Pay as you drive

Autobloke · Post by **Autobloke** » Sun Jun 05, 2005 2:46 pm

Anyone else heard of this? Apparently the British government is going to charge motorists tax depending on how far they travel in their cars! This will replace road tax and tax on fuel. They say it's to reduce congestion, but as this will be countrywide, I'm sure it will sort out all those chock-a-block busy roads in rural areas.
Basically it's just another way of screwing the motorist over 'cos you know it will work out more expensive for us in the end.
They want us to use public transport more, but whenever I have to take a bus when my car's in the garage, the bus is ALWAYS full of ten million annoying schoolkids, late, not running, or doesn't run a service to or when I need. Luckily I live in a seaside area, so the buses run more often in the holiday season. But then they're full of bloody holidaymakers. Grr.
So, pay as you drive: dumb?

Post by **Best First** » Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:41 pm

anything that encourages people to look at alternatives to driving is - in principle - fine by me.

don't know enough about how it will be implimented to commenty further.

Post by **Kaylee** » Sun Jun 05, 2005 4:26 pm

I have no alternative to a lot of my driving as it often involves helping my dad take large amounts of stuff over distance (usually at weekends). Means I get to start paying a fortune for it. yay. Travelling to and from home and college wouldn't be a problem tho.

Also whats been found in previous schemes and experiments is that (British) people will generally take these things on board and just sacrifice something to pay for them without losing their car. Hence the number of cars remains mostly unchanged, yet more money rolls in for the chancellor.

Are we certain that they will be scrapping road tax etc. in favour of this?

Plus the other trick will be installing a speed limiter on your car which uses GPS. Personally I like that plan, no more speeding tickets. Not sure how they plan to replace the millions in revenue cameras generate tho... (yes I know all the spiel about 'they save lives not make money' but regardless cameras make a small fortune for police forces, suddenly rendering them redundant would not go down well methinks).

Autobloke · Post by **Autobloke** » Sun Jun 05, 2005 4:38 pm

I heard it on the radio in the shower, so water-in-ear may have made me miss a few facts. I'm sure I heard the words 'road tax' and 'replaced' though I may be wrong about connecting the two. I'll have to try and find some info on the web and link it here.

Karl Lynch wrote:Plus the other trick will be installing a speed limiter on your car which uses GPS. Personally I like that plan, no more speeding tickets. Not sure how they plan to replace the millions in revenue cameras generate tho... (yes I know all the spiel about 'they save lives not make money' but regardless cameras make a small fortune for police forces, suddenly rendering them redundant would not go down well methinks).

And who pays for these things to be installed in your car? Hmm?

Post by **Kaylee** » Sun Jun 05, 2005 4:38 pm

But when everyone has them, what then?

Unless they cost a monthly fee! aha!

Autobloke · Post by **Autobloke** » Sun Jun 05, 2005 4:49 pm

I hate monthly fees. Everything has a monthly fee these days.

Autobloke · Post by **Autobloke** » Sun Jun 05, 2005 5:55 pm

Okay, just seen a news report on this. Missed the beginning, so I don't know about the road tax thing, but it goes like this:
Your car has a GPS installed and, depending on what roads you use and when, the price will vary. Their example had a 200 mile journey which used a motorway at peak time. It cost £260, which was around £1.30 a mile. To use the smaller roads at an off-peak time made the whole journey cost £50.
I do a 150 mile journey back to my old area sometimes. It costs me about £15. Under this new idea, it'll cost me way more.
Someone pointed out that the idea would just move the congestion - making everyone use smaller, less suitable, roads, and all at off-peak time (which would make it peak time after a while, I assume). Kinda defeats the purpose, don't you think?
I just hope there's some kind of guide that lets you know which are expensive roads and when the peak times are, or motorists will just have to take pot luck.
Frankly, I think it's a good idea in principle, but as usual (for most of this government's ideas) falls apart when examined with the most simple of arguements.

Shanti418 · Post by **Shanti418** » Sun Jun 05, 2005 6:43 pm

Wow. If the government tried to tax just $260 for a 200 mile trip, there would be riots in the streets.

It must be very refreshing to have a government that actually pays more than lip service for environmental issues.

You HAVE to have a car to get anywhere in America, unless you live in a few big cities. Of course, we don't make it any better by going out and buying trucks and SUVs by the handful.

Autobloke · Post by **Autobloke** » Sun Jun 05, 2005 6:58 pm

A handful of SUVs isn't that bad. It's not even one - unless you have really big hands.

Post by **Kaylee** » Sun Jun 05, 2005 7:01 pm

Shanti418 wrote:
It must be very refreshing to have a government that actually pays more than lip service for environmental issues.

oh yeah, I'm positively dancing at the prospect.

Despite most pollution comes from industry, most of which comes from the USA.

Shanti418 · Post by **Shanti418** » Sun Jun 05, 2005 7:02 pm

Or maybe a handful of Trailbreakers. I don't think you could hold more than one E. Ironhide in your hand.

Autobloke · Post by **Autobloke** » Sun Jun 05, 2005 7:07 pm

Shanti418 wrote:I don't think you could hold more than one E. Ironhide in your hand.

Or have in your collection (shudder).
Doesn't air travel cause the most pollution? I saw something on the TV during the election weeks (aaaannnnnddd weeeeeeks.....)
Or was it a Horizon show?

TDandSen · Post by **TDandSen** » Sun Jun 05, 2005 7:12 pm

Most of the "polutive" gasses are produced by cattle. According to worldwide statistics taken by the UN, Industries count for somewhere between %5 and %10 are blamed on industry as a whole. As a point of reference for automobiles as well, a 2003 Ford Expedition is somewhere between 4 to 5 times better for the environment at putting out pollutants than a car from the 1960s.

Post by **Kaylee** » Sun Jun 05, 2005 7:13 pm

Autobloke wrote:
Shanti418 wrote:I don't think you could hold more than one E. Ironhide in your hand.
Or have in your collection (shudder).
Doesn't air travel cause the most pollution? I saw something on the TV during the election weeks (aaaannnnnddd weeeeeeks.....)
Or was it a Horizon show?

Could well be. I seem to recall hearing that a car produces more pollution whilst being assembled (from collecting and processing of raw materials throw refining through to assembly) than its likely to make in its entire life or something mad like that.

In any case unless the US and China sign up to such an agreement it won't change a thing re world pollution any way, so what's the point in paying such a preposterous fee

Why don't they instead put all the money this would cost to implement into introducing car pool lanes, tax breaks for households with only one car, massive reductions in tax and insurance for small cars and (as said) attaching automatic speed limiters? As well as introducing more effective public transport- it's permanent standing room only from Medway to London here on the train.

Surely they would save more lives, help reduce pollution (not that it will change much tho imo

) and help to cut congestion.

But why do they when you can go for a quick fix high earner solution like just charging more to use roads?

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Sun Jun 05, 2005 7:19 pm

fuel cell cars aint much better either - as you move the load back to the powerplants in terms of electricity.

Build more nuke stations...

Autobloke · Post by **Autobloke** » Sun Jun 05, 2005 7:20 pm

When they stopped planes flying just after 911 there were surprising results. I think the Horizon show said that even if we reduced pollution the Earth is still screwed. I wish I could remember why 'cos that sounds like something we should know. If anyone knows what I'm on about, help me out here please.

Post by **Kaylee** » Sun Jun 05, 2005 7:24 pm

Impactor returns 2.0 wrote:fuel cell cars aint much better either - as you move the load back to the powerplants in terms of electricity.

Build more nuke stations...

Thnk you're getting confused with electric battery cars there Mark. Hydrogen cars (which use fuel cells) make their own electricity.

Autobloke · Post by **Autobloke** » Sun Jun 05, 2005 7:27 pm

We need to sling a huge solar panel in orbit around the Sun. That'll solve the problem.

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Sun Jun 05, 2005 7:29 pm

Karl Lynch wrote:
Impactor returns 2.0 wrote:fuel cell cars aint much better either - as you move the load back to the powerplants in terms of electricity.

Build more nuke stations...
Thnk you're getting confused with electric battery cars there Mark. Hydrogen cars (which use fuel cells) make their own electricity.

yup your right there!

Autobloke · Post by **Autobloke** » Sun Jun 05, 2005 7:32 pm

How is hydrogen produced though? Doesn't that need some kind of industrial facility too (ie. polluter)?

Post by **Kaylee** » Sun Jun 05, 2005 7:42 pm

Autobloke wrote:How is hydrogen produced though? Doesn't that need some kind of industrial facility too (ie. polluter)?

No idea. I know its extracted from water somehow.

Autobloke · Post by **Autobloke** » Sun Jun 05, 2005 7:52 pm

I thought the waste product was water.

Post by **Kaylee** » Sun Jun 05, 2005 8:03 pm

Autobloke wrote:I thought the waste product was water.

that too.

TDandSen · Post by **TDandSen** » Sun Jun 05, 2005 8:10 pm

The idea behind a hydrogen fueld car is that you would use hydrogen (gas) as the fuel, and get the waste prodict of water. The problem is that there has been no truely effcient way of getting the hydrogen in the first place. As we all know, it is an exceptionally light gas that is highly combustable, and in order to burn anything, you must introduce oxygen (another highly combustable material on it's own). The most common source of hydrogen is in water, since it is H2O. But in order to get the hydrogen in the first place, you have to break the molocule apart, which is an energy intensive process. You end up using more energy getting the hydrogen than it produces. Damn that 1st law of thermodynamics.

Autobloke · Post by **Autobloke** » Sun Jun 05, 2005 8:19 pm

That's what I thought.

Autobloke · Post by **Autobloke** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 7:47 pm

Back on the pay as you drive thing, surely peak times are peak times for a reason - like school runs or people heading to work - these are journeys that can't be left for another, less expensive, time. Also, what if you get stuck in a traffic jam? The whole thing works on the principle of distance travelled, but I'm sure that mororists will get screwed over just for running their engines soon.

Señior's Covenant · Post by **Señior's Covenant** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 7:49 pm

All the more reason I need to learn how to spread wings and fly.

Autobloke · Post by **Autobloke** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 7:52 pm

Surely you need to grow them before you can spread them.
Hmm... let me rephrase that.

Scraplet · Post by **Scraplet** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 9:27 pm

TDandSen wrote:The idea behind a hydrogen fueld car is that you would use hydrogen (gas) as the fuel, and get the waste prodict of water. The problem is that there has been no truely effcient way of getting the hydrogen in the first place. As we all know, it is an exceptionally light gas that is highly combustable, and in order to burn anything, you must introduce oxygen (another highly combustable material on it's own). The most common source of hydrogen is in water, since it is H2O. But in order to get the hydrogen in the first place, you have to break the molocule apart, which is an energy intensive process. You end up using more energy getting the hydrogen than it produces. Damn that 1st law of thermodynamics.

Currently, the easiest way to produce hydrogen is via the petrochemical industry. Not particularly sustainable. Only better than other things because it will reduce air pollution (CO, NOx, SOx, etc) in cities and other places with poor air quality. On a global scale it makes no odds, unless someone invents a viable, sustainable method of Hydrogen production.

Most of the "polutive" gasses are produced by cattle

This is only methane - very bad in climate-change ways, but not an air quality issue for peoples health like car exhausts are.

I live near the M1 motorway. If I remember the council stats correctly 2 million vehicles a month pass my house! Levels of NOx and SOx are higher than World health Organisation guidelines. Yeah, theres lots of industry around here, but we need that (jobs, economy etc). If all the ***** traveling a few short miles to Meadowhall Shopping mall got the bus /train (or drove hydrogen cell cars

) that would make a difference.

My wife was involved in a study of effects of the local air quality on health - she doesnt smoke, but the levels of cabon monoxide in her blood was consistant with some one who smokes 10 cigs a day (when I get a better job, we're moving

)

If we take no action, it won't be just the M1 corridor and central London that have this bad air quality. I don't know if the scheme Autobloke mentioned will work, but we have to do something. Face it change now or later. If its later, you'll all have lungs as **** as mine!!!

Post by **Best First** » Tue Jun 07, 2005 9:00 am

the other relevant pooint is if we don't do something the roads will be so congested that you won't be able to get anywhere anyway.

However there has to be intelligent invstment in public transport at the same time as any scheme like this and to be honest i'm not seeing muhc sign of that in the proposals.