Subsidising motorists

[Vorpal]

If the NHS and ambulance services did a better job of charging back costs to insurance after road traffic accidents, the drivers would see the costs more directly as their insurance premiums increased. And the government would be a long ways toward meeting cost targets.

[hubgearfreak]

ATM that couldn't happen . . . nothing short of revolution will change things anytime soon.

sad but true john

i was talking of an ideal world situation. like you, i can't see enough MPs having the testicular fortitude to do what's right . . what's better for one's political career to bury one's head in the sand and hope that you're retired when it finally hits the buffers, if you'll excuse the pun

[[XAP]Bob]

If the NHS and ambulance services did a better job of charging back costs to insurance after road traffic accidents, the drivers would see the costs more directly as their insurance premiums increased. And the government would be a long ways toward meeting cost targets.

Interesting revenue source.

Fair as well..

[Steady rider]

Is AV voting and then voting for those supporting cycling and walking the best option?

[hubgearfreak]

i think it's important to dispell the myth that the motorists are coughing up for far more than they recieve. whether it's enough to mention a figure for the damage done by RTC and air pollution & etc., i don't know. it would be good for the truth to be out there, even if the MPs haven't got the required dangly bits in their chicken skin purses

i opened the DM link in downfader's thread and spotted a headline that caught my interest.

it's an interesting read, and rather odd what some politicians are calling for. but see the comments at the bottom - it really has them foaming at the mouth. they must really believe that they're the heavily milked cash cow that the press tells them that they are

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ummer.html

[kwackers]

There was a guy in front of me at the petrol station giving it large to the attendant, I couldn't help but notice the '10 plate Range Rover he got back into.

Perhaps his intention when he bought it was to show to his neighbours that he could afford to 'conspicuously consume' in which case you'd think he'd welcome £1.75 a litre!

[irc]

1.The sensible way to move lots of people in and out of cities for their working day isn't the car

Agreed. But many of us don't work in city centres or we work shifts. The car moves people anywhere at any time.

As for the subsidy? Currently 75% of households have access to a car. But the 25% who don't tend to be low income households.

"Car ownership is closely related to income, as well as to sex, age, stage of lifecycle and location. In 2002, 59 per cent of households in the lowest income quintile did not have access to a car. This was around seven times the proportion in the top quintile group (8 per cent)."

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1006

So as the vast majority, around 2/3, of car free households are in the two lowest income quintiles which are not net contributers to the tax and benefits system I think it's fair to say that car owning households are not subsidised. Any costs are in the main met either directly through motoring costs or indirectly through the other taxes motorists and their families pay.

[Cunobelin]

What we really need to do is to stop seeing motoring as any sort of "special case" at all!

Basically they are using a commodity that is taxed, and is variable in cost due to supply of raw materials increasing and taxation.

Just like a lot of other items.

Should we be subsidising beer or cigarettes?

Should we be campaigning for the Government to subsidise the cost of bread?

The point is simple, you buy something then you pay the tax on it - simples!

[Edwards]

What we really need to do is to stop seeing motoring as any sort of "special case" at all!

Basically they are using a commodity that is taxed, and is variable in cost due to supply of raw materials increasing and taxation.

Just like a lot of other items.

Should we be subsidising beer or cigarettes?

Should we be campaigning for the Government to subsidise the cost of bread?

The point is simple, you buy something then you pay the tax on it

Unfortunately the society we live in needs the motorist.

I am now beginning to think that maybe it is not a subsidy but an investment, I do understand the costs but also know that our society can not survive without the motorist in some form.

It is very easy to just lump some of the costs together and not consider all the other aspects of the road transport in our basic economy.

The true cost must be known balanced against the benefits and shared out properly between all road users. An arbitrary figure of X pence per mile takes into consideration the type of vehicle and the use it is put to.

[hubgearfreak]

So as the vast majority, around 2/3, of car free households are in the two lowest income quintiles which are not net contributers to the tax and benefits system I think it's fair to say that car owning households are not subsidised. Any costs are in the main met either directly through motoring costs or indirectly through the other taxes motorists and their families pay.

given that this is the case then, those of us that only apply for jobs near home, send our kids to the nearest school AND pay tax are subsidising those who use their motors more than us, whilst suffering the worst of the damage that they do in terms of injury and air & noise pollution.

if only i could similarly get subsidised beer at the expense of those that don't drink or don't drink much, in whigh case i'd be very happy indeed, if a bit guilty at the stupid system that created it. i certainly wouldn't then go bleating on about being a cash cow

[reohn2]

1.The sensible way to move lots of people in and out of cities for their working day isn't the car

Agreed. But many of us don't work in city centres or we work shifts. The car moves people anywhere at any time.

As for the subsidy? Currently 75% of households have access to a car. But the 25% who don't tend to be low income households.

The majority of people who use the car to commute could,if it were available,use public transport and would do IMO if that transport was affordable,safe,convenient,clean,and regular.
People who can't won't,thats all I'm saying.
The UK's problem,it seems. is that everything has to "make profit", some things can't but for the benefit of the whole should provide a service.
Its obvious that we can't carry on as we are as the roads will grind to a halt,as they sometimes do now when theres an RTA on one of the M/ways that criss cross the country, especially where the population is most dense.

[hubgearfreak]

Unfortunately the society we live in needs the motorist.

that's probably true. i'm just calling for them (us) to contribute to society an amount for their currently externalised costs

[Edwards]

that's probably true. i'm just calling for them (us) to contribute to society an amount for their currently externalised costs

I agree with this wholeheartedly, think where we differ in this is I am prepared to accept that there are economic and social benefits are very hard to put a value on. Also that the actual cost to society is also next to impossible to calculate.

I have fantastic problems dealing with all traffic and have deliberately stayed away from that side of the cost. I have a vested interest so could not give an unbiased view.

We must find a way of highlighting the external costs of motorists/motor vehicles in a way that is not seen as reactionary and also shows that consideration has been given to the few benefits there are.

If somebody does not commute at times of congestion and uses a motor vehicle sparingly we will not get them to support a campaign that labels them the same as some as some other the more motor vehicle dependant persons.

[meic]

I dont commute at times of congestion and I use the car very sparingly.
Like a 4x4 owning farmer friend said "They should double the price of fuel at the pumps."

I am guilty of the same crime as your average "petrol head" but I try to minimise my offending.
As it is a lot of the journeys are not even close to necessary and are only undertaken because fuel is cheap enough to make them attractive.
Also you still see so many vehicles driven (illegally) at very inefficient speeds.

Motorists are heavily subsidised because they are plundering the worlds resources and only want to pay for the price of extraction and delivery. They are taking everybody else's (present and future) share of the world's resources without paying them for it.
The least they could do is not waste it.

[snibgo]

So as the vast majority, around 2/3, of car free households are in the two lowest income quintiles which are not net contributers to the tax and benefits system I think it's fair to say that car owning households are not subsidised.

What is your source for the two lowest income quintiles (ie lowest 40% of income households) not being net contributors to the tax and benefits system?

I ask because I doubt that it is true, but I'm happy to be corrected.