Flamewar on BBC website

The Luggage said:

I seem to have got myself involved in a little flamewar on the BBC News
Magazine site. 3 entries so far. Have a look at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4477512.stm

Anyone care to join in?

Do you mean this one? :-
"Alan Collier is wrong (Monitor Letters, Tuesday). It is the motorists
who have a right to use the road, because they have paid for it. It is
the cyclists and horses that are getting something for nothing. And the
pedestrians should use the pavement, where possible.
Herbert G., Leeds, UK"

I replied:

"Regarding Herbert G.'s assertation that motorists have a right to use
the road, having paid for it: I would be interested to see his
calculations, because from what information I have found, the annual
cost of the roads to the country is something in the region of £60bn,
whereas the income from VED and fuel tax is approximately £23bn.
Furthermore, if the use of the road is indeed a 'right' in law, he
won't need a license to exercise that right."

Has anyone got a better breakdown of the cost of motoring verses the
income from it? I based it on these figures from various websites, and
it concurs with the international figure that motorists only pay (as
motorists) for about a 1/3rd of the costs:

(in £billion)
Fuel tax +VED 23
Speed cameras profit 0.014
------------
Income 23.014

Traffic delays 20
Health impact of traffic pollution 11.1
Road accidents(health) 16
Road build + maintenance 5.5
------------
Outlay 52.6

sothach said:

The Luggage said:

I seem to have got myself involved in a little flamewar on the BBC News
Magazine site. 3 entries so far. Have a look at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4477512.stm

Anyone care to join in?

Do you mean this one? :-
"Alan Collier is wrong (Monitor Letters, Tuesday). It is the motorists
who have a right to use the road, because they have paid for it. It is
the cyclists and horses that are getting something for nothing. And the
pedestrians should use the pavement, where possible.
Herbert G., Leeds, UK"

I replied:

"Regarding Herbert G.'s assertation that motorists have a right to use
the road, having paid for it: I would be interested to see his
calculations, because from what information I have found, the annual
cost of the roads to the country is something in the region of £60bn,
whereas the income from VED and fuel tax is approximately £23bn.
Furthermore, if the use of the road is indeed a 'right' in law, he
won't need a license to exercise that right."

Has anyone got a better breakdown of the cost of motoring verses the
income from it? I based it on these figures from various websites, and
it concurs with the international figure that motorists only pay (as
motorists) for about a 1/3rd of the costs:

(in £billion)
Fuel tax +VED 23
Speed cameras profit 0.014
------------
Income 23.014

Traffic delays 20
Health impact of traffic pollution 11.1
Road accidents(health) 16
Road build + maintenance 5.5
------------
Outlay 52.6

these people are not worth arguing with, they fail to understand that
many cyclists are also owners of motor vehicles.

Quoted message said:

these people are not worth arguing with, they fail to understand that
many cyclists are also owners of motor vehicles.

Which is to some degree irrelevant as the little disc is a luxury tax
on putting the car on the highway. The cost of maintaining the
highway network is borne by taxation on us all through national and
local taxes.

I think it was Churchill who stopped calling it road fund licence as
it didn't actually fund them.

perhaps a call for the Govt to be honest would help.....

Quoted message said:

these people are not worth arguing with, they fail to understand that
many cyclists are also owners of motor vehicles.

Which is to some degree irrelevant as the little disc is a luxury tax
on putting the car on the highway. The cost of maintaining the
highway network is borne by taxation on us all through national and
local taxes.

I think it was Churchill who stopped calling it road fund licence as
it didn't actually fund them.

perhaps a call for the Govt to be honest would help.....

sothach said:

Has anyone got a better breakdown of the cost of motoring verses the
income from it? I based it on these figures from various websites,
and it concurs with the international figure that motorists only pay
(as motorists) for about a 1/3rd of the costs:

(in £billion)
Fuel tax +VED 23
Speed cameras profit 0.014
------------
Income 23.014

Traffic delays 20
Health impact of traffic pollution 11.1
Road accidents(health) 16
Road build + maintenance 5.5
------------
Outlay 52.6

not a breakdown but different totals from a telegraph report

(http://tinyurl.com/8wgq3) the tax take is around £42billion compared to
expenditure on roads of £6billion

MSeries said:

these people are not worth arguing with,

I agree.

Quoted message said:

they fail to understand that
many cyclists are also owners of motor vehicles.

How does that affect the argument - if I own two cars I pay twice?

--
Matt B

Matt B said:

MSeries said:

they fail to understand that
many cyclists are also owners of motor vehicles.

How does that affect the argument - if I own two cars I pay twice?

I guess the point is, if you take the point of view that by paying VED
you have 'bought' the right to use the road, then anyone who has paid
VED has the same right, whether they are currently using a car or not -
although as they aren't burning hydrocarbon fuel they aren't at that
moment contributing toward fuel tax - same as your two cars, you've
paid 2xVED but your only burning fuel in one of them.

sothach said:

Matt B said:

MSeries said:

they fail to understand that

Quoted message said:

many cyclists are also owners of motor vehicles.

How does that affect the argument - if I own two cars I pay twice?

I guess the point is, if you take the point of view that by paying VED
you have 'bought' the right to use the road,

It's patently an ignorant view though.

Quoted message said:

then anyone who has paid
VED has the same right, whether they are currently using a car or not -

They don't though. VED is to obtain a licence to use a specific vehicle
only.

Quoted message said:

although as they aren't burning hydrocarbon fuel they aren't at that
moment contributing toward fuel tax -

Thats a separate issue - gas, leccy, etc. come from carbon fuel, but
also have no "fuel tax".

Quoted message said:

same as your two cars, you've
paid 2xVED but your only burning fuel in one of them.

Yes, but to get the "right" to use both on the road, even if only one at
a time, one has to pay 2xVED.

--
Matt B

The Luggage said:

I seem to have got myself involved in a little flamewar on the BBC News
Magazine site. 3 entries so far. Have a look at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4477512.stm

Anyone care to join in?

Nah...I got distracted by the dalek pr0n ;-)

In message id <[email hidden]> on Thu, 01
Dec 2005 11:33:18 GMT, Martyn Bolt wrote in uk.rec.cycling :

Quoted message said:

perhaps a call for the Govt to be honest would help.....

Porcine aviation will be a reality long before that!

"The Luggage" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I seem to have got myself involved in a little flamewar on the BBC News
Magazine site. 3 entries so far. Have a look at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4477512.stm

Anyone care to join in?

Might well do.

But, sorry to disappoint you, not on your side....

:o)

--
IanH

"Martyn Bolt" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

these people are not worth arguing with, they fail to understand that
many cyclists are also owners of motor vehicles.

Which is to some degree irrelevant as the little disc is a luxury tax
on putting the car on the highway.

So, having paid it, you have the *right* to have your car on the highway.

The cost of maintaining the

Quoted message said:

highway network is borne by taxation on us all through national and
local taxes.

I think it was Churchill who stopped calling it road fund licence as
it didn't actually fund them.

perhaps a call for the Govt to be honest would help.....

ian henden said:

So, having paid it, you have the *right* to have your car on the highway.

Wrong. You do not have the 'right' because there are other conditions
applying. You can have paid VED but still not be legally allowed to
keep or use that vehicle on the road.

...d

ian henden said:

"Martyn Bolt" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

these people are not worth arguing with, they fail to understand that
many cyclists are also owners of motor vehicles.

Which is to some degree irrelevant as the little disc is a luxury tax
on putting the car on the highway.

So, having paid it, you have the *right* to have your car on the highway.

....Once you have fulfilled all the requirements (licence, VED, MOT if
necessary etc).

My main argument is that you have no more right than I do to cycle or
walk on the highway. The OP in the BBC thread was suggesting that
cyclists & pedestrians should effectively be banned from the roads
because we do not pay for them. I strongly disagree with this. Apart
from anything else, local roads are paid for by local taxes, government
rebate etc., and I pay as much of that as the average person driving
his car on the same road.

The Luggage

ian henden said:

"Martyn Bolt" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Which is to some degree irrelevant as the little disc is a luxury tax
on putting the car on the highway.

So, having paid it, you have the *right* to have your car on the highway.

Yes, assuming that you, and it, comply with the plethora of other laws
and regulations also in force, and assuming a normal English definition
of the word.

However, as we've seen in many previous threads here on the same issue,
there are those who use a very specific definition of the word "right" -
if it isn't enshrined in the United Nations' "Universal Declaration of
Human Rights" - then, no you don't have the "right".

--
Matt B

p.k. said:

sothach said:

Has anyone got a better breakdown of the cost of motoring verses the
income from it? I based it on these figures from various websites,
and it concurs with the international figure that motorists only pay
(as motorists) for about a 1/3rd of the costs:

(in £billion)
Fuel tax +VED 23
Speed cameras profit 0.014
------------
Income 23.014

Traffic delays 20
Health impact of traffic pollution 11.1
Road accidents(health) 16
Road build + maintenance 5.5
------------
Outlay 52.6

not a breakdown but different totals from a telegraph report

(http://tinyurl.com/8wgq3) the tax take is around £42billion compared to
expenditure on roads of £6billion

I am guessing that he includes perhaps VAT on cars to give what he
describes as " the tax take from motorists, including various other
imposts" which he contrasts with the expenditure on road building. I
don't think this is necessarily in dispute, after all he is only using
it as a straw man to support his argument. I am not sure how
productive it will ever be to argue about the indirect costs of MV
traffic since it will never be resolved to everyone's satisfaction even
before you get on to questions of indirect benefits. A superior
argument is "VED, like virtualy all taxes/duties/whatever is not
hypothecated, get over it."

best wishes
james

in message <[email hidden]>, Matt B

(') said:

Quoted message said:

although as they aren't burning hydrocarbon fuel they aren't at that
moment contributing toward fuel tax -

Thats a separate issue - gas, leccy, etc. come from carbon fuel, but
also have no "fuel tax".

The region in which I live has been a net exporter of electricity for the
whole of my lifetime[1]. The number of fossil fuelled power stations
involved? Nil. Furthermore we haven't even scratched the surface of the
carbon-free power we could produce. We have several new large windfarms
coming on stream in the next five years; we have vast amounts of
untapped tidal energy; and our largest river catchment still has no
hydro electric dams.

That Britain /does/ generate most of its electricity from hydrocarbons is
of course true; but that Britain /needs/ to do so is false.

[1] This is true whether you consider Galloway only, which also has no
nuclear power stations, or Dumfries and Galloway, in which case you
include one nuclear power station.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

X-no-archive: No, I'm not *that* naive.

Simon Brooke said:

in message said:

Quoted message said:

although as they aren't burning hydrocarbon fuel they aren't at that
moment contributing toward fuel tax -

Thats a separate issue - gas, leccy, etc. come from carbon fuel, but
also have no "fuel tax".

The region in which I live has been a net exporter of electricity for the
whole of my lifetime[1]. The number of fossil fuelled power stations
involved? Nil. Furthermore we haven't even scratched the surface of the
carbon-free power we could produce. We have several new large windfarms
coming on stream in the next five years; we have vast amounts of
untapped tidal energy; and our largest river catchment still has no
hydro electric dams.

That Britain /does/ generate most of its electricity from hydrocarbons is
of course true; but that Britain /needs/ to do so is false.

The same could be said of motor fuel. However, whilst we pay duty, and
17.5% VAT on the duty, and 17.5% VAT on the fuel price, largely
justified by the carbon emissions issue, we pay _no_ duty on the equally
CO2 emitting gas or electricity, and only pay VAT at 5% on them. Where's
the consistency?

--
Matt B

Simon Brooke said:

The region in which I live has been a net exporter of electricity for the
whole of my lifetime[1]. The number of fossil fuelled power stations
involved? Nil. Furthermore we haven't even scratched the surface of the
carbon-free power we could produce. We have several new large windfarms
coming on stream in the next five years; we have vast amounts of
untapped tidal energy; and our largest river catchment still has no
hydro electric dams.

The largest river in terms of total flow is the Tay and there have been
hydro schemes in the Tay catchment for over 50 years. Or are you using
a somewhat restrictive definition for region.

...d