Reader Letters: Cyclists should not pay vehicle duty
PUBLISHED: 12:24 14 May 2018 | UPDATED: 12:24 14 May 2018
One reader disagrees with claims that only 10pc of cyclists use cycle paths and says they should not be forced to pay vehicle duty.
In reply to T A Taberham’s letter (May 5), “Are these cycle paths really needed?” I would like to correct the mistakes and false facts in the correspondence.
It says that only 10pc of cyclists use them. I would like to know what study this figure is derived from. I suspect that it is speculation, based on the author’s prejudice. There are cyclists who ride on the road where this path is, but I would say it’s more like 90pc who use the cycle path.
As far as the reason they use the road. The writer suggests, it’s to “clog up the feeder routes”. Again where is this information coming from? I can assure him/her that it’s more about safety and ease of travel.
Of course the old sausage of road fund licence comes up again. It is vehicle excise duty and is paid based on how much pollution your vehicle produces. In fact, some cars don’t pay any, so why should bike riders?
In principal, I support insurance but I would say I do not know much about it as a resolution to any specific issue. I suspect that T A Taberham feels that if he/she pays it why shouldn’t those pesky cyclists? But that’s pure speculation. However if this was compulsory, how would it be enforced? As pointed out, many riders do not use lights at night, which is a no brainier, so they wouldn’t take out insurance.
Finally I would like to say, an idiot in a car, will be an idiot on a bike and visa versa. Rules are rules and a cyclist is allowed on the road if they deem it safer to do so. A cycle path is a cyclist facility, not a motorist facility.
Do you agree with Jonathan? Let us know in the comments below or write to us at email@example.com
If you value what this story gives you, please consider supporting the Eastern Daily Press. Click the link in the orange box above for details.