| Page 2 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
The effects of a road congestion tax
"AndyA" wrote in message
... "Mark" wrote in message om... "Oliver Keating" wrote in message ... But of course free market forces only work if people are charged for the services (ie roads) that they use. But, of course, free market forces only work if there's competition, not a gang of armed thugs charging motorists an arm and a leg to drive while stealing large chunks of the roads for their cronies in the bus industry. Hmm, I've been driving for 20 years and in all that time I've never been accosted by a gang of armed thugs trying to charge me money. Maybe you just live in a rough area, especially if they are trying to steal the roads as well. Still, people will nick anything nowadays. I agree with you, though: all roads should be privatised and all motoring taxes should be abolished. Let private companies run the roads instead. And they will of course let you drive on their roads for nothing. -- AndyA Mark Well if we had a private company running the roads using all the revenue from road road users, we would have much better roads than now, as they would put a far higher proportion back into the road network. Mikael |
The effects of a road congestion tax
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 01:43:32 -0000, "Mikael Armstrong"
wrote: Well if we had a private company running the roads using all the revenue from road road users, we would have much better roads than now, as they would put a far higher proportion back into the road network. If all the goods that are carried up and down the country in multi wheel juggernauts every day of the week where shifted on to the rail network our road network would stay in good shape for a lot longer. I am sure that at least 50% of the goods that travel along the M1 and M6 every day could quite easly be shunted onto the west coast line. Grant . |
The effects of a road congestion tax
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 01:43:32 -0000, "Mikael Armstrong"
wrote: Well if we had a private company running the roads using all the revenue from road road users, we would have much better roads than now, as they would put a far higher proportion back into the road network. Mikael Do you have any evidence to support the notion that a private company would do this? Surely the idea is to spend the minimum on maintenance etc to maximise profits (hence why the company running BNRR will charge HGVs £11 each way). -- ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø Please reply to the group Replies to this address will bounce! ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø |
The effects of a road congestion tax
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 22:38:15 -0000, "Martin²"
wrote: How prey, do they propose to enforce the use of satellite and / or cellular phone tracker systems for cars ? They're trialling it with HGVs. Cars next, no doubt: http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group...ht_503872.hcsp This is a madly expensive way to TRY to solve congestion in relatively small number of places. And, as with petrol, people will just pay what it takes to go where they want to go and when they want to go. Yes, but I suppose the rationale is that eventually you reach a point where it becomes cheaper to use another mode. I know that surveys suggest around 30% of motorists state that they will never switch modes but that leaves 70% who might consider it..... Mind you - even if they charged 50p/mile on the M6 it would still be cheaper than Virgin on peak trains :( Congestion is self defeating anyway, so unless you build more roads, you may as well do nothing ! It would be much better to concentrate of keeping the traffic moving, sort of stand Livingstone on his stupid head.... Regards, Martin Eh? Within the charging zone congestion has been reduced. I appreciate that on the boundaries it has stayed the same (or perhaps increased) but if (for example) there was a national charging scheme there wouldn't be such precipices. -- ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø Please reply to the group Replies to this address will bounce! ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø |
The effects of a road congestion tax
|
The effects of a road congestion tax
Robin May wrote:
"Richard J." wrote the following in: Clive D. W. Feather wrote: In article d.ntl.c om, Dan Holdsworth writes [1] Doing it this way, you could also look for mobile phones that appear to be in use and moving along a motorway, and flag these locations up to the local police, for much improved enforcement of anti-mobile laws. There is no law against the use of a mobile phone while moving on a motorway. Yes, there is. The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations 2003. It doesn't come into effect until 1 Dec 2003, and it only affects the use of a hand-held mobile by the driver. That's not a law against use of a mobile phone while moving on a motorway. That's a law against the use of a mobile phone while driving. Yes, but driving is one way of moving. By your logic, I could say "There is no law against parking on a single yellow line" because you would claim that parking wasn't banned for 24 hrs/day. What I assume you meant was that the system would not be able to distinguish between legal and illegal use of a mobile mobile, not that all use was legal. He didn't say all use was legal. He said there was no law against it, which amounts to the same thing. -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
The effects of a road congestion tax
Grant Crozier wrote in message ws.com...
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 01:43:32 -0000, "Mikael Armstrong" wrote: Well if we had a private company running the roads using all the revenue from road road users, we would have much better roads than now, as they would put a far higher proportion back into the road network. If all the goods that are carried up and down the country in multi wheel juggernauts every day of the week where shifted on to the rail network our road network would stay in good shape for a lot longer. I am sure that at least 50% of the goods that travel along the M1 and M6 every day could quite easly be shunted onto the west coast line. Grant . I think you'll find there is not enough capacity on the WCML to add anything like 50% of the road frieght. |
The effects of a road congestion tax
"Richard J." wrote the following in:
Robin May wrote: "Richard J." wrote the following in: Yes, there is. The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations 2003. It doesn't come into effect until 1 Dec 2003, and it only affects the use of a hand-held mobile by the driver. That's not a law against use of a mobile phone while moving on a motorway. That's a law against the use of a mobile phone while driving. Yes, but driving is one way of moving. By your logic, I could say "There is no law against parking on a single yellow line" because you would claim that parking wasn't banned for 24 hrs/day. No, driving is the act of being in control of a car. There is no law against using a mobile phone while moving in a car, there is a law against using a mobile phone while in control of a car. The yellow line example doesn't hold up because there is a law against parking on single yellow lines. I suppose the point is, you can't just send the police after every mobile phone in use that's moving on a motorway. You'd have thousands of completely innocent drivers and passengers inconvenienced and countless hours of police time wasted. -- message by Robin May, but you can call me Mr Smith. Hello. I'm one of those "roaring fascists of the left wing". Then and than are different words! |
The effects of a road congestion tax
"Oliver Keating" wrote in message ...
"Matt Bourke" wrote in message om... "Oliver Keating" wrote in message ... ... But of course free market forces only work if people are charged for the services (ie roads) that they use. Currently roads are free(1) (1) So you may argue about fuel duty etc.etc. but this is unbelievably crude in terms of road pricing as to be ignored. ... Here here! Let's price the riff-raff in their mass-market hatchbacks and super-minis off the roads. Let them use buses. Give the roads back to the wealthy! Yes that is a problem. Perhaps the tax you pay could be based on as a percentage determined by your car's value and CO2 output, rather like with company car tax. That would eliminate the regressive nature of the tax. Even based on value and CO2 it discriminates against the poor. The wealthy will not be affected. If road rationing is required do it fairly - give each person an annual mileage quota. Matt B -- |
The effects of a road congestion tax
Conor
Exactly the same way they forced speedlimiters on HGVs. Make it law. Law against a burnt fuse supplying power to the sat / gps tracker ? Regards, Martin |
The effects of a road congestion tax
|
The effects of a road congestion tax
On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 18:46:46 -0000, Pete Smith
wrote: Out of interest, I've a feeling that if a truck has a non functioning tachometer/limiter due to a blown fuse, that this is against the regs/laws, and the truck must be taken out of active duty until it's fixed. There must be quite a few on the roads in that condition I was on the M61 the other day doing 60MPH and no less than half a dozen HGV's went racing passed me eight wheel articulated's at that its time speed cameras where erected on our motor ways . Grant . |
The effects of a road congestion tax
On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 19:24:19 +0000, Grant Crozier wrote:
went racing passed me eight wheel articulated's at that its time speed cameras where erected on our motor ways . Yeah, cause a camera on a 70mph road will catch a truck at 65. Chance are your "60mph" speedo was actually 50mph, and you were causing thousands of pounds an hour in congestion from your Selfish holier-than-thou attitude. |
The effects of a road congestion tax
|
The effects of a road congestion tax
Pete Smith you missed the point, not read earlier posts.
We were discussing the proposed satellite / gps tracking and congestion charging private cars as proposed by the EU boffins aided and abetted by mad prof. Begg. (not speed limiters) I was questioning how they think they will enforce it. What's to stop you disconnecting the device (e.g. blown fuse) or jamming the GPS signals ? Regards, Martin |
The effects of a road congestion tax
|
The effects of a road congestion tax
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 01:05:40 -0000, Conor
wrote: HGVs have tacho calibration tests every two years and are calibrated to a far tighter tolerance than a car. They maybe but how often are the graphs checked by the MOD ? once every blue moon I would imagine have you ever seen or read about any HGV driver being prosecuted for speeding on taco evidence alone . When was the last time your car speedos accuracy was checked? Can't tell you only had this particular car three months and in any case the next time I get done for speeding will be my first even the police are not bothered in the slightest about HGV's speeding on motor ways . I know this for a fact I was once driving on the M6 quite a few years ago before taco's came into being and a HGV over took me at well over 70 MPH I was doing 70 at the time and he was out of sight in no time. A friend in the car with me took his number and we called in at the Police station just of the M6 at Samlesbury told the motorway police that where in there and they just shrugged their sholders and said what do you want us to do about it go chasing after him ! . Grant . |
The effects of a road congestion tax
"Dave Arquati" wrote in message
... snipped Taxing motorists in the right way would make things fairer. Usage-based taxation is a step in the right direction; environmental tax reform would probably be the right direction. (See http://www.green-innovations.asn.au/ecotax.htm) Such a system could naturally resolve congestion and restore some sense of balance in the transport system. -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 We don't need another tax to add to our vastly complicated tax system. The only fair tax is on income (single % rate for all, varied by annual public referendum). All other taxes should be abolished. Only then would all of us (rich and poor) see the true cost of government, and vote accordingly. The idea of ETR isn't to add a tax, it's to replace all of the existing ones with ones based around what causes unsustainable damage to the environment. I'd like to believe that. However, I still think we need to start back at square 1 with taxation based on income, to the exclusion of all others. Non income based taxation puts a disproportionate load on those with lower incomes, and are therefore unfair. Council tax is a prominent example of this. If congestion is a problem, let the free market influence people to find alternative routes and modes of transport. If polluting the environment is a problem, then legislate targets for fuel economy and emissions at manufacture, like they do in the USA (albeit non-aggressively). A free market for transport is impossible under the current system where modes are treated separately by the government when proposing new schemes, and where the current cost-benefit analysis model is extremely flawed, since many of the values used in them are applied to things which are essentially "not for sale". The current market is biased in favour of car travel so naturally a modal shift is occurring in that direction. Targets are a rather blunt instrument to apply directly to the industry; rather by using taxation to achieve targets, the true cost of environmental damage can be compensated for. If fuel consumption/economy targets were legislated for, then everyone would be driving more fuel efficient cars, instead of the current system where well-off people simply shrug and pay the extra tax money to run their gas guzzlers. Overall fuel consumption would go down if all cars had to achieve, say, an average 40 miles per gallon. I would also venture that the USA is hardly the best model for an environmentally sound system. I'd venture that the USA, the richest country in the world, got there by promoting economic growth through cheap transportation of goods and people; not by strangling free trade with punitive taxation. Apart from slavery and cheap immigrant labour..... I just don't think all problems can or should always be solved by government intervention. Reforming the tax system to be fully environmentally-based would (theoretically of course) shift sustainability in the right direction by market forces alone, without any further government intervention. It's only sensible to tax the use of resources which affect everyone. It's only sensible to get off the taxation band wagon and start legislating limits for emissions and fuel consumption at the manufacturing level. We don't need to punish those on lower incomes with a disproportionately greater tax burden than everyone else. The man in the street is the driving force behind the economy. -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 |
The effects of a road congestion tax
"Ian Smith" wrote the following
in: I'd venture that the USA, the richest country in the world, got there by promoting economic growth through cheap transportation of goods and people; not by strangling free trade with punitive taxation. And in America cheap transportation seems to mean everyone has a car from virtually the age of 16 and petrol is so cheap that people won't walk 5 minutes down the road to their friend's house. It's cheap transportation achieved as a result of a 'sod the environment' mentality. -- message by Robin May, but you can call me Mr Smith. Hello. I'm one of those "roaring fascists of the left wing". Then and than are different words! |
The effects of a road congestion tax
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 13:45:04 -0000, "Ian Smith"
wrote: I'd like to believe that. However, I still think we need to start back at square 1 with taxation based on income, to the exclusion of all others. Non income based taxation puts a disproportionate load on those with lower incomes, and are therefore unfair. What's the point of going to all the trouble of having a consistent system of *money* and guarding the value of the currency, if poor people then pay less than the rich for the same goods and services? Council tax is a prominent example of this. It has one advantage that the government wouldn't be able to bezzle us, won't happen then will it? DG |
The effects of a road congestion tax
|
The effects of a road congestion tax
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 15:34:12 +0000, derek wrote:
What's the point of going to all the trouble of having a consistent system of *money* and guarding the value of the currency, if poor people then pay less than the rich for the same goods and services? One can hijack the electoral system and buy their votes. Council tax is a prominent example of this. It has one advantage that the government wouldn't be able to bezzle us, won't happen then will it? Not a hope in hell. greg -- $ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@' The Following is a true story..... Only the names have been changed to protect the guilty. |
The effects of a road congestion tax
|
The effects of a road congestion tax
|
The effects of a road congestion tax
Pete Smith:
then asked Conor (who drives a truck, and who therefore has speed limiting hardware in the truck) what the legal position would be for him "to have a blown fuse", and the result is that it needs fixing very soon, ie the same day. If cars have speed limiters (GPS or otherwise), they will probably put a law in place to ensure that it is working at all times, and if it isn't, it needs fixing within hours. Yes, but it's one thing to enforce it on relatively few trucks, which are mostly driven by employees who aren't personally bothered anyway. But how do you compel 20m private car owners to have OPERATIONAL sat / gps black box in the car which charges them £x.xx for every mile their drive ? There is no easy way to check and virtually no police on the roads to do it, IF they come up with a way. Just about the only thing the gov. could do is to include it in the MOT. Regards, Martin |
The effects of a road congestion tax
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 01:05:40 -0000, Conor
wrote: Car speedos overread up to 10%. It is quite feasible that your actual speed , not indicated speed, was as low as 55MPH which is 5MPH below the HGV speed limit. Onmy last wagon, I knew how inaccurate the speedo was..0.5 MPH at 56MPH because the tyres were part worn. Or was it on a hill, perhaps? AFAIAA, speed limiters only cause loss of power. Sudden, involuntary braking could be highly dangerous in poor road conditions. Neil -- Neil Williams is a valid email address, but is sent to /dev/null. Try my first name at the above domain instead if you want to e-mail me. |
The effects of a road congestion tax
In article , Richard J.
writes There is no law against the use of a mobile phone while moving on a motorway. Yes, there is. The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations 2003. Which does not forbid the use of a mobile phone while moving on a motorway. Nor does it forbid the use of a mobile phone while driving on a motorway. What I assume you meant was that the system would not be able to distinguish between legal and illegal use of a mobile mobile, not that all use was legal. Whereas you implied that all use of a mobile on a motorway was illegal, which is arrant nonsense. -- Clive D.W. Feather, writing for himself | Home: Tel: +44 20 8371 1138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work: Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address |
The effects of a road congestion tax
Clive D. W. Feather wrote:
In article , Richard J. writes There is no law against the use of a mobile phone while moving on a motorway. Yes, there is. The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations 2003. Which does not forbid the use of a mobile phone while moving on a motorway. Nor does it forbid the use of a mobile phone while driving on a motorway. What I assume you meant was that the system would not be able to distinguish between legal and illegal use of a mobile mobile, not that all use was legal. Whereas you implied that all use of a mobile on a motorway was illegal, which is arrant nonsense. It's a semantic issue. What does "There is no law against activity" mean? (a) activity is lawful in all circumstances, or (b) There is no law which prohibits activity in general, though specific forms of activity may be unlawful. You evidently think it means (b); I think it means (a). I suggest we agree to differ. -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
The effects of a road congestion tax
"derek" wrote in message
... On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 13:45:04 -0000, "Ian Smith" wrote: I'd like to believe that. However, I still think we need to start back at square 1 with taxation based on income, to the exclusion of all others. Non income based taxation puts a disproportionate load on those with lower incomes, and are therefore unfair. What's the point of going to all the trouble of having a consistent system of *money* and guarding the value of the currency, if poor people then pay less than the rich for the same goods and services? My point was that everyone should pay tax proportionally to their income (same % for all, rich and poor alike), and all other taxes abolished. I didn't say the poor should pay less than the rich for goods and services they choose to buy. However, taxes paid directly on those same goods and services (many essential to life) are a larger % of the poorer man's income. A level playing field for everyone is all I propose. Not that I ever expect it to happen! Council tax is a prominent example of this. It has one advantage that the government wouldn't be able to bezzle us, won't happen then will it? DG |
The effects of a road congestion tax
"Matt Bourke" wrote in message
om... "Oliver Keating" wrote in message ... "Matt Bourke" wrote in message om... "Oliver Keating" wrote in message ... ... But of course free market forces only work if people are charged for the services (ie roads) that they use. Currently roads are free(1) (1) So you may argue about fuel duty etc.etc. but this is unbelievably crude in terms of road pricing as to be ignored. ... Here here! Let's price the riff-raff in their mass-market hatchbacks and super-minis off the roads. Let them use buses. Give the roads back to the wealthy! Yes that is a problem. Perhaps the tax you pay could be based on as a percentage determined by your car's value and CO2 output, rather like with company car tax. That would eliminate the regressive nature of the tax. Even based on value and CO2 it discriminates against the poor. The wealthy will not be affected. If road rationing is required do it fairly - give each person an annual mileage quota. Matt B -- Now you're talking sense. |
The effects of a road congestion tax
"Robin May" wrote in message . 1.4... "Ian Smith" wrote the following in: I'd venture that the USA, the richest country in the world, got there by promoting economic growth through cheap transportation of goods and people; not by strangling free trade with punitive taxation. And in America cheap transportation seems to mean everyone has a car from virtually the age of 16 and petrol is so cheap that people won't walk 5 minutes down the road to their friend's house. It's cheap transportation achieved as a result of a 'sod the environment' mentality. Which is why I suggested regulations on car fuel economy figures, somewhat more stringently than they do in the US; and not a difficult thing to achieve. Gone are the gas guzzlers, regardless of how cheap fuel becomes. Result is everyone uses less fuel, since the rich can't then simply buy their way out and pollute more. And, by removing the fuel tax, money gets freed up for other economic activities. -- message by Robin May, but you can call me Mr Smith. Hello. I'm one of those "roaring fascists of the left wing". Then and than are different words! |
The effects of a road congestion tax
"Huge" wrote in message ... "Ian Smith" writes: "Dave Arquati" wrote in message ... [31 lines snipped] The idea of ETR isn't to add a tax, it's to replace all of the existing ones with ones based around what causes unsustainable damage to the environment. I'd like to believe that. However, I still think we need to start back at square 1 with taxation based on income, to the exclusion of all others. Just so long as it's a flat rate. "Progressive" (I hate that word in this context) taxation is iniquitious. Yes, that's what I meant, even though I didn't phrase it very well. One % for all. I wonder what that figure would be, based on current government income/expenditure, assuming all other taxes removed (and corporate tax remained constant)? -- "The road to Paradise is through Intercourse." The uk.transport FAQ; http://www.huge.org.uk/transport/FAQ.html [email me at huge [at] huge [dot] org [dot] uk] |
The effects of a road congestion tax
Robin May wrote:
"Ian Smith" wrote the following in: I'd venture that the USA, the richest country in the world, got there by promoting economic growth through cheap transportation of goods and people; not by strangling free trade with punitive taxation. And in America cheap transportation seems to mean everyone has a car from virtually the age of 16 and petrol is so cheap that people won't walk 5 minutes down the road to their friend's house. It's cheap transportation achieved as a result of a 'sod the environment' mentality. ....and the problem here is? |
The effects of a road congestion tax
Even based on value and CO2 it discriminates against the poor. Bollox. The poor cannot afford a car - Congestion Charging makes bus travel quicker, (and cheaper if the proceeds are used to subsidise public transport), therefore the poor benefit. |
The effects of a road congestion tax
In article , Richard
J. writes It's a semantic issue. What does "There is no law against activity" mean? (a) activity is lawful in all circumstances, or (b) There is no law which prohibits activity in general, though specific forms of activity may be unlawful. (c) In the majority of circumstances activity is not prohibited, though there may be cases where it is. I suggest we agree to differ. Okay. -- Clive D.W. Feather, writing for himself | Home: Tel: +44 20 8371 1138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work: Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address |
The effects of a road congestion tax
"Philip Rudling" wrote in message
... Even based on value and CO2 it discriminates against the poor. Bollox. So you think a tax based on car value and CO2 emmissions takes into account ability yo pay? Explain? The poor cannot afford a car Because of artificial costs (VED, Fuel Duty, Insurance, MOT, Congestion Charges) added by the government. - Congestion Charging makes bus travel quicker, There are no buses here. (and cheaper if the proceeds are used to subsidise public transport), therefore the poor benefit. Not where there are no buses. Matt B |
The effects of a road congestion tax
Whereas you implied that all use of a mobile on a motorway was
illegal, which is arrant nonsense. It's a semantic issue. No it isn't. The new legislation outlaws /holding/ a mobile, not using it. -- Phil |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 01:25 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk