Fuel cuts Vs active travel funding
joeyhalloran
Posts: 1,080
https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/cuts-to-fuel-duty-equivalent-to-three-times-current-active-travel-spending-shows-cycling-uk-report
I read this article today which compared the £2.4 billion given away by the government in the form of 5p per litre cuts to fuel duty to the £738 million active travel fund. What makes it worse is an estimated half of that duty cut will go straight to fuel companies rather than the public. This cut was due to the cost of living crisis yet only 7% of the savings from cutting fuel duty would go to the poorest fifth of households, given that more than half do not have a car. By contrast, 33% of the savings from the fuel duty cut will go to the richest fifth of households.
So in a climate, health, and cost of living crisis, can someone explain this to me in a way that isn't that the government are stupid, don't care or somehow getting a pay off from 'big fuel'?
I read this article today which compared the £2.4 billion given away by the government in the form of 5p per litre cuts to fuel duty to the £738 million active travel fund. What makes it worse is an estimated half of that duty cut will go straight to fuel companies rather than the public. This cut was due to the cost of living crisis yet only 7% of the savings from cutting fuel duty would go to the poorest fifth of households, given that more than half do not have a car. By contrast, 33% of the savings from the fuel duty cut will go to the richest fifth of households.
So in a climate, health, and cost of living crisis, can someone explain this to me in a way that isn't that the government are stupid, don't care or somehow getting a pay off from 'big fuel'?
0
Comments
-
-
Not just Tory voters, one of the core parts of the business I work for is putting together travel plans and pretty much everyone who completes the surveys thinks public transport / active travel are great things but in their particular case it isn't practical because [insert one of hundreds of excuses].rick_chasey said:Tory voters love cars
Occam's razor. 2 -
FTFY.rick_chasey said:Normal people love cars
Occam's razor. "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Most people just use them out of necessity. They don't love them any more than they love lawnmowers.Stevo_666 said:
FTFY.rick_chasey said:Normal people love cars
Occam's razor. 1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Rural voters love cars much in the same way city dwellers don't like to walk miles to essential services if we removed all their public transport options. Remember there are large areas of the country that have no public transport in any form that would allow you to have a job or access essential services such as health and education. Yet you wonder why we love cars.rick_chasey said:Tory voters love cars
Occam's razor. 0 -
Many many new housing estates are build with no shops, schools facilities etc and are NOT on public transport networks making the use of cars essential. Some don't even have the electrical network infrastructure to support mass charging of EV's should all the inhabitants change to greener forms of transport. It's nuts really.
Sometimes. Maybe. Possibly.
1 -
Yup. Rural life eh?john80 said:
Rural voters love cars much in the same way city dwellers don't like to walk miles to essential services if we removed all their public transport options. Remember there are large areas of the country that have no public transport in any form that would allow you to have a job or access essential services such as health and education. Yet you wonder why we love cars.rick_chasey said:Tory voters love cars
Occam's razor. 0 -
This is a problem partly created by Nimbies, larger developments tend to come with infrastructure to support them but the larger a development the more opposition it gets and the spinless politicians just want votes so you end up with loads of uncoordinated smaller developments without the improvements to infrastructure - maybe so S106 contributions to eventually add a classroom to a school or towards some vague fluffy idea of a new tram system.photonic69 said:Many many new housing estates are build with no shops, schools facilities etc and are NOT on public transport networks making the use of cars essential. Some don't even have the electrical network infrastructure to support mass charging of EV's should all the inhabitants change to greener forms of transport. It's nuts really.
0 -
I think that if you take most peoples cars away for a while, they will realise how much they love them.rjsterry said:
Most people just use them out of necessity. They don't love them any more than they love lawnmowers.Stevo_666 said:
FTFY.rick_chasey said:Normal people love cars
Occam's razor. "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I believe there are studies that show motorbikes have a similar impact on congestion as cyclists, i.e. you don't need that many to switch from motorbikes to cars before you exponentially add to journey times.
I only wish (some) motorbike riders wouldn't fit those bloody loud exhaust systems!0 -
As most car journeys are undertaken by single occupancy cars and are under 5 miles in the UK, what we need are a version of a covered mobility scooter that can go up to 20mph. Just think you could get four of those in the space taken by one small car or 6 in the space of a SUV.
Sometimes. Maybe. Possibly.
0 -
Why can't people who actively love cars go to a Clarkson concert every now and then to hear the loud noises and leave the rest of us to get policy based on them being a means of transport that's sometimes needed but shouldn't generally be essential in cities?0
-
This is where you end up if you worship the car:
0 -
Find that a little hard to believe. What they do do tho is answer how rural folk can get around without a car all the time.joeyhalloran said:I believe there are studies that show motorbikes have a similar impact on congestion as cyclists, i.e. you don't need that many to switch from motorbikes to cars before you exponentially add to journey times.
I only wish (some) motorbike riders wouldn't fit those bloody loud exhaust systems!
I came to it may too late to understand the loud pipe peeps I'm afraid.We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
https://newatlas.com/motorcycles-reduce-congestion/21420/ddraver said:
Find that a little hard to believe. What they do do tho is answer how rural folk can get around without a car all the time.
I came to it may too late to understand the loud pipe peeps I'm afraid.0 -
It doesn’t take much to tip busy into gridlock.joeyhalloran said:
https://newatlas.com/motorcycles-reduce-congestion/21420/ddraver said:
Find that a little hard to believe. What they do do tho is answer how rural folk can get around without a car all the time.
I came to it may too late to understand the loud pipe peeps I'm afraid.
At 4:30, the traffic lights change and say 5 cars go through, another 5 cars join the queue. Busy, but balanced.
At 4:45, the traffic lights change, 5 cars go through, but 6 join the queue. The queue grows rapidly. The next set of lights has the same maths but now the queue up the road stops 5 cars getting through this set. The compounding effect is huge from small changes.
It’s easy to see on your own drive, get through a certain point at a certain time, trip takes 1 hour, 5 mins late at point a becomes 10 mins at point b, 15 at point c and so on. Trip takes 2 hours.
It doesn’t take a massive difference to improve things.0 -
morstar said:
It doesn’t take much to tip busy into gridlock.joeyhalloran said:
https://newatlas.com/motorcycles-reduce-congestion/21420/ddraver said:
Find that a little hard to believe. What they do do tho is answer how rural folk can get around without a car all the time.
I came to it may too late to understand the loud pipe peeps I'm afraid.
At 4:30, the traffic lights change and say 5 cars go through, another 5 cars join the queue. Busy, but balanced.
At 4:45, the traffic lights change, 5 cars go through, but 6 join the queue. The queue grows rapidly. The next set of lights has the same maths but now the queue up the road stops 5 cars getting through this set. The compounding effect is huge from small changes.
It’s easy to see on your own drive, get through a certain point at a certain time, trip takes 1 hour, 5 mins late at point a becomes 10 mins at point b, 15 at point c and so on. Trip takes 2 hours.
It doesn’t take a massive difference to improve things.
I think instead of having car-free days, cyclists who normally commute by bike should have a bike-free day and drive to work. It would be utter carnage, given how fragile the traffic systems are at peak times. Exeter, for one, would be hilarious.
The only trouble is, I'd be very very late for work if this idea actually happened.0 -
They like being able to get places without getting wet or having to sit next to strangers for sure. Only a few get all excited by how loudly it goes brrm-brrrm.Stevo_666 said:
I think that if you take most peoples cars away for a while, they will realise how much they love them.rjsterry said:
Most people just use them out of necessity. They don't love them any more than they love lawnmowers.Stevo_666 said:
FTFY.rick_chasey said:Normal people love cars
Occam's razor. 1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition1 -
Yes, I've often thought this! All 'bike aware' days should be encouraging any cyclists who have cars to drive their normal journeys! Would make so much more of a difference for cycling campaignersbriantrumpet said:morstar said:
It doesn’t take much to tip busy into gridlock.joeyhalloran said:
https://newatlas.com/motorcycles-reduce-congestion/21420/ddraver said:
Find that a little hard to believe. What they do do tho is answer how rural folk can get around without a car all the time.
I came to it may too late to understand the loud pipe peeps I'm afraid.
At 4:30, the traffic lights change and say 5 cars go through, another 5 cars join the queue. Busy, but balanced.
At 4:45, the traffic lights change, 5 cars go through, but 6 join the queue. The queue grows rapidly. The next set of lights has the same maths but now the queue up the road stops 5 cars getting through this set. The compounding effect is huge from small changes.
It’s easy to see on your own drive, get through a certain point at a certain time, trip takes 1 hour, 5 mins late at point a becomes 10 mins at point b, 15 at point c and so on. Trip takes 2 hours.
It doesn’t take a massive difference to improve things.
I think instead of having car-free days, cyclists who normally commute by bike should have a bike-free day and drive to work. It would be utter carnage, given how fragile the traffic systems are at peak times. Exeter, for one, would be hilarious.
The only trouble is, I'd be very very late for work if this idea actually happened.0 -
Ah, sorry. I misread your original post.joeyhalloran said:
https://newatlas.com/motorcycles-reduce-congestion/21420/ddraver said:
Find that a little hard to believe. What they do do tho is answer how rural folk can get around without a car all the time.
I came to it may too late to understand the loud pipe peeps I'm afraid.We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0
