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”.
