Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, RoverDom said:

Big positive for electric cars is the fact that so many are working from home now. Whilst doing 90-100 miles per day theres no way I'd consider an electric car. Now when I'm doing that every 2-3 weeks I'd absolutely consider it. 

That doesn't make sense.  They are a perfect company car and 25k miles per annum is probably a bit above average but not uncommon.  You might aswell get an electric scooter for anything else.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 8.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Thought I would offer an insight into the School Meal Voucher scheme being used to provide vouchers to those parents and children that need it desperately.  The scheme is provided by Edenred a co

This sermon is brought to you by the Daily Mail. Victim-blaming repugnant nonsense. 

You need to completely change your perspective. Do you think they don’t realise how dangerous is?  They don’t have other options. Of course it’s dangerous but the alternative, for most, is l

Posted Images

1 hour ago, Sparks Rover said:

That doesn't make sense.  They are a perfect company car and 25k miles per annum is probably a bit above average but not uncommon.  You might aswell get an electric scooter for anything else.

 

 

With the current charging infrastructure its surely a faff for many if you're doing that sort of mileage? If you have a charging point at work or easily accessible then fair enough 

 

We dont have charging points at home or at work and the shared parking area is away from the house so a bit awkward if we had to pull a cable out there. With my old mileage I think it's far too much faff to get it charged every 2-3 days rather than ever 3 weeks and also bound to forget to do it every now and then. 

 

Edit: I'm sure I had this debate about mobile phones. With my old brick that I'd get 10 days charge out of, I'd have been horrified if you told me I'd have to charge my phone every night but you adapt and get used to it I suppose. 

Edited by RoverDom
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Hoochie Bloochie Mama said:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/mar/07/roy-greenslade-ira-media-commentator

Roy Greenslade explained. A more nuanced account by a bloke who'd know. 

An apology 7yrs late doesn't help Maíria Cahill, the man is morally reprehensible, the newspaper doesn't fare much better.

In particular, Greenslade had criticised transparency in a 2014 piece about a BBC programme on Maíria Cahill’s claim of rape by an alleged IRA member. Given his own lack of transparency, that was, at best, hypocritical.

The piece spectacularly fails on transparency grounds. Had Greenslade been open with me back in 2014, I would have been able to come to a different judgment about it overall. So I am sincerely sorry to Maíria Cahill, both for the article and for the upset it must have caused her. Both the Guardian and Greenslade have also apologised.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

I think freezing Fuel tax was right again and one the UK public want cos we pay more than enough to use our car whether it Car Insurance, Car Tax if you have to, Fuel and MOT/Service. The UK motorist play more than the fair share IMO

 

Drivers don't pay anywhere near the true cost of motoring - It was calculated that each car in Central London casts £8000 per year in pollution alone, add into that the cost of infrastructure, people killed and injured by drivers then there is an effective subsidy to drivers at the expense of those that don't driive,  a quarter of households don't have access to a car . The wealthiest in society are subsidised by the poorest, but that's always the case - Solar subsidies were a good example of this.


Air pollution from cars and vans racks up health bills of nearly £6bn every year in the UK, according to a new report by researchers at the universities of Oxford and Bath.The costs to both the NHS and society at large were highest in cities, and diesel vehicles were the worst offenders in terms of harmful pollutants.In total, the scientists concluded the health cost of an average car in inner London over the vehicle’s lifetime was nearly £8,000. For diesel cars this figure was nearly double.

 We need to move away from a  car dependent society - Nearly 68% of car journeys are under 5 miles

From the Nation Travel Survey 2018
Most trips are relatively short. In England in 2018, 25% of trips were under 1 mile, and 68% under 5 miles.
Walking was the most frequent mode used for short trips: 80% of trips under one mile were walks.
For all other distance bands, the car was the most frequent mode of travel (Chart 13). Nearly all
walks recorded in the NTS are under 5 miles, compared with 58% of car driver trips and 7% of trips
by surface rail.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The government gets 40bn a year from motoring related taxes. 

Costs

- Infrastructre 10-11bn (5bn highways England, 5-6bn local councils). 

- 6bn health bill from pollution 

Still some way short of motorists being subsidised. 

 

Not that I disagree that we need to cut down the use of petrol / diesel cars and get on top of air pollution. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, RoverDom said:

The government gets 40bn a year from motoring related taxes. 

Costs

- Infrastructre 10-11bn (5bn highways England, 5-6bn local councils). 

- 6bn health bill from pollution 

Still some way short of motorists being subsidised. 

 

Not that I disagree that we need to cut down the use of petrol / diesel cars and get on top of air pollution. 

Good try but nowhere near the true costs - https://www.ippr.org/research/publications/the-war-on-motorists-myth-or-reality

This is from 2012 - I assume the costs are now greater

Furthermore, while revenue from motoring taxes does indeed outweigh the dir ect costs of
road building and maintenance, this does not take account of the many indir ect costs of
road traffic to society.

 

image.thumb.png.45cd11fee938c42fa8aa5e9718c1767f.png

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Here's a nice graph that shows the issue from the RAC Foundation Driving gets cheaper while public transport gets massively more expensive in relation to the cost of living

The real cost of motoring has reduced by 15% while Rail is up 5% and buses 50% over the cost of living. 

 

Edited by Jimbo
removed the chart - just in case it's not considered public domain
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RoverDom said:

The government gets 40bn a year from motoring related taxes. 

Costs

- Infrastructre 10-11bn (5bn highways England, 5-6bn local councils). 

- 6bn health bill from pollution 

Still some way short of motorists being subsidised. 

 

Not that I disagree that we need to cut down the use of petrol / diesel cars and get on top of air pollution. 

In 2019/20 the UK Government received approximately in fuel duty tax receipts 27.57 billion British pounds. 

I think Motorists pay more than the fair share of taxes, VAT and insurances to drive on the roads. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

In 2019/20 the UK Government received approximately in fuel duty tax receipts 27.57 billion British pounds. 

I think Motorists pay more than the fair share of taxes, VAT and insurances to drive on the roads. 

Did you read Jimbo's post above about indirect costs of road traffic from 2012? At the lowest estimate that's £142.9bn.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jimbo said:

 

Drivers don't pay anywhere near the true cost of motoring - It was calculated that each car in Central London casts £8000 per year in pollution alone, add into that the cost of infrastructure, people killed and injured by drivers then there is an effective subsidy to drivers at the expense of those that don't driive,  a quarter of households don't have access to a car . The wealthiest in society are subsidised by the poorest, but that's always the case - Solar subsidies were a good example of this.


Air pollution from cars and vans racks up health bills of nearly £6bn every year in the UK, according to a new report by researchers at the universities of Oxford and Bath.The costs to both the NHS and society at large were highest in cities, and diesel vehicles were the worst offenders in terms of harmful pollutants.In total, the scientists concluded the health cost of an average car in inner London over the vehicle’s lifetime was nearly £8,000. For diesel cars this figure was nearly double.

 We need to move away from a  car dependent society - Nearly 68% of car journeys are under 5 miles

From the Nation Travel Survey 2018
Most trips are relatively short. In England in 2018, 25% of trips were under 1 mile, and 68% under 5 miles.
Walking was the most frequent mode used for short trips: 80% of trips under one mile were walks.
For all other distance bands, the car was the most frequent mode of travel (Chart 13). Nearly all
walks recorded in the NTS are under 5 miles, compared with 58% of car driver trips and 7% of trips
by surface rail.

Explained much more eloquently than me Jimbo!

Excellent point on domestic solar too. We were beneficiaries of the early generous subsidies when we had our system installed in 2011. Whilst the cost of the panels was a lot more than they cost now we are guaranteed an index linked feed-in tariff which is now over 55p per KWh. It means we are getting tax-free income of about £1,600 a year for 25 years in total. It more than pays our total energy bill. But we could only do it because we could afford to buy and have the panels installed

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, only2garners said:

Did you read Jimbo's post above about indirect costs of road traffic from 2012? At the lowest estimate that's £142.9bn.

What that got to do with what the government recieved in Fuel Duty taxes in 19/20 tax year?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with bus and rail fares is that it isn’t regulated. I don’t think public transport users subsidise car users but I do think that something needs to change in order to meet this carbon net zero pledge. I don’t use public transport simply because it’s a hassle, and on the occasions I do use it I regularly feel let down. Timing is quite poor and the cost to use does not match the service received. It would be cheaper to fill the car up and make the journey alone in most cases, except pre-booked long distance train journeys. 
 

Birmingham is reinvesting in tram lines which is remarkable considering in 2012 I worked on a building site in the centre of Brum and we spent weeks pulling up old tram lines! I digress but the service is quite good but too few and far between. It also doesn’t have the network you’d expect public transport to have. For example, there isn’t a train or tram stop within my post code. I would have to make my way to Hampstead station - a 45/1hr walk - to get a 10min train into the city centre. A taxi / car would take me 20 minutes max. 
 

Our infrastructure is better than up North but a far cry from down South. The tube system is quite incredible really and if I lived in London I’d probably not bother with a car. This kind of ingenuity and building needs to happen nation wide, irrespective of cost, if we are to achieve a goal of net zero with the same rising population we are seeing. It is not enough to cry “too much” when we are not factoring in indirect costs of car travel, ie the death of the young girl in London (Lewisham was it?) lately. I think that’s worth a few billion quid if you ask me. 
 

A tube system was floated for Brum but of course it was decided as too costly and instead the tram system has seen a revival. It is good but nowhere near good enough to make me consider saying bye to my car. I think they’re banking on the private car industry to bail them out and technology to advance quick enough for them to meet their goals. It’s frustrating as we can see what we can do with the likes of the Tube but find ourselves waiting for decades old buses that are neither good for the environment or cost efficient. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

What that got to do with what the government recieved in Fuel Duty taxes in 19/20 tax year?

You're trying to suggest that motorists pay more than their fair share of costs but only quoting fuel duty. Clearly not all of the indirect costs will disappear with a switch to electric cars but quite a lot of costs will nd they can't be ignored.a

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

In 2019/20 the UK Government received approximately in fuel duty tax receipts 27.57 billion British pounds. 

I think Motorists pay more than the fair share of taxes, VAT and insurances to drive on the roads. 

You are quite right motorists are already charged quite enough we should be charging the scourge of the road also known as cyclists. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Ewood Ace said:

You are quite right motorists are already charged quite enough we should be charging the scourge of the road also known as cyclists. 

Statistically, motorists are scourge of the road.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, only2garners said:

You're trying to suggest that motorists pay more than their fair share of costs but only quoting fuel duty. Clearly not all of the indirect costs will disappear with a switch to electric cars but quite a lot of costs will nd they can't be ignored.a

When you think how much we pay in car fuel duty, insurance and car tax then MOT/service of your car per year. IMO we pay more than our fair share. 

6 minutes ago, Ewood Ace said:

You are quite right motorists are already charged quite enough we should be charging the scourge of the road also known as cyclists. 

Cyclists dont pay any road tax or need insurance to drive the roads. Motorists pay for those cycling lanes. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jimbo said:

Good try but nowhere near the true costs - https://www.ippr.org/research/publications/the-war-on-motorists-myth-or-reality

This is from 2012 - I assume the costs are now greater

Furthermore, while revenue from motoring taxes does indeed outweigh the dir ect costs of
road building and maintenance, this does not take account of the many indir ect costs of
road traffic to society.

 

image.thumb.png.45cd11fee938c42fa8aa5e9718c1767f.png

 

 

General point indirect costs are massively subjective and can generally be judged to suit any argument you like. If we're starting to squeeze every indirect cost of motoring then the same has to be done on revenue side to make it comparable. 

- car dealer - tax on profits

- VAT on new cars sold

- car tax

- fuel duty

- car needs serviced or repaired? VAT + mechanics tax on profits. 

- car parking? VAT

- the productivity element cuts both ways, if I had to travel in work time by public transport it would take twice as long as driving

The table is a bit misleading as it duplicates somewhat but does give a good insight into the other associated costs. Also I couldn't tell whether certain figures took into account that 20% of the traffic was non-car related traffic therefore 20% not attributable to cars. The report also referred to that particular year being 'peak car' so I'm not sure if the balance has shifted since then? 

 

 

All that said, I'd gladly pay more if it meant we would subsidise electric cars, charging infastructure, better public transport. Remote working needs to be capitalised on and hopefully will change peoples attitudes towards cars, we're already debating going down to one car. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, chaddyrovers said:

Cyclists dont pay any road tax or need insurance to drive the roads. Motorists pay for those cycling lanes. 

In one sentence you show your total ignorance - I as a cyclist pay far more towards the roads than you - simply because the maintenance of roads comes from general taxation and I earn more than you. There is no such thing as road tax and hasn't been since 1937 - Polluters pay VED based on emission, cyclists and EVs that don't pollute don't pay - My old Octavia was £30 per year because it was low emission.

Cyclists don't need insurance because their level of risk is miniscule, but if a cyclist is a member of British Cycling or Cycling UK and many are then 3rd party insurance is included in membership. Also most household insurance policies have 3rd party insurance included as well - So your statement that cyclists don't have insurance is frankly bollocks as is the rest.

Edited by Jimbo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not keen on any anger towards cyclists. We should be encouraging it as much as possible. I've never lived close enough to work for it to be feasible to do it, especially with the hills round my way. 

I find the "they dont pay road tax" argument is like nails down a chalkboard. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.