Actually, it isn't a majority rules here.
As is often the case, the government is dictated to by accountants.
As we know, a reasonable amount of the cost of petrol is tax. According to
Shell, about 30-35% of the cost is in tax, and part of this is GST, so the higher the cost of Fuel, the more tax you pay on it.
So, at the end of the day, the accountants see that driving creates revenue, cycling doesn't. That is all they see. If someone is prepared to look at the big picture, you would see that while cycling doesn't create revenue, it doesn't cost as much in the long run. We all know the benefits, but I will list them anyway.
- Less Road Damage, hence lower maintenance costs
- Fitter Population, hence lower medical costs (prevention is better than cure)
- Less Air Pollution, as above, better health, and with climate change...
- Less congestion, people wasting less time commuting, so better productivity.
But of course, the accountants only look at their own area, they see income and costs, they don't look beyond their own balance sheet so they can't see that there are benefits outside of it.
The same is true for Public Transport. There are compelling arguments that Public Transport should be made free and deliberately run at a loss, as it will reduce costs in other areas (road maintenance for starters) which will balance that loss.
James