Road Tax on driving a vehicle

Why? That suggests every mother in the country *has* to have a car to take the kids to school.

I'm not singling out mothers for using a car when not needed - it's endemic to nearly every car owner. Even although most complain bitterly about congestion. And unless something is done to reduce the continued

*increase* in road usage the congestion will just get worse. Road pricing is a way of trying to reduce usage. Those who don't like it might like to try and think of an alternative.
Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)
Loading thread data ...

Hmm. Every one wants to have a free choice where they live, work and send the kids to school - and *always* have an excuse about PT in their area not being suitable for either. So we have the inevitable congestion on the roads.

I'm not being judgemental about this - merely posing the question about what happens when the country grid locks - as it must do - if traffic continues to increase?

Do we issue passes for essential use like going to work or taking the kids to school and ban driving to the shops - apart from say once a week?

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

So there was no traffic congestion in London before these measures, and they have made it worse - or has traffic increased?

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

Alternative: half of all cars given a red disc, rest given a blue disc then alternate the days on which each colour can drive.

Result: congestion cut in half but government doesn't get a penny extra from us.

John.

Reply to
John

It's a bit like flying off for a break. People now do this several times a year where once they didn't and later only once a year. All led by the fact they can afford to do so. No one *needs* to fly abroad several times a year for a break. Same with car use. The car is at the door - lets use it. 'Let's try that Sainsburys at Lakeside rather than the one down the road'. Believe me it happens.

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

TAX FUEL.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

Result. everyone has two cars, a red one and a blue one.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

That's fine if you're happy to have your house knocked down to provide new roads. Most aren't however. Although they would be happy to have *your* house knocked down - just not theirs. This first really became apparent with the London motorway box scheme some 40 years ago.

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

Congestion in London has been a fact of life since I were a lad in the 60's

Its worse now because the roads are all 'engineered' - prior to that one could always find some sort of a route around it..only visitors got seriously stuck.

Since I left it in the 70's all my rat runs are closed off..and the net result is that the rush hours have now expanded to take in the whole day and half of the night, whereas a decade or so ago, one could if one went post 9 a.m. and before 4 pm get to where one wanted at maybe 17mph average..now its more like 5mph.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

Traffic calming measures are there for road safety. They make very little difference to actual flow.

Or they'll get an electric car.

Why do those have to live so far from work they need to come in by car?

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

And everyone would be happy.

Wouldn't they?

:-)

Mary

Reply to
Mary Fisher

....raise yet more revenue so that the Government can continue in the manner to which it has grown accustomed.

The fact that Two Jags had asserted he would have a joined-up public transport policy in place years ago, and has failed to do so, has of course no bearing on this latest policy initiative.

The fact that it's cheaper to fly intercity rather than go by train is a by-product of that policy failure.

London has the highest-priced public transport system in the world.

One cannot blame people for choosing the easiest and cheapest way to travel. Merely to raise that cost to match that that resulted from failed policies, and blame it on traffic density or global warming is, well, mendacious.

Oh no, not that too. Anthropogenic GW is not proved; it merely has a concensus among a minority of scientists working in the field, most of which do not have a clue about the major effects. See slide number 20:

formatting link

Reply to
Frank Lee Speke-King

While I have signed the petition, I somewhat perversely agree that it is unlikely to change anything - whether it has 750000 signatures, or

75000000!

Im sure that realistically we are all agreed that a means of taxing road usage is fair, on the condition that the revenue generated is used to improve both public and private transport systems, and fund research etc into ways of protecting the environment. What I suspect people object to really is the governments thinking behind the scheme: Firstly even if this scheme replaced the current road tax system, undoubtedly they plan to drastically increase the revenue generated from the cash cow that is the average motorist, without giving anything back to them. Secondly, they seem to have overlooked the fact that Big Brother is just a TV show that people watch for entertainment, and isnt the sort of society we would like to live in.

I suspect that, should any government try to introduce something like this, they'll soon find that the fuel tax protests of a few years ago will seem like a walk in the park compared with the utter outrage that will be demonstrated by this policy.

Reply to
Renster

On their home page, all of the photos are of means of transport other than cars.

On their intro page they say:

Transport 2000 is the independent national body concerned with sustainable transport. It looks for answers to transport problems and aims to reduce the environmental and social impact of transport by encouraging less use of cars and more use of public transport, walking and cycling. Transport 2000's vision is of a country where traffic no longer dominates our lives, where many of our journeys can be made on foot, by cycle or using public transport and where you don't need a car to enjoy the countryside or city life.

Doesn't seem to be in support of cars to me....

Reply to
Andy Hall

Yes. This is what they did in Athens a few years ago, except using odd and even number plates.

There are several effects:

- The restriction only applies to private cars and not to vans, minibuses, trade vehicles and so on.

Result: There are a lot of people running small "businesses" with magnetic signs on their cars

- A lot of people buy one good car and one crappy one, having odd and even plates

Result 1: Increase in pollution from older cars

Result 2: Congestion in suburbs especially those with apartment buildings because of inadequate off street parking.

Reply to
Andy Hall

They do, although it's still not far different in price to water.

Reply to
Andy Hall

Fair point. However, how about having the 100k City job but doing it from home?

Reply to
Andy Hall

It's not just an excuse here. We live just 3.2 miles away from the second largest bus station in western europe

formatting link
but we get just *one* bus every half-hour up to 6.15pm and then *nothing* after that; the bus service just stops at 6.15 until the next day.

John.

Reply to
John

It's not the increasing number of cars, rather the way in which they are used. The Telegraph recently carried an article which inter alia tried to elicit readers sympathy for a couple living in Farnborough, Hants who might face a five-figure bill if road pricing came in. Each day he drives to Chiswick, West London, she drives to an office park near Heathrow. Multiply this a thousand times over and you see why the roads in this part of the world are full of standing traffic for hours each day. Pre M3/M25 they would not have made this lifestyle choice.

Several times a year I drive up the M40 to NEC, invariably endless miles of slow-moving or static traffic coming towards London. Again pre-M40 those drivers would almost certainly have chosen homes and jobs in closer proximity.

Reply to
Tony Bryer

Thats an interesting theory actually - maybe the govt should offer both the individuals and the companies tax breaks / incentives of some form if they actively enable / encourage a certain amount of tele- commuting - reducing congestion, pollution, AND demand on the overcrowded public transport system.

A fine idea in my opinion. Course, the govt wouldnt like it as it means they cant line their own pockets with huge self-awarded pay rises funded by excessive taxation! Me? cynical? Nahhhhhh....

Reply to
Renster

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.