[pedant]

surely as a bicycle is a zero emissions mode of transport it would attract a cost of £0.

i really like the idea but think the focus on the tax disc issue should be about emissions, and not whether the cyclist also owns a car. if i owned 2 cars i can't get one of them at a lower rate tax disc because i've paid ved already.

[/pedant]

+1 to the poster above.

I actually wouldn’t mind having a bloody tax disc on my bike – of £0 of course like the electric cars :)

ris, surely it should be not [pedant]?

But getting back on topic, i like the jerseys, might have a shufti at the site later.

It's a misconception that bikes are zero emission. You have to consider the energy and resources that go in to manufacturing a bike and the fact that cyclist consume more food, oxygen and produce more CO2 than sedentary people.

Building any vehicle wastes more resources than actually running one.

True, compared to cars the amount of energy it takes to build and run a bike is tiny but every new bike that is sold damages the environment because of the huge amount of waste in the manufacturing process. It's just less waste than most other forms of transport.

Like the myth that new cars are cleaner (they are actually more wasteful to build - so run your old jalopy in to the ground if you want to save the planet) the idea that bikes are somehow free of pollution is simply untrue.

Still think everyone should cycle though... :-)

I'd like a jersey too, pity I live abroad (and my Swiss friends have to pay road tak for their bikes too!).

Ris,

I apologise, tried to be smart and it didn't recognise the faux HTML and just makes my comment nonsense. Serves me right ;¬)

So what happens in 18 months time when the tax disc on the jersey runs out? Do you have to get a new one?

is VAT paid on the jerseys? If so, you're indirectly paying road tax however small.

Looks good, how about a longsleeve one for the autumn/winter? :-)

igamogam

I was led to believe the Velo Vignette in Switzerland was more about providing public liability insurance rather than a road tax - apparently parents are required to have public liability insurance in case their kids cause damage on the street too (though someone may have been pulling my leg a bit when they told me this)

Having said that, having lived in Switzerland for a little while, I can wholly believe it.

Put me down for one jersey please!

I'm all for cycling but isn't this a little patronising to motorists - most of whom are fine.

Besides do you really care that some motorists don't understand road tax? As for the emissions comments, they seem somewhat smug.

Brilliant!! Up yours motorists!!

It's pretty cool, but it does reinforce the idea that there is such a thing as road tax in the first place.

Good idea... less convoluted and more immediate than `explaining' that there is no `road tax'... but perhaps the expiration date could have been made to 50 years or so from now.

The first thing a motorist says to a cyclist after a altercation on the road is we pay road tax (the car driver) bah blah blah and us cyclists should not be on the road, like you say we all have cars and pay BCF insurance.

Why not one that says "You all hate me don't you? You're SO unfair", with a picture of Kevin the Teenager.

Or "I may be a whiney victim but I'm better than you".

Did I miss some research that says cyclists will be safer on the roads the more unpopular they try to become?

No car here any more though, I've put enough crap in tha atmosphere for 1 lifetime.

....I want one that says "....but I don't wear the roads out!"

Igamogam you are right, it takes energy & emissions to build a bike too.

But 15kg vs 1500kg....that's 1% of the materials. And my fuel comes from above ground!

I take it ur fishing igamogam...so i'll have a nibble..lol

And the winner of the worlds thinist argument is........

igamogam

Posted Tue 17 Nov, 2:22 pm UTC Flag as inappropriate

It's a misconception that bikes are zero emission. You have to consider the energy and resources that go in to manufacturing a bike and the fact that cyclist consume more food, oxygen and produce more CO2 than sedentary people.

Building any vehicle wastes more resources than actually running one.

True, compared to cars the amount of energy it takes to build and run a bike is tiny but every new bike that is sold damages the environment because of the huge amount of waste in the manufacturing process. It's just less waste than most other forms of transport.

Like the myth that new cars are cleaner (they are actually more wasteful to build - so run your old jalopy in to the ground if you want to save the planet) the idea that bikes are somehow free of pollution is simply untrue.

Still think everyone should cycle though... :-)

.

>>The first thing a motorist says to a cyclist after a altercation on the road is we pay road tax (the car driver) bah blah blah and us cyclists should not be on the road, like you say we all have cars and pay BCF insurance.

We don't all have cars! And it doesn't matter, even us non-car owners pay our share for the roads.

How is this going to do anything? Why would it change motorists' minds about cyclists and our right to be on UK roads? It's going to prove nothing as far as I can see.

How about the straight forward and factual "zero rated vehicle"?

I need to think the arguments through, I pay road tax & also drive 30K a year through work, and I cycle.

Understand the arguments that come from some motorists, but it just moves the argument, I got beeped & the finger from a car driver who felt I should cross the dual carriageway & use the cycle lane on the other side, despite the fact it only lasted 500 metres.

There will always be ignorant asshole drivers, just as there are ignorant asshole cyclists who tarnish the rest of us.

It's quite clever, but a bit unnecessarily aggressive. It's like it's saying, "And before you start, I do pay road tax," before the other person has even thought of starting.

As for emissions: the better the bike, the more emissions, for two reasons:

Better bikes are made with lighter materials such as aluminum and titanium which have a higher energy cost than steel.

Better bikes are (presumably!) ridden more, and faster, and on more unnecessary journeys, and the rider is consuming calories and breathing out CO2.

But none of us will do as much harm cycling in a lifetime as just one engine of a Jumbo on one journey across the Atlantic.

Oh yeah, we'll all look so cool in our tax disk jerseys, i'm sure Mario Cipolini will be ordering one. Just as cool as tucking your jersey into your arm-warmers.

I'm not even old enough to drive a car yet, so for now I'm not going to be purchasing one. The only people I see wearing these are commuters and nerds. If you don't ever annoy the car drivers then most won't even think about you as a pesky cyclist (if a car is behind you on a country lane and you are not tanking it then stop and let them through!).

Car drivers won't take much notice of your jersey anyway.

Guys, the pursuit of the ultimate zero emissions debate is an impossible one...where do you stop - how far the bicycle factory worker has to come to his workplace and whether he comes by car or on foot? If he walked, were his shoes imported or not ? By sea or air ? road or rail ? Where did the rubber for his soles come from?

The VED model is flawed. I have 2 cars, a 200kg/km sports car at £210 VED and a 40 year old classic which is zero VED, comes out 6 times a year and probably spews unimaginable amounts of carbon. But can I offset it, 'cos I don't eat meat and have no kids ?

If I drove 3 x the mileage in a small 100g/km car I'd pay a fraction VED but emit more CO than I do now. If I had a Range Rover but never used it I'd pay - what £400 - just for having it on the drive. If everyone drove electric the roads would be full of supposedly zero emission cars yet we'd still have motorist altercations - (although they may at least stop using that tiresome argument) The VED model is cack.

Hang on , this was about the jersey.

Well, gets my vote for cheekiness but wouldn't be seen dead in it myself.

"MOST cyclists pay tax and MOST cyclists own cars that they pay VED on, despite contributing less to the wear and tear of roads than normal motorists."

OK, If roadies pay tax, they must abide by the highway code, that means, using hand signals, shoulder checks, NOT running through red lights and zebra crossings and not riding 3 abreast causing dangerous conditions. Obviously the ones not paying tax don't do any of those do they?

This just re-enforces the misconception that "road tax" needs to be paid to be on the road. I don't pay "road tax" does this mean I have less right to be on the road than someone wearing this jersey?

Just encourages the morons.

Forget about road tax. All cyclists should have a compulsory 3rd party insurance due to the accidents and damage a vast majority cause in major towns and cities by not obeying traffic signals, rights of way and the highway code in general.

Well, you've lit the blue touch paper there militiacore.

I think if you're using a road going vehicle, regardless of shape or form, then you should have a form of insurance.

A sensible approach would be to initiate a road taxation scheme for cyclists that has a monetary value but it also provides a 3rd party insurance cover for the cyclist.