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

rjsterry

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.

Repeating it doesn't make it true.

pangolin

Can we establish who has the most entitlement to roads based our total tax bills, as it all goes into a general pot?

Maybe we could apply this to other services too. Premium NHS waiting times. First refusal to good schools. Sounds great!

Stevo_666

pangolin said:

Hard to believe this is a cycling forum sometimes

But you've learned something.

rjsterry

No.

Let's talk about buses. 🙂

Stevo_666

rjsterry 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.

Repeating it doesn't make it true.

Challenging it doesnt make you right.

Stevo_666

Jezyboy said:

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.

Which bit don't you understand?

Stevo_666

pangolin said:

Can we establish who has the most entitlement to roads based our total tax bills, as it all goes into a general pot?

Maybe we could apply this to other services too. Premium NHS waiting times. First refusal to good schools. Sounds great!

Why not? Applies in many walks of life that you get what you pay for.

Stevo_666

pangolin said:

Hard to believe this is a cycling forum sometimes

Yep, it's all politics.

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

pangolin said:

Can we establish who has the most entitlement to roads based our total tax bills, as it all goes into a general pot?

Maybe we could apply this to other services too. Premium NHS waiting times. First refusal to good schools. Sounds great!

Why not? Applies in many walks of life that you get what you pay for.

Except this very clear case.

kingstongraham

We need a tax expert on here.

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry 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.

Repeating it doesn't make it true.

Challenging it doesnt make you right.

Does one have to pay it to drive any car or van on public roads? No.
Does it pay for roads specifically? No.

There is a toll on the M6. I think that's a flat rate so you could call that a road tax.

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry 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.

Repeating it doesn't make it true.

Challenging it doesnt make you right.

Does one have to pay it to drive a car or van on public roads? No.
Does it pay for roads specifically? No.

You need to pay it unless specifically exempt. Otherwise you get fined. Do you really not know that?

kingstongraham

I think we probably should have a road tax. You should pay more if you drive on the roads more, and if you drive a heavier vehicle, and if your vehicle causes more pollution. The current system is not fit for purpose.

Stevo_666

kingstongraham said:

We need a tax expert on here.

I thought you knew it all?

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

No.

Let's talk about buses. 🙂

Well there is a warning in the thread title so carry on...

kingstongraham

.

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry 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.

Repeating it doesn't make it true.

Challenging it doesnt make you right.

Does one have to pay it to drive a car or van on public roads? No.
Does it pay for roads specifically? No.

You need to pay it unless specifically exempt. Otherwise you get fined. Do you really not know that?

You have to have registered the vehicle. You only pay the tax if your vehicle emits CO2. There are over a million vehicles legally on the road that are not taxed.

kingstongraham

It's more like a permit, isn't it? A licence?

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

No.

Let's talk about buses. 🙂

Well there is a warning in the thread title so carry on...

😁

Stevo_666

Anyway, was wondering if this one belonged in the Irony thread, or maybe even the trivial things that cheer you up thead:
https://telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/09/08/ulez-vans-bromley-council-parking-verges-fines-sadiq-khan/

Well done Bromley

pinno

rick_chasey said:

Have often wondered about the efficiency of double decker busses, given how they're fairly unique to the UK.

Clearly the bendy busses were a disaster in London, but I have always wondered why it hasn't been done elsewhere.

They have them in Sweden.

pinno

pangolin said:

Can we establish who has the most entitlement to roads based our total tax bills, as it all goes into a general pot?

Maybe we could apply this to other services too. Premium NHS waiting times. First refusal to good schools. Sounds great!

Perhaps stick the tax on to fuel.
[With rural reductions before anyone starts jumping up and down a bit]

pangolin

pinno said:

rick_chasey said:

Have often wondered about the efficiency of double decker busses, given how they're fairly unique to the UK.

Clearly the bendy busses were a disaster in London, but I have always wondered why it hasn't been done elsewhere.

They have them in Sweden.

And France

First.Aspect

kingstongraham said:

I think we probably should have a road tax. You should pay more if you drive on the roads more, and if you drive a heavier vehicle, and if your vehicle causes more pollution. The current system is not fit for purpose.

Couldn't agree more.

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?

The increase will help pay for more childcare.

Internet. Population of Scotland is 37 times greater than Cambridge. You really should be more informed.

If I can have half a clue about issues in London, Manchester or the SW, I'm sure you could have half a clue about the 32% of Britain north of the end of your nose.

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry 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.

Repeating it doesn't make it true.

Challenging it doesnt make you right.

Does one have to pay it to drive a car or van on public roads? No.
Does it pay for roads specifically? No.

You need to pay it unless specifically exempt. Otherwise you get fined. Do you really not know that?

You have to have registered the vehicle. You only pay the tax if your vehicle emits CO2. There are over a million vehicles legally on the road that are not taxed.

The exemptions that prove the rule...

rjsterry

pinno said:

pangolin said:

Can we establish who has the most entitlement to roads based our total tax bills, as it all goes into a general pot?

Maybe we could apply this to other services too. Premium NHS waiting times. First refusal to good schools. Sounds great!

Perhaps stick the tax on to fuel.
[With rural reductions before anyone starts jumping up and down a bit]

There's already way more tax on fuel than VED.

Band E pays £180/year

Fuel duty is 52.95p/litre or 35%.

If you drive 10,000 miles a year at an average of 35mpg is about 1,300 litres of fuel and £688.35 of tax.

pblakeney

rjsterry said:

pinno said:

pangolin said:

Can we establish who has the most entitlement to roads based our total tax bills, as it all goes into a general pot?

Maybe we could apply this to other services too. Premium NHS waiting times. First refusal to good schools. Sounds great!

Perhaps stick the tax on to fuel.
[With rural reductions before anyone starts jumping up and down a bit]

There's already way more tax on fuel than VED.

Band E pays £180/year

Fuel duty is 52.95p/litre or 35%.

If you drive 10,000 miles a year at an average of 35mpg is about 1,300 litres of fuel and £688.35 of tax.

UK mixing of units always amuses me, keep up the good work! 🤣

pinno

rjsterry said:

pinno said:

pangolin said:

Can we establish who has the most entitlement to roads based our total tax bills, as it all goes into a general pot?

Maybe we could apply this to other services too. Premium NHS waiting times. First refusal to good schools. Sounds great!

Perhaps stick the tax on to fuel.
[With rural reductions before anyone starts jumping up and down a bit]

There's already way more tax on fuel than VED.

Band E pays £180/year

Fuel duty is 52.95p/litre or 35%.

If you drive 10,000 miles a year at an average of 35mpg is about 1,300 litres of fuel and £688.35 of tax.

I have an ULEZ compatible Bee eM which does 40+ to the gallon and I only pay £30 road tax per year so I would be happy to pay an extra 0.00?p per litre @16k* per annum.

*Converted for PB.

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?

The increase will help pay for more childcare.

Internet. Population of Scotland is 37 times greater than Cambridge. You really should be more informed.

If I can have half a clue about issues in London, Manchester or the SW, I'm sure you could have half a clue about the 32% of Britain north of the end of your nose.

I won’t lie, I’m not following the argument here.