Dos_Box Posted February 7, 2007 Posted February 7, 2007 I don't usually go in for these type of things, but another PMs petition is calling for the abolition of plans to fit trackers to everyone's vehicles (paid for by you at £200 a pop BTW). Almost 800,00 people have signed this, and I would ask that you do too. http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/traveltax/
SpuffMonkey Posted February 8, 2007 Posted February 8, 2007 Yeah - if they wanted to up the price of road travel as a deterrent to using your car - why not just increase the tax on fuel - it hits the biggest users most, doesn't hurt cyclists, pedestrians, greens or little old ladies and doesn't need any fancy gadgets that we all know will go tits up or give incorrect readings leading to frustration and angst. KISS baby - but then that would be too easy - no big IT firms would get enormous kickbacks and we'd all keep a little bit of our privacy - or am I just a bit cynical in my old age??
StewartKnight Posted February 8, 2007 Posted February 8, 2007 what a tax increase does hit is people in rural areas, who have to travel further to do just about anything, and yet are generally paid less! I don't support trackers, but neither do I support tax rises, and just because a few prats in London drive 4x4's, doesn't mean that there aren't people in rural areas who don't need 4x4's for their daily lives. What I would suggest is larger parking fee's in cities, where public transport is more reliable and other such measures to encourage people not to use their cars if they don't have to.
Gatt Posted February 8, 2007 Posted February 8, 2007 If Manchester gets its way with Congestion Charges (covering as far out as Middleton where I stay!) and 24hr parking fee's then noone will want to travel in or out of the city either to work or on a friday/saturday night.. Im with StewartKnight and against tax rises and trackers. I use the trains on a daily basis and they are by no means a reliable or affordable alternative, neither are buses as they too are expensive and would mean a journey time of approx 2 hours (compaired to 20 mins by car or about an hour by train) If they want to get people out of cars then the govt needs to take a serious look at public transport - with a view of putting it back under public funding cos privatisation aint working
mrforgetful Posted February 8, 2007 Posted February 8, 2007 The trouble with all these deterent measures is they all revolve around paying more money. All this does is make people like me who struggle to get by have to make changes. People who don't struggle and can afford the gas guzzling cars or having their house warm have enough money for these money methods not to impact them anyway. I'm not saying I have a better way, I'm just saying it's not fair that the only way people ever come up with cutting problems is to charge more money when this will not matter to the people who cause most of the problem. Why not just ban 4x4s from cities in the first place unless you have a permit, which can only be aquired if you prove you work and live in the countryside? (not just live because the rich again, have a spare house in the countryside to qualify) Why not abandon the tax on fuel that has no impact (remember the Fifth Gear episode on chip fat?) so people can use that free in their diesel cars? (which btw, have more toxic gases in than Petrol cars) They also need to realise that almost nowhere has a transport system as regular and varied as London.
SpuffMonkey Posted February 8, 2007 Posted February 8, 2007 I certainly wasn't condoning tax rises (or trackers come to that) as a good way to reduce car usage - just suggesting it be a doddle implement as opposed to some bloated badly specced IT project. Personally I think we should all be allocated a set number of miles per year that can be traded - people who don't use their cars get to make some money on the side, 60000miles a year salesmen are discouraged and a whole new trading industry is created at a stroke.
broc Posted February 8, 2007 Posted February 8, 2007 The Govt will always struggle to get the balance right. If they are really serious & want to reduce emissions & save the planet then its easy, tax polluters on a scale proportional to their pollution & encourage people to pollute less. BUT If they are too successful & manage to kill off demand for 'polluting devices' eg cars they will lose tax revenue, not only from fuel duty, but also VAT on sales of polluting appliances not to mention the taxes paid by those employed in the manufacture, sale & service of those polluting appliances. Motorists in particular make a significant contribution to our national economy and actions which suppress demand too much may have a knock on effect elsewhere. The trick is to get the balance right...... It is a similar argument to taxing smokers, tax them too hard & the lost revenue from those that give up will no longer be enough to cover the health service costs of treating those who suffer from smoking related illnesses.
mrforgetful Posted February 8, 2007 Posted February 8, 2007 Tax can not be the answer. All tax does is penalise the poor and slightly irritate (but not really effect) the rich.
sidewinder Posted February 9, 2007 Posted February 9, 2007 Ive got no problem with vastly increased road tax, increased fuel tax, etc. We NEED to stop using cars so much...no excuses, rich or poor However I do agree with this petition because I just dont like the idea of being able to be tracked wherever you are, its not good I do like mrforgetfuls idea about banning 4x4's - I would also extend that to a lot of ridiculous oversized cars driven round the city for no other reason than to make businessmen look impressive
ChrisH Posted February 10, 2007 Posted February 10, 2007 The normal 4x4's we are used to are bad enough but I am seeing more and more ridiculous vehicles like Humvee's on our roads now. I mean for christs sake just buy a mini bus
crc-ict Posted February 10, 2007 Posted February 10, 2007 Ive got no problem with vastly increased road tax, increased fuel tax, etc. We NEED to stop using cars so much...no excuses, rich or poor But also, rich or poor, need to be able to move around in this modern world. And the truth is, alternatives just aren't good enough at the moment to be able to stop driving, especially in more rural areas. I live in a small village on the south coast, and the earliest I can travel into the nearest city (less than 10 miles away) by bus is 11am!! I can catch a train earlier, but that entails a two-mile, 30 minute walk. So what incentive is there for me to choose either of those options when I can use my car, get there within 20 minutes and save money too? If the powers that be want us to take this seriously, they need to take it seriously too. Give us alternatives that make sense as a choice rather than trying to force us into unsuitable and undesirable alternatives.
sidewinder Posted February 10, 2007 Posted February 10, 2007 That is true, public transport, especially trains have to be completly overhauled. While the train is more expensive than the car, most people will still choose the car Although it does require some effort from everyone as well though, for example you could cycle the 2 miles to your station in 10 minutes and then enjoy the train the rest of the way. I try to cycle to work (2 miles each way) whenever its not raining now, because I know theres no excuse for me to take the car that distance, apart from laziness We also need to stop living ridiculous distances from work. Its amazing the amount of people that complain about how long and how expensive their 80 mile commute is, but they never even consider moving closer to work, which would save them a fortune. I mean in future I will never get a job that I cant get to either by walking, cycling or accessible by train. Its a bit different though if you just live far away from the nearest city for shopping etc, because that isnt an everyday trip
broc Posted February 10, 2007 Posted February 10, 2007 We also need to stop living ridiculous distances from work. Its amazing the amount of people that complain about how long and how expensive their 80 mile commute is, but they never even consider moving closer to work, which would save them a fortune. Not everyone has enough job security to encourage them to move close to their place of work, or a job where they know every day where they are going to be. Working in a school until recently you might even have thought that your job security was high and you were fortunate enough to know where you are going every day. However, think about how BSF might affect you? What about being TUPE'd to a Managed Service Provider, perhaps covering a cluster of schools, where would you move to then? What if your employer wants you to cover for a sick colleague at another LA 100-200 miles away? It happens with outsourcing..... You also have to consider the impact on your family, children changing schools, partners who work. The 'simple' economics of moving close to work to save the cost of travelling is not always straight forward. If you work in an area with expensive housing and live in an area with cheaper housing you may not be able to offset the cost of commuting against the increased cost of housing, not to mention the cost of moving.
PageZ Posted February 10, 2007 Posted February 10, 2007 My first post to this forum but this subject really rattles my cage. the £200 tracker device proposal is yet another attempt by the government to sqeeze the motorist. They get you all ways - you pay duty on petrol and then VAT on that - is that taxing a tax??? Its all very well them saying that we need to use public transport, but its all been privatised for years and is all about making money not providing a service. You live out in the sticks and you are dead in the water unless you are able to wait for your one bus a day..... I know that the planet is dying and that we all need to get greener in a hurry, but just slapping on yet more back door charges in some half assed attempt to push people without much money off the roads is taking the mick a bit isn' t it? Provide us with a realistic alternative before you push the cost beyond people's pockets. Yet another blunt instrument short term fix. Politicians - wouldn't pay 'em in washers.... Cheers Neil
PageZ Posted February 10, 2007 Posted February 10, 2007 2nd post to this forum - same topic.... AND - have you heard about 'global dimming'!!!! Talk about a no win situation. Apparently the amount of garbage and steam and gasses and guff that we are pumping in to the atmosphere is cutting down on the amount of the suns rays that are getting through. The upshot of this is that when we all go green and stop producing pollutant greenhouse gasses, we all fry as the temperature soars!!! So it would seem that in its own way China might just be doing us all a favour.... Cheers Neil
Dos_Box Posted February 11, 2007 Author Posted February 11, 2007 Why on Earth the govt just didn't turn around to the automotive industry and say 'Right you lot. In 10 years time all cars sold in the UK will have to be powered by either hydrogen or another non\low polluting fuel. The nus is then on the industry and not the consumer then. As it stands it is just another tax which will change nothing. People still need to work and travel, taxing them for the privilege is just a non starter. I see the govt has decided to ignore the petition though and is pressing ahead with trials non the less. Democracy in action eh?
steve Posted February 11, 2007 Posted February 11, 2007 Hows about someone sets up another poll: We the undersigned, call for this online petition website to be shut down as the government will never take any notice of the public concerns raised on it.
flyinghaggis Posted February 11, 2007 Posted February 11, 2007 Why on Earth the govt just didn't turn around to the automotive industry and say 'Right you lot. In 10 years time all cars sold in the UK will have to be powered by either hydrogen or another non\low polluting fuel. I'd guess the primary reason is probably because if we all bought hydrogen/electric powered cars the government wouldn't be able to guilt trip us into paying such extortionate levels of tax on fuel. As people have said the government wants to decrease the use of fossil fuels but at the same time they dont want to lose the amount of tax it generates. I expect some of the large oil companies are doing some pretty serious lobbying to slow down any incentive for a move to alternative fuels. If I put my cynic cap on (I tend to wear it most of the time!) I suspect the reason for these per mile (sat-nav) road tax plans are because they know the days of fossil fuels and crazy fuel tax levels are limited and that's the reason they want to charge a per-mile road tax. Because lets face it, all they have to do is increase the duty tax on fuel and that just as effective a per-mile form of road tax as fitting sat-nav to everyone's car! So why go to all the hassle of trialing tracking device based systems unless you have another reason for it?
PageZ Posted February 12, 2007 Posted February 12, 2007 Because lets face it, all they have to do is increase the duty tax on fuel and that just as effective a per-mile form of road tax as fitting sat-nav to everyone's car! So why go to all the hassle of trialing tracking device based systems unless you have another reason for it? Good point - I had not thought of that.... So lets thinks about it then - what possible use could the governement have for sat nav information on every car in the country???? Big Brother has finally arrived - we know where you are and where you have been. Obviously the police would love such information... Cheers Neil
broc Posted February 12, 2007 Posted February 12, 2007 Bear in mind that electric & hydrogen powered cars are not necessarily running on free or low pollutant fuels. I think they may be the way forward but..... Battery powered cars need to be charged, where does the electricity come from? The national grid, which in the UK still uses mainly fossil fuels to generate the power. An enormous amount of energy is also wasted due to transmission losses in the grid too. The same goes for Hydrogen fuel. The current method of creating hydrogen from water uses electricity. Unless you invest massive amounts in 'scrubbing' the emissions of power stations all you will do is shift the pollution from cars to power stations..... We could build wind farms, but nobody wants them because they spoil the view..... We could build nuclear power stations.... but then they create even more deadly waste.... What we really need is some joined-up thinking which embraces energy conservation, pollution management, transport requirements & probably a few other things too but this would need to be done at a global level to have any real impact on climate change. Meanwhile, our Govt will continue to treat the motorists as 'cash-cows'.
witch Posted February 12, 2007 Posted February 12, 2007 Re-privatise 'public' transport and heavily subsidise it - as a lot of countries do. More routes, less cost will certainly help to reduce car use and congestion. Ditto the railways - more people, more trains, more freight, less cost.
Dos_Box Posted February 12, 2007 Author Posted February 12, 2007 A 14 mile 20 min commute by car costs £2.50 one way or 2 hours by public transport for £5. It doesn't even compare. The problem is our public transport is not 'joined up', even a 1 hour public transport commute may make me think about using it.
krisd32 Posted February 12, 2007 Posted February 12, 2007 Right i have some questions to ask re. this subject. What would happen with the sat nav based tracker systems when the weather is bad as it usually is where i live and most of the sat nav systems i've come into contact are basically crap and don't work correctly when its cloudy. and would you get charged for driving through a tunnel and what about if you drove abroad? all pointless questions i know, i what seems like a serious topic. Cheers Kris.
PageZ Posted February 12, 2007 Posted February 12, 2007 I can only comment on the efficiency of my own sat nav which comprises Tom tom installed on my mda and the GPS via a holox bluetooth receiver. I have found this to be devastatingly efficient. The only times it doesn't work is when you are in a tunnel. Weather has no effect on it to date and you can bet your bottom dollar that when and if the gov come up with a tracker scheme, it will be a lot better than my set up. I have heard on the news today however that the government are talking about scrapping the whole idea due to the pressure of public opinion - vote loser more like. Agree entirely with previous comments on this forum about the de-privatisation of public transportation systems. Heavily subsidise them, make them more available and people will use them. Cheers Neil
PageZ Posted February 12, 2007 Posted February 12, 2007 A 14 mile 20 min commute by car costs £2.50 one way or 2 hours by public transport for £5. It doesn't even compare. The problem is our public transport is not 'joined up', even a 1 hour public transport commute may make me think about using it. Did you watch the 'Top Gear' programme where Clarkson and friends bought a car each and set themselves the challenge of getting from London to Manchester and back for less than the price of a train ticket??? £180 for the ticket - they all bought cars, drove there and back - and did it for less than the price of the ticket.....Laughable Cheers Neil
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now