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 – Member

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.

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

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.

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

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 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.

also if petrol was £20 a gallon and the money raised used on public transport then how good would our public transport be?

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.

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.

The cars that wind me are the totally superfluous trackday specials that belt around the countryside on a Sunday, them and motorbikes

I’m the opposite. I’m not really that fussed about the odd leisure drive/ride, they’re too infrequent to matter.
What bothers me is choking on fumes every day on my way to work because people are selfish and lazy bastards.

b r – Member

Best form of city/urban transport

There’s also an invention that doesn’t rely on churning out fumes to run: the bicycle. 💡

This, it is much the best idea.

And I had absolutely no idea that the car tax fund thingy is not enough to pay for the road network, I thought it covered the roads and a lot more. Interesting.
Shows how powerful the car lobby is perceived to be by the gov.

5plusn8 – Member

This, it is much the best idea.

Is it ****.

Ceasing to rely on the car is the best idea.

Ceasing to rely on the car is the best idea.

Well I agree entirely and can’t argue with that in any way, but I think it is all a change management issue, wouldn’t you agree?
We have an infrastructure set up for individual based transport, making more person and environmentally friendly through automated driving is on the horizon and a seemingly acceptable step for many people. I would be happy devolve my driving to a decent computer programme.

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.

Well if the test is total taxation from motorists I definitely don’t believe you – if you mean from motoring then its possible.

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.

This summary sums it up quite well:

However it is worth noting that inevitably the external factors are estimates, and the author has adopted the larger number in any range and made a sweeping assumption that it can be extrapolated to the 20% of the population outside of English Urban Areas. When you reverse those assumptions you get back to something much closer to break even. Now, in fact, if you consider that even if we had no private motorists we would still need roads for busses, deliveries, emergency services etc – then perhaps that 9BN on roads (which happens to be the amount of the worst case “subsidy”) should actually be shared by the whole country anyway as it is essential infrastructure that keeps the country working – regardless of whether you ever drive a car yourself.

Now I commute on public transport so would love to see more investment there, and although a car owner have no objection to increased motoring taxes, so I suppose it depends what you’d call a huge subsidy.

Roads are paid for by local authorities not from motoring taxes

Well local roads are, but major infrastructure / trunk roads are not – they are funded centrally. Even then where do you think local authorities get most of their money? From central government, so its hiding behind #alternativefacts to suggest that none of the taxation on motorists pays for roads.

Its not necessarily that people don’t want to hear your argument – but if you obscure it in misleading claims like that it makes it hard to believe the rest was prepared from an entirely impartial viewpoint.

I reckon my motorbike costs me £60 per ride before I put petrol in it.

£20 per gallon won’t stop me going for a blast on a summer Sunday. Nor stop me speeding. No point in having a litre bike and sticking to 70mph.

The hand wringing, holier than thou STW massive can go **** themselves.

It would still only come into the nearest town, and not near enough for me to carry my shopping home?

Still way off topic, but for me, the changes we need to see aren’t about “carless living” they’re about using the car less. So sure, if you’re buying a weeks worth of shopping for your large wife and family then you’ll probably struggle to manage it on the bus. But if you’re going a mile down the road for a pint of milk, could you go by bike? What % of people would drive that journey? I’d say at least 90% of people with access to a car would use it there.

But people won’t do it without infrastructure. I don’t blame anyone who doesn’t feel safe to ride on our roads as they’re currently built. But if we build them with safe space for cycling then people will use it.

The same goes for public transport.

But as we can see on this thread, stuff gets an as an attack on motorists, or extrapolated out so “maybe don’t use a car for every trip” becomes “everyone should have their car taken away”.

One thing that’s often overlooked with our car-centric way of doing things is how isolating it can be for people who can’t drive, e.g. for financial or medical reasons. If you’ve been used to driving everywhere and all of a sudden your cataracts mean you lose your license then you’re going to feel stranded. It’s easy to say “nah, keep driving cheap and easy, we don’t need proper public transport” when you’re a driver. I’m not surprised elderly people hide medical conditions in order to keep their driving licenses.

The Netherlands is something we should aim for IMO, yet try have a higher rate of car ownership than we do. It’s not anti car, it’s just that we’re so far pro-car that any movement looks “anti”.

zanelad – Member

The hand wringing, holier than thou STW massive can go **** themselves.

No need, for there are women on the moral high ground. 😀

Ps, baggsy your lungs. 😉

I’m loving the posts by people who claim speeding is okay if you have the skill or the conditions are right. It doesn’t matter how much skill you have or think you have, you are not alone on the roads and cannot account for the behavior of others. The limits are there for a reason.

I knew a bloke who thought he was skilled enough to drive quicker than the limit. I sat in court and watched him, head bowed, as the prosecution detailed what had happened to my brother when his car hit him.

35 in a 30, just making progress. According to the people that actually know what they are talking about 5 mph slower and the chance of two young kids still having a father and me still being able to hang out with my older brother would have been a damned sight higher. Stick your excuses and your reasons for speeding firmly up your arse.

Poly correct – its taxes on motoring not taxes from motorists

(And who has ever been done for speeding while overtaking? Nonsense argument).

Me, in the ‘slow vehicle- only overtaking spot for miles’ scenario. On the A9 by a mobile van camera. I think they were there on purpose and it was a bit unsporting but i did it so I paid up.

I’m a big fan of the average speed cams on the A9, I’m on it twice a day, it takes sod all extra time and its a nicer place to be

Me as well. on the a9. By a mobile camera. Booting it past a line of trucks on a dualled bit. 84 mph. £100 and 3 pts.

Ps, baggsy your lungs.

Well, you wouldn’t want his brain.

Were you in the outside lane of the dual or had you crossed to the oncoming traffic?

Funkmasterp

I don’t think you’ll find any of the ‘speeders’ are condoning speeding in 30/40 limits, were saying that you should drive to the conditions and environment – which is why many of us ‘suffer’ vehicles right up our backsides when in 30/40 limits. Because most drivers DON’T, and seem to trundle along at whatever speed is the slowest in top gear their vehicle is comfortable at.

b r – motorways, I accept that going quicker with all traffic heading in the same direction, in some instances makes sense. Anywhere else, regardless of conditions or environment, there are far too many other factors at play. That’s why speed limits exist and are enforced.

I admit my opinion is possibly biased, but you speed, you get fined, simple. It should go further and excessive speeding should result in a lifetime ban. Driving is a privilege and not a right. If people understood this now then there would be no need for threads like this to reach six pages.

5plusn8

In the outside lane. The camera was facing me ie I was heading towards the camera.

Well, you wouldn’t want his brain.

Why not, it’s not been over-used? 🙂

I’m all for minimum speed limits. That at least would get all the fools wobbling along on push bikes off the roads.