on breathing.
Next would be a tax cut for burger flippers for making their customers obese and immobile - thus binding a lot of carbon.
A tax on staircases might also be in order.
And what about these evil fitness centers?
Joke icon - for obvious reasons.
Indeed...except the amount of energy it takes to move heavy objects, it's well known that fat people's aerobic systems have to work harder than you'd expect. I think the fattest man in britain's resting heart rate is 130bpm, or something mental like that.
So tax fat people! Oh wait...they already plan to do that...
What an idiot. Besides, why's he only concentrating on CO2? I'm pretty sure cyclists don't emit Carbon Monoxide, particulate matter and all the other harmful emissions motor vehicles do.
Maybe he should be taxed on the emissions that come out of his mouth. There's so much crap coming out of his mouth his ass must be jealous.
And we must save the planet. For the sake of our children.
Come to think of it, if bicycles lead to early deaths, they might save carbon. So we should ban helmets. And ban health care for bicycle riding accident victims; if they were wearing a helmet, they are degenerate scofflaws. If they aren't, they have a death wish.
Now, credentials established, on to climate science....
All Washington State citizens who own motor vehicles should also pay an increase, in accordance of the percentage of the average citizen of the state's base rate CO2 being null, vs the bicyclists rate vs their motor vehicle's rate, by model, year and engine.
Of course, the motor vehicle operator will then pay out through every orifice.
Ending the career of many idiots currently in office.
At times, one has to look at the devil's advocate viewpoint and fine the surest path to hell for the idiot to assist them along their way before they share too much of their hell with the lot of us.
But then, the BOFH took notes from me... ;)
Hearing about a study which claimed that, once the production, transportation, and preparation of the food required to account for the increased caloric expenditure was taken into account, there was a smaller carbon footprint to travel by automobile than by foot. Unfortunately, I cannot remember any of the details.
Of course, CO2 is one of the "pollutants" human civilization cannot possibly eliminate; the others being H2O, heat, and various trace components of our excreta. Doesn't make the CO2 portion of this guy's argument any stronger. On the other hand, though, why *SHOULD* bicyclists be exempt from paying for road maintenance. Sure, per vehicle-mile they put *less* wear on the road than automobiles, but they certainly contribute some. And, depending on the road's layout and the individual cyclist's habits, they can be far more disruptive to traffic flow than a similar number of automobiles.
...I do pay for road maintenance- out of my taxes. You don't think the vehicle tax covers all the costs do you?..
Um.
In round figures:
Public spend on UK road system per year - £10 bn.
Tax income from motor vehicles per year - £30 bn.
So, yes, taxes on vehicles would cover the road cost three times over. I suspect that you were forgetting the fact that petrol is taxed up to the hilt....
Do you have a source for those numbers? The road spend looks pretty low compared to what is spent by the Highways Agency alone, the bulk of the road network managed by local authorities which is funded by our council tax.
http://www.highways.gov.uk/roads/road-projects/
To pick two projects at random, widening the M25 came in at close to £1 billion, or 10% of your suggested spend.
Road maintaince is paid for out of Council tax, or through specific tolls (See Dartford, and formally, the Forth bridge)
Road projects are paid to agencies/contractors out of Central gov, using a number of pots, including - by virtue of being a percentage point therein - VED. Or 100% privately, with the right to reclaim costs through specific tolls.
As far as I am aware, VED is not ring-fenced, so yes: VED does contribute to the total tax income available to the government, some of which is spent on roads. However, the sort of roads that cyclists are allowed on are funded by local authority taxation (council tax, business rates, car parking income etc.), so assuming a cyclist is riding in his own county he probably pays for a fair bit of the road he rides on. Add to that the impact of a bicycle on the road surface compared to a motor vehicle, and I think the costs are pretty much covered. If everyone rode bicycles for local journeys (ever been to Shanghai?) there would be immense savings on road repairs...
The roads that are funded by national government in the UK are motorways and trunk route A-roads, which are usually out-of-bounds for cyclists anyway...
Cyclists do pay for roads, or are you from 1936 and still think that Vehicle Excise Duty is a ring fenced road tax, not a general tax on the carbon emissions/engine size of your vehicle? Given that the CO2 output of a cyclist is way below the threshold for band A they wouldn't pay anything even if they were eligible, along with electric cars, some hybrids and very low emission ICE vehicles.
The majority of road maintenance is paid for from Council Tax (for local roads) and general taxation for trunk routes. Given that a lot of cyclists live in houses, earn money and spend it, they are paying for the roads. in fact, given that a cyclist can also be a motorist, they can quite possibly be paying for a car, yet using a bicycle so causing less than their share of damage to the roads.
As far as disruptive to traffic flow, I don't spend much time stuck behind a bicycle, I spend a lot of time stuck behind cars...
The Right Hon. Representative may be wrong when he said that "You would be giving off more CO2 if you are riding a bike than driving in a car," but the figures from a bike site that The Reg used to make his words look ridiculous seem highly suspect to me.
The engineering toolbox (http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/co2-persons-d_691.html) says that CO2 emission from a person doing "hard work" is 0.33-0.38 m^3/h. Assume that riding a bike is similar to "hard work" (it well may be harder), at a normal pressure density of CO2 of 1980 g/m^3 this amounts to 752.4 g/h. A cyclist going at 35 km/h (we are not talking Tour de France here) that's 21.5 g/km per person (without emissions from food production, etc., unlike the bike side claims).
According to EU (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_emissions) average new car emitted 145.6 g/km of CO2 3 years ago. Today the figure is probably a bit lower still, and it is not per person. If I play a devil's advocate and cheekily assume 4 people in a car that's 36.4 g/km/person. That is not too far from cycling.
I did not forget the CO2 emitted by the 4 passengers in a car, but I assumed that corresponds to "rest or low activity work", and according to the engineering Toolbox site I looked up the emissions are low, almost 20 times lower than those from "hard work".
So, the gentleman may be wrong, but not necessarily completely ridiculous.
Another point to consider is the effect of bicycles on other traffic. I regularly find myself in a train of traffic doing 10-15mph behind a cyclist, watching my mpg figure plummet. It's very hard to calculate the overall effect of that, but I personally experience that several times a week, and in each case one bike is slowing down a lot of cars, so I suspect there might be a sigificant effect there. It's all very well in places with ample dedicated bike lanes, but that isn't the reality for most of the UK. I don't recall seeing many bike lanes, so maybe that is an issue over there too. Mr Orcutt sounds like an idiot though, regardless of whether he inadvertently has a point.
Ok, steady on chaps...
Lets factor in the fuel source as well. I think you'll find the amount of energy require to process and transport fuel from the middle east, is far more than plucking and eating an apple off a tree in Yorkshire. Even high energy meat produce is more efficient.
And lets not forget..."our" fuel is "carbon neutral", as it's grown organically, whereas fossil fuels is net contributor to the CO2 level. Errrr....well...mostly...if we ignore the amount that is converted to methane which is factor more dangerous greenhouse gas...and the agro-chemical fertilizers and our tractors are mostly based and run on hydrocarbons...and that we do stupid things like fly bananas over from Brazil...
Finally lets not forget that in most towns, bikes are actually faster than cars, and the biggest restriction for cars in towns are junctions and traffic lights, rather than cyclists. I'm an "above average" cyclist, and I actually find the cars are the ones holding me up. But regardless - tony's solutions is correct - make our cycle lanes better! Please!
"A cyclist going at 35 km/h (we are not talking Tour de France here) that's 21.5 g/km per person (without emissions from food production, etc., unlike the bike side claims)."
I'm not sure I'd manage a steady 35km/h - I'm probably ambling making about 15km/h through the city. Maybe you are wasted in front of computer and a career in cycle couriership might be beckoning.
I'm not sure I'd manage a steady 35km/h - I'm probably ambling making about 15km/h through the city. Maybe you are wasted in front of computer and a career in cycle couriership might be beckoning.
Actually, that's only < 22mph. With flat roads and the wind assistance of passing traffic, this is easily achievable with a modicum of effort. With a bit of training on a road bike/"racer", 27-28mph is perfectly possible to maintain on more open sections.
One might ask why you're going so slow...
"Actually, that's only < 22mph. With flat roads and the wind assistance of passing traffic, this is easily achievable with a modicum of effort. With a bit of training on a road bike/"racer", 27-28mph is perfectly possible to maintain on more open sections."
Thumb in the air - 28 mph would require not far short of double the power to maintain than 22 mph, which in turn would take 25% more power than 20 mph. Quick online calculator says for a 75kg person (not that heavy) riding on the hoods of a 10kg bike (reasonably light) you'd need about 210W for 20 mph, 270W for 22 mph and 500W for 28 mph. If you can do 500 W for any length of time after "a bit of training" you should consider a change in career (assuming you're not already a Cat1 or Pro rider).
Oh yes - nearly forgot...
"the wind assistance of passing traffic"
WTF ?
Yep - it's true. Ask any competitive roadie if you like - there is a definite effect. The fact that some of the fastest Time Trial courses use busy roads is no coincidence.
And re: 500watts...yes, that pretty close. However, aerodynamics are crucial here. At that speed you won't be sitting bolt upright like Mary Poppins...Think closer to 350watts with traffic assist, which most amateur riders can hold for extended periods.
"
"the wind assistance of passing traffic"
WTF ?
Yep - it's true. Ask any competitive roadie if you like - there is a definite effect. The fact that some of the fastest Time Trial courses use busy roads is no coincidence."
Oh ok.. interesting. I've had some assist from traffic but it's usually from the frontal wave off a large vehicle or a small train of them.. the dominant effect is lateral in my experience. I understand some of the fluid dynamics of why it can help, but I would have thought that dissipation would have limited the benefits... perhaps the roads i'm on don't have a regular enough flow or something.. i'll keep on eye on that.
"And re: 500watts...yes, that pretty close. However, aerodynamics are crucial here. At that speed you won't be sitting bolt upright like Mary Poppins...Think closer to 350watts with traffic assist, which most amateur riders can hold for extended periods."
Yep aerodynamics matter, agreed - 500W ? that's a figure (estimated) on the hoods, so not bolt upright but, yeah, pretty sloppy but what you'd expect for commuting (which is where this started from). It's a bit over 400 on the drops on the same calculation. That said, 350W over an extended period is most certainly not what the vast majority of cyclists can manage - that's nearly 5W/kg for a 75kg person and is in the very top of Cat2 and into Cat 1 territory for functional threshold in the Coggan chart for gents (with all the caveats about that)... and if you're talking extended periods then FTP is a fair guide.
Anyway - I guess this is going a long way away from talking about an average Joe cycling to work, which is a good thing to be encouraging anyway.
I dunno about you, but sometimes I'm outa breath after using the stairs at work because it's "healthier"
But apparently I'm killing the planet .
For that matter they ought to tax people who can't leave their homes on time in the morning and so have to run down the road and over the train station bridges to catch their trains.
And that's not to mention the CO2 produced by people having sex.....
And that's not to mention the CO2 produced by people having sex.....
It's worse than that. If the sex results in pregnancy it means elevated metabolic requirements for 9 months, followed by an additional and parrallel aerobic system being started, which is likely to be constantly producing CO2 for another 85 years afterwards.
So much, much worse than cycling. Time for Dr Breen's supression field, methinks...
Because you breathe harder and faster when rogering (or being rogered), then it stands to reason that that should be taxed also.
Cycling, rogering, rowing, running, playing football (in all it's incarnations), skiing, hockey ........... Let's just tax everything. Oh wait, we already do.
Paris, because from what I've heard .......
Better not tell him that the act of having sex frequently results is increased levels of cardio-vascular activity, respiration and breathing... OMG now we're all at it! ... killing the planet that is!
... Better tax sex!!
Mike
PS. Paris because she knows how to make CO2 ;-)
Not sure about the rest of you, but most of the C02 I relesase when cycling was recently captured from the atmosphere when the wheat, carrot, potato or whatever grew. As such, we're part of a closed loop with the food we eat: C02 + H2O + Sunlight -> carrots + O2 -> exercise + CO2 + H2O.
So there's no net effect on CO2 from the food itself or how much you eat. It just changes how fast things go through the loop.
What does matter is the energy cost in getting the food to you (C02 and H20 make their way back to plants on their own) which is often driven by fossil fuels, but I suspect that subtlety is lost on the gentleman.
Errr...not quite (see my post above). Being a cyclist, I'd love to believe this too, but there are a couple of snags:
- One of the biggest consumer of fossil fuel is agriculture, both in processing, transport and fertilizers. Yes, the end product is "carbon neutral", but the processing is not.
- Also, a lot of our food is flown in. Bananas from Brazil, Lamb from New Zealand, Strawberries from South Africa. This is done - very inefficiently - via fossil fuel.
- Some of our food products (cows, mainly) product a lot of methane.This is a far more potent greenhouse gas than plain ol' CO2.
Until we go 100% organic, using solar-powered electric tractors, and we only eat stuff harvested within a 10 mile radius, "our" food source will not be carbon neutral.
There's also the question of how you define "carbon neutral" and over what timescales. Geologically speaking, fossil fuels are from a plant source and therefore part of a geological timescale carbon cycle. They sequestered lots of atmospheric CO2 back when we had a lot more atmospheric CO2.
Yes, the current view is that today's (more like 200 years ago but still) CO2 percentage is the "optimal" one, but that's only because some people have an issue with the seas being 100m+ higher than they are now. From a planetary perspective we are at a CO2 low ;)
Solution? Grow more fast-growing crops (whatever sequesters carbon the quickest) then bury them in landfill / down deep mine shafts. Make another batch of fossil fuels ready for a few million years hence. It appears to have worked on atmospheric CO2 levels several times higher than todays, so it is certainly scientifically viable as an option ;)
Speaking as a cyclist, I think he's perfectly correct. If it's right to tax cars for emitting 271g /km, then it's just as reasonable to tax us cyclists too for emitting 21g. Of course, what the guys really doing is, as an earlier commenter mentioned, is bringing out how hypocritical the average greenie is :-)
Wrote :- "I think he's perfectly correct. If it's right to tax cars for emitting 271g /km, then it's just as reasonable to tax us cyclists too for emitting 21g."
That assumes that road tax is, and should be, purely about pollution. It did not start that way; it existed from the 1920's (AFAIR) and no-one gave a thought about pullution before about 1970. Roads cost a great deal of money to maintain (don't forget lighting, policing, signage etc).
The Hon. Republican Representative is, in fact, representative of his party. I lived many years in Idaho (conceded to be the most Republican state in the U.S.) prior to moving back to my native state of Washington (historically, heavily Democratic). This gentleman's position that bicyclists exhale a disproportionately burdensome quantity of pollutant gasses and thus impose a burden on the streets and lanes, and therefore must be taxed--is pure Republican logic. But one must understand, it is NOT a TAX that he supports.
It's part and parcel of the USER FEE mentality. Since he cannot easily craft a bill that would mandate GPS-based mileage recording devices on bicycles, upon which a mileage-based user fee could be imposed for passage upon government-owned streets and lanes, he is taking the easy way out. The proposed annual tax is simply a variant of the Republican-favored user fee.
Thus, the annual tax is not a tax at all ... it is an alternative fee that spares the cyclist the purchase, installation, maintenace, monitoring, and reporting of device-recorded mileage ridden, upon which a per-mile user fee would be based.
The user fee is the mainstay of the U.S. Republican philosophy. Thus when former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney tripled and quadrupled license, permit, and user fees in that state, he was NOT increasing taxes. He simply updated the user fees. User fees are never to be construed as taxes, which is why Gov. Romney bragged endlessly that he never increased taxes in Massachusetts.
Simple, no?
Another fabulous hypothesis from the people that brought us intelligent design and vaginas that can identify evil penises.
Leaving aside: -
The fact that the driver's car will be spewing out far more CO2 than the cyclist (not to mention other pollutants).
The fact that the cyclist is causing less damage to the roads that will cost taxes to repair
The strong probability that the cyclist will be healthier and use up less healthcare resources in their life.
The important point is that the CO2 the cyclist gives off came from the food that they ate. Which in turn was absorbed from the atmosphere while the food was growing. The net carbon increase in the atmosphere is 0. Meanwhile the car is giving of carbon that was dragged out of the earth and has not been part of the atmosphere in millions of years.
Why can't politicians leave science to scientists.
Fatties should receive tax breaks.
They offer 2 advantages over people who exercise:
1) Less CO2 produced, due to no exercise
2) they operate as highly efficient carbon capture devices.
Providing they are buried and not cremated when they die, they are an ideal carbon capture and storage resource :-)
Aye but when you dig a little deeper:
What about the extra CO2 produced by the poor buggers that have to sweat under the weight of them as they carry them behind the hearse?
The gravediggers having to shift an extra one or two hundred kilos of soil?
And even after that, surely they need a lot more worms working a lot harder?
The guy is obviously not quite the full shilling, in effect he's talking about a tax on breathing, which is dumb however you dress it up. And for the various commentards that claim they are 'held up' by cyclists, oh please. If you're driving in town then you're average speed is lower than the fleshy human on the bicycle, he'll beat you from one side of the city to the other, you're occupying a disproportionately large piece of road space to move your arse around, he's not. If you're on a country road, the 10 or 15 seconds you have to 'wait' behind the flashy human on the bicycle adds how much time to your total journey? In a nutshell, if you're going slowly in your car, you're not IN traffic. You ARE traffic.
Dear cyclist bashers, the total tax amount gained from Road Tax (which hasn't existed since 1937 by the way - its a tax on vehicle emissions, the more polluting the car, the more you pay) plus petrol taxes, taxes from selling new cars and so on is estimated at 50 billion per year. The cost of maintaining the roads is 70 billion per year. The cost of paying for idiiot drivers killing and seriously injuring other people to the NHS/Police/Fire brigade/tax payer via benefit costs/investigation costs plus the cost to the nhs of treating unnecessary pollution caused by cars and so on has been estimated at between 30 - 50 billion per year
So thats 50 - 70 billion per year not paid for by car related taxes.
AND THE ROADS ARE PAID FOR OUT OF LOCAL AND GENERAL TAXATION - ALL UK TAX PAYERS INCLUDING THOSE WHO CYCLE OR WALK PAY FOR THE ROADS YET 99.9999999% OF ROAD PLANNING IS FOR THE CAR.
Oh, and according to various surveys around 85% of 'cyclists' own a car anyway, so this cyclist vs car driver debate is crap anyway.
Basicaly go to this website for more info: http://ipayroadtax.com/ - knocks down a fair few myths.
" its a tax on vehicle emisions". No it isn't. It's a vehicle tax, the current RATE is based upon vehicle emissions (which is a relatively new concept in the history of the tax). Hint: it's called Vehicle Excise Duty and has gone from being a flat rate (for cars) through banding based on engine size then linking the duty to CO2 emissions. It is NOT a tax on emisions as you will find out when Govt finds a new formula for implementing some policy or other.
You ar right in that all tax payers pay for roads some way or other as chunk of council tax (householders) pay some parts; fuel+income tax+other taxes+national insurance get lumped together for Govt to divy out in proportions they see fit..
"Oh, and according to various surveys around 85% of 'cyclists' own a car anyway, so this cyclist vs car driver debate is crap anyway."
Oh I see - so a second car would be tax free. Oh wait, no it isn't.
Cyclists should pay for their road use just like everyone else. All the extra cycle lanes, advance stops (not that any cyclist stops at a red light) etc all cost money. Who pays? The long-suffering CAR DRIVERS. Not all of whom like to squeeze into fetishistic lycra and ignore the Highway Code on a whim.
Ah another troll. I'll bite.
"Oh I see - so a second car would be tax free. Oh wait, no it isn't."
---Why should a second car be tax free? I cycle to work. I also I own a car, sitting on my drive, which is taxed. Why should I not pay tax on my car?
"Cyclists should pay for their road use just like everyone else. All the extra cycle lanes, advance stops (not that any cyclist stops at a red light) etc all cost money. Who pays? The long-suffering CAR DRIVERS. "
---Covered previously. In a nutshell everybody pays for the roads, whether they use them or not. And why do you think car drivers are long suffering? What would you like to change? Fewer cars on the road, perhaps? What if cyclists decided to drive instead of cycle? More cars on the road? Is this what you want?
"Not all of whom like to squeeze into fetishistic lycra and ignore the Highway Code on a whim."
--Why the obsession with lycra? A footballer wears football kit. A runner wears stuff for running. A cyclist wears attire appropriate to cycling. What would you like them to wear?
Ignore the Highway Code on a whim? The same can be said for any road user.
"Why should a second car be tax free?"
It shouldn't be.
"I cycle to work. I also I own a car, sitting on my drive, which is taxed. Why should I not pay tax on my car?
Again, you car should not be tax free. But you bike is, that's the problem. You are using your bike on the road, you should be paying road tax. If you have two cars, you would pay for both. You have a car and a bike - yet you don't pay for both.
"Covered previously."
No, your second vehicle (the bicycle) is free. You should be paying for that as well. Unless you want to continue to claim that the first car somehow includes the road tax for you other vehicle (which is what you are claiming). I can only drive one car at a time, but I would pay road tax on both. Why should your bicycle continue to be road tax exempt? It shouldn't.
"What if cyclists decided to drive instead of cycle? More cars on the road? Is this what you want?"
Then they'd actually be paying road tax which would allow for any required improvements to be paid for. Just now cyclists get all their lanes, extra marking and special considerations FOR FREE as they pay nothing for their bike use.
"What would you like them to wear?"
Day-glo/hi-vis and a helmet. Under force of law.
I'm a cyclist and a car driver (as most are btw Mr Troll), and I have the following suggestion.
To save having to listen to the ill educated whiners going on about "oh cyclists don't pay tax"...I propose that VED version 1.0 is scrapped, and VED version 2.0 taxes applied to all road using vehicles, based on the vehicle's kerb weight x by the number of wheels (as weight is what damages roads).
2.5p per kilo is about right. So a 1,200kg car will pay around the same as now - £120. A 3.5t van...£525.
So my 8kg bike will pay...40p. It's a fair cop. Apart from the bit where it will probably cost the Government at least £1 to process every application and it's payment...
"Again, you car should not be tax free. But you bike is, that's the problem. You are using your bike on the road, you should be paying road tax. If you have two cars, you would pay for both. You have a car and a bike - yet you don't pay for both."
Muddying the waters, my friend.
Road tax? Abolished in the 1930s. Roads are funded from taxation.
VED is an excise duty. It is not hypothecated tax.
*** Paying VED grants you no more rights to use the road than paying excise duty on a bottle of whisky. ***
"No, your second vehicle (the bicycle) is free. You should be paying for that as well. Unless you want to continue to claim that the first car somehow includes the road tax for you other vehicle (which is what you are claiming). I can only drive one car at a time, but I would pay road tax on both. Why should your bicycle continue to be road tax exempt? It shouldn't."
A flawed argument. You're confusing a non-existent 'road tax' with vehicle excise duty.
VED for low/zero emission vehicles is £0.00. This £0.00 charge also would apply to, say Hyundai i20 1.4, a Nissan Micra 1.2 and so on.
Them's the rules.
Don't like it? Buy a Micra. Or get on a bike. Your heart will thank you for it.
"Then they'd actually be paying road tax which would allow for any required improvements to be paid for. Just now cyclists get all their lanes, extra marking and special considerations FOR FREE as they pay nothing for their bike use."
Wrong. it's not free. It's paid for from from taxation. As are the roads.
quote: "*** Paying VED grants you no more rights to use the road than paying excise duty on a bottle of whisky. ***"
Not quite true. Not paying VED for a vehicle that requires it, means you are not allowed to use the public roads. Any registered vehicle is required by law to have a valid VED disc or be declared SORN, and driving a vehicle that is declared SORN on the public road is an offence.
Whilst correlation is not causation, I would feel perfectly comfortable claiming that, in the UK, paying VED (along with insurance and having a valid MOT) is what grants you the right to use the public roads.
Also:
quote: "To save having to listen to the ill educated whiners going on about "oh cyclists don't pay tax"...I propose that VED version 1.0 is scrapped, and VED version 2.0 taxes applied to all road using vehicles, based on the vehicle's kerb weight x by the number of wheels (as weight is what damages roads).
2.5p per kilo is about right. So a 1,200kg car will pay around the same as now - £120. A 3.5t van...£525.
So my 8kg bike will pay...40p. It's a fair cop. Apart from the bit where it will probably cost the Government at least £1 to process every application and it's payment..."
You seem to be forgetting that your bicycle does not self-navigate; when it is on the roads, it also has you riding it. EU regs on "kerb weight" for cars includes a driver at 75kg, so this would make the "kerb weight" of your 8kg bicycle 83kg, or a VED of £4.15 (not £0.40). Still peanuts, but a significant increase.
I'd welcome this sort of change too, as my 350kg motorcycle+me would pay £17.50 instead of the current £76 :)
Anyone with a Band A, B, or C hybrid / electric will hate you for it though, as they pretty much all weigh over a tonne (revised VED £100+), but currently pay £0-£30.
Also note that the contact patch for a bicycle is significantly smaller than the contact patch for a car due to difference in tyre size; a VED targeted at "amount of weight applied to the roads during use" would need to also factor tyre width in there as well somewhere, and would need to divide weight by number of wheels (you provide less downward force per wheel when using more than one wheel for the same weight). In that sense, an 83kg monocycle would technically do more damage than an 83kg tricycle using the same tyres, as the total downward force due to weight would be distributed between wheels / tyres ;)
This post has been deleted by its author
-------------------------- quote --------------------------
: Quote [quote: "*** Paying VED grants you no more rights to use the road than paying excise duty on a bottle of whisky. ***"
Not quite true. Not paying VED for a vehicle that requires it, means you are not allowed to use the public roads. Any registered vehicle is required by law to have a valid VED disc or be declared SORN, and driving a vehicle that is declared SORN on the public road is an offence.
Whilst correlation is not causation, I would feel perfectly comfortable claiming that, in the UK, paying VED (along with insurance and having a valid MOT) is what grants you the right to use the public roads.]
-------------------------- end quote --------------------------
Not quite true.
Pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders have the RIGHT to use the roads (with restrictions, such motorways and so on). These restrictions are in the highway code.
In order to use a motor vehicle on the roads you have to apply for a (revocable) licence which gives you PERMISSION to drive the vehicle on the road, and this motor vehicle is subject to VED (whether a charge applies or not).
So you'd be right if you said "VED does not grant any rights whatsoever. However, VED is one of the legal requirements to use a motor vehicle on the road".
This post has been deleted by its author
But how crazy is his statement in relation to everyone else on this planet? How many people believe in one or more of these-
A deity which takes attendance?
A deity which made us and put us in charge?
A deity which made the world in 6 days?
A deity which will save us from death (life after death)?
A deity which interferes in our lives?
A deity which punishes us if we sin?
An all powerful deity?
Compare this to the deity of co2 which gets blamed for the sun, rain, snow, hurricane, etc. And of course this deity has a growing list of sins too- breathing, driving, farting, thinking, etc.
How far our race has progressed.
My point is how a lot of countries sit under the heel of religion. Including this crazy new one. And we are getting taxed for it and listening to geniuses like this one telling us how our breathing is bad so we need to be taxed more.
I wonder if that is how the church used to do it
While Orcutt is an idiot, why has road taxation become just about pollution? Inthe UK low-emitting vehicles some small vehicles get away with paying no tax at all.
That is not how road tax originated : it was to pay for maintaining roads. Whether it ALL goes into paying for roads today is irrelevant; the fact is that it costs money to build roads in the first place, maintain them, provide signage, lighting and police them. Then there is the matter of the land value that roads take, which in cities is a lot.
There are many, many anomalies in road taxation. For example my wife drives her car only about 1000 miles per year, and I know some people who drive even less than that. This is out in The Sticks, where the journey to our shopping town does not pass one traffic light or, for 90% of the way, one street light. Her road tax is mostly subsidising others, especially HGVs who cause road damage orders of magnitude higher and who's freight should mostly be taken by rail IMHO.
I am not going to get into how much of this road cost should be apportioned to cyclists if considered this way, but not a lot.
If I have two cars, I pay two road taxes. Why should cyclists get a free ride? Pay up.
Cyclists should also have insurance (at least third party) so that other road users and pedestrians can get some kind of compensation when the (usually untrained) cyclist causes an accident.
Further to that, cyclists should be required to pass a driving test before being allowed on the road (this should include theory and hazard perception).
All cyclists should carry some kind of number plater that uniquely identifies the rider (a bit like a number plate), this would be most beneficial at reducing the number of morons who ride through traffic lights at red.
Cycling helmets should also be mandatory.
As should lights and a bells. Any cyclist found riding and night without lights should face a fine (just as any car driver would).
Wrote :- "Any cyclist found riding and night without lights should face a fine (just as any car driver would)."
They do face a fine. Cycle lights have been a legal requirement since the late 1930's I believe, although it started with just a reflector. I would agree that it should be better enforced, and I say that as a cyclist who is fastidious about my lights. I see cyclists without lights and I am amazed how they survive.
Re: road tax for bikes
You are Dale Maile and I claim my five pounds.
I've modified your post so you can see how silly your argument is.
"If I have two cars, I pay two road taxes. Why should pedestrians get a free ride? Pay up.
Pedestrians should also have insurance (at least third party) so that other road users and pedestrians can get some kind of compensation when the (usually untrained) pedestrians causes an accident.
Further to that, pedestrians should be required to pass a driving test before being allowed on the road (this should include theory and hazard perception).
All pedestrians should carry some kind of number plater that uniquely identifies the pedestrian (a bit like a number plate), this would be most beneficial at reducing the number of morons who walk through traffic lights at red.
Pedestrian helmets should also be mandatory.
As should lights and a bells. Any pedestrians found walking at night without lights should face a fine (just as any car driver would)."
@ac 12:11 that's actually a good idea - this would of course have apply to all car drivers (and their passengers) that get out of their cars in public - though the helmet may prevent them from being able to drive.
Actually most pedestrians are covered by household insurance but fortunately those claims are us lawyers can only advertise to couch potatoes.
"cyclists should be required to pass a driving test before being allowed on the road" - even if they're children?
Now, if motorists were required to pass a driving test more than once when they were a teenager, that might change things. A re-test every five years would enable everyone to learn the current standards required (I have never taken a driving theory test, for example) and would also help to discourage bad habits from creeping in (like forgetting to indicate, going faster than the maximum speed, passing cyclists too close, etc.).
"If I have two cars, I pay two road taxes. Why should cyclists get a free ride? Pay up."
Oh do fuck off you stupid twat - as has been pointed out again and again in this thread, and indeed every time this comes up - cyclists, and others, don't get a free ride. Also, if you have any conviction in your beliefs then why don't you try posting as someone real, not a coward. FFS.
Did you know that helmets decrease the likelihood and severity of head injuries for car drivers and passengers at about the same rate that they do for bikes? Not saying that helmets aren't a good idea just maybe we aren't thinking big enough...
Agree 100% about lights at night. Given that an adequate flasher can be had for less than $6, I'm surprised that anyone rides without one. Responsible retailers should include them standard with new bikes. For my own part, I've been seriously considering keeping a few on hand just to give away to suicidal idiots (at least the more polite ones).
Horns? Meh. A yell is louder, more instinctive and doesn't require lifting your hands from the bars. It's not like you are sitting on a sofa watching the world go by from behind a thick window.
License and registration? Where I live here's a quick breakdown on how that would cost out: govt dept of bike licensing would run about $13,000,000 / year (figured at 1% of ICBC budget). Actual claims: ~$800,000 year(0.12c/km * 150km/rider * 1% of population). Probably not a great way to spend tax dollars.
>he admitted that he had not "done any analysis"
So he is holding a position without any evidence as to that position's validity.
Has he considered other savings? e.g. due to having healthy hearts, cyclists will need less medical car than a lard-bucket with their Double Gulp driving to the mall. Saved CO2!
(I have done no analysis, but the above is true.)
Yeah, cycling is not zero-impact but then neither is walking. They are both still leagues better than a car.
Cars destroy roads because they are very heavy and have a large power output. Neither pedestrians or cyclists do so find a new piece of nonsense to moan about troll. Instead of demonising other people ask the government why they don't even spend all the road tax they raise on the roads never mind fuel duty.
Cars destroy roads because they are very heavy and have a large power output. Neither pedestrians or cyclists do so find a new piece of nonsense to moan about troll. Instead of demonising other people ask the government why they don't even spend all the road tax they raise on the roads never mind fuel duty.
Cars destroy roads because they are very heavy and have a large power output. Neither pedestrians or cyclists do so find a new piece of nonsense to moan about troll. Instead of demonising other people ask the government why they don't even spend all the road tax they raise on the roads never mind fuel duty.
Though cyclists have a raised CO2 production while cycling, they are probably fitter as a result so produce less CO2 during other activities during the day because they are more efficient. The net effect is probably negative net emissions relative to doing nothing.
See post about damage down to contact pressure (axle weight)
The reality is that the vast majority of road damage is caused by heavy vehicles and _those_ aren't taxed at anywhere near the correct proportional rate. A single bus can do more damage to the road in one pass than a month's worth of cars .
BTW, the formula given isn't quite correct, it's a factor of the 4th power of axle weight AND the 2nd power of speed(hammer effect) - which is why really heavy loads are required to operate at very low speeds.
As for cyclist damage/CO2 - the only damage that cyclists do to the road is when they go under my car and they produce less CO2 in general than twittish gasbags in government. :)
is the problem. Whether they are driving or cycling or sitting at home watching TV. People = CO2 emissions, not to mention methane and other nasties. So, if the world wishes to sort out Global Warming and related issues, then POPULATION control/reduction is the only way forward. Even if we reduce greenhouse gas emissions to a certain level per person, if there are more people there are more gasses. Long term, ONLY population reduction will work. Either that or we will all eventually cook in our own juices from our own waste heat.
Perhaps that is what our Alien Masters are waiting for. A whole planet covered with 20+ Billion joints of slow- roast long-pig.
It's really very simple, all berating-related CO2 is CARBON NEUTRAL. **CARBON NEUTRAL**. ZERO NET GAIN IN ATMOSPHERIC CARBON DIOXIDE LEVELS.
Every single atom of CO2 exhaled CAME FROM THE ATMOSPHERE. Plants take CO2 and turn it into sugars, animals eat those and turn them back into CO2.
The reason fossil fuels are bad is that you're taking CO2 that has been accumulating for millions and millions of years and releasing it all in one go, thus it's a **POSITIVE NET GAIN** ATMOSPHERIC CARBON DIOXIDE LEVELS.
Anyone trying to equate someone's breath with fossil fuels is a LYING HACK FOR THE OIL INDUSTRY.
The only possible link to any greenhouse gas emissions is if you eat slightly more, but again that's only because our food industry uses so much fossil fuel.
Road tax doesn't exist. It's car tax, a tax on cars and other vehicles, not a tax on roads or a fee to use them. Motorists do not pay directly for the roads. Roads are paid for via general and local taxation. In 1926, Winston Churchill started the process to abolish road tax. It was finally culled in 1937.
Car tax is based on amount of CO2 emitted so, if a fee had to be paid, cyclists would pay the same as 'tax-dodgers' such as disabled drivers, police cars, the Royal family, and band A motorists, ie £0. Most cyclists are also car-owners, too, so pay VED.
Cyclists are a total menace to our environment!
Grief, when I jump on my bike, after a full English breakfast containing baked beans, bacon, couple of eggs or so, lard-fried slice, mushrooms, fried tomatoes, grilled onions and (horsey) sausages, I could give out more "ventus foulus" than the Queen probably did last week. Gawd, even the buses keep 20 yards away!
The annual vehicle tax in the UK is based on pollution - there are plenty of cars that pay a zero rate, petrol/diesel as well as leccy.
If you are angry/jealous of the fact that you pay a few quid a year for your car and a person on a bike doesn't, then either buy a bike, or buy a zero-rated car and stop whinging like a bitch.
Bicycles just make for more effiicient pedestrians - should we create a pavement tax for shoes? Morons.
Bicycles in the UK at least are rated for VAT so we pay a purchase tax. Most roads paths etc are funded out of local taxation anyway so again I pay my way there.
Bikes take up a lot less space and do a lot less damage than cars. In the UK billions are spent trying to cure people who's mouths are bigger than their arseholes and do little more than move from the sofa to the driving seat and as a result are suffering heart disease, diabetes and all sorts of other nasty stuff. If more people rode and walked then that would reduce saving the whole country money, and possibly cutting your tax bill.
Most adult cyclists in the UK have passed a test to use the road - called a driving test, cos surprise fecking surprise most of them also drive. Not two seperate species.From the standard of most drivers I see they need to pass a fr1gging test.
At night most of the people riding bikes that I see are teenagers on mountain bikes& bmx - parental responsibility anyone? Cos most of their parents are probably drivers bitching about cyclists without lights!
Most cyclists ARE responsible. The ones that aren't are generally neerdowells or idiots, and if they were in a car would be driving whilst drunk/drugged out of their skin without a licence. mot or insurance, so you are better off with them on a bike!
considering this is a tech/sciencey type site and the comments threads normally have sensible commenters, I am wondering where all the idiots have come in from.
Spawn of the devil cos as a cyclist I obviously am! Although unlike most of the nutters and trolls I am willing to put my name to my comments
Well said, sir!
We don't have hypothecation of taxes in the UK*, and for very good reasons too, hence paying VED on one's car(s) has nothing to do with maintenance of roads.
A simple example: if we had hypothecation (or ringfencing) of taxes then childless people would be asking for tax breaks on the basis that their family doesn't use schools. Similarly, the healthy would be demanding tax breaks on the basis that they don't use the NHS. Taxes on cigarettes and booze don't go to NHS directly, they go into a central pot, just like motoring taxes.
The local roads, on which people will find people riding bikes, are built and maintained by local authorities. Who pays for them? All council tax payers do. Of course, the extension of the logic that has been on display by some of the trolls, students and other persons who don't pay council tax should not be allowed on pavements, roads or anywhere public.
DfT has made it clear that it will not bring in any form of cycling tax as they would have to tax pedestrians too.
I was about to make a snarky remark about this legislator, but it appears that all the El Reg commentards (so far) have missed the point as well, so I'll be kind.
CO2 emission is not in itself a bad thing. There is a natural cycle and as long as you are respiring/burning/carbon that is already part of the current natural environment, you aren't changing the amount of carbon in general circulation. Therefore you won't cause the atmospheric concentration to change. You could burn the whole cyclist and it wouldn't affect global warming.
The problem is in releasing fossilised carbon. That adds to the total carbon in circulation.
"All the extra cycle lanes" eh ? All they do around here is paint a line a couple of feet in from the edge of the road and call it a "cycle lane".
This has rather hilariously resulted in quite a lot of roads where the car lane is actually not wide enough to FIT a car. Especially hilarious when there's a bike going each way, and a bus going each way ...
I bike 4 miles to work every day. I generally have to shower when I get into work, and then again when I get back from work. I suspect a 4 minute shower is of far more note than the rest of my commute. Society has higher expectations of personal hygiene than they might have done 50 years ago. Tramp symbol, because that's my girlfriend's opinion of / reaction to me every evening I get home.
The comments from this "Oh-So-Enlightend" congress critter is middle of the bell curve. You have to realize that US government is made up of lawyers that failed in private practice yet still had good enough hair and really white teeth to look good in ads. Some of them even have a good speaking voice if you ignore what they are actually saying.
I'll keep up the mantra... "Be afraid, be very very afraid" ~Douglas Adams
And so it begins. With cycling becoming more and more popular, you can guarantee the politicians will be searching for ways to tax the hell out of cyclists. Global warming worked well for the car, but they are going to need something new for the cyclist. Safety is the obvious choice....fines for not wearing helmets or proper clothing, mandatory bike MOT's etc.
I am an American and proud to be so but it is becoming difficult not to be embarrassed to be American.
The caliber of people elected in the US is shameful. What is worse, these idiot elected officials represent the public so what does that make the public. Idiots.
As far as the bicycle tax, this brings to mind a favorite Beatles Tune, Taxman:
If you drive a car, I'll tax the street,
If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat.
If you get too cold I'll tax the heat,
If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
