Subsidising motorists

Edwards
Posts: 5981
Joined: 16 Mar 2007, 10:09pm
Location: Birmingham

Re: Subsidising motorists

Postby Edwards » 23 Jan 2011, 3:15pm

snibgo wrote:There is quite a lot of data, but questions over what data applies to the question.

If I got into a discussion with a devoted Sun reader, I would ask why they included the cost of emissions but not the (far greater) cost of RTAs. The Sun reader would reply that he had never personally caused an accident, and shouldn't pay for other people's accidents through his motoring bills.

He might add that any political party that proposed doubling (or trebling) motoring taxes would be quickly shown the door


That is just a Sun reader. Just imagine if the person knew what he was about and how to really interpret the data.

I think that the CTC or any other organisation to do with cycling were to use the information as given here would loose such a lot of credibility with respect to other campaign organisations that also represent vulnerable road users.
I think CJ is correct to say that the CTC should stay well away from this subject.
Keith Edwards
I do not care about spelling and grammar

User avatar
hubgearfreak
Posts: 8210
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 4:14pm

Re: Subsidising motorists

Postby hubgearfreak » 23 Jan 2011, 3:51pm

Edwards wrote:There have been guesses at the cost of the impact on peoples lives also the environment
I think the real cost can never be worked out as I can not see how it is possible to work out the real cost to society of road vehicles


that's environmental economics for you. if you think them worthless guesses, then it's impossible to have the discussion with you, and probably pointless of you to ask the question

Edwards wrote:I do not feel the case to claim a subsidy to motorists has been shown so far


all i can suggest is that you read it again :shock:

Steady rider
Posts: 2285
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Subsidising motorists

Postby Steady rider » 23 Jan 2011, 5:21pm

'Subsidising motorists'
The title could instill opposition.

average gross income divided by cost of unleaded allows a comparison of countries

eg GB £24500 gross income per person, divided by cost of unleaded (in each country, 1.47 for GB) 1.47 - 16800

Denmark 30k - 19.3k
GB 24.5k - 16.8k
Germany 23.5k -15.9k
France 22.7k - 15.5k
Greece 11.3k - 7.2k
Czech Republic 5.3k - 4.1k
Hungary 4.9k - 3.7k
Estonia 3.9k - 3.3k

Compared to the average gross income per person, GB unleaded petrol is about half the price of Greece.

Edwards
Posts: 5981
Joined: 16 Mar 2007, 10:09pm
Location: Birmingham

Re: Subsidising motorists

Postby Edwards » 23 Jan 2011, 6:42pm

I asked the question as I have read a lot of times a figure quoted on this forum and am interested to know how the amount was achieved.

I can think of other costs such as street lighting, some is purely for motorists some is for the good of society as a whole. Unlike you Hubbers I am not prepared to guess or estimate.

If we want as a group of cyclists to make statements and how much of a subsidy is given to motorists there is a need to consider a lot more facts than has been shown here. If we want to be taken seriously we must accept that any statements made will need to stand up to inspection.
Keith Edwards
I do not care about spelling and grammar

User avatar
hubgearfreak
Posts: 8210
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 4:14pm

Re: Subsidising motorists

Postby hubgearfreak » 23 Jan 2011, 7:08pm

Edwards wrote:Unlike you Hubbers I am not prepared to guess or estimate.


i honestly don't know if you're being stubborn or stupid. :?

Edwards
Posts: 5981
Joined: 16 Mar 2007, 10:09pm
Location: Birmingham

Re: Subsidising motorists

Postby Edwards » 23 Jan 2011, 7:36pm

Hubbers you are the one that estimated earlier on in this thread not I
I do make mistakes, I am not making statements but asking where and how any figure is worked out. I was taught to question the source of information and not take some things on face value.
This is one subject that I am open minded on but do want to know both sides to this debate.
With they way the environment is changing and as natural resources are depleted, transport use is one area that this country is vulnerable.
Keith Edwards
I do not care about spelling and grammar

User avatar
hubgearfreak
Posts: 8210
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 4:14pm

Re: Subsidising motorists

Postby hubgearfreak » 23 Jan 2011, 7:53pm

OK edwards, here you go.

Edwards wrote:This is all getting complicated for me. I was hoping for one or maybe a few documents to show the cost per mile.


hubgearfreak wrote:http://www.its.leeds.ac.uk/projects/STCC/downloads/SurfaceTransportCostsReport.pdf


it's a bit more complicated than reading the sun, but i'm sure if you read it once or twice you'll get it.

if not, may i recommend one of these. http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_nos ... &x=16&y=21

field or pearce are both good, IMO

Edwards
Posts: 5981
Joined: 16 Mar 2007, 10:09pm
Location: Birmingham

Re: Subsidising motorists

Postby Edwards » 23 Jan 2011, 8:19pm

I do not read the Sun or any other paper. You bare the one quoting a figure not I.
I am just asking if all of the environmental social and transport aspects of your claim can be substantiated. This would not appear to be so.
Hubbers as you are slowly descending into be out rightly rude I think I will leave you to your own thoughts and prejudices on this subjects.

Thank you to Steady Rider for his helpful post. I was not saying anything about the content just the presentation.
Keith Edwards
I do not care about spelling and grammar

irc
Posts: 4831
Joined: 3 Dec 2008, 2:22pm
Location: glasgow

Re: Subsidising motorists

Postby irc » 23 Jan 2011, 8:20pm

George Riches wrote:Don't the majority of commuters into London travel by train to get there and don't those services get the bulk of the subsidy?

Even the pro-road lobbying group "Transport Watch" from the link you supplied had to admit:
"the train is used by people reaching the hearts of our largest cities because there is, for those people, no other practical way of reaching the destinations"

Would shifting the £5 billion a year from rail to road building decrease the time those people take to get to/from work? What impact would it have on those people who currently use cars to commute to the hearts of our largest cities?


I'm not suggesting building more roads in London. I'm just pointing out that rail travellers are subsidised more than road users.

Edit

I'm sure rail is heavily subsidised everywhere. But if you are suggesting it's not heavily subsidised outside London the onus is on you to quote some figures.

Interestingly as far a public expenditure on infrastructure goes there is more spent on rail than road despite road carrying the vast majority of traffic. In 2007/2008 it was 4.8 billion on roads and 5.5 billion on rail. As per table 1.14 at

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov. ... risons.pdf

The country gets a very poor return for the money spent on railways.
No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?

User avatar
hubgearfreak
Posts: 8210
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 4:14pm

Re: Subsidising motorists

Postby hubgearfreak » 23 Jan 2011, 9:39pm

Edwards wrote:Hubbers as you are slowly descending into be out rightly rude I think I will leave you to your own thoughts and prejudices on this subjects.


yep, we'll have to agree to disagree. 8)

George Riches
Posts: 782
Joined: 23 May 2007, 9:01am
Location: Coventry
Contact:

Re: Subsidising motorists

Postby George Riches » 24 Jan 2011, 9:38am

George Riches wrote:Would shifting the £5 billion a year from rail to road building decrease the time those people take to get to/from work? What impact would it have on those people who currently use cars to commute to the hearts of our largest cities?


irc wrote:I'm not suggesting building more roads in London. I'm just pointing out that rail travellers are subsidised more than road users.

I'm sure rail is heavily subsidised everywhere. But if you are suggesting it's not heavily subsidised outside London the onus is on you to quote some figures.


I won't bother. I should focus on what's good for cycling; there's more than enough people arguing about rail v car.

Although In passing I'd say in Coventry there's an argument developing about roads verses jobs. Coventry has a ring road in its centre which takes a lot of space which could be used for offices or shops. Some want to nibble away at this ring road, especially the large gyratories used for access, others rate motoring convenience above all other considerations.

User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 18062
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: Subsidising motorists

Postby [XAP]Bob » 24 Jan 2011, 10:53am

George Riches wrote:
George Riches wrote:Would shifting the £5 billion a year from rail to road building decrease the time those people take to get to/from work? What impact would it have on those people who currently use cars to commute to the hearts of our largest cities?


irc wrote:I'm not suggesting building more roads in London. I'm just pointing out that rail travellers are subsidised more than road users.

I'm sure rail is heavily subsidised everywhere. But if you are suggesting it's not heavily subsidised outside London the onus is on you to quote some figures.


I won't bother. I should focus on what's good for cycling; there's more than enough people arguing about rail v car.

Although In passing I'd say in Coventry there's an argument developing about roads verses jobs. Coventry has a ring road in its centre which takes a lot of space which could be used for offices or shops. Some want to nibble away at this ring road, especially the large gyratories used for access, others rate motoring convenience above all other considerations.


That ring road is a pain, the junctions are lethal and it means that there are no signs on any other roads...
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.

reohn2
Posts: 40711
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Subsidising motorists

Postby reohn2 » 24 Jan 2011, 11:35am

It seems to me that we departed from any kind sensible transport system when profit became the prime motivater for transport with all else taking a back seat.
Cars have become a need and a shackle for so many people who are willing to pay for the convenience but they are only willing to pay so much directly,the subsidy is taken stealthly from everyone.
IMO We've gone off down an American dream road(as we do in so many ways in the UK) in a country more suited to rail/bus transport IMO, with short distance (2miles or less) suited to the bicycle if the infrastructure is in place,we're fastly approaching the position where the tail is firmly wagging the dog in that it only needs a couple of small shunts in the rush hour(sic) and an overloaded system grinds to a complete stop,and due to a lack of decent high profile policing makes this more likely from bad driving practices,if it weren't for good vehicle occupant protection in accidents the fatality rate would be far higher.
We'll probably grind on down the dead end route we've chosen until we can go no further and then wonder where we went wrong,but given that the vast majority of the population is equiped for motoring the chances of changing anything soon isn't going to happen IMO and due to the "it must make profit" mantra, public transport won't reach its potential until we come to realise a better way to travel around what after all is a very small and densely populated country.
The sensible way to move lots of people in and out of cities for their working day isn't the car, yet due to our profitcentric way of looking at life we become slaves to it,when does it become an unbearable burden?
Sorry for the ramble,just my 2d worth.
-----------------------------------------------------------

User avatar
hubgearfreak
Posts: 8210
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 4:14pm

Re: Subsidising motorists

Postby hubgearfreak » 24 Jan 2011, 11:46am

reohn2 wrote:1.The sensible way to move lots of people in and out of cities for their working day isn't the car

2.yet due to our profitcentric way of looking at life we become slaves to it,when does it become an unbearable burden?



1.you're right, it certainly isn't
2.we're only slaves to it because many of the true costs (of which there's many & they're substantial figures) are externalised to the users.
if the total costs, such as health care for accident victims, health care for air pollution sufferers & etc. were included in fuel or road pricing, we'd see a fairly substantial cut in the numbers of participants.

reohn2
Posts: 40711
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Subsidising motorists

Postby reohn2 » 24 Jan 2011, 11:56am

hubgearfreak wrote:............if the total costs, such as health care for accident victims, health care for air pollution sufferers & etc. were included in fuel or road pricing, we'd see a fairly substantial cut in the numbers of participants.


But ATM that couldn't happen as there isn't the infrastructure in place to to handle the change over.Any change will need to be gradual with a complete admitance starting with government,of a wrong turning (sorry) in our tranport system,with a completely unbiased fresh look at it,but due to the strangle hold that oil and motoring companies have on goverment nothing short of revolution will change things anytime soon.
-----------------------------------------------------------