cycling tax!!

Hi, Apologies if this breaks ng protocol...ut I just thought it was something we should all be aware
of..... ;-P Dave.

Don't know if I can do this or if it breaks protocols (apologies if it does)...but it made me smile
and I thought I'd share it... Enjoy, Dave.

----- Original Message ----- From: "Jacqui Caren" <[email protected]> Newsgroups:
uk.rec.cars.maintenance Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2003 4:25 PM Subject: Re: Nitrogen tyre filling
at Kwik Fit

> "Makhno" <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
> > What? You've never heard of Gordon Brown's "Breath Tax"? I've been practising for when it gets
> > implemented.
>
> I heard if this - its also called (unofficially) the "bicycle tax" - I have lost the URL to the
> .gov.uk document though...
>
> > Company cars are already taxed on their CO2 emissions, so why not people?
>
> Not people - just pedal cyclists - evidently pedalling to work and back generates a lot of waste
> gas which is polluting the environment and because it is transport they had decided to tax
> cyclists as an easy target.
>
> > Reducing breaths will be a money-saving measure.
>
> Yes - they are going to stick every cyclist in the country on a rolling road and measure the
> 'emmisions' (front and rear) and if they exceed set limits you get moved up a tax band. Currently
> the proposed bands are
>
> Taxation class A) "super fit git" - does over 100 miles per week.
>
> Taxation class B) "fit git" - cycles to work every day
>
> Taxation class C) "lazy student" - cycles to and from school or college
>
> Taxation class D) "fat weekender" - leisure cycling on weekends.
>
> Taxation class E) "fat bastard" - has leccy bike
>
> E get charged 40UKP per year, D=50, C=75, B=100 and A=150 because they waste so much
> "extra" oxygen.
>
> People with only one lung get a discount so I suppose you can get an "op" which will save you up
> to 110 a year...
>
> Jacqui
>
> p.s. none of the above is real - it is just another of my sad whimsies - unless some sick sod who
> works for the tax office sees it and decides to propose it as his "brilliant idea" :-(
>
>

....hope no-one's spotted it at the tax office!!!

 

On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 11:18:08 +0100, "Dave" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Taxation class A) "super fit git" - does over 100 miles per week.
>
>Taxation class B) "fit git" - cycles to work every day
>
>Taxation class C) "lazy student" - cycles to and from school or college
>
>Taxation class D) "fat weekender" - leisure cycling on weekends.
>
>Taxation class E) "fat bastard" - has leccy bike>
>
>People with only one lung get a discount so I suppose you can get an "op" which will save you up to
>110 a year...
>

Hi Jacqui

Have you deliberately omitted the category Taxation Class F: "Fatbirdonabike"?

Regards Jacques

PS Currently ducking for cover.

--
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/c.butty/Dscf0632.jpg

 

>PS Currently ducking for cover.

Beware low-flying paving slabs ;-)

Cheers, helen s

~~~~~~~~~~
This is sent from a redundant email Mail sent to it is dumped My correct one can be gleaned from
h$**$*$el$**e$n$**$d$**$o$*$t**$$s$**$im$mo$ns*@a$**o$l.c$$*o$*m*$ by getting rid of the
overdependence on money and fame
~~~~~~~~~~

 

Why don't we do some sums to calculate the correct 'tax rate'. Doubtless others will have more
accurate figures but may I suggest the following as a start. (Yes I do realise all this is
just in fun!).

Fit cyclist, lung capacity 4 litres, riding at normal commuting speeds using 50% of maximum capacity
taking 15 breaths per minute = 30 litres of air a minute inhaled and exhaled. Oxygen to CO2
conversion rate about 16-12 % (exhaled air still contains about 12% oxygen which is why mouth to
mouth resisciation works) = 1.2 litres of CO2 produced a minute.

Car: 1500cc engine with a volumetic efficiency of 90%, running at average of 2000 RPM with a 1:4
combustion cycle and an O2 to CO2 conversion rate of 99%. (You can't resucitate someone with car
exhaust fumes!). This give (1.5 x .90 x .25) x 2000 x .16 = 108 litres C02 minute.

(As a cross check, if we assume a fit cyclist produces 0.2 HP on average and a small car in town
uses 20 HP on average to accelerate, haul its weight around etc, we also see a 100:1 difference in
the energy consumption).

It might be argued that a car might go further in a minute then a bike. Then again it might just be
sitting in a traffic jam and in reality in towns a bike journey will usually take less time then a
car journey of the same distance).

The above suggests 'breath tax' should be 1/100 of that for a motor vehicle. However, a car driver
also breaths so it is the extra C02 the cyclist is producing that we are interested in, therefore so
lets adopt a nominal 1/200 factor.

As a vehicle licence is for most vehicles less then £140 year our 'breath tax' should' be set to
about 70p per year.

However, we still need to factor in other costs and pollutants produced by vehicles such as the
emission of C0, particulates, nitrogen dioxide etc. Plus the costs on society of congestion, the
costs on society of road killings and injuries. Plus the costs on the health service that result
from sedentary, car bound lifestyles. Plus something to take into account the social and personal
costs of car use such as the fear of traffic, the lack of freedom and opportunities for independence
enjoyed by children, noise, the degredation in the quality of life for those affected by the car use
of others etc.

In short cyclists should welcome a 70p per year 'breath tax' as long as this comes as part of a move
towards all road users paying the 'real' cost of their preferred mode of transport. This is
especially the case given that, currently, the car user bears nowhere near the true cost on society
of their car use (With the average subsidy per car, even taking into account fuel duty an so on,
being over £1500 per year and as high as £3- £5 per mile in a congested inner city).

 

[email protected] (Howard) wrote in news:[email protected]:

> As a vehicle licence is for most vehicles less then œ140 year our 'breath tax' should' be set to
> about 70p per year.
>

Plus the overhead to cover the administrative costs of collecting said 70p. By current level of
government efficiency, that would take it to about 100 quid per year ;-)

Have fun!

Graeme

 

"Howard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Why don't we do some sums to calculate the correct 'tax rate'. Doubtless others will have more
> accurate figures but may I suggest the following as a start. (Yes I do realise all this is just
> in fun!).
>
>
> Fit cyclist, lung capacity 4 litres, riding at normal commuting speeds using 50% of maximum
> capacity taking 15 breaths per minute = 30 litres of air a minute inhaled and exhaled. Oxygen to
> CO2 conversion rate about 16-12 % (exhaled air still contains about 12% oxygen which is why mouth
> to mouth resisciation works) = 1.2 litres of CO2 produced a minute.
>
> Car: 1500cc engine with a volumetic efficiency of 90%, running at average of 2000 RPM with a 1:4
> combustion cycle and an O2 to CO2 conversion rate of 99%. (You can't resucitate someone with car
> exhaust fumes!). This give (1.5 x .90 x .25) x 2000 x .16 = 108 litres C02 minute.
>
> (As a cross check, if we assume a fit cyclist produces 0.2 HP on average and a small car in town
> uses 20 HP on average to accelerate, haul its weight around etc, we also see a 100:1 difference in
> the energy consumption).
>
> It might be argued that a car might go further in a minute then a bike. Then again it might just
> be sitting in a traffic jam and in reality in towns a bike journey will usually take less time
> then a car journey of the same distance).
>
> The above suggests 'breath tax' should be 1/100 of that for a motor vehicle. However, a car driver
> also breaths so it is the extra C02 the cyclist is producing that we are interested in, therefore
> so lets adopt a nominal 1/200 factor.
>
> As a vehicle licence is for most vehicles less then £140 year our 'breath tax' should' be set to
> about 70p per year.
>
> However, we still need to factor in other costs and pollutants produced by vehicles such as the
> emission of C0, particulates, nitrogen dioxide etc. Plus the costs on society of congestion, the
> costs on society of road killings and injuries. Plus the costs on the health service that result
> from sedentary, car bound lifestyles. Plus something to take into account the social and personal
> costs of car use such as the fear of traffic, the lack of freedom and opportunities for
> independence enjoyed by children, noise, the degredation in the quality of life for those affected
> by the car use of others etc.
>
<snip>

...and of course the cost of the pollution generated in originally making the vehicle in the
first place....

I love it when somebody can actually be arsed to make the effort with something like this!! Many
thanks Howard, Dave. ;-)

 

On Tue, 1 Jul 2003 23:04:57 +0100, "Dave" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Howard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Why don't we do some sums to calculate the correct 'tax rate'. Doubtless others will have more
>> accurate figures but may I suggest the following as a start. (Yes I do realise all this is just
>> in fun!).
>>
>>
>> Fit cyclist, lung capacity 4 litres,...

<snip>

>
>I love it when somebody can actually be arsed to make the effort with something like this!!

Would anybody care to try an "energy budget" for washing up after every meal, or using disposable
plates and cutlery?

Lots of variables - energy needed to produce bottle of washing up liquid, pump the water, heat the
water, etc. on one side - or the "cost" of manufacture of paper plates (don't forget the energy
needed to produce the bleach used to prepare the wood pulp, etc)...

--
MatSav

 

"MatSav" <matthew D O T savage A T felthamscouts DOT org D O T uk> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 1 Jul 2003 23:04:57 +0100, "Dave" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Howard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> Why don't we do some sums to calculate the correct 'tax rate'. Doubtless others will have more
> >> accurate figures but may I suggest the following as a start. (Yes I do realise all this is just
> >> in fun!).
> >>
> >>
> >> Fit cyclist, lung capacity 4 litres,...
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> >I love it when somebody can actually be arsed to make the effort with something like this!!
>
> Would anybody care to try an "energy budget" for washing up after every meal, or using disposable
> plates and cutlery?
>
> Lots of variables - energy needed to produce bottle of washing up liquid, pump the water, heat the
> water, etc. on one side - or the "cost" of manufacture of paper plates (don't forget the energy
> needed to produce the bleach used to prepare the wood pulp, etc)...
>
> --
> MatSav

Bit far OT that one Matt. Think it's already been done over on
"uk.rec.washingup"....probably ;-) Dave.