You can only tax 2 months early if you want to keep your original tax expiry date i.e. date on tax reminder. You have to wait 5 days online before you can remove SORN status, but can remove it the next day at the post office by simply retaxing your vehicle.
1 Like
I went to tax my BMW Z4 Coupe one year and wanted to unsorn it and pay the VED 3 days before the April 1st cut off to start 1st April. The website wouldnt let me do it . I then decided to do it at 11pm on the 31st March and the website was ’ out of action due to reconfiguring HGV tax , please come back later’ and went on until after midnight , so had to pay the higher rate. So, just beware they pulled that one on me that year.
1 Like
Horse and cart? Bicycles? Mobility scooters? E-bikes?
Tax those too?
1 Like
Certainly anything that uses the roads should have an identifiable number plate and insurance, particularly cyclists. I think that eventually, anything that moves will be taxed. 
1 Like
Can’t remember who said it but “the only certainties are death and taxes”. so maybe not limited to things that move!
3 Likes
Yeah you are probably right, even air looks like it’s on the hitlist! Regarding death and taxes, i couldn’t remember who it was either so looked it up. Commonly believed to be Benjamin Franklin who said it first, but the phrase was mentioned earlier in books by several people including Daniel Defoe.
1 Like
More likely the Romans, possibly Marcus Aurelius in his Notes. They were keen on taxes.
But even the ancient Babylonians used taxes, many surviving writings refer to them!
2 Likes
Aha, yes of course. 
‘Based on weight in The Netherlands’
f.y.i.
Ger1971 [2011 NC owner] and occasional poster advised me of this
He lives there and is currently paying E38 p.c.m. [about £31.94 p.c.m.] which equates to £383.28 p.a.
[Don’t know whether paying VED monthly costs more in The Netherlands like it does in the UK??]
But it doesn’t appear that ‘weight’ making any difference to cost in his Country ??
Dunno…probably skeptical me but the VED goes to the Govn. If they based the tax on weight and mileage they may lose out…
And what is the cost of Road Tax for an HGV et al and such extremely essential non car Vehicles without which the Country would grind to a halt
Perhaps our apparent high VED costs is to counter-balance the costs of all those heavier essential vehicles we all need 
Give me some sort of length x height x width equation to determine tax. Surely fair?
1 Like
Particularly not cyclists, IMO:) Sounds purely vindictive to me. Nobody is going to resource the police to follow up reports of rude and obstructive MAMILs.
2 Likes
Firstly, what’s wrong with being able to identify the errant cyclist that ignores traffic lights, mounts pavements to avoid stopping at crossings etc? or being required to have insurance cover in case of accidents? Secondly, i have no idea what the acronym “MAMIL” stands for. If you are accusing me of being in a particular category of motorist, you should know that i have been a motorcyclist since the 70s and currently own three classics. I am well aware of the dangers faced by cyclists/motorcyclists from “rude and obstructive” and dangerous drivers! Every time i use a bike i have to assume that every car /van driver is out to kill me, and i’m sure cyclists think the same.
4 Likes
Government must support green and sustainable modes of transport. To tax or enforce mandatory insurance on cyclists would be to contradict any climate or environmental goals said government is trying to achieve. There are simply too many cars for. the current level of infrastructure so public transport and active travel must be prioritised.
Tax, insurance and licensing does not stop thousands of motorists running lights or mounting pavements etc etc so to presume the same would stop a small subset of cyclists doing the same doesn’t add up.
Let’s get back to good honest traffic policing applicable to all road users. But that’s also not possible give the years of budget cuts.
2 Likes
Have they not done exactly that with EVs?
2 Likes
I’m not sure they know what they are doing with EV’s. EV’s are harder on the roads than their ICE counterparts have been. The luxury car tax seems to be a means of clawing back revenue that was left on the table by allowing so many EV’s to be tax free based on the current VED rules. Sticky wicket.
By comparison, cyclists do practically zero damage to the roads network and are still emissions free. Governments need to make their minds up on whether they want to keep motoring as is for revenue purposes or whether to finally start investing heavily in other forms of transport. Trying to do both means doing neither well.
2 Likes
The government did exactly the right thing by giving cyclists priority in my view. But, failure to mandate a visible means of identification gives the more “arrogant” sections of the cycling fraternity the right to do virtually what they like.
I’m still not convinced about the EV thing. Obviously something has to be done about emissions but i’m leaning towards hydrogen despite it’s own set of problems. One of the advantages though, apart from emissions is, if they can make it work at a reasonable cost, we can keep ICE.
MAMIL
Middle Aged Men In Lycra 
3 Likes
I apologise if my comment upset you. I meant to accuse you of nothing,
There is such a gulf between the damage a motor vehicle can and does do vs. a bicycle that there is really no equivalence. I think cyclists should adhere to the law and exercise more consideration than some of them do, and children should be offered training, but regulating cycling would bring little benefit and be disproportionate, costly, and would reduce cycling.
Cycling UK summarises it better than I can (link)
EDIT
It’s just occurred to me that MAMILs and MAMISCs (middle aged men in sports cars, with apologies to members who don’t fit this profile) have something in common. They both use the roads for recreation. Both, I think, should do so with consideration for each other and other more essential road users.
1 Like
Apology accepted and thanks for the link, an interesting read.
Let’s be clear, i am definitely NOT advocating charging cyclists VED, insurance can be optional. I do think however, that cyclists should have a visible means of identification, and with modern technology it shouldn’t be too difficult. One of the points made in the article suggests that the majority of cycling occurs on minor roads, towns cities etc, but this is where most of the problems are. Drive in a 20mph zone and cyclists will overtake (usually on the inside) going faster, and lets be honest, they do it because they can’t be identified and fined. What’s the point of creating a 20mph zone with camera policing if you are going to allow some road users to ignore it? There are numerous examples of infractions by cyclists, and motorcyclists, YouTube is full of them so probably compulsory training would be a step in the right direction. The article also suggests that mandatory wearing of helmets would reduce cycling, i don’t think so. When the government made crash helmets compulsory for motorcyclists in the 70s, there were protests etc, but that didn’t stop the uptake of biking and most bikers quickly realised that helmets are a good thing, particularly in winter…keeps the ears warm. 
2 Likes
Thanks. 