Safe Speed Forums

Ha ha, do you think that the charge for the MOT covers the cost of running the process, from administering the tests and related costs?

And again you write "cyclists" as if having a cycle or a car is a binary choice.




Recent research shows that motoring in the UK is a subsidised activity when you take into account the cost of building and repairing roads, policing, accidents, pollution, damage to buildings, congestion etc...

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/d ... NTCMP=SRCH

As for people that cycle, probably yes, they are probably fitter, healthier people, reducing congestion in our towns and cities, so I suspect they are making a net positive contribution to the exchequer.

So who's subsidising who please?

botach, do you think cycles should be subject to some form of MOT test?

So it costs everyone £600 towards the motorist does it? I pay far more than that a year in fuel duty, car Excise duty etc and I'm sure that is the case for the majority of motorists, so I would hardly say that people are paying me to run a car, would you?

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

Er...YES! OF COURSE the MOT scheme is self-financing! That's how the fees are determined! In fact, Weepy, you have to ask yourself, if the statutory maximum fee is over £50

https://www.gov.uk/getting-an-mot/mot-test-fees

and you get some places offering them for £35, do you suppose they're doing it at that price because they want to be charitable to the poor, oppressed and over(fiscally)burdened motorist? NO!!!




No... AGAIN I write "cyclists" and AGAIN it is YOU who tries to make it sound like it's a binary choice! For pity's sake I'VE GOT A ^&%$&ing BIKE TOO!!!! I jolly well KNOW that when I'm pedaling it round the place it's not causing me to be paying any extra tax and when I'm driving my car it IS! The only difference is that when I'm cycling, I actually feel positively GRATEFUL to the people driving their cars and paying extra taxes - some of which will get spent on things (like cycle paths) that I can use and they can't!




Oh not THAT one again?! Haven't you tried to use that one before?

OK, from the top...
(again...)





So you're already talking out of your exhaust before we even start. That article isn't about the UK, it's about the EU as a whole...



Suddenly, it all becomes clear...



So... let me get this right... You get a big headline figure saying how much everyone is subsidising the motorist, and then you don't take into account any taxes that the motorist is paying that aren't ringfenced for car use (i.e. those taxes where the motorist is actually subsidising everyone else)??? Tell you what..

How about if they DID ringfence all motoring taxes specifically for car use? That would have two principal benefits:
(a) Motoring would be a LOT better (and cheaper) and
(b) your self-righteous anti-car rants might actually be justified!



Do you know? I'm sure I've heard that guff somewhere before...? What's more, just like the article doesn't actually say what the alcohol taxes ARE spent on, neither does the person who so often makes that comment! Funny, that...!



This (rather petulant) little paragraph then mumbles about there still being a "significant shortfall". It doesn't actually translate it into a "per capita" subsidy like the headline (presumably because it would then look like a pretty trivial amount), but neither does it take into account the taxes paid by those who work in the motor industry or the motor trade. It doesn't take into account the VAT paid on car parts (or VAT on the labour to fit them). It doesn't take into account the export revenue that vehicle sales generate either. Neither, for that matter, does it include the VAT paid on the vehicles themselves, or, indeed, the parking charges for said vehicles, or the insurance premium tax paid by the motorists who insure their vehicles. In fact, the ONLY revenue it takes into account is VED, fuel duty, and the VAT on the fuel duty!



Well, in the absence of any "facts", I think I'm free to "suspect" the opposite! Just for the sake of balance, I'm going to say that the longer people live, the more chance they have of succumbing to one of these awful degenerative diseases like Dementia or Alzheimer's. These uber-fit cyclist types will probably be enjoying their third knee replacements and drawing their state pensions and using their free bus passes at the ripe old age of 103 (subsidised by those nice motorist-types who, obligingly, will drop dead of a heart attack the day after their 65th birthday, thereby saving the state a fortune)!


See above. It really should be obvious by now...

I'd just suggest another Troll. to add to the list. Perhaps we need to have a troll list again .

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

Hilarious.

Tax take from taxes on fuel and motoring is 30 Billion a year.

Total tax take is 500 billion.

You might as well feel grateful to the people paying "extra" tax on drink, or fags, or how about people that pay plain old income tax, or council tax, or corporation tax.

Again you link taxes on fuel and emissions to road spending (and hilariously, spending on cycle lanes). Road spending is not linked in any way shape or form to motoring taxes, only in your head I'm afraid. You might as well say you feel grateful to motorists who pay extra taxes when you're seeing the doctor or using the local library.

The irony is if that the cost of motoring WAS directly link to motoring taxes, you'd be paying MORE taxes, not less.

So motoring taxes are a pretty significant proportion of the total tax take then? Thanks for pointing that out! Of course, that's only the tip of the "motoring taxation iceberg". It's hard to see what you've included in that figure, but I hope you're not forgetting all the parking and congestion charges and the motoring-related VAT!

Can you quote a figure for the amount of cycling tax revenue and let us know where that fits in the great scheme of things too please?

(And YES, I DO feel grateful to anyone paying extra taxes. Without them, my income tax (and maybe my motoring tax) would be even higher than it is now)!

Why does it cause you so much hilarity when I suggest that some of the motoring tax might get spent on cycle lanes? Can you show that it doesn't? Is it ringfenced for some other purpose? After all, it can't be ringfenced for motoring expenditure - you're always telling us that! So come on, what DO they spend it on?

You SAY that "...if that the cost of motoring WAS directly link to motoring taxes, you'd be paying MORE taxes, not less."...

...but can you PROVE it? (nothing you've posted in this thread so far has provided any such proof, but I suppose I can live in hope...)

As I said- I'll be up on a cloud watching cars go by before Weepy is seen as a Tricycle rider , who lives under a bridge, near a stream. AKA Troll .It's time to see him as what he is- and what he does- a time waster who's only purpose is to stir up trouble. Only problem is that if we did to Weepy & GS as GS did to others, GS would be shouting about discrimination .

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

Can't deny it though - they're the longest and most active threads!

Botach, a troll is somebody that goes on message boards and creates argument, even if they don't believe what they write.

I can tell you, I'm writing what I believe when I post here.

And where you are - is it under a bridge perchance , I see someone SCREAMING discrimination as I predicted . I think ,perchance the WEEPY doth shout out loud to often .

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

I'm taking that claim with a MASSIVE pinch of salt.

I can't work out how it's self financing if the garage gets most of the fee.

I'm reading the government get's £1.75 per test, which to it probably doesn't even cover the administration fee of taking the £1.75 per test fee.

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/in ... 447AAtRJHi

Add on top of that the cost of running and policing the scheme and I VERY much doubt the MOT test is self financing and in fact is subsidised by the government by a fair whack.

edit: to add:

"Across the country there are hundreds of council-run MOT test centres which are used to check council vehicles like taxis and buses for their safety and roadworthiness;" (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... ways_2.pdf)

Do you think this comes from your council tax? I think so.

boatch, you're making no sense at all; to me at least. I presume you're having a discussion elsewhere about me that's breaking out into this discussion. I'd seriously think about giving it a rest for a while, your posts are sounding more and more deranged.

And why do you keep spelling my user name weepy (usually in capitals) when it's weepej?

`

I'm sure our local council used to do public MOTs and charge for them a few years ago...the operators probably complained that they weren't getting anough tea breaks though.

he missed idea 51 out.

"Only employ people with real world experience who realise that a pint of milk doesn't cost £10 and a road sign shouldn't be worth £5k.

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

Well, you would, wouldn't you? After all, you believe that the whole machinery of state exists to subsidise the motorist, so it's entirely in-keeping with that belief!


Is this a serious debate? Yahoo answers??? (oh, purleeeease!!!!)

Have you any idea how many MOTs are carried out each day? 160,000. (That's a lot of £1.75s). It's entirely natural that the vast majority of the fee goes to the garage - that'll be because the vast majority of the work and the vast majority of the expense is incurred by the garage! VOSA only take what they need to make their costs break even. Let's face it, these days, there's no special certificate paper and the garage even picks up the tab for the printer ink! All VOSA's fees (and, indeed, those of the DVLA and the Vehicle Certification Agency) are set so as to be revenue-neutral to the public purse. Let's face it, do you think they have a remit to do the motorist any special favours? (Ok, well, I guess YOU probably do, but back in the real world...). You're also only thinking about cars. Remember a huge amount of VOSA's revenue comes from goods vehicle and PSV testing (and, indeed, initial certification of new vehicles)




No, I think it comes largely FROM the motorist to...

...you guessed it!!!!

...SUBSIDISE the Council's income!!!

Even in your own link that you've posted it says:

"Across the country there are hundreds of council-run MOT test centres which are used to check council vehicles like taxis and buses for their safety and roadworthiness; these centres can also open their doors to the public to provide MOTs to the wider public: this is a far better way of making money from motorists than the lazy way of hiking parking charges"

(Oh, for a minute there, I'd almost forgotten about that "lazy" way that they ALSO make money out of us motorists)!

No need to thank us Weepy, it's all part of the valuable contribution we motorists provide to the nation!

I'm a motorist too Mole.

Difference is when I pay VED I don't imagine it gives me priority over other road users that it appears to give you, and certainly gives many other motorists.

Try this for some examples:

https://twitter.com/search?q=road%20tax%20cyclist

First of all - let's define what sits under a bridge ,especially on a cycle, usually a trike- Yep- behave like one and it sticks. See this and ask if PERHAPS some folks could think ill of you
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

I can assure you ,that to the best of my knowledge ( but I'm not privy to every SS forum ,despite being a member), you are not the subject of any discussion elsewhere. Of course ,if you were to support SS by a small monthly donation, you could both help road safety and satisfy your curiosity. As said, all donations welcome and faithfully applied.

My spelling of your username is as per others ,who ( I suspect ) link your weeping attitude to a nickname, and done in ( usually capitols ) to draw attention to it. I apologise if it offends ,but I'm not an anti cyclist motorist, but a motorist who once did cycle and looks for respect from ALL other road users. ROAD SAFETY comes from all looking out for each other, not from one faction scoring points.

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

I a cyclist too, Weepy.

Difference is, I don't have a huge chip on my shoulder about wanting to "assert" my "rights" all the time, and I believe in SHARED responsibility by ALL road users (yes, even ones that don't weigh a ton or more and don't have to contribute a penny to the exchequer for the privilege of doing so)!

People who are walking or riding bikes on our road network are not privileged, that's a basic right, when we drive mechanically propelled vehicles on the road we are.

That we're allowed to drive such heavy and fast machines around is a privilege, and a responsibility that many many don't take nearly seriously enough.

I take a great deal of responsibility whether I'm on a bike or in a car, but I'm very aware that a moments distraction whilst I'm driving my car can so easily kill, whereas that's extremely unlikely when I'm on my bike.

Or put another way, how many drivers have cyclists killed and injured this year by crashing into their vehicles? And what's the figure the other way round?