Where does the money for Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) Go?
Comments
-
davmaggs wrote:But then you are countering a false claim with a questionable one.
By example. The NHS can claim back costs from motor insurance.
NHS costs for conditions relating to obesity from lack of exercise and all the conditions caused or exacerbated by air pollution can not be reclaimed from motoring insurance.This post contains traces of nuts.0 -
davmaggs wrote:Motorists pay far more in taxes than is spent on road infrastructure.
So I imagine do people buying furniture, or drinking alcohol. Nobody is suggesting they have any moral right to the roads. The very fact the motoring related taxes aren't fully spent on roads that are actually poorly maintained due to a lack of investment (as every cyclists avoiding potholes and rattling on worn chip-seal knows) is clear evidence that there is no connection between the two at all, making motoring taxes about as relevant as furniture sales or alcohol taxes in terms of the roads. Indeed as I understand it, while motor tax revenue has been going up, road infrastructure spending has actually been going down. There is no link.
Nobody has yet mentioned next years VED changes that will see a lot of cars actually paying no VED at all either. Can we expect WVM to be telling them to get off the road too?0 -
rjsterry wrote:biondino wrote:Hang on a sec - so if VED goes into the same pot as council tax, income tax etc. then motorists DO pay more for the maintenance of the roads than cyclists (who don't won cars).
People who pay more tax contribute more to the roads (and everything else) so to follow the logic of the 'you don't pay road tax' brigade, rich people with big houses are more entitled to use the roads than poor people, and those on benefits shouldn't be allowed to use the roads or any other public service at all...
Of dear, I seem to be writing this stuff for them.
Actually I like that rule - it'll keep the non-Dom tax evaders locked up in their homes - maybe long enough so they starve?0 -
You are all wrong.
It IS spent on roads.
Spanish and French roads...0 -
I pay tax on alcohol; I demand that my money is spent on better pubs.0
-
Private motoring in this country is subsidised by huge amounts. Motorists pay a fraction of the costs of the damage they cause.
The average family saloon is subsidised by all other taxpayers, including those who don't even own a car, by around £2000 a year. Heavy goods vehicles are subsidised by a much larger amount.
Motorists are freeloaders, they do not pay their way or anything like it.0 -
Please explain; where does the figure of £2000 come from?mybreakfastconsisted wrote:Private motoring in this country is subsidised by huge amounts. Motorists pay a fraction of the costs of the damage they cause.
The average family saloon is subsidised by all other taxpayers, including those who don't even own a car, by around £2000 a year. Heavy goods vehicles are subsidised by a much larger amount.
Motorists are freeloaders, they do not pay their way or anything like it.Pannier, 120rpm.0 -
What are the infrastructure requirements of bicycles?biondino wrote:Hang on a sec - so if VED goes into the same pot as council tax, income tax etc. then motorists DO pay more for the maintenance of the roads than cyclists (who don't won cars).
What are the infrastructure requirements of motor vehicles?
For example, consider a road. All that engineering under the ground is to make them able to withstand (for a few weeks, if the roads near me are anything to go by) the beating handed out by lorries and 4x4's and cars. If they were constructed for bicycles, which weigh maybe 2%-5% as much, you would get away with the same amount of engineering as a pavement. What has happened in the last 150 years is that all of the routes which used to be for things like horses, wagons and people walking, and cyclists have been paved, blocked off and rendered entirely unsuitable for anything other than motor vehiles, to the sole benefit of people using motor vehicles. Quite rightly, this should be at their expense.
How much VED do pedestrians pay, because their requirements are about the same as a cyclist's.
Besides, the Government used all the VED contributions to buy Northern Rock, didn't they?0 -
TGOTB wrote:
Please explain; where does the figure of £2000 come from?mybreakfastconsisted wrote:Private motoring in this country is subsidised by huge amounts. Motorists pay a fraction of the costs of the damage they cause.
The average family saloon is subsidised by all other taxpayers, including those who don't even own a car, by around £2000 a year. Heavy goods vehicles are subsidised by a much larger amount.
Motorists are freeloaders, they do not pay their way or anything like it.
The costs of motoring are the same as they were in the 1970s.
They went down in the 1980s - their rise is simply up to the level it was at some 25 years ago. In that time average incomes have gone up by 2 to 3 times. In terms of the average income, motoring has become very much cheaper.
In "The Real Costs of Motoring" (August 1996) published by The Environmental Transport Association, (01932 828882, 10 Church Street, Weybridge, KT13 8RS. www.eta.co.uk) the costs (in £billions) of road damage and congestion, the impact of air pollution on health, climate change (global warming), noise, and of accidents not paid for by those involved are calculated as follows:
http://www.rdrf.org/freepubs/pumpup.htm
There is a widespread perception that motorists are already unfairly taxed.
This is simply not true(1). In the year 2002-03 £26.5 billion was raised from fuel and road tax(2). Around £6bn went toward roadbuilding and maintenance that year(3). The cost of policing the roads and the expense incurred by the judicial system is estimated to be between £1bn and £3bn(4), while congestion costs businesses and other drivers £20bn in delay(5).
The costs of the effects of air pollution and accidents due to road transport were estimated at £12.3bn(6) and £16bn(7) respectively. Then add global warming, the potential effects of which dwarf our entire economic system(. Clearly all of us, motorists and non-motorists alike, are paying for motorists to sit in their cars and pollute the environment, and paying heavily(9).
1.
This point was most definitively made in an audit of transport revenues and costs in the the year 1993, called "The True Costs of Road Transport" (Maddison, Pearce, Johanson, Calthrop, Litman and Verhoef, 1996, Earthscan Books).
Maddison reviews and updates his figures for air pollution in a 1998 report composed for the ETA. Results of this work demonstrate a total subsidy to the road network of between £11.2bn and £17.2bn per year. I do not quote the figures in full in the leaflet as a significant proportion of them is based on highly theoretical economic valuations of the value of human life and health. My intention here is only to demonstrate that the roads are heavily subsidised in both monetary terms and human terms - this is incontrovertible.
2.
From Department for Transport figures "Transport Statistics for Great Britain" (DfT, 2004) Section 7.15 pg. 20.
3.
£6bn is an average per-year spend over the 10 year investment programme announced by the Government in July 2000, which earmarked £59bn for road infrastructure. The figure is corroborated by figures of £5.47bn spent on roads in England (from "Transport Statistics for Great Britain" (Dft, 2004) Section 7 pg. 1, £266 million spent on roads in Wales (from "Welsh Transport Statistics 2004" Table 12.1), plus £356 million in Scotland (from Scottish Transport Statistics No 23: 2004 Edition, Table 11.1), making a total of £6.09bn.
4.
No authoritative figures are available for this. In Transport Trends and Transport Policies - Myths and Facts (Transport 2000) the figure of £400m is quoted for police costs directly related to road traffic, based on 1996 information. This equates to £445 million in 2003 (adjusted according to the Retail Prices Index - as with all prices quoted on this page). According to Road Safety Spending in Great Britain: Who stands to gain? (PACTS, 1996), the road safety budget of the Home Office, Departments of Transport and Health in 1995 amounted to £835m. A figure of £3bn is estimated for all police and judicial costs by Norman Bradbury, Peter Hayman and Graham Nalty in "The Great Road Transport Subsidy" (I-Greens, 1996). This figure is almost certainly a high-side estimate. It only seems safe therefore to put the figure in the range of £1bn to £3bn.
5.
This is the 'standard' figure widely quoted for the public cost of traffic congestion, based on research originally carried out in the 1980s by the British Road Federation and the Confederation of British Industry. See "Utilities' street works and the cost of Traffic Congestion" (Phil Goodwin, 2005). A more complete description of what this figure means is given and discussed on the next page.
6.
Figure calculated in "Air Pollution- A Fair Payment from Road Users" (David Maddison, Environmental Transport Association, 199 as £11.1bn and adjusted to 2003 figures.
7.
Quoted in a Royal Society for the Provention of Accidents document on road safety. No year is given for this figure, so I have not adjusted it, however the rest of the document refers to 1999/2000.
8.
Many attempts have been made to calculate an economic cost of climate change, often in terms of the marginal cost incurred by the addition of a particular amount of CO2 to the atmosphere. The paper "The Environmental Benefits from road pricing" (Santos, Rojey and Newbery, 2000) quotes a range varying from £4.6 per tonne of Carbon(tC) to £68.5/tC. In fact any figure quoted will be highly disputable.
The massive uncertainties both in the predicted effects and the economic cost of the damage and suffering make me unwilling to quote any figure for this. This complexity is a significant problem for economists, as estimates of the cost form a significant part of deducing appropriate levels of Pigouvian taxation to activities, like transportation, which have climate effects.
The Royal Society made this point in their submission to the Stern Report in February 2006: "Standard economic models inadequate to cost long term climate change impacts"
When the factor you are examining has the ability to change over decades the value of the currency unit, and the value of anything else you might use to compare it with, not to mention the structure of the economy itself, arriving at a meaningful figure is a Sysphian task. Edward Goldsmith, in "The economic cost of climate change" concludes "Whatever may happen to the economy, what is absolutely certain is that we cannot live without a relatively stable climate".
9.
If you are still in any doubt, consider these less well studied costs not mentioned in the leaflet:
Water pollution, in the form of run-off into rivers and drainage of leaking oil, break fluid, exhaust and soot from vehicles, rubber particulates from tyres and salt used in winter. Estimated at between £500m and £1bn in 1993 in "Charging transport users for environmental and social costs" (David Newbery, Cambridge University, 1997). Compare with estimates of 6600 million DM (£3.13bn in 2003 prices) per year for Germany in 1992, quoted in "Transport for a sustainable future - the case for Europe" (John Whitelegg, Belhaven Press, 1993), and $29bn (£16.2bn) per year for the US in 2004, quoted in "Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis" by Todd Litman (Victoria Transport Policy Institute, 2005).
Noise pollution, in the form of lowered house prices, spoilt natural areas, ill-health and disturbed sleep. Estimates include £3.9bn from "The True Costs of Road Transport" (Maddison, Pearce, Johanson, Calthrop, Litman and Verhoef, 1996, Earthscan Books), and £3.1bn (both at 2003 prices) from "The Real Costs of Motoring" (Chris Bowers, Environmental Transport Association, 1996).
Safety, in the form of fencing, footbridges and other structures used to separate pedestrians from traffic. This includes costs paid by local councils and private landowners.
Vibration damage, to buildings and utilities such as gas and water mains. The costs are born by users of the utilties and owners of the properties and probably also easily run into billions of pounds. An estimates for vibration damage in New York City alone came to $869 million in a year - see "The hidden costs of car and truck use in New York estimated for the year 2000" (Konheim & Ketcham, 1996).
Cost to health due to lack of exercise. In the current obesity epidemic it is worth noting that motorised road transport demands less activity than almost any other form of transport.
Insurance.
Car insurance is a competitive business. Figures released by the Association of British Insurers show that the payouts to road users were not covered by the premiums.
The average shortfall for the five years from 1988 to 1992 was £626 million per year. In other words, insurance companies are charging more on other kinds of insurance to subsidise motorists.
The myth of the over-taxed motorist is encouraged by the media and swallowed by the gullible.0 -
mybreakfastconsisted wrote:The myth of the over-taxed motorist is encouraged by the media and swallowed by the gullible.
What a wonderfully balanced post, that conveniently ignores all the postive benefits that motorised transport brings which is always forgotten in these sorts of "studies". It is also impossible to put an actual "value" on many of the costs (and benefits) that arise, so the figures are meaningless.0 -
Porgy wrote:rjsterry wrote:biondino wrote:Hang on a sec - so if VED goes into the same pot as council tax, income tax etc. then motorists DO pay more for the maintenance of the roads than cyclists (who don't won cars).
People who pay more tax contribute more to the roads (and everything else) so to follow the logic of the 'you don't pay road tax' brigade, rich people with big houses are more entitled to use the roads than poor people, and those on benefits shouldn't be allowed to use the roads or any other public service at all...
Of dear, I seem to be writing this stuff for them.
Actually I like that rule - it'll keep the non-Dom tax evaders locked up in their homes - maybe long enough so they starve?
Me too.
The non-dom tax efficient will have drivers to drive for them, but it will keep the peasants out of the way.0 -
John Stevenson wrote:'You don't pay road tax' types love to just add up VED and fuel taxes and whine that GovCentral spends less than that on roads, conveniently forgetting the huge externalities of driving.
Anyone have figures for the actual and monetary-equivalent cost to the taxpayer of 3000 road deaths per year, plus cost of emergency services attending crashes etc etc etc?
If you want the benefits of having road transport, then the costs also have to be accepted. Otherwise the option to move to a remote island without cars is always available.0 -
The costs to the NHS of treating ailments due to insufficient exercise due to excessive car use is one important omission.
Hlaf of all urban car journeys in the UK are less than two miles.
Farcical.
In the financial year 2006-07, £28.43bn was raised from taxes on fuel and Vehicle Excise Duty (VED). In the same year around £8.78bn went toward road building and maintenance, but that is not the whole story. The cost of policing the roads and the expense incurred by the judicial system has been estimated to be £3bn. Also, the cost to the NHS of injuries due to road accidents crashes, according to figures from collated by RoSPA, was £9.93bn. So the total cost to government was £32.81bn, meaning there was a short fall of £4.38bn, which had to be covered from other non-motoring related taxation.
In addition there is the cost to businesses and other drivers due to delays caused by congestion, estimated by those rampant greens, the Confederation of British Industry , to be about £19.1bn.
He also adds in the annual costs of noise pollution (£3.1bn); air pollution (£19.7bn – not including CO2); water pollution (between £1bn and £16bn); and obesity (£2bn).
But there are other, hidden subsidies, too. Donald Shoup, Professor of Urban Planning at UCLA in the US, estimates that providing free off-street car parking in the US cost a whopping $386bn in 2002 (in the same year, the US government spent $349bn on defence). As UK town planners operate to similar rules to their US counterparts – in that any major development has to have a set number of parking places, most of them unfilled but there ‘just in case’ – UK drivers get similar parking subsidies. No doubt it’s in the magnitude of many billions of pounds.
All of Harding’s figures can now be revised upwards. In short, motorists are not cash cows, they’re cash sinks. Of course, the externality equation doesn’t factor in the many societal and financial benefits of motoring (I have a car, it’s dead useful for many journeys) but costs are costs and if motorists had to pay the full costs of motoring, they’d be paying an awful lot more than they do now.
http://ipayroadtax.com/?p=4330 -
not withstanding the fact that a lot of us cycle commuters do actually pay VED on a car that sits at home....
I have driven my car literally 2 times in the last 3 weeks....once from edinburgh to galashiels....once back..so one journey....
Does that mean I pay more net tax per mile of use than all those who drive to work every day?
Where do I claim my refund?Whenever I see an adult on a bicycle, I believe in the future of the human race.
H.G. Wells.0 -
mybreakfastconsisted wrote:Of course, the externality equation doesn’t factor in the many societal and financial benefits of motoring (I have a car, it’s dead useful for many journeys) but costs are costs and if motorists had to pay the full costs of motoring, they’d be paying an awful lot more than they do now.
But you've just completely contradicted yourself. How can you say "costs are costs" when you admit that takes no account of the benefits?!0 -
cee wrote:not withstanding the fact that a lot of us cycle commuters do actually pay VED on a car that sits at home....
I have driven my car literally 2 times in the last 3 weeks....once from edinburgh to galashiels....once back..so one journey....
Does that mean I pay more net tax per mile of use than all those who drive to work every day?
Where do I claim my refund?
I cycle more than I drive and I think VED should just be added to fuel, so the more you drive the more you pay (which seems fairer to me). Having the "tax disc" does mean that each car must have had an MoT and Insurance in order to get the disc, so I support having a system of checks in place - maybe an insurance disc which you can only get if you have a valid MoT?0 -
cee wrote:...I have driven my car literally 2 times in the last 3 weeks....once from edinburgh to galashiels....once back..so one journey.......
http://www.citycarclub.co.uk/locations/ ... h-car-hire
I'm seriously considering joining, though I don't even live in Edinburgh!!
..or, if you prefer a more individual ride (albeit less convenient):
http://www.cccedinburgh.co.uk/
Cheers,
W.0 -
W1 wrote:mybreakfastconsisted wrote:Of course, the externality equation doesn’t factor in the many societal and financial benefits of motoring (I have a car, it’s dead useful for many journeys) but costs are costs and if motorists had to pay the full costs of motoring, they’d be paying an awful lot more than they do now.
But you've just completely contradicted yourself. How can you say "costs are costs" when you admit that takes no account of the benefits?!
Because the benefits of being able to get in a car, drive a mile, buy a pint of milk and some fags and then drive home are illusory, there is always a cost, often borne by others who may not even own a car.
For the rest of that day the car is stuck outside the house, going nowhere, doing nothing, but taking up road space (or pavement space if the drivers are too lazy too find a space to park legally).
The CBI aren't tree-hugging hippies who knit muesli yet their figures show that congestion alone costs society more than the entire tax revenue from all associated motoring taxes.
The road lobby is incredibly powerful and they love nothing better than propogating the "War Against Motorists" myth. It's far from the truth.0 -
mybreakfastconsisted wrote:W1 wrote:mybreakfastconsisted wrote:Of course, the externality equation doesn’t factor in the many societal and financial benefits of motoring (I have a car, it’s dead useful for many journeys) but costs are costs and if motorists had to pay the full costs of motoring, they’d be paying an awful lot more than they do now.
But you've just completely contradicted yourself. How can you say "costs are costs" when you admit that takes no account of the benefits?!
Because the benefits of being able to get in a car, drive a mile, buy a pint of milk and some fags and then drive home are illusory, there is always a cost, often borne by others who may not even own a car.
For the rest of that day the car is stuck outside the house, going nowhere, doing nothing, but taking up road space (or pavement space if the drivers are too lazy too find a space to park legally).
The CBI aren't tree-hugging hippies who knit muesli yet their figures show that congestion alone costs society more than the entire tax revenue from all associated motoring taxes.
The road lobby is incredibly powerful and they love nothing better than propogating the "War Against Motorists" myth. It's far from the truth.
Again, who are the "road lobby"? I think the EnvironMental lobby is far more powerful (and, evidently, prepared to fiddle it's figured to get the answers it/it's paymasters want).
You can't just ignore a benefit because you can't put a price on it. I would suggest that the monetary "cost" to the environment is completely illusionary but that doesn't stop these types of externalities having a figure applied to them. Again, the "cost to business" is a difficult figure to accurately assess - and how much do you think businesses would lose if there were no cars/lorries/transport!
There are equally benefits to motor transport which even people who don't own a car are able to enjoy. Like not having to marry their sister, or have to milk a cow for their breakfast cereal. Or having breakfast cereal in the first place!0 -
rjsterry wrote:... so to follow the logic of the 'you don't pay road tax' brigade, rich people with big houses are more entitled to use the roads than poor people, and those on benefits shouldn't be allowed to use the roads ... at all...
Best explanation of Congestion Charge/Road Pricing yet.0 -
mybreakfastconsisted wrote:W1 wrote:mybreakfastconsisted wrote:Of course, the externality equation doesn’t factor in the many societal and financial benefits of motoring (I have a car, it’s dead useful for many journeys) but costs are costs and if motorists had to pay the full costs of motoring, they’d be paying an awful lot more than they do now.
But you've just completely contradicted yourself. How can you say "costs are costs" when you admit that takes no account of the benefits?!
Because the benefits of being able to get in a car, drive a mile, buy a pint of milk and some fags and then drive home are illusory, there is always a cost, often borne by others who may not even own a car.
For the rest of that day the car is stuck outside the house, going nowhere, doing nothing, but taking up road space (or pavement space if the drivers are too lazy too find a space to park legally).
The CBI aren't tree-hugging hippies who knit muesli yet their figures show that congestion alone costs society more than the entire tax revenue from all associated motoring taxes.
The road lobby is incredibly powerful and they love nothing better than propogating the "War Against Motorists" myth. It's far from the truth.
This is very interesting. I have often heard that motorists are effectively heavily subsidised and the motor industry even further subsidised with the motor scrappage scheme. It's bizarre that with climate change a very real concern all over the world, governments are effectively pumping money into motoring, on the one hand we're being asked not to use our cars and on the other hand the motoring lobby is being handed piles of taxpayers cash.
All this and yet the last Labour government and prior to that the Conservatives insisted that rail travel should be forced to pay its own way and that subsidies shuold be minimal if at all. It makes no sense at all...Do not write below this line. Office use only.0 -
I'm not sure I agree with your conclusions, but thank you for posting some real information, accompanied by references; that's more than most on this forum (myself included) seem to be able to manage.mybreakfastconsisted wrote:Hlaf of all urban car journeys in the UK are less than two miles.
The assertion quoted above, unfortunately, is pretty meaningless. It's a bit like saying that half of all short journeys in the UK are less than two miles.Pannier, 120rpm.0 -
W1 wrote:mybreakfastconsisted wrote:W1 wrote:mybreakfastconsisted wrote:Of course, the externality equation doesn’t factor in the many societal and financial benefits of motoring (I have a car, it’s dead useful for many journeys) but costs are costs and if motorists had to pay the full costs of motoring, they’d be paying an awful lot more than they do now.
But you've just completely contradicted yourself. How can you say "costs are costs" when you admit that takes no account of the benefits?!
Because the benefits of being able to get in a car, drive a mile, buy a pint of milk and some fags and then drive home are illusory, there is always a cost, often borne by others who may not even own a car.
For the rest of that day the car is stuck outside the house, going nowhere, doing nothing, but taking up road space (or pavement space if the drivers are too lazy too find a space to park legally).
The CBI aren't tree-hugging hippies who knit muesli yet their figures show that congestion alone costs society more than the entire tax revenue from all associated motoring taxes.
The road lobby is incredibly powerful and they love nothing better than propogating the "War Against Motorists" myth. It's far from the truth.
Again, who are the "road lobby"?!
See them in action:
http://www.bikebiz.com/news/22059/Motor ... guerrillas
Back in June, this site said: [The EU Fifth Motoring Directive] “is an important development and one that is likely to be fought by the motoring lobby.”
And this has come true as you will see when you read the venomous statements from government ‘spokesmen’ and members of the motoring lobby as quoted in The Observer and today’s Guardian, and other newspapers.
The main gripe seems to be that motor insurance premiums could rise by £50 a year. So, the saving of many lives counts for nothing because those saved are “bicycle guerrillas” not worth a wee hike in insurance premiums. As it is, the EU said in its Directive that there is no evidence that premiums would rise.
A newspaper reviewer on BBC Breakfast Time on Sunday said this is a story that’s going to kick up a lot of dust over the next few months…
It's certainly enraged newspaper columnists.
As you would expect, motormouth Jeremy Clarkson had a pot-shot at cyclists in his column in today's Sun.
"Bicycle guerrillas? We’ve already got them. We don’t need this new loony idea to encourage them even more to shoot red lights and ignore the Highway Code.
"They have already taken over a third of the roads with their green tarmac cycle lanes.
"Now the Lycra Nazis want to take over the whole lot! And they still don’t pay a penny for going on the roads which the poor old motorists pay through the nose for.
"Traffic congestion is the fault of the Government — the very people who now want to penalise motorists more for being stuck in traffic.
"When will people understand that roads are for cars and that there is no danger at all from speeding motorists if walkers and cyclists steer clear?"
Amazingly, Tony Parsons in today's Daily Mirror, went even further:
"If we cared anything at all about road safety, then we would tear up all the bicycle lanes today. We would order traffic wardens to nick any cyclists who jumps a red lights - all of them in other words.
"And if we truly cared about safety on our roads, then we would make a bonfire of all those stupid hats, all that hideous Lycra and every bicycle in the land."
The Daily Telegraph had the most rounded coverage, with views aired on all sides.
Many newspapers quoted CTC director Kevin Mayne but he was only given a sentence or two. Here's a much longer statement:
"We have long sought parity with our European colleagues and we support the Commission proposals.
"But they will only be effective if they are part of an overall package of measures that change drivers' behaviour. This measure is not controversial across much of Europe because it fits into a culture that enforces speed controls, provides for pedestrians and cyclists and expects roads to be shared public space where the more dangerous vehicle
has a duty of care to the vulnerable.
"The UK has the highest level of child pedestrian deaths in Europe and accident prevention is our ultimate goal. The reaction of motoring and insurance organisations is entirely predictable and uses the fear of increased motoring costs to attract headlines.
"In reality, if a package of measures including traffic constraint, speed control, the introduction of mobile phone bans and better training for all road users was introduced, the number of accidents would fall,the number of road deaths would be reduced and the cost of motor insurance would drop.
"Most cyclists are not hooligans in Lycra: in fact 85 per cent of CTC
members also drive and fully understand the issues from both sides. We
know that cycling as a transport choice is healthier reduces pollution
and in many cases is quicker than driving.
"We accept that a small minority of cyclists' behaviour gives all
cyclists a bad name and we are calling on the government to fund
effective cycle training for all children and young adults. Good
training makes cyclists safer, reduces bad behaviour and ultimately
leads to better educated motorists."
A measure that works on the continent, saves lives and makes the roads safer was howled down by vested interests and a pliant media.
To deny a powerful road lobby exists is dishonest, it's big business, politicians can look forward to a pampered retirement by having their ear bent by the road lobby, haulage firms, motoring lobby groups.
Ever heard of the oil lobby using dishonest and illegal methods of protecting their trade?
I don't own a tin foil hat, but it's naive to believe that powerful vested interests aren't prepared to oppose any and every measure designed to curb the reliance on the motor car or the reckless behaviour of drivers.0 -
The "motoring lobby" would also include anyone with a vested financial interest in motoring such as car, lorry, bus etc manufacturers, repair firms, oil companies, road maintanence companies etc etc. It's not just loud mouth newspaper columnists and Jeremy Clarkson...Do not write below this line. Office use only.0
-
mybreakfastconsisted wrote:W1 wrote:mybreakfastconsisted wrote:W1 wrote:mybreakfastconsisted wrote:Of course, the externality equation doesn’t factor in the many societal and financial benefits of motoring (I have a car, it’s dead useful for many journeys) but costs are costs and if motorists had to pay the full costs of motoring, they’d be paying an awful lot more than they do now.
But you've just completely contradicted yourself. How can you say "costs are costs" when you admit that takes no account of the benefits?!
Because the benefits of being able to get in a car, drive a mile, buy a pint of milk and some fags and then drive home are illusory, there is always a cost, often borne by others who may not even own a car.
For the rest of that day the car is stuck outside the house, going nowhere, doing nothing, but taking up road space (or pavement space if the drivers are too lazy too find a space to park legally).
The CBI aren't tree-hugging hippies who knit muesli yet their figures show that congestion alone costs society more than the entire tax revenue from all associated motoring taxes.
The road lobby is incredibly powerful and they love nothing better than propogating the "War Against Motorists" myth. It's far from the truth.
Again, who are the "road lobby"?!
See them in action:
http://www.bikebiz.com/news/22059/Motor ... guerrillas
To deny a powerful road lobby exists is dishonest, it's big business, politicians can look forward to a pampered retirement by having their ear bent by the road lobby, haulage firms, motoring lobby groups.
Ever heard of the oil lobby using dishonest and illegal methods of protecting their trade?
I don't own a tin foil hat, but it's naive to believe that powerful vested interests aren't prepared to oppose any and every measure designed to curb the reliance on the motor car or the reckless behaviour of drivers.
Hang on, you've just copied and pasted from a pro-bike website! Again, hardly balanced.
I've not looked in depth at this proposal, but on it's face it's absurd for the position to be taken with regards to blame for an accident to be assumed simply by whom the participants in the accident are - that simply reverses the burden of proof, a very dangerous precedent. It is true that many many cyclists run red lights, ignore traffic signs and aggravate pedestrians and other road users.
As to the "motoring lobby" - if you mean Clarkson et al then it's no surprise it's not very powerful. What has the "motoring lobby" achieved? Decreased fuel prices? No. Increased real investment in road infrastrucute? No. Decreased taxation for motorists? No. The motorist is an easy target becaue people rely on their cars - motoring has a highly inelastic demand curve.
As to the oil lobby - oil is used in a global and widespread form, not just to power your car to get your milk and fags. But don't forget it also gets your milk and fags to the shop in the first place.
There is an equally and more vocal environmental lobby who also have large scale resources and the ear of politicians. It's equally dishonest and naiive to presume they do not exist.0 -
I did actually look at the city car club....it just doesn't make financial sense with my usage pattern... for instance...the journey i described was edinburgh to galshiels on a friday, then back on the sunday...so that would have been the £50 to join, plus two days at £40, plus 52 miles at 19p, plus £10 in fuel...WGWarburton wrote:cee wrote:...I have driven my car literally 2 times in the last 3 weeks....once from edinburgh to galashiels....once back..so one journey.......
http://www.citycarclub.co.uk/locations/ ... h-car-hire
I'm seriously considering joining, though I don't even live in Edinburgh!!
..or, if you prefer a more individual ride (albeit less convenient):
http://www.cccedinburgh.co.uk/
Cheers,
W.
so that one journey would have cost £100 not even including the joining fee....
my journeys all head out of town....and generally last a long time....and generally involve muddy mountain bikes!
my car cost me £500 four years ago...spent about £150 each year on it...plus £160 in VED and £200 in insurance....then fuel...
as far as i am concerned...motoring is cheap!Whenever I see an adult on a bicycle, I believe in the future of the human race.
H.G. Wells.0 -
W1 wrote:mybreakfastconsisted wrote:W1 wrote:mybreakfastconsisted wrote:W1 wrote:mybreakfastconsisted wrote:Of course, the externality equation doesn’t factor in the many societal and financial benefits of motoring (I have a car, it’s dead useful for many journeys) but costs are costs and if motorists had to pay the full costs of motoring, they’d be paying an awful lot more than they do now.
But you've just completely contradicted yourself. How can you say "costs are costs" when you admit that takes no account of the benefits?!
Because the benefits of being able to get in a car, drive a mile, buy a pint of milk and some fags and then drive home are illusory, there is always a cost, often borne by others who may not even own a car.
For the rest of that day the car is stuck outside the house, going nowhere, doing nothing, but taking up road space (or pavement space if the drivers are too lazy too find a space to park legally).
The CBI aren't tree-hugging hippies who knit muesli yet their figures show that congestion alone costs society more than the entire tax revenue from all associated motoring taxes.
The road lobby is incredibly powerful and they love nothing better than propogating the "War Against Motorists" myth. It's far from the truth.
Again, who are the "road lobby"?!
See them in action:
http://www.bikebiz.com/news/22059/Motor ... guerrillas
To deny a powerful road lobby exists is dishonest, it's big business, politicians can look forward to a pampered retirement by having their ear bent by the road lobby, haulage firms, motoring lobby groups.
Ever heard of the oil lobby using dishonest and illegal methods of protecting their trade?
I don't own a tin foil hat, but it's naive to believe that powerful vested interests aren't prepared to oppose any and every measure designed to curb the reliance on the motor car or the reckless behaviour of drivers.
Hang on, you've just copied and pasted from a pro-bike website! Again, hardly balanced.
I've not looked in depth at this proposal, but on it's face it's absurd for the position to be taken with regards to blame for an accident to be assumed simply by whom the participants in the accident are - that simply reverses the burden of proof, a very dangerous precedent. It is true that many many cyclists run red lights, ignore traffic signs and aggravate pedestrians and other road users.
As to the "motoring lobby" - if you mean Clarkson et al then it's no surprise it's not very powerful. What has the "motoring lobby" achieved? Decreased fuel prices? No. Increased real investment in road infrastrucute? No. Decreased taxation for motorists? No. The motorist is an easy target becaue people rely on their cars - motoring has a highly inelastic demand curve.
As to the oil lobby - oil is used in a global and widespread form, not just to power your car to get your milk and fags. But don't forget it also gets your milk and fags to the shop in the first place.
There is an equally and more vocal environmental lobby who also have large scale resources and the ear of politicians. It's equally dishonest and naiive to presume they do not exist.
What about car manufacturers? They successfully got the government to pour billions into motoring through the car scrappage scheme. And then there are all the associated industries, repair, road maintanence and construction etc. If the figures cited by W1 are correct than the motoring lobby has very, very successfully managed to negotiated itself into a heavily subsidised position with "road tax" not even coming close to covering the costs of motoring.
Yes there are benefits to motoring and motor transport but only with the world economy as it is currently set up with motoring, motorways and the extensive road network facilitating road haulage on a massive scale with massive logistics centres near motorways etc and the construction of massive out of town shopping centres and supermarkets with acres of parking. If these can be considered benefits. The reason our national economy functions as it does is largely down to cheap fuel and motoring.
If all subsidisation of motoring was removed and motorists were left to free market economics (as rail travel is almost forced to) then the economy would change and most likely become more locally based with food and goods supplied from local producers. Or we would see a return to transport of goods and people to rail and public transport which the government would be forced to adderss properly, rather than pretending to do so as it does now.
This would also massively reduce emmissions, pollution and environmental damage...Do not write below this line. Office use only.0 -
The real cost of motoring fell by 5% last year:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2009/no ... rac-survey
In fact, in the UK Despite rising oil prices, car travel has steadily become cheaper over the past five decades. According to the Department for Transport, the real cost of running a car has dropped by 9% between 1980 and 2007.
^ Barnett, Antony (2007-03-21). "How to make the countryside sustainable". The Guardian (London: Guardian Media Group). http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/mar/21/5.
Fuel prices could increase quite dramatically without a very significant reduction in car ownership, and with only a minor reduction in motor traffic – although I would argue the latter in particular is desirable.
Meanwhile, the main political parties have refused to consider increasing the cost of fuel.
So, how does that compare with public transport?
Official figures, seen by The Independent, show that the cost of motoring has fallen by 13 per cent in real terms since 1997, while bus and coach fares have increased by 17 per cent above inflation.
Rail fares have risen by 7 per cent extra above inflation.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 81052.html
Motoring is cheaper now than it was in the seventies. There aren't many things you can say that about.
The reason many people are unaware of this is because of a pliant media, happy to release bodus stats fed to them by the road lobby.
Even these stats are 16 years old:
EVERY car on Britain's roads receives a pounds 1,000 annual 'subsidy' from the Government because of the indirect costs of roads and motoring, including pollution, noise, accidents and congestion, according to an analysis published today.
Contrary to claims by transport ministers and motoring organisations that car drivers pay more in fuel and vehicle taxes than they receive back in spending on roads, the 'true' cost of motoring is more than double the tax revenues - pounds 32.5bn as against pounds 13.8bn - according to Transport 2000, the environmental pressure group.
The image of the hard-done-by motorist - perpetuated by, among others, Michael Portillo, the new Secretary of State for Employment and leading right- winger - is one of several 'myths' that Transport 2000 claims to debunk.
Other myths 'commonly peddled' by the Department of Transport, says the group, are that British roads are among the safest in Europe, that building roads relieves congestion, that people will not use public transport because the car is too convenient, that car-free areas are bad for business and that bus deregulation has been a success. The 'debunking' is based largely on official statistics.
Lynn Sloman, assistant director of the group, said government thinking on transport was 'a catalogue of myths, misconceptions and mistakes. The biggest myth of all is that the Government has a balanced transport policy - yet the Department of Transport spends pounds 3 on the roads for every pounds 1 it spends on the railways, and no more than pennies on walking and cycling.'
In 1990 Mr Portillo, then minister responsible for public transport, told the Commons that road users paid about three times as much in direct taxes as was spent on roads. However, Transport 2000 says this ignores the real external costs and says that fuel taxes, currently netting around pounds 11bn for the Treasury, should be at 'least doubled' to reflect these costs.
The costs include, for instance, pounds 15bn in congestion - a CBI estimate - nearly pounds 5bn on deaths and injuries, pounds 400m in policing and pounds 1.5bn lost to the revenue in subsidies to people with company cars. Transport 2000 claims the Treasury's effective subsidy to road users is pounds 20bn a year, about pounds 1,000 per car.
However, a spokesman for the British Road Federation said that quantifying the external environmental cost of cars was a 'dubious' exercise, as there were not hard and fast figures. 'If you count the external cost of cars you have also to take account of the external benefits that accrue, like people being able to use their cars for leisure. The two may well cancel each other out.'
On other myths cited, Transport 2000 says that even current high levels of spending on road building will add only 2-5 per cent to total road space, against a forecast doubling of traffic in the next 30 years. Investment in public transport such as light rail have quickly brought big increases in passengers.
Pedestrianised areas have increased retail turnover by an average of 25 per cent, despite business worries beforehand. Bus deregulation has led to less investment, a 25 per cent fall in passenger mileage and to companies doing 'more mileage in pursuit of fewer passengers'.
And for all the supposed safety of British roads, the group points out that the country's child casualty rate is one of the worst in Europe, while cycling in Britain is seven times more dangerous than in Holland and ten times more dangerous than in Sweden.
Myths and Facts: Transport Trends and Transport Policies; Transport 2000, 10 Melton Street, London NW1 2EJ.0 -
Headhuunter wrote:W1 wrote:mybreakfastconsisted wrote:W1 wrote:mybreakfastconsisted wrote:W1 wrote:mybreakfastconsisted wrote:Of course, the externality equation doesn’t factor in the many societal and financial benefits of motoring (I have a car, it’s dead useful for many journeys) but costs are costs and if motorists had to pay the full costs of motoring, they’d be paying an awful lot more than they do now.
But you've just completely contradicted yourself. How can you say "costs are costs" when you admit that takes no account of the benefits?!
Because the benefits of being able to get in a car, drive a mile, buy a pint of milk and some fags and then drive home are illusory, there is always a cost, often borne by others who may not even own a car.
For the rest of that day the car is stuck outside the house, going nowhere, doing nothing, but taking up road space (or pavement space if the drivers are too lazy too find a space to park legally).
The CBI aren't tree-hugging hippies who knit muesli yet their figures show that congestion alone costs society more than the entire tax revenue from all associated motoring taxes.
The road lobby is incredibly powerful and they love nothing better than propogating the "War Against Motorists" myth. It's far from the truth.
Again, who are the "road lobby"?!
See them in action:
http://www.bikebiz.com/news/22059/Motor ... guerrillas
To deny a powerful road lobby exists is dishonest, it's big business, politicians can look forward to a pampered retirement by having their ear bent by the road lobby, haulage firms, motoring lobby groups.
Ever heard of the oil lobby using dishonest and illegal methods of protecting their trade?
I don't own a tin foil hat, but it's naive to believe that powerful vested interests aren't prepared to oppose any and every measure designed to curb the reliance on the motor car or the reckless behaviour of drivers.
Hang on, you've just copied and pasted from a pro-bike website! Again, hardly balanced.
I've not looked in depth at this proposal, but on it's face it's absurd for the position to be taken with regards to blame for an accident to be assumed simply by whom the participants in the accident are - that simply reverses the burden of proof, a very dangerous precedent. It is true that many many cyclists run red lights, ignore traffic signs and aggravate pedestrians and other road users.
As to the "motoring lobby" - if you mean Clarkson et al then it's no surprise it's not very powerful. What has the "motoring lobby" achieved? Decreased fuel prices? No. Increased real investment in road infrastrucute? No. Decreased taxation for motorists? No. The motorist is an easy target becaue people rely on their cars - motoring has a highly inelastic demand curve.
As to the oil lobby - oil is used in a global and widespread form, not just to power your car to get your milk and fags. But don't forget it also gets your milk and fags to the shop in the first place.
There is an equally and more vocal environmental lobby who also have large scale resources and the ear of politicians. It's equally dishonest and naiive to presume they do not exist.
What about car manufacturers? They successfully got the government to pour billions into motoring through the car scrappage scheme. And then there are all the associated industries, repair, road maintanence and construction etc. If the figures cited by W1 are correct than the motoring lobby has very, very successfully managed to negotiated itself into a heavily subsidised position with "road tax" not even coming close to covering the costs of motoring.
Yes there are benefits to motoring and motor transport but only with the world economy as it is currently set up with motoring, motorways and the extensive road network facilitating road haulage on a massive scale with massive logistics centres near motorways etc and the construction of massive out of town shopping centres and supermarkets with acres of parking. If these can be considered benefits. The reason our national economy functions as it does is largely down to cheap fuel and motoring.
If all subsidisation of motoring was removed and motorists were left to free market economics (as rail travel is almost forced to) then the economy would change and most likely become more locally based with food and goods supplied from local producers. Or we would see a return to transport of goods and people to rail and public transport which the government would be forced to adderss properly, rather than pretending to do so as it does now.
This would also massively reduce emmissions, pollution and environmental damage...
All fair points HH, but I would differentiate between industry lobbies and motorist lobbies. We are afterall talking about VED in this thread. Suffice to say, for the reasons I mention, the motoring lobby (as such) has done a pretty shoddy job for the motorist.
Put simply, the government bailed out the UK motor industry via the scrappage scheme (which, as an aide is a terrible idea in my opinion) not because the government are pro-motorist but because it's cheaper to bail out large scale industry than pay people to be on the dole - that's why the US did it.
Whether you like it or not, we do now live in a car-centric society. That will not change, although the form of power used in cars will.
And we can't determine the "cost" of motoring, because as outlined above the "benefits" of motoring are unquantifiable. So it's a rather circular argument.
We could always try and go back to the dark ages, but I'm not so sure that would be "better" than the status quo.0 -
Ha, Transport 2000. Even their name is ten years out of date.
Once again, no "balance" of benefits.0
