The Big 'Let's sell our cars and take buses/ebikes instead' thread (warning: probably very dull)
Comments
-
Road tolls can in part subsidise the public transport.super_davo said:
The irony is that is probably the exact solution we need. We all know that if the only way to move around is by car, and everyone wants to do it at the same time, net result is gridlock.TheBigBean said:
I don't think you can argue about free markets when the state owns and provides the roads. If it was a free market, you would pay more to drive on roads at peak time and new private roads would be built wherever there was potential profit.super_davo said:
But I want my freedom! To sit in a traffic jam going nowhere choking on fumes!rick_chasey said:
Now we’re getting back the original point of the thread.Stevo_666 said:
The point here is that changes in speed limits are almost always downwards. When did you last see a speed limit going up on a section of road?rick_chasey said:
I mean the extreme at both ends of the spectrum are stupid.Stevo_666 said:
So by implication we'd better not travel anywhere if we want to be safe?rick_chasey said:Speed makes accidents more dangerous and all accidents are in some way speed related.
Why don’t you just let all the roads be a race track and have everyone race as fast as possible all the time?
More people, more traffic, more congestion, more urbanised living; makes for lower average speeds and less time efficient car driving.
If ever there was a textbook example of the concept of "market failure" i.e. where the best outcome for the individual leads to the worst outcome for the whole, it's use of private vehicles. I find it maddening that "champions of free markets" don't see it.
And rather than "pricing poorer drivers off the road" we should incentivise other forms of transport without the associated costs of driving.0 -
Unbelievable.rick_chasey said:Let’s not do this again.
Trend is more urban living ergo more urban driving.
Average speeds are trending down, traffic is trending up etc etc.
Vast majority of car journeys are spent in urban areas etc etc
As the urban areas grow there will be fewer and fewer rural roads. Etc etc1 -
I know, and there a lot of people like me who are not affected by this. Hence my point which FA has also mentioned. Do you still think that the 'issues' are universally applicable across the UK?rick_chasey said:
You are not everyone.Stevo_666 said:
To who? Not me.rick_chasey said:
Applies to more and more every day.Stevo_666 said:
And one of the point made early on was that this does not apply to many of us. add to this the point that the same people typically need a car to get around because it simply isn't simply feasible to replace cars with public transport in large part of the country inside of the cities.rick_chasey said:
Now we’re getting back the original point of the thread.Stevo_666 said:
The point here is that changes in speed limits are almost always downwards. When did you last see a speed limit going up on a section of road?rick_chasey said:
I mean the extreme at both ends of the spectrum are stupid.Stevo_666 said:
So by implication we'd better not travel anywhere if we want to be safe?rick_chasey said:Speed makes accidents more dangerous and all accidents are in some way speed related.
Why don’t you just let all the roads be a race track and have everyone race as fast as possible all the time?
More people, more traffic, more congestion, more urbanised living; makes for lower average speeds and less time efficient car driving.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/trend-deck-2021-urbanisation/trend-deck-2021-urbanisation"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
As I've said above, if you want try and make big city motorists life difficult and expensive, crack on. But leave the rest of us out of it.rick_chasey said:Let’s not do this again.
Trend is more urban living ergo more urban driving.
Average speeds are trending down, traffic is trending up etc etc.
Vast majority of car journeys are spent in urban areas etc etc
As the urban areas grow there will be fewer and fewer rural roads. Etc etc"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I wonder how many times we have to tell him?First.Aspect said:
Unbelievable.rick_chasey said:Let’s not do this again.
Trend is more urban living ergo more urban driving.
Average speeds are trending down, traffic is trending up etc etc.
Vast majority of car journeys are spent in urban areas etc etc
As the urban areas grow there will be fewer and fewer rural roads. Etc etc"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Sounds like monitoring and enforcement might be a small challenge, given that there are over 260,000 miles of paved Road in the UK. I think we are talking Chinese levels of surveillance and then some.rick_chasey said:Definitely would be ok with paying for road use. Can charge you according to how popular the road is and how fast it is.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
But that is exactly what is happening - and your post is quite timely given that the rather controversial expanded London ULEZ comes into force tomorrow.super_davo said:
The irony is that is probably the exact solution we need. We all know that if the only way to move around is by car, and everyone wants to do it at the same time, net result is gridlock.TheBigBean said:
I don't think you can argue about free markets when the state owns and provides the roads. If it was a free market, you would pay more to drive on roads at peak time and new private roads would be built wherever there was potential profit.super_davo said:
But I want my freedom! To sit in a traffic jam going nowhere choking on fumes!rick_chasey said:
Now we’re getting back the original point of the thread.Stevo_666 said:
The point here is that changes in speed limits are almost always downwards. When did you last see a speed limit going up on a section of road?rick_chasey said:
I mean the extreme at both ends of the spectrum are stupid.Stevo_666 said:
So by implication we'd better not travel anywhere if we want to be safe?rick_chasey said:Speed makes accidents more dangerous and all accidents are in some way speed related.
Why don’t you just let all the roads be a race track and have everyone race as fast as possible all the time?
More people, more traffic, more congestion, more urbanised living; makes for lower average speeds and less time efficient car driving.
If ever there was a textbook example of the concept of "market failure" i.e. where the best outcome for the individual leads to the worst outcome for the whole, it's use of private vehicles. I find it maddening that "champions of free markets" don't see it.
And rather than "pricing poorer drivers off the road" we should incentivise other forms of transport without the associated costs of driving."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Weird how you've gone all socialist on this issue. You'll be arguing for state benefits for low earning motorists next.Stevo_666 said:
But that is exactly what is happening - and your post is quite timely given that the rather controversial expanded London ULEZ comes into force tomorrow.super_davo said:
The irony is that is probably the exact solution we need. We all know that if the only way to move around is by car, and everyone wants to do it at the same time, net result is gridlock.TheBigBean said:
I don't think you can argue about free markets when the state owns and provides the roads. If it was a free market, you would pay more to drive on roads at peak time and new private roads would be built wherever there was potential profit.super_davo said:
But I want my freedom! To sit in a traffic jam going nowhere choking on fumes!rick_chasey said:
Now we’re getting back the original point of the thread.Stevo_666 said:
The point here is that changes in speed limits are almost always downwards. When did you last see a speed limit going up on a section of road?rick_chasey said:
I mean the extreme at both ends of the spectrum are stupid.Stevo_666 said:
So by implication we'd better not travel anywhere if we want to be safe?rick_chasey said:Speed makes accidents more dangerous and all accidents are in some way speed related.
Why don’t you just let all the roads be a race track and have everyone race as fast as possible all the time?
More people, more traffic, more congestion, more urbanised living; makes for lower average speeds and less time efficient car driving.
If ever there was a textbook example of the concept of "market failure" i.e. where the best outcome for the individual leads to the worst outcome for the whole, it's use of private vehicles. I find it maddening that "champions of free markets" don't see it.
And rather than "pricing poorer drivers off the road" we should incentivise other forms of transport without the associated costs of driving.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I think you’d be surprised how much your car is tracked anyway tbh.Stevo_666 said:
Sounds like monitoring and enforcement might be a small challenge, given that there are over 260,000 miles of paved Road in the UK. I think we are talking Chinese levels of surveillance and then some.rick_chasey said:Definitely would be ok with paying for road use. Can charge you according to how popular the road is and how fast it is.
0 -
They’re the facts 🤓First.Aspect said:
Unbelievable.rick_chasey said:Let’s not do this again.
Trend is more urban living ergo more urban driving.
Average speeds are trending down, traffic is trending up etc etc.
Vast majority of car journeys are spent in urban areas etc etc
As the urban areas grow there will be fewer and fewer rural roads. Etc etc0 -
Yep, well aware of camera surveillance - mostly in cities and major roads. You need to take a look at the minor roads and lanes like those near me - and work out how you're going to deal with all of those.rick_chasey said:
I think you’d be surprised how much your car is tracked anyway tbh.Stevo_666 said:
Sounds like monitoring and enforcement might be a small challenge, given that there are over 260,000 miles of paved Road in the UK. I think we are talking Chinese levels of surveillance and then some.rick_chasey said:Definitely would be ok with paying for road use. Can charge you according to how popular the road is and how fast it is.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Well if you're OK with taxing the poor and giving the better off a free pass on motorists taxes, let's extend that to income tax.rjsterry said:
Weird how you've gone all socialist on this issue. You'll be arguing for state benefits for low earning motorists next.Stevo_666 said:
But that is exactly what is happening - and your post is quite timely given that the rather controversial expanded London ULEZ comes into force tomorrow.super_davo said:
The irony is that is probably the exact solution we need. We all know that if the only way to move around is by car, and everyone wants to do it at the same time, net result is gridlock.TheBigBean said:
I don't think you can argue about free markets when the state owns and provides the roads. If it was a free market, you would pay more to drive on roads at peak time and new private roads would be built wherever there was potential profit.super_davo said:
But I want my freedom! To sit in a traffic jam going nowhere choking on fumes!rick_chasey said:
Now we’re getting back the original point of the thread.Stevo_666 said:
The point here is that changes in speed limits are almost always downwards. When did you last see a speed limit going up on a section of road?rick_chasey said:
I mean the extreme at both ends of the spectrum are stupid.Stevo_666 said:
So by implication we'd better not travel anywhere if we want to be safe?rick_chasey said:Speed makes accidents more dangerous and all accidents are in some way speed related.
Why don’t you just let all the roads be a race track and have everyone race as fast as possible all the time?
More people, more traffic, more congestion, more urbanised living; makes for lower average speeds and less time efficient car driving.
If ever there was a textbook example of the concept of "market failure" i.e. where the best outcome for the individual leads to the worst outcome for the whole, it's use of private vehicles. I find it maddening that "champions of free markets" don't see it.
And rather than "pricing poorer drivers off the road" we should incentivise other forms of transport without the associated costs of driving."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
This is the issue really. Or issues, plural.Stevo_666 said:
Well if you're OK with taxing the poor and giving the better off a free pass on motorists taxes, let's extend that to income tax.rjsterry said:
Weird how you've gone all socialist on this issue. You'll be arguing for state benefits for low earning motorists next.Stevo_666 said:
But that is exactly what is happening - and your post is quite timely given that the rather controversial expanded London ULEZ comes into force tomorrow.super_davo said:
The irony is that is probably the exact solution we need. We all know that if the only way to move around is by car, and everyone wants to do it at the same time, net result is gridlock.TheBigBean said:
I don't think you can argue about free markets when the state owns and provides the roads. If it was a free market, you would pay more to drive on roads at peak time and new private roads would be built wherever there was potential profit.super_davo said:
But I want my freedom! To sit in a traffic jam going nowhere choking on fumes!rick_chasey said:
Now we’re getting back the original point of the thread.Stevo_666 said:
The point here is that changes in speed limits are almost always downwards. When did you last see a speed limit going up on a section of road?rick_chasey said:
I mean the extreme at both ends of the spectrum are stupid.Stevo_666 said:
So by implication we'd better not travel anywhere if we want to be safe?rick_chasey said:Speed makes accidents more dangerous and all accidents are in some way speed related.
Why don’t you just let all the roads be a race track and have everyone race as fast as possible all the time?
More people, more traffic, more congestion, more urbanised living; makes for lower average speeds and less time efficient car driving.
If ever there was a textbook example of the concept of "market failure" i.e. where the best outcome for the individual leads to the worst outcome for the whole, it's use of private vehicles. I find it maddening that "champions of free markets" don't see it.
And rather than "pricing poorer drivers off the road" we should incentivise other forms of transport without the associated costs of driving.
Firstly the magnitude of the health justification is far from clear. Second, the solution is regressive, if you see it as a taxation.
Interview from professor at birmingham uni on R4 yesterday covered these points, basically saying it is a cost benefit analysis where the benefit is probably very small or it would be easier to quantify, and the cost is born disporoprtionately by lower income households.
Seemed to me they cut him a bit short because it wasn't what they'd expected him to say.0 -
The poor generally don't own cars in the first place, especially in urban areas.Stevo_666 said:
Well if you're OK with taxing the poor and giving the better off a free pass on motorists taxes, let's extend that to income tax.rjsterry said:
Weird how you've gone all socialist on this issue. You'll be arguing for state benefits for low earning motorists next.Stevo_666 said:
But that is exactly what is happening - and your post is quite timely given that the rather controversial expanded London ULEZ comes into force tomorrow.super_davo said:
The irony is that is probably the exact solution we need. We all know that if the only way to move around is by car, and everyone wants to do it at the same time, net result is gridlock.TheBigBean said:
I don't think you can argue about free markets when the state owns and provides the roads. If it was a free market, you would pay more to drive on roads at peak time and new private roads would be built wherever there was potential profit.super_davo said:
But I want my freedom! To sit in a traffic jam going nowhere choking on fumes!rick_chasey said:
Now we’re getting back the original point of the thread.Stevo_666 said:
The point here is that changes in speed limits are almost always downwards. When did you last see a speed limit going up on a section of road?rick_chasey said:
I mean the extreme at both ends of the spectrum are stupid.Stevo_666 said:
So by implication we'd better not travel anywhere if we want to be safe?rick_chasey said:Speed makes accidents more dangerous and all accidents are in some way speed related.
Why don’t you just let all the roads be a race track and have everyone race as fast as possible all the time?
More people, more traffic, more congestion, more urbanised living; makes for lower average speeds and less time efficient car driving.
If ever there was a textbook example of the concept of "market failure" i.e. where the best outcome for the individual leads to the worst outcome for the whole, it's use of private vehicles. I find it maddening that "champions of free markets" don't see it.
And rather than "pricing poorer drivers off the road" we should incentivise other forms of transport without the associated costs of driving.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Why are you discounting the cost of buying a newer vehicle? That cost has already been born by those of us who saw that these rules were coming in years ago and upgraded accordingly. Not sure how that is me being given a free pass.First.Aspect said:
This is the issue really. Or issues, plural.Stevo_666 said:
Well if you're OK with taxing the poor and giving the better off a free pass on motorists taxes, let's extend that to income tax.rjsterry said:
Weird how you've gone all socialist on this issue. You'll be arguing for state benefits for low earning motorists next.Stevo_666 said:
But that is exactly what is happening - and your post is quite timely given that the rather controversial expanded London ULEZ comes into force tomorrow.super_davo said:
The irony is that is probably the exact solution we need. We all know that if the only way to move around is by car, and everyone wants to do it at the same time, net result is gridlock.TheBigBean said:
I don't think you can argue about free markets when the state owns and provides the roads. If it was a free market, you would pay more to drive on roads at peak time and new private roads would be built wherever there was potential profit.super_davo said:
But I want my freedom! To sit in a traffic jam going nowhere choking on fumes!rick_chasey said:
Now we’re getting back the original point of the thread.Stevo_666 said:
The point here is that changes in speed limits are almost always downwards. When did you last see a speed limit going up on a section of road?rick_chasey said:
I mean the extreme at both ends of the spectrum are stupid.Stevo_666 said:
So by implication we'd better not travel anywhere if we want to be safe?rick_chasey said:Speed makes accidents more dangerous and all accidents are in some way speed related.
Why don’t you just let all the roads be a race track and have everyone race as fast as possible all the time?
More people, more traffic, more congestion, more urbanised living; makes for lower average speeds and less time efficient car driving.
If ever there was a textbook example of the concept of "market failure" i.e. where the best outcome for the individual leads to the worst outcome for the whole, it's use of private vehicles. I find it maddening that "champions of free markets" don't see it.
And rather than "pricing poorer drivers off the road" we should incentivise other forms of transport without the associated costs of driving.
Firstly the magnitude of the health justification is far from clear. Second, the solution is regressive, if you see it as a taxation.
Interview from professor at birmingham uni on R4 yesterday covered these points, basically saying it is a cost benefit analysis where the benefit is probably very small or it would be easier to quantify, and the cost is born disporoprtionately by lower income households.
Seemed to me they cut him a bit short because it wasn't what they'd expected him to say.
Perhaps you'd also like to let lower earners off annual MOT testing, too.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
More wealthy people are likely to already have one. Leaving less wealthy people to pay the charge or get a new vehicle.rjsterry said:
Why are you discounting the cost of buying a newer vehicle?First.Aspect said:
This is the issue really. Or issues, plural.Stevo_666 said:
Well if you're OK with taxing the poor and giving the better off a free pass on motorists taxes, let's extend that to income tax.rjsterry said:
Weird how you've gone all socialist on this issue. You'll be arguing for state benefits for low earning motorists next.Stevo_666 said:
But that is exactly what is happening - and your post is quite timely given that the rather controversial expanded London ULEZ comes into force tomorrow.super_davo said:
The irony is that is probably the exact solution we need. We all know that if the only way to move around is by car, and everyone wants to do it at the same time, net result is gridlock.TheBigBean said:
I don't think you can argue about free markets when the state owns and provides the roads. If it was a free market, you would pay more to drive on roads at peak time and new private roads would be built wherever there was potential profit.super_davo said:
But I want my freedom! To sit in a traffic jam going nowhere choking on fumes!rick_chasey said:
Now we’re getting back the original point of the thread.Stevo_666 said:
The point here is that changes in speed limits are almost always downwards. When did you last see a speed limit going up on a section of road?rick_chasey said:
I mean the extreme at both ends of the spectrum are stupid.Stevo_666 said:
So by implication we'd better not travel anywhere if we want to be safe?rick_chasey said:Speed makes accidents more dangerous and all accidents are in some way speed related.
Why don’t you just let all the roads be a race track and have everyone race as fast as possible all the time?
More people, more traffic, more congestion, more urbanised living; makes for lower average speeds and less time efficient car driving.
If ever there was a textbook example of the concept of "market failure" i.e. where the best outcome for the individual leads to the worst outcome for the whole, it's use of private vehicles. I find it maddening that "champions of free markets" don't see it.
And rather than "pricing poorer drivers off the road" we should incentivise other forms of transport without the associated costs of driving.
Firstly the magnitude of the health justification is far from clear. Second, the solution is regressive, if you see it as a taxation.
Interview from professor at birmingham uni on R4 yesterday covered these points, basically saying it is a cost benefit analysis where the benefit is probably very small or it would be easier to quantify, and the cost is born disporoprtionately by lower income households.
Seemed to me they cut him a bit short because it wasn't what they'd expected him to say.
Buying a newer vehicle is also, proportionately, more difficult at lower income levels.
So whichever way you look at it, ULEZ is a new and regressive tax.0 -
If they don’t have much traffic no bother.Stevo_666 said:
Yep, well aware of camera surveillance - mostly in cities and major roads. You need to take a look at the minor roads and lanes like those near me - and work out how you're going to deal with all of those.rick_chasey said:
I think you’d be surprised how much your car is tracked anyway tbh.Stevo_666 said:
Sounds like monitoring and enforcement might be a small challenge, given that there are over 260,000 miles of paved Road in the UK. I think we are talking Chinese levels of surveillance and then some.rick_chasey said:Definitely would be ok with paying for road use. Can charge you according to how popular the road is and how fast it is.
0 -
All travel costs are regressive.First.Aspect said:
This is the issue really. Or issues, plural.Stevo_666 said:
Well if you're OK with taxing the poor and giving the better off a free pass on motorists taxes, let's extend that to income tax.rjsterry said:
Weird how you've gone all socialist on this issue. You'll be arguing for state benefits for low earning motorists next.Stevo_666 said:
But that is exactly what is happening - and your post is quite timely given that the rather controversial expanded London ULEZ comes into force tomorrow.super_davo said:
The irony is that is probably the exact solution we need. We all know that if the only way to move around is by car, and everyone wants to do it at the same time, net result is gridlock.TheBigBean said:
I don't think you can argue about free markets when the state owns and provides the roads. If it was a free market, you would pay more to drive on roads at peak time and new private roads would be built wherever there was potential profit.super_davo said:
But I want my freedom! To sit in a traffic jam going nowhere choking on fumes!rick_chasey said:
Now we’re getting back the original point of the thread.Stevo_666 said:
The point here is that changes in speed limits are almost always downwards. When did you last see a speed limit going up on a section of road?rick_chasey said:
I mean the extreme at both ends of the spectrum are stupid.Stevo_666 said:
So by implication we'd better not travel anywhere if we want to be safe?rick_chasey said:Speed makes accidents more dangerous and all accidents are in some way speed related.
Why don’t you just let all the roads be a race track and have everyone race as fast as possible all the time?
More people, more traffic, more congestion, more urbanised living; makes for lower average speeds and less time efficient car driving.
If ever there was a textbook example of the concept of "market failure" i.e. where the best outcome for the individual leads to the worst outcome for the whole, it's use of private vehicles. I find it maddening that "champions of free markets" don't see it.
And rather than "pricing poorer drivers off the road" we should incentivise other forms of transport without the associated costs of driving.
Firstly the magnitude of the health justification is far from clear. Second, the solution is regressive, if you see it as a taxation.
Interview from professor at birmingham uni on R4 yesterday covered these points, basically saying it is a cost benefit analysis where the benefit is probably very small or it would be easier to quantify, and the cost is born disporoprtionately by lower income households.
Seemed to me they cut him a bit short because it wasn't what they'd expected him to say.0 -
Has it suddenly become a big issue because it's affecting places tories might expect to win?0
-
Car safety standards are regressive too, I guess.0
-
So when a wealthier person upgrades their car that's just a free pass and when a poorer person upgrades their car that's a regressive tax. Got it.First.Aspect said:
More wealthy people are likely to already have one. Leaving less wealthy people to pay the charge or get a new vehicle.rjsterry said:
Why are you discounting the cost of buying a newer vehicle?First.Aspect said:
This is the issue really. Or issues, plural.Stevo_666 said:
Well if you're OK with taxing the poor and giving the better off a free pass on motorists taxes, let's extend that to income tax.rjsterry said:
Weird how you've gone all socialist on this issue. You'll be arguing for state benefits for low earning motorists next.Stevo_666 said:
But that is exactly what is happening - and your post is quite timely given that the rather controversial expanded London ULEZ comes into force tomorrow.super_davo said:
The irony is that is probably the exact solution we need. We all know that if the only way to move around is by car, and everyone wants to do it at the same time, net result is gridlock.TheBigBean said:
I don't think you can argue about free markets when the state owns and provides the roads. If it was a free market, you would pay more to drive on roads at peak time and new private roads would be built wherever there was potential profit.super_davo said:
But I want my freedom! To sit in a traffic jam going nowhere choking on fumes!rick_chasey said:
Now we’re getting back the original point of the thread.Stevo_666 said:
The point here is that changes in speed limits are almost always downwards. When did you last see a speed limit going up on a section of road?rick_chasey said:
I mean the extreme at both ends of the spectrum are stupid.Stevo_666 said:
So by implication we'd better not travel anywhere if we want to be safe?rick_chasey said:Speed makes accidents more dangerous and all accidents are in some way speed related.
Why don’t you just let all the roads be a race track and have everyone race as fast as possible all the time?
More people, more traffic, more congestion, more urbanised living; makes for lower average speeds and less time efficient car driving.
If ever there was a textbook example of the concept of "market failure" i.e. where the best outcome for the individual leads to the worst outcome for the whole, it's use of private vehicles. I find it maddening that "champions of free markets" don't see it.
And rather than "pricing poorer drivers off the road" we should incentivise other forms of transport without the associated costs of driving.
Firstly the magnitude of the health justification is far from clear. Second, the solution is regressive, if you see it as a taxation.
Interview from professor at birmingham uni on R4 yesterday covered these points, basically saying it is a cost benefit analysis where the benefit is probably very small or it would be easier to quantify, and the cost is born disporoprtionately by lower income households.
Seemed to me they cut him a bit short because it wasn't what they'd expected him to say.
Buying a newer vehicle is also, proportionately, more difficult at lower income levels.
So whichever way you look at it, ULEZ is a new and regressive tax.
Embarrassing.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
? That's literally the situation if it is occasioned by a tax policy, yes.rjsterry said:
So when a wealthier person upgrades their car that's just a free pass and when a poorer person upgrades their car that's a regressive tax. Got it.First.Aspect said:
More wealthy people are likely to already have one. Leaving less wealthy people to pay the charge or get a new vehicle.rjsterry said:
Why are you discounting the cost of buying a newer vehicle?First.Aspect said:
This is the issue really. Or issues, plural.Stevo_666 said:
Well if you're OK with taxing the poor and giving the better off a free pass on motorists taxes, let's extend that to income tax.rjsterry said:
Weird how you've gone all socialist on this issue. You'll be arguing for state benefits for low earning motorists next.Stevo_666 said:
But that is exactly what is happening - and your post is quite timely given that the rather controversial expanded London ULEZ comes into force tomorrow.super_davo said:
The irony is that is probably the exact solution we need. We all know that if the only way to move around is by car, and everyone wants to do it at the same time, net result is gridlock.TheBigBean said:
I don't think you can argue about free markets when the state owns and provides the roads. If it was a free market, you would pay more to drive on roads at peak time and new private roads would be built wherever there was potential profit.super_davo said:
But I want my freedom! To sit in a traffic jam going nowhere choking on fumes!rick_chasey said:
Now we’re getting back the original point of the thread.Stevo_666 said:
The point here is that changes in speed limits are almost always downwards. When did you last see a speed limit going up on a section of road?rick_chasey said:
I mean the extreme at both ends of the spectrum are stupid.Stevo_666 said:
So by implication we'd better not travel anywhere if we want to be safe?rick_chasey said:Speed makes accidents more dangerous and all accidents are in some way speed related.
Why don’t you just let all the roads be a race track and have everyone race as fast as possible all the time?
More people, more traffic, more congestion, more urbanised living; makes for lower average speeds and less time efficient car driving.
If ever there was a textbook example of the concept of "market failure" i.e. where the best outcome for the individual leads to the worst outcome for the whole, it's use of private vehicles. I find it maddening that "champions of free markets" don't see it.
And rather than "pricing poorer drivers off the road" we should incentivise other forms of transport without the associated costs of driving.
Firstly the magnitude of the health justification is far from clear. Second, the solution is regressive, if you see it as a taxation.
Interview from professor at birmingham uni on R4 yesterday covered these points, basically saying it is a cost benefit analysis where the benefit is probably very small or it would be easier to quantify, and the cost is born disporoprtionately by lower income households.
Seemed to me they cut him a bit short because it wasn't what they'd expected him to say.
Buying a newer vehicle is also, proportionately, more difficult at lower income levels.
So whichever way you look at it, ULEZ is a new and regressive tax.
Embarrassing.
0 -
Take it up with the University of Birmingham.kingstongraham said:Car safety standards are regressive too, I guess.
The difference is that you aren't taxed daily to continue to use an old car that doesn't have airbags, for example.
Additionally, the cost benefit analysis could actually be conducted, unlike ULEZ.0 -
It's regressive to ban burning freely collected wood to keep warm in a city.0
-
True. You can still sympathise with people who are stuck with a new one though.rick_chasey said:
All travel costs are regressive.First.Aspect said:
This is the issue really. Or issues, plural.Stevo_666 said:
Well if you're OK with taxing the poor and giving the better off a free pass on motorists taxes, let's extend that to income tax.rjsterry said:
Weird how you've gone all socialist on this issue. You'll be arguing for state benefits for low earning motorists next.Stevo_666 said:
But that is exactly what is happening - and your post is quite timely given that the rather controversial expanded London ULEZ comes into force tomorrow.super_davo said:
The irony is that is probably the exact solution we need. We all know that if the only way to move around is by car, and everyone wants to do it at the same time, net result is gridlock.TheBigBean said:
I don't think you can argue about free markets when the state owns and provides the roads. If it was a free market, you would pay more to drive on roads at peak time and new private roads would be built wherever there was potential profit.super_davo said:
But I want my freedom! To sit in a traffic jam going nowhere choking on fumes!rick_chasey said:
Now we’re getting back the original point of the thread.Stevo_666 said:
The point here is that changes in speed limits are almost always downwards. When did you last see a speed limit going up on a section of road?rick_chasey said:
I mean the extreme at both ends of the spectrum are stupid.Stevo_666 said:
So by implication we'd better not travel anywhere if we want to be safe?rick_chasey said:Speed makes accidents more dangerous and all accidents are in some way speed related.
Why don’t you just let all the roads be a race track and have everyone race as fast as possible all the time?
More people, more traffic, more congestion, more urbanised living; makes for lower average speeds and less time efficient car driving.
If ever there was a textbook example of the concept of "market failure" i.e. where the best outcome for the individual leads to the worst outcome for the whole, it's use of private vehicles. I find it maddening that "champions of free markets" don't see it.
And rather than "pricing poorer drivers off the road" we should incentivise other forms of transport without the associated costs of driving.
Firstly the magnitude of the health justification is far from clear. Second, the solution is regressive, if you see it as a taxation.
Interview from professor at birmingham uni on R4 yesterday covered these points, basically saying it is a cost benefit analysis where the benefit is probably very small or it would be easier to quantify, and the cost is born disporoprtionately by lower income households.
Seemed to me they cut him a bit short because it wasn't what they'd expected him to say.
To my mind, if it was sold to the public as a tax, it wouldn't have gone through, whereas to sell it on health grounds is tricky, evidence wise.0 -
If it was a tax intended to raise money, then it wouldn't be based on emissions.First.Aspect said:
True. You can still sympathise with people who are stuck with a new one though.rick_chasey said:
All travel costs are regressive.First.Aspect said:
This is the issue really. Or issues, plural.Stevo_666 said:
Well if you're OK with taxing the poor and giving the better off a free pass on motorists taxes, let's extend that to income tax.rjsterry said:
Weird how you've gone all socialist on this issue. You'll be arguing for state benefits for low earning motorists next.Stevo_666 said:
But that is exactly what is happening - and your post is quite timely given that the rather controversial expanded London ULEZ comes into force tomorrow.super_davo said:
The irony is that is probably the exact solution we need. We all know that if the only way to move around is by car, and everyone wants to do it at the same time, net result is gridlock.TheBigBean said:
I don't think you can argue about free markets when the state owns and provides the roads. If it was a free market, you would pay more to drive on roads at peak time and new private roads would be built wherever there was potential profit.super_davo said:
But I want my freedom! To sit in a traffic jam going nowhere choking on fumes!rick_chasey said:
Now we’re getting back the original point of the thread.Stevo_666 said:
The point here is that changes in speed limits are almost always downwards. When did you last see a speed limit going up on a section of road?rick_chasey said:
I mean the extreme at both ends of the spectrum are stupid.Stevo_666 said:
So by implication we'd better not travel anywhere if we want to be safe?rick_chasey said:Speed makes accidents more dangerous and all accidents are in some way speed related.
Why don’t you just let all the roads be a race track and have everyone race as fast as possible all the time?
More people, more traffic, more congestion, more urbanised living; makes for lower average speeds and less time efficient car driving.
If ever there was a textbook example of the concept of "market failure" i.e. where the best outcome for the individual leads to the worst outcome for the whole, it's use of private vehicles. I find it maddening that "champions of free markets" don't see it.
And rather than "pricing poorer drivers off the road" we should incentivise other forms of transport without the associated costs of driving.
Firstly the magnitude of the health justification is far from clear. Second, the solution is regressive, if you see it as a taxation.
Interview from professor at birmingham uni on R4 yesterday covered these points, basically saying it is a cost benefit analysis where the benefit is probably very small or it would be easier to quantify, and the cost is born disporoprtionately by lower income households.
Seemed to me they cut him a bit short because it wasn't what they'd expected him to say.
To my mind, if it was sold to the public as a tax, it wouldn't have gone through, whereas to sell it on health grounds is tricky, evidence wise.
Maybe that will come next, we can only hope.0 -
It's not a tax policy. It's the cost of operating a vehicle. Not everyone can afford it and that is fine.First.Aspect said:
? That's literally the situation if it is occasioned by a tax policy, yes.rjsterry said:
So when a wealthier person upgrades their car that's just a free pass and when a poorer person upgrades their car that's a regressive tax. Got it.First.Aspect said:
More wealthy people are likely to already have one. Leaving less wealthy people to pay the charge or get a new vehicle.rjsterry said:
Why are you discounting the cost of buying a newer vehicle?First.Aspect said:
This is the issue really. Or issues, plural.Stevo_666 said:
Well if you're OK with taxing the poor and giving the better off a free pass on motorists taxes, let's extend that to income tax.rjsterry said:
Weird how you've gone all socialist on this issue. You'll be arguing for state benefits for low earning motorists next.Stevo_666 said:
But that is exactly what is happening - and your post is quite timely given that the rather controversial expanded London ULEZ comes into force tomorrow.super_davo said:
The irony is that is probably the exact solution we need. We all know that if the only way to move around is by car, and everyone wants to do it at the same time, net result is gridlock.TheBigBean said:
I don't think you can argue about free markets when the state owns and provides the roads. If it was a free market, you would pay more to drive on roads at peak time and new private roads would be built wherever there was potential profit.super_davo said:
But I want my freedom! To sit in a traffic jam going nowhere choking on fumes!rick_chasey said:
Now we’re getting back the original point of the thread.Stevo_666 said:
The point here is that changes in speed limits are almost always downwards. When did you last see a speed limit going up on a section of road?rick_chasey said:
I mean the extreme at both ends of the spectrum are stupid.Stevo_666 said:
So by implication we'd better not travel anywhere if we want to be safe?rick_chasey said:Speed makes accidents more dangerous and all accidents are in some way speed related.
Why don’t you just let all the roads be a race track and have everyone race as fast as possible all the time?
More people, more traffic, more congestion, more urbanised living; makes for lower average speeds and less time efficient car driving.
If ever there was a textbook example of the concept of "market failure" i.e. where the best outcome for the individual leads to the worst outcome for the whole, it's use of private vehicles. I find it maddening that "champions of free markets" don't see it.
And rather than "pricing poorer drivers off the road" we should incentivise other forms of transport without the associated costs of driving.
Firstly the magnitude of the health justification is far from clear. Second, the solution is regressive, if you see it as a taxation.
Interview from professor at birmingham uni on R4 yesterday covered these points, basically saying it is a cost benefit analysis where the benefit is probably very small or it would be easier to quantify, and the cost is born disporoprtionately by lower income households.
Seemed to me they cut him a bit short because it wasn't what they'd expected him to say.
Buying a newer vehicle is also, proportionately, more difficult at lower income levels.
So whichever way you look at it, ULEZ is a new and regressive tax.
Embarrassing.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
If it isn't a tax, what is it?rjsterry said:
It's not a tax policy. It's the cost of operating a vehicle. Not everyone can afford it and that is fine.First.Aspect said:
? That's literally the situation if it is occasioned by a tax policy, yes.rjsterry said:
So when a wealthier person upgrades their car that's just a free pass and when a poorer person upgrades their car that's a regressive tax. Got it.First.Aspect said:
More wealthy people are likely to already have one. Leaving less wealthy people to pay the charge or get a new vehicle.rjsterry said:
Why are you discounting the cost of buying a newer vehicle?First.Aspect said:
This is the issue really. Or issues, plural.Stevo_666 said:
Well if you're OK with taxing the poor and giving the better off a free pass on motorists taxes, let's extend that to income tax.rjsterry said:
Weird how you've gone all socialist on this issue. You'll be arguing for state benefits for low earning motorists next.Stevo_666 said:
But that is exactly what is happening - and your post is quite timely given that the rather controversial expanded London ULEZ comes into force tomorrow.super_davo said:
The irony is that is probably the exact solution we need. We all know that if the only way to move around is by car, and everyone wants to do it at the same time, net result is gridlock.TheBigBean said:
I don't think you can argue about free markets when the state owns and provides the roads. If it was a free market, you would pay more to drive on roads at peak time and new private roads would be built wherever there was potential profit.super_davo said:
But I want my freedom! To sit in a traffic jam going nowhere choking on fumes!rick_chasey said:
Now we’re getting back the original point of the thread.Stevo_666 said:
The point here is that changes in speed limits are almost always downwards. When did you last see a speed limit going up on a section of road?rick_chasey said:
I mean the extreme at both ends of the spectrum are stupid.Stevo_666 said:
So by implication we'd better not travel anywhere if we want to be safe?rick_chasey said:Speed makes accidents more dangerous and all accidents are in some way speed related.
Why don’t you just let all the roads be a race track and have everyone race as fast as possible all the time?
More people, more traffic, more congestion, more urbanised living; makes for lower average speeds and less time efficient car driving.
If ever there was a textbook example of the concept of "market failure" i.e. where the best outcome for the individual leads to the worst outcome for the whole, it's use of private vehicles. I find it maddening that "champions of free markets" don't see it.
And rather than "pricing poorer drivers off the road" we should incentivise other forms of transport without the associated costs of driving.
Firstly the magnitude of the health justification is far from clear. Second, the solution is regressive, if you see it as a taxation.
Interview from professor at birmingham uni on R4 yesterday covered these points, basically saying it is a cost benefit analysis where the benefit is probably very small or it would be easier to quantify, and the cost is born disporoprtionately by lower income households.
Seemed to me they cut him a bit short because it wasn't what they'd expected him to say.
Buying a newer vehicle is also, proportionately, more difficult at lower income levels.
So whichever way you look at it, ULEZ is a new and regressive tax.
Embarrassing.0 -
Well that's rather the point. The academic in question could say woth certainty that there would be a health benefit, that it would be very small and that one cannot determine what it would be.kingstongraham said:
If it was a tax intended to raise money, then it wouldn't be based on emissions.First.Aspect said:
True. You can still sympathise with people who are stuck with a new one though.rick_chasey said:
All travel costs are regressive.First.Aspect said:
This is the issue really. Or issues, plural.Stevo_666 said:
Well if you're OK with taxing the poor and giving the better off a free pass on motorists taxes, let's extend that to income tax.rjsterry said:
Weird how you've gone all socialist on this issue. You'll be arguing for state benefits for low earning motorists next.Stevo_666 said:
But that is exactly what is happening - and your post is quite timely given that the rather controversial expanded London ULEZ comes into force tomorrow.super_davo said:
The irony is that is probably the exact solution we need. We all know that if the only way to move around is by car, and everyone wants to do it at the same time, net result is gridlock.TheBigBean said:
I don't think you can argue about free markets when the state owns and provides the roads. If it was a free market, you would pay more to drive on roads at peak time and new private roads would be built wherever there was potential profit.super_davo said:
But I want my freedom! To sit in a traffic jam going nowhere choking on fumes!rick_chasey said:
Now we’re getting back the original point of the thread.Stevo_666 said:
The point here is that changes in speed limits are almost always downwards. When did you last see a speed limit going up on a section of road?rick_chasey said:
I mean the extreme at both ends of the spectrum are stupid.Stevo_666 said:
So by implication we'd better not travel anywhere if we want to be safe?rick_chasey said:Speed makes accidents more dangerous and all accidents are in some way speed related.
Why don’t you just let all the roads be a race track and have everyone race as fast as possible all the time?
More people, more traffic, more congestion, more urbanised living; makes for lower average speeds and less time efficient car driving.
If ever there was a textbook example of the concept of "market failure" i.e. where the best outcome for the individual leads to the worst outcome for the whole, it's use of private vehicles. I find it maddening that "champions of free markets" don't see it.
And rather than "pricing poorer drivers off the road" we should incentivise other forms of transport without the associated costs of driving.
Firstly the magnitude of the health justification is far from clear. Second, the solution is regressive, if you see it as a taxation.
Interview from professor at birmingham uni on R4 yesterday covered these points, basically saying it is a cost benefit analysis where the benefit is probably very small or it would be easier to quantify, and the cost is born disporoprtionately by lower income households.
Seemed to me they cut him a bit short because it wasn't what they'd expected him to say.
To my mind, if it was sold to the public as a tax, it wouldn't have gone through, whereas to sell it on health grounds is tricky, evidence wise.
Maybe that will come next, we can only hope.0 -
The 'narrative' from the Right seems to be it's either regressive ("those poor poor people!", as if they care, all of a sudden) or it's socialism, taxing the well-off to help poor people.0
