The Cost of Motoring...

[Drago]

...could be set to rise.

Apologies, but a Daily Mail link...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4403486/Now-diesel-drivers-face-new-pay-pollute-charges.html

And about time too.

The coat of motoring is far to cheap when weighed against the environmental damage, the pollution, the congestion, the noise, and the 20-30 people killed daily. As a consequence if its affordability the bulk of the population is blase about their use of the car, and their behaviour behind the wheel.

These are just musings reproduced in a chipwrapper. Nevertheless, as a cyclist who is becoming increasingly irked by the true cost of the consequences of car use, anything that makes people think twice about driving half a mile for a bottle of milk, or dropping the kids at school, is fine by me.

Of course, the billy bonus is quieter roads are safer and more enjoyable for us, the enlightened.

So, bring it on.

 

[biggs682]

A lot of people have to rely on a car for what ever journey no matter how short or long they are .

My other half could not walk to our nearest shop or the Doctors due to medical issues 90% of the time , so unless i am at home to provide the wheelchair power she would have to get a taxi as not allowed to drive either .

So some allowances would have to be made .

I would like to see company's rewarding staff for using other forms of transport for local commutes ie bikes , walking or public transport

Yes it sounds idylic but why not

 

[Drago]

As you know Biggs, Mrs D too is disabled.

Nevertheless, for the lazy arsed majority motoring is far too cheap, and as a consequence is used far too unnecessarily.

 

[mjr]

Yep, it's our civic duty to leave enough space on the roads for blue badge holders and appropriately taxed commercial traffic, rather than take the mickyturate driving half a mile to the corner shop for milk and stopping in a bike lane obstructing traffic.

 

[Jody]

and the 20-30 people killed daily. .

It's nowhere near to that. At 20 people daily it would be in excess of 7120 a year. You would have to go back to the 1940's to see nearly 30 a day killed. Last year was 1810 so approximately 5 day.

Car ownership is far from cheap given fuel, running costs, tax, insurance cost of the car etc and some people need a car. I would agree that there is a reliance on it but it would not be practicle for some to use public transport. For my daily journey would mean catching 6 busses and taking in excess of 4 hours travel to do what I can do in a car in sub 1 hour.

 

[SpokeyDokey]

I'm all for lessening vehicle pollution but I have these concerns about raising the already expensive cost of motoring:

If levied on any commercially used vehicle the cost is usually passed on to consumers - so the wrong people end up paying.

It penalises those that need a car to live their normal life eg go to work and shop etc. Not everyone has access to buses, tube, trams etc. Not everyone can ride a bike to work over miles of hilly terrain.

My view would be that this is an education issue rather than simply applying more costs.

The car industry has made huge leaps forward over the past few decades re cleaner cars and the process is ongoing especially with the emergence of new technologies that help pave the way to a cleaner future.

 

[Flying Dodo]

In real terms, cars are far cheaper to obtain and operate. Fuel cost per litre is 20% lower than 4 years ago, and after inflation is the same as it was in 1983.

Bear in mind that more than 90% of all private car purchases are on PCP deals, meaning people never actually own the car, they're merely leasing it for a couple of hundred pounds a month until they hand it back and get a new one in 2-3 years. Together with lower interest rates, it makes the car much more affordable compared with last century's model of saving up and/or getting an expensive bank loan, often over 5 years, which then meant you were more likely to keep the car for longer.

Cars are much more a disposable item now, so people tend to expect to have one as an automatic right, along with parking spaces, their own stretch of open road etc etc.

Just saying to people it's quicker to cycle doesn't really do much. It's only when they realise it's cheaper and quicker as well will the message get through. So (speaking as a car owner) yes, increase the cost of motoring. Give everyone the right to breathe cleaner air, not get killed or injured, and be able to enjoy the freedom of open roads and city centres.

 

[Jody]

Bear in mind that more than 90% of all private car purchases are on PCP deals, meaning people never actually own the car, they're merely leasing it for a couple of hundred pounds a month until they hand it back and get a new one in 2-3 years. Together with lower interest rates, it makes the car much more affordable compared with last century's model of saving up and/or getting an expensive bank loan, often over 5 years, which then meant you were more likely to keep the car for longer..

Great for those who can afford £300+ PCM for a car. Personally I find it a little disgusting that people see a car as a 2 year deal, owning nothing then chopping it in against something new.

 

[Tin Pot]

It's nowhere near to that. At 20 people daily it would be in excess of 7120 a year. You would have to go back to the 1940's to see nearly 30 a day killed. Last year was 1810 so approximately 5 day.

Car ownership is far from cheap given fuel, running costs, tax, insurance cost of the car etc and some people need a car. I would agree that there is a reliance on it but it would not be practicle for some to use public transport. For my daily journey would mean catching 6 busses and taking in excess of 4 hours travel to do what I can do in a car in sub 1 hour.

Five per day sounds reasonable, leave everything as is.



Multiply the cost of fuel by ten and the rest of the costs will increase by themselves...

 

[Jody]

Five per day sounds reasonable, leave everything as is.

I'm not saying it is right but an four to six fold exaggeration needs to be pointed out.

 

[Drago]

It's nowhere near to that. At 20 people daily it would be in excess of 7120 a year. You would have to go back to the 1940's to see nearly 30 a day killed. Last year was 1810 so approximately 5 day.

Car ownership is far from cheap given fuel, running costs, tax, insurance cost of the car etc and some people need a car. I would agree that there is a reliance on it but it would not be practicle for some to use public transport. For my daily journey would mean catching 6 busses and taking in excess of 4 hours travel to do what I can do in a car in sub 1 hour.

5 a day? Oh, that's OK then.

Do you think its OK to pollute the environment, cause congestion and danger, and inflict all this on others, just because the alternative is inconvenient?

How on Earth did citizens survive before car ownership became the norm? Its a lifestyle choice to have kids, work fifty miles away, etc. I've just been for a short bike ride, and in 8 miles I didn't see a motor vehicle with more than one person aboard. That may be convenient for the driver, but is criminally painful for the planet, the environment, the economy and society.

I've no problem with people in cars per se, but the financial cost should reflect the environmental cost, the danger, and the cost that congesting brings, so maybe double the price of road fuel for private cars, prevent them accessing residential streets except to a cess an address, and prevent them accessing areas near schools, shops entirely (those with disability needs excepted).

I tells you, when no bugger can afford it then all the excuses and objections are swept aside as people find a way. We're past peak oil, and that combined with the recent awareness of air pollution, means convenient private car transport as we know it is going to change in both cost and character over the next few years, so you're going to have to sort something else out. Complaining about how inconvenient that may be isn't going to help you.

 

[Dan B]

If levied on any commercially used vehicle the cost is usually passed on to consumers - so the wrong people end up paying.

Any costs incurred by a commercial entity in the production and sale of their goods/services are generally passed onto consumers: if they swallow the cost and make a loss as a result, they usually will not be a commercial entity any longer when their money runs out. What's so special about motoring that it deserves subsidies that are not available for power, raw material, premises etc? Make your case for extra public money/favourable treatment based on the actual social worth of your enterprise, please, not on the fact it happens to involve somebody driving around.

new technologies that help pave the way

Sometimes it's nice when the way is a gravel track or a grass path or a trail through the forest. Not every damn thing needs paving

 

[Deleted member 26715]

Great for those who can afford £300+ PCM for a car. Personally I find it a little disgusting that people see a car as a 2 year deal, owning nothing then chopping it in against something new.

I don't find it disgusting, but I don't understand the logic, it just seems like money down the drain to me unless you like the buzz of having the status of a new car, if there is one these days.

I wrote to my MP (John Mann) last year about abolishing VED on cars & putting the equivalent onto fuel duty, that would mean the more miles you do the more you pay which seems a far fairer way to me. He sent it off to the Ministry of Transport who rejected it stating that people who lived in rural areas would be unfairly affected as they were reliant on their own transport, so it will be interesting to see if they are prepared to accept this which will the same effect.

 

[Jody]

I don't find it disgusting, but I don't understand the logic, it just seems like money down the drain to me unless you like the buzz of having the status of a new car, if there is one these days.

It's waste for vanity that I find disgusting. Everything in todays society is throw away, even cars. I tend to own a car as long as it is viable.

 

[Jody]

@Drago I make no appologies for not being anti car.

I would have more issues with conatiner ships around the world or frivilous holidays jetting off to every end of the globe. If you are so concerned with air pollution and the use of natural rescources then focus your attention on shipping or aviation

"Shipping is by far the biggest transport polluter in the world. There are 760 million cars in the world today emitting approx 78,599 tons of Sulphur Oxides (SOx) annually. The world's 90,000 vessels burn approx 370 million tons of fuel per year emitting 20 million tons of Sulphur Oxides. That equates to 260 times more Sulphur Oxides being emitted by ships than the worlds entire car fleet. One large ship alone can generate approx 5,200 tonnes of sulphur oxide pollution in a year, meaning that 15 of the largest ships now emit as much SOx as the worlds 760 million cars.."

http://newatlas.com/shipping-pollution/11526/

Puts it in to perspective if you ask me