|
But you will not get better drivers ,we know that so we have to look at alternatives.
|
|
Maybe start making smaller cars? I find it astonishing the size of some of the stuff on the roads today.
|
|
|
|
We're going to struggle on our tiny little island to make roads wider!
Cars have become a lot longer, on average - it's something like a foot longer than the average car in 1980 (I have read that somewhere but I can't find my source, sorry!)
Also, think of all the 4x4s (which obviously people need to drive a chihuahua and a toddler around in), and people carriers on the roads.
|
|
Trunk roads are invariably wide enough-roads only tend to be narrow where existing buildings impose an upper limit to the width of the road. So unless you propose compulsory purchase and demolition of a large chunk of our towns and villages your idea is a complete non-starter. The problem tends not to affectt he new world since roads invariably came before the buildings.
|
|
|
|
I think a problem is alot of our roads were built so many years ago that in those times the people who lived in those areas couldnt afford cars, the houses and roads were never built to accomodate car ownership and now they just all end up parked on the street. Im sure we've all been down roads which are basically one lane with cars one each side because there is nowhere else to park, that needs looking at. They never foresaw the mass wealth coming to the working classes and couldnt imagine houses on average wage having two vehicles, even my Dad says when he was a kid there was one car in their street, and when they got theirs they'd borrow the neighbours driveway because they didnt have a car, i mean that sounds prehistoric but it wasnt that long ago.
Parking spaces are still built for the old Ford Anglia despite the modern day Mondeo being a foot longer than the last Cortina, all the safety equipment has beefed up cars to be massive, a Fiesta is now a four-person vehicle when i remember Fiesta's being tiny (unsafe, but tiny) so yes Bobbin you're right cars have gotten bigger. I think we'll continue to have problems until some future Government bites the bullet and rips down every town, every city, every road and starts all over again, as thats what it really needs. Oh well if they can make transparent planes by 2050 then who knows?!?
|
Government bites the bullet and rips down every town, every city, every road and starts all over again, as thats what it really needs.
Erm. No thanks. I like my old buildings. I don't want to live in a government approved eco box. That sort of stuff belongs in the Soviet union. I suppose as a Labour supporter, you'd like that eh? ;)
|
|
No indeed! It would look awful. Ever been to Bucharest?!
|
|
No but if bucharest has somewhere to park then its worth consideration
|
|
In general we don't need wider roads. Of course, there are many places where a main road is sub-standard and, given time and money, these should be widened where practicable.
I agree that family hatchbacks seem to be getting bigger but on the other hand in the 1960's more people drove big saloons and estates made by the mass manufacturers - Ford Zephyr, Vauxhall Cresta, Austin Westminster, Humber Hawk etc. Also, although there were no big 4x4 SUVs, quite a lot of people used Bedford Dormobiles, or Ford Transit equivalents, as their day-to-day transport.
I believe we've reached 'peak motoring' and that the future trend will be a slow decline in private motoring as oil becomes more and more expensive. There will be ups and downs, but the long term trend will be down unless we see rapid population growth, which hasn't happened yet despite the forecasts made in the 1960's and 70's.
Edited by Sofa Spud on 15/06/2011 at 23:26
|
|
Mass widening of roads is probably never going to happen certainly not anytime soon so as someone has said maybe make smaller cars again,only problem with that is people are getting bigger.
|
will be a slow decline in private motoring as oil becomes more and more expensive.
Nonsense.
Of the £5000+ the average motorist spends on motoring each year, perhaps £600 is spent on fuel*. The rest of the fuel bill is taxation. Governments like to hide behind oil price spikes to deflect attention away from the fact that motorists are overtaxed and taxing domestic fuel is politically sensitive.
Cars only account for about 15% of the country's CO2 emissions-yet they pay the bulk of 'carbon' based taxes. It's only the scientific illiteracy of the general public that lets government get away with it. We laugh at the Americans for their cheap gas but there it is no more logical to tax petrol than heating oil.
*average motorist covering 10,000 miles pa @40 miles/gallon=250 gallons pa.
Cost price of fuel=£2.50/gallon or 56p/litre.
|
|
I wonder where those who advocate reducing tax on consumption think the shortfall in tax revenues will come from? Income tax? tax on food? Other consumables? A mixture of all?
Wherever tax is taken from or whatever is taxed, there will be 'losers' or those who think they're unfairly done by - that's human nature!
It does amuse me that 'motorists' see themselves almost as a class apart or a section of the community - we're all 'motorists' in fact, inasmuch as we rely upon or need things or services delivered by vehicles - there isn't a separate enitiy of 'motorists' , we all depend upon vehicles to some extent.
It's financial & fiscal illiteracy to bang on about the 'persecuted' motorist - tax is imposed & levied by a democratically elected parliament. All parties & parliaments have for over 100 years levied tax on fuel, it's not some great conspriracy to deprive 'motorists' of money , but a grown-up way of dividing the tax burden.
The specious arguments of some lobbies & organisations (not to mention posters) in favour of reducing fuel tax totally ignores any logical discussion on where tax revenues will be raised & instead focusses on the daft notion that they're somehow a special (almost ethnic!) section of society. Fuel tax is the fairest tax of all - its effects find expression in all facets of our economy & permeate all layers & income groups. Some exceptions or relief could be made - assistance with fuel costs for elderly people or those reliant on cars, disproportionately, in some isolated areas for example (although the latter would be difficult to apply/medaite fairly).
|
|
The shortfall in tax revenue shouldnt come from anywhere, its about time we stopped viewing it as the Government losing money and saw it in the way of the public saving money instead. We elect our Government (we didnt elect this one, so everything they do is void, communistical and no better than Kim Jong ill in my opinion) but on the whole we elect them, it is not our job to give them lots of money, to pay for their peerages and golden handshakes. Everytime a politician comes out and says "but the Government would lose money!" you just want to give them a violin dont you. If they put my income tax up and i go to them "but im losing money!" they dont give a f*** about me so why should we give a f*** about them losing money? So what? The Government is making millions lose money every day and every year, with freezing paypackets, job losses, sky high inflation and unreasonable tax bills, yet households cant sit there and complain and tell others they have to go without to make up for our shortfall can they? no they cant, the rest of the country has to find a way to make do with less so the government need a taste of the real world. They dont give a f*** about the normal people losing money everyday so dont expect me to cry for them. The Government took advantage of a low oil price for decades to fleece the motorist and line their pockets with undeserved cash and those days will now have to come to an end. They mustve stored up billions down the years when it was easy for them to rip us off but high oil prices means thats no longer a viable option for them. They had their golden age, its over. If they wasted the money which they stole from us undeservedly and blew it on rubbish like politicians do then thats their fault, not ours.
Again, its not the Government losing money, its the public saving it. Although if you want to make up the shortfall, how about Cameron u-turns on his 37% rise in Foreign Aid. We now spend £9.4billion on it per year, which is about a third of what they bring in through fuel duty alone, eliminate foreign aid, cut fuel tax, look after the people of Britain first, and if theres any left, then help the rest of the World. But it always seems our Government puts starving kiddies in terrorist-harbouring Pakistan first, and their british taxpayers second.
Edited by jamie745 on 16/06/2011 at 03:20
|
|
I dont often agree (or understand) what unthrottled says so today is a special day. The price of oil is very reasonable right now i'd say, especially as even with VAT petrol would in the UK be a highly reasonable 70p a litre ish (that may even be being kind to the government), its the extra tax which makes it a problem, the price of the oil isnt whats driving people off the road what so ever.
As said above cars contribute to 15% of the UK's emissions, and even with that the UK in total makes up about 3% of the global total, yet despite our very very minor influence we do seem to be charged, punished and taxed very heavily and disproportionately. Despite our minor footprint (if you buy into this greenie stuff which i personally dont) we do seem obsessed with taking the lead on the subject when even if we shut down all our emission making industry tomorrow it'd make practically zero difference.
High fuel tax is dressed up as a green measure, despite the scientific figures not stacking up to support that, the reality is its because Governments dont like people having cars. Its personal independance, a way of someone travelling by themselves, something Governments view as selfish and wrong, so it must be punished and discouraged. Politically having a car is a big no no these days, we always seem to have to justify why we have one. Also its the Governments best way of taking people off the road so as they dont have to stump up the cash for road improvements to help congestion.
People who come out with the whole "oil is running out" and "oil price will stop us driving" stuff only serve to cover up the big issue that its tax which is causing the problem not energy prices. The general public believe "oh cars cause global warming yes they should be taxed heavily!" yet seem to think the power which runs their houses and heats them in winter is completely green when it isnt. I hardly ever attended science class and have little interest in the subject but even i can work this out.
|
Tut tut, statistics without citation?
Environmental Protection reckon on 22%.
|
|
The statistic isn't as clear cut as you might think-how does one differentiate commercial traffic as opposed t oprivate motoring?
|
|
We don't need wider raods.
We need fewer people.
We need fewer cars.
We need more fuel efficient cars.
For "fewer" I suggest 50% reduction.
More fuel efficient? An inpmrovemnet in "average" fule consumption of 50%..
And raise RFL on anything overr 200g of CO2 to £1,000pa...
Talk of reductions in fuel duty = wishful head in sky rubbish.
Edited by madf on 16/06/2011 at 11:01
|
|
will be a slow decline in private motoring as oil becomes more and more expensive.-
Depends where you live. In my rural neck of the woods, you drive, ride or walk. no trains or buses. So unless you are going to be unemployed, we will always drive. We will however over time switch to more greener forms of motoring( if you are that bothered with green issues-personally I am not)
|
More fuel efficient? An inpmrovemnet in "average" fule consumption of 50%..
That's wishful head in the sky thinking. It is simply not possible to improve the efficiency of a diesel engine by 50%. A genuine 10% improvement would represent a genuine achievement. In thermodynamics, the laws are given to you, you don't just make them up like as with wishy washy arts subjects.
We need fewer people.
You could always remove yourself from the planet...
We need fewer cars
...but you need yours more than someone else needs theirs, right?
We should raise the RFL of cars emitting more than 200g/km CO2
Why? A 50mpg travelling 50,000 miles pa uses the same amount of fuel as a 10mpg SUV traveling 10000 miles pa. Why should one pay more tax than the other? This is just self-scented drivel.
A cut in fuel duty is easily affordable if it is accompanied by a sharp rise in Air passenger duty. Airlines don't pay any duty on their fuel. Why should one form of travel be heavily taxed and another one barely taxed at all. Ridiculous.
Edited by unthrottled on 16/06/2011 at 14:45
|
|
A reduction in average efficiency can be easily achieved : by reducing the numbers of larger less fuel efficiient cars...
I could indeed remove myself from this planet. Thanks for the suggestion. AS I am polite, I'll wait for you to go first.
As for:
"
A cut in fuel duty is easily affordable if it is accompanied by a sharp rise in Air passenger duty. Airlines don't pay any duty on their fuel. Why should one form of travel be heavily taxed and another one barely taxed at all. Ridiculous."
I'm sorry to see you've done ZERO research or sums on your idea...So I shall treat it as such...
|
A reduction in average efficiency can be easily achieved : by reducing the numbers of larger less fuel efficiient cars..
Which is more fuel efficient-a Toyota Prius or a Scania HGV? You don't really understand the difference between fuel economy and fuel efficiency. It is desirable for Government to encourage more efficient consumption, not dictate how people utilise resources.
Air passenger duty is £85 for economy class ticket one way for a distance of 6000+ miles. APD is only payable one way so double the distance to 12,000 miles.
Assume 80miles/gallon/passenger for a long haul flight.
12,000 miles/80mppg=250gallons/return flight/passenger
Amount of duty paid by airline:£0
Amount of duty payable by motorist on 250gallons of fuel: £650
Amount of VAT payable on duty and fuel:£259
Total taxes: £909
So it would be perfectly revenue neutral to push the air passenger taxation up from £85 and reduce the motorists' taxation down from £900, wouldn't it? It would also be fairer, wouldn't it?
Much more sensible and well thought out than your selfish wishing other people didn't exist or drive cars while you continue to exist and drive a car...
Edited by unthrottled on 16/06/2011 at 16:01
|
|
"
Much more sensible and well thought out than your selfish wishing other people didn't exist or drive cars while you continue to exist and drive a car.."
Hmm
Perhaps you might like to quote exactly where I said that....
Your sums are nonsensical...
And I quoet again:
"
A reduction in average efficiency can be easily achieved : by reducing the numbers of larger less fuel efficiient cars..
Which is more fuel efficient-a Toyota Prius or a Scania HGV? "
No-where did I mention HGVs. I specifically said CARS...Even I know a Scania is not a car.. You obviously don't appear to do so by your reply...:-)
You really ought to read what I write not what you want to think I wrote. But then you don't like the message so write any sort of twaddle just to argue back.
I give up.
Edited by madf on 16/06/2011 at 16:14
|
|
Here's your quote as requested:
We need fewer people.
We need fewer cars.
Your sums are nonsensical...
Where are your sums?
Here's another one:
APD raises about £2.25 billion/year. If we doubled it and allowed for a 15% drop in air traffic, then that would leave the treasury with an extra £1.5billion which could offset a decrease in fuel duty. Doubling APD would still represent a ridiculously generous level of taxation for air passengers.
My point of comparing the truck to the car was to indicate that fuel economy is not the same as fuel efficiency. A horrid little 3 cylinder econobox hasn't got the same carrying capability as a larger car. The larger car might well be more efficient even though it gets fewer mpg. Whether the larger car is required or not has nothing to do with government. People switching to more efficient cars often use the increased mpg to undertake more journeys which means that total consumption stays the same.
Edited by unthrottled on 16/06/2011 at 17:02
|
|
Whatever the rights or wrongs our roads are to full and the way we carrry. on nobody will be able to move in a few years.We need transportating but how many journis by car or lorry are really necessary?Public transport goods taking by barges all can be inproved.I am not one to work out figures but somewhere along the line we have to find a answer.Where I live some household have 4 cars vans parked everywhere,next thing we have the Scania parked outside our house.;) There may be a good reason why there are so many cars in some households but unfortenately we are running out of space in our congested citys.
|
I am not one to work out figures but somewhere along the line we have to find a answer.
Sorry, but without quantification a concept is just a utopian artist's impression which always tend to be hopelessly optimistic.
Your point about parking overspill is a good one-but not relevant to the capacity of roads. Most densely populated urban areas only permit 1 or 2 parking permits per address. Perhaps this should be extended. If you can't prove that you have somewhere to park your car, you can't own one perhaps?
Carrying goods by barge?? In Holland where you have fullsize canals-yes.
In the UK, canals are historic relics. A 30 tonne barge simply simply isn't economic-even for carrying coal. This is why numbers and detail matter.
Congestion is a pain but I really can't comprehend why some people expect everyone else to use buses and trains-when they themselves continue to use their car! I don't like buses and I don't expect anyone else to use them. I'm not a hypocrite.
Edited by unthrottled on 16/06/2011 at 17:19
|
|
my wife used to use buses to get to and from work, she'd be gone 14 hours a day for a 7.5 hour job, she now drives in (we've got a son and it's a bit unfair to wake him up so early and put him to bed so late) now she's only gone for 12 hours a day and much less stressed, we bought a Seat ibiza ecomotive in december but it's costing her more in that then my LS400 cost 2 years ago :-S
|
|
I didn’t want to let this thread expire before posting an acknowledgement of woodbines’ well constructed post. A brave opinion to post on a motoring forum.
The response…sadly predictable.
|
|
dereckr
you are oif course correct.
Ther are people who want lewer taxes and object to spending less when it affects them.. See the nonsense quoted on Foreign Aid.
I suggest we cut ALL fuel taxes to nile.. and save money by albolishing all ebenfits.. That's basically neutral all round.
Of course, then we get about 1/3rd the country starving or dying of frostbite in winter... but fuel is cheaper..
|
Ther are people who want lewer taxes and object to spending less when it affects them.. See the nonsense quoted on Foreign Aid.
Childish false dichotemy. It's how taxes are levied that's being discussed, not whether we have a functional government.
Do you pay duty on gas? No.
Do you pay duty on coal? No.
Do you pay duty of Keresene for aeroplanes?. No
Do you pay duty on red diesel? No.
Do you pay duty on heating oil which is basically red diesel?. No
Do you pay (much) duty of LPG? No.
Do you pay over 100% duty and 20% VAT on top of the duty for petrol and diesel only if they are used in cars and trucks. Yes
How can that possibly be fair or logical? I'm arguing that the taxes on all the other forms of fuel should be levied to raise revenue which would fund a cut in duty on road fuel. Why is it right that a progressive can go gallivanting round the globe on tax free avgas while some poor sod driving to work every day gets fleeced?
|
|
If all taxes were fair we wouldn't need government - the whole point of democracy is to elect a government that reflects the will of the majority, particularly where high/low taxes should be applied.
Our system isn't perfect, by a long way, but it's better than any other.
|
|
my wife used to use buses to get to and from work, she'd be gone 14 hours a day
Ahh..................... (gazes wistfully into space).
|
|
The poor sod on his way to work will always be fleeced unthrottled.Doesn't make it right but Iam afraid its the way of the world.Just talking to my sister who lives in Rotterdam with her husband.Netherlands very affluent country,there are cuts everywhere in public spending .Less homehelp for the eldery apparentley its now a sin to live to a old age because people need extra care which cost money.In Greece there are miljonars who don't pay a penny tax or civil servants who don't turn up for work and are getting payed. Back to wider roads problaby we do, just be gratefull your council repairs the potholes eventtually.
|
We don't need wider raods.
We need fewer people
That may sound like an unpopular view, but on the whole, countries with lower populations have a better quality of life.
|
|
I don't deny that. But unless there are any takers for voluntary sterilisation or suicide, it isn't going anywhere, is it?
|
|
There was a movement a few years back called 'Voluntary Human Euthanasia' or similar. Basically, they wished people to stop breeding and let the human race die back. I guess we quite arrogantly assume that we control the planet, but it Mother Earth has really got the upper hand!
|
|
|
|
|
|
