talkFORUM

Posted: **Sat Sep 18, 2021 7:49 pm**

Zambo wrote: ↑Sat Sep 18, 2021 6:09 pm All cyclists using the road should be insured and pay road tax

Road tax was abolished in 1937, and was replaced by Vehicle Excise Duty (which is based on emissions).

Posted: **Sun Sep 19, 2021 8:00 am**

subsub wrote: ↑Sat Sep 18, 2021 7:49 pm
Zambo wrote: ↑Sat Sep 18, 2021 6:09 pm All cyclists using the road should be insured and pay road tax
Road tax was abolished in 1937, and was replaced by Vehicle Excise Duty (which is based on emissions).

If motorists pay a tax then so should cyclists.

Posted: **Sun Sep 19, 2021 8:26 am**

Zambo wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 8:00 am
subsub wrote: ↑Sat Sep 18, 2021 7:49 pm
Zambo wrote: ↑Sat Sep 18, 2021 6:09 pm All cyclists using the road should be insured and pay road tax
Road tax was abolished in 1937, and was replaced by Vehicle Excise Duty (which is based on emissions).
If motorists pay a tax then so should cyclists.

The way to go, and infrastructurally speaking this is a challenge for UK urban landscapes , is for segregated paths for pedestrians, cyclists and motorists to minimise clashes.

There are brilliant cycle lane networks in towns such as stevenage, harlow and milton keynes. It'd be nice to see it somehow replicated in the older towns and cities of the UK.

Posted: **Sun Sep 19, 2021 9:01 am**

The Tick wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 8:26 am
Zambo wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 8:00 am
subsub wrote: ↑Sat Sep 18, 2021 7:49 pm
Zambo wrote: ↑Sat Sep 18, 2021 6:09 pm All cyclists using the road should be insured and pay road tax
Road tax was abolished in 1937, and was replaced by Vehicle Excise Duty (which is based on emissions).
If motorists pay a tax then so should cyclists.

The way to go, and infrastructurally speaking this is a challenge for UK urban landscapes , is for segregated paths for pedestrians, cyclists and motorists to minimise clashes.

There are brilliant cycle lane networks in towns such as stevenage, harlow and milton keynes. It'd be nice to see it somehow replicated in the older towns and cities of the UK.

Segregation does promote adoption, as e-bikes get cheaper they'll only become more popular.

Posted: **Sun Sep 19, 2021 9:31 am**

Zambo wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 8:00 am
subsub wrote: ↑Sat Sep 18, 2021 7:49 pm
Zambo wrote: ↑Sat Sep 18, 2021 6:09 pm All cyclists using the road should be insured and pay road tax
Road tax was abolished in 1937, and was replaced by Vehicle Excise Duty (which is based on emissions).
If motorists pay a tax then so should cyclists.

Except that Excise Duty is based on emissions, with the highest rates for those vehicles that emit the most CO2.
Bicycles don't emit any CO2, yet you'd still tax them

Posted: **Sun Sep 19, 2021 10:06 am**

subsub wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 9:31 am
Zambo wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 8:00 am
subsub wrote: ↑Sat Sep 18, 2021 7:49 pm
Zambo wrote: ↑Sat Sep 18, 2021 6:09 pm All cyclists using the road should be insured and pay road tax
Road tax was abolished in 1937, and was replaced by Vehicle Excise Duty (which is based on emissions).
If motorists pay a tax then so should cyclists.
Except that Excise Duty is based on emissions, with the highest rates for those vehicles that emit the most CO2.
Bicycles don't emit any CO2, yet you'd still tax them

Yep, all road users should pay a toll, based on a number of elements. Councils should be forced to keep the roads in good repair, they receive enough money from tax payers.

Posted: **Sun Sep 19, 2021 12:24 pm**

subsub wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 9:31 am Bicycles don't emit any CO2

Cyclists do, though.

What we need is a hugely over-complicated system of carbon-taxes and the associated carbon-allowances, with a carbon-tsar in charge, on about 500 grand a year. He (or she!) will obviously need a few assistants with a job-title designed to obscure and confuse, on 250 big ones each, and a computer-tracking system which uses more electricity than it's supposed to save.

Posted: **Sun Sep 19, 2021 12:58 pm**

JimmyDee wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 12:24 pm
subsub wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 9:31 am Bicycles don't emit any CO2
Cyclists do, though.

What we need is a hugely over-complicated system of carbon-taxes and the associated carbon-allowances, with a carbon-tsar in charge, on about 500 grand a year. He (or she!) will obviously need a few assistants with a job-title designed to obscure and confuse, on 250 big ones each, and a computer-tracking system which uses more electricity than it's supposed to save.

Alternatively just tax carbon at a flat rate encouraging people to purchase locally produced goods and services.

Posted: **Sun Sep 19, 2021 2:01 pm**

Vespa wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 12:58 pm Alternatively just tax carbon at a flat rate encouraging people to purchase locally produced goods and services.

Define "carbon", in an unambiguous way, that lawyers won't argue about, in fewer than 250 000 words

Posted: **Sun Sep 19, 2021 2:06 pm**

JimmyDee wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 2:01 pm
Vespa wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 12:58 pm Alternatively just tax carbon at a flat rate encouraging people to purchase locally produced goods and services.
Define "carbon", in an unambiguous way, that lawyers won't argue about, in fewer than 250 000 words

the chemical element of atomic number 6, a non-metal which has two main forms (diamond and graphite) and which also occurs in impure form in charcoal, soot, and coal.

Posted: **Sun Sep 19, 2021 2:19 pm**

The Tick wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 2:06 pm the chemical element of atomic number 6, a non-metal which has two main forms (diamond and graphite) and which also occurs in impure form in charcoal, soot, and coal.

So diamond-dealers have to pay a carbon-tax then? Errr ... OK.

Posted: **Sun Sep 19, 2021 3:10 pm**

JimmyDee wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 2:19 pm
The Tick wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 2:06 pm the chemical element of atomic number 6, a non-metal which has two main forms (diamond and graphite) and which also occurs in impure form in charcoal, soot, and coal.
So diamond-dealers have to pay a carbon-tax then? Errr ... OK.

If they want to use their vehicles on the road, then yes.

Posted: **Sun Sep 19, 2021 4:34 pm**

JimmyDee wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 2:01 pm
Vespa wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 12:58 pm Alternatively just tax carbon at a flat rate encouraging people to purchase locally produced goods and services.
Define "carbon", in an unambiguous way, that lawyers won't argue about, in fewer than 250 000 words

There are lots of pre-existing standards used by carbon offset schemes such as - https://verra.org/project/vcs-program

The UK government could define a flat-rate rate using a standard based on a range of measures that would define the product environmental impact. That would encourage importers to lower their impact and give an advantage to local products which likely have a lower environmental impact.

Posted: **Tue Sep 21, 2021 6:05 pm**

Posted: **Wed Sep 22, 2021 11:00 am**

I'm shocked.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... ation.html

talkFORUM

Climate & Other Protesters Discussion

Re: Climate & Other Protesters Discussion

Re: Climate & Other Protesters Discussion

Re: Climate & Other Protesters Discussion

Re: Climate & Other Protesters Discussion

Re: Climate & Other Protesters Discussion

Re: Climate & Other Protesters Discussion

Re: Climate & Other Protesters Discussion

Re: Climate & Other Protesters Discussion

Re: Climate & Other Protesters Discussion

Re: Climate & Other Protesters Discussion

Re: Climate & Other Protesters Discussion

Re: Climate & Other Protesters Discussion

Re: Climate & Other Protesters Discussion

Re: Climate & Other Protesters Discussion

Re: Climate & Other Protesters Discussion