Safe Speed Forums

But the roads are public highways provided from general taxation for the enjoyment of all citizens.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

so the reality is some have an issue with the current laws governing road use which manifests itself as a dislike of those road users legally using the roads under those laws?

Does that mean that I'm free to set up my drum kit on the street outside your house and play a few solos at 3AM?

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

Certainly, but I hope you like wearing a a snare drum as a necklace

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

Yes, and it's not hypothicated at all, it's just a general tax.

Indeed the link between was specifically broken so "Mr Toad" car drivers couldn't say they owned the road (despite road tax never actually collecting enough money to cover the road building programme in the first place).

http://ipayroadtax.com/?p=54

Just imagine your contribution to VED goes toward funding the cycle to work scheme I just purchased a new bicycle on...

Only because the "lentil munchers and soap dodgers" (as these people are often referred to on this and other motoring sites) put effort into pointing out the issues caused by pollution. If it wasn't for them we'd still be having lead in petrol I imagine.

ah but there are laws you could be construed as breaking in that case...
(and yes i saw the winky )

First of all, I'm glad you accept that it is being addressed.

Second, it's worth bearing in mind that it was the "lentil munchers and soap dodgers" who eventually persuaded the politicians to (in effect) mandate the fitment of the catalytic converter, thereby converting most of the nasty pollutants into (their words!) "harmless CO2". Had the motor industry (at least in Europe) got its way, they would have had a bit longer to develop "lean burn", which would have saved many hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of tons of CO2. So we've got the "lentil munchers and soap dodgers" to thank for cars fitted with expensive cats, themselves containing rare and expensive metals, mined at huge environmental costs (passed on to the customer, naturally), along with more complex engine management systems that cost more to maintain and fix thereby (if some are to be believed) leading to earlier scrappage of otherwise usable cars.

Ah yes, a "general" tax that's paid only by users of motorised transport....

...right...

Yes, I can well imagine that some of my motoring tax goes toward funding your pushbike...or, indeed, the cycle path that you might choose to ride it on. You know, the one I'm not allowed to drive my car on!

Interesting link too. Almost made me feel guilty until I realised that the figures quoted relate largely to the 1930s. I started wondering why it didn't include some more recent figures...

...a quick Google revealed the answer:

http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&source=h ... 5532d203c8

A good variety of articles there. I clicked on the DFT spreadsheet figures. In 2007/2008, Annaul expenditure on raods in England was £7665M. Annual income that year from vehicle excise and fuel duty ALONE was £24905M! (even then, I think there's a mistake in the figures and it should be closer to £29,000M

Perhaps we'd best not talk about VAT, insurance premium tax....

Now I'm all for people using their cars less. Cycling is great. in fact, if it's not raining tomorrow, I might take my young family out along the local cycle paths for a picnic. It will be great fun and good for us. What I DO object to, however, is people trying to make the motorist (i.e. most of us!) feel like the rest of the population is doing us some kind of fiscal favour.

(Edited because I just twigged that the figure DID include fuel duty).

Haven't we been here before?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

That is from the days when there were real dangers.
Nowadays those same groups have comparatively very little to complain about, but that doesn't stop them doing so; they are now perceived by many as wantonly exaggerating their claims (climate change et al) and hence gained general disrespect.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Why are you linking those two figures. Expenditure on roads is nothing to do with monies raised via fuel duty or VED.

You might as well say:

In 2007/2008, the Annual expenditure on the defence budget was £7665M. Annual income that year from vehicle excise and fuel duty ALONE was £24905M!

If you really want to get into what motoring costs the UK you've got to start adding on the deaths caused by pollution/crashes, government subsidies paid to the car/petro chemical industry etc..., damage to buildings, cost of delays etc...

Add that all up and I bet us motorists are actually subsidised.

What it is, 3,000 people in London die early each year due to poor air quality?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8578952.stm

What do you classify as a real danger?

Er, you could ride your pedal cycle on it, I drive my car on your roads!!

And if you want to bring in indirect costs, you also have to bring in indirect benefits, which presumably are at least equal to the total expenditure on road transport, otherwise people wouldn't do it.

And what's the alternative? Living in mud huts, travelling by donkey-cart and eating turnips?

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

That article says "Pollutants such as ozone, nitrogen oxides and "particulate matter" - tiny particles - from transport and power stations have been blamed for contributing to early deaths.", so lets try turning off all the power stations and see how many will die then?? Oh, and aren't particulates mainly produced by buses and not cars?

BTW, i think that you really meant to link here to support your argument, even though it says that "Air pollution in the capital may have contributed to the deaths of about 3,000 people in 2005" - not caused!!

mb

I'm linking the two figures, because you posted a link that did just that! Unfortunately, your link only linked the figures up until the 1930s (can't think why! ) so I felt obliged to put some more recent figures up - 'cause you never know who might be reading these fora, and I'd hate them to go away with the impression that motorists don't pay their way in society!

Anyway, if you want, let's REALLY link the cost of motoring to the UK against the benefits - I'd be willing to see any realistic figures that you might have! We've had all the "cost to society" arguments bandied about before, and none of them have ever struck me as being remotely accurate! But OK, for argument's sake, let's suppose we banned all motorised road transport tomorrow. Do you think the country would better or worse off?

Mmmmm! Pass me another of those delicious cherries you've just picked....!

"..Particulate matter is estimated to reduce people's lives by an average seven to eight months, while in pollution hotspots vulnerable residents, such as those with asthma, could be dying up to nine years early, the report says...."

So the "hidden killer" so evocatively referred to, is more of a "hidden-reduction-in-life-expectancy-and-even-then-only-for-people-with-an-underlying-condition-anyway", really. And, of course, as has been said, it's very easy to blame the "evil, stinking, child-slaughtering, engine-of-satan" that is the motor car for this (and every other thing that ever went wrong) in the whole world, ever - without actually having to put a number on it!

As you acknowledged earlier, the problem is being addressed - the Euro V emissions requirements are currently being rolled out (including for buses and heavy goods vehicles). They will all need particulate filters, and then there wil lbe one less thing that can be conveniently blamed on "the motor car". (Although I'm sure those who would like to see it banned, but can't actually come up with a workable alternative, will still find something to whinge about)!

Oh Yes, such statements always get my Bullshit detector ringing!

How to make alarming yet unsubtantiated claims while covering your own arse in case they actually turn out to be Bollox. (Well, I only said "May"!)

Who was it from the watermellon party who (I think it was in the light of that floating storage tank in the north sea that they exagerated the polutant load on by a factor of 100 or so) had the brass to claim that it was perfectly acceptable to exagerate the facts or even tell outright lies as long as it was done for the "right" reasons.

(Bit like Rumsfeld claiming that torture wasnt torture as long as the "Primary" purpose was gathering intelegence rather than specifically causing pain! )

_________________
"The road to a police state is paved with public safety legislation"

Others have already picked up on your response to my other point, but I will say this:


And what of the folks who don't pay VED and motor-fuel duties? It could so easily be argued that their whole lives are subsidised by motorists (house building, food & goods supply, medical response, etc) especially buses users and cyclists.
But we have already been here too

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign