F***ing pay as you go road tax!

lcd

you're a bit paraniod

btw do you object to it or not?

 

you may be a little right on the first count, not really paranoid, more and more at wits end with some issues, need to chill my internet alter ego sometimes.

not sure what to think about it or other issues tbh, apart from the fact I don't like my taxes going on killing iraqi's whom I have nothing against, or the think tanks/beaurocrats/ queen for that matter, so anything taxed more I will naturally oppose, motorists pay more than enuff, perhaps limit things to one car per house(and house ownership, too), and raise the age to 21 are sensible options, like I said, we HAVE to have cars, just like its a stupid proposal to put another £5 on an air fair, if its costing £150 all in, who cares about a fiver? that won't change behaviour one iota. I will try to keep from being so ascerbic on the web, as I do realise it can get tiresome If you read my posts with the view in mind that I am VERY old fashioned in my attitudes, then all will be clear, its just I don't really like techology or progress.

 

LCD can come across a bit paranoid at time IMO but I think he is right to worry here.

What this idea amounts to is the Government knowing exactly where any vehicle (and therefore the person therein) is at any time.

Add to this the forthcoming identity cards and all of a sudden things start to look pretty dodgy from a Big Brother perspective. Do we really want the UK to become such a place?

And, as I keep saying, such a scheme will do little to reduce the car conjestion problem - drivers will just be screwed a bit more and wages/rates will have to go up to meet the extra costs.

Matt.

 

This system will use encryption and this will get round DPA and human rights laws. Nobody will know where you have been, all this data will be one way encrypted, the only thing that will know is a dumb computer system which will calculate the charge.

Nobody is going to be looking at lists saying you've been to Tesco twice this week what did you want to go for.

You're wife is not going to get a letter from the DVLA saying "you're husband visited Mrs Truman last night and bought her some flowers"

 

Does anyone seriously think that any other government that had even the remotest chance of being voted in would have done any different?

I dont.

 

on the civil liberties issue. the govnt know where i live,where i work, what car i drive, who i live with - who cares if they know a little more, i've nothing to hide. besides which they can do all or most of this now with mobile phones.

so what

 

Exactly it isn't really any difference to a mobile phone, a mobile phone company knows where you at any given time.

People just seem to be a scared of tecnnology but people were scared of ATM machines when they first came out.

 

I'm not scared of the technology I just don't think it will cure anything - it will cost masses to implement and reduce car conjestion not one iota. All it will do is raise extra revenue and there are simpler ways of doing this.

On the big brother side, whilst I can't see them being interested in what people are up to in general, the option will exist to potentially see how long it took a car to get from A to B and thus calculate average speed - so if you are doing 80mph on an empty motorway you will no longer be invisible. It would be like driving along with a police officer in the passenger seat constantly checking your speed!

Matt.

 

Matt

you say that it will 'reduce car conjestion not one iota' . how's that then?

 

Because people will only leave their cars at home if there is a viable/cheaper alternative.

You could make motoring so expensive that people simply couldn't afford it but efforts to do this so far don't appear to have worked - people love their cars so there has to be a compelling reason not to use them i.e. like free public transport.

This scheme might drive a few people off the roads but I think the overall reduction will be small fry compared to what more radical ideas might achieve.

You've also got to remember that people don't sit in jams waiting to get into cities for fun - if there was an easier and/or cheaper way of doing it then they'd be doing it.

A lot of people also couldn't do without their cars. If I didn' have kids I'd probably take the train or bus to work but, as it is, I have to get a 9 month old and a 3 year old to nursery in a town 8 miles away and then get into Bristol. It's just not feasible to do this on public transport.

Then there's the cost of public transport. A chap I work with has just started driving from Reading into Bristol - he reckons the cost of driving (including parking) works out at less than £40 a day as compared to £55 on the train - there is your problem. Okay a train season ticket works out less but he often works from home one day a week and regularly visits some other sites so the season ticket isn't worthwhile at the moment. If the return from Reading to Bristol was £10 or even £20 then his car wouldn't be on the road.

So, I suppose a conjestion charge could make motoring so dear that some people are forced onto public transport - I just think the carrot of cheaper public tranport would be a better way to go and I don't think it's fair to penalise people who have no choice but to use their car.

Matt.

 

Nope - we're very modern in Exeter - we have the highest car pollution in the UK according to my housemate (too few roads with too many traffic jams) and we also topped the Clone Towns thingy on BBC.

Precisely. Maybe this new system, if it ever comes in, will also help to stop carjacking scum, joyriders, and untaxed/uninsured drivers having access to the road too, for fear of being caught.

If you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to fear. Big Brother's been watching you for decades now anyway, so get over it.

As for people complaining that they can't live without a car - that's rubbish. You can always move or alter your lifestyle, but of course, that's too much like hassle isn't it. See how the other half live...

 

I never thought it was fair that Beeching and Maggie made it so people who had no choice but to use public transport got penalised by abysmal service and cutbacks, but that didn't stop them did it?

 

Further to Matt F's point, the UK is bad for all stick and no carrot - increasing the cost of car ownership without sufficient investment in an alternative - classic UK short-termism.

Another contradiction in policy: this govt. is pushing the concept of mixed-use city development - mixing retail, office space and residential, yet people who choose to live in city centres are hit hardest regards residential parking and in the case of broader use of congestion charging would be hit for coming and going from their home.

The car is an icon of independence. Yes car ownership makes little sense in the context of fossil fuel usage, efficiency and pollution, but there's nothing to match its flexibility. To mess with this by pricing the public out of owning a car will cause considerable discontent.

However as I said before those who need a car most are rural citizens who are on average poorer and older. To charge per mile (ie. fuel duty) is hitting these people hardest and that's unfair if congestion is considered the target. Though if pollution is the target then fuel duty is about as fair as it gets - you pay tax on what you burn.

 

Once we have been forced onto public transport and become `used` to it, it is an absolute certainty that the price of such public transport would then sky-rocket, as did the train fares. On top of this i can`t see any product or service that the cost of would not esculate, the unit cost of every single item that you purchase, from your daily loaf of bread to your latest purchase from e-bay, that is transported via a road network or uses a service that requires a road network (ie. postal/parcel service) will rise considerably, do you think that the manufacturers and service providers will foot the bill for the `mile charge`? not a chance! Local shops would then be in a strong position to raise their prices even higher as more and more of us would be forced to buy our essentials from local stores that we can walk to. One thing is definite the government WILL make more money from this from all directions.
Gregs comment of `Though if pollution is the target then fuel duty is about as fair as it gets - you pay tax on what you burn.` is what i`ve been saying for years, a move to add what we currently all pay on road tax to fuel instead would be a far better move, we will then be encouraged to buy a car that is very fuel efficient and would in turn be `charged` for how much we use our cars rather than what time of day or road we use. If implemented correctly a system like this should create a similar revenue to what the government currently collect through the road tax.

Well done Mr Blair for waiting until after the election to drop this one on us, looks like the `voters` have fell for it again.

At least it`ll be ten years before it`s implemented though.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4617315.stm

 

Two other things to consider regards fuel duty...
1. For your average new car owner depreciation makes fuel costs and tax look inconsequential.

2. Any notion that using a fuel efficient car is a valuable contribution to the environment is a joke. The cost to the environment and the quantity of energy used to manufacture a car dwarfs any savings in that dept.

 

Very interesting, especially the prediction that such a scheme will increase overall car polution!

The conclusion being that this idea simply shifts the problem around a bit rather than solving it.

Matt.

 

But they were out to reduce public spending etc. This scheme appears to be about trying to change people's behaviour and you can't do that if people have no viable alternative.

Personally, I won't be priced off the road so, from a selfish angle perhaps I should be welcoming the scheme i.e. it will cost me more but I'll get to work quicker.

You've then got to wonder whether there will be a yo-yo effect i.e. driving into, say, Bristol in the rush hour will cost a lot in road tolls (because conjestion is bad) so this forces a lot of people to take public transport - which reduces conjestion and so the road toll reduces (or at least it should do) and so more cars start to use it again.

Matt.

 

I live in london

the congestion charge has noticeably reduced the amount of traffic that passes through my neighbourhood on the way to town. there are also many more buses. well done Ken.

this, and some common sense, leads me to think that road tolls will reduce the number of cars on the road.



i'd of thought that in other parts of the country where there is less public transport and correspondingly less congestion then the tolls will be less, non existant or maybe proportionate to road and maybe petrol tax spend.

 

I have noticed that in London as well, and its why I fully support a congestion charge for Manchester city centre. The only problem is it can be hard to avoid the city centre if you're traveling to other parts of the city, so people will end up going through all the suburbs but then again maybe people will just get the bus instead.