By Gemma Simpson, 6 December 2006 15:40
NEWS
Plans for a 'pay-as-you-drive' road tax scheme, which a government-backed report claims would raise £28bn, have been given a furious reception by silicon.com's readers.
Cries of "stealth tax", "highway robbery" and "goodbye civil liberties, hello big brother" sounded from nearly all readers.
Got two seconds?
Make your voice heard - take our latest poll.
Many pointed out that the fuel tax already provides a way to tax drivers per mile.
Others suggested the scheme wasn't really about taxes. IT worker John H Woods said: "This is not about taxation ... it's about surveillance."
Woods added: "Although fuel tax is a perfectly efficient way of taxing driving, it doesn't allow you, as a government, to know exactly where all your citizens are 24 hours a day."
One reader complained citizens need greater assurance the tax they're already paying will be put to good use. Rosaleen McCarthy, an academic from Cambridge, said: "Road tax and petrol tax already mean that driving is heavily penalised. We need a sensible fraction of this taxation to fund road engineering and joined-up public transport - not another (doomed?) government IT initiative."
Many readers complained about the cost of the scheme and were sceptical it would provide any benefit to road-users. John in Hampshire said the scheme "will cost us, the tax payers, billions of pounds over the coming decades".
He added: "And we will still be sitting in our cars getting nowhere fast."
The daily commute may be one of the main causes of congestion but an anonymous IT manager from Letchworth pointed out that the new road charges would have no affect on this. "This whole concept is based on a faulty premise: that people travel in their cars by choice at rush hour," he said.
A lone positive note came from Peter Shearman, a programme executive from London, who said we should all be more open-minded about this "fundamentally fairer and more progressive policy" that will cut emissions and congestion.
Comments
There are 32 comments. Join the discussion
1. anonymous
It's all very well claiming to be 'progressive' and hailing it as a good idea if you live in a city with very good (but heavily oversubscribed) public transport.
For a journey that currently takes 30 mins by car, most people would find this journey (one way!) takes 1.5hrs to 2hrs if they had to use a combination of buses, trains and walking.
What's the alternative -- everyone lives in cities, and we just pave the countryside perhaps?
Cars remain the only viable alternative for most of us in the UK. I'm all for enforcing much tighter fuel efficiency, but forcing most people to pay more of their currently disposable income on road tax to pay our PC-mad government to fund some other half-brained stealth-tax nightmare cash thirsty department scares the hell out of me.
2. anonymous
The irony of the story is that it was announced within a short time period of the news that rail fares are going to increase on some routes by 7%, potentially forcing rail commuters to their cars. Charging road travel to reduce congestion? It seems as though it will still be the cheaper option rather than to travel by rail.
3. anonymous
Why is it that the British public who employ the MPs & civil servants put up with their flawed proposals that have no valid justification or Business case. The Road Tax is not going to affect the rich whats a few extra hundred pounds a year to them - it will affect the majority of the British public and thereby generate billions to pay for the Iraq war, NHS cash shortages, MPs extra huge pay raise etc and never the ROADS ! as they keep saying will pay for Roads but never mention which ones and where !
Ps. Watch out The spin doctors are in town again !
4. anonymous
The idea of further taxation on carbon does not address the real need to curb carbon based emissions.
To be effective
1) all power (electricity) generation should swtch to nuclear. Full stop.
2) The government should encourage us away from gas fired domestic heating.
3) The governemt should set a cap on tonnes of CO2 emission per year (reducing year by year). Each individual and business and any fuel using entity that touches UK soil or air space should have a carbon / CO2 budget. This budget would be consumed by our activities day to day (a car trip to the supermarket would consume x units, a short haul flight would consume xx units etc)
This is one sure way of redcucing emissions rather than choosing to pay to emit.
5. Steven Lay
My journey to work is around 70 miles each way. This is due to house prices. If this plan was to go ahead I would not be able to afford to go to work. If the government want to ease congestion then this would work as people like myself would not be able to afford to drive anywhere during rush hours. As for the economy, putting people out of work is never a good idea. If the government truly wish to ease congestion then surly the answer has got to lie with satellite navigation. If the government were to partner up with the right manufacturer and include systems with car tax at an additional £30.00 per year then all car owners would have one. With all road users destinations programmed in the system could direct all traffic in the most efficient way.
6. anonymous
The initiative, I'm informed will free up the roads and boost the economy whilst giving the govt some green kudos.
I'm sure no-one's daft enough to think this is anything but another raft of taxes and as one person commented it definitley has the hallmark of a big brother exercise to see where we all are.
The reality is, if I don't use my car I have to try and travel to various locations by infrequent or non-existant bus or train services.
My running costs will rise and the poorly run public transport companies will be the main beneficiaries - Oh and more tax for the govt.
As I become less effective, my Productivity will go down as will millions of others who are also forced to suffer delayed / postponed journeys.Therefore no boost to the economy.
Millions will choose to retire 'sick' as the stress of trying to get somewhere cripples their mind & body.
For the green debate, the focus should be on root cause analysis and the focus should be on the 'quick and easy' things we can do, such as better incentives for small fuel efficient cars and better insulation of all buildings.
A tax on mileage is worse than the poll tax and is of benefit to no-one, I just hope the masses are willing to vote with their feet.
7. Richard Butchart
Surely the experience of the congestion charges in London and Durham show that commuters' behaviour is affected by road pricing and congestion is reduced. Fuel tax does not charge drivers for the congestion affects. It applies equally more or less whether you want to drive on a congested road in the south east or a deserted road in the Scottish Highlands. Why do the French accept payment for using their motorways while Brits think they have a right to the free use of these facilities. I am fully in favour of road pricing.
8. Sebastian Phillips
Im all for cutting down on the number of cars on the road but unless we have reliable, frequent and cheap public transport in place it will never happen.
This idea about road pricing is also another smoke screen by this govenment to impose control on it's citizens. The cheap and dirty way to introduce road pricing is just increase the duty on fuel. Those that sit in cues, do more miles or drive gas guzzlers pay more. Easy. No need to spend billions on tracking equipment. Give me the job as minister for transport.
The big problem with road pricing is that those with company cars will probably be able to claim the majority back against expenses.
Those with gas guzzlers can probably afford to pay the extra duty.
9. Ivan Michaelovitch
I remember hearing that there'd been changes in the driving test since my day. I hadn't realised until I read this article that the changes involve a requirement to have an A Level in whinging before you get your license. I mean, far 'kinnel, have you _ever_ heard such a whinefest?
<whine> Tony will know where I am</whine> (actually Tony couldn't give a toss , you're not important enough); <whine>I'll have to pay more...</whine>Possibly; possibly not doesn't it make sense that use more pays more? <whine> it's political correctness gone mad</whine> Copyright 1856 the Tory Party, still used as a relex vocal noise whenever anyone less right wing than Hitler suggests anything at all, like tax reform or a cup of tea.
Come on guys, use some intelligence here, we're technologists. If these are the 'best' of reader comments the sub-editor must have needed a whine filter to read the worst. I for one would welcome the opportunity to control how much I paid according to when and where I drive. It gives me _more_ choice, not less, I won't necessarily be paying for the roads I'm not drving on; I won't be paying when I'm out of the country on holiday; I won't pay so much when I'm driving off-peak.
Road pricing isn't a stupid suggestion, I know advanced whining is beaten into all modern drivers but why not try growing up a little, calming down, keep teddy in the car and apply some intelligence. We're a clever group of people (ostensibly) why not think about how such a system could work in practice and get with suggesting refinements and improvements? Or is it easier to whine all day and blame Tony? Some people really do get the government thaty deserve.
10. anonymous
This government has lost the plot! Our goods are slightly less competitive on the world market because, as an island we carry slightly higher transportation costs. This tax will make us less competitive. eventually find its way into end prices. The government will not invest in improved infrastucture, it will spend it all on existing cost centres (mostly NHS and pensions for public employees) further reducing our competitive position. This tax is the road to ruin.
11. anonymous
Maybe I am being naive, but fom my driving experience during the rush hour, if they put a blanket parking ban on all roads within a 2 mile radius of schools between the hours of, say 08:00 to 09:30 and 15:00 to 16:30 and rigorously enforced it (obviously local residents would be allowed to park outside their own houses) it would resolve one of the biggest problems - the dreaded school run.
It would have the knock on effect of making children walk or cycle to school and also possibly help the parents of such children keep that little bit fitter.
The argument that parents need to get to work really holds no sway in these days of flexible working hours and surely the children's health should come before any other considerations. So maybe the parents would have to walk as well. My wife and I did and it never seemed to cause us that many problems.
12. Richard Davies
The government privates public services such as buses etc. which then see's fares go through the roof. We already pay enough tax. Also, what about the fact the government literally lets anyone into the country and then probably lets them lose on the roads (if we're that congested...close the borders). If we have congested roads its not the publics fault. The government are just having knee jerk reactions which shows them up as the idiots I always thought they were.
The government cannot be serious about the issue otherwise they would take more proactive steps rather than simply slapping the public with another tax we really cannot afford and shouldn't have to.
Its there answer to everything...TAX them and then TAX them some more...that'll do the trick!
13. Eric
Why do the French accept payment for using their motorways while Brits think they have a right to the free use of these facilities.
The French motorways were built using private money, the British motorways using public funds, so we would effectively be paying twice.
There is a need to control emissions and taxation is the obvious way. But it could be done in a more logical way. Based on horsepower and location. A farmer can justify a heavy 4 wheel drive vehicle, but a Chelsea farmer's wife does not need one to take her kids to school. Charge for the privilege. A Rolls Royce is a status symbol, so give them a gold plated tax disk- at £10,000 per annum- they should be able to afford it. And so called "green" cars such as electric vehicles should have the carbon emissions of the power stations factored in.
14. BillK
Do commuters enjoy congestion? No. The point is that sitting in traffic jams for an hour every morning and evening is still the best option available to them. They are warm and comfortable, listening to music or news, eating snacks, drinking lemonade, chatting to friends in privacy, etc. And even with the jams it is still quicker, cheaper and a million times more comfortable than the public transport options.
Huge improvements in public transport are needed. Have these politicians ever been on a rush-hour cattle-truck train?
Increasing road taxes will only make poor people even poorer.
15. Richard Barber
There is a lot of PR spin regarding 'green' - the government talks abouts taxing 4X4's (which are a tiny percentage of the vehicle parc) but actually means more tax for any vehicle larger than a supermini with a small engine. Cars contribute 20% of the greenhouse gases - there are in fact big wins to be had elsewhere in controlling emissions but curiously (since they aren't tax raising opportunities) the government is less inclined to deal with them.
The main reason I can see for tracking vehicles (other than paranoia) is for variable charging - ie depending on time of day or route. This will be an attempt to modify our behaviour but of course history is full of unintended outcomes when governments try to meddle in behaviour.
Improved, joined up public transport will also have little effect in practice. Holland is a comparatively small country with one of the best integrated transport systems in the world - just try visitng Amsterdam and see the daily traffic jams!
16. BillK
Variable congestion charging by time of day and choice of road is all well and good. And we can expect to receive bills stating that we used the M25 between junctions x and y at 8 am on 07/12/06. But the cameras will not be switched off outside of rush hours. It is a trivial computer enhancement to add a simple calculation. Dear Sir, This means that between junctions x and y, your average speed was 76 mph. Please send £100 speeding fine with your congestion charge payment.
17. anonymous
A lot of people i know drive old large cars, that are uneconomical on fuel compaired to new cars, not out of choice but out of necessity due to the fact they can not afford to spend £10K on a new small car.
On the 4x4 front this is another flawed argument to try and please the critics (although I do admit that using a Range Rover or Toyota Landcruser to drive to work or take the kids to school is pointless and waste of money). I have a 1963 Landrover that in it's long life has produced less polution than a Toyota Prius that has not yet left the showroom. No it is not my daily runaround.
18. anonymous
I am a Cheshire based businessman and I'm required to be in London on a fairly frequent basis.
Public transport cost approx £160 for a return trip, going by car, including congestion charge, equates to about £80 max. Even tough the trip takes longer I prefer to go by car when possbile.
If I choose to drive a less economical car then I will pay the price in added fuel and related tax anyway ... this lot have lost the plot on this one!!
19. Dave Manford
How about a novel suggestion, In some middle sized town somewhere try turning off the majority of traffic lights for a week! See what happens. On a couple of occasions where lights in parts of our town have failed the queues have vanished.
20. Andy Robb
I already travel after 09:00 and 19:00 but the roads are still congested. Yesterday I left later at 09:30 and much of Hove was in gridlock. At 10:30 this morning there were still speed restrictions on the M27 - not uncommon. Where can rush-hour traffic go?
Practically everyone who can travel earlier or later is probably already doing so.
We need tax incentives to industry for married couples to work in the same place and hours. Anything to promote car sharing.
How about dropping house stamp duty for people moving close to work? - i.e. eliminate the commute.
How about dropping stamp duty altogether - to allow people to move with their jobs without a facing a crippling penalty!
21. Robert Privett
We are taxed on fuel, we are taxed for using our vehicles now they propose to tax us for moving in our vehicles, all the while saying we should use public transport that is overcrowded and over loaded. If this money was spent on a public transport system every one would benifit or would the new transport system be for the people moving from cars to public transport? This transport system should be in place before any road charges are levied and the amount should be instead of fuel duty.
22. anonymous
I don't have any more problem with the road taxes than I have with the lying, cheating, self-interested government that the UK has had for years. As I am approaching retirement, my simple solution is to plan to leave the U.K., as many other British have before, having had enough of the greedy politicians and M.P.'s. Then Mr. Blair can tax his own cronies to the hilt if he likes.
23. Chris Goodman
It will be a very expensive capital outlay to achieve a declared purpose that can be done much simpler through existing mechanisms. As a public waste it can be compared to the exorbitantly expensive installation of gantries and cable ducting in progress along our motorways with the declared aim of providing traffic information and warning of holdups. The cost of this could have been used to eradicate just about all the "black" spots.
The government can not understand that every £ that is extracted from citizens is a £ lost to the economy.
24. anonymous
No room on the roads? Not enough houses? Too much pollution? We're all looking at the wrong side of the equation. When will someone have the courage to admit that there are TOO MANY PEOPLE.
25. Rod Sheaff
Fellow-motorists, face up to it: the main point of pay-per-mile is to reduce car use on UK roads. (Not primarily a government plot to rob our money or reduce our civil liberties - they have other ways to do that.)
In the UK there are simply too many cars (= too many cars for the amount of road space available + already too much road space for the amount of town land and in a few places even for the amount of rural land available.) Then we have global warming on the way.
Like any other motorist I don't like paying more for my travel to work. But even I can see it's time for road charging and in some places a road closure programme. If road-charging makes the Treasury money, I think it should *all* be used for strengthening public transport.
26. Stephen
Where does the government think the cars will go if they try and avoid the charges? Side roads which are not able to cope or stay at home and claim unemployment benenfit? Neither, they will just have to pay up. So it's just another way of taxing us!
27. Stephen
Tax incentives? No can't do that. That would LESS tax and therefore less money for Gordon to give away to good courses, (Like the 100K to Iraq, who happen to have much, much MUCH more oil than we do)
28. Paul
Pay extra to let the Government organise sat-nav..... Are you kidding? It's their replacement of roundabouts with traffic lights that causes the majority of our problems now! To think that we pay these twits makes my blood boil. The congestion pricing idea has been debated for over 15 years and proven to be unworkable time and again. Nevertheless these MPs still suggest you use a sledgehammer to shoot yourself in the foot. But we shouldn't be too surprised because the same fools employ a pedestrian to spend public money organising London's traffic control in a singularly undemocratic manner i.e. Ken Livingstone.
29. MikeW
Surely congestion is the required self-limiting negative feedback - making the roads clear by whatever means makes that unnecessary journey easier.
Where there is an undisputed alternative. such as in London (I believe public transport has still not been deregulated there ...) then charging for a fee for access does not seem a bad idea.
Much motorway 'congestion' arises simply from people driving too fast and too close to the previous vehicle, as trasffic flow studies have shown. A greater throughput arises if a subcritical vehicle density is maintained.
30. Batfink
The only difference between this and the Poll tax is that the 'green' excuse means people are more likely to fall for it, and less likely to riot and kick the government out. NB: I'm not suggesting that global warming is not happening, I'm suggesting that the data is skewed and that there is little real evidence that humans are causing it - but don't let that get in the way of a control-freaky surveillance society and more taxes though!!!
31. anonymous
What a load of rubbish this plan is to tax people per mile on the roads. What is wrong with the current system of taxing fuel? My husband has to visit places and drives 500 miloes a week sometimes getting from place to place. He can only do his job effectively if he uses his car and will have to continue to do so. Companies will have to foot the bill and that will lead to a rise in prices of goods and services leading to a rise in inflation. Meanwhile, Aunty Betty won't be able to afford to travel to be with the long distance family at Christmas anymore as she won't be able to afford the tax on her meagre pension! Once again, it is the poor who will suffer whilst the rich just carry on as before. This government ought to be thoroughly ashamed of itself for the way it is making poor people even more so!
32. anonymous
The fact that motorists pay nearly £30 Billion in taxes (every year) yet hardly any new roads have been built in the last 30 years is probably the biggest scandal of the century. To say "we can't stop building ourselves out of trouble" is very very ignorant. It seems we haven't even started. Almost all other developed EU countries have more motorway per person, and somehow manage to do this with less land and money than we do.
If you think about the plan it is flawed anyway, the [tax neutral] plan expects to raise an EXTRA £20-£30 Billion, and it seems that it would be raised from the high charge for congested roads. So when everyone stops using these roads (as is the plan) then traffic will be free flowing again, and the revenue will fall away because there will be no CON-gestion?
The extra money that is needed to prop up the creaking public transport will fall away, the service will crumble under the 5 or 10 million extra users and hey presto everyone will have to use the roads again, then the cycle will start again albeit without any sort of alternative transportation system.
Well done Labour.
P.S. Join the ABD, the only organisation that supports the motorist.
http://www.abd.org.uk/