Tony: what do you think are the actual costs, then? I’m challenging you to provide actual numbers.
I haven’t a clue which is why I asked. TJ thinks he does though but is being shy to provide them bless.
I provided figures for one aspect, listed others, put up an article with a list of costs to be considered,
I have been asked to give up on this debate, you car lovers are not actually interested in debate nor do you want to hear any rebuttal of your car centric propaganda you like to believe so I shut up
Nowt I say will get you to open your closed minds
The true cost of motoring if borne by the motorist would be 2 or 3 times what you pay now
You talk about having a debate and then make the claim above. I’ve asked you how you came to this conclusion as frankly it seems an astonishing claim. You can’t so it’s probably best you step away from debates where your limited knowledge disrupts conversation and debate. Peace Out.
Tony: what do you think are the actual costs, then?
I haven’t a clue
frankly it seems an astonishing claim. You can’t so it’s probably best you step away from debates where your limited knowledge disrupts conversation
Come on, Tony, which is it? You have no clue about what the true cost of motoring is or you know enough that you're astonished by other views? People with limited knowledge (like TJ) shouldn't be allowed to discuss this topic but people that don't have a clue (like you) should? 😃
I’m not the one making claims on the number though. TJ says he does know the numbers.
I’m sure others can form an opinion (and some have voiced) without your unwavering support of TJ’s every pronouncement.
Council tax revenue is around £48bn of which around 8% is for the roads, so ~£4bn.
Fuel duty was ~£26bn last year,
VED brings in around £7bn.
So £37bn in revenue from Duty, VED and CT in 2023.
The government and local authorities spent around £11.5bn on the roads in 2023,
they also spent an additional £2bn on infrastructure to support electrification,
so £13.5bn spent.
They've also said an additional £8bn will be spent on fixing the roads, but still.
Now there will be additional costs for policing, etc that are specific to the roads and there will be costs for things like gritting, that might not be covered in this, but to me, it seems that cars and drivers are actually paying to support other things, not the other way around.
daffy - 15 billion for deaths and injuries on the roads - detailed above with links
Plus cost of
Road policing
Costs of deaths illhealth and disability from roads pollution
Damage to buildings
Diseases of inactivity.
Lost value of the land used for parking
etc etc
Read the Monbiot article linked to above
You cannot count council trax revenue as that does not only come from car drivers
so 33 billion directly raised by motoring taxes, 11 billion spent on roads, 15 billion cost of direct deaths leaving 7 billion to cover allthe other costs.
I have been asked to give up on this debate, you car lovers are not actually interested in debate nor do you want to hear any rebuttal of your car centric propaganda you like to believe so I shut up
Have you owned a car in the past? Maybe before you retired...? I have a car but I wouldn't class myself as a car lover, I just deem it a necessity in my life currently. I don't live in a city, I travel to/from work and sometimes to other locations (e.g. data centres and customer sites). Sure, there are alternatives but none are as practical and reliable as having my own car and sometimes they're just not a viable option.
Have you owned a car in the past?
No - well a few weeks when 17
A few more takes on costs
As well as the loss of life, serious injury and distress these casualty figures also have an economic value. The cost to the British economy is estimated to be in the region of £36 billion a year. The table below shows the average value of prevention by casualty/ collision type.
So greater than the taxes raised on motoring just for the economic losses from all the deaths and disability caused from road accidents. that 36 billion does NOT include the 15 billion direct costs of the deaths and disability ( tho there seems to be some overlap ie loss of wages may be in both)
If deaths and injuries cost the economy £15 Bn per year then the 99.99% (my estimate) of folk who aren't killed or injured each year on the roads must be contributing £150,000 Bn to the economy annually.
the 15 billion is the direct costs not the total economic loss. total economic loss is 36 billion - governments own stats
Ah. Update my motoring benefit to £360,000 Bn then.
you car lovers are not actually interested in debate nor do you want to hear any rebuttal of your car centric propaganda you like to believe
That's really needlessly inflammatory. Just because we might be questioning your figures, doesn't mean we are car lovers who want to see the whole country tarmaced. Don't be so polarised - this is a major problem with internet society, don't be part of that particular problem!
Nowt I say will get you to open your closed minds
Again, we don't have closed minds, we just might not agree with you on this topic. I don't think that's an unreasonable stance!
I rode a horse once when I was 17.
the 15 billion is the direct costs not the total economic loss. total economic loss is 36 billion – governments own stats
if the loss was that big (and its only mentioned in one document, not backed up by other figures, so I suspect that one document, unlike all the other government stats that align is incorrect) a very large chunk of it is is met by motor insurance (if I crash into you causing you economic loss, this is met by my insurance), which is paid for by.. me.
in fact we forgot the vat on car insurance as another form of income. The motor insurance industry is worth £20bn a year, of which VAT is 12% - so another £2.4bn in income to the government there.
I refer the right honorable member to the answer I gave before 🙂
daffy – 15 billion for deaths and injuries on the roads – detailed above with links
Plus cost of
Road policing
Costs of deaths illhealth and disability from roads pollution
Damage to buildings
Diseases of inactivity.
Lost value of the land used for parking
etc etc
Read the Monbiot article linked to above
You cannot count council trax revenue as that does not only come from car drivers
so 33 billion directly raised by motoring taxes, 11 billion spent on roads, 15 billion cost of direct deaths leaving 7 billion to cover allthe other costs.
I'm sorry but almost all of that is bad science and provides no comparison to benefits. Property damage was included in your £15bn costs as was policing, etc, so you can't double account.
The human costs associated with it are plainly rubbish as they can't be compared to people who were injured whilst walking to work (breaking an ankle) or cycling to work (breaking a collar bone) which would also lead to a loss of productivity.
The Monbiot thing isn't available, but the article is almost 25 years old...
as for land and Ill health, the former provides revenue, the latter, EVs will remove that pollution from urban areas, vastly improving air quality, and the infrastructure for this improvement is already covered in the money spent.
I'm a cyclist - I'll have ridding 180km to work and back this week by the time I get home tonight. I still pay car tax, council tax, VED and duty, but only do around 2000 miles a year. People like me are subsidising the rest of the network, but on balance taxes and duties from vehicles, pay for the use of vehicles and provide a MASSIVE MASSIVE impulse into the economy.
Hypothetical - Ban cars, right now. What would be the financial consequence of it? Would we be better off as a country or worse?
Environmentally or societally, there's no argument that cars (in their current guise) are bad, but financially, which is the angle you're approaching this from, you can't argue it. Well, YOU can, but you can't win, no matter how much you massage the figures and add the ancillaries.
so there it is. the closed mind with the absolute refusal to accept the governments own figures that are robust and valid.
You can argue that the subsidy from general taxation is good value and worth spending. You cannot argue it does not exist as the governments own robust figures clearly show that the costs to the country of motoring vastly exceed the taxation raised on motoring
Property damage was included in your £15bn costs as was policing, etc, so you can’t double account.
Property damage directly caused was - I am talking about the indirect property damage. Same with policing - the cost of policing the accidents was - not the general cost of roads policing
the closed mind with the absolute refusal to accept the governments own figures that are robust and valid.
Robust and valid in your opinion. Since when do you have so much faith in government figures?
I don't call it subsidising motorists, I call it investing in the economy - just like other forms of transport like rail and air. Now - I don't think road is a good investment, as I've said - but that's what it is. Calling it a subsidy for motorists suggests they are indulging frivolous private transport for pleasure - ignoring that the economy runs on roads too - goods and people moving for business purposes. My mind is not closed, in fact it's a lot more open than yours since I am considering all the options and looking at it from other angles - even from points of view that I don't share. Your mind is closed to any other point of view here an you are pushing the same line you have been for what, 20 years?
I’m a cyclist – I’ll have ridding 180km to work and back this week by the time I get home tonight. I still pay car tax, council tax, VED and duty, but only do around 2000 miles a year.
Just to be clear, this is someone you are accusing of being a car lover.
What subsidy? The vast proportion of your additional 15bn costs are human costs and loss of economic productivity. Neither of these are an actual cost. They're an assumed cost based on some old research and assumed values. You want to accept the result and thus take it as gospel, but refuse to accept that there's significant contributions to the economy that you're wilfully ignoring as it suits your agenda and lifestyle.
Total DIRECT revenue from vehicles is £37bn+ (closer to £45bn once sales, insurance and other things are accounted for) and yes, you can count Council Tax as the roads would still need to be maintained even if personal vehicles were banned and more than 45% of current households have a car and more than 80% of households have owned a car over their lifetime and so have used the roads with a car. Even with your creative accounting and even assuming NO economic benefit from car use, your figures are still below the direct revenue and far below the total indirect revenue.
In equating economic loss, you've got to balance it against economic benefit. You aren't.
In equating human loss, you should also account for human benefit such as families kept in contact, care home visits, etc. You aren't.
You're arguments are based on STATS19 reports which are designed to show why we should invest in better technology, more policing, better standards - It's a business case FOR roads policing.
Car insurers pay out £10bn in claims a year, so of the £15bn in accident "costs" only 5 are met by the general population, and most of that is losses to motorists (as they're the ones most involved in accidents) not tax revenue.
Road policing is £100m a year. Almost nothing.
Even if everyone cycled and walked we'd still need roads. And far more mass transit which would also take some of that road money, possibly much more. So it's complicated.
Please don’t forget to include the net benefits of road transportation as well as the costs.
The whole of society is based around it - take it away and pretty much everything closes. No hospitals, food, medicine, internet etc.
Pretty much all of these benefits are taxed on some way - so the road transport system is treated as part of the overall cost of having a functioning country and is taxed and funded as such.
Trying to seperate out the tax input from cars and comparing against the overall costs to society is a fools errand.
