Porsche challenges C-charge rise

prj45

redddraggon wrote:

How often do you see four sharing a car to work? I can't say it's a common thing.

Eight out of 10 cars I pass in London are single occupancy, this includes four litre turbo Range Rovers which freaks me out; a car that probably spews out a gallon of petrol for a nine mile journey through town, for one person.

ruby644

[quote= Given the fact that part of your council and income tax goes towards roads, it seems fairly obvious that drivers are subsidised by taxpayers, and not all taxpayers are drivers.
[/quote]

But roads are not only used by private motorists, the movement of goods and services that form part of everyones daily life move by road.

Fuel duty and VED revenue far exceed the amount currently put back into roads by central government as far as I'm aware, and I'd like to see loads more spent on road maintenance for all road users. Don't get me started on potholes and utilities who don't properly level their manhole covers.

redddraggon

ruby644 wrote:

star_rover wrote:

The 4x4/Porche drivers I have no sympathy for. Those with family cars who are affected, I have some, but would ask: why do you need to drive your family 'car' into the congestion zone anyway?

Maybe because we live just outside the zone and our 6 year old''s school is now inside the zone.
Too far to walk, can't go on his own, and has to be there at 9am which happens to be the same time his 3 year old sister has to be at nursery.

Seems a bit like self caused problems to be honest.

To be honest they could make the whole of Greater London pedestrian only and I couldn't give a damn. Nothing worth going to London for really, (Expect maybe Twickenham a couple of weeks ago).

Underscore

nwallace wrote:

On the climate front:

If this is right (and i doubt it)

Bicycles: 4 adults cycle 5 miles to work at an average speed of 8mph, time taken 38 mins (0.63hr).Exercise breathing rate: 6 cub metres/hour, so cyclists exhale 4 x 6 x 0.63 = 15.1 cub metres air.
Exhaled air contains 4% carbon dioxide (CO2), 1 cubic metre exhaled air contains 73.3g CO2. So the amount of CO2 exhaled by the four cyclists is 15.1 x 73.3 = 1108 g.

Car: Four adults travel by car, travelling 5 miles at average 22mph, time taken14 mins (0.23hour). At-rest adult breathing rate is 0.4 cub
metres/ hour. So four adults in car exhale 4 x 0.4 x 0.23 cubic metres air = 0.37 cub metres air. 0.37 cubic metres exhaled air, 4% CO2, contains 0.37 x 73.3 = 27g CO2. The car exhaust emits 215g CO2 per mile (modern, high mpg), so CO2 emitted is 5 x 215 =1075g
Total CO2 emitted by car and 4 seated adults is 1075 + 27 = 1102g.

Two things jump out at me that make this conclusion questionable (beyond the likelihood of four people sharing a car to commute to work!):

* You don't consider the carbon dioxide produced by the car commuters after their journey but while the bike commuters are still pedaling away, i.e. you have to consider the same period of time for both groups. This adds 4 x 0.4 x 0.4 x 73.3 = ~47g of CO2 to the car commuters * I suspect (though don't know) that cars that output 215g/mile produce a lot more than that during their warm up period. An efficient, modern car is barely warmed up in 5 miles, so I suspect that the 1075g would be significantly higher than that in reality

_

BentMikey

ruby644 wrote:

But roads are not only used by private motorists, the movement of goods and services that form part of everyones daily life move by road..

What difference does that make? That's simply part of everyones' use of the roads.

CarlosFerreiro

nwallace wrote:

[

If this is right (and i doubt it)
So the amount of CO2 exhaled by the four cyclists is 15.1 x 73.3 = 1108 g.
Total CO2 emitted by car and 4 seated adults is 1075 + 27 = 1102g.

The real issue is where the CO2 came from.

For the cyclists the CO2 comes out when they breathe, produced from the sugars they have eaten, created by plants which have taken in CO2 from the atmosphere - it is a balanced cycle (not assuming C)2 used in food production)

For the car, the CO2 is coming from the fuel, which has been locked out of the normal CO2 cycle for a few million years....... if you want to take the long term, geological time frame you can say it is part of a natuarl cycle too, but of course it is the short term that gives us changes we need to worry about (decades, not eons)

This is the same reason for the bad arguments presented about "emmisions" - when somebody says cars only release 2"gbm" tonnes per year globally, and the oceans realese 1000"gbm" tonnes, so cars hardly count at all. Except of course that the oceans or whatever are also absorbing CO2, where the cars are not.
It's not about the amounts, it's about the balance.

If the cycles are balanced there is no overall change, if they are not then even a small amount makes a difference. Earn £1M per year and spend £1M a year, no problem, £10,000 is small compared with £1M, but if you keep spending £10,000 more than you earn, sooner or later it makes a difference.

ruby644

BentMikey wrote:

ruby644 wrote:

But roads are not only used by private motorists, the movement of goods and services that form part of everyones daily life move by road..

What difference does that make? That's simply part of everyones' use of the roads.

My assertion was that everyone contributed taxes which were used to build/maintain roads and that everyone gained the "benefit" from them.
Private motorists, rightly, then contribute more via road tax and fuel duty for their direct use of them.
Where does the private motorist get subsidised?

Eat My Dust

ruby644 wrote:

Where does the private motorist get subsidised?

When they use the train/bus?

BentMikey

ruby644 wrote:

BentMikey wrote:

ruby644 wrote:

But roads are not only used by private motorists, the movement of goods and services that form part of everyones daily life move by road..

What difference does that make? That's simply part of everyones' use of the roads.

My assertion was that everyone contributed taxes which were used to build/maintain roads and that everyone gained the "benefit" from them.
Private motorists, rightly, then contribute more via road tax and fuel duty for their direct use of them.
Where does the private motorist get subsidised?

Ah, so your point actually reinforces mine. Everybody is paying, and only some, private motorists, are getting more benefit. Thus private motorists are being subsidised.

ruby644

BentMikey wrote:

ruby644 wrote:

BentMikey wrote:

ruby644 wrote:

But roads are not only used by private motorists, the movement of goods and services that form part of everyones daily life move by road..

What difference does that make? That's simply part of everyones' use of the roads.

My assertion was that everyone contributed taxes which were used to build/maintain roads and that everyone gained the "benefit" from them.
Private motorists, rightly, then contribute more via road tax and fuel duty for their direct use of them.
Where does the private motorist get subsidised?

Ah, so your point actually reinforces mine. Everybody is paying, and only some, private motorists, are getting more benefit. Thus private motorists are being subsidised.

But motorists pay more for their direct road use via road tax and fuel duty as well as their general tax!

Porgy

ruby644 wrote:

But motorists pay more for their direct road use via road tax and fuel duty as well as their general tax!

But the question is - do they pay enough for their extra direct use? I suspect not - and since most of us non car users do not benefit from motorways - then we're being short-changed somewhere.

And we all pay that extra if we buy goods transported by road - therefore non-car users are paying twice - as part of the cost of goods and in tax.

star_rover

ruby644 wrote:

star_rover wrote:

The 4x4/Porche drivers I have no sympathy for. Those with family cars who are affected, I have some, but would ask: why do you need to drive your family 'car' into the congestion zone anyway?

Maybe because we live just outside the zone and our 6 year old''s school is now inside the zone.
Too far to walk, can't go on his own, and has to be there at 9am which happens to be the same time his 3 year old sister has to be at nursery.

Take the bus/tube/train/cycle/walk. Buy a smaller car. There are alternatives.
This city's streets are clogged solid with cars ferrying fat kids everywhere.

ruby644

Porgy wrote:

ruby644 wrote:

But motorists pay more for their direct road use via road tax and fuel duty as well as their general tax!

But the question is - do they pay enough for their extra direct use? I suspect not - and since most of us non car users do not benefit from motorways - then we're being short-changed somewhere.

And we all pay that extra if we buy goods transported by road - therefore non-car users are paying twice - as part of the cost of goods and in tax.

In 1999 Government revenue from roads amounted to £38 billion, up by 30% over 5 years. 60% was fuel excise duty, 15% was road tax and 25% VAT on motoring and its services (source TSGB Table 1.21 and special request to HM Customs and Excise). Expenditure amounted to £4.9 billion, leaving the Treasury with a profit of £33 billion.

Kind of sad that despite a £33 billion profit the roads are in such an appalling state.
These figures are probably understated now given the increased revenue from fuel price increases.

redddraggon

ruby644 wrote:

Kind of sad that despite a £33 billion profit the roads are in such an appalling state.
These figures are probably understated now given the increased revenue from fuel price increases.

Well you do know that all the extra money goes to pay for wars and bailing out failing businesses.

Porgy

ruby644 wrote:

In 1999 Government revenue from roads amounted to £38 billion, up by 30% over 5 years. 60% was fuel excise duty, 15% was road tax and 25% VAT on motoring and its services (source TSGB Table 1.21 and special request to HM Customs and Excise). Expenditure amounted to £4.9 billion, leaving the Treasury with a profit of £33 billion.

Kind of sad that despite a £33 billion profit the roads are in such an appalling state.
These figures are probably understated now given the increased revenue from fuel price increases.

Of course expenditure on roads isn't the only cost to having a car economy. There is the wider cost to society - NHS, property prices, traffic police, public transport suffers, pedestrians and cyclists have longer and more difficult journeys, parking patrols, pollution, etc. I'm still pretty certain that we are all subsidising the motorist.

Porgy

redddraggon wrote:

ruby644 wrote:

Kind of sad that despite a £33 billion profit the roads are in such an appalling state.
These figures are probably understated now given the increased revenue from fuel price increases.

Well you do know that all the extra money goes to pay for wars and bailing out failing businesses.

Wars for oil - so we can keep those cars running.

FatBurt

ruby644 wrote:

In 1999 Government revenue from roads amounted to £38 billion, up by 30% over 5 years. 60% was fuel excise duty, 15% was road tax and 25% VAT on motoring and its services (source TSGB Table 1.21 and special request to HM Customs and Excise). Expenditure amounted to £4.9 billion, leaving the Treasury with a profit of £33 billion.

Ergo - The motorist is providing additional revenue to the government and is not being subsidised

BentMikey

ruby644 wrote:

In 1999 Government revenue from roads amounted to £38 billion, up by 30% over 5 years. 60% was fuel excise duty, 15% was road tax and 25% VAT on motoring and its services (source TSGB Table 1.21 and special request to HM Customs and Excise). Expenditure amounted to £4.9 billion, leaving the Treasury with a profit of £33 billion.

Kind of sad that despite a £33 billion profit the roads are in such an appalling state.
These figures are probably understated now given the increased revenue from fuel price increases.

There's the pro-motorist biased supposed profit made at the expense of the poor British motorist, now we just need a lefty viewpoint of the other extreme. Anyone care to provide?

DavidTQ

nwallace wrote:

Bicycles: 4 adults cycle 5 miles to work at an average speed of 8mph, time taken 38 mins (0.63hr).Exercise breathing rate: 6 cub metres/hour, so cyclists exhale 4 x 6 x 0.63 = 15.1 cub metres air.
Exhaled air contains 4% carbon dioxide (CO2), 1 cubic metre exhaled air contains 73.3g CO2. So the amount of CO2 exhaled by the four cyclists is 15.1 x 73.3 = 1108 g.

Car: Four adults travel by car, travelling 5 miles at average 22mph, time taken14 mins (0.23hour). At-rest adult breathing rate is 0.4 cub
metres/ hour. So four adults in car exhale 4 x 0.4 x 0.23 cubic metres air = 0.37 cub metres air. 0.37 cubic metres exhaled air, 4% CO2, contains 0.37 x 73.3 = 27g CO2. The car exhaust emits 215g CO2 per mile (modern, high mpg), so CO2 emitted is 5 x 215 =1075g
Total CO2 emitted by car and 4 seated adults is 1075 + 27 = 1102g.


Flaws I see:
1) Assumes constant exercise on a bike, never heard of free-wheeling?
2) If everyone did 30mins exercise that leaves you breathless a day, then the CO2 emitted by that is also adding to climate change. Therefore do we now need a exercise tax to cut down on CO2 emissions from gyms and Joggers?

Thats some true comedy in those calculations 8mph average speed for a cycle commuter??? I average 17mph and thats not "pushing" Im faster than the cars over the length of the journey.

Average speed of cars 22mph in their dreams, not many car commuters get this sort of average speed. in London 10mph ish...

http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/news ... ickens.php

I personally never find myself breathing hard on the bike like I would from running exercise I would hazard a guess that the figures used there are mazimum possible breathing figures. I personally suspect that besides the grossly manipulated average speeds many of the other figures in there are equally as badly cooked. 4 people car sharing is rare indeed, although I used to be the driver for 5 people sharing. When I did that my journey took 2-3x as long as it does now due to traffic between drop off points extra mileage picking people up etc etc.

Overall its putting the rosiest possible picture on motoring and somehow producing granny speeds with olympic breathing rates for cycling to cook the books...

Found this article:-

http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/resnotes/notes/94-11.htm

apparantly driving and riding in a car increase breathing rate over normal resting rates as well... it also seems to be suggesting that running breathing rates amount 2.7 cubic metres per hour quite some difference from the 6 cubic meters mentioned here...

Lets rework the figures using 4 adults of my own very normal level of fitness and cycling speed .

5 miles at 17mph? time taken 17 minutes (0.28 hour). Exercise breathing rates 2.7 cm3 an hour so cyclists exhale 4x2.7x0.28=3.024

using the calculations CO2 figures for humans which I havent verified and would be likely to find suspicious 3x73.3=219.9g of CO2

Now lets look at those car figures and adjust the average speed to the 10mph london average 5 miles at 10mph time taken 30 minutes 0.5 hour... 4x0.4x0.5=0.8. 0.8x73.3=58.64g

As for CO2 released doesnt depend so much upon miles driven but litres of fuel used as far as I can see :-

Getting my figures from here:-

http://www.skakagrall.com/archives/0004 ... g_faq.html

"Emissions are 2.31 kg per litre"

"Diesel is 2.68 kg per litre"

Taking traffic MPG figures from here :-

http://www.green-car-guide.com/news/off ... fe-mpg.htm

We will go with a nice small non polluting car the citroen C1 which in congested city traffic does 37.5mpg and so will be using over our 5mile test (for some reason not from cold start) =0.60 litres = 1.386 kg thats not from cold start but does go for normal car commute conditions for 4 people in a very economical car, unlikely situation at best. 1.444kg co2 for these very responsible 4 people car sharing instead of cycling...

However 4 of them each taking their seperate cars as if far more common 5778g of CO2 and lets face it most of the cars out there a likely to get closer to 40mpg combined official figures not 60mpg so lets see what happens to the figures when we put them in a vw fox which has official average figures of 41mpg traffic figures from this site give a fuel economy in congested traffic of 27mpg which would use 0.84 l of fuel giving 1940g of CO2 over the journey x 4 = 7761g of CO2,

7761g of CO2 thats a far cry from the 4 cyclists of my figures producing 219g of co2. And thats despite assuming a prewarmed engine, and a decent mpg car in perfect state. I would say these calculations probably reflect reality more closely...

Eat My Dust

DavidTQ, that's what I was about to say!

mailmannz

BentMikey wrote:

mailmannz wrote:

Can you plaese point out how exactly motorists get a free ride on the backs of the rest of society?

Because I think that private motorists are subsidised by society. Don't think for a minute that the real costs are being met by VED and fuel duty.

Yep, there you go...just because you think something doesnt make it right. After all, it wasnt that long ago when everyone thought the earth was flat!

Again, if you could post some costs that support your point of view that would be peachy!

Mailman

mailmannz

Porgy wrote:

redddraggon wrote:

ruby644 wrote:

Kind of sad that despite a £33 billion profit the roads are in such an appalling state.
These figures are probably understated now given the increased revenue from fuel price increases.

Well you do know that all the extra money goes to pay for wars and bailing out failing businesses.

Wars for oil - so we can keep those cars running.

If you hop off your high horse for a second you will see that oil is also instrumental in the production of your push bike.

Mailman

Porgy

mailmannz wrote:

Porgy wrote:

redddraggon wrote:

ruby644 wrote:

Kind of sad that despite a £33 billion profit the roads are in such an appalling state.
These figures are probably understated now given the increased revenue from fuel price increases.

Well you do know that all the extra money goes to pay for wars and bailing out failing businesses.

Wars for oil - so we can keep those cars running.

If you hop off your high horse for a second you will see that oil is also instrumental in the production of your push bike.

Mailman

oil is instrumental in the production of everything - even our food - in an oil economy. It doesn't mean that oil is NECESSARY for that production. However, I can't see cars getting very far without oil.

BTW - Is this website being overrun by the pro car lobby today?

BentMikey

mailmannz wrote:

Yep, there you go...just because you think something doesnt make it right. After all, it wasnt that long ago when everyone thought the earth was flat!

Again, if you could post some costs that support your point of view that would be peachy!

Mailman

Oh, I'm not the lefty anti-car extremist you seem to think I am, but I have seen some completely opposing viewpoints on the so-called profiteering govt hurting all over the poor motoring public. I reckon my viewpoint is probably fairly middle of the road.

graham_g

As Mikey pointed out - stop thinking in terms of pure monetary costs (i.e. tax income and expenditure). What about, for example, unlocking the potential value of land currently locked in to roads and car parks?, reduced congestion enabling the goods and services that need to use the roads to massively reduce their costs?, quality of life?, access to quality public transport?, improved air quality?, health benefits from increased walking/cycling?

Some of these can have monetary values ascribed to them:

Estimated annual cost of congestion to the economy - £20bn
Land value potential, ?? I know there are 100,000 car parking spaces within the outer ring road in Birmingham and that over 60% are publicly owned/controlled, think of the development potential there and in other cities!

On the other points as far as who pays - insurance companies do indeed pay. What do payouts hit? PROFITS! Therefore less profit = less corp tax!
Accidents cost the economy and the exchequer; I'm 28 and if I'm killed in an accident then the gov't loses 37 years of income tax/NI (at current rate that's £300k right off!), VAT paying consumption, council tax locally etc. One less experienced and fee earning member of staff at my company would reduce their turnover by £80-90k a year of which £10-20k was probably pure profit.

Are you starting to see the true costs yet? Please don't be drawn in by ranting columnists who really ought to have the intelligence and journalistic intregrity to actually present the obove elements to contrast their own personal opinions.... but don't.

Porgy

Graham G wrote:

As Mikey pointed out - stop thinking in terms of pure monetary costs (i.e. tax income and expenditure). What about, for example, unlocking the potential value of land currently locked in to roads and car parks?, reduced congestion enabling the goods and services that need to use the roads to massively reduce their costs?, quality of life?, access to quality public transport?, improved air quality?, health benefits from increased walking/cycling?

Some of these can have monetary values ascribed to them:

Estimated annual cost of congestion to the economy - £20bn
Land value potential, ?? I know there are 100,000 car parking spaces within the outer ring road in Birmingham and that over 60% are publicly owned/controlled, think of the development potential there and in other cities!

On the other points as far as who pays - insurance companies do indeed pay. What do payouts hit? PROFITS! Therefore less profit = less corp tax!
Accidents cost the economy and the exchequer; I'm 28 and if I'm killed in an accident then the gov't loses 37 years of income tax/NI (at current rate that's £300k right off!), VAT paying consumption, council tax locally etc. One less experienced and fee earning member of staff at my company would reduce their turnover by £80-90k a year of which £10-20k was probably pure profit.

Are you starting to see the true costs yet? Please don't be drawn in by ranting columnists who really ought to have the intelligence and journalistic intregrity to actually present the obove elements to contrast their own personal opinions.... but don't.

yes! This is what I tried to say earlier. Another example - roads wide enough to park cars knocks on to our property prices - which means bigger mortgages, more interest etc.

Read something called the Elephant In The Bedroom - its American but does cover all the issues. Not sure if it puts figures on it - but once you've considered this I think it's fairly obvious that we all subsidsie the motorist.

cupofteacp

Ken needs money

Where will he get it from and keep his voters?

I know lets hit the rich, they can afford ( yes they can )

I know they all drive big cars (no they don't, who drives a primus?)

Lets hit them, it sounds good and I'll get more money

Oh by the way how much does it cost to register a car as a taxis and become exempt?

£70 a year

cee

nwallace wrote:

Bicycles: 4 adults cycle 5 miles to work at an average speed of 8mph, time taken 38 mins (0.63hr).Exercise breathing rate: 6 cub metres/hour, so cyclists exhale 4 x 6 x 0.63 = 15.1 cub metres air.
Exhaled air contains 4% carbon dioxide (CO2), 1 cubic metre exhaled air contains 73.3g CO2. So the amount of CO2 exhaled by the four cyclists is 15.1 x 73.3 = 1108 g.

Car: Four adults travel by car, travelling 5 miles at average 22mph, time taken14 mins (0.23hour). At-rest adult breathing rate is 0.4 cub
metres/ hour. So four adults in car exhale 4 x 0.4 x 0.23 cubic metres air = 0.37 cub metres air. 0.37 cubic metres exhaled air, 4% CO2, contains 0.37 x 73.3 = 27g CO2. The car exhaust emits 215g CO2 per mile (modern, high mpg), so CO2 emitted is 5 x 215 =1075g
Total CO2 emitted by car and 4 seated adults is 1075 + 27 = 1102g.


Flaws I see:
1) Assumes constant exercise on a bike, never heard of free-wheeling?
2) If everyone did 30mins exercise that leaves you breathless a day, then the CO2 emitted by that is also adding to climate change. Therefore do we now need a exercise tax to cut down on CO2 emissions from gyms and Joggers?

apparently, most of the greenhouse gases are caused by our worldwide domesticated farm animals........

cows and sheep, apparently fart a lot! If it wasn't for those pesky beef cows, the envirnment would be fine and we could all drive around the place in hummers!

mailmannz

Graham G wrote:

Some of these can have monetary values ascribed to them:

Estimated annual cost of congestion to the economy - £20bn
Land value potential, ?? I know there are 100,000 car parking spaces within the outer ring road in Birmingham and that over 60% are publicly owned/controlled, think of the development potential there and in other cities!

Are you starting to see the true costs yet? Please don't be drawn in by ranting columnists who really ought to have the intelligence and journalistic intregrity to actually present the obove elements to contrast their own personal opinions.... but don't.

I dont think its that straight forward is it? How much money are those car parks generating for their owners (council/NCP et al) as opposed to how much revenue would those car parks make if they were added on to the front of your house and so on....

Mailman

Porgy

mailmannz wrote:

I dont think its that straight forward is it? How much money are those car parks generating for their owners (council/NCP et al) as opposed to how much revenue would those car parks make if they were added on to the front of your house and so on....

Mailman

How do you add car parks to the front of your house? Sounds unlikely to me. More likely the car park would stay where they are and become some sort of commerical building or maybe luxury flats.