The Big 'Let's sell our cars and take buses/ebikes instead' thread (warning: probably very dull)
Comments
-
On the basis that it will raise more money than currently, and won't appreciably change air quality, you would have to say its a tax.
On the basis that it singles out a specific car ownership demographic, you can't argue that, if it is a tax, it is regressive.
So I suppose the question of whether or not it is a reasonable policy comes down to whether or not it is a public health policy or a tax. If the former, you would want it to be evidence based wouldn't you?
I would, anyway.0 -
There seems to be an inherent tension between these two arguments.briantrumpet said: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.
In fairness, the main rightie arguments seem to me to be more libertarian in nature. Bit like opposition to LTNs.
Precisely why the inalienable right to personal motorised transportation is singled out in this way can only be vote related.
0 -
Obviously rich people can afford to do things poor people can’t.
That’s a free market for you.
Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t discourage behaviour via pricing.0 -
Does it mean you should?rick_chasey said:Obviously rich people can afford to do things poor people can’t.
That’s a free market for you.
Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t discourage behaviour via pricing.
I can see both sides' viewpoints on this.
0 -
No one has offered a better alternativeFirst.Aspect said:
Does it mean you should?rick_chasey said:Obviously rich people can afford to do things poor people can’t.
That’s a free market for you.
Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t discourage behaviour via pricing.
I can see both sides' viewpoints on this.0 -
VED? Fuel duty?rick_chasey said:
No one has offered a better alternativeFirst.Aspect said:
Does it mean you should?rick_chasey said:Obviously rich people can afford to do things poor people can’t.
That’s a free market for you.
Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t discourage behaviour via pricing.
I can see both sides' viewpoints on this.
At the moment of your aim is to encourage lower NOx emissions (for a given CO2 band) then VED in particular seems to work somewhat the wrong way around, for deisels in particular.
Firstly the £40k premium is an additional tax of £2k for even fairly midrange vehicles, which by virtue of age will be less polluting. Also, the RDE2 reduction only applies to newer cars.0 -
How would you design transportation if there was no history of it and a blank canvas?
Roads/rail seem like a hell of a waste of valuable land and cost in infrastructure. Instead you could/need to have just service main paths.
Flight seems the most logical with VTOL aircraft, transiting to wings being most efficient.0 -
You just want fewer short journeys by car, especially in built up areas where the pollution and traffic are more concentrated.First.Aspect said:
VED? Fuel duty?rick_chasey said:
No one has offered a better alternativeFirst.Aspect said:
Does it mean you should?rick_chasey said:Obviously rich people can afford to do things poor people can’t.
That’s a free market for you.
Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t discourage behaviour via pricing.
I can see both sides' viewpoints on this.
At the moment of your aim is to encourage lower NOx emissions (for a given CO2 band) then VED in particular seems to work somewhat the wrong way around, for deisels in particular.
Firstly the £40k premium is an additional tax of £2k for even fairly midrange vehicles, which by virtue of age will be less polluting. Also, the RDE2 reduction only applies to newer cars.
Ulez does that effectively by making short journeys uneconomical but for longer journeys or more important journeys the cost is more likely to be worth it.
0 -
Perhaps the VTOL's could be autonomous taxis and people don't own them they just play for access to the network?0
-
Roads? That can't be the future long term.0
-
This spring, however, Coventry is once again at the forefront of world-leading innovation in personal mobility as it hosts what is billed as the first-ever fully functional hub for flying taxis, the electric-powered vertical takeoff and landing craft that backers are talking up as the biggest new thing in aviation.https://europe.autonews.com/automakers/worlds-first-flying-taxi-hub-takes-shape-england
The site is fully functional, that is, apart from the air taxis themselves. With the scores of proposed eVTOL models yet to win regulatory signoff, unmanned drones are standing in for the typically five-person craft during three weeks of demonstration flights in Coventry.0 -
0 -
Stupidest thing about ulez is excluding classic cars. Filthy things.1
-
Pre 80s or whatever they are tax and MOT exempt!? I love seeing old cars on the road, but it doesn't make sense when newer cars than that are being taxed off the roads.kingstongraham said:Stupidest thing about ulez is excluding classic cars. Filthy things.
0 -
No, you would create roads given our hindsight now and a blank canvas.0
-
Rail? Possibly too.0
-
0
-
I do like the fact they are being restored. They certainly made sense at that snapshot in time to transport weight.First.Aspect said:0 -
Public sector spending on roads in the United Kingdom was over 11.13 billion British pounds in 2022/23, a slight decrease when compared with the previous year. Throughout most of this time period the amount spent on local roads is consistently higher than that spent on national roads.0
-
Transport/air quality policy.First.Aspect said:
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.
If it was a purely money-raising exercise there would be no scrappage scheme or offer of a couple of grand towards a new compliant vehicle.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
But the ones that do are getting whacked with charges which are significant relation to their income. And done forget, not all are urban based but quite a few need to enter the zone on a regular basis.rjsterry said:
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.
Hence the controversy."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Oh, right, if its air quality what evidence are they using?rjsterry said:
Transport/air quality policy.First.Aspect said:
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.
If it was a purely money-raising exercise there would be no scrappage scheme or offer of a couple of grand towards a new compliant vehicle.
Honestly I don't know whether or not there are data to support the policy, but the continuation of a trend that was happening for other reasons anyway isn't convincing. At least one academic who advised on this seems to hold the same, and presumably far more informed, view.
So it is on shaky ground from a public health standpoint.
If it is just a transport policy, why?0 -
They don't. So happy to keep your road charging to the big cities?rick_chasey said:
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.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
What replaces fuel tax?Stevo_666 said:
They don't. So happy to keep your road charging to the big cities?rick_chasey said:
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 -
Miles travelled tax recorded by GPS? Delivery companies could pass on the additional cost. There should be one anyway for all the lazy sods not going to the high street anymore.kingstongraham said:
What replaces fuel tax?Stevo_666 said:
They don't. So happy to keep your road charging to the big cities?rick_chasey said:
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 -
-
So we're agreed it's not a tax. Good.First.Aspect said:
Oh, right, if its air quality what evidence are they using?rjsterry said:
Transport/air quality policy.First.Aspect said:
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.
If it was a purely money-raising exercise there would be no scrappage scheme or offer of a couple of grand towards a new compliant vehicle.
Honestly I don't know whether or not there are data to support the policy, but the continuation of a trend that was happening for other reasons anyway isn't convincing. At least one academic who advised on this seems to hold the same, and presumably far more informed, view.
So it is on shaky ground from a public health standpoint.
If it is just a transport policy, why?
We disagree on your interpretation of the available information.
Fewer sh*t cars on the road is good enough for me.
Now just to remove all the hobbyist exemptions.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Can't bring myself to care. It's happening.Stevo_666 said:
But the ones that do are getting whacked with charges which are significant relation to their income. And done forget, not all are urban based but quite a few need to enter the zone on a regular basis.rjsterry said:
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.
Hence the controversy.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Are you saying that it's too late and that we should accept and get on with making the most of it. That sounds familiar.rjsterry said:
Can't bring myself to care. It's happening.Stevo_666 said:
But the ones that do are getting whacked with charges which are significant relation to their income. And done forget, not all are urban based but quite a few need to enter the zone on a regular basis.rjsterry said:
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.
Hence the controversy.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
No, it's a tax. In a few years, the type of cars it captures will shift, and bump up the tax take.rjsterry said:
So we're agreed it's not a tax. Good.First.Aspect said:
Oh, right, if its air quality what evidence are they using?rjsterry said:
Transport/air quality policy.First.Aspect said:
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.
If it was a purely money-raising exercise there would be no scrappage scheme or offer of a couple of grand towards a new compliant vehicle.
Honestly I don't know whether or not there are data to support the policy, but the continuation of a trend that was happening for other reasons anyway isn't convincing. At least one academic who advised on this seems to hold the same, and presumably far more informed, view.
So it is on shaky ground from a public health standpoint.
If it is just a transport policy, why?
We disagree on your interpretation of the available information.
Fewer sh*t cars on the road is good enough for me.
Now just to remove all the hobbyist exemptions.
By definition, at that stage, the already potentially immeasurably small benefits in some areas will be even smaller.
Fwiw mileage based road pricing as a replacement for fuel duty and VED seems sensible to me. But more likely VED will be rebanded to capture EVs.0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGyfLpmHTWk
