The Big 'Let's sell our cars and take buses/ebikes instead' thread (warning: probably very dull)

Stevo_666

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

Please let me know if you can devise a more counter productive tax concept.

Following your "logic", a progressive income tax?

Look up "Scotland" online. Already done, and it is not only more progressive, it is simply more.

At £50k, a taxpayer already pays about £130 more each month than in England. Under the new plans that would be more like £150 a month, which most people would notice.

I'm assuming you understand that there has been a progressive income tax in the UK since before it was the UK. The USA has had one since 1862. Etc.

I'm just pointing out that according to your "logic" relating to a wealth tax being counter productive, any progressive income tax would deter people from wanting to earn more?

But that's a bit off topic for here, and should probably be on a different thread.

Agreed, on both points. It presumes that tax should rise per se, of course, which I'm not sure about.

KG's line does seem to be a subtle version of the old leftie knee jerk position of 'more tax = good' (provided someone else pays).

First.Aspect

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

Please let me know if you can devise a more counter productive tax concept.

Following your "logic", a progressive income tax?

Look up "Scotland" online. Already done, and it is not only more progressive, it is simply more.

At £50k, a taxpayer already pays about £130 more each month than in England. Under the new plans that would be more like £150 a month, which most people would notice.

I'm assuming you understand that there has been a progressive income tax in the UK since before it was the UK. The USA has had one since 1862. Etc.

I'm just pointing out that according to your "logic" relating to a wealth tax being counter productive, any progressive income tax would deter people from wanting to earn more?

But that's a bit off topic for here, and should probably be on a different thread.

Agreed, on both points. It presumes that tax should rise per se, of course, which I'm not sure about.

KG's line does seem to be a subtle version of the old leftie knee jerk position of 'more tax = good' (provided someone else pays).

Perhaps tax should go up. But what is it buying? I don't mind paying more tax, but not if services are getting worse at the same time.

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

super_davo said:

I used to commute to Brentwood (population 50,000) and cycled from 10 miles away. Generally took in 35 minutes each way. Even in that size of small/medium town, it would typically take 20 minutes to get across town to the part my work was in, making cycling from that distance faster or at least next to nothing in it.

It doesn't need to be a massive city to benefit from better cycling provisions and a shift to cycling, just one where where the infrastructure can't cope with the level of cars it has. And there are an awful lot of places that fit into that category in the UK.

Shorter distances are doable - I drive half way to London, ditch the car and ride (too far to do regular rounds trips purely on the bike). But beyond certain distances and for example where you need to transport stuff or other people etc, then it doesn't work.

You objected to the roll out of active travel across the country because what has happened in London cannot be replicated in a small town, now you are saying that shorter distances (such as getting from one side of a small town to the other) are doable. Make your mind up.

Already have, ta. Point about small towns is that they don't need and cannot justify the cost of transport solutions like trams and tubes. But getting around a town on a bike is OK subject to the stuff I mentioned above.

And the bus. We just need the infrastructure in these towns to change to encourage active travel, i.e. make it harder for cars.

No, they need to make it easier to use other forms of transport. No reason to punish a successful and popular form of transport.

There just isn't room. Other forms of transport are much more space efficient, those who "need" more space should be made to suffer so they change their minds.

Depends where you are in the country. You seem to have your 'city blinkers' on like Rick. Unfortunately those who you want to feel the suffering are sufficient in number that your objective will have a hard time succeeding. There are others on here who realise that the best way to get public acceptance/adoption is via carrots, rather than sticks

The thing is, we've come to accept that the roads are there primarily for cars as that has been the dominant form of transport for 60 years or so but they were mainly built originally for pedestrian and horse traffic. If you try to reallocate them for other uses motoring lobbies act of though they were built specifically for their use and it is yet another war of drivers.

Not convinced that the roads like the M1 or M25 were built for that purpose?

The discussion was about within towns so I didn't think I needed to caveat but OK, outside of motorways and some trunk roads / main roads that were built specifically for motor vehicles the vast majority of the road network pre-dates motor vehicle domination and was originally built to accommodate pedestrian and horse traffic.

It's a bit tricky to design roads for cars before cars exist. But now that they are a major and for many essential form of transport, makes sense to adapt older road to them where needed (as well as building new ones). Which is exactly what has happened, for a good reason.

My point is that motorists / motoring organisations treat those roads as 'their' domain and that any proposals to benefit other road user groups is bad, especially if it adversely affects use by motorists. Why should that be the case?

Not sure you can make a sweeping generalisation like that. But in any event I think that's fair enough, given that motorists get charged if they want to use public roads (regardless of what people call what is really road tax).

All tax payers pay for roads regardless of whether they pay VED. You pay far more tax on the fuel than the VED, too.

kingstongraham

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

Please let me know if you can devise a more counter productive tax concept.

Following your "logic", a progressive income tax?

Look up "Scotland" online. Already done, and it is not only more progressive, it is simply more.

At £50k, a taxpayer already pays about £130 more each month than in England. Under the new plans that would be more like £150 a month, which most people would notice.

I'm assuming you understand that there has been a progressive income tax in the UK since before it was the UK. The USA has had one since 1862. Etc.

I'm just pointing out that according to your "logic" relating to a wealth tax being counter productive, any progressive income tax would deter people from wanting to earn more?

But that's a bit off topic for here, and should probably be on a different thread.

Agreed, on both points. It presumes that tax should rise per se, of course, which I'm not sure about.

KG's line does seem to be a subtle version of the old leftie knee jerk position of 'more tax = good' (provided someone else pays).

You do understand what a progressive income tax is?

super_davo

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

super_davo said:

I used to commute to Brentwood (population 50,000) and cycled from 10 miles away. Generally took in 35 minutes each way. Even in that size of small/medium town, it would typically take 20 minutes to get across town to the part my work was in, making cycling from that distance faster or at least next to nothing in it.

It doesn't need to be a massive city to benefit from better cycling provisions and a shift to cycling, just one where where the infrastructure can't cope with the level of cars it has. And there are an awful lot of places that fit into that category in the UK.

Shorter distances are doable - I drive half way to London, ditch the car and ride (too far to do regular rounds trips purely on the bike). But beyond certain distances and for example where you need to transport stuff or other people etc, then it doesn't work.

You objected to the roll out of active travel across the country because what has happened in London cannot be replicated in a small town, now you are saying that shorter distances (such as getting from one side of a small town to the other) are doable. Make your mind up.

Already have, ta. Point about small towns is that they don't need and cannot justify the cost of transport solutions like trams and tubes. But getting around a town on a bike is OK subject to the stuff I mentioned above.

And the bus. We just need the infrastructure in these towns to change to encourage active travel, i.e. make it harder for cars.

No, they need to make it easier to use other forms of transport. No reason to punish a successful and popular form of transport.

There just isn't room. Other forms of transport are much more space efficient, those who "need" more space should be made to suffer so they change their minds.

Depends where you are in the country. You seem to have your 'city blinkers' on like Rick. Unfortunately those who you want to feel the suffering are sufficient in number that your objective will have a hard time succeeding. There are others on here who realise that the best way to get public acceptance/adoption is via carrots, rather than sticks

The thing is, we've come to accept that the roads are there primarily for cars as that has been the dominant form of transport for 60 years or so but they were mainly built originally for pedestrian and horse traffic. If you try to reallocate them for other uses motoring lobbies act of though they were built specifically for their use and it is yet another war of drivers.

Not convinced that the roads like the M1 or M25 were built for that purpose?

The discussion was about within towns so I didn't think I needed to caveat but OK, outside of motorways and some trunk roads / main roads that were built specifically for motor vehicles the vast majority of the road network pre-dates motor vehicle domination and was originally built to accommodate pedestrian and horse traffic.

It's a bit tricky to design roads for cars before cars exist. But now that they are a major and for many essential form of transport, makes sense to adapt older road to them where needed (as well as building new ones). Which is exactly what has happened, for a good reason.

My point is that motorists / motoring organisations treat those roads as 'their' domain and that any proposals to benefit other road user groups is bad, especially if it adversely affects use by motorists. Why should that be the case?

Agree wholeheartedly with this.

And the ironic thing is that the lack of focus on other road users and forms of transport means there is little alternative to cars. So traffic goes up. Then road networks that weren't designed for the level of traffic they are holding can't cope, making it less efficient for everyone, especially motorists.

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

Please let me know if you can devise a more counter productive tax concept.

Following your "logic", a progressive income tax?

Look up "Scotland" online. Already done, and it is not only more progressive, it is simply more.

At £50k, a taxpayer already pays about £130 more each month than in England. Under the new plans that would be more like £150 a month, which most people would notice.

I'm assuming you understand that there has been a progressive income tax in the UK since before it was the UK. The USA has had one since 1862. Etc.

I'm just pointing out that according to your "logic" relating to a wealth tax being counter productive, any progressive income tax would deter people from wanting to earn more?

But that's a bit off topic for here, and should probably be on a different thread.

Agreed, on both points. It presumes that tax should rise per se, of course, which I'm not sure about.

KG's line does seem to be a subtle version of the old leftie knee jerk position of 'more tax = good' (provided someone else pays).

Current lot pretty conclusively disproving this idea by putting taxes up and everything public services going to sh*t.

rick_chasey

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

Please let me know if you can devise a more counter productive tax concept.

Following your "logic", a progressive income tax?

Look up "Scotland" online. Already done, and it is not only more progressive, it is simply more.

At £50k, a taxpayer already pays about £130 more each month than in England. Under the new plans that would be more like £150 a month, which most people would notice.

I'm assuming you understand that there has been a progressive income tax in the UK since before it was the UK. The USA has had one since 1862. Etc.

I'm just pointing out that according to your "logic" relating to a wealth tax being counter productive, any progressive income tax would deter people from wanting to earn more?

But that's a bit off topic for here, and should probably be on a different thread.

Agreed, on both points. It presumes that tax should rise per se, of course, which I'm not sure about.

KG's line does seem to be a subtle version of the old leftie knee jerk position of 'more tax = good' (provided someone else pays).

Current lot pretty conclusively disproving this idea by putting taxes up and everything public services going to sh*t.

10 year lag in investment though

kingstongraham

Always money for roads though. The improvements to the m25/a3 junction (no new road) is planned at £300m.

The active travel budget was cut to £330m over two years.

First.Aspect

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

Please let me know if you can devise a more counter productive tax concept.

Following your "logic", a progressive income tax?

Look up "Scotland" online. Already done, and it is not only more progressive, it is simply more.

At £50k, a taxpayer already pays about £130 more each month than in England. Under the new plans that would be more like £150 a month, which most people would notice.

I'm assuming you understand that there has been a progressive income tax in the UK since before it was the UK. The USA has had one since 1862. Etc.

I'm just pointing out that according to your "logic" relating to a wealth tax being counter productive, any progressive income tax would deter people from wanting to earn more?

But that's a bit off topic for here, and should probably be on a different thread.

Agreed, on both points. It presumes that tax should rise per se, of course, which I'm not sure about.

KG's line does seem to be a subtle version of the old leftie knee jerk position of 'more tax = good' (provided someone else pays).

You do understand what a progressive income tax is?

Everyone understands.

First.Aspect

kingstongraham said:

Always money for roads though. The improvements to the m25/a3 junction (no new road) is planned at £300m.

The active travel budget was cut to £330m over two years.

Depressing. Scotlands is slated to be £320M by 2025. Is coming from a low base (there is a fraction of the facilities than you have in London), but at least its getting better.

rick_chasey

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

Please let me know if you can devise a more counter productive tax concept.

Following your "logic", a progressive income tax?

Look up "Scotland" online. Already done, and it is not only more progressive, it is simply more.

At £50k, a taxpayer already pays about £130 more each month than in England. Under the new plans that would be more like £150 a month, which most people would notice.

I'm assuming you understand that there has been a progressive income tax in the UK since before it was the UK. The USA has had one since 1862. Etc.

I'm just pointing out that according to your "logic" relating to a wealth tax being counter productive, any progressive income tax would deter people from wanting to earn more?

But that's a bit off topic for here, and should probably be on a different thread.

Agreed, on both points. It presumes that tax should rise per se, of course, which I'm not sure about.

KG's line does seem to be a subtle version of the old leftie knee jerk position of 'more tax = good' (provided someone else pays).

You do understand what a progressive income tax is?

Everyone understands.

If we accept that the energy transition to a low carbon economy is inevitable, because of the perils of climate change, then you need to look at that transition. This thread is really about the travel aspect, which makes up a big portion of emissions.

Ultimately the transition needs to be paid for, through whatever mechanisms you want.

The reality is a lot of that investment required will have to come from the state sector.

What do you propose is the solution is to pay for this investment if it's not more taxes?

kingstongraham

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

Always money for roads though. The improvements to the m25/a3 junction (no new road) is planned at £300m.

The active travel budget was cut to £330m over two years.

Depressing. Scotlands is slated to be £320M by 2025. Is coming from a low base (there is a fraction of the facilities than you have in London), but at least its getting better.

Sorry, wasn't clear - that £330 over two years was for the hole of England.

Meanwhile, 10 miles of dual carriageway around St Neots is approved at an expected cost of almost £1bn.

Wheelspinner

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

Always money for roads though. The improvements to the m25/a3 junction (no new road) is planned at £300m.

The active travel budget was cut to £330m over two years.

Depressing. Scotlands is slated to be £320M by 2025. Is coming from a low base (there is a fraction of the facilities than you have in London), but at least its getting better.

Sorry, wasn't clear - that £330 over two years was for the hole of England.

Meanwhile, 10 miles of dual carriageway around St Neots is approved at an expected cost of almost £1bn.

*Giggle*.

Freudian!?

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

super_davo said:

I used to commute to Brentwood (population 50,000) and cycled from 10 miles away. Generally took in 35 minutes each way. Even in that size of small/medium town, it would typically take 20 minutes to get across town to the part my work was in, making cycling from that distance faster or at least next to nothing in it.

It doesn't need to be a massive city to benefit from better cycling provisions and a shift to cycling, just one where where the infrastructure can't cope with the level of cars it has. And there are an awful lot of places that fit into that category in the UK.

Shorter distances are doable - I drive half way to London, ditch the car and ride (too far to do regular rounds trips purely on the bike). But beyond certain distances and for example where you need to transport stuff or other people etc, then it doesn't work.

You objected to the roll out of active travel across the country because what has happened in London cannot be replicated in a small town, now you are saying that shorter distances (such as getting from one side of a small town to the other) are doable. Make your mind up.

Already have, ta. Point about small towns is that they don't need and cannot justify the cost of transport solutions like trams and tubes. But getting around a town on a bike is OK subject to the stuff I mentioned above.

And the bus. We just need the infrastructure in these towns to change to encourage active travel, i.e. make it harder for cars.

No, they need to make it easier to use other forms of transport. No reason to punish a successful and popular form of transport.

There just isn't room. Other forms of transport are much more space efficient, those who "need" more space should be made to suffer so they change their minds.

Depends where you are in the country. You seem to have your 'city blinkers' on like Rick. Unfortunately those who you want to feel the suffering are sufficient in number that your objective will have a hard time succeeding. There are others on here who realise that the best way to get public acceptance/adoption is via carrots, rather than sticks

The thing is, we've come to accept that the roads are there primarily for cars as that has been the dominant form of transport for 60 years or so but they were mainly built originally for pedestrian and horse traffic. If you try to reallocate them for other uses motoring lobbies act of though they were built specifically for their use and it is yet another war of drivers.

Not convinced that the roads like the M1 or M25 were built for that purpose?

The discussion was about within towns so I didn't think I needed to caveat but OK, outside of motorways and some trunk roads / main roads that were built specifically for motor vehicles the vast majority of the road network pre-dates motor vehicle domination and was originally built to accommodate pedestrian and horse traffic.

It's a bit tricky to design roads for cars before cars exist. But now that they are a major and for many essential form of transport, makes sense to adapt older road to them where needed (as well as building new ones). Which is exactly what has happened, for a good reason.

My point is that motorists / motoring organisations treat those roads as 'their' domain and that any proposals to benefit other road user groups is bad, especially if it adversely affects use by motorists. Why should that be the case?

Not sure you can make a sweeping generalisation like that. But in any event I think that's fair enough, given that motorists get charged if they want to use public roads (regardless of what people call what is really road tax).

All tax payers pay for roads regardless of whether they pay VED. You pay far more tax on the fuel than the VED, too.

Sure there is general taxation spent on roads, but road tax/VED is directly attributable to roads as if you don't pay it, you can't drive on them. So those who pay road tax contribute more.

Stevo_666

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

Please let me know if you can devise a more counter productive tax concept.

Following your "logic", a progressive income tax?

Look up "Scotland" online. Already done, and it is not only more progressive, it is simply more.

At £50k, a taxpayer already pays about £130 more each month than in England. Under the new plans that would be more like £150 a month, which most people would notice.

I'm assuming you understand that there has been a progressive income tax in the UK since before it was the UK. The USA has had one since 1862. Etc.

I'm just pointing out that according to your "logic" relating to a wealth tax being counter productive, any progressive income tax would deter people from wanting to earn more?

But that's a bit off topic for here, and should probably be on a different thread.

Agreed, on both points. It presumes that tax should rise per se, of course, which I'm not sure about.

KG's line does seem to be a subtle version of the old leftie knee jerk position of 'more tax = good' (provided someone else pays).

You do understand what a progressive income tax is?

Yep.

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

Please let me know if you can devise a more counter productive tax concept.

Following your "logic", a progressive income tax?

Look up "Scotland" online. Already done, and it is not only more progressive, it is simply more.

At £50k, a taxpayer already pays about £130 more each month than in England. Under the new plans that would be more like £150 a month, which most people would notice.

I'm assuming you understand that there has been a progressive income tax in the UK since before it was the UK. The USA has had one since 1862. Etc.

I'm just pointing out that according to your "logic" relating to a wealth tax being counter productive, any progressive income tax would deter people from wanting to earn more?

But that's a bit off topic for here, and should probably be on a different thread.

Agreed, on both points. It presumes that tax should rise per se, of course, which I'm not sure about.

KG's line does seem to be a subtle version of the old leftie knee jerk position of 'more tax = good' (provided someone else pays).

You do understand what a progressive income tax is?

Everyone understands.

If we accept that the energy transition to a low carbon economy is inevitable, because of the perils of climate change, then you need to look at that transition. This thread is really about the travel aspect, which makes up a big portion of emissions.

Ultimately the transition needs to be paid for, through whatever mechanisms you want.

The reality is a lot of that investment required will have to come from the state sector.

What do you propose is the solution is to pay for this investment if it's not more taxes?

I think all told my tax burden is around 45-50%

What's the upper limit, in your view? The practical upper limit?

Because you can raise taxes past a certain point and and not actually raise any more tax.

rick_chasey

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

Please let me know if you can devise a more counter productive tax concept.

Following your "logic", a progressive income tax?

Look up "Scotland" online. Already done, and it is not only more progressive, it is simply more.

At £50k, a taxpayer already pays about £130 more each month than in England. Under the new plans that would be more like £150 a month, which most people would notice.

I'm assuming you understand that there has been a progressive income tax in the UK since before it was the UK. The USA has had one since 1862. Etc.

I'm just pointing out that according to your "logic" relating to a wealth tax being counter productive, any progressive income tax would deter people from wanting to earn more?

But that's a bit off topic for here, and should probably be on a different thread.

Agreed, on both points. It presumes that tax should rise per se, of course, which I'm not sure about.

KG's line does seem to be a subtle version of the old leftie knee jerk position of 'more tax = good' (provided someone else pays).

You do understand what a progressive income tax is?

Everyone understands.

If we accept that the energy transition to a low carbon economy is inevitable, because of the perils of climate change, then you need to look at that transition. This thread is really about the travel aspect, which makes up a big portion of emissions.

Ultimately the transition needs to be paid for, through whatever mechanisms you want.

The reality is a lot of that investment required will have to come from the state sector.

What do you propose is the solution is to pay for this investment if it's not more taxes?

I think all told my tax burden is around 45-50%

What's the upper limit, in your view? The practical upper limit?

Because you can raise taxes past a certain point and and not actually raise any more tax.

Find it from elsewhere. It's ludicrous to only tax labour and not wealth.

The main barrier to wealth tax is implementation.

Jezyboy

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

super_davo said:

I used to commute to Brentwood (population 50,000) and cycled from 10 miles away. Generally took in 35 minutes each way. Even in that size of small/medium town, it would typically take 20 minutes to get across town to the part my work was in, making cycling from that distance faster or at least next to nothing in it.

It doesn't need to be a massive city to benefit from better cycling provisions and a shift to cycling, just one where where the infrastructure can't cope with the level of cars it has. And there are an awful lot of places that fit into that category in the UK.

Shorter distances are doable - I drive half way to London, ditch the car and ride (too far to do regular rounds trips purely on the bike). But beyond certain distances and for example where you need to transport stuff or other people etc, then it doesn't work.

You objected to the roll out of active travel across the country because what has happened in London cannot be replicated in a small town, now you are saying that shorter distances (such as getting from one side of a small town to the other) are doable. Make your mind up.

Already have, ta. Point about small towns is that they don't need and cannot justify the cost of transport solutions like trams and tubes. But getting around a town on a bike is OK subject to the stuff I mentioned above.

And the bus. We just need the infrastructure in these towns to change to encourage active travel, i.e. make it harder for cars.

No, they need to make it easier to use other forms of transport. No reason to punish a successful and popular form of transport.

There just isn't room. Other forms of transport are much more space efficient, those who "need" more space should be made to suffer so they change their minds.

Depends where you are in the country. You seem to have your 'city blinkers' on like Rick. Unfortunately those who you want to feel the suffering are sufficient in number that your objective will have a hard time succeeding. There are others on here who realise that the best way to get public acceptance/adoption is via carrots, rather than sticks

The thing is, we've come to accept that the roads are there primarily for cars as that has been the dominant form of transport for 60 years or so but they were mainly built originally for pedestrian and horse traffic. If you try to reallocate them for other uses motoring lobbies act of though they were built specifically for their use and it is yet another war of drivers.

Not convinced that the roads like the M1 or M25 were built for that purpose?

The discussion was about within towns so I didn't think I needed to caveat but OK, outside of motorways and some trunk roads / main roads that were built specifically for motor vehicles the vast majority of the road network pre-dates motor vehicle domination and was originally built to accommodate pedestrian and horse traffic.

It's a bit tricky to design roads for cars before cars exist. But now that they are a major and for many essential form of transport, makes sense to adapt older road to them where needed (as well as building new ones). Which is exactly what has happened, for a good reason.

My point is that motorists / motoring organisations treat those roads as 'their' domain and that any proposals to benefit other road user groups is bad, especially if it adversely affects use by motorists. Why should that be the case?

Not sure you can make a sweeping generalisation like that. But in any event I think that's fair enough, given that motorists get charged if they want to use public roads (regardless of what people call what is really road tax).

All tax payers pay for roads regardless of whether they pay VED. You pay far more tax on the fuel than the VED, too.

Sure there is general taxation spent on roads, but road tax/VED is directly attributable to roads as if you don't pay it, you can't drive on them. So those who pay road tax contribute more.

Meh, two car household here that doesn't pay any road tax or VED.

pangolin

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

super_davo said:

I used to commute to Brentwood (population 50,000) and cycled from 10 miles away. Generally took in 35 minutes each way. Even in that size of small/medium town, it would typically take 20 minutes to get across town to the part my work was in, making cycling from that distance faster or at least next to nothing in it.

It doesn't need to be a massive city to benefit from better cycling provisions and a shift to cycling, just one where where the infrastructure can't cope with the level of cars it has. And there are an awful lot of places that fit into that category in the UK.

Shorter distances are doable - I drive half way to London, ditch the car and ride (too far to do regular rounds trips purely on the bike). But beyond certain distances and for example where you need to transport stuff or other people etc, then it doesn't work.

You objected to the roll out of active travel across the country because what has happened in London cannot be replicated in a small town, now you are saying that shorter distances (such as getting from one side of a small town to the other) are doable. Make your mind up.

Already have, ta. Point about small towns is that they don't need and cannot justify the cost of transport solutions like trams and tubes. But getting around a town on a bike is OK subject to the stuff I mentioned above.

And the bus. We just need the infrastructure in these towns to change to encourage active travel, i.e. make it harder for cars.

No, they need to make it easier to use other forms of transport. No reason to punish a successful and popular form of transport.

There just isn't room. Other forms of transport are much more space efficient, those who "need" more space should be made to suffer so they change their minds.

Depends where you are in the country. You seem to have your 'city blinkers' on like Rick. Unfortunately those who you want to feel the suffering are sufficient in number that your objective will have a hard time succeeding. There are others on here who realise that the best way to get public acceptance/adoption is via carrots, rather than sticks

The thing is, we've come to accept that the roads are there primarily for cars as that has been the dominant form of transport for 60 years or so but they were mainly built originally for pedestrian and horse traffic. If you try to reallocate them for other uses motoring lobbies act of though they were built specifically for their use and it is yet another war of drivers.

Not convinced that the roads like the M1 or M25 were built for that purpose?

The discussion was about within towns so I didn't think I needed to caveat but OK, outside of motorways and some trunk roads / main roads that were built specifically for motor vehicles the vast majority of the road network pre-dates motor vehicle domination and was originally built to accommodate pedestrian and horse traffic.

It's a bit tricky to design roads for cars before cars exist. But now that they are a major and for many essential form of transport, makes sense to adapt older road to them where needed (as well as building new ones). Which is exactly what has happened, for a good reason.

My point is that motorists / motoring organisations treat those roads as 'their' domain and that any proposals to benefit other road user groups is bad, especially if it adversely affects use by motorists. Why should that be the case?

Not sure you can make a sweeping generalisation like that. But in any event I think that's fair enough, given that motorists get charged if they want to use public roads (regardless of what people call what is really road tax).

All tax payers pay for roads regardless of whether they pay VED. You pay far more tax on the fuel than the VED, too.

Sure there is general taxation spent on roads, but road tax/VED is directly attributable to roads as if you don't pay it, you can't drive on them. So those who pay road tax contribute more.

Eh? There is no road tax and as Jezyboy points out, lots of people are exempt from VED.

pangolin

Here you go Stevo:

Is Vehicle Excise Duty ring-fenced for spending on roads?
No. Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) or is not a ‘hypothecated’ tax. In other words, it is not ring-fenced for certain forms of public spending. In particular, despite sometimes being called ‘Road Tax’, VED is not ring-fenced for road spending and is paid into general Government revenues.

Historically there is a precedent for ring-fencing VED for roads spending. The Roads Act 1920 provided a legal link between revenue from vehicle excise duty (VED) and funding for road building and maintenance. But this was deemed unsuccessful as a form of road finance and was abandoned in 1937.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9322/#:~:text=No.,paid into general Government revenues.

kingstongraham

Jezyboy said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

super_davo said:

I used to commute to Brentwood (population 50,000) and cycled from 10 miles away. Generally took in 35 minutes each way. Even in that size of small/medium town, it would typically take 20 minutes to get across town to the part my work was in, making cycling from that distance faster or at least next to nothing in it.

It doesn't need to be a massive city to benefit from better cycling provisions and a shift to cycling, just one where where the infrastructure can't cope with the level of cars it has. And there are an awful lot of places that fit into that category in the UK.

Shorter distances are doable - I drive half way to London, ditch the car and ride (too far to do regular rounds trips purely on the bike). But beyond certain distances and for example where you need to transport stuff or other people etc, then it doesn't work.

You objected to the roll out of active travel across the country because what has happened in London cannot be replicated in a small town, now you are saying that shorter distances (such as getting from one side of a small town to the other) are doable. Make your mind up.

Already have, ta. Point about small towns is that they don't need and cannot justify the cost of transport solutions like trams and tubes. But getting around a town on a bike is OK subject to the stuff I mentioned above.

And the bus. We just need the infrastructure in these towns to change to encourage active travel, i.e. make it harder for cars.

No, they need to make it easier to use other forms of transport. No reason to punish a successful and popular form of transport.

There just isn't room. Other forms of transport are much more space efficient, those who "need" more space should be made to suffer so they change their minds.

Depends where you are in the country. You seem to have your 'city blinkers' on like Rick. Unfortunately those who you want to feel the suffering are sufficient in number that your objective will have a hard time succeeding. There are others on here who realise that the best way to get public acceptance/adoption is via carrots, rather than sticks

The thing is, we've come to accept that the roads are there primarily for cars as that has been the dominant form of transport for 60 years or so but they were mainly built originally for pedestrian and horse traffic. If you try to reallocate them for other uses motoring lobbies act of though they were built specifically for their use and it is yet another war of drivers.

Not convinced that the roads like the M1 or M25 were built for that purpose?

The discussion was about within towns so I didn't think I needed to caveat but OK, outside of motorways and some trunk roads / main roads that were built specifically for motor vehicles the vast majority of the road network pre-dates motor vehicle domination and was originally built to accommodate pedestrian and horse traffic.

It's a bit tricky to design roads for cars before cars exist. But now that they are a major and for many essential form of transport, makes sense to adapt older road to them where needed (as well as building new ones). Which is exactly what has happened, for a good reason.

My point is that motorists / motoring organisations treat those roads as 'their' domain and that any proposals to benefit other road user groups is bad, especially if it adversely affects use by motorists. Why should that be the case?

Not sure you can make a sweeping generalisation like that. But in any event I think that's fair enough, given that motorists get charged if they want to use public roads (regardless of what people call what is really road tax).

All tax payers pay for roads regardless of whether they pay VED. You pay far more tax on the fuel than the VED, too.

Sure there is general taxation spent on roads, but road tax/VED is directly attributable to roads as if you don't pay it, you can't drive on them. So those who pay road tax contribute more.

Meh, two car household here that doesn't pay any road tax or VED.

Or fuel duty, I guess?

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

super_davo said:

I used to commute to Brentwood (population 50,000) and cycled from 10 miles away. Generally took in 35 minutes each way. Even in that size of small/medium town, it would typically take 20 minutes to get across town to the part my work was in, making cycling from that distance faster or at least next to nothing in it.

It doesn't need to be a massive city to benefit from better cycling provisions and a shift to cycling, just one where where the infrastructure can't cope with the level of cars it has. And there are an awful lot of places that fit into that category in the UK.

Shorter distances are doable - I drive half way to London, ditch the car and ride (too far to do regular rounds trips purely on the bike). But beyond certain distances and for example where you need to transport stuff or other people etc, then it doesn't work.

You objected to the roll out of active travel across the country because what has happened in London cannot be replicated in a small town, now you are saying that shorter distances (such as getting from one side of a small town to the other) are doable. Make your mind up.

Already have, ta. Point about small towns is that they don't need and cannot justify the cost of transport solutions like trams and tubes. But getting around a town on a bike is OK subject to the stuff I mentioned above.

And the bus. We just need the infrastructure in these towns to change to encourage active travel, i.e. make it harder for cars.

No, they need to make it easier to use other forms of transport. No reason to punish a successful and popular form of transport.

There just isn't room. Other forms of transport are much more space efficient, those who "need" more space should be made to suffer so they change their minds.

Depends where you are in the country. You seem to have your 'city blinkers' on like Rick. Unfortunately those who you want to feel the suffering are sufficient in number that your objective will have a hard time succeeding. There are others on here who realise that the best way to get public acceptance/adoption is via carrots, rather than sticks

The thing is, we've come to accept that the roads are there primarily for cars as that has been the dominant form of transport for 60 years or so but they were mainly built originally for pedestrian and horse traffic. If you try to reallocate them for other uses motoring lobbies act of though they were built specifically for their use and it is yet another war of drivers.

Not convinced that the roads like the M1 or M25 were built for that purpose?

The discussion was about within towns so I didn't think I needed to caveat but OK, outside of motorways and some trunk roads / main roads that were built specifically for motor vehicles the vast majority of the road network pre-dates motor vehicle domination and was originally built to accommodate pedestrian and horse traffic.

It's a bit tricky to design roads for cars before cars exist. But now that they are a major and for many essential form of transport, makes sense to adapt older road to them where needed (as well as building new ones). Which is exactly what has happened, for a good reason.

My point is that motorists / motoring organisations treat those roads as 'their' domain and that any proposals to benefit other road user groups is bad, especially if it adversely affects use by motorists. Why should that be the case?

Not sure you can make a sweeping generalisation like that. But in any event I think that's fair enough, given that motorists get charged if they want to use public roads (regardless of what people call what is really road tax).

All tax payers pay for roads regardless of whether they pay VED. You pay far more tax on the fuel than the VED, too.

Sure there is general taxation spent on roads, but road tax/VED is directly attributable to roads as if you don't pay it, you can't drive on them. So those who pay road tax contribute more.

There's no link between amount contributed and being able to drive. Plenty of cars with zero VED. It's an emission tax.

Jezyboy

kingstongraham said:

Jezyboy said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

super_davo said:

I used to commute to Brentwood (population 50,000) and cycled from 10 miles away. Generally took in 35 minutes each way. Even in that size of small/medium town, it would typically take 20 minutes to get across town to the part my work was in, making cycling from that distance faster or at least next to nothing in it.

It doesn't need to be a massive city to benefit from better cycling provisions and a shift to cycling, just one where where the infrastructure can't cope with the level of cars it has. And there are an awful lot of places that fit into that category in the UK.

Shorter distances are doable - I drive half way to London, ditch the car and ride (too far to do regular rounds trips purely on the bike). But beyond certain distances and for example where you need to transport stuff or other people etc, then it doesn't work.

You objected to the roll out of active travel across the country because what has happened in London cannot be replicated in a small town, now you are saying that shorter distances (such as getting from one side of a small town to the other) are doable. Make your mind up.

Already have, ta. Point about small towns is that they don't need and cannot justify the cost of transport solutions like trams and tubes. But getting around a town on a bike is OK subject to the stuff I mentioned above.

And the bus. We just need the infrastructure in these towns to change to encourage active travel, i.e. make it harder for cars.

No, they need to make it easier to use other forms of transport. No reason to punish a successful and popular form of transport.

There just isn't room. Other forms of transport are much more space efficient, those who "need" more space should be made to suffer so they change their minds.

Depends where you are in the country. You seem to have your 'city blinkers' on like Rick. Unfortunately those who you want to feel the suffering are sufficient in number that your objective will have a hard time succeeding. There are others on here who realise that the best way to get public acceptance/adoption is via carrots, rather than sticks

The thing is, we've come to accept that the roads are there primarily for cars as that has been the dominant form of transport for 60 years or so but they were mainly built originally for pedestrian and horse traffic. If you try to reallocate them for other uses motoring lobbies act of though they were built specifically for their use and it is yet another war of drivers.

Not convinced that the roads like the M1 or M25 were built for that purpose?

The discussion was about within towns so I didn't think I needed to caveat but OK, outside of motorways and some trunk roads / main roads that were built specifically for motor vehicles the vast majority of the road network pre-dates motor vehicle domination and was originally built to accommodate pedestrian and horse traffic.

It's a bit tricky to design roads for cars before cars exist. But now that they are a major and for many essential form of transport, makes sense to adapt older road to them where needed (as well as building new ones). Which is exactly what has happened, for a good reason.

My point is that motorists / motoring organisations treat those roads as 'their' domain and that any proposals to benefit other road user groups is bad, especially if it adversely affects use by motorists. Why should that be the case?

Not sure you can make a sweeping generalisation like that. But in any event I think that's fair enough, given that motorists get charged if they want to use public roads (regardless of what people call what is really road tax).

All tax payers pay for roads regardless of whether they pay VED. You pay far more tax on the fuel than the VED, too.

Sure there is general taxation spent on roads, but road tax/VED is directly attributable to roads as if you don't pay it, you can't drive on them. So those who pay road tax contribute more.

Meh, two car household here that doesn't pay any road tax or VED.

Or fuel duty, I guess?

Nah some fuel duty, Historic and a low co2 emission diesel.

Wouldn't have to pay any ULEZ either.

Stevo_666

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

super_davo said:

I used to commute to Brentwood (population 50,000) and cycled from 10 miles away. Generally took in 35 minutes each way. Even in that size of small/medium town, it would typically take 20 minutes to get across town to the part my work was in, making cycling from that distance faster or at least next to nothing in it.

It doesn't need to be a massive city to benefit from better cycling provisions and a shift to cycling, just one where where the infrastructure can't cope with the level of cars it has. And there are an awful lot of places that fit into that category in the UK.

Shorter distances are doable - I drive half way to London, ditch the car and ride (too far to do regular rounds trips purely on the bike). But beyond certain distances and for example where you need to transport stuff or other people etc, then it doesn't work.

You objected to the roll out of active travel across the country because what has happened in London cannot be replicated in a small town, now you are saying that shorter distances (such as getting from one side of a small town to the other) are doable. Make your mind up.

Already have, ta. Point about small towns is that they don't need and cannot justify the cost of transport solutions like trams and tubes. But getting around a town on a bike is OK subject to the stuff I mentioned above.

And the bus. We just need the infrastructure in these towns to change to encourage active travel, i.e. make it harder for cars.

No, they need to make it easier to use other forms of transport. No reason to punish a successful and popular form of transport.

There just isn't room. Other forms of transport are much more space efficient, those who "need" more space should be made to suffer so they change their minds.

Depends where you are in the country. You seem to have your 'city blinkers' on like Rick. Unfortunately those who you want to feel the suffering are sufficient in number that your objective will have a hard time succeeding. There are others on here who realise that the best way to get public acceptance/adoption is via carrots, rather than sticks

The thing is, we've come to accept that the roads are there primarily for cars as that has been the dominant form of transport for 60 years or so but they were mainly built originally for pedestrian and horse traffic. If you try to reallocate them for other uses motoring lobbies act of though they were built specifically for their use and it is yet another war of drivers.

Not convinced that the roads like the M1 or M25 were built for that purpose?

The discussion was about within towns so I didn't think I needed to caveat but OK, outside of motorways and some trunk roads / main roads that were built specifically for motor vehicles the vast majority of the road network pre-dates motor vehicle domination and was originally built to accommodate pedestrian and horse traffic.

It's a bit tricky to design roads for cars before cars exist. But now that they are a major and for many essential form of transport, makes sense to adapt older road to them where needed (as well as building new ones). Which is exactly what has happened, for a good reason.

My point is that motorists / motoring organisations treat those roads as 'their' domain and that any proposals to benefit other road user groups is bad, especially if it adversely affects use by motorists. Why should that be the case?

Not sure you can make a sweeping generalisation like that. But in any event I think that's fair enough, given that motorists get charged if they want to use public roads (regardless of what people call what is really road tax).

All tax payers pay for roads regardless of whether they pay VED. You pay far more tax on the fuel than the VED, too.

Sure there is general taxation spent on roads, but road tax/VED is directly attributable to roads as if you don't pay it, you can't drive on them. So those who pay road tax contribute more.

Eh? There is no road tax and as Jezyboy points out, lots of people are exempt from VED.

Call it what you like. Anything that requires you to pay it before you can legally drive on a public road is in reality road tax. I already explained that once above.

kingstongraham

Stevo_666 said:

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

super_davo said:

I used to commute to Brentwood (population 50,000) and cycled from 10 miles away. Generally took in 35 minutes each way. Even in that size of small/medium town, it would typically take 20 minutes to get across town to the part my work was in, making cycling from that distance faster or at least next to nothing in it.

It doesn't need to be a massive city to benefit from better cycling provisions and a shift to cycling, just one where where the infrastructure can't cope with the level of cars it has. And there are an awful lot of places that fit into that category in the UK.

Shorter distances are doable - I drive half way to London, ditch the car and ride (too far to do regular rounds trips purely on the bike). But beyond certain distances and for example where you need to transport stuff or other people etc, then it doesn't work.

You objected to the roll out of active travel across the country because what has happened in London cannot be replicated in a small town, now you are saying that shorter distances (such as getting from one side of a small town to the other) are doable. Make your mind up.

Already have, ta. Point about small towns is that they don't need and cannot justify the cost of transport solutions like trams and tubes. But getting around a town on a bike is OK subject to the stuff I mentioned above.

And the bus. We just need the infrastructure in these towns to change to encourage active travel, i.e. make it harder for cars.

No, they need to make it easier to use other forms of transport. No reason to punish a successful and popular form of transport.

There just isn't room. Other forms of transport are much more space efficient, those who "need" more space should be made to suffer so they change their minds.

Depends where you are in the country. You seem to have your 'city blinkers' on like Rick. Unfortunately those who you want to feel the suffering are sufficient in number that your objective will have a hard time succeeding. There are others on here who realise that the best way to get public acceptance/adoption is via carrots, rather than sticks

The thing is, we've come to accept that the roads are there primarily for cars as that has been the dominant form of transport for 60 years or so but they were mainly built originally for pedestrian and horse traffic. If you try to reallocate them for other uses motoring lobbies act of though they were built specifically for their use and it is yet another war of drivers.

Not convinced that the roads like the M1 or M25 were built for that purpose?

The discussion was about within towns so I didn't think I needed to caveat but OK, outside of motorways and some trunk roads / main roads that were built specifically for motor vehicles the vast majority of the road network pre-dates motor vehicle domination and was originally built to accommodate pedestrian and horse traffic.

It's a bit tricky to design roads for cars before cars exist. But now that they are a major and for many essential form of transport, makes sense to adapt older road to them where needed (as well as building new ones). Which is exactly what has happened, for a good reason.

My point is that motorists / motoring organisations treat those roads as 'their' domain and that any proposals to benefit other road user groups is bad, especially if it adversely affects use by motorists. Why should that be the case?

Not sure you can make a sweeping generalisation like that. But in any event I think that's fair enough, given that motorists get charged if they want to use public roads (regardless of what people call what is really road tax).

All tax payers pay for roads regardless of whether they pay VED. You pay far more tax on the fuel than the VED, too.

Sure there is general taxation spent on roads, but road tax/VED is directly attributable to roads as if you don't pay it, you can't drive on them. So those who pay road tax contribute more.

Eh? There is no road tax and as Jezyboy points out, lots of people are exempt from VED.

Call it what you like. Anything that requires you to pay it before you can legally drive on a public road is in reality road tax. I already explained that once above.

OK, so we can agree that VED isn't road tax then.

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

super_davo said:

I used to commute to Brentwood (population 50,000) and cycled from 10 miles away. Generally took in 35 minutes each way. Even in that size of small/medium town, it would typically take 20 minutes to get across town to the part my work was in, making cycling from that distance faster or at least next to nothing in it.

It doesn't need to be a massive city to benefit from better cycling provisions and a shift to cycling, just one where where the infrastructure can't cope with the level of cars it has. And there are an awful lot of places that fit into that category in the UK.

Shorter distances are doable - I drive half way to London, ditch the car and ride (too far to do regular rounds trips purely on the bike). But beyond certain distances and for example where you need to transport stuff or other people etc, then it doesn't work.

You objected to the roll out of active travel across the country because what has happened in London cannot be replicated in a small town, now you are saying that shorter distances (such as getting from one side of a small town to the other) are doable. Make your mind up.

Already have, ta. Point about small towns is that they don't need and cannot justify the cost of transport solutions like trams and tubes. But getting around a town on a bike is OK subject to the stuff I mentioned above.

And the bus. We just need the infrastructure in these towns to change to encourage active travel, i.e. make it harder for cars.

No, they need to make it easier to use other forms of transport. No reason to punish a successful and popular form of transport.

There just isn't room. Other forms of transport are much more space efficient, those who "need" more space should be made to suffer so they change their minds.

Depends where you are in the country. You seem to have your 'city blinkers' on like Rick. Unfortunately those who you want to feel the suffering are sufficient in number that your objective will have a hard time succeeding. There are others on here who realise that the best way to get public acceptance/adoption is via carrots, rather than sticks

The thing is, we've come to accept that the roads are there primarily for cars as that has been the dominant form of transport for 60 years or so but they were mainly built originally for pedestrian and horse traffic. If you try to reallocate them for other uses motoring lobbies act of though they were built specifically for their use and it is yet another war of drivers.

Not convinced that the roads like the M1 or M25 were built for that purpose?

The discussion was about within towns so I didn't think I needed to caveat but OK, outside of motorways and some trunk roads / main roads that were built specifically for motor vehicles the vast majority of the road network pre-dates motor vehicle domination and was originally built to accommodate pedestrian and horse traffic.

It's a bit tricky to design roads for cars before cars exist. But now that they are a major and for many essential form of transport, makes sense to adapt older road to them where needed (as well as building new ones). Which is exactly what has happened, for a good reason.

My point is that motorists / motoring organisations treat those roads as 'their' domain and that any proposals to benefit other road user groups is bad, especially if it adversely affects use by motorists. Why should that be the case?

Not sure you can make a sweeping generalisation like that. But in any event I think that's fair enough, given that motorists get charged if they want to use public roads (regardless of what people call what is really road tax).

All tax payers pay for roads regardless of whether they pay VED. You pay far more tax on the fuel than the VED, too.

Sure there is general taxation spent on roads, but road tax/VED is directly attributable to roads as if you don't pay it, you can't drive on them. So those who pay road tax contribute more.

There's no link between amount contributed and being able to drive. Plenty of cars with zero VED. It's an emission tax.

Sure there are some who are exempt but my point above still stands.

Stevo_666

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

super_davo said:

I used to commute to Brentwood (population 50,000) and cycled from 10 miles away. Generally took in 35 minutes each way. Even in that size of small/medium town, it would typically take 20 minutes to get across town to the part my work was in, making cycling from that distance faster or at least next to nothing in it.

It doesn't need to be a massive city to benefit from better cycling provisions and a shift to cycling, just one where where the infrastructure can't cope with the level of cars it has. And there are an awful lot of places that fit into that category in the UK.

Shorter distances are doable - I drive half way to London, ditch the car and ride (too far to do regular rounds trips purely on the bike). But beyond certain distances and for example where you need to transport stuff or other people etc, then it doesn't work.

You objected to the roll out of active travel across the country because what has happened in London cannot be replicated in a small town, now you are saying that shorter distances (such as getting from one side of a small town to the other) are doable. Make your mind up.

Already have, ta. Point about small towns is that they don't need and cannot justify the cost of transport solutions like trams and tubes. But getting around a town on a bike is OK subject to the stuff I mentioned above.

And the bus. We just need the infrastructure in these towns to change to encourage active travel, i.e. make it harder for cars.

No, they need to make it easier to use other forms of transport. No reason to punish a successful and popular form of transport.

There just isn't room. Other forms of transport are much more space efficient, those who "need" more space should be made to suffer so they change their minds.

Depends where you are in the country. You seem to have your 'city blinkers' on like Rick. Unfortunately those who you want to feel the suffering are sufficient in number that your objective will have a hard time succeeding. There are others on here who realise that the best way to get public acceptance/adoption is via carrots, rather than sticks

The thing is, we've come to accept that the roads are there primarily for cars as that has been the dominant form of transport for 60 years or so but they were mainly built originally for pedestrian and horse traffic. If you try to reallocate them for other uses motoring lobbies act of though they were built specifically for their use and it is yet another war of drivers.

Not convinced that the roads like the M1 or M25 were built for that purpose?

The discussion was about within towns so I didn't think I needed to caveat but OK, outside of motorways and some trunk roads / main roads that were built specifically for motor vehicles the vast majority of the road network pre-dates motor vehicle domination and was originally built to accommodate pedestrian and horse traffic.

It's a bit tricky to design roads for cars before cars exist. But now that they are a major and for many essential form of transport, makes sense to adapt older road to them where needed (as well as building new ones). Which is exactly what has happened, for a good reason.

My point is that motorists / motoring organisations treat those roads as 'their' domain and that any proposals to benefit other road user groups is bad, especially if it adversely affects use by motorists. Why should that be the case?

Not sure you can make a sweeping generalisation like that. But in any event I think that's fair enough, given that motorists get charged if they want to use public roads (regardless of what people call what is really road tax).

All tax payers pay for roads regardless of whether they pay VED. You pay far more tax on the fuel than the VED, too.

Sure there is general taxation spent on roads, but road tax/VED is directly attributable to roads as if you don't pay it, you can't drive on them. So those who pay road tax contribute more.

Eh? There is no road tax and as Jezyboy points out, lots of people are exempt from VED.

Call it what you like. Anything that requires you to pay it before you can legally drive on a public road is in reality road tax. I already explained that once above.

OK, so we can agree that VED isn't road tax then.

Read my post above. In reality it is, for the reason given.

Jezyboy

Sure lots don't have to pay it to drive on the roads and it's not called road tax.

But my point still stands that it's road tax.

kingstongraham

OK, if you like. Still not used to pay for roads though.

Brings in £11bn - forecast to rise when electric vehicles become liable.

Fuel duty brings in £23bn - forecast to rise because they are pretending the temporary cut won't be extended, then to decline because of the rise in percentage of electric vehicles.

pangolin

Hard to believe this is a cycling forum sometimes