It may have started off that way, but that was an awful long time ago. Check out the numbers spent - as people on uk.t used to frequently point out, by a lot of scales, rather more is paid in VED and fuel duty than the roads budget.
We (nearly) all use the roads - even if we don't cycle or drive, we still use the infrastructure. Thus paying for it out of the general pot is sensible.
Is it fair that pedestrians get dedicated facilities in the form of footpaths? Is it fair that pedestrians don't have to pay to use the roads?
The govt has decided that cyclists are to be encouraged. They think that providing cycle facilities will help this. Obviously making them chargeable would remove their whole point - if payment were required to use them, then their use would be being discouraged.
Same thing in reverse for car use - part of the reason for the taxation is to discourage use. It works too to a certain extent - see eg the difference in car sizes between here and places with lower fuel taxes.
Think of the chulldrunThat's alright then. It's not relevant to your situation, but a consideration about whether to speed in a 30 zone in order to "make...
Do you want cycle use to drop, or do you think it should be encouraged?
Interesting point 375Ok. What makes one a cyclist? You know I've recently pointed out you're one (even though you disagreed). Which taxes do cyclists not pay? Hint : I'm a cyclist. I pay VED and fuel taxes...
Some of the cycle infrastructure you're complaining about isn't provided as transport, it's provided for leisure - encouraging people to visit and spend their money. Do you think that should be chargeable?
(of course, making cycle facilities chargeable could be a good thing - we'd then be able to say to anybody who complained about not using them that we couldn't, since we hadn't paid for it. And a significant proportion of them are crap anyway).
clive
