Just one more reason to end the EU rule

[Théière]

It has been spoken of before but moves a step closer...........

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/197041/EU-says-Hammer-British-drivers

[Gardener]

What aspect of it do you object to?

[velcorin]

Seemed perfectly sensible to me. The more you drive, the more you pollute, the more wear and tear to the infrastructure, congestion you cause, the more you should pay. In Europe, the variable costs/km associated with driving should be at least twice what they are currently. Make everyone think twice before they drive anywhere. Make the middle classes live nearer to work. Stop the school runs. Just popping to the shops for a pint of milk? More video conferencing. Price people onto public transport. I'm struggling to find a negative side to pay/km[:D]

The DE never read the dicussion document, and relied on a couple of rentaquotes for the story. They certainly know how to pitch a story to press Theiere's button[:)] Wonder what it says in the other 300 pages, or whatever?

It'll never happen. European automotive industry has managed to shoot down anything from the EU that might just stop 1 car sale.

[pachapapa]

[quote user="Théière"]

It has been spoken of before but moves a step closer...........

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/197041/EU-says-Hammer-British-drivers

[/quote]

I can see nothing irrationale in the EU proposals.

Do you in fact have an opinion of your own, rather than a "quick quip" + URL ?

[NickP]

I prefer Théière's quick quips to some peoples 94 page cut and paste fantasy stories. [:P]

[Frederick]

[quote user="pachapapa"][quote user="Théière"]

It has been spoken of before but moves a step closer...........

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/197041/EU-says-Hammer-British-drivers

[/quote]

I can see nothing irrationale in the EU proposals.

Do you in fact have an opinion of your own, rather than a "quick quip" + URL ?

[/quote]

 

Perhaps they will start the new regulations with E160 per year road tax on every French car . ! regardless of emmissions ..that should bring it in line a bit ,

[Richard51]

I totally agree with the report.  IMHO they should:

• Do away with RFL and raise the duty on petrol (significantly)

• Introduce congestion charging measures to all city centres

• Introduce tolls on all major routes with discounts depending on the occupancy of the car
• Introduce higher VAT levels (i.e. 30% +)  for fuel guzzling cars - viz the Chelsea tractors etc.

Mrs R51

[BIG MAC]

And a 6 inch titanium spike in each seat and ink in the washer bottle and petrol in the radiator  etc  etc

[NickP]

[quote user="Richard51"]I totally agree with the report.  IMHO they should:

• Do away with RFL and raise the duty on petrol (significantly)
  

• Introduce congestion charging measures to all city centres
  

• Introduce tolls on all major routes with discounts depending on the occupancy of the car

• Introduce higher VAT levels (i.e. 30% +)  for fuel guzzling cars - viz the Chelsea tractors etc.

Mrs R51

[/quote]

Being a motorist I can't agree with any of the above rubbish. I would  tax all pedestrians and people who never go into a city,  put double road tax on a small cars,  ban bus passes and I would tax non drivers who travel in other peoples cars. Anybody without a driving licence and a car would pay extra tax on their wages, Oh and extra NI to cover their medical costs in case they get run over. [:P]

[woolybanana]

Interesting. A little while ago I heard some French figures which said that if there were no charges on the motorways each taxpayer would have to pay an extra €240 per year in taxes. So maybe motorway charging is not such a bad idea, though there are a ton of issues and conditions.

[Bugsy]

[quote user="Richard51"]I totally agree with the report.  IMHO they should:

• Do away with RFL and raise the duty on petrol (significantly)

• Introduce congestion charging measures to all city centres

• Introduce tolls on all major routes with discounts depending on the occupancy of the car
• Introduce higher VAT levels (i.e. 30% +)  for fuel guzzling cars - viz the Chelsea tractors etc.

Mrs R51

[/quote]

What complete garbage ! None of those suggestions will make an iota of difference. 45 billion in revenue from motorists against 8 billion spent on roads (there is a bit of a clue in those figures)

Various governments have filled the UK with a population getting on for 63 million and are now having to do something about road congestion (why that should come as a surprise, baffles most people with a modicum of common sense.)

The answer is not pricing people off the road.

.

 

[Quillan]

Quite frankly the whole article is yet more EU knocking by the UK gutter press blaming everything upon the EU. Its typical of the UK mentality that when something goes wrong it's not their fault and there is always somebody else to blame for their woes and so we are back to the good old originals, immigrants and the EU. The main reason the prices of car fuel in the UK is so high is because its so heavily taxed in the UK by the UK government for the most part.

Chelsea Tractors or more to the point 4x4's are quite rare in comparison to those owned by farmers, engineers and government bodies (Forestry Commission for example) and in fact are becoming less popular now we have hybrid (and electric) cars that do not attract congestion charges in London. All you would do by taxing them is make life much more expensive for those that really need this type of vehicle and lets face it those that use do use them to take their kids to school etc won't bat an eyelid if the tax went up.

This is not the first time that the EU has bought out such a report. They have looked at MOT's, Insurance, RFL and other methods for quite a few years now. One proposal was to take 'the best' from different EU countries to make an EU standard system and already some things have been done. The basic ideas are to use the UK RFL which discriminates between cars with high and low emissions (the hgher the emissions the more you pay), having a number plate for life of the driver, MOT and insurance to be clearly displayed in the exact same place on all vehicles. By the way as a thought the UK number plates change yet again next year, something about running out of number or letters I can't remember which.

[Richard51]

[quote user="Bugsy"]

What complete garbage ! None of those suggestions will make an iota of difference. 45 billion in revenue from motorists against 8 billion spent on roads (there is a bit of a clue in those figures)

Various governments have filled the UK with a population getting on for 63 million and are now having to do something about road congestion (why that should come as a surprise, baffles most people with a modicum of common sense.)

The answer is not pricing people off the road.

 

[/quote]

So how come when you drive (sorry crawl) down the UK motorways, 90% of the cars have only one occupant?   Clearly the current tax / pricing structure isn't dissuading people from getting into their cars.  The above suggestions have nothing to do with fund raising but dissuading people from idly and selfishly stepping into their cars every time they want to go somewhere. 

Rural France is actually worse than the UK for public transport provision. We asked about local bus services (on what is a reasonable 'major' route (D5 west into Perigueux)) and were told that there was, maybe, one bus a day but no-one knew what time it went and that sometimes it didn't run!

Mrs R51

PS those who genuinely use agricultural vehicles have access to red diesel.  As for those parents taking kids to school - maybe the kids should be encouraged to walk or we should have school buses in colder months like they do in the US / Canada?  Encouraging children to walk to school would help deal with the childhood obesity problem and remove a major contribution to rush hour traffic.

[Clarkkent]

[quote user="Richard51"]

• Do away with RFL and raise the duty on petrol (significantly)
  
  
  [/quote]

Mrs R 51

As it happens, Road Fund Licence HAS been abolished - in, I think, 1935. Are you really old enough to remember RFL?

In the UK people pay Vehicle Excise Duty, but it is strange that a term which was abolished 75 years ago should still be in current use. [:)]

[Théière]

[quote user="Richard51"]
So how come when you drive (sorry crawl) down the UK motorways, 90% of the cars have only one occupant?   Clearly the current tax / pricing structure isn't dissuading people from getting into their cars.  The above suggestions have nothing to do with fund raising but dissuading people from idly and selfishly stepping into their cars every time they want to go somewhere. 

[/quote]

You may want to re consider the above comment.

I know of no one who idly steps into their car and travels down a motorway. and if 90% are only occupied by one person so what, it simply means there were not two people who wanted to go to the exact same place at the same time who new each other or were going off somewhere else.

I have to drive on many motorways for work, who do you think is going to pay for this ridiculous tax? service companies already charge £75 to change a light bulb, how much more will that cost.

School runs, I agree with, the fat children we have as several generations now are as a result of never walking anywhere.

 

[Quillan]

[quote user="Richard51"]PS those who genuinely use agricultural vehicles have access to red diesel.  As for those parents taking kids to school - maybe the kids should be encouraged to walk or we should have school buses in colder months like they do in the US / Canada?  Encouraging children to walk to school would help deal with the childhood obesity problem and remove a major contribution to rush hour traffic.
[/quote]

Not for Land Rovers and 4x4's they can't (its illegal if they get caught), its only for tractors and alike. In fact I believe that as of 2008 it is no longer available, they have to enter number of hours run (agricultural units work on hours not miles) on a tax form as well as equipment used and they get a tax rebate accordingly.

[Richard51]

[quote user="Théière"]

I know of no one who idly steps into their car and travels down a motorway. and if 90% are only occupied by one person so what, it simply means there were not two people who wanted to go to the exact same place at the same time who new each other or were going off somewhere else.

I have to drive on many motorways for work, who do you think is going to pay for this ridiculous tax? service companies already charge £75 to change a light bulb, how much more will that cost.

[/quote]

Public transport? 

http://www.transportdirect.info

The company I worked for had group wide car sharing scheme.  Car park places at the company's offices were only available to those who car shared.  Any business trips had to be taken by public transport unless there was a very good reason for taking a car.

Car share?

http://www.rideshare.co.uk/

http://www.mylifts.com/

http://www.erideshare.com/

There are many more...

Even in France:

http://www.covoiturage.fr/

When it is cheaper to drive your car than to catch the train then where is the incentive (for those who are not eco concious) to use public transport?

Mrs R51

[Richard51]

There is a very limited need for Range rovers, 4*4's etc.  Any difficult terrain is usually restricted to the farm / woodland itself - not the highway.  They are usually driven as a status symbol. My brother-in-law has a farm and he has a quad bike he uses to get across difficult terrain.

Mrs R51

PS The knee jerk responses on here to any possibility that personal transport options might be reduced clearly demonstrates that people will only change their habits when it hurts their pockets.

[woolybanana]

Tax second car ownership really heavily. And to catch the frauders, send another army of council spies along the streets on bicycles, though they would ask for cars.

[Will]

[quote user="Bugsy"]

Various governments have filled the UK with a population getting on for 63 million

[/quote]

Come on - I know certain MPs (just as in France) are rather keen on extra-marital procreation, but I'm sure that's a bit exaggerated

[;-)]

[quote user="Bugsy"]

The answer is not pricing people off the road.

[/quote]

I agree - if viable alternatives were available, like decent, joined-up, value-for-money public transport I think that would make a difference. People would then have a choice. The lazy and the die-hards would stick with their gas guzzlers and high parking charges, but many of us would then be able to do something more environmentally responsible and better for our wallets, even if we did lose out a bit on convenience.

[Quillan]

[quote user="Richard51"]There is a very limited need for Range rovers, 4*4's etc.  Any difficult terrain is usually restricted to the farm / woodland itself - not the highway.  They are usually driven as a status symbol. My brother-in-law has a farm and he has a quad bike he uses to get across difficult terrain.

Mrs R51

PS The knee jerk responses on here to any possibility that personal transport options might be reduced clearly demonstrates that people will only change their habits when it hurts their pockets.
[/quote]

What a load of tosh, you clearly have know idea about farming. I would love to see your brother tow a trailer load of sheep but I suspect you will say he is an arable farmer. The only bit of truth was about status symbols, I have yet to meet a poor farmer.

Public transport in big UK cities needs to be tackled properly. People seem to think it has to be cheap, well cheap is OK but speed and comfortability is equally important to get car drivers to use it. I could travel from Docklands to South Kensington quicker by car than by public transport plus it was much more comfortable and reliable in the car. Plus parking expenses was tax deductible. Transport for London or whatever they are called these days would be better off asking people what they want instead of giving them what they think they want.

As to Congestion Charges well try googling "What effect has the London Congestion charges made", there are loads of reports which appear to suggest that after the initial years the number of vehicles entering London is back to the same number or even higher that before it was imposed. I did notice while reading through them that they now intend to make diesel powered cars exempt.

[Richard51]

Price does drive transport choices - we have seen that in reverse with air transport.  We currently have the ridiculous scenario where the most eco friendly means of transport (train) is the most expensive and the least (plane) is the cheapest.

For two people travelling from London to Paris it will cost:

£81 by plane (£30 per person London Luton to CDG Paris plus petrol to Luton Airport from London (42 miles at 50p per mile))

£184 by car (290 miles at 50p per mile (AA rates) plus a £40 ferry crossing with P&O).  If the driver's normal annual motoring mileage is >10,000 miles this costs falls to £69 (10p per mile plus the £40 ferry crossing)

£212 by train (cheapest Eurostar price (£106) from London to Paris)

The carbon footprint for the above journey is 122kg (plane) v 11kgm (train)  - http://www.seat61.com/CO2flights.htm

Mrs R51

[Richard51]

This trailer load of sheep gets moved so often during the course of the year that the farmer needs a 4*4 there on permanent standby?

My b-i-l moves his sheep from field to field using his quad and sheep dogs.  The only time he needs to transport them by road is when they go to market / slaughterhouse...when he borrows an appropriate vehicle.

This farmer / forrester debate is a complete red herring.  Most people

driving gas guzzlers do so because they are a status symbol and/or they

like to burn up the motorway.

As an aside, there are a lot of poor farmers.  Many

British pork farmers, for example, are giving up because, if they comply with UK welfare regulations, then they are running

at a loss. My b-i-l is diversifying into tourism as he can no longer

live on the income from farming.  Cheap food, like travel, comes at a price - factory farming and poor animal welfare.

Mrs R51

[Quillan]

I thought we were talking about commuting in town and cities which is totally different.

People will fly to the destinations you have given links to mainly because they are traveling for business and want to get there and back quickly, time is money after all. They will drive to the airport because its quicker and more comfortable than public transport. They will then fly because thats quicker and then get a taxi at the other end because again that is quicker and of course the whole experience is a lot more comfortable. The whole thing will also probably be quite expensive but who cares the company is paying.

Why doesn't your BIL use his Range Rover?

Being green is big money as I and others have said before. The main driving force behind getting people out of car's and scaring the life out of them over carbon emissions is all down to, and controlled by, big multi-national business. You should go and do a bit of research on that (and oil reserves and where petrochemicals are used the most) then you might understand how you and many others have become duped with all this climate change and global warming business, its nothing to do with protecting the earth its to do with big money and big business. Anyway lets stay on topic. [:D]

 

[ebaynut]

[quote user="Richard51"][quote user="Bugsy"]

What complete garbage ! None of those suggestions will make an iota of difference. 45 billion in revenue from motorists against 8 billion spent on roads (there is a bit of a clue in those figures)

Various governments have filled the UK with a population getting on for 63 million and are now having to do something about road congestion (why that should come as a surprise, baffles most people with a modicum of common sense.)

The answer is not pricing people off the road.
 
[/quote]

So how come when you drive (sorry crawl) down the UK motorways, 90% of the cars have only one occupant?   Clearly the current tax / pricing structure isn't dissuading people from getting into their cars.  The above suggestions have nothing to do with fund raising but dissuading people from idly and selfishly stepping into their cars every time they want to go somewhere. 

[/quote]

I personally would never use public transport. Have you seen some of the scum that travels that way. No thank you, I certainly don't wish to get that close to another person other than by choice.

Show me someone over fifty waiting at a bus stop and I will show you a loser.