If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Car vs Train/Bus/Tram
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
I found this on the Guardian website (as usual) and it got me thinking. Is it just me or is this a ridiculous suggestion:
http://www.observer.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,656107,00.html
The arguments for such a system are strong: car travel is expensive and roads need building and maintaining, asthma treatment needs to be paid for, congestion costs businesses zillions of pounds a year, public transport is more efficient etc.
But IMO, they have got it all wrong. People don't use their cars because they want to give small children asthma, or waste money (their own and business costs). We drive because (a) it is so much more convenient than public transport, and (b) driving itself is fun.
Per-mile charges like those suggested will not solve the problem of people choosing the car - they will simply pay the extra money; and the money will not be reinvested.
We should know from the astronomical fuel duty that the taxes don't get spent on the roads or public transport infrastructure, they go straight to the Treasury to waste as it sees fit.
And have people stopped using their cars? Have they bollocks. They (We) just pay the money, grumble about the cost, and put up with it. We don't want to give up our cars, and it seems that the only people who are affected are the poorest who can no longer afford to keep a car on the road.
<STRONG>Taxing the motorist in an attempt to get him on a train doesn't work.</STRONG>
What do you think?
http://www.observer.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,656107,00.html
The arguments for such a system are strong: car travel is expensive and roads need building and maintaining, asthma treatment needs to be paid for, congestion costs businesses zillions of pounds a year, public transport is more efficient etc.
But IMO, they have got it all wrong. People don't use their cars because they want to give small children asthma, or waste money (their own and business costs). We drive because (a) it is so much more convenient than public transport, and (b) driving itself is fun.
Per-mile charges like those suggested will not solve the problem of people choosing the car - they will simply pay the extra money; and the money will not be reinvested.
We should know from the astronomical fuel duty that the taxes don't get spent on the roads or public transport infrastructure, they go straight to the Treasury to waste as it sees fit.
And have people stopped using their cars? Have they bollocks. They (We) just pay the money, grumble about the cost, and put up with it. We don't want to give up our cars, and it seems that the only people who are affected are the poorest who can no longer afford to keep a car on the road.
<STRONG>Taxing the motorist in an attempt to get him on a train doesn't work.</STRONG>
What do you think?
0
Comments
So now we are to be charged for driving on the roads that we have paid for...How long until we have to pay for the air we breath...Im fucking disgusted at this very idea. I guarentee that if the govt goes ahead with this, they will be out of a job within a week. Thats why they wont go ahead with it.
PS, anyone doubt that these satellites will be used for speeding violations as well? That satellite sees you going 1 mph over the limit...kerching thats 70 quid in the governments pocket.
Why can't people give up their cars? Or at least take public transportation a couple times a week? The county that I live in has 12 million residents and, I'm not making this up, 6 million registered cars.
It's ridiculous here because there aren't really any advantages to driving, it takes longer for me to drive to work than to take the subway and walk 15 blocks. Not to mention the smog that you literally can see every day that you are breathing in all the time.
Maybe if there wasn't such a stigma attached to public transportation...well there is kind of one here anyway.
Kentish, its true that its fun to drive, but as cities get bigger and bigger it will get less fun to drive, because no one likes working the clutch 700 times to inch forward one mile on the freeway. I used to love to drive before I commuted in LA. And how is it more convenient than a really good subway system? In New York you can get anywhere you want during the day faster by subway, and as I said, my commute time drops in half when I take the subway here.
The only stigma attached to public transport here is that it never fucking works.
It amazes me when I hear our govt going on about how we should all leave our cars behind and leap on the trains...Unfortunately if anyone leapt on a train over here, it would crumble into dust, theyre so old.
Well, maybe I should clarify. I am one of the about 50 people that can use the subway here. There is one line that runs from Hollywood to downtown LA. I happen to live in Hollywood and work in downtown LA so it works for me. If you live just about anywhere else you have to take the buses, which in some cases can be just as terrifying as you could imagine.
I always thought that the UK had a great rail system for commuting or going across the country. Not true, huh?
One more gripe. Does anyone hate SUV's, trucks, offroad vehicles as much as I do? They take up too much space, waste gas, and are completely worthless in a city. Have you ever tried to parallel park one in a city?
BTW has anyone thought about riding a bicycle to work? It saves a lot of time in heavy traffic, you get in shape and it's free to ride.
The way I see it, the only people who are gonna complain about this are the lazy people who use their car all the time.
I don't even have access to a car when I'm at uni and I'm happy to walk everywhere locally, that's fine.
But how do you think I get all my stuff up and down the country at Christmas, Easter and Summer? Train? You've gotta be joking. The car is the only way to do it. And the thought of having to pay 5p a mile for the 500 mile round trip is not an appealing prospect.
Public transport can be OK as I said (and everyone else seems to have added examples of their own), but it can never replace the car. And shouldn't be expected to.
The London Underground is indeed a great invention, but it's useless if you don't live near a station, or you finish work at 3am. Buses and trains too have advantages, but are often old, smelly, and full of old and smelly people <IMG SRC="eek.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">.
</STRONG>
Do you want to explain? <IMG SRC="confused.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
[ 25-02-2002: Message edited by: Kentish ]
As people might know I cycle everywhere I can including a trip of about 4 miles to work.
However I have also just started learning to drive.
I'm hoping that when I do get my licence I will still cycle those short trips and use my car only for long journeys - however what if I do become lazy, or everytime it rains I hop in the car to get to work?
Basically I think that there is another reason why people use their cars and not public transport. Yes it's fun and yes it's mor reliable but the big reality is that people are just DAMN LAZY. This is why people make short trips in their cars to buy a pint of milk, or pop into town instead of getting the bus, walking or cycling.
As for these satalite thingies beeing used for speeding fines...well I'm sorry but if you are going too fast THEN YOU ARE GOING TO FAST! whether its one mile over or ten miles over and motorists know the law, they study their highwaycode, they do a theory test... they are the ones controling the car, - if you cant pay the fine dont do the crime!
Anyway - London Underground...When I lived in London it took me 45 minutes to get from Cricklewood to Hampstead! Both are in North London but I had to get a bus, a tube and another bus. Eventually I looked up the direct route and discovered I could walk it in Half an hour. Never bought a monthly tube ticket again!!
I don't think that the new proposals will ever happen but anything that forces people to look at the way they overuse their cars can only be a good thing for the environment and for health. Thing is - people will never make the effort to change their own lazy habits so perhaps it should be forced upon them.
We expect too much in the west, fast cars, now now now. and it is just really destructive, people need to chill out a bit.
Well byny, you should probably give up driving now then because unless you have a car made within the last year or so and of extremely high quality(BMW,Merc) then your speedometer will not be accurate enough to keep you dead on the speed limit. You reckon you can keep your speed on a needle thingie better than a digital satellite can? I dont think so.
Taxing really doesn't work but how can you make people less lazy?
The government uses taxes in an attempt to correct market failure. People have a choice of transport methods and the car is the most popular but this choice fails to take account of the pollution and social cost of that journey.
I think a very important policy would try and get people to share journies to work, all those big cars at rush hour with only 1 person in is ridiculous.
I have seen people being beaten up on the bus and I have been abused and spat at myself. It puts people off using it (not that I have any other choice <IMG SRC="frown.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> )
Train prices are a humungous joke, like £40 to go 100 miles, unless you book way in advance with lots of restrictions.
People in London, you have my sympathy-parking is a complete rip off, the tube is too (unless you pay child like me <IMG SRC="biggrin.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> )
Ho Ho - people who want to be allowed to break the law always use these kinds of arguments. ie 'I need to go faster to get up the hill so I'm bound to go over the speed limit'
It just doesn't cut it. If you know your speedometer isn't accurate then you should know to go a little bit under what your speedometer is saying! TRUE?
My boyfriend has had many speeding tickets and every time he gets one he goes on and on about how unfair it is, the police are making money, the speed limit changes on the road etc etc etc. I always say 'but were you going too fast Mark?' to which he replies 'yes' ...there we go then. If you were going too fast, and you know it, and you know the penalty is a fine then you have only yourself to blame.
You can appeal the fine anyway if it's only a few miles out.
It's not like people want to hurt the people they run over and make a conscious effort to speed. The pressures of the traffic around you, and tailgating you if you dare to go under the limit (and I'm as guilty as anyone); the pressure on yout time; the stress of driving; the thrill of driving fast --> it's difficult not to speed.
Thanatos, I don't understand what you are saying.
If you are talking about using SUV's in a rural setting, yes, they do make more sense than a car. When I lived in upstate New York sometimes it was the only way you could drive on the roads without killing yourself.
But we were discussing using them in a city. It is a fact that SUV's have worse gas mileage, pollute more, and take up more physical space. I don't think anyone will disagree with me on this. I hate looking for parking circling the block over and over only to see an Escalade taking up two parking spaces.
But I still want a car <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
Sod off byny. I dont want to break the law. I do not intentionally speed...ever...
I drive a 1995 honda civic which has a speedometer in mph and in intervals of 5 mph. Im afriad it is impossible keep your speed at 30mph unless you spend the whole time with your eyes glued to the dash.
NO speedometers are as accurate as a digital satellite while they depend on a persons eyes and judgement. Thats simple fact im afraid.
You dont even have a license so you cant comment on this from anything but a theoretical point of view.
Having said that, it doesn't make it right. I certainly don't want the government knowing where my car is 24/7.
And the Big Brother aspect is definitely an important consideration. It's an invasion of privacy as well as a rip off. I hope they don't go through with it.
Only people with something to hide will come out with a comment like that.
I for one am in favour of regulation like this. It means people who don't speed and don't drive during peak time in a city don't bear the cost of it. I notice you've all failed to mention that they would withdrawl road tax and decrease petrol duty? The very prospect of someone in authority knowing where you are clouded that little thing from you?
I myself drive, but I think it is grossly unfair that I should pay the same tax, petrol and insurance costs of someone who drives more. And they are only talking about introducing large charges at peak times. If you drive through London at 3AM you will be likely paying on the order of 2 pence a mile. Same with motorways and rural roads. Off peak times are free.
Whowhere, my dad drives around 1000 miles each week. He drives from Hertfordshire up to Yorkshire, Lincs, Lancs and down to Hampshire and Somerset...Thats every week. Lets say that he drives half of those miles during offpeak times, early morning or evening. That works out to about £175 PER WEEK
Are you honestly saying thats justified?
[ 26-02-2002: Message edited by: Balddog ]
USC Alex, our rail network is more extensive than that in the US, but it is terribly unreliable. 40-odd years of underinvestment have made the ststem rather run-down. Each new goverment that comes along blames the last for the state of the railways, but in truth every government since the '60s is to blame. I rarely make a journey these days without a train being delayed or overcrowded. The government wants us all to use public transport, but we won't do that until public transport becomes more reliable.
we are lucky our public transport ie the buses are a very good efficent system, they are run by the city of nottingham not arriva etc....... and they provide resonable evidence a good public transport system does work, trouble is the nationals system does not work effectivly, as i travel by train on a regular basis, i can tell you the situation isn't exagerrated, they really are as bad as the media tell us <IMG SRC="mad.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
I'm afraid I have to disagree with you there. I don't go through red lights on my bike, I don't go on pavements on my bike, I am a law abiding citizen and I won't speed when I have passed my test just as I don't speed while I am learning to drive.
It is Not difficult not to speed, there are millions of people who manage not to do it day. Just because it's easy to speed that doesn't make it hard not to.
People are supposed to learn from their theory test not to give in to the 'pressure from other traffic' andif they are too selfish to do so then it's their fault completely - not the person who is injured as a result!
And BALDDOG! SOD OFF!!! well really!
I think you'll find that as a person with a provisional licence I am entitled to be on the road, and I am supposed to keep within the speed limits as much as someone who has passed so my experience and opinion are not theoretical.
Unfortunately there does seem to be this arrogant attitude from drivers once they have passed who say 'sod you - I have my licence - I'll do what I like'
of course they are the first to moan when they get penalised for it. One would think they's see the lack of logic behind their actions!
Again, ive never untentionally broken any speeding law, or any other traffic laws for that matter. The reason I dont feel you can comment on this as well as others is because you have very little experience in driving..Maybe 6 months on local roads? Sorry but you arent as qualified to comment on driving conditions in this country as someone who has driven here for years and years.
How massively inaccurate is your speedo then Baldy??? If you tell me that it is out by anymore than 3 miles an hour then I will laugh and tell you to go get an MOT. Speedos cannot be inaccurate by law, if it is then you can't use it as a defence when you appeal.
Can you answer my question above please whowhere..Do you think its justified to charge someone such as my dad £175 every week just to do his job?
it isn't justified no. But do you think it is justified that the people who don't contribute to congestion should pay what they do as well? The idea is simple, if you insist on driving through a city centre at rush hour then you pay for that priviledge. There are numerous proposals anyway, it would be free on motorways on quiet stretches or off peak times anyway.
I do think it is fair that someone who uses their car more than me should pay more for the upkeep of the road and mass transit systems. I'm also quite looking forward to not having to pay road tax and having petrol at 50p a litre.