I think if you are poor you don't have a lot of housing options

They tax mileage in New Zealand via the price of fuel.  It's semi-successful.

Why only semi-successful? There might be a requirement for an admin charge for the initial registration charge

but taxing fuel consumption seems to be a very fair way of raising revenue from road users.

Well not really because people live in rural areas, and need to travel long distances even to public transport or services, or to fill up with fuel.

Which is why there is now 5 pence a litre subsidy in Highland and Island Post Code Districts around the UK.

 

Food and drink products mainly are coming from the countryside areas not cities and people need to live in the countryside to grow and process these foods that urban dwellers consume, and they might have vehicles including delivery vehicles that are less economic on fuel than City Cars and vehicles suitable for urban dwellers, like 4x4's and bigger passenger vehicles, and then less Filling Stations and Suppliers competing on price of the fuel at the stations.

 

http://bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-30829356

Edited 11 July, 201510 yr by goneoffSKi

I'm sorry, but you really don't know very much about retail supply chains.

If a retailer sends a large vehicle to a city centre location, it's normally because they have a large amount to deliver to that location, or that location and other close by locations.

If there's 10 vans trying to get into one store, that's not going to ease congestion.

I know that if the whole load is going to a single location that might well be the case.

It does not mean that into the future that you take it between cities, then take that trailer into the city.

Cranes, Steel works and beams and long loads / heavy loads will have to obviously, 

as to retail outlets in City Centres then that might well all change.

 

& if a Train Station is sitting in the City Centre maybe within 1 or 2 miles of the destination then maybe it should arrive in the City by rail.

Then go to the destination in 2 vehicles.

 

How much fuel do you use over 5 miles into a city if it takes 30 minutes, and 30 more to then leave with your wagon,

and how much do you add to traffic congestion and pollution ?

Things are changing, and you might need to go with the Flow, or actually not, you might need your drop at a

Transport Hub, and stay out of town.

http://freightinthecity.com/category/last-mile-deliveries

Edited 11 July, 201510 yr by goneoffSKi

Depends how you look at it, if you're thinking in terms of what you're doing to the environment on Friday of this week, you're right. If you look at the net result if what you do over a number of years, you're looking at it totally the wrong way.

To paraphrase seasick Steve.

I could drive my old van everyday of this life and the one I had before, and create less pollution than it takes to make a new car.

The approximate statistic is that over three quarters of the energy that goes into a car in its life is in manufacture. So keeping a car going for 30 years is always going to be better for the environment than buying a new one every five years, that'll probably be scrap in 15.

Reduce what you waste

Reuse what you would waste

Recycle what you have to waste

And if someone has one car or a collection, it's pretty immaterial, unless they were made for the person who owns the collection. You can only drive one at a time, so you can only create one set of exhaust emissions are a time.

Yes Ive always said this... 

 

But the governments only concern is £ and they see they can gain £ from taxes, and from telling the population they need A. Diesel ( we buy diesel) then B.we need small petrol as diesel is bad (we all buy small petrol) then we need c. Hybrid ( some of us buy them :P) 

 

Its just a merry go round of maximum tax + car sales, the government will have vested interest in the car manufacturer, Cameron is probably a director, and torys have a 2% stake in shares .. or some other un savory financial nonsense, that screws us for their gain.

 

All they do is pass the environmental responsibility onto the consumer, while advocating massive pollutants from the car manufacture process... then shift tax policy for maximum gain to persuade the sales of current trend, run with that a few years then change their scope, in 3 years it will be "diesels proven to be cleaner, we have developed a clean emission engine" then we think we have a environmental responsibility to use this "new" cleaner car .... 

 - I cant believe people buy into this, just buy a car and run it for 20 years ... you will save 4 cars being manufactured.... this is far kinder to the environment even if its a V6.

 

 - Its ok for America and China to be killing the world via emissions, as long as we are all driving what our government tells us. Since when did we become a nation of obedient zombies, doing what we are told to do, with out question? 

Then you read something like this (excuse the source, it's based on a guardian article I can't find).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1229857/How-16-ships-create-pollution-cars-world.html

Then you realise how much we're ****ing in the ocean trying to deal with road based emissions as we are.

GoneoffSKi - are you going to send a few dozen shipping containers on the train to be lifted off and broken down at a city centre station, or are we sitting waiting for the platform to be opened for passengers so we can get on the train after the freight train on the platform has had a few hundred pallets and cages dragged off?

Why only semi-successful? There might be a requirement for an admin charge for the initial registration charge

but taxing fuel consumption seems to be a very fair way of raising revenue from road users.

It favours city folk over country folk and those that live in the cheaper outer-ring suburbs; people with econo-boxes over people with V8s; people that drive economically over people that like to give it some stick. 

 

It adds to the cost of doing business and it favours the self-employed over pay-as-you-earn workers.

 

It discourages people from driving to leisure activities & going very far on holidays.

 

You Brits are a lot more decentralised than Kiwis & Ausssies and Australia is simply a lot bigger. 

 

A mate's daughter has been posted to Broken Hill as her first teacher posting.  She just came back home for a quick 4 day visit - it's a lazy 13hr / 1200km drive. 

 

I work with dams.  It's inconsiderate but they won't build them in the middle of the city so my office is a bit of a drive.  I don't see why I should pay more to get to work just because of the industry I work in.  I can't move closer to work for personal reasons.  For the same reason I don't mind my taxes subsidising public transport (which I rarely use) I think that roads should be paid for by all and not just the heavy users.

StevesTruck,

When redeveloping Town Centres and Train Stations & Trams they can build the Transport Hubs better,

back to the Future like the old days of Goods Yards, 

Like a Channel Tunnel Drive on Drive off for HGV's or just Trailers & Containers.

 

& like was done before with Tesco & Safeway on the A9 Stretch to Inverness, 

the Containers or just Trailers can go on the Trains and transit between cities.

 

Obviously it takes Investment & Governments to push on with it,

but then Pollution and Congestion costs rather a lot as well,

so we will see what we see sometime in the future, but maybe in some parts of the UK quicker than others.

 

http://scotsman.com/news/rail-freight-group-how-freight-can-take-the-strain-off-the-roads-1-2974601

Edited 12 July, 201510 yr by goneoffSKi

Trailers and Containers are transferred to be taken into cities by electric or Hydrogen Powered vehicles.

Ether Tow Units or Box Vans.

 

It is not far Fetched, because Glasgow & Edinburgh plan in the Future to ban Internal Combustion Engines in Cities,

as other Cities in the UK and the EU will have to.

 

So Rail Heads and Ports, and Transport Hubs outside the City and Transfer of goods unto the Shops and Hotels, Offices & Businesses.

Imagine 

Park & Ride, that works.  You take your car near a City and then transfer into town by Public Transport, same idea,

except it is Good & Merchandise being Transported.

Companies already do it,  Yodel, DHL etc etc Tesco, Asda, etc, Deliveries by smaller vehicles than use the Motorways and Trunk Roads.

 

http://publiccontractsscotland.gov.uk/search/show/search_view.aspx?ID=JAN198372

After the fruck up that is the Edinburgh tram and the very costly Waverley line reopening I do not think of Edinburgh City Council a good example to follow. The tram fiasco always reminds me of the monorail episode in the Simpsons

Luckily that Labour / Liberal Scottish Government of Wastefulness and Incompetence are long gone,

and Edinburgh Councillors involved in the Fiasco are now being made to answer for their part in things.

 

Maybe lessons will be learned, but very expensive for the Scottish Public, and still costing now.

(the tram journey can be nice, and once the polluting Taxis & Buses go it will be even nicer.)

Personally i am looking forward to using the new line as well, as well to since it has cost enough,

but at least is did get completed unlike the schemes the UK Government have now suspended.

 

http://edinburghtraminquiry.org

http://bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-30418785

 

http://scotsman.com/news/transport/trains-to-run-on-historic-waverley-line-again-1-3790798

It is not far Fetched, because Glasgow & Edinburgh plan in the Future to ban Internal Combustion Engines in Cities,

 

And how many motorways and trunk roads run to and through the centre of Glasgow? All of them I think!

I think they meant the actual city centres, which as we know is not that big an area in Edinburgh, and is impossible to define in Glasgow, and is a few hundred meters from the Motorway.

 

http://scotsman.com/news/environment/motorists-face-city-ban-in-emissions-crackdown-1-3521677

 

http://edinburgh.gov.uk/news/article/1825/electric_taxis_are_powered_up_for_capitals_streets

If you think about it, they (the Government) have been very clever about this because how many cars will fall in to the low tax bracket that is not close to or over the £40K price tag. So it's a win win all round for them.

 

On the plus side is might increase the prices of the second hand cars that will still get the old system?

 

I'm not too keen on the 4 year MOT then 2 years until 10 years old. Have you ever seen some of the condition "new" cars are in? I can't but help that it's a step backwards.

 

I would say for "us" that the above will not be a problem as we look after our cars but for some, I worry about the road worthiness of the cars.

I was going to quote and snip you m12mkd, but its too much effort on phone. The number of people who faill that first 4yr test is stupid. For small things like bulbs and bushes. Headlight focus is an issue too, mostly it seems with french cars... its like they dont bother adjusting for LHD properly.

but what annoys me about it is the attitude of - shur ill test it and then get it serviced, that way ill know whats wrong - not really true. Things have been missed on all my cars during test that ive then found while sorting the stupid reason its been failed. Like a failure for for droplinks and discovering inner pads worn to backing plate.. after that i started paying proper attention And changed mechanic as he hadnt copped it either until we were doing the links

Oh and tyres being well scrubbed past the markers. People dont know or dont care how **** their tyres are..

I dread to think of what state cars will be in after four years, especially some that do high mileages. Its not unbelievable that some will have done 100,000 miles without an inspection. Im of the opinion that MOTs should be more like services, valid for one year or x miles and should be done from the start of ownership.

https://www.ncts.ie/test_stats.html#2015

Edited 7 August, 201510 yr by mac11irl

Wont let me type anything in that post.. stupid phone..

Anyway, it doesnt give a reg year breakdown, but its an interesting overall set of figures.

I wonder if the VED changes in 2017 will stay as announced as matters become clear with the Car Manufactures Official EU Testing and Emissions.

& if the First MOT's for new cars is going to still be after 4 Years from Registration as announced.

That would have New cars in 2017 & later not first MOT tested in the UK until 2020 and later by then Euro 7 Emissions will be coming in.

 

Rethink maybe required by George Osborne and Advisers as to UK MOTS & how they are being done,

and emission testing at the Stations.

Maybe the Equipment should be paid for by the UK Government as the UK Government & the Tax Payers have to pay the Fines 

when the UK does not meet the targets to reduce air pollution in the UK.

 

Maybe the time is the Pre Budget Announcement this year to announce changes from April 2016 for Business users getting replacement cars in this next Tax Year to stop giving Tax Incentives to Business Users to lease bigger cars than required for Business use because really they just want 

a Prestige Car using the excuse of Company use as a means of having it for personal use.

http://carwow.co.uk/news/ved-road-tax-from-2017-0182-2060

The biggest joke is motorbike tax.

Based on engine size rather than emissions. A bike barely if at all damages the road so why should it be taxed?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The biggest joke is motorbike tax.

Based on engine size rather than emissions. A bike barely if at all damages the road so why should it be taxed?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Because you still rely on them being built, lit and maintained.

 

I also find the idea of a 4 year MOT ridiculous. I've seen cars younger than the current 3 years with bald tyres. 

Because you still rely on them being built, lit and maintained.

I also find the idea of a 4 year MOT ridiculous. I've seen cars younger than the current 3 years with bald tyres.

Okay fine. But why should I pay more for my bike tax than my partner does her car ???! Makes no sense.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, that's not particularly balanced. I'm of the opinion it should be scrapped and just added to fuel. The largest consumers pay the most and foreign cars will have to chip in too.

The largest consumers pay the most and foreign cars will have to chip in too.

It'll be far 'better' for the environment too, as if I'm paying £140 a year for the use of my car on the roads, I'm going to use it. If the cost is on fuel use, I might walk or cycle . . .

Hell, why not add 3rd party insurance to fuel costs too? Then everyone is insured for damage they may cause to others (risk linked to being on the road, excess payable to the state to stop you intentionally crashing into the tit that cut you up). It'll cut down the comprehensive premium, and add another incentive not to take the car.

Better for the environment and the government gets a share of the fortune made by the insurance companies.

'FIRST UK MOT after 4 Years from first registration'.

?

Any news on this, any further on when it will be introduced or is the idea shelved now?