Two tier road fund licence

Frank the tank

I don't think this will be particularly good for us cyclists should it come in.

random man

But we don't pay road tax :?

MattC59

Frank the tank wrote:

I don't think this will be particularly good for us cyclists should it come in.

But I don't cycle on the motorways.

Frank the tank

MattC59 wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

I don't think this will be particularly good for us cyclists should it come in.

But I don't cycle on the motorways.

More's the pity.

Only joking fella, I just think that a lot my take the cheap option which would (from what i understand) would debar them from M-ways and some A roads thus making the roads we as cyclists frequent busier hence more dangerous.

That is my fear. Hope I'm wrong or I've mis-understood.

pinno

So they are going to build suspended roads on top of bad roads and the posh one's drive on the top level and the poor one's drive/cycle on the bottom...
Huh ?

MattC59

Frank the tank wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

I don't think this will be particularly good for us cyclists should it come in.

But I don't cycle on the motorways.

More's the pity.

Only joking fella, I just think that a lot my take the cheap option which would (from what i understand) would debar them from M-ways and some A roads thus making the roads we as cyclists frequent busier hence more dangerous.

That is my fear. Hope I'm wrong or I've mis-understood.

That did cross my mind, but most of the roads that I ride couldn't really be used as an alternative to motorway routes anyway.

Seems a bad idea to me. Increase the 'tax' for motorway use, force a lot of drivers off the motorways, increase wear on other roads, no additional funds raised to maintain and cope with additional wear. This may be overly simplistic, but makes sense.

ilm_zero7

will force more traffic onto smaller roads - it is bonkers
pay per mile is the right way surely?

gavbarron

ILM Zero7 wrote:

will force more traffic onto smaller roads - it is bonkers
pay per mile is the right way surely?

But we already do that to some extent by the amount of tax paid on fuel. The governments idea that tax rises solves a problem falls down when they fail to reinvest it in the problem

BelgianBeerGeek

Tax rises aren't necessarily for problem-solving. More for raising money. This is a subtly clever one. Most drivers would avoid the M-way to get around. But they would inevitably buy more fuel as the alternative is longer or slower. Otherwise they would already use it, right?

daviesee

Yeah! Quieter roads for those of us that can afford it*.

The A6 is going to get very busy. :shock:

*Kidding. It'll never happen. Fuel taxes are supposed to be a charge per mile method and look where that money goes.

tiredofwhiners

Ignore it, it won't happen until fuel is genuinely unaffordable for the vast majority.

Governments continually look for a way to tax differently in the hope that some will pay more and not notice that they are doing so. If the tax proposal is 'neutral' then why bother doing it unless its a redistribution mechanism, in which case we are into entirely uncharted territory as nobody is able to effectively model the consequences.

Its more to do with trying to increase revenues because the unintended consequence of low carbon emissions regulations for cars, is that revenues are dropping as more and more people have nil-rated VED cars with very low fuel consumption levels, and the Uk economy is heavily dependent upon fuel duty for its tax base.

Its a bit like raising income taxes - even if its the right thing to do at a point in time, its a guaranteed election loser so nobody will dare to say they will do it.

ilm_zero7

so why not scrap road tax and throw all the taxation onto fuel - you want to save money? plan your journeys
and the government saves revenues by only collect on tax instead of two

tiredofwhiners

ILM Zero7 wrote:

so why not scrap road tax and throw all the taxation onto fuel - you want to save money? plan your journeys
and the government saves revenues by only collect on tax instead of two

Because VED as its correctly called, gives the government an annual check on peoples compliance with Insurance legislation. If all were put on fuel, then there would be no way to check if people were actually insured to drive. And you cannot put insurance costs into fuel duty as they vary by individual.

pinno

tiredofwhiners wrote:

ILM Zero7 wrote:

so why not scrap road tax and throw all the taxation onto fuel - you want to save money? plan your journeys
and the government saves revenues by only collect on tax instead of two

Because VED as its correctly called, gives the government an annual check on peoples compliance with Insurance legislation. If all were put on fuel, then there would be no way to check if people were actually insured to drive. And you cannot put insurance costs into fuel duty as they vary by individual.

Not sure about that. When you fail your MOT and its beyond the renewal date, your details go onto the 'System'.

If the Govt. decide on this two tier tax and everybody abused it, it would be completely un-policeable. Unfortunatley there are too many middle class do-gooders who haven't an ounce of spine which would scupper that line of protest.

garrynolan

tiredofwhiners wrote:

ILM Zero7 wrote:

so why not scrap road tax and throw all the taxation onto fuel - you want to save money? plan your journeys
and the government saves revenues by only collect on tax instead of two

Because VED as its correctly called, gives the government an annual check on peoples compliance with Insurance legislation. If all were put on fuel, then there would be no way to check if people were actually insured to drive. And you cannot put insurance costs into fuel duty as they vary by individual.

Any car here has 2 discs - tax and insurance (also NCT (MOT) after 4 years). If road tax was done away with the insurance disc would still be there. We had a huge problem with uninsured vehicles some years ago so the disc idea came in. Brilliant and simple...