Government Road Tax Petition

[Konan555]

Would it actually take that long to implement though?

Review for 2012, 6 years. Government... double it and add 10.

If it does come, I think it will be the least of our worries. 1984 anyone?

Same old storm in a teacup, really.

[Butcher]

Who said it'd be more? I'm in favour of smarter tax rather than a flat out fee, and certainly I'm in favour of something that might make people drive better and obey the laws of the road, plus encourage alternatives to driving.

I'd like an alternaitve to driving. However to get to work my alternative is a train that takes 2-3 times longer and costs twice as much. Not much of an alternative. Taxing motorists to the hilt isn't going to get many people off the road because public transport is such a shambles in this country.

I'm against it purely because I want to travel anytime of the day, go where-ever I want without big brother watching me. How many people have gone a bit quick down country lanes? nothing massive, but enough to get a NIP through the post - all of us I would have thought.

I don't find the country lanes that big of a deal for not speeding on since they're mostly NSL and 60 on a small lane is pretty hairy.

The road safety bunch'll be out in force - suggesting that young drivers shouldn't be allowed to drive on main roads, or not allowed to drive after certain hours, etc - that would actually be possible to implement with such a system.

There's already insurance of that nature (no night driving), I guess you could flout it at present, but if you have an accident and you're stuck without insurance you're really screwed.

I don't think restricting young drivers to back roads would really help that much, only way to learn about main roads is to drive them after all.

[kalniel]

Re: lack of alternatives
Well that's the smart thing about gps based tax - you only put more tax on routes for which there are suitable alternatives. If there's no alternative then you can actually lower the tax compared to it's current level.

If you've got flexible hours but are on a busy route again you could save, because off peak charges would be less. If you don't have flexible hours then your company should be considering the tax burden as part of your pay - might encourage them to think about ways around their rigid timetables, or if not possible then paying a bit better.

Even if you have to travel at fixed times, the smart taxing should make other people travel less during peak periods, meaning you will have a quicker and more efficient trip to work.

I'm against it unless the revise the speed limits at the same time

What have speed limits got to do with it? It sounds like you're saying that they should only enforce laws that you agree with and allow you to break ones you don't.

There are a whole host of other benefits to gps tracking too - no more accident lottery and expensive post crash analysis - there will still be some of course, but gps tracking could potentially be used to back up claims of bad driving and causes of accidents. Lawyers won't earn so much money wrangling over liability. Insurance will cost less due to lack of lawyer wrangling and increased culpability of the driver at fault. Insurance could likely fall even further if tied into miles driven, time driven, type of road driven etc.

The only real negative seems to be people have a phobia of being responsible for their actions. They don't want people to scrutinise their driving or notice when they break the law :/

[depresion]

Who said it'd be more?

Of course it's going to be more, where are the billions that implementing this system going to come from?

There are 2 reasons for this system and nether is to do with cutting congestion if that's realty what they wanted to do they would build more roads or invest in PT. But the green loons won't let them build more roads as they keep making the (incorrect) claim that building roads leads to more cars, and investment in PT now just gets funneled into the pockets of shareholders as happed a few years back with the railways.

The only points to this system are to enable better tracking of every car trip in the UK and to raise more tax. Where there is a lack of alternatives that's going to be the perfect place to put up the charges as high as possible as people will have no choice but to pay.

[kalniel]

I see you're living up to your (misspelled) name

I'm more of a half-full kind of guy and like to assume people are actually trying to make things better

Of course it's going to be more, where are the billions that implementing this system going to come from?

The same place money spent on improving roads, public transport etc. come from.

There are 2 reasons for this system and nether is to do with cutting congestion if that's realty what they wanted to do they would build more roads or invest in PT. But the green loons won't let them build more roads as they keep making the (incorrect) claim that building roads leads to more cars, and investment in PT now just gets funneled into the pockets of shareholders as happed a few years back with the railways.

Green loons don't ultimately have much say in things. Building more roads or investing in PT are just two, rather simplistic solutions. The reality is more complicated and you have to look at a combination of solutions to actually have any real effect. Fact is that there's a limit to how much you can improve PT by just investing in it, and also we don't currently use our roads efficiently at all - a few key roads jam pack at a few hours of the day. The rest of the roads and the rest of the time it's not a problem. It would be wasteful to try not to use the roads more efficiently.

Where there is a lack of alternatives that's going to be the perfect place to put up the charges as high as possible as people will have no choice but to pay.

That would be quite ridiculous and any government who did that would find themselves quickly out of office.

[SilentDeath]

I could not find ANY information about this on the bbc web site, in any of the pre-budget articles (including the one linnked from other thread in GD), or even the official pdf that goes over everything in detail.

So i dont belive this is happening. If it was it would be very bad, except for one possible thing, it would be impossible for people to steal cars, ofcourse they could just remove the box, tow it somewhere and get a new one fitted (asssuming the box will imobilise cars if removed - built into ecu or something for all new cars...)



This is just a stupid way to raise tax. It will cost the road user several times more in the first year (probably not much less in following years either) - if the box itself is £200 thats more than the highest band of tax now.

Worst is that you are taxed on usage of certain busy roads. The amount of money you can afford for tax is irrelevant. The official pdf shows how average household income has increased, with costs of motoring remaining the same, however this is only going to make the poor a bit poorer and could force people to change jobs.

Its stupid, because they would probably get more from just putting another 5p on fuel duty and without making it harder for everyone by forcing this on us.
Also the monthly bills wont all go to the gov. probably quater of it will go to maintaining the system, gotta have people watching over us...


So assuming in terms of cost, it will not possibly be better for the motorist (which it wont, ever - except for sunday drivers) we are left with a system which watches over us, and hands out fines.
Do we need people watching over us and handing out fines? are drivers that bad - and will this fix it?

yes/no i think. It wont stop 4x4 mums/volvos driving between two lanes down a dual carrigeway like i see atleast once a week on the way to work, or unaware drivers (by that i mean ones that are scared to turn right at T juntions like my aunt, or those that occasionally drive on the wrong side of the road like you see sometimes..) plowing into the side of you at junctions.

It will stop me speeding, regually every day, where conditions allow, so that i can travel 5 miles to work in under 10 minutes, but that will not prevent any accidents. It will probablyl cause more as i will be 99% asleep instead.

pff. i'm in favour of this. stop bloody bimmers pinging down the fast lane at a tonne

question is, what alternitives to cutting conjestion are there??

Just doing our bit to reduce congestion.... (though technically not in a bimmer for me, and would need to be a long straight to get me to a tonne.. )



Why does the edit button need to be exactly where the old save button was, and directly underneath the new one!

[DaBeeeenster]

Of course it's going to be more, where are the billions that implementing this system going to come from?

There are 2 reasons for this system and nether is to do with cutting congestion if that's realty what they wanted to do they would build more roads or invest in PT. But the green loons won't let them build more roads as they keep making the (incorrect) claim that building roads leads to more cars,

This is simply not true. The number of cars in this country has grown along with the number of miles of roads. The two figures are intrinsically linked.

and investment in PT now just gets funneled into the pockets of shareholders as happed a few years back with the railways.

This is an argument against privatisation, not pay-per-mile road taxation.

[DaBeeeenster]

The person who said that it'll be £28 a month for a rural florist. I guess its an estimated example of a low usage scenario. This works out as £336 per year which if I am not mistaken is a bit more than say £175 a year for a car above 1.5L we pay at the moment (correct me if I am wrong here).

A normal user (that mum taking kids to school) pays £1032 a year... That's not more than 175 either...

People say - "what are the alternatives?" Well this tax hike isn't an alternative is it. It's just forcing pretty much everyone to pay more (ok some may benefit but i bet on average it will be way more than it is now). Maybe cheap and efficient public transport could be an answer, maybe it needs to be nationlised again.

I have to go from Swansea to Kent to visit head office (its right next to Brands Hatch) - I can drive there, which will cost me about £60 for the return trip in my 2.2L Prelude (yes its a long drive but I can take breaks when I want and time the journey to suit me). If I want to be in Kent by 11am this Friday and return the same day the train ticket will cost me at least £158 just to London, where I will have to pay another £5-£10-£whatever to get a transfer to whatever small station I need to get to, then I need to arrange for my boss to pick me up from the station... So thats about three times less than by train with me going on my own in a not all that economical car... If I used a diesel or say my old 106 it'd probably cost £40. If I went with one more person it would be £30 per head in the Prelude... On a train - £316... Yes, this is a journey at peak times... But I can't help it, I am needed there on this specific day. As it happens I may end up going by train as the company pays for it - if it was coming out of my pocket no way would I pay an extra £100 for a train fare...

So forgive me if I am a bit skeptical when it comes to using tax to force people to stop doing something essential without providing alternatives. And why should it be people who can't afford to live next to their place of work who will have to pay the most for "education and heroin"?

Where are you getting your figures from? In the first para?

[SilentDeath]

This is simply not true. The number of cars in this country has grown along with the number of miles of roads. The two figures are intrinsically linked.

No. If i want to drive somewhere, its not becuase "oh they opened a new road, I must drive along it!".


Its becuase i need to go somewhere, like work. New roads will always be used.
Your argument only works in two instances -
1) places like london, where there is so much congestion that it prevents people using there own cars. Open new roads and they will use them again.
2) if the new road opened is along side housing - allowing people to move out of there parents, buy a car and park it on there drive.

The problem is crappy road design in towns and cities. Buss lanes, traffic lights and speed limit reductions are the most evil.

There are more cars, becuase there are more people learning to drive than old people dying/giving up licences. These people all need to work to fund there new hobby of driving.

[depresion]

This is simply not true. The number of cars in this country has grown along with the number of miles of roads. The two figures are intrinsically linked.

You should check what you are typing is correct before striding in with "This is simply not true." The numbers aren't intrinsically linked you would be forgiven for thinking so 15 years or so ago but it's quite clear that car ownership and usage is linked no to miles of road as the green party have been claiming but to the prosperity of the economy, for several years the road building followed the economy until there was a lot of fuss about "concreting over this green and present land" when road building projects started to be cut, car ownership continued to rise with the economy.

[DaBeeeenster]

No. If i want to drive somewhere, its not becuase "oh they opened a new road, I must drive along it!".


Its becuase i need to go somewhere, like work. New roads will always be used.
Your argument only works in two instances -
1) places like london, where there is so much congestion that it prevents people using there own cars. Open new roads and they will use them again.
2) if the new road opened is along side housing - allowing people to move out of there parents, buy a car and park it on there drive.

The problem is crappy road design in towns and cities. Buss lanes, traffic lights and speed limit reductions are the most evil.

There are more cars, becuase there are more people learning to drive than old people dying/giving up licences. These people all need to work to fund there new hobby of driving.

Utter rubbish. There are more cars because the cost of driving has fallen dramatically in the last 30 years, and that there are more roads to drive them on.

[kalniel]

And we're living further away from where we're working, and more women are working rather than staying at home, and house prices are really high, and tesco is dominating the markets, and we like buying things in packaging etc etc. etc.

[nichomach]

Beenie, you're falling victim to the "ecological fallacy"; that because two things happen at the same time, there must be a causal relationship. Beware of "post hoc ergo propter hoc" . More people are driving now for a variety of reasons - location of jobs in out-of-town developments, property prices being prohibitively high in central locations etc being among them. These people are driving because they don't have any realistic alternative; they either have to work or can only afford to live in places with crappy transport links. How many roads there are is largely irrelevant to their need to travel by road, and road building generally happens in response to demand, not vice versa. Moreover, taxing them to the hilt, as this proposal does, isn't going to remove that need to travel by road, it's just going to massively increase the cost to them of doing so. It's a regressive tax that will hit those least able to afford it the hardest. It takes no account of whether your car is actually designed to be more environmentally friendly; you're taxed as heavily whether your car's a Hummer or a Prius. The whole basis of the tax is inequitable and the idea that it's some magic cure for carbon emissions is a joke. Add in the privacy invasion inherent in constant monitoring and it's pretty monstrous.

[5lab]

the government committed to stop building roads a few years ago because it doesnt work.. the places with large amounts of conjestion are normally in the middle of towns - where can you build a new road in places like that? unlike the majority of other countries, ours is too densly populated to cope with major infrastructure expansion. there's currently more of the country covered with road than that covered by homes..

car tracking could work very very well - if integrated into satnav, a central system could know how many cars are on each road, and how many will be on each road in 10 mins time. it can then send you the optimal route and ensure you get around more quickly. i dunno if they'll do that, but if they do it'd be very good..

[kalniel]

Agreed. It does seem a bit far off at the moment, but the potential is huge.

[unity1906]

this party political speach was bought to you by.....

Dont SPAM