Speed limits: 40mph plan for country roads

[RenewableCandy]

I often wonder how drivers would feel if they were going along minding their own business and the road suddenly came to a dead-end with "END" written on it and then ceased to exist.

[JavaScriptDonkey]

Most people already have liability insurance, whether with their motor insurance, mortgage or whatever. It's silly making cyclists have it when they only damage about 5 1/2 people per year. And how would this proposed system deal with cyclists who haven't come of age yet?

I was referring to proper cycle lanes with a kerb not the usual bit of paint sloshed down by cheapskate councils.

Underage cyclist is an easy problem - if they are too young to pass the test then they shouldn't be on the road. I can't see the state suddenly prosecuting hoards of kiddies on their trikes though - perhaps a clause along the lines of 'unless under the immediate supervision of a licenced and insured adult' would suit?

I would also envisage the average 12 year old to be able to pass the test. It'll hardly need to be more complex than a CBT and a theory test. The old Cycling Proficiency test would probably be as good a place to start as any.

Going back to VED - it's only cars that are emissions taxed. Motorbike tax is based on engine capacity and HGVs on weight. Car VED is canted to deliberately encourage the purchase of low emission cars (irrespective of the WOL emissions). In this context I don't see a problem for a flat rate cycle tax.

[RenewableCandy]

I was referring to proper cycle lanes with a kerb not the usual bit of paint sloshed down by cheapskate councils.

Oh right.

Not seen one recently (like, since I was in China in 1988)...

Many cyclists ride very badly, but there are already laws against that.

Quite. My main objection to any additional bureaucratic activity, even those with the best of intentions, is that it'll put a lot of people off cycling. There are plenty of occasional, "marginal" cyclists (as I used to be) who then go on to do so regularly (and improve as they gain experience). The need for licences and tests etc before they go anywhere near a road would prevent most of these people ever starting out.

And as I said, the harm caused by bikes via accidents per year in this country is minimal when compared to everything else on the roads (including dogs, cattle, you name it...).

[JavaScriptDonkey]

Whereas I contest that the vast majority of good, safe cyclists already have driving licenses and wouldn't need further training. The few that do need training would greatly benefit from it.

Insurance isn't there to protect them but to provide for the very few serious victims who otherwise may be left seriously disadvantaged.

I suspect many cyclists have house insurance to protect themselves and life assurance to protect their families. Why shouldn't they be forced to put insurance in place to protect the general public if they choose to use bikes on the public roads.

If you need to see the affect compulsory licences etc then you would do worse than look at the number of mopeds in use in London.

[RenewableCandy]

Whereas I contest that the vast majority of good, safe cyclists already have driving licenses

well I don't have one for a start.

And I'm pretty certain that house insurance and the like includes personal liability. For the benefit of those 5 1/2 people who get injured by cyclists every year, and whose stories, tragic though they are, hit the headlines precisely because they are so rare.

This is just daft. You might as well insist that I have personal liability insurance because I walk. You know, I might knock someone over.

[biffvernon]

If you see RC coming down the road, quick, cross to the other side. Keep safe.

[Little John]

To fully fess up here, I don't actually agree with a road vehicle tax at all of any kind except, perhaps, for commercial vehicles I guess, if pushed. The public highways are there for all to use and should be funded out of central progressive taxation.

With regards to insurance, I agree with RC that the amount of damage done to others with bikes is so minuscule as to be practicality non existent and so insurance for cyclists is not necessary. As far as insurance for private motor vehicles is concerned, I think compulsory private insurance for them should be scrapped to be replaced by a small percentage tax on each and every litre of fuel that is bought. That way, absolutely everyone who uses a motor vehicle is de-facto insured at, say, the "fully comprehensive" level. This would also completely kill the problem of uninsured drivers in one fell swoop because it would become impossible to drive anywhere without being insured. To ensure incentivisation of drivers to not take the piss out of the new tax based universal insurance scheme, if a driver has an accident in a given year for which they were found liable, then a small addition to their income tax could be applied for the following year to reflect their increased actuarial risk. This could then be reduced or cancelled in the following year according to their accident rate in that year.

One problem with the above incentivisation measures would be if someone was long term unemployed and so was unable to pay the extra income tax in the year following an accident. This could be dealt with by applying a ban for a given period on driving (that reflected the reduced actuarial risk of not being on the road that was equivalent to the increased revenue from otherwise applying a small increase on income tax as a reflection of that risk). The ban could be immediately lifted and converted to the tax-take if the person get a job. This is just one suggestion, though, off the top of my head as I am thinking this through. The point is, it is not beyond the wit of man to devise a system that is both equitable and provides the right incentives.

At the same time as all of the above measures are implemented, all other forms of tax on motor fuel should be scrapped and the hole left behind in the global tax take should be swallowed into general progressive taxation. Like a lot of other so-called "consumption" taxes, petrel tax is regressive in that it penalises the poor. Someone on 10k a year who has to travel 20 miles each way to work ends up paying the same petrol tax as someone who also travels 20 miles each way but is on a 100k a year.

[bigjim]

Like a lot of other so-called "consumption" taxes, petrel tax is regressive in that it penalises the poor. Someone on 10k a year who has to travel 20 miles each way to work ends up paying the same petrol tax as someone who also travels 20 miles each way but is on a 100k a year.

Petrel tax? Hmmm, I don't like the sound of that one. If petrels were taxed more highly then the species might go extinct

Seriously, the problem with removing petrol taxes is that it removes incentives to drive fewer miles in smaller cars and car share. Your idea is interesting but it would generate other problems.

[Little John]

Like a lot of other so-called "consumption" taxes, petrel tax is regressive in that it penalises the poor. Someone on 10k a year who has to travel 20 miles each way to work ends up paying the same petrol tax as someone who also travels 20 miles each way but is on a 100k a year.

Petrel tax? Hmmm, I don't like the sound of that one. If petrels were taxed more highly then the species might go extinct

Seriously, the problem with removing petrol taxes is that it removes incentives to drive fewer miles in smaller cars and car share. Your idea is interesting but it would generate other problems.

There seems to be some confusion here. You seem to have a problem with an increase on tax on petrol for things you don't approve of but don't have a problem with a tax on petrol for things you do approve of.

If the petrol tax was moved to income tax, the spending power on the population as a whole would be the same, thus leaving the capacity of the people as whole to spend money on travelling unchanged. The only difference would be that this spending capacity (or lack of) would be more equitably burdened across all section of the people, instead of being concentrated on the poor.

So far as incentivising people to drive more efficient vehicles, this could easily be achieved by tax incentivising the manufactures, thus enabling them to sell more efficient vehicles cheaper than the alternatives.

[JohnB]

Where's the opportunity for profit if the state handles it all?

[Little John]

Where's the opportunity for profit if the state handles it all?

Is the reason why we don't have it, of course.

Free markets are fine when the service being offered is one that can be fully refused by the customer. I don't mean that the particular service being offered can be refused, I mean where the service per-se, from anyone, can be refused. That way, system-wide demand destruction can take care of service-providers who have monopolised that system and are chasing too high profits.

Obviously, in the case of car insurance, the service cannot be refused and so as soon as there are a few big players, the principle of a free market breaks down.

This problem with "free "markets is not a small one. It applies to any market where the service being offered is one that people cannot, for all practical purposes, refuse and so demand cannot be destroyed.

The UK housing market, for instance......

[JavaScriptDonkey]

This is just daft. You might as well insist that I have personal liability insurance because I walk. You know, I might knock someone over.

Reducto again...

You may disagree because you feel it would limit your personal freedom but that doesn't make it daft.

If you have no training, pay no taxes and refuse to prove that your vehicle is safe then you shouldn't be allowed to cycle in public space.

I have never caused an accident and never claimed on my insurance and yet I'm still expected to pay it every year just in case. What makes you so special that you should be exempt?

[RenewableCandy]

I don't think you understood what I wrote. Obviously it's not just me on my bike that should be exempt: all cyclists should, and for precisely the reason that SteveCook and I have both mentioned. Cyclists do, in the grand scheme of things, "2% of bog-all" harm on the roads. And all of us have a massive incentive to make sure our kit is in good working order and safe. We're vulnerable and will come off the worse in any collision. A mate of mine (for example) was knocked off his bike by off-the-lead dogs on a cyclepath and broke a load of ribs: the dogs were fine.

Have you ever actually seen a cyclist? I'm not being facetious here, but your writings so far imply you're imagining a completely different animal than the image I have of cyclists.

[JavaScriptDonkey]

Have you ever actually seen a cyclist? I'm not being facetious here, but your writings so far imply you're imagining a completely different animal than the image I have of cyclists.

Until very recently I rode everyday although I haven't replaced my bike since my eldest son 'borrowed' it.

I see cyclists on nearly every journey I make. You wouldn't believe how many middle aged men round these parts suddenly think they are Wiggins.
Mostly pedaling like fury on race replica bikes on narrow roads as well.

What image do you have of all cyclists? I think they are all individuals with some better than others but all equally valid in their own right.

[raspberry-blower]

This problem with "free "markets is not a small one.

You're right there Steve because, in fact, there is no such thing as a free market

Now back to cycling..

Got to admit that I only recently learnt to cycle as I was a complete disaster area when much younger (I'm still a liability to myself ) and was taught by this lovely lady

The reasons why I got on my bike was not just because of Peak Oil concerns but it is also a good way of keeping fit. Generally I tend to go out early in the morning and head round country lanes wherever possible.

BTW this is an entertaining read