"Pay As You Go" Road Tax

[Sportsman]

Whilst I am in a ranting mood:

They are going to base the charges on tracking your vehicle by satellite. Given their record of doing anything with computer systems the words PI55 UP and BREWERY come to mind

It also means another invasion of your privacy, with a tracker in your car feeding back information second by second. Maybe they could attach it to your ID card, then they would always know where you were and what you were doing

You know, the more I think about this the less likely it seems, I don't think they could do it. Within 3 days of starting the first OAP would get a bill for £15,000,000.00

[Leon Roskilly]

The way I understand it Sportsman is that you'll be a lot better off.

 

No car tax and cheaper fuel.

 

Yet the uncongested roads around your way will be free to use, or minimal charge.

 

It's the people who have to drive through congested areas at the most congested time of the day who'll be stung into considering changing their route or travel time.

 

Tight Lines - leon

[UK-Fishing-Tackle.co.uk]

Labour / Socialism = redistribution of wealth (we cannot use the C word popular in russia but it shares many similar characteristics/goals).

 

Look at Brown, tax goes up and give it to the poor, needy, (usually lazy) and these days more often than not, foreign (Don't get me started on Asylumn Seekers). Rich people shouldn't have money, the middle classes should be kept from becoming rich, and the poor should become middle class.

 

I will benefit from this road policy. I'll save tax on two cars, my petrol bill will crash, and living in a mostly rural area (with low wages and unemployment) I will probably pay the 2 or 3p per mile rate. People in London (who are all obviously loaded and cash rich - they would have you believe) can pay £10 or £20 a day and make up for what I do not....

 

However, people in the South are not all cash rich, and not all loaded. I'd also like to know how much we'd all pay to have this fantastic GPS technology installed in our cars (and for that matter, our human right to own a vehicle that the government doesn't tamper with). Frankly this will never happen, we'd boot out any government that did it - and they know it.

 

Whats more galling is the vast amount of money spent on computer graphics, consultants and simulation models to show the M25 is congested (a 35mm camera could prove that) that we as tax payers will probably have to fork out for again.

 

Also what about all the people (mainly women round here) with 4x4's - they do more damage to the road, they pollute the air more, they are uneconomical for short trips and if you hit someone it costs the NHS more to sort them out (proven fact before anyone has a go about the benefits of a 4x4). In this setup they will pay the same tax as a 1 litre Micra which frankly is ridiculous.

 

I could go on, but I might antaganise folk with my Conservative views...

[Leon Roskilly]

I should imagine that if the car identifies itself to system, then there could be the possibility of differential charging for different types of vehicle, taking into consideration emissions etc, and perhaps if registered to disabled people, local businesses etc., a concencessionary rate, on top of the differential charge for which sections of which road ares used, the time of day, the amount of congestion and the application of automatic speeding fines and maybe other traffic offences!!

 

Tight Lines - leon

[chesters1]

quote:

---

Whats more galling is the vast amount of money spent on computer graphics, consultants and simulation models to show the M25 is congested (a 35mm camera could prove that) that we as tax payers will probably have to fork out for again.

---

the point is, it isnt! ,it maybe gridlocked for a couple of hours each way twice a day but the rest of the time its ok ,travel against the flow and theres no stopping for anything

if the nice survey people stand there at rush hour they should expect to see cars !!any other time it goes away

roads dont make congestion :confused:

how many peple you know have said "blimey the've built a road ,i think i will buy a car" :confused:

 

[ 06. June 2005, 07:04 PM: Message edited by: chesters1 ]

[Leon Roskilly]

Chesters,

 

It's not the number of cars that's the problem, it's the number and length of journies.

 

Before they built the M25, we had some friends down in Surrey that we would travel down to see a couple of times a year, by train.

 

When the M25 went in, it took us just 1.5 hours to drive there to see them, so we started going more often, and they visited us more often.

 

 

Then there's the 'out of town' effect.

 

A big multiplex cinema opened miles from anywhere, just of the M2 near Rochester.

 

Pretty soon the only cinemas in the Medway Towns closed, (along with the restuarant and sweet shop nearby that relied on the custom of cinema goers),so if you were a young bloke wanting to take your girlfriend to see the latest movie, you needed a car!

 

Similarly with the opening of Bluewater etc., the in-town shopping opportunities declined and you need a car to get to some decent shops.

 

And would you have taken that job on the business park 50 miles away (relocated from within the town) if they hadn't built that road?

 

Without the roads leading to them, miles from anywhere where people live, these places wouldn't exist, our towns would be vibrant again, and you wouldn't feel that you needed a car to exist.

 

New roads generate additional traffic!

 

No doubt about that whatsoever.

 

Tight Lines - leon

 

[ 06. June 2005, 07:25 PM: Message edited by: Leon Roskilly ]

[chesters1]

but new roads dont generate new cars ,every car using a new road = less cars on the old ones (even modern wonders of car design can't make them appear in two places at once)

the old A31 used to be a nightmare getting onto up the end of our road nowadays with the new road you dont even need to look before turning out ,you used to wait for ten minuits to get onto it now 10secs.so more cars on one road = less on another

 

the problem directly leads back to children! ban them free up the roads !

less children = no need to move to larger houses when they are born.

less children = and less tax hand backs by the government!

less children = less parents clogging the roads taken them to a school of their choice 3 counties away

less children = less problems and they dont even drive

instead of taxing drivers the gow should step back and look at why people are using cars :confused:

jobs can be got further away because of cars and usually because people have to work further away because of less jobs nearby ,but look again :confused: mr bloggs has a job in farnham but he lives in guildford ,mr jones has a job in guildford but he lives in farnham ,what about a cheap public service that serves both ? no it costs 10 times what it costs to use a car than it does to use public transport and the latter doesent sit at the end of their garden waiting to get in it

if people use cars then they always will and untill then cover the country with roads to allow them to do it demon

and put the tax on kids or ban them like china does

 

[ 06. June 2005, 07:57 PM: Message edited by: chesters1 ]

[Leon Roskilly]

As I said Chesters, its no the number of cars that's the problem, it's the number and length of journies that they make.

 

New roads mean extra journies and more miles driven, leading to greater car dependency, leading to more cars being needed.

 

Tight Lines - leon

[chesters1]

maybe a car allocation project 1 house = 1 car ,motorbikes can get a tax handback

maybe a ban on large cars not because they use more fuel but because they take up more road room 2 x 7 seater's take up the room of 3 hatchbacks but they all still have 1 occupant,in one swoop the roads would hold a 1/3rd more cars

[Mat Hillman]

Erm surely the duty on fuel is already a cheap to administer "pay as you go Tax" ??????

 

Why do we need millions spent on a computer system to do the same thing?????