Fuel Protest Planned

[Greenback]

Originally posted by t020

It is isn't it? National Parks would remain protected of course, but otherwise - more roads and bigger roads.

 

A vision that tugs right at the heart strings...

 

But why bother protecting national parks? Squirrels don't pay road tax.

[Cyclone]

Originally posted by Phanerothyme

You don't think all these new roads will fill up with cars, just like the motorways did? Or do you believe that a constantly increasing number households with access to a constantly increasing number of cars is somehow sustainable - even if they are all hydrogen powered?

 

the number of cars is rising anyway. Burying our head in the sand and not building more roads just means that the roads we have will be even more congested.

The actual % of land covered by road is incredibly small, something like 0.1% (very vague figure from memory).

 

Since fuel now has VAT added on top, an increase in the base price also means increased revenue for the government. The tax should at the very least be a simple flat rate, thus it wouldn't exaggerate any change in oil prices.

 

As to our way of life collapsing, I must have missed it happening during the last fuel protests, what were the symptoms of this catastrophic collapse?

[Greenback]

Originally posted by Cyclone

the number of cars is rising anyway. Burying our head in the sand and not building more roads just means that the roads we have will be even more congested.

The actual % of land covered by road is incredibly small, something like 0.1% (very vague figure from memory).

 

I believe that research has shown that building more roads simply means more cars end up filling them up. It doesn't do anything to relieve congestion, it just means more people will drive. What the government should be striving to do is getting people who have alternative methods of transport open to them off the roads.

 

Originally posted by Cyclone

Since fuel now has VAT added on top, an increase in the base price also means increased revenue for the government. The tax should at the very least be a simple flat rate, thus it wouldn't exaggerate any change in oil prices.

 

Such a move will not do anything to change the fact that fuel prices will continue to rise in the future, wherever or however the government chooses to collect its tax revenue.

[Cyclone]

Originally posted by Greenback

I believe that research has shown that building more roads simply means more cars end up filling them up. It doesn't do anything to relieve congestion, it just means more people will drive. What the government should be striving to do is getting people who have alternative methods of transport open to them off the roads.

What the research has shown is that new roads are filled up, yes I agree. What they haven't bothered to study is what happens when they don't build any new roads. I expect the number of cars increases just as fast and the old roads become increasingly congested. Neither way solves the problem, but one keeps up with it and the other tries to ignore it.

 

Such a move will not do anything to change the fact that fuel prices will continue to rise in the future, wherever or however the government chooses to collect its tax revenue.

 

It would do something, it would mean that as oil prices rose the % of the price we pay that was tax would fall and income to the government would stay level. The rate of the increase would be less in this scenario than with a % tax added on top and as the overall % of tax fell people would have less ammunition to blame the government for the prices.

[t020]

Originally posted by Phanerothyme

You don't think all these new roads will fill up with cars, just like the motorways did? Or do you believe that a constantly increasing number households with access to a constantly increasing number of cars is somehow sustainable - even if they are all hydrogen powered?

 

Yes it is sustainable. There's an upper limit to the amount of cars that can be owned in the UK. My proposed system would have sufficient capacity to cope with every single person over 17 being on the road at the same time. It's all good.

[t020]

Originally posted by Greenback

A vision that tugs right at the heart strings...

 

 

It got you as well, did it?

[t020]

Originally posted by redrobbo

A few basic errors in this post.

 

Fuel tax is not being increased. Fuel prices are increasing for entirely different reasons - see previous post from Chicago.

 

Fuel tax is not solely used for funding roads.

 

Firstly - I never suggested fuel tax is being increased (although Brown has only temporarily halted tax increases). The fact is though, it needs to be REDUCED since we pay such an alarmingly high rate already.

 

Secondly - it should be.

[kirky]

Originally posted by xafier

after finding a dodgy mate who's a farmer or sailer

 

plenty of dodgey sailors about...usually in dempseys:D but back to the point,what a waste of time,people just fill their cars up the day before or the day after,i spend about 30 quid a week on petrol,whether i fill up on monday or friday i still spend the same amount and travel the same distance so where's the point in protesting,the petrol company is still gonna get their 30 quid out of me... :rolleyes:

[Phanerothyme]

Originally posted by t020

Yes it is sustainable. There's an upper limit to the amount of cars that can be owned in the UK. My proposed system would have sufficient capacity to cope with every single person over 17 being on the road at the same time. It's all good.

Would that be every single person over 17 on the road at the same time moving at speed, or at a total standstill.

 

Can you suggest an average speed that these motorists will be travelling at on an idealised road network?

[t020]

Originally posted by Phanerothyme

Would that be every single person over 17 on the road at the same time moving at speed, or at a total standstill.

 

Can you suggest an average speed that these motorists will be travelling at on an idealised road network?

 

 

It was, as you probably know, part tongue in cheek. The main point is that there IS an upper limit to car usage defined by the population. The road network should have sufficient capacity to deal with this at peak hours and, at present, it doesn't.