By Gemma Simpson, 16 February 2007 16:10
NEWS
silicon.com readers have asked the government to increase fuel tax and ditch the proposed 'pay as you drive' road charge in response to a popular e-petition against the road tax.
The anti-road-charge petition racked up 750,000 signatures last week, amid rumours - denied by Downing Street - that the government would banish the road-charging scheme if the petition got three-quarters of a million signatures.
The e-petition proved so popular it briefly brought down the 10 Downing Street website it was hosted on. The site crashed on Tuesday as the number of signatures hit 1.3 million.
News of the petition, which currently has 1.5 million signatures and runs til 20 February, got silicon.com readers writing in in droves.
Paul, a reader from Cheshire, represented many readers' opinion of the road tax, saying: "Surely the same thing could be achieved far more simply and cheaply by increasing petrol tax?"
He added: "I feel it's an over-complicated and inelegant solution to the problem, not to mention the privacy implications."
Another reader questioned the need for GPS - which is used to track a vehicle's movement and help calculate the amount of tax to be paid based on how far a driver has gone - and claimed the only purpose of having GPS is so the government can catch people breaking the speed limit.
How much for wifi?
Show your support for our Fair Wi-fi campaign. Please sign our petition now
One reader doubted the e-petition would help quash the tax, saying: "Knowing how wonderful they [the government] are at spin, they will see it as an endorsement that ONLY 1.3 million people signed the petition compared with all the people that drive in the UK."
A recurrent complaint about the tax was the lack of an alternative way of getting around - and public transport was criticised for being unable to get people where they need to go at a reasonable price.
One reader said: "We have by far the most expensive public transport system in the world.
"Years of pompous complacency by the British public who will, it seems, put up with appalling service and high prices have left many of us with no practical alternative to using a car."
Other readers pointed out disabled drivers were unable to use or even get on most modes of public transport - and doubted whether MPs would happily hop on a bus instead of using their cars.
Comments
There are 50 comments. Join the discussion
1. Karen Challinor
"Knowing how wonderful they [the government] are at spin, they will see it as an endorsement that ONLY 1.3 million people signed the petition compared with all the people that drive in the UK."
Given that the population of the UK is roughly 6 million and about 1.5 million have now said that don't want this measure thats approximately 25% of the population saying no
in the last election only about 20% of the population voted labour
so more people have said "no" than actually voted for labour at the last election
if I were tony I'd be very careful about spinning this in any way if he wants his party to stand any chance at the next election
labour can't really afford to ignore this
2. anonymous
Sir, this "road tax" scheme is another bumbling handling of the government to get more money for nothing.
What should be done is scrapping the road tax as it is and charge people for the miles they drive.
You do not need any satellites for that, or camera's for that matter.
The police should be used for upholding the law and nothing else.
This will only hit the people who are already on the verge.
3. Dave Reynolds
The idea behind a Road Tax is to charge people for using the busiest roads, and/or where there are alternative public transport systems, such as those in London, Manchester, Birmingham, etc. If you simply charge per mile, the simplest approach is to increase Fuel Tax, (haven't we been there before), but this penalises the rural communities, and increases the burden on essential services. It seems to me that a targeted Road Tax system is better than a blanket Fuel Tax.
4. anonymous
I'm on the Norwich Union Pay as you Drive Insurance scheme and I know that the amount of data generated by just me is huge. I really can't see this government being able to successfully generate the required paperwork to bill however many millions of drivers on a monthly basis without going into complete meltdown. They haven't managed to get anything else right so what makes them think they could cope with such a huge task.
If they must price us off the road, increased petrol tax is the only way they could manage it.
5. anonymous
Karen Challinor needs to check her figures! UK population is more like 60 million!
6. Richard Rothwell
Why not reduce the motorway speed limit - oh and enforce it...
Reducing the motorway speed limit to 55 or 60 mph would:
* reduce fuel consumption by approximately 10-15%
* increase the capacity of the motorways
* reduce accidents
OK - so I don't expect it to be popular with those who have bought expensive fast cars.
7. Ian Jackson
This is only a new source of revenue for Gordon and Tony. Motorists are just an easy mark.
If they really want to reduce congestion why don't they tackle the 10-15% of motorists that do not have insurance. Get them off the road and a lot of congestion would dissapear.
8. Jeremy Perkins
Silicon.com readers asking for fuel tax to be raised are missing the point.
The whole point of road charging is that people using busy roads at busy times pay more than people using quiet roads at quiet times. Fuel tax does not allow this, which is why it is a tax rather than a serious attempt to tackle congestion. Note also that with road charging you are immediately aware that you are incurring a hefty charge for driving at busy times, which adds to the deterrent effect.
As an aside, it is worth observing that exactly the same applies to the London Congestion Charge - it is in fact a tax rather than a proper congestion charge, which is why traffic has now crept up to almost its original levels.
With the technology background that most silicon.com readers probably have, may I suggest they therefore apply their minds to how the privacy issues of road charging can be addressed.
9. anonymous
You're out by a factor of ten. The population of the UK is just under 60 million.
10. Andy Neale
>>Given that the population of the UK is roughly 6 million<<
Where did you get 6 Million from?
Or is that just London ?
What about the other 54 Million people in the UK?
11. Steve Duffield
What about using the additional tax raised when the fuel is at a high price, to fund improvements in public transport. The Chancellor had bugeted a specific amout of tax rasied by fuel duty for a given amound of fuel price. When fuel hit £1 per litre, the extra renenue raised could have been pumped into funding public transport.
12. anonymous
Putting the "TAX" on petrol will also catch all the road tax dodgers, as they will have to pay the tax if they want to drive.
13. John Wales
An alternative to raising the petrol tax would be to use a higher rate of VAT on fuel.
That way businesses could claim back the VAT paid and have no excuse to raise proces for goods.
14. Ian Sargent
Is Paul from Cheshire one of those who protested against the above inflation increases on the same tax a few years back (when the fuel depots were picketed)?
Until this country has a truly integrated public transport system people will not voluntarily switch from their cars, but they will vote against any party that tries to tax them off the road.
N.B. Karen: the population is 60 million not 6 million.
15. anonymous
Surely this just another cynical bit of piece from Labors bother-boys. Do you want a kick in the nuts or a slap round the face? A tracker in your car or some extortionate petrol?
Suggest the incredulous and the ridiculous seems plausible.
16. anonymous
TAX should be lowered on cleaner fuels or more efficient fuels and cars, possibly no VAT etc if ur car in under the emmsions level. Motorists pay far too much tax and there is no real alternative if you do not live in a big city!
17. Ian Savell
Sorry Karen, there are over 60 million people in the UK, hence all that congestion on the roads. 44 million are registered to vote and 22% of those voted for Tony at the last election, i.e. about 10 million. Tony doesn't have to quake in his boots yet.
However, introducing a flat-rate tax raising £20Bn, and thereby removing a similar amount from progressive taxation such as income tax must count as one of the most anti-socialist measures ever implemented by a government of any political persuasion and the backlash to that is what should shake the Labour party.
18. tim kingham
The problem is that raising the petrol tax would not employ any more bureaucrats and after all the point and only reason for all non VAT/ Income tax is to employ more people, why else would you have stupid taxes like stamp duty, DVLA,TV licences and Rates?
19. Robert Howe
I am a 'grey' who wants to be green, but to get to work, a car journey of 20 miles, I would need to catch two buses zig-zagging across south Hampshire, with a significant walk at both ends and no shelter while waiting to come home. The extra time, fixed once-an-hour schedules, the risk of missed connections and the lack of a guarantee that the scheduled bus is even running are all good reasons to quickly discount my using public transport. As it is, my daughter needs "Dad's taxi service" even though her work is less than 150 yards from the very bus depot that I would need to change at.
20. anonymous
Petrol tax has to be the greener way. The method for collecting it is already in place and has been working for years - it requires no expensive monitoring technology and does not need to record where we have been. An increase in petrol tax would further drive the demand for for cars that use less fuel, encouraging auto manufacturers to increase their development effort in that direction - possibly even including greener SUV's.
For the most heavily congested areas, the future must be in a better public transport system. It can never make sense for vehicles designed to carry four people but which spend most of their time carrying one to make up the bulk of vehicles used in densely populated cities.
21. anonymous
I just do not understand why people who organise their lives to make excessive and greedy use of the road network should not pay directly for such use. I am really most unwilling to subsidise other people's excessive life styles.
Car dependency is a choice for the large majority of people, not something forced upon them
22. Mark Hosey
Sorry Karen, the population is actually 61 million (2006). The number licenced cars on the road was approx 24 million in 1998. Dates are the best I could find with a short search on the internet (Good god, every search returns so much unrelated rubbish these days.......).
However, the number of drivers with access to the internet who have heard about this petition is pretty small I would imagine. I'm sure there would have been many more signing the petition if the Downing street server crash had been reported widely and noisily on TV and radio.
23. Guy Harris
The use of systems such as the London congestion charge at over a 1bn - raising the cost of fuel will be a better solution as it would encourge people to have more economic cars, smaller cars and reduce the distance travelled by car. HOWEVER - as someone who has NO choice other than to drive to work as it is CHEAPER to do this than use the train etc. Public transport should be run at cost - and as such fares could come down by atleast 40%... Integrated policy and thinking is needed here...
24. Peter Shearman
The problem with raising petrol tax is increasing fuel efficiency of engines - the predicted tax revenues from fuel tax in the next 20 years shows a graph with such a steep decline it's like falling off a cliff...
Further, different cars have different fuel use levels. However, the damage done to the roads by car use is effectively the same whether you're in a mini or a mondeo. As road tax is supposed to pay for road maintenance, it is the use of roads, and not petrol, that needs to be taxed.
25. Karen Challinor
My apologies, misplaced the decimal point on my calculator
thank you all for pointing that out
still 2.5% of the population is a fairly solid fraction
26. anonymous
Petrol tax in the UK is one of the highest, if not the highest, in Europe. We also pay and exhorbitant amount for Road Tax that never goes back in to the roads. This is just another way to get more revenue for the government to waste on computer project that don't work, thousands of public sector workers that aren't needed (if the IT projects worked!), and to try and pay for the debt that the Labour Government has got us in. And even if all the drivers in the UK completed the petition the government would ignore us as it will do whatever it wants anyway.
27. anonymous
It strikes me that everyone is missing the point, some politition has been offered a big backhander from some company that wants to increase their revenue by implementing and supporting some expensive hairbrained govournment scheme which is doomed to fail.
Company bills the government a large sum of pounds with several 0 before decimal point, then they administer the scheme, charging us loads of money of which they pass 5% to the govournment. politition gets nice backhander for their retirement fund. We get ripped off!!
If the govournment want to get cars off the road then just improve public transport so it is useable for all people.
On the speed question, what I can not understand is why the car manufactures are allowed to sell cars that are easily capable of exceeding the maximum speed limit of 70mph. If cars had to be restricted in their speed about 80% of motorway users would be greener with no effort at all.
28. Ian Hartas
Heavy traffic = heavy consumption = higher fuel taxes.
Some posters have said that raising tax on fuel will be an unfair load on light users and out-of-town users.
This ignores the fact that those travelling within congested areas will suffer higher fuel consumption figures, due to weight of traffic, hence pay proportionally more tax.
Fuel tax, although loathsome, is the only fair tax.
29. Don Lawrence
Go to New York or Melbourne and find they use Easy Pass or Clear Pass on their roads, both city's host gas guzzelers and low fule prices. They manage, why can't we?
30. Simon
Anonymous from Hitching sounds like one of the trolls in uk.transport newsgroup - smug in his belief that he is so obviously right and everyone else should live like him.
A few facts :
Many people have little or no choice in where they live. The days of a job for life, or at least long term stable employment are over. When you add that to the increased proportion of couples where both partners work, it is no longer practical to simply "live near work". "work" may well move, your "work" may well be in a different place to her "work". Oh yes, and don't forget that if you do move every time work changes, Gordon takes a big slice in tax off you (stamp duty has not kept up with increasing house prices).
Even if you wish to live near work, there are other factors that make it harder. Planning policy for example makes it (at best) strongly discouraged to have any new business in the vicinity of houses (or vice versa) - further putting a nail in the coffin of living in walking distance of the job.
So once you realised that you can't live close to work, it's then a matter fo weighing the options. I'm sure many people assess public transport when looking at houses - but of course, houses that are handy to the train (for example) command a premium, and so a further financial disincentive.
In my case, where I live was determined by my parents - and I can't afford to move out even if I wanted to.
So I took what work I could get when my last place "let me go", I live where I live, my choice is between driving to work (20 mins) or walking to the bus stop (20 mins), waiting for a bus that will meander around the county for half an hour, and then walk again (5 mins) to work. Since I have the car whether I drive to work or not, it's only the incremental costs (fuel + wear+tear) that count - non of the fixed costs (depreciation, insurance, tax, etc) come into the equation.
So bus vs car - no contest !
PS - the train stations are even further from home and work, so not a viable option at all.
31. anonymous
Petrol Tax not road charging.
Those with fuel efficient cars will be rewarded by paying less (and helping the environment). Those that must have gas-guzzlers can still have them (& they will pay!).
Someone predicted fuel taxs going into steep decline, - so what! The tax can be revised upwards every year in order to compensate.
Surely the objective is to reduce pollution and get people to think about their road usage?
Increasing petrol tax does not require any increase in costly goverment resources. It doesn't increase manufacturing costs (and disposal costs) either. You know it makes sense!
32. Ian Birch
Peter Shearman says "... the damage done to the roads by car use is effectively the same whether you're in a mini or a mondeo. As road tax is supposed to pay for road maintenance ..."
Has he noticed that the majority of road damage is actually dual-tyre ruts caused by the juggernaut lorries that the wackos in Brussels forced us to accept many years ago? So we should perhaps clobber these lorries - including those from the continent - first (perhaps mandatory tachograph registration on entry/exit), then worry about cars ...
In the meantime, petrol usage is a pretty good proxy for road usage, is progressive on fuel-inefficient vehicles, and as another contributor pointed out, will catch those shy of paying vehicle excise duty!
33. anonymous
Once again like the previous government,they go for spin and poorly thought out ideas.Not listening to the Public as usual.This is another tag on the leg of the innocent motorist. Who, no matter what they do they will always be penalised.A penny on petrol tax would bring millions into the coffers of the government for them to waste yet again.We will have to have a black box put into our cars,who will pay for these?Will these only be put into New cars?Will the large car motorist be charged more than the small car,what about the motorcyclist,will they have to pay?Will the"Chelsea tracker" be excluded or charged less because it may be an infringement on their civil liberties.Or like the Poll Tax will people protest and go on to the streets and do lots of damage to public property?
34. Matt Hall
Im with Tax on fuel and drop everything else. Jeremy's comment seems to have missed that if you drive on busy roads at busy times you use more fuel as you just sit in traffic, more fuel means your paying more for using that road at that time. Similarly if you drive the same road at a less conjested time it costs less.
In the same way if you choose to drive a 4x4 or other low mpg vehical you effictively be higher taxed as you will have to buy more fuel.
Yes the rural community will also need to pay more than present but lets face it we are all going to have to do that! At least they can drive without sitting bumper to bumper wtih the car infront so will effectively pay less per mile??
Maybe theres an upside to gps tracking, maybe Ill be able to find my stolen car?!? Then again maybe ill just get billed for the miles it done!
Theres only one thing for certain, however its done we're going to pay more to travel less :(
35. Roger
I just need to remember to walk out of the country when I leave it.
36. anonymous
How about tackling the congestion problem, rather than simply taxing people higher?
Congestion is high because of our rush hour, well offer incentives for businesses to shift their operating hours, therefore staggering traffic. Rather than investing only a quarter of roud fund licence revenues, invest more in improved road capacity, tidal traffic systems (lane directions changce depedning on greater flow of traffic).
This system is designed to price people out of comuting to work - some people have to drive!!!
37. Andy Greenwood
I wholeheartedly agree with raising the duty on petrol and only charging a nominal amount for the Road Fund licence. It is the ultimate Pay-As-You-Go plan and costs zero money to implement. It will actualy have an impact in making people question the neccessity of using their car for each journey instead of trying to encourage people to get rid of their cars - which they will never do! OK so the government won't have yet another draconian spying mechanism but at least they'll free up thousands of police officers from chasing Road Tax dodgers.
38. Bill Citrine
It's a long term project. Oil is running out and there's a need, so we're told, to cut transport emmissions. Government has introduced tax incentives and subsidised use of congestion zones for "green" vehicles (London is free if you've got an electric car).
In a few years there'll be a huge market for electric/bio fuel vehicles - perhaps a healthy second hand market. They'll become affordable.
The Government needs a method sustain the levels of tax it takes from people who travel. They can't rely on petrol taxation and if you think about it, increasing tax on electricity isn't an option.
It's the tracking that really bothers me!
39. Colin Ager
I agree, more tax on fuel with less on actual road/car tax charges we pay enough for the privilage of having a car these days, people NEED fuel to travel Those who constantly drive around without road/car tax who aren't even on the bloody system to get the automatic fine is a factor into less revenue for the GOV but if this was reduced or more put on fuel (which you need to make a car go) then they'd HAVE to but it in their car or it wouldn't go or how about monthly Direct Debits to spread the cost of road/car tax instead of once or twice yearly BIG payments. I know the GOV need the income but these are just a couple of ways I think people would prefer I know its what I'd like as it would be more affordable and stop road/car tax dodgers to
40. anonymous
Taking into account the high cost of running the congestion charge when nearly all the money goes into admin costs, why do people think that road pricing would help solve the problems of the environment.
As for congestion at certain times this is because we work 9-5 on average, also a badly run network of roads whereby we have closed roads off, put speed humps, rephased lights etc in roads all to slow down traffic to cause tail backs then our great leaders can say "We have a problem".
If all those people who keep saying "we must do somehting" were to lead the way and give up their cars today , then the rest of us would have emptier roads to drive on and no problem.
41. Richard Davies
My comment is that the Government is never held accountable for these stupid ideas they have. These stupid just keep coming! Why? Who are the idiots who don't think things through?
I think that Service Level Agreements should be put in place so that the public get refunds when these schemes fail and prove to be a waste of our money!
We wouldn't have to pay half as much tax if we sorted out the government and ran it like a private company...efficient!!! This said my wife works for the government and I must say its not the workers but the decision makers who need the boot!
42. anonymous
There is always one that has to bring up the '4x4' as being worse than any other car.
Simple point, a lot of 4x4's are no less harmfull to the enviroment than any other car.
43. EBGB
No matter the opinion, everyone here cares one way or the other.
Just out of interest, how many of you have actually bothered telling our MPs how we feel about congestion?
And how many have told them how we feel about public transport?
And how many back the introduction of duty on aeroplane fuel over and before any rise in motoring costs?
44. anonymous
This is just another ploy by the devious government to put up petrol tax. They never intended this rediculous 'spy in the car' scheme to fly, and when they say they'll drop it in exchange for putting up the tax on petrol, we'll all go 'hooray, what good chaps, they listened to us after all', and take it without a complaint.
You mark my words, (OK then 6 out of 10) petrol will be over £1 a litre within 6 months, and all the money will go to Gordon to spend on speed cameras and congestion charges (never on improving the roads).
45. Maureen Steels
Yet again we are going to be taxed for using our own transport. Increase the price of petrol/road Tax, so every one who uses their own transport is taxed the same.
Living in the south west we need our own transport, as public transport is unrealiable.
Soon I'll be working just to pay for the privilage of having my own transport.
46. Roy Judd
Tax revenue, control, surveillance, control, suppression, control, database, control… Is it any wonder that this obsessively paranoid riffraff that calls itself a government is rushing to embrace yet another ludicrous project? Setting aside the implementation and operational costs (tens of billions of taxpayer’s money), and the woeful track record of government vis-?is IT initiatives (anyone remember the CSA?), the sinister level of observation and control this project affords can, and will, open the floodgates to a Blair-hell Britain. Stalin could only dream of such a model! The Looney Left? These clowns make old Labour look positively attractive.
47. Radical Meldrew
Tony Blair should practice what he preaches.
I was once held up by one of several Police outriders so that a fleet of speeding gas guzzling Range Rovers could fly unimpeded through even red lights. This 'tax everyone else off the road' will make his journeys so fast that he should go green and get an armoured G-Wiz instead.
What about it Tony, you know it makes good sense.. don't you?
48. anonymous
One should be aware that this 'road tax' will only be implemented in England and not anywhere else. So anyone who uses roads in England will suffer and no one else. Anyone get the feeling this government doesn't like England.
49. Peter Shearman
Just as an aside, has anyone considered the affect of raising fuel tax on those with low incomes? The most fuel efficient cars are new cars; those that are 5 years old or older are very inefficient by new car standards.
Taxing fuel is not an equivalent to taxing road use; suggesting it is over-simplifies a complex issue.
Further, it is unfair to penalise those who cannot afford to be as environmentally friendly as others in this way. Those with older cars already face penalties through the different road tax levies, and should not be penalised further.
We can't all afford a hybrid.
50. matthew lenton
One of the main reasons for poor public transport in the UK is the unwillingness to invest state money, in turn because it is perceived as unpopular with voters who generally wish to pay less tax. Govts are continually stuck on the horns of a dilemma caused by voters who want good public services but don't want to pay for it. Additioanlly privatisation of public transport has made it doubtful if it is even regarded as a service anymore - isn't it meant to be making a profit? (That is a joke...)