LimpingDems and Road Toll policy

Discussion in 'Cars, Bikes 'n AFVs' started by FourZeroCharlie, May 16, 2010.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Right, hands up them that drive for a living? Or just drive, come to that? Or ride bikes? C'mon, hands up: yes, you, the fat wheezy boy at the back.

    Hmm-thought so: nearly all of us. Well, you maybe interested in this bit from the motoring section of Saturday's Telegraph.

    "At 10.44 am on Monday May 10, I, on behalf of this newspaper, successfully made formal contact with Lib Dem HQ.

    Worryingly for motorists like you and me, Britain's third political party (it won only 6.8 million votes in last week's General Election compared with Labour's 8.6 million and 10.7 million for the Conservatives) is and always has been unapologetically anti-car. It clearly stated in its recently published, pre-election manifesto that it "will prepare for the introduction of a system of road pricing" which means the party intends to impose an ADDITIONAL layer of taxation called tolling which could price millions of low to middle income motorists, plus their adult and child passengers, off the road.

    Opinion poll after opinion poll have proved beyond doubt that the vast majority of Brits are against Lib Dem-style road tolls on the grounds that we already pay, at current rates, around £52,000 million per annum in road user taxes. Not that the Lib Dems take much notice of such overwhelming public opinion........."

    Now, Mike Rutherford (the author of this piece) has long harped on about this: maybe just a scare-the-kids piece or do we need to put the Outrage Bus up on bricks and think about clubbing together for an Off-Peak Outrage special?
  2. Road pricing has been ruledout I believe.
    New toll motorways are on the agenda but road pricing is not.
  3. I am not advocating the idea but it is the only logical solution from an eco perspective:

    Scrap all road taxes/licences etc and simply put more tax on fuel. That way, those who chose inefficient devices or excessively powerful vehicles or drive more than they need to etc etc will be directly taxed in direct proportion to their "carbon footprint".

    Personally I think we should scrap all taxes on fuel/cars etc apart from the basic VAT rate and shoot all the tree huggers. No vehicle should be allowed on the motorway unless it can accelerate from 0-60 up a 1:10 gradient in less than 10 seconds and reach a minimum top speed of 75 MPH on the same gradient. Anyone subsequently caught driving on the motorway at steady state of less than 65 MPH without a good weather/road condition related excuse should be banned for a minimum of 3 months.

  4. That solution is only correct if: a) you agree with the highly suspect climate change lobby, and b) you agree that taxation is a good way of controlling unwanted beaviour, despite the massive inequalities it leads to.
  5. I do not believe the climate change nonsense-hence the rest of my post. But if you do then what I said makes perfect sense.

    A direct tax on use of fuel is the most equal way to "punish" those who are most "guilty". As it stands, I could pay huge amounts of tax on a gas guzzler I hardly use, despite it having a very low "actual" carbon footprint.

    You also naively assume that taxation is to control behaviour - it is not. That is the excuse most often used but taxation has only one real purpose - raising revenue. The most efficient way to control behaviour in this case would be to ration the fuel available on a per-person basis.
  6. Since I have been priced out of the city and have to live in the country I have to use my car for a 50 mile round commute each day. I have no local bus, the "non local" bus runs every hour and is a 3 mile walk to get to the stop, and it does not go where i need it to go, there is no train.

    My nearest shop is 7 miles away, we buy local produce but things like milk etc cannot be bought this way.

    I need a car (a Volvo C30 drivE eco shite bag).

    More tax on fuel, you can **** right off!

    Tax the lazy fucks that drop there kids off at school, then drive to the gym, then the shop down the road, etc etc.
  7. And there you have it: successive governments have long realised that the road user, in whatever form, is a convenient cash-cow. Every so-called integrated transport policy has failed, with billions thrown at railways to the detriment of a cohesive and effective road infrastructure.

    Mass-transit is only partially effective: it does'nt take me from my door to exactly where I need to be. Further, it is subject to the vagaries of events outside my control (delays, cancellations, industrial actions, etc).

    Selfish bastard? Possibly. But my clients and employer expect me to be at a given place at a given time. A road tolling programme would only result in that cost being passed on.
  8. oldbaldy

    oldbaldy LE Moderator Good Egg (charities)
    1. Battlefield Tours

    So you would ban all HGVs from motorways?
  9. And putting more cars on Britain's crowed roads is a good idea? The more dense a city becomes, the more important it is to have dense (mass) transit.
  10. YES - or to be fair, NO- I would insist that they were powerful enough for the load they carry so as not to cause traffic problems!
  11. More roads is the answer - but so is efficient public transport. We need both, not a lack of either as is currently the situation!
  12. My suggestion would do just that as they are almost certainly driving huge 4X4s without reason and in a most inneficient manner (lots of short journeys and start-stop driving).
  13. Where do you put the more roads? Personally, I rather like Oxford's plan. Loads of buses and bicycles.

    And if the place is hilly? Well, it won't hurt the population to get a little exercise.

    Go ahead. Call me a commie! You know you want to!! :D
  14. I like Oxford's solution too but what works in a city and what works outside the heavily built up areas are quite different. Also Oxford is a relatively small city. Buses alone would not work in London for example. So the solution is partly dependent on scale.

    As for where to put more roads - we dont really need many more but we do need the ones we have increased in capacity and speed. More A roads converted to dual carriageway and a number of new by-passes so that fast A roads do not have to go through congested areas.

    And another thing. Speed cameras are not the solution to accident black spots - better roads/junction design are.
  15. But the trend is to reduce speed limits in order to increase tax revenues, sorry reduce accidents, so that sensible part of your post won't happen. What I feel is scandalous is that the vast majority of income raised from motorists does not go into any form of transport infrastructure. That's why (in a rare burst of Governmental honesty) Road Fund Licence was renamed Vehicle Excise Duty.

    There really needs to be some joined up thinking to encourage use of Public transport. For example in one recent contract I could not reach my client at a sensible time using train & bus as the connection on the last bit of my journey left two minutes before the previous leg was completed. Naturally I used my car to get to work.

    (Edit to add I know the direct link between spending on the roads & the income from RFL was abolished in 1937).