The war on the motorist continues

[Nicholas]

The country’s first “workplace parking levy” will come into force in Nottingham in 2012 and is likely to be adopted by other councils.

Under the scheme, any firm with 11 or more staff parking spaces will be charged £250 a year for each. That cost could rise to £350 within two years....

Motorists to pay £250 tax for parking at work - Telegraph


I fail to be surprised at the 'imaginative ideas' to raise tax! - What ever next? A tax on the air we breathe?
Don't we pay too much tax as it is, like rising tax on fuel and rising year by year road tax?

[Major Sinic]

The country’s first “workplace parking levy” will come into force in Nottingham in 2012 and is likely to be adopted by other councils.

Under the scheme, any firm with 11 or more staff parking spaces will be charged £250 a year for each. That cost could rise to £350 within two years....

Motorists to pay £250 tax for parking at work - Telegraph


I fail to be surprised at the 'imaginative ideas' to raise tax! - What ever next? A tax on the air we breathe?
Don't we pay too much tax as it is, like rising tax on fuel and rising year by year road tax?

It may have passed you by, but for eight of the last thirteen years the Labour government ran a substantial budget deficit resulting in a national state debt of around £8b. Our international credit lines are all but exhausted and the interest we pay on our debt can only increase. For every four pounds the state spends, it borrows one. As a nation we are living beyond our means and it does not take a brilliant economist to realise that this is not sustainable.

The only way the present government has any hope of achieving economic recovery is to stop borrowing and start repaying state debt, whilst endeavouring to contribute to an economic environment in which the private sector can increase wealth creation to the ultimate benefit of all. To do this it must both reduce public expenditure and increase the cash it receives in taxes. Neither measure is ever going to be popular with those who are going to be worse off as a result. Unpopularity of the essential measures does not alter the fact that there is no viable alternative. Whichever political party or movement is in power and whatever method we use to elect the government this is the unavoidable truth facing us.

[Midas]

Whilst what Major Sinic says is quite right, I can see that there will be a huge number of challenges to this scheme, both verbal and I suspect legal, from businesses and from motoring associations based on a mix of it being yet another unfair tax and an infringement of a landowner's rights to do what he wishes on his own property. It's a move which might well also have unintended consequences if businesses cut down on staff parking places, driving more cars out to park in already overcrowded streets.

[soloman]

Whilst what Major Sinic says is quite right, I can see that there will be a huge number of challenges to this scheme, both verbal and I suspect legal, from businesses and from motoring associations based on a mix of it being yet another unfair tax and an infringement of a landowner's rights to do what he wishes on his own property. It's a move which might well also have unintended consequences if businesses cut down on staff parking places, driving more cars out to park in already overcrowded streets.

I hear what you say Midas and have some sympathy with the view expressed. However the other side of the coin is that the town in which my district council resides provides free parking spaces for staff. I don't consider that fair or reasonable at all, especially when the county council will only permit employees to park cars on site for 3 days each week to encourage the use of public transport. Even that doesn't work as with inadequate bus services from the village I live in a neighbour drives the 30 mile round trip twice a day (on her non=parking days), to take his wife to work at the council offices and collect her later!

[Major Sinic]

Whilst what Major Sinic says is quite right, I can see that there will be a huge number of challenges to this scheme, both verbal and I suspect legal, from businesses and from motoring associations based on a mix of it being yet another unfair tax and an infringement of a landowner's rights to do what he wishes on his own property. It's a move which might well also have unintended consequences if businesses cut down on staff parking places, driving more cars out to park in already overcrowded streets.

You do raise some valid points, and I suspect you are quite correct in that there will be some energetic challenges to these proposals. That said there are energetic challenges to virtually every proposed tax increase and any reduction in public services. These will not alter the fact that we no longer have any alternative but to implement both.

To play devil's advocate for a moment. Free car parking at your place of work when otherwise you may have to pay for it in a public facility, should surely be treated as a 'benefit in kind' for the employee. As a principle 'benefit in kind' has long been enshrined in tax law. Secondly it could be considered a progressive tax in that it creates greater fairness between those who work for smaller organisations, which are unable to offer free car parking and larger organisations who can. Thirdly it should encourage those who travel to work by car to reappraise and perhaps switch to public transport, thus reducing congestion.

As a regular visitor to my nearby city of Oxford where city centre public car parking shrinks annually in inverse proportion to the parking charges (up to £12 per day now) the swathes of City Council and University staff parking remain available, numerous, unaffected and free. I have to confess to a frisson of pleasure, even schadenfreude, that these public sector employees already earning over 7% per annum on average more than their private sector cousins, may for once actually have to make a contribution towards their privileges. Unless of course their employers pay it for them from public funds!!!

[Soma Sengupta]

Perhaps, but to penalise employers? What happens in areas where there isn't much public transportation? Why should those workers suffer this disproportionate impact? Why should this happen before CG taxes are raised to equal taxes on pay?

[DC]

Public or council land = perfectly reasonable
Private land = It's private land, and this is a tax grab which actually seems to infringe property rights.

Now perhaps if we assume that the aim is cut down on congestion, then perhaps they could put a tax on businesses whose car parks exit or enter onto/from major roads, thereby encouraging any new developers to favour backstreet entrances and the like.

[crazylilting]

Who can or will pay for our over spending? Business doesn't want to, the working class don't want to, those on welfare do not want to or cannot contribute so where is it it going to come from?

The fact is our level of services provided for the British public and or how they are provided is not sustainable. While we may try to raise more taxes to pay for it all I doubt anyone will want to pay for it. We are all ready taxed to heavily. So the only solution to this is to reduce services and the size of government and promote a more industrialized nation with the emphasis on exported goods.

We all know that Government is a company who's main purpose is to generate a bottom line. What that bottom line looks like is in some ways dictated by the needs and wants of the population. Why there isn't more outcry of people wanting our government to bring us back to self sufficiency is beyond me. It is one thing to make decisions for our personal well being and using credit cards to create a life style but it is another thing to enslave a nation to the same concept.

We complain when our freedoms are being taken away but we are selling off our freedom in the guise of a national life style that is not affordable or sustainable, shouldn't that be our number one priority? Cuts are unpopular because they benefit someone and it is time we stop listening to those who are whinning about what they are losing and start cheering about going in a direction of self sustainability and accountability for our own nation.

[DaveUK]

Who can or will pay for our over spending? Business doesn't want to, the working class don't want to, those on welfare do not want to or cannot contribute so where is it it going to come from?

The fact is our level of services provided for the British public and or how they are provided is not sustainable. While we may try to raise more taxes to pay for it all I doubt anyone will want to pay for it. We are all ready taxed to heavily. So the only solution to this is to reduce services and the size of government and promote a more industrialized nation with the emphasis on exported goods.

We all know that Government is a company who's main purpose is to generate a bottom line. What that bottom line looks like is in some ways dictated by the needs and wants of the population. Why there isn't more outcry of people wanting our government to bring us back to self sufficiency is beyond me. It is one thing to make decisions for our personal well being and using credit cards to create a life style but it is another thing to enslave a nation to the same concept.

We complain when our freedoms are being taken away but we are selling off our freedom in the guise of a national life style that is not affordable or sustainable, shouldn't that be our number one priority? Cuts are unpopular because they benefit someone and it is time we stop listening to those who are whinning about what they are losing and start cheering about going in a direction of self sustainability and accountability for our own nation.

I agree with most of what you say here. I think it should be a question of who should pay for the financial mess this country is in, rather than who wants to. As you rightly point out, no one wants to, least of all those responsible for it.
It seems to me a large part of the problem would be solved by renationalising some of our profit making utilities and services. Some of them are making vast profits, and passing on further increases to the consumer.
The size of the NHS should be reduced, and returned to it's initial principle, of being free to all at the point of need.
I think the word need should be highlited here. There's a vast ammount of money spent in the NHS on all sorts of none essential treatments. There's also a whole generation of parents who don't seem to have any discretional abilities, or are too afraid to use for fear of atracting attention from social services. A child with a cut or a bruise does not need to go to casualty, which is time consuming and costly. A child with a tummy bug or a cold does not need to see a doctor. When I was a kid, you stayed in bed with a bottle of Lukazade for a couple of days, and that was it. If you bashed your legs or arms up, you put plasters on them.
There are other more contriversial treatments that the NHS provide that should be tackled. Problem is, our PC politicians don't have the gutts to confront these issues. Such as, IVF, none essential cosmetic surgery, sex change opps, tatoo removals etc.

I think there are more effective and ethical ways of raising revenue than basing motorists who already have a heavy tax burden.

[crazylilting]

I agree with most of what you say here. I think it should be a question of who should pay for the financial mess this country is in, rather than who wants to. As you rightly point out, no one wants to, least of all those responsible for it.
It seems to me a large part of the problem would be solved by renationalising some of our profit making utilities and services. Some of them are making vast profits, and passing on further increases to the consumer.
The size of the NHS should be reduced, and returned to it's initial principle, of being free to all at the point of need.
I think the word need should be highlited here. There's a vast ammount of money spent in the NHS on all sorts of none essential treatments. There's also a whole generation of parents who don't seem to have any discretional abilities, or are too afraid to use for fear of atracting attention from social services. A child with a cut or a bruise does not need to go to casualty, which is time consuming and costly. A child with a tummy bug or a cold does not need to see a doctor. When I was a kid, you stayed in bed with a bottle of Lukazade for a couple of days, and that was it. If you bashed your legs or arms up, you put plasters on them.
There are other more contriversial treatments that the NHS provide that should be tackled. Problem is, our PC politicians don't have the gutts to confront these issues. Such as, IVF, none essential cosmetic surgery, sex change opps, tatoo removals etc.

I think there are more effective and ethical ways of raising revenue than basing motorists who already have a heavy tax burden.

I absolutely agree, however because the government is doing this is proof of how much opposition there is to cuts. This is probably the worst time for anyone to be in the drivers seat because no matter what you do you will loose support.

[Nicholas]

It may have passed you by, but for eight of the last thirteen years the Labour government ran a substantial budget deficit resulting in a national state debt of around £8b. Our international credit lines are all but exhausted and the interest we pay on our debt can only increase. For every four pounds the state spends, it borrows one. As a nation we are living beyond our means and it does not take a brilliant economist to realise that this is not sustainable.

The only way the present government has any hope of achieving economic recovery is to stop borrowing and start repaying state debt, whilst endeavouring to contribute to an economic environment in which the private sector can increase wealth creation to the ultimate benefit of all. To do this it must both reduce public expenditure and increase the cash it receives in taxes. Neither measure is ever going to be popular with those who are going to be worse off as a result. Unpopularity of the essential measures does not alter the fact that there is no viable alternative. Whichever political party or movement is in power and whatever method we use to elect the government this is the unavoidable truth facing us.

What a load of cobblers.....there is no viable alternative to taxing people who park on private land? Are you having a laugh? there are billions to be saved by pulling out of Afghanistan, shrinking the public sector, abolishing useless quangos and attacking the feral and feckless who live off state benefit in the pocket. Tax rises targetting a certain section of the community just because they drive cars or own a private car park is outrageous and probably discriminatory .

[Major Sinic]

What a load of cobblers.....there is no viable alternative to taxing people who park on private land? Are you having a laugh? there are billions to be saved by pulling out of Afghanistan, shrinking the public sector, abolishing useless quangos and attacking the feral and feckless who live off state benefit in the pocket. Tax rises targetting a certain section of the community just because they drive cars or own a private car park is outrageous and probably discriminatory .

My post was general rather than specific. The present government needs to, at the very least, consider every option to increase revenues and reduce public expenditure in order to reduce our national debt, and if they fail to address the excessive costs of many QUANGOs and NGOs, shrink the public sector, reduce over generous welfare payments, reduce the costs of futile wars then they will be failing in their duty to the nation. I have absolutely no disagreement with you on any of these points. However after just a dozen or so weeks in government they seem to be initiating these steps.

Free parking is clearly a 'benefit in kind' and it is therefore legitimate to consider taxing it. Do remember the owner of that private car park, if he or his tax advisor is remotely competent, will be offsetting every possible cost of owning and maintaining that car park against his business's tax bill. If an employer provided an employee with £250 per year towards his parking, the cost would come off his profits, and the employee would have to pay income tax on the 'benefit in kind'. What is the difference? That said my own view is that the revenue raised is unlikely to justify the aggravation it will create, and that the idea will fade away just as it did when Labour proposed it a few years ago. So no; I am not 'avin a larf'!

[Nicholas]

Free parking is clearly a 'benefit in kind' and it is therefore legitimate to consider taxing it.!

another load of complete cobblers. its not a benefit in kind , its a neccesity for many people who travel long distances to work where there is little or no public transport. If any of these idiots have tried to got to work in semi-rural areas and other distance places of work where the only option is to drive, this is yet another tax on the people who can least afford it. Many indusutrial and Office units have been built since the 1960's particularly on the periphory of many old towns. Most of these are inaccessable by Public Transport. Its essentially a 'tax on jobs' which the tories were so vehemently against before the election.

[Major Sinic]

another load of complete cobblers. its not a benefit in kind , its a neccesity for many people who travel long distances to work where there is little or no public transport. If any of these idiots have tried to got to work in semi-rural areas and other distance places of work where the only option is to drive, this is yet another tax on the people who can least afford it. Many indusutrial and Office units have been built since the 1960's particularly on the periphory of many old towns. Most of these are inaccessable by Public Transport. Its essentially a 'tax on jobs' which the tories were so vehemently against before the election.

My what a confrontational little fellow you are! Whilst it might well be all the things you suggest, it is also without a shadow of doubt a 'benefit in kind'. The debate is whether it is one which should be taxed or not. I rather gather that you think it shouldn't. That is of course your perogative.

[soloman]

My what a confrontational little fellow you are! Whilst it might well be all the things you suggest, it is also without a shadow of doubt a 'benefit in kind'. The debate is whether it is one which should be taxed or not. I rather gather that you think it shouldn't. That is of course your perogative.

You are quite right - the argument is about whether the parking charge should be charged.
If we are serious about encouraging use of public transport, then taxing the benefit seems a good idea!

[silentmist]

I have absolutely no sympathy for domestic motorists. They ruin the air quality, they create a lot of noise pollution and make going for a walk an unpleasant experience. Basically speaking, they lower the quality of life for many people, not to mention the more direct safety hazards.

The quantity of traffic have become absolutely ridiculous. If motorists don't get a grip (which they won't) then I hope they get taxed until they squeal like pigs.

[Major Sinic]

I have absolutely no sympathy for domestic motorists. They ruin the air quality, they create a lot of noise pollution and make going for a walk an unpleasant experience. Basically speaking, they lower the quality of life for many people, not to mention the more direct safety hazards.

The quantity of traffic have become absolutely ridiculous. If motorists don't get a grip (which they won't) then I hope they get taxed until they squeal like pigs.

In common with most issues it is not quite so black and white as you might wish. For instance, why should those who live in remote and rural areas be penalised, when no or inadequate public transport is available? What about those who are on shift work, many like nurses and firefighters doing essential work, who need to travel to or from work when no public transport is running? Why should those with low carbon emission or hybrid drive vehicles be demonised along with the drivers of Hummers? Why should old and poorly maintained public service vehicles belching out black fumes, such as we have in the City of Oxford be permitted, when the drivers modern private vehicles emitting a small fraction of such pollution are taxed to oblivion?

[soloman]

In common with most issues it is not quite so black and white as you might wish. For instance, why should those who live in remote and rural areas be penalised, when no or inadequate public transport is available? What about those who are on shift work, many like nurses and firefighters doing essential work, who need to travel to or from work when no public transport is running? Why should those with low carbon emission or hybrid drive vehicles be demonised along with the drivers of Hummers? Why should old and poorly maintained public service vehicles belching out black fumes, such as we have in the City of Oxford be permitted, when the drivers modern private vehicles emitting a small fraction of such pollution are taxed to oblivion?

Major Sinic has covered many of the issues associated with the issue of personal motoring. I believe that successive governments have made personal motoring a very expensive process, and this needs to be put into reverse.
Certainly with the increasing availablity of low carbon emissions and hybrid vehicles indicates the motor car is no longer the chronic polluter it once was.
By all means increase taxation on other motorists but do repay the investment by manufacturers and thinking motorists alike who are promoting the use of low carbon and hybrid vehicles. This has started with low or zero annual tax requirements for these cars but we can, and must go further.

[Midas]

Major Sinic has covered many of the issues associated with the issue of personal motoring. I believe that successive governments have made personal motoring a very expensive process, and this needs to be put into reverse.

Certainly with the increasing availablity of low carbon emissions and hybrid vehicles indicates the motor car is no longer the chronic polluter it once was.
By all means increase taxation on other motorists but do repay the investment by manufacturers and thinking motorists alike who are promoting the use of low carbon and hybrid vehicles. This has started with low or zero annual tax requirements for these cars but we can, and must go further.

Yes indeed, and a very good start to my mind would be the complete removal of all vehicle tax and a reasonable level of duty on fuel set, much lower on diesel and bio-fuel, the proceeds of which were ring-fenced for road and transport infrastructure and maintenance, not just lumped into general tax receipts to be spent anywhere. That would at least be a far fairer way of taxing driving, with people who do less mileage or use more fuel efficient cars paying a lot less than those who do a high mileage or can afford to pay for higher consumption vehicles. It would also result in far better roads - did you realise that despite the huge income from motoring taxes, the budgets some local authorities have for road maintenance is so low they can only afford to completely resurface minor roads once every 200 years - I kid you not!

The government could also do far more to encourage research and development of hybrid and electric vehicles and road automation systems, starting with complete tax breaks for companies undertaking research in these fields; the 'loss' of tax revenue would be far more than offset in the long run by this approach, but the current efforts are somehow very half-hearted and nowhere near quick enough.

Having said that, I'm eagerly awaiting the delivery of my new gas-guzzler on Wednesday. A mere 620bhp from 6 litres of 12 cylinder twin turbo engine, but still capable of giving up to 24mpg on a motorway and will run on bio-fuel, so it can't be all bad!

[Major Sinic]

[QUOTE]

Yes indeed, and a very good start to my mind would be the complete removal of all vehicle tax and a reasonable level of duty on fuel set, much lower on diesel and bio-fuel, the proceeds of which were ring-fenced for road and transport infrastructure and maintenance, not just lumped into general tax receipts to be spent anywhere. That would at least be a far fairer way of taxing driving, with people who do less mileage or use more fuel efficient cars paying a lot less than those who do a high mileage or can afford to pay for higher consumption vehicles. It would also result in far better roads - did you realise that despite the huge income from motoring taxes, the budgets some local authorities have for road maintenance is so low they can only afford to completely resurface minor roads once every 200 years - I kid you not!

Progressive and fair on all drivers. Simple and efficient to administer and therefore cost effective. Far too easy for government to implement!! Lets hope the Coalition have the wit to consider this type of policy which will contribute to a smaller and less wasteful public sector.

[soloman]

Yes indeed, and a very good start to my mind would be the complete removal of all vehicle tax and a reasonable level of duty on fuel set, much lower on diesel and bio-fuel, the proceeds of which were ring-fenced for road and transport infrastructure and maintenance, not just lumped into general tax receipts to be spent anywhere. That would at least be a far fairer way of taxing driving, with people who do less mileage or use more fuel efficient cars paying a lot less than those who do a high mileage or can afford to pay for higher consumption vehicles. It would also result in far better roads - did you realise that despite the huge income from motoring taxes, the budgets some local authorities have for road maintenance is so low they can only afford to completely resurface minor roads once every 200 years - I kid you not!

The government could also do far more to encourage research and development of hybrid and electric vehicles and road automation systems, starting with complete tax breaks for companies undertaking research in these fields; the 'loss' of tax revenue would be far more than offset in the long run by this approach, but the current efforts are somehow very half-hearted and nowhere near quick enough.

Having said that, I'm eagerly awaiting the delivery of my new gas-guzzler on Wednesday. A mere 620bhp from 6 litres of 12 cylinder twin turbo engine, but still capable of giving up to 24mpg on a motorway and will run on bio-fuel, so it can't be all bad!

Your post Midas demonstrates the problem! What will it take or is it possible to restrict the use of such vehicles if the pollution they cause is so harmful?

[kenwickham]

Some say the war on the motorist is not only justified but necessary because our crowded island has reached saturation point and there is less room on the roads to cater for every user.

However because there is less money for improvements and even for new roads its important that traffic management is brought to the fore. A simple idea could be put into operation almost overnight without cost.

For instance much traffic congestion is caused on our 'A' roads by indiscrimate parking. Why not ban the parking of vehicles on all 'A' roads starting with clearing these roads in towns and cities. The number of accidents could greatly reduce as well as keeping the traffic flowing. It may inconvenience a lot of drivers who use the road outside their homes or premises but these should be encouraged to move elsewhere. In certain cirmcumstances they may be able to park on verges or even wide pavements. France who have less serious problems than ours keep their roads clear.

[Midas]

Your post Midas demonstrates the problem! What will it take or is it possible to restrict the use of such vehicles if the pollution they cause is so harmful?

This is a subject I don't think it's possible to give a simple or easy answer to as it involves so many factors, some of them subjective, others of debatable provenance.

Firstly I have to say that we've living in a supposed free country and as such there are no restrictions on what we buy as long as it's legal; higher emission cars still fall into permitted bands but the penalty is that owners have to pay a proportionately higher road tax to compensate - I have to pay £425 a year on my two cars at the moment but my new one will be £950 a year unless I run it solely on bio-fuel when it drops to £940 - £10 a year less, what a major incentive! - although if you can afford to buy it you should be able to afford to run it! With this tax the government's already taking its pound of flesh for higher emission level cars.

Secondly there's the whole issue of whether man-made emissions are the major cause of climate change or not, and of course the jury's still very much out on that one. Even if it is at least party responsible, transport as a whole is only 4th out of 9 industry sectors (in the UK that is), with total emission levels lower than those of the power generation, industrial and residential sectors. According to the Department of Energy & Climate Change, the emission figures for transport as a whole are virtually identical to those in 1990 at just over 120 million tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent despite the massive increases in the number of vehicles on the roads, so one can deduce that some major steps have already been taken to reduce per-vehicle levels. I haven't (yet) found a full current breakdown of emissions within the transport sector by commercial/private or by private cars in various emission level bands, but from memory of seeing something similar a couple of years ago, emission levels from private cars is substantially less than for other forms of transport, and of those cars, the amounts from higher level band cars is well down the list. The trouble is too many governments see the private motorist as an easy target over and above industry as a whole, from which much more could be done.

Finally I don't think any government would be wise to even consider restricting the use of certain categories of car; they'd risk alienating many supporters, often influential supporters, and risk damaging a very important industrial sector in our economy. I can only see a change happening when electric cars or hydrogen powered cars become as cheap as petrol/diesel engined cars and have a similar performance and range, with a similar number of fast charging/refuelling points around the country.

[Midas]

Some say the war on the motorist is not only justified but necessary because our crowded island has reached saturation point and there is less room on the roads to cater for every user.

However because there is less money for improvements and even for new roads its important that traffic management is brought to the fore. A simple idea could be put into operation almost overnight without cost.

For instance much traffic congestion is caused on our 'A' roads by indiscrimate parking. Why not ban the parking of vehicles on all 'A' roads starting with clearing these roads in towns and cities. The number of accidents could greatly reduce as well as keeping the traffic flowing. It may inconvenience a lot of drivers who use the road outside their homes or premises but these should be encouraged to move elsewhere. In certain cirmcumstances they may be able to park on verges or even wide pavements. France who have less serious problems than ours keep their roads clear.

Hi Ken, and welcome to the Politics Forum!

To start with you might like to read the extended "Welcome" message in the Rules and Guidelines section of the forum, which also includes a full version of the Forum Rules.

Knowing what’s appropriate to say and post and what isn’t can save everyone a great deal of hassle, and as such you might also find the Guide to Good Posting useful. If you’re unfamiliar with the type of forum software we use here, a brief guide to using it can be found here. Please respect other people’s views here; they mightn’t be the same as yours, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they’re wrong, just that they're different.

If you need help with anything at all to do with the forum, feel free to contact me, or one of the other moderators, via a personal message; our details can be found here, listed as "Minister" and “Junior Minister”.

Perhaps you’d care to formally introduce yourself, which you can do here, or optionally tell us a little bit more about yourself here.

As far as your comments in this particular post are concerned, I do have to agree with you - I know from years of driving just how many frustrating delays are caused by parking on major roads, often reducing what should be an easy-flowing two lane road to a slow alternate single-lane one, or a two-lane dual carriageway to just one lane in each direction. It's certainly time that this relatively easy and low cost solution was looked into.

[soloman]

As far as your comments in this particular post are concerned, I do have to agree with you - I know from years of driving just how many frustrating delays are caused by parking on major roads, often reducing what should be an easy-flowing two lane road to a slow alternate single-lane one, or a two-lane dual carriageway to just one lane in each direction. It's certainly time that this relatively easy and low cost solution was looked into.

One big problem with this simple solution, is how lazy we have all become; for shopping for example we now demand to be able to park right outside the shop or we don't bother to go there. I suspect this proposal would also cause car parking on pavements; cures one problem and potentially causes another.

Secondly the last government in particular tried to force us all onto public transport, by designating that the width of new residential roads had to be just able to permit cars to pass one another; they simplistically believed that by providing a single garage and single off road parking space for each residence, that there would be no need of on-street parking! How wrong they were! Until my children eventually decided to flee the nest we were a five car family. Further because of the on-street parking that resulted, emergency vehicles were sometimes unable to access deeper into the development. So planning for new developments needs to think again or be given better guidance.

The big problem with town roads in Britain is that few have been built with long term use in mind. Hence practically all towns have traffic issues with parking. We need to bite the bullet on this one and look into short term solutions which may well have to become permanent, by making more vital traffic routes one way. This alone could provide for a smoother and quicker traffic flow at relatively low cost. Lots will complain but for the common good .............. ?

[Midas]

One big problem with this simple solution, is how lazy we have all become; for shopping for example we now demand to be able to park right outside the shop or we don't bother to go there. I suspect this proposal would also cause car parking on pavements; cures one problem and potentially causes another.

I can't but agree that all too often the consequences of a cure can end up being as bad as the original problem. Much of this I suspect is down to inadequate long term thinking and knee-jerk reactions that "something has to be done about......". The obvious solution to bad parking is of course to have a far better nationwide definition of exactly when and when parking is permitted, then enforce those rules strictly, which won't go down well at all - and I confess I'm as bad as anyone else in sometimes stopping on yellow lines just to pop into a shop! But a lot of it is laziness, you're right.

Secondly the last government in particular tried to force us all onto public transport, by designating that the width of new residential roads had to be just able to permit cars to pass one another; they simplistically believed that by providing a single garage and single off road parking space for each residence, that there would be no need of on-street parking! How wrong they were! Until my children eventually decided to flee the nest we were a five car family. Further because of the on-street parking that resulted, emergency vehicles were sometimes unable to access deeper into the development. So planning for new developments needs to think again or be given better guidance.

I wasn't actually aware of that, but the consequences you describe are a good illustration of my point about inadequate long term thinking, and of course of the serious impact that one poorly thought out decision can have on often far from directly related issues.

The big problem with town roads in Britain is that few have been built with long term use in mind. Hence practically all towns have traffic issues with parking. We need to bite the bullet on this one and look into short term solutions which may well have to become permanent, by making more vital traffic routes one way. This alone could provide for a smoother and quicker traffic flow at relatively low cost. Lots will complain but for the common good .............. ?

You're right there, and extended one way systems using roughly parallel roads is a thought I've had at times too. I'm certain virtually every motorist there is could come up with better solutions to some of the traffic management ideas that get foisted on us.......

[silentmist]

In common with most issues it is not quite so black and white as you might wish. For instance, why should those who live in remote and rural areas be penalised, when no or inadequate public transport is available? What about those who are on shift work, many like nurses and firefighters doing essential work, who need to travel to or from work when no public transport is running? Why should those with low carbon emission or hybrid drive vehicles be demonised along with the drivers of Hummers? Why should old and poorly maintained public service vehicles belching out black fumes, such as we have in the City of Oxford be permitted, when the drivers modern private vehicles emitting a small fraction of such pollution are taxed to oblivion?

It's amazing isn't it. Humans developed sophisticated cultures and technology, even built entire empires without the car. Now though, we're expected to believe that we need them for every whim or we're all going to starve to death and end up fighting stray dogs for discarded bags of chips in wheelie bins.

I remember the fuel shortages back in 2000. It was beautiful, there were hardly any cars on the road. Did civilization collapse ? ... NO. Were people dying on the streets because nurses couldn't figure out how to get from A to B ? ... NO. Did thousands of businesses collapse because their workforce was stranded in the unmapped wilderness of the suburbs ? ... NO.

... till they squeal

[Midas]

I remember the fuel shortages back in 2000. It was beautiful, there were hardly any cars on the road. Did civilization collapse ? ... NO. Were people dying on the streets because nurses couldn't figure out how to get from A to B ? ... NO. Did thousands of businesses collapse because their workforce was stranded in the unmapped wilderness of the suburbs ? ... NO.

I think that's something of an exaggeration, granted there were slightly less cars on the road, but in the main people who couldn't get so much fuel simply cut out pleasure trips and where they were able perhaps used public transport slightly more - but even in suburbia there are many places which are woefully provided for by either buses or trains, and many parts of rural England have none of either. Businesses didn't collapse because the situation wasn't serious enough and didn't last for long enough, however if it had done, I'm sure we would have seen a serious economic impact, particularly on the smaller business community and on those reliant on transport.

[silentmist]

I think that's something of an exaggeration, granted there were slightly less cars on the road, but in the main people who couldn't get so much fuel simply cut out pleasure trips and where they were able perhaps used public transport slightly more - but even in suburbia there are many places which are woefully provided for by either buses or trains, and many parts of rural England have none of either. Businesses didn't collapse because the situation wasn't serious enough and didn't last for long enough, however if it had done, I'm sure we would have seen a serious economic impact, particularly on the smaller business community and on those reliant on transport.

Pleasure trips ? HAHAHA. I had no idea that fetching a pint of milk and a newspaper was so much fun! But seriously, I can remember those few days very clearly because I'm a cyclist and am very conscious of traffic levels. For those few days I felt like I was in a foreign country or something. Instead of having 30 cars pass me every minute it was more like 5. That is a significant drop in traffic. The only time I witness traffic levels like that is on Christmas Day.

I'm not going to think of 'the economy' like it's a pet that needs catering for. If motoring was made inaccessible for most people 'the economy' would adjust very easily. There would be a lower GDP but they'd be a higher quality of life. Maybe (if we're lucky) we might even go back to a 9-5 society and communities would start to emerge again. It's nice to dream.

[silentmist]

Oh yeah I nearly forgot ...

... till they squeal

[soloman]

More seriously do we all assume that basic transport rights apply to all and not just the wealthy?

Do we currently provide adequate public transport for those who need it?

The cost of petrol over the years compared to income has fallen in the last 50 years despite our protests to the opposite!

[Midas]

More seriously do we all assume that basic transport rights apply to all and not just the wealthy?

What do you mean by "basic transport rights"? We all have that by way of two legs, but over and above that I don't see that there's any 'right' involved in transport. If anyone wants better quality and more flexible transport, surely it's up to them to go out and earn it, not to just sit back and expect it?

Do we currently provide adequate public transport for those who need it?

The answer is obviously no, but it's a matter of logistics; it would be virtually impossible to provide adequate public transport for everyone, especially outside town and city centre areas, and it would prove horrendously expensive to go even part way in doing that. For instance where I live it's a 10 minute car drive to the nearest bus route, then there are just 2 a day going on one single route, which is pretty useless if you need to be somewhere else at a different time - and judging by the few people I've seen using the service, most would seem to agree. If you live in 95% of rural areas, a car is a necessity.

The cost of petrol over the years compared to income has fallen in the last 50 years despite our protests to the opposite!

It's the tax element which is the major cause of complaint in fuel costs, the actual fuel element has actually followed the price of crude oil quite closely over the years. It's all down to successive governments targeting the motorist as an easy touch time after time again, then only feeding a small proportion of that tax back to improve the transport infrastructure.

[ryoden]

More seriously do we all assume that basic transport rights apply to all and not just the wealthy?

In principal, although I am not sure what you mean by transport rights? Is their a right to transport, do you mean public transport should be free?

Do we currently provide adequate public transport for those who need it?

In some places yes, in other places no, life is seldom perfect though.

The cost of petrol over the years compared to income has fallen in the last 50 years despite our protests to the opposite!

I actually have no idea and couldnt find a reliable source after a quick search but I did find this:

Printer ink on average costs £516 a litre, so be thankful the car doesnt run on ink :P

[soloman]

What do you mean by "basic transport rights"? We all have that by way of two legs, but over and above that I don't see that there's any 'right' involved in transport. If anyone wants better quality and more flexible transport, surely it's up to them to go out and earn it, not to just sit back and expect it?



The answer is obviously no, but it's a matter of logistics; it would be virtually impossible to provide adequate public transport for everyone, especially outside town and city centre areas, and it would prove horrendously expensive to go even part way in doing that. For instance where I live it's a 10 minute car drive to the nearest bus route, then there are just 2 a day going on one single route, which is pretty useless if you need to be somewhere else at a different time - and judging by the few people I've seen using the service, most would seem to agree. If you live in 95% of rural areas, a car is a necessity.



It's the tax element which is the major cause of complaint in fuel costs, the actual fuel element has actually followed the price of crude oil quite closely over the years. It's all down to successive governments targeting the motorist as an easy touch time after time again, then only feeding a small proportion of that tax back to improve the transport infrastructure.

Points well made Midas!
What I really had in mind is, I wonder whether there is more assistance we could provide to enable the unemployed to travel to interviews and indeed initial stages of work, until earned enough to buy their own transport or be in a position to pay public transport fares?

[Midas]

Points well made Midas!
What I really had in mind is, I wonder whether there is more assistance we could provide to enable the unemployed to travel to interviews and indeed initial stages of work, until earned enough to buy their own transport or be in a position to pay public transport fares?

OK, maybe I misinterpreted what you originally said and read more into it that you meant. There's certainly something to be said for that, perhaps by way of means tested loans to recipients of various benefits until such time they're back on their feet and earning again. My major concern would be the potential for both abuse of the payment and the degree of bureaucracy which would inevitably accompany it, but that's rather a different topic and maybe worthy of its own thread.

[manrow]

OK, maybe I misinterpreted what you originally said and read more into it that you meant. There's certainly something to be said for that, perhaps by way of means tested loans to recipients of various benefits until such time they're back on their feet and earning again. My major concern would be the potential for both abuse of the payment and the degree of bureaucracy which would inevitably accompany it, but that's rather a different topic and maybe worthy of its own thread.

I think the loan idea is too harsh.
We want to encourage the unemployed back to work not saddle them with debt!

[Midas]

I think the loan idea is too harsh.
We want to encourage the unemployed back to work not saddle them with debt!

Apparently the unemployed can already claim expenses going to interviews - Travel-to-interview scheme, Job Grant and In Work Credit : Directgov - Employment.

[silentmist]

I'm glad rights were brought up. I'd like to bring up its counterpart, Responsibility.

In my opinion, commuting great distances simply to go to work is absurd. Using about 1600-2000kg of materials+fuel to shift about 80kg of idiot x number of miles is woefully energy inefficient, it doesn't matter what the economics are, it's insane! Short distance commuters are insane too, as well as the school run mums and various other lunatics who use their car at every given opportunity.

For the most most, yes, public transport is very good. At least in and near the city where I live. It's not so good if you live in the countryside but that's a small population who's car use isn't going to jam up the roads, most of the UK population is urban and it's those people who are jamming up the roads.

As far as the unemployment argument goes, if someone is going to have difficulty getting to where the interview is, they're probably not going to be able to work there anyway. A bit of common sense is needed here. Live where the work is.

[soloman]

I'm glad rights were brought up. I'd like to bring up its counterpart, Responsibility.

In my opinion, commuting great distances simply to go to work is absurd. Using about 1600-2000kg of materials+fuel to shift about 80kg of idiot x number of miles is woefully energy inefficient, it doesn't matter what the economics are, it's insane! Short distance commuters are insane too, as well as the school run mums and various other lunatics who use their car at every given opportunity.

For the most most, yes, public transport is very good. At least in and near the city where I live. It's not so good if you live in the countryside but that's a small population who's car use isn't going to jam up the roads, most of the UK population is urban and it's those people who are jamming up the roads.

As far as the unemployment argument goes, if someone is going to have difficulty getting to where the interview is, they're probably not going to be able to work there anyway. A bit of common sense is needed here. Live where the work is.

Interesting and probably accurate post silentmist - but the problem is in the execution!
Try telling someone he must move to obtain work and see the reaction you get!

[silentmist]

Interesting and probably accurate post silentmist - but the problem is in the execution!
Try telling someone he must move to obtain work and see the reaction you get!

As far as I've been able to tell from friends I've had, the only jobs worth commuting great distances for are based in London where wages generally have to be higher, so it's financially viable for people to waste cash on huge transport costs. I've known a few people who live in the east midlands who commute daily to London but living there would be too expensive for them. What an insane situation!

80% of car journeys are less than 100 miles and the average commute distance is about 18 miles, round trip (9 miles). Too far to walk, too far to cycle if you're unfit, too close to justify moving house. Most people won't use public transport because it's not as convenient. So yes, nothing will change for the foreseeable future.

I'd be content to compromise. My main issue with the volume of traffic is air quality and noise. Electric cars are a good solution to those two issues, albeit still not currently executable.

... till they squeal