Worrying times.

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
I'm far from happy with a scheme that effectively encourages rural motoring by making such travel relatively cheaper. Nor for that matter a scheme whereby the rich can now sail through because pesky poor people are priced off the busier roads. Rationing by traffic queues somehow seems more equitable

This is why the system gets rather complex and there would have to be some level of compromise between making it a hair splitting level of equability and being sensible, just like any taxation system.

Having a system where prices are lower for residents may be a way forward, for example, but I understand that the laws of unintended consequences would kick in, and such a system can't operate in isolation but would have to be alongside heavy investment in active travel and public transport so there's a viable alternative and driving simply becomes less attractive.

Selling investment in public transport to motorists who suddenly have to pay "more" for their road use may be difficult of course, especially as many countries have actively subsidised car use.
 

Milzy

Guru
This is also true, it was a deliberately extreme example to illustrate that expensive cars aren't always gas guzzlers, so the current system is a rather blunt instrument and can't really be described as a "pay as you go" system because there are far to many variables.

Equally, a pickup in a rural area is more likely to be necessary than a pickup in a city. Not inevitable, but more likely.
Quite & a farmers pick up will be run on red diesel.
 

Alex321

Veteran
Location
South Wales
I'm far from happy with a scheme that effectively encourages rural motoring by making such travel relatively cheaper.
Any scheme that doesn't do that is making it much harder to live anywhere but largish towns cities.

In town you can usually manage quite reasonably without diving much. In rural areas, that is just not practical for most.

Nor for that matter a scheme whereby the rich can now sail through because pesky poor people are priced off the busier roads. Rationing by traffic queues somehow seems more equitable

But won't fill the hole left in public finances by the removal of petrol/diesel powered vehicles.

And in a basically capitalist society, the rich will always have it easier.
 

roubaixtuesday

self serving virtue signaller
And in a basically capitalist society, the rich will always have it easier.

One for NACA, but of course the differential between rich and poor varies radically between basically capitalist societies.
 

Profpointy

Legendary Member
Any scheme that doesn't do that is making it much harder to live anywhere but largish towns cities.

In town you can usually manage quite reasonably without diving much. In rural areas, that is just not practical for most.
.

Hang on - are you advocating a scheme that encourages living in the country by making it easier to drive further ? I'm genuinely not trying to twist your words but taking the logic of your point to its conclusion.

Encouraging more driving seems "a bad thing" (tm) and town living means people are closer to where they need to get to. If people chose to live in the country and drive longer distances, or stay living in the country when their job is far away, I don't really think a driving subsidy (or discount) is desirable as that would encourage driving longer distances surely
 
Last edited:

Alex321

Veteran
Location
South Wales
Hang on - are you advocating a scheme that encourages living in the country by making it easier to drive further ? I'm genuinely not trying to twist your words but taking the logic of your point to its conclusion.

Encouraging more driving seems "a bad thing" (tm) and town living means people are closer to where they need to get to. If people chose to live in the country and drive longer distances, or stay living in the country when their job is far away, I don't really think a driving subsidy (or discount) is desirable as that would encourage driving longer distances surely
I don't think it would be enough to encourage people to move to the country. It would just have to be enough to not overly penalise those who do.

And that doesn't even necessarily mean completely rural. The village where I live has one shop (part of the garage on the edge of the village). The next nearest are all about 3 miles away. On my daily bike rides, I normally ride through several other villages, and very few of them have any shops at all.
 

Profpointy

Legendary Member
I don't think it would be enough to encourage people to move to the country. It would just have to be enough to not overly penalise those who do.

And that doesn't even necessarily mean completely rural. The village where I live has one shop (part of the garage on the edge of the village). The next nearest are all about 3 miles away. On my daily bike rides, I normally ride through several other villages, and very few of them have any shops at all.

I guess it depends on what the objective of the policy is. Is it to discourage driving in general, the the consequent global warming from fuel use, or just to ease congestion in town.
 

Alex321

Veteran
Location
South Wales
I guess it depends on what the objective of the policy is. Is it to discourage driving in general, the the consequent global warming from fuel use, or just to ease congestion in town.
It does.

I think it will be a mixture of those, but probably the latter two are probably considered more important than the first.
 
I don't think it would be enough to encourage people to move to the country. It would just have to be enough to not overly penalise those who do.

And that doesn't even necessarily mean completely rural. The village where I live has one shop (part of the garage on the edge of the village). The next nearest are all about 3 miles away. On my daily bike rides, I normally ride through several other villages, and very few of them have any shops at all.

This is the trouble: the lack of facilities are often because people drove to the next village because there was a cheaper shop, and it snowballed from there. It's not quite as bad here but we see the same happening.

Arguably this means that as you say, the absolute limit has to be to not make it harder to live in a rural area, but not subsidise car travel. At the same time, local or regional investment in facilities and other local transport options are essential.

After cycling to my new job for a couple of weeks in summer I realised it was only possible for me to take the job because of a 5km section of cycleway alongside the main road, which means I can cycle safely between my village and the next on the most dangerous section. If it wasn't for that, I'd be unemployed.

This is the problem in a nutshell: we have to provide alternatives so people don't need cars, not demand that cars have priority over everything else and call it "giving people a choice".
 
Last edited:

Gillstay

Über Member
This is the trouble: the lack of facilities are often because people drove to the next village because there was a cheaper shop, and it snowballed from there. It's not quite as bad here but we see the same happening.

Arguably this means that as you say, the absolute limit has to be to not make it harder to live in a rural area, but not subsidise car travel. At the same time, local or regional investment in facilities and other local transport options are essential.

After cycling to my new job for a couple of weeks in summer I realised it was only possible for me to take the job because of a 5km section of cycleway alongside the main road, which means I can cycle safely between my village and the next on the most dangerous section. If it wasn't for that, I'd be unemployed.

This is the problem in a nutshell: we have to provide alternatives so people don't need cars, not demand that cars have priority over everything else and call it "giving people a choice".
Your right on that point. To cycle or walk to our next village involves a very dangerous bit of road where there is no footpath, trees down to the road edge and fast traffic on nasty bends. Its dangerous in summer, and would be terrifying in winter. There are no footpaths across the field either as the river blocks them off. `The highway is to be shared' holds no strength when your on that road.
 
Top Bottom