Cyclists don't pay to use roads

My reply to a letter published in the London Evening Standard on Wednesday 15 August:

On Wednesday’s letters page (15 August), Elizabeth Wren opines that cyclists should not make “demands” as they do not “pay an equivalent amount to motorists to use the roads”. The idea of paying an equivalent amount sounds fair, but what does it actually mean? I assume Ms Wren was not referring to Vehicle Excise Duty, commonly but inaccurately called road tax, because VED is not a payment for using the roads. Churchill abolished Road Tax in 1937 precisely because he feared its payers would try to assert their right to use the roads over those of non-payers. Roads are (barring toll roads) paid for through general taxation, not by motorists specifically. So general tax-paying cyclists are as entitled to make “demands” as general tax-paying motorists. (Incidentally, I would be in favour of abolishing VED, which incentivises car use, and introducing a ‘polluter pays’ tax on fuel to cover the revenue shortfall.)

Perhaps Ms Wren  is tacitly suggesting including pedal cycles in VED. Given that VED for the lowest CO2-emitting band is zero,  it wouldn’t raise any money as pedal cycles emit no CO2. It would, though, cost money to introduce, enforce and operate.

Ms Wren may be hinting at some kind of usage related charges. I agree that that could be fair in theory, but it would have to account for the amount of wear and tear inflicted on the road  by the vehicle over time, and possibly also the amount of road space used by the vehicle over time.  Either way, this would result in motorists paying more and cyclists paying less – and so by Ms Wren’s argument, being entitled to make more “demands”.