Cycling UK Forum

Seems like whenever the government make measures to reduce car use there's always someone saying how this affects the poor?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7420409.stm

Isn't that the whole point of these measures, to make it unaffordable and to change behaviour?

Also, if you are poor when why would you be driving a class M car anyway?

Well, I'm proud to state that over this bank holiday weekend Ive not touched my motor once! Infact is currently parked 8 miles away, and its staying there until tomorrow.


Done over 60 miles on the bike. AND got the shopping in as well.


Maybe the cost of fuel is a goodie afterall.... dare I suggest it.... Heck I have now.


Mary

[Smug Mode]
When I sold my car, fuel had just reached 45p per litre.
[/Smug Mode - or am I just showing my age?]
I've got so much less to worry about now. Wholly adjusted to car-free. But I hire one every now and again. (About once a year.)

In the next few months I predict a lot of splashing noises. This will be caused by Gordon and the nonentity from Edinburgh, with the white hair and black eyebrows, furiously rowing back from some of the motoring tax increases. It will make Steve Redgrave look like somebody messing about on a paddling pool.

What a coincidence that Rower40 posted as I was typing mine.

One Labour MP warned that the party also risked alienating "Mondeo man"

They alienated this one when Teflon Tony shook hands with President Bush and said 'about this Iraq bash,I think its just the war I've been looking for George'

gilesjuk wrote:Seems like whenever the government make measures to reduce car use there's always someone saying how this affects the poor?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7420409.stm

Isn't that the whole point of these measures, to make it unaffordable and to change behaviour?

Also, if you are poor when why would you be driving a class M car anyway?

Who has actually said that anyone who is 'poor' is driving a class M car?

I think it is the wrong example to give though.

When I was at Junior School we lived in a terraced house in a street of 50 or so houses. We had a car, the man over the road had a van and there was another car parked down the street.

Why? Because in the 1950s cars were expensive. my Dad had a well paid job, presumably the other two vehicle owning houses had a good income too. The expense of car ownership fell from the 1950s to the turn of the century, now with $135 a barrel oil and the worries over Climate Change the price is rising. Just as poorer households were last to be able to afford a car, they will be first to no longer own a car.

This is only marginally a political issue, it is mainly a markets and global issue, and it seems illogical that politicians could 'solve' the problem. What's needed is a move back to local shops and from out of town shopping malls. That's where money needs to be spent not in propping up car ownership!

Stands back and waits for fireworks!

byegad wrote:
This is only marginally a political issue, it is mainly a markets and global issue, and it seems illogical that politicians could 'solve' the problem. What's needed is a move back to local shops and from out of town shopping malls. That's where money needs to be spent not in propping up car ownership!

Stands back and waits for fireworks!

Yep but all the eggs have been deliberately put into just the one basket,because it suits multinationals,buy cheap (from abroad) stack em high,watch the scrum to get the bargains make lots of profit for the shareholders.
The has been made a must have.
Polictrickians aren't going to bite the hand (multinationals) that feeds them now are they, really Bygad!
The whole system is set up to make profit and lots of it out of the (reletively) poor. And the (reletively)poor just don't get it,if they did they'd realise their power.
The tail as always wags the dog.

I agree to a point.

Once car ownership numbers begin to fall, the same multinationals will need to continue to make money. So local shops will become more profitable, in their eyes, and the big chains will either:-
open local shops themselves
or see others open them
OR provide green transport to and from their massive out of town malls.

You are right that the NEED for a car has been gradually built into our infrastructure for 50 years. The change back will also be gradual, but hopefully quicker than the build up!

byegad wrote:I agree to a point.

Once car ownership numbers begin to fall, the same multinationals will need to continue to make money. So local shops will become more profitable, in their eyes, and the big chains will either:-
open local shops themselves
or see others open them
OR provide green transport to and from their massive out of town malls.

You are right that the NEED for a car has been gradually built into our infrastructure for 50 years. The change back will also be gradual, but hopefully quicker than the build up!

I don't think its going to happen anytime soon,the car's here for a good while yet.

Yes the pressure to motor is still there but with $200 a barrel predicted for later this year and more to come people will try to reduce consumption. We may see steadier driving for better economy and a reduction in annual mileage.
The pressure is not going to go away, so expect a gradual reduction in demand for Derv and Petrol in years to come. I've bought two recumbent trikes from the money I would have burnt in petrol over the last 3 years, my annual milage is now 4000 miles by car and 5000 miles by human power.

This stuff about affecting people on low incomes is nonsense. The taxes theyre complaining about affect large cars that are less than seven years old. People may be poor as a consequence of running these cars but the cost is unsustainable for anyone genuinely on a low income.

Smaller cars get a reduction in tax that will help poor people

byegad wrote:I agree to a point.

Once car ownership numbers begin to fall, the same multinationals will need to continue to make money. So local shops will become more profitable, in their eyes, and the big chains will either:-
open local shops themselves
or see others open them
OR provide green transport to and from their massive out of town malls.

It's already starting to happen, in my area we've already seen half a dozen Tesco Express and similar Supermarket "local" convenvience shopes open. There's a Sainsbury's bus that does a loop from the local town centre to their out of town store for free.

If you can think of a new market to exploit, you can guarantee that the supermarkets will have thought of it already and will be going through the motions of exploiting it.

Smaller cars get a reduction in tax that will help poor people

if you can't afford to change your car for a smaller one your stuck with it until the said car fails it's MOT and it's not worth having it repaired as normal the poor will suffer and the rich will inherit the roads

numbnuts wrote:

Smaller cars get a reduction in tax that will help poor people

if you can't afford to change your car for a smaller one your stuck with it until the said car fails it's MOT and it's not worth having it repaired as normal the poor will suffer and the rich will inherit the roads

Don't see how that works. Firstly you ought to be able change the car for a smaller one as smaller ones (in the same condition) ought not cost more. Secondly, why can the poor replace their cars after failed MOTs but not at any other time? Surely it's the other way around as they will get more for the old car as a MOTed runner than as a MOT failure. Thirdly, following on the general logic, we can say that MOT tests should be banned as they have a detrimental effect on the poor: on failing an MOT the rich can easily affort to repair or replace but the poor can't. Hence MOTs are driving the poor off the roads.

This poor person has just gotten rid of a 14 year old car and decided not to replace. Already feeling the benefits: new computer, new bike trailer, much less stress with all the MOT/tax/insurance stuff. And no temptation to be lazy and take the car when the bike will do. Indeed, if the tax issue is forcing the poor to give up cars then I'd say it's the rich that are suffering.