Why cyclists don’t pay road tax
A ride into town this week nearly derailed me. For once it wasn’t a car – the culprit was the route itself. Heading into Covent Garden along Kemble Street I just about negotiated the undulating patchwork effect that passes for a road but on Bow Street a giant chasm that seemed to open beneath my wheels nearly sent me flying. Advice from cycling organisations when faced with pot holes is along the lines of: ‘Don’t swerve to avoid it, stay on course but raise up out of your saddle.’ To recap: faced with a sizeable hole in the road I should head towards it full throttle, pausing only to destabilise myself further first.
I managed to stay the course but the chippy octogenarian in my block of flats got short shift later that day when she commented, ‘You lot should pay road tax, you know.’
The state of London roads is diabolical. My bike contributes less to this deterioration than anything else yet I suffer much more than any car.
More pertinently, ‘road tax’ was abolished in 1936. Its replacement, the Vehicle Excise Duty, is based on carbon emissions. Vehicles (eg bikes) emitting less than 100g of carbon dioxide per km are exempt. Frankly, in light of the damage I think the stratification should be taken further: road-wearing vehicles, lorries and Chelsea tractors alike should actually pay us cyclists. Just make those cheques out to ‘Pedal Pusher’. Fiona McAuslan
Route rating
Route 0.25 miles (Kemble St to Bow St)
Calories burned 15.
Potholes swerved Half a dozen.
Feature continues
|
|
The best of London in your inbox
Up to the minute picks of the best things to do in London, delivered to your desktop.
|
|
6 comments
'Why adhere to a law that endangers me?' (re illegal pavement cycling) The same stupid selfish comment could possibly be made about knife-carrying. Get off the pavement, you selfish git - even if people say nothing to you don't take it as tacit acceptance, it's probably because they're frightened. Read letters in the local press and reports of local community and police meetings - it's you and others like you who are making the pavements in London a no-go area for old, disabled and vulnerable people. What a stupid and irresponsible article for Time Out to endorse - I will not be purchasing it again.
I was with a cyclist who was catapulted off her bike in an accident last week. She landed on her head and shoulder. Result: Helmet severely dented, concussion, face had a nasty case of road rash, broken collar bone. Without a helmet I think it could have been much worse.
Re: amazing statistics - the trouble with accident statistics is it is impossible to measure all the accidents that don't happen...
Did the writer really mean;
'Anarchic behaviour under the guise of protest is selfish and self-defeating.'
Or perhaps;
Selfish behaviour under the guise of protest is self-defeating.
Or maybe;
Selfish behaviour under the guise of anarchy is self-defeating.
Clean up on the stereotypes mate.
I ride through that road system most days and, as I've found generally with cycling in London at all times of day and night, if you ride with your wits about you, it isn't a problem. A cycle lane past Central St. Martin's would be safer and there's loads of pavement but in the mean time the author should grow a pair and use the road.
LB 's Southwark and Lewisham provide free Adult Cycle Training for all those who live, work or study in the borough. Available via www.cyclinginstructor.com. Online Booking!
Statistics show that amazingly cyclists who wear helmets have more accidents than cyclists who don't. This is because, the study says, drivers of cars and other vehicles tend to take it "slightly easy" when they see a cyclist wearing a helmet as opposed to when a cyclist is unprotected. A model Catch-22 situation innit?