You are reading a single comment by @The_Seldom_Killer and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
London Fixed Gear and Single-Speed is a community of predominantly fixed gear and single-speed cyclists in and around London, UK.
This site is supported almost exclusively by donations. Please consider donating a small amount regularly.
@The_Seldom_Killer
My argument is dependant on the point that the level of car ownership is irrelevant. It's dependant on a bit of a semantic leap, but one that I think is valid and stands up although I've never really had it challenged so please do if you think I'm wrong.
Firstly we look at the balance of the whole cost of the road vs the income from motoring. Based on the figures from the article I posted upthread the disparity is basically a ratio of 3:1. The article claims to be conservative in its estimates and I believe that, but even from a more conservative stance you'd be hard pressed to get it under a ratio of 2:1. So immediately the argument of paying "road tax" falls apart there. Aside from the non existence and the manner in which revenue is managed and distributed, the cost borne by the motorist alone is less than the cost borne by everyone outside of that.
Yes, overall the motorist is still paying more, but a couple of things need to be taken into consideration. a) a significant porportion of motoring derived revenue is formed from the commercial/business sector. Unsurprisingly, that cost gets passed on to the customer so non-motorists kick in even more. This goes up in a point I'll be making later. b) A proportion of all of the whole cost of the road is derived directly from motorways, which non-motorists have no access to, so we're subsidising something that we have no access to. c) The majority of road development and maintenance is centred directly around motoring so the insult of the disparity of cost is exacerbated further by the disproportionality of disbusement. You could argue the other real benefits to the non motorists, and I agree they exist, but I find it hard to see the balance restored here. d) The motorists road tax relies heavily on a sense of ownership, yet that ownship cannot genuinely hold true while they're being bailed out from all quarters.
So moving on from this, if you own a vehicle that attracts a VED charge and consumes fuel that attracts tax and duty (even electric can claim this), essentially a motor vehicle then absolutely you do pay to access the roads, even for the simple act of being parked away from private land (check SORN rights for further details). However, I'm of the opinion that even if you are a motorist, if you are on the road but not using a motor vehicle, including even as a pedestrian and not on what we would recognise as the roadway, you then constitute a non-motorist. Partly because you at that time are not paying a recognisable tax or duty related directly to road use and partly because of the absence of equitable comprehensive support in doing so and partly because of the legally unimpingeable right to do so. And in that act of being a non-motorist you are then subsidising those who at the time are being a motorist.
Possibly a radical notion, but while non-motorists are stumping up twice the amount that motorists are, then I don't think it unreasonable to expect some investment that is greater than verging on the insignificant.
In the mean time, if motorists want to believe that they pay "road tax" then they need to STFU and start accepting our unfaltering support with a lot more good grace and gratitude. [/rant]