Sadiq Khan considering charging drivers £3.50 to enter Greater London - but cycling commissioner denies possible scrapping of Santander Cycles

iandusud wrote:

Motoring is still far too cheap. It needs to be more heavily taxed

Can't really think of a more infuriating comment. This charge will be on top of the existing congestion charge. Charging people to sit in a traffic jam, thats a marvellous idea but not an actual solution. Brunel didn't build bridges by taxing bricks and steel.

A better idea would be to limit the number of tests being taken for car licenses. Priority given to those with certain needs or special circumstances. The way I see it is the roads are like a glass of water. When the glass becomes full you turn off the tap. The government won't turn off that tap because they make too much money off the spillage. Everyone else suffers and no real progress is made.

You could make driving ever more expensive but most won't consider that an acceptable solution. How about a solution that doesn't rape the pockets of the motorist or increase their stress and anger even more? That would benefit us as cyclists as well.

Solutions, not more fuckin taxes.

Titanus wrote:

iandusud wrote:

Motoring is still far too cheap. It needs to be more heavily taxed

Can't really think of a more infuriating comment. This charge will be on top of the existing congestion charge. Charging people to sit in a traffic jam, thats a marvellous idea but not an actual solution. Brunel didn't build bridges by taxing bricks and steel.

A better idea would be to limit the number of tests being taken for car licenses. Priority given to those with certain needs or special circumstances. The way I see it is the roads are like a glass of water. When the glass becomes full you turn off the tap. The government won't turn off that tap because they make too much money off the spillage. Everyone else suffers and no real progress is made.

You could make driving ever more expensive but most won't consider that an acceptable solution. How about a solution that doesn't rape the pockets of the motorist or increase their stress and anger even more? That would benefit us as cyclists as well.

Solutions, not more fuckin taxes.

apart from the remark about being charged for being subjected to traffic rather than causing traffic. A lot I agree with.

e.g. building more runway capacity while levying environmental charges on air fares. It's more simple stop increasing capacity for air travel if you want to cut emissions.

But motorists are being subsidised by non-motorists. Why should those who choose not to drive or can't afford to in the first place subsidise those who do and at the same time polute the air we breath, contribute to global warming etc?

When I look at the unnecessary use of cars - e.g. short, unladen trips by able-bodied people over level ground,  I think it's a bit "rich" to say the Cost of motoring is too high.  Greater taxation recognises all the unseen costs that arises from car use. 

interesting idea, but I think you'd need a per trip algorithm in which you have to apply for your bit of road space - you might be a country GP or community nurse one day with your rounds to make, but the next you're off to the seaside. This could be a way of preventing congestion on popular routes and times when we're all using self-driving Google cars.

but we're now a nation of chancers and that's what people will want to do.   Someone will always find fault in the rules. 
 

Before my wife and I took the decision to go carless I had been advocating for years for duty on petrol and diesel fuel to go up considerably, with the proviso that the extra funds raised were invested in public transport and active travel infrastructure. This would have multiple positive effects. It would discourage unnecessary journeys, as the cost per mile would increase. It would encourage use of active travel and public transport. The bigest poluters would pay more. It would encourage car owners to replace their cars with electric ones, or more fuel efficient ones. I would have been happy to pay double the current rate of fuel duty (and we live on a very modest income). I'm thoroughly aware of the need for personal motorised transport for many people but so many journeys are unnecessary and the cost to the user of motoring doesn't reflect the cost to society. As things stand the biggest cost of private motoring are the cost of the car (either cash or credit repayment), depreciation, insurance, servicing and RFL. Once you've paid for that lot the cost of the fuel is minimal, which is why people don't seem to worry about buying SUVs so that they can look trendy, rather the more sensible and economical counterparts. 

Chris Hayes wrote:

...that's what we need in this country, more divisive issues.  We just don't have enough...

Yes, let's not institute desperately needed measures because some people might not agree with them, that'll allow us to progress!

This is progress? It's designed to raise revenues only. If it was to deter certain activities it would be a meaningful sum, not a bus-fare. 

Chris Hayes wrote:

This is progress? It's designed to raise revenues only. If it was to deter certain activities it would be a meaningful sum, not a bus-fare. 

A) Revenue that will be spent on public transportation including cycling infrastructure, B) did you read the bit where it is predicted to cut incoming cars by 10-15%? I'd call that progress.

Chris Hayes wrote:

This is progress? It's designed to raise revenues only. If it was to deter certain activities it would be a meaningful sum, not a bus-fare. 

Raising revenues isn't a problem. It's a necessity....

Chris Hayes wrote:

This is progress? It's designed to raise revenues only. If it was to deter certain activities it would be a meaningful sum, not a bus-fare. 

And yet small sums of money can be an effective way to change people's behaviour - just look at how charging 5p for supermarket plastic bags has made a substantial change to most people's habits.

Also, making it a similar price to a bus fare may just make people think "why don't I just get a bus instead?"

Its ok I believe Farage is aready on it .

He'll be hoping its another divisive issue he can use to screw the country.

I reckon a few people still would. That's how bad inequality is at the moment.

You know, it's almost as if he doesn't know how roads are funded...

alexls wrote:

You know, it's almost as if he doesn't know how roads are funded...

Or worse than that, he knows but he doesn't care about perpetuating the misunderstanding that VED actually covers the cost of maintaining and building roads.

Yep. 

If it was a good idea it would be one of his few. 

From this distance he seems a heartless little man who cares nothing about the terrible crime or Islamic terrorism (playing it down) in London / Europe. 

Having cycled a few times in London it feels like the rest of us are subsidising their road maintenance. They aren't literally paved with gold, but they might as well be. I have not been anywhere else in this country that has such consistently smooth surfaces and so few potholes.

No problem with him charging outsiders to drive in though. You would have to be mad to do so when the traffic speeds are miniscule and the public transport both to and around the city is amazingly good. Definitely a better option for Londoners and visitors than cutting the hire bikes, which are awesome.

Never cycled in Wales?
Empty roads, great surfaces, fantastic scenery. I love it.

I'm seriously considering moving there.

I'm getting pretty sick of the state of the roads around Cardiff.

Central London perhaps, but outer London has some of the worst maintained roads in the country that are dangerous to cycling and even walking in some cases.

Bhachgen wrote:

Having cycled a few times in London it feels like the rest of us are subsidising their road maintenance. They aren't literally paved with gold, but they might as well be. I have not been anywhere else in this country that has such consistently smooth surfaces and so few potholes.

Don't know where you rode mate, I ride thousands of miles in London every year and the area around Parliament and Buck House and a few parts of Belgravia/Mayfair fit that description, elsewhere the condition of a lot of the roads is shocking, e.g. Strand, Tottenham Court Road, Edgware Road and many other major thoroughfares. They're so heavily used, especially by HGVs, that even after they've been freshly resurfaced they're shocking again within a few weeks. Also, road maintenance comes out of the local council budget (apart from TfL roads), so you're not subbing us, we pay for them in our council tax!

wycombewheeler wrote:

It is not fair on London that our drivers should subsidise the rest of the country’s roads and get nothing in return.

Do Londoners never drive outside of London? Do they never receive deliveries that have arrived by road from any number of locations throughout the UK?

Titanus wrote:

wycombewheeler wrote:

It is not fair on London that our drivers should subsidise the rest of the country’s roads and get nothing in return.

Do Londoners never drive outside of London? Do they never receive deliveries that have arrived by road from any number of locations throughout the UK?

 

Not sure why you are quoting me, when I am directly quoting the mayor of London from the article above. It's not a view I agree with, any more than the view that drivers pay for roads.

Since my VED is £30 p.a. for a two tonne estate car, and other cards are VED exempt I don't see that this in any way pays for preferential use of the roads.