Road Tax, insurance, MOT and number plates for bikes

I recently ended up in a discussion with someone who seemed to have an irrational dislike for people choosing to travel by bicycle, an incident documented in a recent blog here. During the natter the gentleman suggested that cyclists should pay Road Tax, have insurance cover, bikes should be subjected to an MOT test, and have identification (number plates or similar) so the rider can be caught for misdemeanours. I mentioned in the blog there are well rehearsed arguments to counter this word sandwich of nonsense, and Andrew asked in the comments if I could share the knowledge, so here we go.

Road Tax

Lets start with Road Tax, the idea it pays for roads, and that cyclists therefore don't contribute. Road Tax doesn't exist. It used to (sort of): In the budget of 1909, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, David Lloyd George announced that the roads system would be self-financing, and so from 1910 the proceeds of road vehicle excise duties were dedicated to fund the building and maintenance of the road system. Even then the accumulated Road Fund was largely spent on resurfacing roads. This as a concept was ended in 1937 by Winston Churchill when Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said at the time "But motorists are to be privileged for all time to have the tax on motors devoted to roads? This is an outrage upon ... common sense." So roads are paid for out of general taxation. Everyone pays tax, even children buying sweets with their pocket money. 'Bloody cyclists, they think they own the roads!'. Errrrrr, we do. We all do.The tax paid is Vehicle Excise Duty (VED). During the 1990's it was considered to abolish it, to make up the tax difference by increasing fuel duty (thus incentivising more efficient vehicles), but the proposal was politically unappealing. Instead VED was modified to be explicitly linked to the vehicle's carbon emission rating under the watch of Tony Blair. Further suggestions have been to link to axle weight, which is a better indicator on the potential wear imparted on roads.So as far as bicycles being required to pay VED, currently electric vehicles (EV) which have zero tail pipe emissions are in a £0 band, so expectation would be that a bicycle would be in the same bracket. The administration costs would therefore create a net loss situation for HMRC.

Insurance

Onto insurance. Car drivers have to pay, so why shouldn't cyclists have to pay it? In 1930, the UK Government introduced a law that required every person who used a vehicle on the road to have at least third-party personal injury insurance. Today, this law is contained in the Road Traffic Act 1988 (generally referred to as the RTA 1988 as amended). Section 143 of that Act requires that motorists be insured against liability for injuries to others (including passengers) and for damage to other persons' property, resulting from use of a vehicle on a public road or in other public places. There is not a requirement for people cycling to have insurance.Comparing cars and bikes, the kinetic energy of a moving vehicle is far greater for a car than a bike, due to the difference in mass (for the sake of easy maths, 100 kg for bike and rider, 2000 kg for car and driver). An average speed for a cyclist might be 20 km/h (12.5 mph), whereas cars generally travel at 30 - 110 km/h (20 - 70 mph). As the energy is proportional to the square of the speed, a car at 80 km/h (50mph) will have 320x the amount of energy compared to a bike at 20km/h. During an RTC this energy has to be dissipated for the vehicle to become stationary. Which is why RTCs involving cars usually end up with serious damage to the vehicle and infrastructure involved in the crash, and in some instances that energy is sadly dissipated through the bodies of the those involved. In 2022 RTCs were responsible for the deaths of 1,711 fatalities and 29,742 Killed or Seriously Injured (KSI). I can't find a report of a death caused by a cyclist in 2022 (although the actions of cyclists may have contributed to their own deaths).Why do I mention all of this? Cars are vastly more dangerous than bicycles. A car can easily put a large car shaped hole in a house. A bicycle would most likely leave no trace. Physics innit. People riding bikes are also inherently more aware of the risk of any collision and look to avoid it, because they are lacking the protection provided to drivers, in that they are not sat in a metal box surrounded by safety devices to prevent personal injury. All of this is reflected in UK law, and a lack of requirement for cyclists to have 3rd party insurance cover.That said, many people riding bikes will have 3rd party cover through membership of an organisation (for example Cycling UK or British Cycling) or often through their home contents insurance. "I am insured" is a very powerful argument.

Number plates

The last comment on this from the UK government was from 2021, when over 10,000 signatories to the following petition required a formal government response: "The Government should require cyclists and e-scooter riders display visible ID, require that cycle lanes be used where available, and introduce a licensing and penalty point system for all cyclists and licensing system for e-scooter riders."The response on 7th December 2021 was measured and sensible: "The Government has no plans to introduce any such requirements for cyclists. The current trials of rental e-scooters will inform future policy on them. The Government considers that the costs of a formal registration system for cycle ownership would outweigh the benefits. The safety case for such a system is not as strong as that for drivers since, by contrast with  motorised vehicles, cycles involved in collisions on the highway are highly unlikely to cause serious injury to other road users. Cycling provides clear benefits, both for those cycling (particularly in terms of health) and for wider society (tackling congestion, reducing CO2 emissions and improved air quality). The introduction of a licensing system would significantly reduce these benefits, especially over the short term. Over the long term, it would deny children and young adults from enjoying the mobility and health benefits cycling brings until they were old enough to pass a formal test." The full text can be read here.An overview of how different countries deal with registration of cyclists can be found here. Of note is that if the UK was to introduce a system of registration for cyclists we'd be in an elite club consisting of us and (checks notes) North Korea.

Bicycle MOTs

The Ministry of Transport Test is an annual inspection that makes sure your vehicle meets environmental and road safety standards. The first test is on the third anniversary of its registration. The MOT test checks a range of car parts, from the braking and fuel system to the seatbelts, wipers, mirrors, lights and the exhaust. It doesn't look at the condition of the engine, gearbox or clutch. The exhaust emissions are also tested on most vehicles – if the emissions are too high, your vehicle will fail its MOT. So here's my take on this. Referring back to the section on insurance, cars are dangerous. They kill and maim lots of people every year, and cause billions of pounds worth of damage and destruction. So it's sensible that we take reasonable efforts to avoid any RTCs caused by mechanical failure. That's the MOT test. As we don't have the same problem with bicycles I suspect the administration costs of the scheme would not be worth the potential benefit. Also remember, if a bike fails catastrophically whilst being ridden the user is likely to be injured, and minor maintenance issues can make it harder to ride; both pretty good incentives for keeping you bike in a reasonably well maintained state.

Cycling on pavements

I thought I'd deal with this as well, while I'm here. Rule 64 of the Highway Code states "You must not cycle on a pavement." However the police have discretion in how they deal with offenders, this statement from the National Police Chiefs' Council in 2014:

The issue of cycling on the pavement, as in other areas of law enforcement, varies according to local circumstances

National Policing Lead for Cycling Assistant Chief Constable Mark Milsom said: “We welcome the re-issued guidance from the Minister for Cycling in respect of cycling on the pavement and have re-circulated this to all local forces. The issue of cycling on the pavement, as in other areas of law enforcement, varies according to local circumstances. The ministerial guidance supports the importance of police discretion in taking a reasonable and proportionate approach, with safety being a guiding principle. London's roads present unique challenges, not least of which is the sheer number of drivers, cyclists and pedestrians who use them, therefore their approach may vary from other areas of the country.”“The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of the traffic, and who show consideration to other pavement users."Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required."

Summary

So there we have it. Driving is dangerous and there are systems in place, and associated costs, to try and reduce the occurrence of RTCs, however it still costs an estimated £33 billion per year (2019) or 1.5% of GDP, to the UK economy. To compare the risks of driving to cycling is a false equivalence, aka total bullshit, therefore systems designed for safety and associated laws are different. Feel free to use the facts and figures in this blog to try and educate any ardent proponents of the 'cyclists should pay road tax' branch of ireckonomics, but in my experience they can be a tough crowd, and sometime folk aren't for learning.