The pressure's on to cut fuel taxes, apparently.

[chem1st]

The bottom line is the policy is as follows.

 

We first have to drive the poorest off our roads, by making it impossible to get around. This will be supported by the middle classes who will view this as somebody elses problem.

 

After a couple of years, we then up the costs to drive the middle classes off the roads.

 

Then the eliete can have roads to themselves

 

Due to the massive disparity in car insurance we actively encourage the elderly to drive whilst discouraging the youth.

 

Average reacting time of the average driver?

 

Slower than the average man.

[Janus]

It is similar to a captive audience.

 

Fuel is not just a want, it is a need. That is why the gov keep raising the price/tax/duty

 

The young person that has paid £2000 plus for insurance is not likely to leave the car at home and get the bus/walk/cycle for example, and who can blame him/her. Two grand would be £40 per week. For the car to be stood at home

 

If you drive the poor off the road and on to the bus by high fuel costs and put diesel up sky high, fuel is still a need, so it will be used by delivery vans & 38 tonne lorries delivering around the UK-it is a need

[Rupert_Baehr]

Due to the massive disparity in car insurance we actively encourage the elderly to drive whilst discouraging the youth.

 

Average reacting time of the average driver?

 

Slower than the average man.

 

I am an 'aged' (in my 60's) driver (I do drive a car, but usually I ride a bike.)

 

I re-test every 3 years (not a silly UK drivers' licence test, I take an advanced test.)

 

Every 3 years.

 

When did you last re-test?

 

My reaction times are indeed slowing down. Not a problem - unless you rely on reaction.

 

There are alternatives. You could always predict - but if you want to predict, you have to use skills like 'observation' and 'awareness' (and you are allowed to supplement those skills with 'experience'.)

 

The last time I re-tested (last summer) I was in a group of 14 bikers. I was the most experienced of the lot (by about 30 years) and I was also the oldest of the lot (by at least 25 years.)

 

It wasn't a track day ... we weren't being tested on racing skills.

 

Just road skills.

 

They had a 'points' system on that particular course and I out-scored my nearest rival by 15 points.

 

As the tester said: "Rupert is an old fart. His reaction times are far slower than those of the rest of you, but he doesn't rely on reactions. He looks ahead and sees the problems while you lot are scratching your arses and wondering what to do next."

 

I thought he was rather rude. Pretty accurate, though.

 

Riding/driving is a privilege. I am good at it. VERY good at it. I am good because I work at being good at it and because I have been taught to be good at it. There will come a time when I should quit driving/riding - I test frequently because I want to know when I should quit before I find out I should've quit last year.

 

If your insurance premiums are too high, could that be because you haven't proved to your insurers that you are a low risk driver/rider?

 

Why don't you take an advanced qualification? (IAM and ROSPA are two which spring to mind)

 

Either of those would probably give you a significant reduction in premium. Both would reduce it dramatically.

 

Your choice. My insurance premiums are very low because I have proved that I am good.

 

Put your money where your mouth is - prove your skill - and you too will benefit from reduced premiums.

[Cyclone]

Due to the massive disparity in car insurance we actively encourage the elderly to drive whilst discouraging the youth.

 

Average reacting time of the average driver?

 

Slower than the average man.

 

That massive disparity comes about because young drivers are so much more likely to cause an accident. The reaction time is completely irrelevant when you consider that.

[ampersand]

According to a report in the Times today (and no doubt other media outlets) the Government is going to pay for the scrapping of the increase in fuel duty by restricting the increase in benefits

 

For 20 years the annual increase in benefits has been determined by the RPI (Retail price index) of the previous September, which would mean an increase of 5.2% this coming April.

 

However, it appears that the Chancellor has decided that this is too big an increase and wants to restrict it to an average of the previous 6 months which would be 4.5% - a saving of £1.4billion - although if pensions are excluded this would result in a saving of approx £1.0billion

 

The "cost" of not introducing the increase in fuel duty is £1.5billion

 

To put things in context, total HMRC tax revenues in 2010/11 was something like £440billion, so a "loss" of £1.5billion is less than 0.5% of total revenues - not a big difference to the Government, but a big difference to the benefit claimants - and this is not just job seekers, dole scroungers, whatever terminology your ideology prefers, this is disability allowances, carer allowances etc who will lose in the region of £50-£100 a year just so petrol doesn't have to go up by about 2%

 

I'd hate to see how much more the less well off would suffer if we weren't all in it together

[Rupert_Baehr]

How hard would it be if you were in your own? (Like 95% of the rest of the world.)

 

Serious question.

[truman]

According to a report in the Times today (and no doubt other media outlets) the Government is going to pay for the scrapping of the increase in fuel duty by restricting the increase in benefits

 

For 20 years the annual increase in benefits has been determined by the RPI (Retail price index) of the previous September, which would mean an increase of 5.2% this coming April.

 

However, it appears that the Chancellor has decided that this is too big an increase and wants to restrict it to an average of the previous 6 months which would be 4.5% - a saving of £1.4billion - although if pensions are excluded this would result in a saving of approx £1.0billion

 

The "cost" of not introducing the increase in fuel duty is £1.5billion

 

To put things in context, total HMRC tax revenues in 2010/11 was something like £440billion, so a "loss" of £1.5billion is less than 0.5% of total revenues - not a big difference to the Government, but a big difference to the benefit claimants - and this is not just job seekers, dole scroungers, whatever terminology your ideology prefers, this is disability allowances, carer allowances etc who will lose in the region of £50-£100 a year just so petrol doesn't have to go up by about 2%

 

I'd hate to see how much more the less well off would suffer if we weren't all in it together

 

A 4.5% raise for doing nothing extra sounds OK to me (no pay rise in 3 years)..

[ampersand]

A 4.5% raise for doing nothing extra sounds OK to me (no pay rise in 3 years)..

 

Me too, I don't particularly have an issue with the Government changing the rules to suit their purposes, that is what Governments do, I just have an issue with the pretence that their actions are fair or balanced

 

To lose £1.5billion of extra forecast revenue is insignificant in terms of the Government's total income, and to recoup it from someone on disability living allowance is just plain wrong

[chem1st]

That massive disparity comes about because young drivers are so much more likely to cause an accident. The reaction time is completely irrelevant when you consider that.

 

The reckless people will drive regardless. The sensible ones make financially rational decision not to drive.

[Justin Smith]

You've made an assumption that a reduction in fuel duty would result in an increase on income tax, but that's just your assumption isn't it.

 

It isn`t an assumption at all. It`s obvious. If they cut fuel tax they`ve only got two options :

 

1 Cut services, which is a perfectly reasonable debate to have, one way or the other, but it`s a completely different one.

 

2 Increase taxes elsewhere. Income tax is the biggest source of tax, particularly if you exclude VAT. I`m obviously excluding VAT because if they cut fuel tax, then put fuel back up again by increasing VAT, it`s pointless.

 

And anyway the roads are too full.

I went to Conisborough the other day. It should have taken me just over half an hour, but despite the fact it was outside peak time, it was mid morning, the roads were so full it took me nearly an hour. Actually, to be fair some of that time was wasted negotiating a new one way system I was unaware of, but that is still down to excessive traffic.

Why ?

All these one way systems and bus gates etc are due to the fact there is excessive traffic on the road, so it`s actually two sides of the same coin.

Why would anyone with any sense want to shift the burden of taxation to make the roads even more congested ?