rauparaha :
PS. Are you the same Owen who rides a fixie in Wgtn and is friends with Josh Wrigley? Just curious

Nope, I moved to Auckland a few years ago, but I think I know who you mean..

As for the other activities, I think you’re right that it would be administratively too hard to do that. We just have to accept that the safer souls amongst us subsidise the activities of some thrillseekers under the ACC scheme. That’s not a good reason not to recover the costs when it is possible to do so.

How far does one take this? Charge pedestrians for the cost of footpaths and streetlighting? Well, who else uses these things?! What about offroad accidents on bikes – probably much more prevalent but they would not face a rego fee including ACC levy. When is cycling a sport (no ACC levy) vs a means of transport?

Don’t you mean that people who don’t use their car much subsidise those that do – that is definitely a different issue to the one Rauparaha is talking about.

Now, it would be good if cars paid based on mileage instead of a flat fee – but that doesn’t mean that cyclists in themselves are all subsidising motorists.

For example – what about cyclists that don’t have a car? As a result, the problem you’ve noted does exist – but I don’t think it is related to the issue at hand.

A cyclist has a car sitting at home that they’ve paid to register, with ACC levies and so on, yet ARE NOT USING IT.

Next time you see a cyclist, consider that they are paying just as much as you are, for MUCH LESS.

Hmm, http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/funding/nltp/funding.html says $234M of $1.6G came from rego fees, compared to $774M from fuel excise and $793M from road user charges. I can’t see where the split is between admin and others, http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/factsheets/49.html just explains that there is a split.

I can’t find anything on relative distances travelled though, which makes it tricky to work out cost allocations. Even more so when you consider the requirements and what drives them. Dedicated cycle paths should cost a fraction of road for motor vehicles just based on loading and usage (and no need to maintain them if the cycleway going north from the Wellington CBD is any guide).

Road construction costs are hard to find. Via google for a council somewhere in Australia: http://www.toodyay.wa.gov.au/formsandpublications/documents/subdivisioncontributionsforroadandfootpathupgrading/file/at_download
At the bottom attachment 1 says $90/linear metre for dual use footpath compared to $188/linear metre for two lane road. The surfaces are different though, and road includes the kerbing cost. That suggests to me that it would be cheaper to build single lane roads instead of cycleways as that would save $1/m and provide a more capable facility.

I read your link and it says that the cost of inactivity is greater than the cost of sporting injuries. That doesn’t specifically pertain to cycling, nor does it say anything about the cost of providing roading for cyclists.

Vehicle licensing fees in NZ primarily go towards roading projects and ACC for those injured in road accidents, not administration.

You may be certain but, without far more specific evidence, I can’t share your confidence in the outcome of such an analysis.

So if road users were charged on that kind of basis a bicycle + ride weighing say 100kg would pay $1 a year and a 40 tonne lorry would pay $2.5 billion.

This formula would please both economists and greenies.

The US has a few jurisdictions that have compulsory bicycle registration and that is both habitually ignored *and* primarily used as a tool of harassment by the state. Critical Mass rides have had this in at least one city, the p*lice turn up and issue on the spot fines to every cyclist without the sticker. Much as they do for helmets in NZ but without the safety justification.

Also, car users pay a charge for the damage they do to other road users (ACC levey) plus an administration fee. Roads are paid for out of general taxation NOT the registration of private motor cars. Which is what I alluded to above – if I as someone who doesn’t drive but cycles instead do not have to pay for roads, that rebate will be seen in my income tax rather than in my road user taxes which are already zero. The registration fee is exactly that – it covers administration and ACC only. Compare pricing to a firearms licence, for example, to get some idea of what a “pure administrative overhead” license fee is.

Whatever tax system is proposed, one issue not yet mentioned is grandfathering. There are a prodigious number of bicycles in New Zealand right now, none of which has had this new tax applied. So, will the tax apply only to new bikes? How will it apply to bikes not used on public roads? What constitutes a bicycle for tax purposes: a bare frame; a spare set of wheels; a rusting bike with vines growing on it; a race bike only used on velodromes; do tandems count twice? How will anyone tell? If the tax is per-kilometre based, who pays for the odometer? What licensing applies to those, and who approves each model? Are odometers required in all situations, or only on public roads? What penalty will apply for non-payment or non-presentation, and to whom will it be applied? If the bicycle is confiscated, who stores it and where? If not, what happens to habitual offenders? For example, my niece recently got a bicycle for her fifth birthday. If the tax is made law, who is liable for it: my niece, her custodial parent, her non-custodial parent, her primary caregiver or me? If the tax is not paid, who is punished for that? If imprisonment is an option, who goes?

I am personally sure that: the cost of cycling is at worst negligible; that the cost of collection exceeds any reasonable tax payable; and that the externalities are positive (rather than negative as is the case for cars). The research is there and it’s not especially complex.

I totally agree that biking is way less costly than car usage. But that’s why the charges would be a lot lower. Most of your points support that. To show that cyclists should not have to pay a tax (in principle) you’d need to show that it is cheaper to have cyclists on the road than not. If the health cost, including the cost of crash care, is negative and greater than the cost of providing and maintaining the roading then that would be enough. But I’d need to see numbers to be convinced of that, although it doesn’t seem implausible.

Either way, I think that calculation should be done rather than just exempting cyclists from paying their way as a matter of course.

@Owen
I think the disparity is between the payment for the car usage and the payment for bike usage. As a car user you pay a charge for the privilege of driving on public roads. Yet, as a cyclist, you pay nothing. While the marginal cost of a cyclist is tiny, the average cost of providing good roads is not. Why should car drivers pay the entire cost and cyclists pay nothing? Perhaps they should pay a lot less since their marginal impact is less, but less isn’t the ame as nothing.

PS. Are you the same Owen who rides a fixie in Wgtn and is friends with Josh Wrigley? Just curious 🙂