'Road tax' is coming... but not for cyclists

Absolute rubbish. Vehicles are no more a cause of obesity than roads are a cause of vehicle accidents.

Obesity is usually caused by people being lazy, and accidents are usually caused by negligence.

On vehicles harming health, nothing could be further from the truth. Since cars came into existence, life expectancy has increased in every country. It's obvious why, cars are one of the primary engines of economic growth and prosperity. Without it, society wouldn't have today's remarkable health outcomes.

Rakia wrote:

Since cars came into existence, life expectancy has increased in every country. It's obvious why, cars are one of the primary engines of economic growth and prosperity. Without it, society wouldn't have today's remarkable health outcomes.

This is why you should be turfed from this site for obvious trolling (as you have been so many times in the past). Nobody could actually genuinely be that stupid and still be above ground.

Of course! Increases in life expectancy certainly isn't due to increased prosperity, the most peaceful period in history, and modern medicine! Oh no, it's because of... *Checks notes* the cancer-causing, fossil-fuel-burning, internal combustion engine. I think that being able to report misinformation on sites like this (so it can be duly removed) should be a legal requirement.

"Since cars came into existence, life expectancy has increased in every country."

So it's cars, not medicine, improved sanitation, an increase in living stanards, decrease in multinational wars, reduction in smoking, increase in activity, pensions, welfare support...that has lead to increased life expectancy?
Well I might as well give up work and just drive all day long.

Do you deliberatly post complete crap?

"the motorist is treated as a simple cash cow for the treasury" Yet more wisdom. Yet so wrong.

And if anyone is so stupid to believe that it has not come back down in price, then on the price on the giant lit up board, just outside my flat, which had read £1.90 and is now down to £1.60 and has been for several weeks.

Even a child knows this.

https://www.racfoundation.org/data/uk-pump-prices-over-time

You're welcome.

That chart shows that petrol today is an average price of £1.64 a litre down from £1.90 in July, so absolutely exactly what ktache said.

Taking about people who couldn't "genuinely be that stupid and still be above ground", here's Rendel Harris pretending that 165p a litre means petrol has "come back down" to pre-pandemic levels of circa 122p a litre.

If you're going to keep trolling, at least put some effort in son

Nigel Garrage wrote:

Taking about people who couldn't "genuinely be that stupid and still be above ground", here's Rendel Harris pretending that 165p a litre means petrol has "come back down" to pre-pandemic levels of circa 122p a litre. If you're going to keep trolling, at least put some effort in son

I didn't say that Nigel, so you're either, again, very, very stupid or being a lying troll. I suspect a mixture of the two.

You get less like the intelligent person you claim to be and more like a slightly sad Walter Mitty every time you post.

You now resort to mixing up 3 previous posts from 3 different posters and quoting the bastardised result as if it was a direct quote from Rendel. How sad you must be.

So let's rewind:

Ktache states: "When petrol came back down in price why wasn't the tax decrease put back on?"

I state: "Petrol prices haven't come back down" and produce evidence to show this to be factually correct.

Rendel Harris then trolls: "That chart shows that petrol today is an average price of £1.64 a litre down from £1.90 in July, so absolutely exactly what ktache said."

I then outed his trolling by pointing out petrol was formerly 122p a litre. You will note that he took on ktache's false assertion with his claim.

You (who has previously claimed to act with courtesy and decorum) then rudely and falsely accuse me of being a "slightly sad Walter Mitty", despite me pointing out incontrovertible facts.
Ad hominem attacks are not only crude, but are prima facie evidence of someone who has no intellectual argument.

Let's rewind. You quoted something that wasn't said by the person you attributed it to, whether or not that was what he intended. That's bad form.

On the other point, I immediately apologised for offending you with a typo. You ignored the apology and questioned my intelligence. Sorry but that's declaring open season for me to pick up on every single falsehood or mistake you post. Happy to call it quits, all you need to do is stop with the snide remarks about other people's education. Your call.

Expecting who has had multiple usernames and multiple bans to be reasonable is well, unreasonable.

What do you hope to achieve?

On reflection, I think I simply allowed myself to be wound up by someone who doesn't know the first thing about me making slurs about what he perceives to be my standard of education and my intelligence. Perhaps he hit a weak point, perhaps I like to make my own mind up about someone rather than just accept what others say about them, perhaps I was just naive but to me it's pretty telling that having given him several opportunities to engage constructively there has been absolutely no response to either of those offers and no change in his tone where he continues to attack what he sees as my low level of intelligence. He clearly has no interest in reasoned debate, can't accept that anyone could hold a valid opinion that differs from his world view and continues to try to enforce a view that I am intellectually lacking whilst he is innately superior. I see enough people like that on TV everyday, with politicians of all sides and almost all nationalities preferring to proclaim their polarised ideological credentials rather than work to solve the many and varied challenges we face. I don't need to interact with any more of them on here. Time to simply ignore his ilk. Those willing to engage constructively, even if they hold polar opposite views to me on the topic under discussion will probably still be engaged with as normal.

No, you are wrong

the tax cut brought in earlier this year is what was being talked about.  Not prepandemic costs of fuel. 
 

fuel costs are back down from their peak, which was what the tax cut was meant to alleviate. As the price has dropped the tax cut shoukd be reversed. 
 

oh, and piss of Nige. 

Votes.

Wait until next week .

I'd perhaps predict an increase for next year onwards. It will help emissions going forward, so could be a green flag to wave.

Surely the problem is that VED has been changed for new cars not the old ones. So my son's old 59 plate diesel focus was still only £30.

thats a tricky one because of needing to factor in the "paid for" costs of production.

I'd certainly like to see some way of making the equivalent electric model thousands cheaper than the ICE model.  We need to aggressively drive people away from new ICE cars that will still be on the road in 2030.

Tricky one that. I'd support increases in line with inflation, but I see the argument around that rates should be changed significantly (especially for diesels). The problem I have with that is that people buy new cars based on the information available at the time. There was a massive push to buy diesels because they were thought to be significantly better for the environment. We now know of course that's BS, but I don't think that well intentioned people should be punished.

Diesel is worse than petrol for local air quality, causing respiratory diseases. But petrol is worse for CO2, which is making the planet uninhabitable for humans. Opinions vary about which is worse.

There are precedents for changing the treatment of cars after good-faith purchase, with ULEZs etc, and it tends to be poorer people with older vehicles who are affected. Edinburgh is planning to ban most pre 2006 petrol cars. Whether that will make any significant difference in return for the problems it will cause poorer people is unknown.