[quote=mattyfez ]tjagain - Member
matty - make it self funding off the fines?
We could, but the fines would be so high it would be detrimental to the economy, I don't know the cost of 1 5series bmw, fully kitted out with police stuff, and 2 trained officers in it, I imagine it's very expensive.
Do you need pursuit cars to increase enforcement? Surely cops with lasers and high visibility and someone to flag the speeders down further up the road. I always reckon pursuits are just as dangerous as speeding in the first place.
They still need to be paid for, assuming a laser cam opertor is on 20k a year, then there's the admin, the regular recallibration of the device...
Dashcams might well be the way forward, its a bit orwelian, but with the amount of idiot's on the road who can't read the conditions..
I think dash cams trackers will actually be the main thing that alters peoples driving. Discounts for insurance for those with them fitted and there will be much greater moves in this direction in future I believe.
Didn't there used to be a system where you demonstrated thet you could drive accident free for a year and you got a reduction in premiums? Some sort of discount for not claiming, can't remember what it was called though. 😛
I think all drivers should be able to drive either insurance free or third party only.
Having wittnessed how precious some people are about their cars, then I feel that if they had to pay for their own repairs, rather than using my premiums, would make them think twice about driving like muppets.
[quote=mattyfez ]They still need to be paid for, assuming a laser cam opertor is on 20k a year, then there's the admin, the regular recallibration of the device...
Yeah not cheap.
I'd be happy with a limiter, not invasive like a tracker, but just something radio activated as you enter a 50/40/30/20 zone. Like the F1 pits? Could we do that?
I don't mean trackwers comulsorily fitted by the governemnt but that folk take voluntarily to reduce insurance premiums. Its already available
I'd also like to see compulsory retesting and I would be quite happy if motoring was much more expensive. at the moment non drivers subsidise drivers
fines so high they would be detrimental to the economy? really? the money does not disappear it just goes someplace else - into the wages of the police so gets spent by them or into government coffers so gives us more to spend on services. It just goes in a different direction but does not come out of the economy
[quote=tjagain ]
fines so high they would be detrimental to the economy? really? the money does not disappear it just goes someplace else - into the wages of the police so gets spent by them or into government coffers so gives us more to spend on services. It just goes in a different direction but does not come out of the economy
Remember the tory govt in the 90's brought in a fuel tax scheme which increased every year to try to get people to drive less, the opposite has happened. We all love driving and are prepared to pay for it. I can't see the "nudge" stuff happening.
If your chances of getting caught speeding went from one in a ten thousand to one in ten do you not thinks folks behaviour would change? If petrol was £20 a gallon folk would drive less?
Thing is, you shouldn't need a limiter, people should just stop driving like self entitled ¥€*%\~%®
[quote=mattyfez ]Thing is, you shouldn't need a limiter, people should just stop driving like slf entitled ¥€*%\~%®
Yeah thats true.
We have a mega entitled driving culture. Imagine if cars were just invented yesterday. To be legal every road would have to be separated from pedestrians by huge protective barriers, cars would have limiters, auto shut off if they came too close etc etc.
In fact it would never happen.
It amazes me stood at the side of the road watching a mum holding her kids hand whilst a huge bus comes past, the rotating wheel inches from them.. Typical industrial health and safety people would be having kittens.
If your chances of getting caught speeding went from one in a ten thousand to one in ten do you not thinks folks behaviour would change? If petrol was £20 a gallon folk would drive less?
Who would administer the business rebates?
captainsasquatch - Member
If your chances of getting caught speeding went from one in a ten thousand to one in ten do you not thinks folks behaviour would change? If petrol was £20 a gallon folk would drive less?Who would administer the business rebates?
Exactly..what do you think the tax payers appetite would be if council tax was hiked up to cover the cost...
I can't see any of our suggestions happening no matter what, people need gradual change.
It's a social issue that can only be overcome by legislation, with massive tax hikes.
Or people can start driving more sensibly, which is free, and has been demonstrated to not make journeys that much shorter.
Driver education would help - understanding how horrific accidents can be.
Don't they do this on speed awareness courses, do you get to forced to look at horrible pictures?
Really? Why? Spit it out.
Because you're showing many hallmarks of a returning banned. Which I'm not going to detail as people will stop doing it, making my job harder.
Toys19 is our current theory, but it's early days yet. What do other readers think?
Driver education would help
Absolutely. Education - or rather, the lack of it - is a huge issue. I'm with TJ on the idea of retests.
Don't they do this on speed awareness courses, do you get to forced to look at horrible pictures?
Yes. No.
social issue
Quite.
If it was about drink driving would there be 5 pages of internet P*ssheads arguing that, actually, they're OK to drive after 4 pints and the problems are caused by people who drink too little?
No, of course not, but speeding is socially acceptable. When it gets the same stigma as drink or drug or unlicensed driving then we'll be able to, excuse the pun, make progress. But for now everybody does, virtually everybody gets away with it and nobody really cares that other people are doing it.
Has Smurfmat unflounced?
Has Smurfmat unflounced?
I don't know. Has anyone said "Bimmer"?
[quote=Cougar ]Really? Why? Spit it out.
Because you're showing many hallmarks of a returning banned. Which I'm not going to detail as people will stop doing it, making my job harder.
Toys19 is our current theory, but it's early days yet. What do other readers think?
Nice.
I don't think this is true because you can use your cookies to see what peoples FB ID's were etc etc, surely you can find out exactly who I am in seconds. If I was a previous banned you would know.
Anyway it's your forum. If annoying a mod in your first week puts you under suspicion that is bad form.
Sure, that's exactly how it works.
There you go then, so this is a silly game because you know who I am.
Sadexpunk, most of those laws are relevant..... In London. I am unlikely to break those as I don't ever go to London.
yeah, i was just being a bit of a tit for the sake of devils advocate 🙂
Captain / Matty? Why business rebates? It would mean thatthings where the cost of the fuel to move them was a significant portion of the cost would be a bit more expensive - so what? If things reflect the true cost of the miles to get them there then maybe slightly more eco friendly business policies might emerge? It would be a gradual change over time. Its not money going from the economy - its just in a differnt place. Fuel costs are not a large part of most businesses costs are they? Why should I as a non driver subsidise you as a driver?
Maybe we go back to one efficient delivery company not 20 of them all driving half empty vans round the same areas? Maybe local shops become more viable? maybe we don't have scottish produced butter going south to distribution depots then coming back north again?
differnt debate tho so lets not get sidetracked
Captain / Matty? Why business rebates? It would mean thatthings where the cost of the fuel to move them was a significant portion of the cost[b] would be a bit more expensive[/b] - so what? If things reflect the true cost of the miles to get them there then maybe slightly more eco friendly business policies might emerge? It would be a gradual change over time. Its not money going from the economy - its just in a differnt place. Fuel costs are not a large part of most businesses costs are they? Why should I as a non driver subsidise you as a driver?
I'd be doing a bit more research on this bit before touting it as a stratergy.
Read up an awful lot about it actually captain. Its perfectly viable. Look up carbon based taxation for a start.
Read up an awful lot about it actually captain. Its perfectly viable. Look up carbon based taxation for a start.
Put the links up and I'll see if a can be arsed to read it as it seems a very backward step, in many ways. One being it kills freedom of movement, people will have to live within cycling distance of work or have excellent public transport. Small business would suffer massively. Public service costs would increase.
It's a nice theory, but no more than a dream.
Bring in the automated car, that's the real solution for road safety.
Take ego and attitude out of the equation.
TJ - at the moment non drivers subsidise drivers
Is that true? I'm not saying it is wrong, I have no data to base it on, but considering the following forms of taxation directly on vehicle ownership and usage I am wondering where the subsidy from non-drivers is coming from?
1. VAT on vehicle purchases / lease / rental
2. Income tax on Company Cars
3. IPT on car insurance
4. VED and first registration fees
5. Fuel duty
6. VAT on fuel
7. VAT on vehicle repairs, tyres etc.
8. VAT on paid parking
9. Fines on traffic offences
10. Tolls and Congestion Charges.
11. Import duty on vehicles (or parts) manufactured outside the EU
12. Recharged medical bills from NHS to RTA insurers
Now I could probably find totals for most of those things if I looked hard enough, but the balance of the equation would need me to have costs for the road infrastructure, policing etc. Even if I had them what proportion would you assign to "drivers" and "non-drivers" bearing in mind that you still want good quality policed roads to ride you bicycle on and will need trunk roads to get deliveries of artisan coffee to your local vendor, and so that your LBS can get the spare parts to maintain your steed.
Poly - yes its true. of course you can manipulate stats any way you like but take the total cost of motoring to the country and subtract the total taxation raised only from motorists and you have a huge subsidy or many hundreds a year.
You have to do things like include the cost of all injuries and deaths ( million pounds a death x 2000 a year just from RTCs) o the roads, the cost of congestion, the costs of illhealth from vehicle fumes and the value of the land used. Roads are paid for by local authorities not from motoring taxes
Captain - really? Its just a shift inhow things are taxed. some would go down, some would go up.
Its a differnt arguement to the OP, its a debate we have had on here before and the conclusions are not those people want to hear
Wiki is a decent starting point if you want to find out more. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_tax
As tj says, this isn't the original topic, but http://ipayroadtax.com/no-such-thing-as-road-tax/when-will-drivers-start-paying-the-full-costs-of-motoring/
Interestingly, the Institute of Fiscal Studies, which produced the report for the RAC Foundation, said:“Road use generates costs which are borne by wider society instead of the motorist.”
In the same report, the Department for Transport estimated that the average marginal external cost of driving a car an additional kilometre is 15.5 pence allowing for the congestion (estimated at 13.1 pence per kilometre), infrastructure, accidents, local air quality, noise and greenhouse gases. This compares to 3.6 pence per kilometre paid in fuel duty and VAT.
As already said, there are lots of costs and tax streams that could be included (VAT on fluffy dice?) but generally I think it's accepted that the costs of motoring aren't covered by motoring taxes. That might change a bit with more electric vehicles, but then fuel tax falls too.
Maybe people's perception that they've "paid" to drive is part of what's behind the entitlement issues (and that includes "I'm entitled to break the law because I like it/it's convenient for me").
How is the £20 gallon going to keep idiots off the roads? There are plenty of wealthy idiots who drive too. It is just taxing the lower incomed and attempting to curb where I live. I'd rather see a tax on cats and dogs, or that noisy git delivering pizza around here on his stupid, noisy motorbike.
While TJ has good ideas sometimes please don't debate use of cars with him.
We know from previous posts that he lives and works in a city with regular and decent public transport and doesn't see why everyone else just doesn't do the same.
While TJ has good ideas sometimes please don't debate use of cars with him.
There's no debate because from my point of view, he's wrong, this is beyond discussion at this point in time.
b r - MemberWhile TJ has good ideas sometimes please don't debate use of cars with him.
We know from previous posts that he lives and works in a city with regular and decent public transport and doesn't see why everyone else just doesn't do the same.
Relying on car ownership to ferry you between work and home is almost always nothing more than a selfish lifestyle choice.
*Warning.
This post was sent from the moral highground of carless living. 😉
Relying on car ownership to ferry you between work and home is almost always nothing more than a selfish lifestyle choice.
Until all my customers move into my street, this ain't going to happen. 😛
Ta bob - thats exactly the point I made in previous posts. People claim their car is a necessity while its actually because of choices they have made that their chosen lifestyle is difficult without a car.
Not that wwe should all move to cities.
also if petrol was £20 a gallon and the money raised used on public transport then how good would our public transport be?
some folk do need a car - if they are working in a variety of places and have to be there physically. But the majority? Lifestyle choice.
Its also indisputable that the subsidy to car owners from the general public is less than the subsidy to public transport users from the general public. Some of my taxes go to making your car ownership cheaper to you than its real cost
Why can't they? Slightly rhetorical question as whenever this comes up people come up with elaborate scenarios where you would [i]have[/i] to drive. I know they exist. Problem is with motoring so cheap and property so expensive then people make the choice to do a long commute as the lesser of two evils but it is a choiceWe know from previous posts that he lives and works in a city with regular and decent public transport and doesn't see why everyone else just doesn't do the same.
Back on topic, increased speeding fines will have no effect on me as I don't drive, and when I did I managed to *avoid any fines.
They won't help road safety though, and could even have a detrimental effect.
*By not speeding.
In my 400bhp, 187mph BMW.
😀
Go on - have a laugh at me. I got done twice last year on the same car journey. Higher fines wouldn't have stopped either of the offences. However now I have 6 points I can no longer risk any more.
[i]I don't mean trackwers comulsorily fitted by the governemnt but that folk take voluntarily to reduce insurance premiums. Its already available[/I]
tbh mate my 435d's insurance is less than £300 anyway, no incentive there for me.
[I]also if petrol was £20 a gallon and the money raised used on public transport then how good would our public transport be?[/I]
It would still only come into the nearest town, and not near enough for me to carry my shopping home?
And also under this theory the majority of the Scottish countryside would be empty with only old folk left?
Why can't they? Slightly rhetorical question as whenever this comes up people come up with elaborate scenarios where you would have to drive. I know they exist. Problem is with motoring so cheap and property so expensive then people make the choice to do a long commute as the lesser of two evils but it is a choice
Where people can demonstarte that a car is needed, I see no issue. The cars that wind me are the totally superfuous trackday specials that belt around the countryside on a Sunday, them and motorbikes that not only put themselves in danger, but other road uses. These should be taxed to high heaven. Motorbikes at £1500 per year VED minimum. There's no point to motorbikes, they shouldn't even be on the roads.
[i]There's no point to motorbikes, they shouldn't even be on the roads. [/I]
Do you also hate that they filter past you in your tin-top when you're sat in a queue too? 🙂
Best form of city/urban transport IMO, plus cracking fun on the open road.
Do you also hate that they filter past you in your tin-top when you're sat in a queue too?
Why would I? I'm never in that much of a rush, I'll even make the gap wider so the incompetents can get through without hitting my wing mirrors.
Yes , I get that the time difference is sod all over say 4 miles at 36mph in a 40mph limit. Lets assume that on the overtaking straight the limit goes to 60mph. The lorry is limited by law to 40mph. I am legally allowed to drive at 60mph. There are miles of bends and double white lines coming up with zero overtaking opportunities
Sorry chaps but Im off past that truck and I will use full throttle to pass the HGV as quickly as I can then continue with journey at below the speed limit for my vehicle for the next 10 miles of wiggles/ hills/ roundabouts etc.
This ^^
Anyone using the A350/354 south towards Poole and Weymouth would find exactly this scenario; once past Warminster there are almost no opportunities to pass slow-moving vehicles, I got stuck behind a tractor/trailer combo doing <40mph and followed it for at least ten miles, including through town, until I found one short straight stretch I could accelerate past*, and it was a short stretch, and I must then have driven for twenty minutes or so with virtually no other vehicles in front, because they were all stuck behind the bloody tractor. There hadn't even been any places he could pull in to allow traffic to get past either!
*I may have exceeded 60mph briefly, sue me.