Motoring in Britain:- the future

[hawk20]

Landrover sales are down 58% compared with a year ago. Have a recession, that's the answer!

 

[Biscuit]

Would the cost of implementing it outweigh the benefits?

whilst road pricing is blunt and regressive by its very nature it pays for itself. What pays for the new scheme?

it doesnt tackle congestion head on. given a limited fuel allowance im likely to socialise less by car commuting would be the last thing to go - so unless the fuel allowances are really swingeing,rush hour congestion stays and the road network is blissfully clear on the weekend.

what covers the change in taxation income for the government? if congestion charging in london has been ploughed into buses and tube what happens without it?

still thinking!!

 

[bigyin1]

crumbs i've had a moment of eureka - solution - a much much much better public transport system. :bannana: :bannana:

IF there was a bus/train that went directly from daventry to Buckingham that cost me less than it does to travel by car then i'd take it (providing it took a reasonable amount of time to get there). Currently i can still drive my car here, park, shop (or work) and drive back for substantially less than using a bus AND crucially it's more convenient to do so.

Until it becomes less convenient or costs too much i won't be changing.

 

[ms500]

Road pricing will reduce congestion, there's no doubt about it, but it's a very blunt instrument. It will force the less well off to prioritise while doing nothing to prevent completely frivolous journies by the rich. Will a footballer really be put off driving to his agent's club by road pricing, especially if there are no poor people to get in his way?

What is needed is a system that is independent of ability to pay, one that is based on need. Pick holes in this:-

To promote fewer journies and better fuel consumption each person with a taxed vehicle will recieve an annual fuel allowance of 1200 litres, based on just over 9000 miles per annum at 35 mpg. If Carlos Kickaball wants to blow it in his Hummer that's up to him, but he won't be going too far in it. Need to do more miles? Get a more fuel-efficient car. Remember, it's one allowance per driver, not per car.

I can't agree with you at all because you seem to have a completely diferent aim in mind. Why should people use their cars less? The problem is that the current government has failed in its duty to provide sufficient road capacity, and they're using this self-created scenario to fuel their war on the motorist.

Your plan involves the government interfering in people's lives; the idea of a government 'fuel allowance' is pure stalinist, there's no getting away from it.

It's no wonder so many people are emigrating, this kind of thing is absolute madness. We're a first world country, the car is a great leap forward and the government are trying to take us backwards.

The motive still appears to be to punish the rich and stop people from driving, which is unacceptable in my view.

 

[W210 Fan]

Until it becomes less convenient or costs too much i won't be changing.

and you have just worked out the governments way of getting people back onto public transport

 

[MPG]

We're often told that the ANPR system in the UK is second to none - if so why aren't we using it to remove the 15% of UK vehicles on the road which are uninsured (& often without tax, MOT or a licensed driver behind the wheel). That would remove a sizeable chunk of the congestion we all endure. Then again, although those vehicles may be uninsured, they're still paying 50.35p per litre fuel duty every time they fill up...so not quite so beneficial to Gordon to remove them from the equation at a time when the books are far from balanced....

 

[recycled]

Road pricing will reduce congestion, there's no doubt about it, .

will it? central london is still congested. most people drive because they may have no other choice or alternative, so some other form of expense will suffer to keep them on the road.
Holiday. insurance, e.t.c and it will confirm everyones fear.

If you are rich, you can drive. If you are poor do not drive.
How long before it extends to all forms of life?
Health, justice,education. No place for the poor in britain?

 

[jontyash]

This is a killer subject. I don't see that the goverment could ever pull of such a solution. It's one thing charging you more to travel on roads, it's another thing altogether to track me everywhere I go. No way! It's a huge infringement on my privacy, just like ID cards.

I'm happy to put up with most things but I would go to jail before I carried an ID card or had my car tracked.

I carry a mobile phone now which can be back tracked to find out where I've been but that's my choice - I can leave it at home if I wish. It's just not right to track your every movement under the guise of ID cards and transport issues. I reckon there would be riots before that happens.

Back to transport issue - I agree with Shude - staggering working hours is a great idea. If the rush hour is the problem, remove the rush hour. Failing that, developing technologies in cars that allow them to drive within a foot from each other on motorways automatically would be a great solution.

If you have a car that has the system, you can travel from Leeds to London, non-stop in the "Auto" lane. Great idea.

They say we can't upgrade the network forever but we seem to be way off that yet. The M3 just down the road from where I live is still 2 lanes in places, why can't we add another 4 lanes to the M6, M25 etc? What's the biggy other than cost? Surely the amount of tax on all the new cars should pay for it all. By the time they've finished doing that, the technology should be there for auto-travel giving us much more room.

Charging me £1.10 a mile is defintely not the option though as far as I see it.

Phew...got carried away there....lol:bannana:

 

[Dieselman]

The motive still appears to be to punish the rich and stop people from driving, which is unacceptable in my view.

No place for the poor in britain?

One says the rich, one says the poor....I'm confused...

 

[rf065]

crumbs i've had a moment of eureka - solution - a much much much better public transport system. :bannana: :bannana:

We had that in the 1800's, it was called a train. Unfortunately our esteemed government in the 1960's deemed most of the lines surplus to requirements.

The line nearest me takes 45 minutes to Glasgow, that's the same time as it took in 1883 with a steam locomotive, there's progress for you!

Russ

 

[jontyash]

removed

 

[recycled]

One says the rich, one says the poor....I'm confused...

i cannot see the confusion.

It punishes the rich, by taking all their money.
it punishes the poor by driving them off the road

 

[Dieselman]

Funny how they have so much money to spend on social programs (that benefit Labour voters), bank bailouts, SPECS cameras, speed humps, and ID cards, yet there's no money for building more roads

How are the above social programmes that benefit Labour voters.?
I would have thought bailing out banks and guaranteeing return greater deposits would be of greater interest to more affluent people. (Not that Labour voters can't be affluent, just it's generally capitalists have greater funds stashed.)

 

[Dieselman]

i cannot see the confusion.

It punishes the rich, by taking all their money.
it punishes the poor by driving them off the road

So that's everyone then.?

 

[recycled]

not everyone because some are so so rich it would be insignificant

 

[Dieselman]

It's no-one else's business what car I choose to drive, If I chose to drive a 4-litre Jeep Cherokee that does 10mpg then that's my choice, and I should pay exactly the same taxes as someone who drives a 1-litre Micra.

Please don't think I'm picking on your posts, I'm genuinely interested in your thoughts on this.

Given that the general perceived wisdom is that CO2 is a major problem and as such all Western Governments have pledged to reduce it's output, how would you go about reducing it's output from cars.?

It's worth remembering that many devices that create CO2 emmissions have been forced to reduce by simply banning higher output devices. Is that what should happen to cars.?

 

[st13phil]

The notion of never-ending traffic growth and resultant gridlock is, frankly, complete nonsense. Congestion (unless deliberately "engineered") is largely self regulating in that people can and do reorganise their travel arrangements to reduce the impact of congestion. Everyone has their own "maximum frustration" level and that will determine whether or not they make the journey at a particular time or at all. This sort of change happens in an evolutionary way, sometimes over weeks, months or even years but it always happens.

London is a very good example of the effectiveness (or otherwise) of congestion charging. If you look carefully at TFL's reports you'll find that journey times post Congestion Charge have now crept back up to similar levels before the charge was introduced. So how, exactly, has that benefitted anyone other than the charge mechanism provider who has been on to a great earner? Congestion charging is not just a blunt instrument and regressive taxation at its worst, it doesn't achieve it's objectives either.

The joke (on us, of course) is that it's all unnecessary.

 

[Dieselman]

Everyone has their own "maximum frustration" level and that will determine whether or not they make the journey at a particular time or at all.

How does one avoid it if it's imposed by their employer.?

 

[ms500]

Please don't think I'm picking on your posts, I'm genuinely interested in your thoughts on this.

Given that the general perceived wisdom is that CO2 is a major problem and as such all Western Governments have pledged to reduce it's output, how would you go about reducing it's output from cars.?

It's worth remembering that many devices that create CO2 emmissions have been forced to reduce by simply banning higher output devices. Is that what should happen to cars.?

Point 1) I don't believe that global warming is caused by human activity that produces CO2. There are too many holes in the theory, for me the biggest one is that there has been so many extreme changes in earth's climate long before Human production of CO2. I'm sure supporters of the theory have a comeback for that, but I've not heard one good enough to convince me.

It has become more a political argument than a scientific one.

Point 2) Even if cars were 'causing' climate change, it isn't the government's job to force people to change their behaviour. They can educate, but from there it should be up to individuals. If people wanted to 'stop' climate change, then they would do so under their own merit. I don't like the bully-boy tactics of the road tax system or Gordon Brown's government.

 

[Ade B]

Point 1) I don't believe that global warming is caused by human activity that produces CO2. There are too many holes in the theory, for me the biggest one is that there has been so many extreme changes in earth's climate long before Human production of CO2. I'm sure supporters of the theory have a comeback for that, but I've not heard one good enough to convince me.

It has become more a political argument than a scientific one.

Point 2) Even if cars were 'causing' climate change, it isn't the government's job to force people to change their behaviour. They can educate, but from there it should be up to individuals. If people wanted to 'stop' climate change, then they would do so under their own merit. I don't like the bully-boy tactics of the road tax system or Gordon Brown's government.

Isn't there another forum that this can be debated on, this has been done to death on here. Its thursday night, there must be better things to do - I'm off home to help with bathtime


Ade