Charge drivers and expand the cycle network



Response to POHB:
> One of those "is expected to report" news stories:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6160877.stm
>
> "Motorists should be asked to pay to drive on the nation's road
> network"...
> "Smaller projects, including an expansion of the UK cycle network, are
> likely to receive strong backing."


Motorists paying to use the road, and cyclists being given more
farcilities? Oh, that'll be nice. </irony>

An increase in tax on petrol has its disadvantages, but at least it
would make it slightly more difficult for motorists to claim that
cyclists are using something they've not paid for.


--
Mark, UK
"There was never a century nor a country that was short of experts who
knew the Deity's mind and were willing to reveal it."
 
"POHB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> One of those "is expected to report" news stories:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6160877.stm
>
> "Motorists should be asked to pay to drive on the nation's road
> network"...
> "Smaller projects, including an expansion of the UK cycle network, are
> likely to receive strong backing."
>

I fundamentally oppose the road-charging bit. All that'll succeed in doing
is increase congestion on narrow, winding roads that simply aren't designed
to take large numbers of motorised vehicles. It'll also increase prejudice
against cyclists with ever more "I've paid to use the road so ****-off
cyclist out of my way. The UK already has a cycle network; it's called the
roads that we have a *right* to use already. In the news on the subject
there's also plans to build more roads - are they really intent on putting
more tarmac over the entire country?

What's needed is proper plans to get people out of cars with incentives as
well as the heavy stick approach. That means huge investment in decent
public transport and a wholesale shift in mindset to get force businesses
out of the south-east so that the population pressure on house prices stops
the growth in commuting long distances, and combines good quality public
transport bus/rail at a low price so that people do have a *practical and
attractive* alternative to the car. The increased cost should be put on
fuel - so we pay for the number of miles we drive combined with choice of
vehicle. The taxation system could be altered to rebate, say the haulage
business, that way via reliefs. Historically it seems no government has the
balls to invest heavily in practical public transport alternatives to
private car use - as there's be howls of rage from the motoring lobby and
the long-term benefits to all of us would be lost in the political lack of
will in any direction other than that of doing what it takes to stay in
power & stuff the future of the country as a whole.
 
"POHB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> One of those "is expected to report" news stories:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6160877.stm
>
> "Motorists should be asked to pay to drive on the nation's road
> network"...
> "Smaller projects, including an expansion of the UK cycle network, are
> likely to receive strong backing."
>

I am not a motorist - I don't have a licence but whilst I think that we need
to reduce the number of cars on the road, I totally disagree with this
Government's plans to extract more TAX out of people's earnings.

Currently motorists pay a tax called the "Road Fund Licence" - the amount
collected in this tax is spent by the government on whatever they want
rather than the roads anyway.

So to charge people even more is wrong.

More does need to be spent on cycle networks and public transport but it
will not happen with transport being in private hands - it is all about
profit rather than service.

I understand that rail fares are rising again - what a way to encourage new
passengers and retain old ones.

What is needed is a sustainable and co-ordinated transport system like some
foreign counties appear to have.

I was in Switzerland in 2005 and I travelled on a few trains - when I booked
my ticket I was given a print out which told me where to catch my train -
the station, the platform number and the train number. It told me where to
change and the same info again.

It worked a treat and all the trains ran to the minute, no excuses for
leaves, wet tracks etc.

I was even told by people there that it still works in the winter where the
snow gets quite bad.

Dave
 
Mark McNeill wrote on 01/12/2006 09:17 +0100:

>
> Motorists paying to use the road, and cyclists being given more
> farcilities? Oh, that'll be nice. </irony>
>


Here's a radical solution. Do a swap. Make the "motorist" facilities
exclusive for non-motorised users and public transport and make the
cycle facilities the mandatory and only facilities for motorists ;-)

--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
 
"Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>

>
> Currently motorists pay a tax called the "Road Fund Licence" - the amount
> collected in this tax is spent by the government on whatever they want
> rather than the roads anyway.

No, in we pay "Vehicle Excise Duty" :)
 
Response to Tony Raven:
> Here's a radical solution. Do a swap. Make the "motorist" facilities
> exclusive for non-motorised users and public transport and make the
> cycle facilities the mandatory and only facilities for motorists ;-)

Mmmmmmmmmmm... "Motorists Get Out And Push." :-D

--
Mark, UK
"The government is merely a servant - merely a temporary servant; it
cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong,
and decide who is a patriot and who isn't."
 
wafflycat wrote:
><snip> and a wholesale shift in mindset to get force businesses
> out of the south-east so that the population pressure on house prices stops
> the growth in commuting long distances

To a large extent they don't even need to do this. All that is required
is to (slowly) make it compulsory for firms to allow people to work
from home if they are able to.

I say slowly because a sudden blanket change is likely to cause as much
chaos as congestion - but if it started with one day per week, with
employers able to phase it in across their staff and then slowly
increase the minimum number of days offered then it would make a huge
difference.

And then once people and businesses are used to tele-commuting the
pressure for businesses to locate in the southeast because that is
where the workers are will reduce.

Tim.
 
On Fri, 1 Dec 2006 09:19:39 -0000 someone who may be "wafflycat"
<w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote this:-

>I fundamentally oppose the road-charging bit. All that'll succeed in doing
>is increase congestion on narrow, winding roads that simply aren't designed
>to take large numbers of motorised vehicles.

If congestion does increase then the cost of using them will go up,
deterring people from doing so.

>It'll also increase prejudice
>against cyclists with ever more "I've paid to use the road so ****-off
>cyclist out of my way.

Possibly. However, I think people with such attitudes simply latch
onto something they think confirms their attitude. I'm not convinced
things external to them affect the attitude much, they just use a
different excuse.

>The UK already has a cycle network; it's called the
>roads that we have a *right* to use already.

AOL.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54
 
wafflycat said the following on 01/12/2006 09:19:

> What's needed is proper plans to get people out of cars with incentives
> as well as the heavy stick approach.

Have you read the latest CTC magazine? There is a brief article about
cycle-friendly towns. Needless to say, these aren't in the UK. Also a
good article about a family cycle-touring in Holland, and the
eye-opening attitudes of the Dutch towards cyclists compared to the
hostile bus driver they encountered immediately on their return to the UK.

> That means huge investment in
> decent public transport and a wholesale shift in mindset to get force
> businesses out of the south-east

Just don't send them South-West :)

> and combines
> good quality public transport bus/rail at a low price so that people do
> have a *practical and attractive* alternative to the car.

I'm thinking about going to the NEC on Sunday, from Weston-super-Mare.
Whoops! No local trains - just a substitute bus service into Bristol.
Minimum overall journey time 4.25 hours. Each way. But only if I want
to leave on Saturday evening or arrive so late on Sunday it's not worth
going. If you don't believe that, go and check on the National Rail
Enquiries website for Weston-super-Mare (WSM) to Birmingham
International (BHI)for 3rd December for arrival around 11am and
departure around 4pm (and check the WSM departure *date* offered. So if
I want to go, I have no choice but to drive. The return journey will be
around 9% of my total annual mileage. I would like to be able to give
up my car, but without a public transport network I would be very loath
to do that.

> lost in the political lack of will in any direction other than that of
> doing what it takes to stay in power & stuff the future of the country
> as a whole.

....and that seems to sum up any of the parties attitudes - what do we
need to do to get/stay in power? The right question that is never asked
is "We're in power - what can we do to make a difference?" I'm talking
about government in general, not any one specific party.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/
 
Dave wrote:
> I totally disagree with this Government's plans to extract more TAX out of people's earnings.
> snip
> More does need to be spent on cycle networks and public transport

So you don't want more or higher taxes but you want more public money
to be spent. I think most people would agree with your goal, but do
you have a suggestion of how it might be achieved?
 
Response to POHB:
> > I totally disagree with this Government's plans to extract more TAX out of people's earnings.
> > snip
> > More does need to be spent on cycle networks and public transport
>
> So you don't want more or higher taxes but you want more public money
> to be spent. I think most people would agree with your goal, but do
> you have a suggestion of how it might be achieved?

Higher tax on things other than people's earnings, and/or spend less on
other things, I'd have thought.


FWIW, I've thought of a nice plan which might reduce congestion,
increase cycle safety and make the nation fitter:

When I become Evil Overlord I shall make any able-bodied persons' car
journey which transports less than a load of shopping less than three
miles punishable by an extended session on the Cycle Treadmill. Or
something - obviously I'll leave the details to underlings.


--
Mark, UK
"We live off the country: rabbits, deer, a stray hiker or two."
 
On Fri, 1 Dec 2006 09:19:39 -0000, wafflycat wrote:
[snip]

I'd just like to say: very well said there, cat. I was shouting at the TV last
night :)

We need to stop being London/SE centred and the government needs to
make some big decisions such as increasing the rail network capacity & making it
more available for mixed freight. Buses can also be organised more effectively
to completely cover towns & villages within a local authority's area.

Psyclepaths can only go so far, they're useful locally but (for most people)
there need to be ways to travel from one town to another (or even nationally).

--
Stephen Patterson :: [email protected] :: http://patter.mine.nu/
GPG: B416F0DE :: Jabber: [email protected]
"Don't be silly, Minnie. Who'd be walking round these cliffs with a gas oven?"
 
In news:[email protected],
wafflycat <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to
tell us:

> I fundamentally oppose the road-charging bit. All that'll succeed in
> doing is increase congestion on narrow, winding roads that simply
> aren't designed to take large numbers of motorised vehicles.

William. My commute is largely on a narrow twisty B-road, which turns
unclassified for no readily-apparent reason halfway through. It's already
chock-full of motorcars seeking to avoid the congestion on the M11 and A406,
with a sprinkling of heavy lorries following their sat-navs.

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Life - loathe it or ignore it, you can't like it.
 
POHB wrote:
> One of those "is expected to report" news stories:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6160877.stm
>
> "Motorists should be asked to pay to drive on the nation's road
> network"...

<irony>
Good. That should make the roads less stressful, and more predictable,
for those that deserve to use them most - the wealthy. It'll take us
back to the early days of motoring, when it was as it should be, the
preserve of the rich.

Let the ordinary folk walk, and pack into buses and trams. It'll
bolster their immune systems, give them less time to make nuisances of
themselves, keep them away from our amenities at weekend, and make them
realise just how lucky they are to have such a benevolent government.

The next thing we should tax is cheap flights, to keep the riff-raff
away from our intolerably busy airports!

Let's hope that the new £28b/year isn't wasted on public transport.
Let's hope that it is used in the same way that the current £40b/year
raised from motoring is, to eliminate to need to raise revenue from
those who can actually afford to pay it.
</irony>

--
Matt B
 
[email protected] wrote:
> All that is required
> is to (slowly) make it compulsory for firms to allow people to work
> from home if they are able to.

and compulsory for shops to allow people to order goods from home,
schools must permit distance learning and seaside towns must be forced
to send buckets of seawater and sand for people to use in their own
back gardens.
If commuting was the only problem then the roads would be clear at the
weekend.
 
On Fri, 1 Dec 2006, POHB wrote:

> So you don't want more or higher taxes but you want more public money
> to be spent. I think most people would agree with your goal, but do
> you have a suggestion of how it might be achieved?

Scrap the ID card farce.
Stop illegal wars.
Control of immigration (note control, not stop).
Reduce the benifits bill (benifits should be to get you buy in hard times,
not a lifestyle choice where you can afford holidays abroad, sky tv etc).

Thats a start..
--
Chris Johns
 
> Control of immigration (note control, not stop).

You mean tighter, I presume.
 
"POHB" <[email protected]> writed in news:1164963630.164687.192850
@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

> One of those "is expected to report" news stories:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6160877.stm
>
> "Motorists should be asked to pay to drive on the nation's road
> network"...
> "Smaller projects, including an expansion of the UK cycle network, are
> likely to receive strong backing."
>
I really haven't made my mind up on this one.
If the plan is to charge the highest for the busiest, most congested
roads, then traffic *will* move onto the quieter, less congested roads -
that is to say the ones most suitable for cycling, and it *will not* (or
at least initially) cause a sea change to flexible working in any
meaningful way; neither will there be any sudden move to getting
businesses away from the major connurbations ('cos that's where people
live!)
I hate to agree with MattB but any charge will probably hit the lower
paid the most, the ones who work the unsociable hours, and the rich will
just shrug their shoulders and carry on as before.

What we do not need is any wholesale extension of the road network, what
is needed is a period of joined up thinking (not very British, I'm
afraid) to look at all the options of:
:= increasing the desirability of cycling (and walking);
:= the reach and accessibility of public transport - both urban and
inter-urban; (by reach & accessibility I mean hours, routes, accomodation
of vehicles and at stopping places, pricing structure etc etc).
:= the use of technology to reduce shopping and commuting;
and to see how the railways, and water, can be used to move heavy goods
around.

I know as I get older I am getting less tolerant (eeeek!) but I also
beleive that we seriously need to reconsider the whole issue of school
choice and catchment areas.
When I was a lad (yawn) I walked to the local school, and so did all my
neighbours' kids - when I went to secondary school I walked (and later
cycled), my classmates came by bus, walked or cycled - no-one was
transported half-way accross London by car, because the school was
*local*.
While there was congestion there was no such thing as 'the school run'-
why do whe need it?
(I can remember walking along Wightman Road in Harringay much quicker
than the queing traffic in err 1968 ish)
Give parents an assurance that their local school will meet the needs of
local parents and do away with the false illusion of choice, and the
retched school run (rant over).
 
[email protected] wrote on 01/12/2006 09:40 +0100:
>
> To a large extent they don't even need to do this. All that is required
> is to (slowly) make it compulsory for firms to allow people to work
> from home if they are able to.
>

I can just see someone phoning the hotel receptionist at home to
complain their room is not made up only to be told the maid is working
from home and has made the beds up there instead ;-)

--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
Careless driving conviction instead of dangerous driving charge
Replies
8
Views
511
UK and Europe
Tony Raven
T
B
Speeder in charge of road safety!
Replies
8
Views
315
UK and Europe
Colin McKenzie
C
E
Oh well, time to pack up the summer clothing, and charge my lights.
Replies
8
Views
429
UK and Europe
audrey
A
C
159mph speeding charge PC cleared
Replies
47
Views
2K
UK and Europe
Nick Kew
N
F
Blair puts habitual speed criminal in charge of 'road safety'.
Replies
29
Views
809
UK and Europe
dkahn400
D
Top Bottom Back