Love cycling, love Singapore, I love cycling in Singapore
Why do cyclist eat my road cookie?
“I pay road tax yet cyclists don’t, why should they be allowed on the roads?”
Have you heard of this story about a lady and her cookie?
A woman waited at an airport, her flight delayed. She bought a book and cookies, sitting beside a man reading a magazine. Each time she took a cookie, so did he. Irritated but silent, she wondered what he’d do when only one remained.The man broke the last cookie in half and handed her a piece without looking up. Angry, she left.
On the plane, she found her own unopened pack of cookies in her purse. And the man she considered so rude, was sharing his cookies with her without anger, just pure kindness.
Many drivers, like the woman mentioned earlier, feel mistreated. They often express frustration with statements like, “I pay road tax, but cyclists don’t. Why should they be allowed on the roads?” This frustration is understandable, especially in Singapore, where car ownership is extremely expensive. Beyond the initial car price, drivers face import taxes, the Certificate of Entitlement (COE), insurance, and road taxes. As cars increase faster than road expansion, congestion has worsened significantly over the past decade. Drivers feel that cyclists, who don’t bear these costs, shouldn’t share the roads. However, many don’t realize that the infrastructure for roads and cars is far more costly than drivers pay. Let’s examine the road tax and the cost of roads.
Road Tax
Road taxes and total tax (extracted from Singapore Statistic)
In 2010 and 2011, Singapore’s annual revenue from motor-related taxes was about $1.9 billion, which could fund only a quarter of the 20 km North-South Expressway. Meanwhile, roads expanded by 28 km per year over the last four years. If motorist taxes cover only 5 km of new roads, who pays for the remaining 23 km? Non-motor-related taxes cover nearly five times the cost of motor-related taxes. Additionally, with over 3,377 km of roads needing constant maintenance, non-motorists also bear those costs.
Non-drivers subsidise car Park
I share the costs of facilities in my condo, including car parks, even though I don’t use one. This means that non-drivers subsidize the construction and maintenance of parking spaces for drivers. These costs are included in unit prices and management fees. For more insights on car parking issues, check out Paul Barter’s excellent article on his blog.
More Social Costs of Driving
Driving imposes significant burdens on society, including:
Air Pollution: Contributes to respiratory and cardiovascular issues, with increased PM2.5 levels linked to higher hospital admissions for heart problems.
Noise Pollution: Heavy traffic noise can lead to stress and insomnia, and constructing sound barriers is costly and often ineffective.
CO2 Emissions: Vehicles emit thousands of tons of CO2, contributing significantly to the greenhouse effect.
Road Safety: Motor vehicles are a major cause of road accidents, with 193 fatalities and 11,665 injuries reported in 2010. The financial and emotional toll on victims and their families can be severe.
Motorists are not currently covering these social costs. A detailed study from Copenhagen illustrates how each kilometre driven results in a net loss to society. This revision aims to enhance clarity while maintaining the original message and structure.
The Land Transport Authority (LTA) has clarified that roads in Singapore are funded by general taxes, not just road tax. This means that all road users, including cyclists and pedestrians, are entitled to use public roads, regardless of whether they pay road tax.The term “road tax” can be misleading, as it does not solely finance road construction and maintenance. Instead, public funds collected from various taxes support these costs. Cyclists, who do not emit any emissions, are exempt from road tax and should be welcomed on the roads. Understanding this distinction may help reduce tensions between drivers and cyclists, fostering a more cooperative atmosphere on the roads.
10 thoughts on “Why do cyclist eat my road cookie?”
isftish
We are, or have learnt to be utimately selfish, and to fight for even the smallest miniscule thing, because we have learnt that there is no place for second, only first. We fight for school places, from preschool until uni. We fight for hawker seats, and refuse to share them, or leave when we’re done. We fight for parking lots. We fight for hdb common areas. We fight for seats on buses and MRT. We fight for free books that are supposed to be given to the poor. We fight for cheap clothes during sales. We fight for jobs, and for promotion opportunites. And we fight for road space.
We learnt that if we stop to give a helping hand, we will lose in the race to be first. So we rather step over others, or sabotage others to get ahead. A lot of Singaporeans may be decently well to do, or better, but behave like beggers and homeless, forced to protect every little thing in their possession, because that’s all they have.
It’s not just a traffic problem. It’s a social psychological attitude problem.
TuaPekKong
Oh, by the way, the calculations did not take into account fuel taxes, taxes on fuel and aftermarket car companies, workshops and all kinds of other car related industries. Also, ERP, parking charges and fines are also not factored in.
TuaPekKong, your second comment is actually not relevant. The point that this post makes is that (1) roads are a shared resource and (2) people using the roads do not pay for them equally. According to the data presented, cyclists bear more than their fair share of the cost of building and maintaining roads simply by paying income tax, property tax, GST, etc, all of which are not road tax.
Car repairs, parking, fuel, etc are to the benefit of only the individual driver, i.e., none of this benefits other parties. So it is perfectly reasonable that the individual driver should bear 100% of the cost of this. No one would expect someone else to subsidise the food they choose to eat or the clothes they choose to wear, right? Same thing.
DC
with regards to TuaPekKong’s comment, the assumption by drivers is also that cyclists do not own a car and thus do not pay any of the road tax paid by these drivers. but the fact is that these cyclists may also drive, just that they chose to leave their cars at home today.. and for road tax, if we talk about maintenance of roads, it would be obvious that cars tear up the road more than bicycles.
FrancisPost author
DC, agree there is a growing trend that some drivers are testing the idea of using bicycle as part of their transport mix. Many choose a folding bike. It is handy to be able to just pick up a bike and ride directly to a nearby cafe or run some errands. If more drivers switch part of their driving to biking. They will help to free up some road space for others. From this perspective, drivers should encourage fellow drivers to switch to bicycle when it make sense.
Alan Tan
This is not about cost and sharing. I stay in Changi, if any one care to come over here in the morning on a weekend will witness many cyclists cycle as if they were participating in “Tour de France”. They speed and couldn’t careless about traffic lights and other road users. They are a vocal lot and lobbying for special lane and protection whenever one of their member got into a fatal accident. Contrast this to motor cyclists. Motor cyclists have had more fatal accidents but they just accept the risk like all road users. The cyclists that are very vocal are mostly elite cyclists who want to have both the cake and eat it. Instead of aggressively educating and regulating their members they want others to accommodate them.
Ian Stewart
To Alan Tan’s complaint of cyclists “speeding” – so ridiculous. Even a peleton of amateur cyclists are probably travelling at 40kph max. So compare this to the drivers who are going a minimum of 70kph along the Changi Airport stretch. You seem to be a good example of the very worst in non-sharing and non-caring behavoir that says dead cyclists or dead bikers are ‘aware of the consequences’ of their mode of transport should should “accept the risks”. You should be ashamed of yourself!
FrancisPost author
Alan Tan, given you a choice, which scenario is more dangerous?
(1) Many cyclists thought that they are participating in “Tour de France”
(2) Many drivers thought that they are participating in “Formula One”
“Tour de France” wannabe may get themselves killed. However the “Formula One” very likely to kill others.
Of cause both are wrong but this shows the intrinsic nature of bicycle is by far less fatal compared to cars.
My interest is not in sport cycling, as you say they vocal enough. I am more interested in the everyday cyclists, the less vocal majority including uncle, auntie and workers.
Keith
I read this last few exchanges with interest…myself and a few colleagues who are both motorcyclist and cyclist were discussing the same issue. What I think it boils down to is developing mutual respect. I believe if society can mature to a level where it is considerate, then a policy of ‘policing’ will not be necessary. Having a special lane for cyclist is, in my opinion, akin to ‘policing’…it is the same as the hard, gaudy, plastic seats in our MRT because the authorities can’t trust the public enough to mind it’s property. I doubt a special lane can do much to prevent a dosing driver… stiffer penalty for reckless drivers, as well as cyclists developing road safety awareness might!
FrancisPost author
Hi Keith, thanks for your comment. I agree a painted lane won’t be much safer in case of a dosing driver. However it will help the rest to position themselves consistently away from the cyclists. Speed of cyclist is much lower than motorbike. Motorbiker is able to travel at the same speed as car. It is a well known traffic management strategy: safe to mix vehicle of similar speed. It is not safe to mix vehicle of very different speeds such as mixing cyclist with motorist.
I agree your point about “stiffer penalty for reckless drivers”, but this need to be based on a condition that not too many are violating the rules. If the infrastructure make it difficult to follow the rules, there bound to be many cases of violation. Each of such violation will appear as “normal” and become difficult to justify harsh penalty. Therefore, I still feel improving the road design should be the first step, than education and than legislation.
For now cyclists have to adopt high level of awareness of the potential dangers in order to choose the safe way to ride. I shared my experience in this post: Key concept for safer cycling in Singapore
We are, or have learnt to be utimately selfish, and to fight for even the smallest miniscule thing, because we have learnt that there is no place for second, only first. We fight for school places, from preschool until uni. We fight for hawker seats, and refuse to share them, or leave when we’re done. We fight for parking lots. We fight for hdb common areas. We fight for seats on buses and MRT. We fight for free books that are supposed to be given to the poor. We fight for cheap clothes during sales. We fight for jobs, and for promotion opportunites. And we fight for road space.
We learnt that if we stop to give a helping hand, we will lose in the race to be first. So we rather step over others, or sabotage others to get ahead. A lot of Singaporeans may be decently well to do, or better, but behave like beggers and homeless, forced to protect every little thing in their possession, because that’s all they have.
It’s not just a traffic problem. It’s a social psychological attitude problem.
Oh, by the way, the calculations did not take into account fuel taxes, taxes on fuel and aftermarket car companies, workshops and all kinds of other car related industries. Also, ERP, parking charges and fines are also not factored in.
TuaPekKong, your second comment is actually not relevant. The point that this post makes is that (1) roads are a shared resource and (2) people using the roads do not pay for them equally. According to the data presented, cyclists bear more than their fair share of the cost of building and maintaining roads simply by paying income tax, property tax, GST, etc, all of which are not road tax.
Car repairs, parking, fuel, etc are to the benefit of only the individual driver, i.e., none of this benefits other parties. So it is perfectly reasonable that the individual driver should bear 100% of the cost of this. No one would expect someone else to subsidise the food they choose to eat or the clothes they choose to wear, right? Same thing.
with regards to TuaPekKong’s comment, the assumption by drivers is also that cyclists do not own a car and thus do not pay any of the road tax paid by these drivers. but the fact is that these cyclists may also drive, just that they chose to leave their cars at home today.. and for road tax, if we talk about maintenance of roads, it would be obvious that cars tear up the road more than bicycles.
DC, agree there is a growing trend that some drivers are testing the idea of using bicycle as part of their transport mix. Many choose a folding bike. It is handy to be able to just pick up a bike and ride directly to a nearby cafe or run some errands. If more drivers switch part of their driving to biking. They will help to free up some road space for others. From this perspective, drivers should encourage fellow drivers to switch to bicycle when it make sense.
This is not about cost and sharing. I stay in Changi, if any one care to come over here in the morning on a weekend will witness many cyclists cycle as if they were participating in “Tour de France”. They speed and couldn’t careless about traffic lights and other road users. They are a vocal lot and lobbying for special lane and protection whenever one of their member got into a fatal accident. Contrast this to motor cyclists. Motor cyclists have had more fatal accidents but they just accept the risk like all road users. The cyclists that are very vocal are mostly elite cyclists who want to have both the cake and eat it. Instead of aggressively educating and regulating their members they want others to accommodate them.
To Alan Tan’s complaint of cyclists “speeding” – so ridiculous. Even a peleton of amateur cyclists are probably travelling at 40kph max. So compare this to the drivers who are going a minimum of 70kph along the Changi Airport stretch. You seem to be a good example of the very worst in non-sharing and non-caring behavoir that says dead cyclists or dead bikers are ‘aware of the consequences’ of their mode of transport should should “accept the risks”. You should be ashamed of yourself!
Alan Tan, given you a choice, which scenario is more dangerous?
(1) Many cyclists thought that they are participating in “Tour de France”
(2) Many drivers thought that they are participating in “Formula One”
“Tour de France” wannabe may get themselves killed. However the “Formula One” very likely to kill others.
Of cause both are wrong but this shows the intrinsic nature of bicycle is by far less fatal compared to cars.
My interest is not in sport cycling, as you say they vocal enough. I am more interested in the everyday cyclists, the less vocal majority including uncle, auntie and workers.
I read this last few exchanges with interest…myself and a few colleagues who are both motorcyclist and cyclist were discussing the same issue. What I think it boils down to is developing mutual respect. I believe if society can mature to a level where it is considerate, then a policy of ‘policing’ will not be necessary. Having a special lane for cyclist is, in my opinion, akin to ‘policing’…it is the same as the hard, gaudy, plastic seats in our MRT because the authorities can’t trust the public enough to mind it’s property. I doubt a special lane can do much to prevent a dosing driver… stiffer penalty for reckless drivers, as well as cyclists developing road safety awareness might!
Hi Keith, thanks for your comment. I agree a painted lane won’t be much safer in case of a dosing driver. However it will help the rest to position themselves consistently away from the cyclists. Speed of cyclist is much lower than motorbike. Motorbiker is able to travel at the same speed as car. It is a well known traffic management strategy: safe to mix vehicle of similar speed. It is not safe to mix vehicle of very different speeds such as mixing cyclist with motorist.
I agree your point about “stiffer penalty for reckless drivers”, but this need to be based on a condition that not too many are violating the rules. If the infrastructure make it difficult to follow the rules, there bound to be many cases of violation. Each of such violation will appear as “normal” and become difficult to justify harsh penalty. Therefore, I still feel improving the road design should be the first step, than education and than legislation.
For now cyclists have to adopt high level of awareness of the potential dangers in order to choose the safe way to ride. I shared my experience in this post: Key concept for safer cycling in Singapore