I think you're just trotting out the tired old cliche of "parasitic cyclists" again. Why do you say cyclists are "parasitic"? Is it because they don't have to pay vehicle excise duty? Well work it out for yourself. VED is based on the amount of pollution caused by the vehicle. Electric cars pay no duty – but the carbon effect of generating the power in the first place is hardly negligible, and the road damage caused by them is no less than an IC vehicle. So as cyclists cause less pollution than electric cars, then surely then they should be paid to use the roads?
So let us assume that cyclists have to pay a proportion of that paid by petrol or diesel cars – £145 currently for a typical car. The only fair way to do that is to base it on vehicle weight as the effect of damage by the vehicle to the roads. Bikes weigh say 10kg. Cars typically weigh 1500kg. So that's 96p a year. Then you have to consider that the cyclist is barred from all motorways, so to be fair, that would further reduce it to about 60p.
Are you going to be able to instigate a viable tax system whereby you can ask cyclists for 60p a year? No, I didn't think you could.
Cyclists, pedestrians and horses have a RIGHT to be on a public highway. Cars do not – they only have permission.
I forget the exact figure, but I think it was in the 90% or so of adult cyclists who also tax and own motor vehicles.
Personally, I use my bike to keep myself fit and reduce my need for the overstressed NHS. I commuted to work when I was working because I hated being in long queues of cars when I did have to use it. And it was often quicker, and taking the canal towpath occasionally kept me off the roads altogether, thus freeing it up for nincompoops in cars.
I often find that people who moan about cyclists do because they're just too fat and idle to ride a bicycle.
Parasitic? Don't talk rubbish.
Rant over.