All these fatalities

[humptygocart]

The external costs of motoring have been calculated by Government appointed economists like David Pearce as well below the amount of the taxes that they pay. In 1994, the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution published a report which concluded by saying the price of petrol would have to double to reflect roughly the true cost of motoring.

The British Medical Association publication "Road Transport & Health", Sept '97 noted that a reduction in motor traffic "could lead to a broad range of health benefits". The health problems associated with the lack of exercise with which motoring is implicated - stroke, heart disease, obesity - are far greater problems in terms of life years lost than those from "road traffic accidents". Putting these costs on to the balance sheet would increase the estimate for 2000 to above the £2,000 per year deficit of the average motorist.

http://www.rdrf.org/freepubs/pumpup.htm

 

[mattybain]

Some people may be shocked, appalled, outraged and disgusted by bent mikey but I'm afraid he is correct.

No one was shocked, appalled or disgusted at BM, it was the other way around.

There is nothing "spurious" about the ten children killed or seriously injured on our roads every day, nor the cost of policing, or the cost to the NHS, or the pollution costs, noise pollution, damage to the infrastructure, rises in asthma and lung disease, global warming, disposal of vehicles etc etc etc.

Don't get me wrong I think car's should be taxed much higher and that pollution / global warming is a real problem that should be addressed.

However to suggest that drivers are not contributing enough to counter the cost of provding roads is crazy. We are talking about an excess of £40bn from revenue to actual cost.

And yes all those things you mention are spurious when you try and attach a £ value to them as it's subjective and impossible.

 

[ttcycle]

In relation to the road tax debate- are we really going into that one here as it's really well OT. I'm not even going get caught up in that old chestnut again!

 

[humptygocart]

And yes all those things you mention are spurious when you try and attach a £ value to them as it's subjective and impossible.

Nonsense. You are picking and choosing which stats to believe or discard, depending on whether they support your stance.

The external costs of private motoring are clear.


About twice as many people are killed each year in Europe by air pollution as die in road traffic accidents, according to research sponsored by the world health organisation published today in the Lancet.

Analysis of deaths in France, Austria and Switzerland shows 6% of all deaths - around 40,000 a year - stem from air pollution, around half due to tiny particles in vehicle exhausts, particularly diesel. In addition, traffic causes 25,000 new cases of chronic bronchitis in adults, 290,000 cases in children and more than 500,000 asthma attacks.

The research says motorists do not pay for the true cost that driving imposes on society.

The Lancet says in an editorial that if the cost of motoring on the health service was taken into account, spending on better public transport would appear far more reasonable, with taxes and laws to reduce driving more publicly acceptable.

 

[Davidc]

The OP was about fatalities, and they tie in with public attitudes not with money.

However

I have never seen a figure for total road building and repair costs.

The problem is that the trunk roads and motorways are built and maintained by central government, the lower classification roads by various tiers of local government.

The last press article I read on this suggested that if you total the whole lot and add in signalling and NHS costs it just about breaks even against taxes paid by motorists and vehicle operators, but I don't trust anything that doesn't contain references and sources - it's probably wrong. To get a meaningful figure the cost of lost productivity, the total economic costs of randomly killing 2500 people a year, the cost of benefits support etc. for those maimed and injured and so on need to be included in items to be paid from taxes.

Cycles hardly contribute to road wear. They're too light. As a result it's cyclists who don't own cars who, through their taxes, subsidise heavier vehicles. The relationship between weight and wear has been shown to be a 4th power law by TRL and others. Motor cycles don't cause significant wear either, and to be fair cars don't do very much either, when it comes to wear and tear they subsidise LGVs, busses, etc.

Again, the OP was about deaths. The fastest way to reduce these, and serious injuries, (not specifically cycling ones) would be to reduce speeds. That would also reduce the overall road repair bill.

Road building, apart from genuine safety improvements has always been a waste of money. All research that I've seen referenced or have read shows that all extra roads do is increase traffic. Even bypasses only give temporary relief unless flow restricting measures are put in place when they open.

Edit: Meant to also say that to reduce car use there's probably no need to increase fuel duty, the price of oil will rocket as soon as the recession ends. An increase in excise duty however, IMO, to reflect the real total costs of motor cars to the economy, is sorely needed. £2500 a year would be about right, but politically impossible. I don't expect many to agree at present, but given time .....

 

[mattybain]

The external costs of motoring have been calculated by Government appointed economists like David Pearce as well below the amount of the taxes that they pay. In 1994, the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution published a report which concluded by saying the price of petrol would have to double to reflect roughly the true cost of motoring.

The British Medical Association publication "Road Transport & Health", Sept '97 noted that a reduction in motor traffic "could lead to a broad range of health benefits". The health problems associated with the lack of exercise with which motoring is implicated - stroke, heart disease, obesity - are far greater problems in terms of life years lost than those from "road traffic accidents". Putting these costs on to the balance sheet would increase the estimate for 2000 to above the £2,000 per year deficit of the average motorist.

http://www.rdrf.org/freepubs/pumpup.htm

Well to say that site is biased would be an under reaction!!

However to pick those numbers apart.

Firstly they disagree with the governements own figures as provided by HANSARD (and you could argue the govt would wan to claim the opposite to justify tax increases). That's a difference of £13bn for a start.

Then the rest of the numbers are just made up, there is no justification for them.

How can you value congestion? where is the acutal money flow here? there is none. People do their jobs and get on with their lives.

And as for noise and pollution, what actual costs do they relate to?

However it is clear that you don't want to deal with facts so best leave it there.

 

[mattybain]

However

I have never seen a figure for total road building and repair costs.

Read the links I provided, from official government numbers.

 

[humptygocart]

We are talking about an excess of £40bn from revenue to actual cost.

Wrong again:

The costs of motoring are the same as they were in the 1970s. They went down in the 1980s - their rise is simply up to the level it was at some 25 years ago. In that time average incomes have gone up by 2 to 3 times. In terms of the average income, motoring has become very much cheaper.

In "The Real Costs of Motoring" (August 1996) published by The Environmental Transport Association, (01932 828882, 10 Church Street, Weybridge, KT13 8RS. www.eta.co.uk) the costs (in £billions) of road damage and congestion, the impact of air pollution on health, climate change (global warming), noise, and of accidents not paid for by those involved are calculated as follows:

http://www.rdrf.org/freepubs/pumpup.htm

You see, average drivers receive a massive public subsidy! HGV drivers receive even more.

 

[humptygocart]

Well to say that site is biased would be an under reaction!!

However to pick those numbers apart.

Firstly they disagree with the governements own figures as provided by HANSARD (and you could argue the govt would wan to claim the opposite to justify tax increases). That's a difference of £13bn for a start.

Then the rest of the numbers are just made up, there is no justification for them.

How can you value congestion? where is the acutal money flow here? there is none. People do their jobs and get on with their lives.

And as for noise and pollution, what actual costs do they relate to?

However it is clear that you don't want to deal with facts so best leave it there.

The source is The Lancet. If you have evidence that the research is biased and corrupt then please post it.

Or explain why you think they "made up" the figures?

Those notorious tree-huggers, errr, the CBI estimated the costs of congestion, again if you have evidence the research is flawed then feel free to post it.

 

[mattybain]

And yes all those things you mention are spurious when you try and attach a £ value to them as it's subjective and impossible.

Nonsense. You are picking and choosing which stats to believe or discard, depending on whether they support your stance.

The external costs of private motoring are clear.

Actually I am not, I am choosing to disagree with BM's statement that Drivers do not subsidise Cyclists.

I was not talking about accidents or pollution just looking at the inflows and outflows of actual money which is what a subsidy refers to.

On this point it is clear drivers subsidise general taxation.

Yes I agree there are lot's of other things wrong with driving such as pollution, accidents, people's health but as there is no direct finanical impact they shouldn't be included in the financial calculation.

The definition of subisdy "A subsidy (also known as a subvention) is a form of financial assistance paid to a business or economic sector." so that pretty much excludes all other non finanical costs.

 

[mattybain]

The source is The Lancet. If you have evidence that the research is biased and corrupt then please post it.

Or explain why you think they "made up" the figures?

Those notorious tree-huggers, errr, the CBI estimated the costs of congestion, again if you have evidence the research is flawed then feel free to post it.

The Lancet (a medical journal) researched into congestion costs? I find that hard to believe.

Send me the direct link to the Lancet journal and I may believe the numbers.

 

[humptygocart]

Yes I agree there are lot's of other things wrong with driving such as pollution, accidents, people's health but as there is no direct finanical impact they shouldn't be included in the financial calculation.

Barking mad.

 

[mattybain]

We are talking about an excess of £40bn from revenue to actual cost.

Wrong again:

The costs of motoring are the same as they were in the 1970s. They went down in the 1980s - their rise is simply up to the level it was at some 25 years ago. In that time average incomes have gone up by 2 to 3 times. In terms of the average income, motoring has become very much cheaper.

In "The Real Costs of Motoring" (August 1996) published by The Environmental Transport Association, (01932 828882, 10 Church Street, Weybridge, KT13 8RS. www.eta.co.uk) the costs (in £billions) of road damage and congestion, the impact of air pollution on health, climate change (global warming), noise, and of accidents not paid for by those involved are calculated as follows:

http://www.rdrf.org/freepubs/pumpup.htm

You see, average drivers receive a massive public subsidy! HGV drivers receive even more.

OMG what are you talking about, that makes no sense whatsoever. Who cares about the "Real costs of motoring".

I am talking about actual £ figures from the government.

Another link to that site, do you have any proper proof that isn't biased?

 

[humptygocart]

The Lancet (a medical journal) researched into congestion costs? I find that hard to believe.

Send me the direct link to the Lancet journal and I may believe the numbers.

The Lancet study was into pollution, The Lancet (Vol 369), the CBI assessed congestion, according to the CBI, congestion is estimated to cost the UK economy as much as £20 billion per year in resources and lost time . You ARE reading what I'm posting?

 

[humptygocart]

Who cares about the "Real costs of motoring".

Me.

Environmentalists.

Parents.

Doctors, specialists in lung disease and asthma.

People who live near roads. Bereaved husbands and wives, fathers and mothers.


Those sort of people.