Vehicle road tax

[Annie Bynnol]

If the focus is really supposed to be on the amount of pollution generated, and the real cost of the road network, then unfortunately people making longer journeys due to living in rural areas are polluting more and using more of the road network. Hence it's entirely fair that they pay more.

 

I can't see how it makes shorter journeys more attractive. It would increase the saving to be made by not using the car, unlike now when the VED cost is sunk. Every time I use the car now, I defray the VED cost over a greater number of miles. In the alternative, I simply don't incur ANY cost if I don't use the car.

 

No mention of pollution as a "focus" and even if it was there would be no difference in rural areas because they have to use their cars. Choosing vehicles with lower consumption/emission/running costs might make a difference.

 

Currently single and particularly multiple ownership is lower in urban areas, so is the number of journey miles made per car per day. Alternative transport, parking costs and difficulty and journey speed are some of the reasons for this. Most owners do incur significant cost (insurance, VED, depreciation and maintenance) if they don't use their car.

 

A reduction (eg removal of VED)in the cost of owning a mostly idle car makes it a more attractive proposition. Once owned it is used more. Hence more short journeys

Edited November 11, 2015 by nikki-red
fixed quote tags

[Cyclone]

There has been lots of mention of pollution as the focus, that's why we currently have differential VED bands depending on emissions.

 

So you're saying that owning a car that isn't used frequently would be cheaper if VED were shifted to fuel duty, and so more people would own such a vehicle and then use it for short journeys?

Of course insurance, depreciation and maintenance costs still exist, so I suspect the effect you describe would be minimal.

On the other hand, given that the cost of fuel would have increased, a short journey becomes cheaper for an existing car owner if they use an alternative, like walking. So the number of short journeys by people who already own cars falls.

[Obelix]

That assumes people think rationally all the time.

 

I suspect if you have a car already and have paid out for tax, MOT, insurance etc then the "sod it I already have paid all that I damn well will use it" mentatlity will kick in and it will get used for short runs.

 

I'm as guilty of it as the next man for doing a 700 meter drive to the shop for a loaf of bread... and then a 1800m drive back the other way because I cant be bothered to do a 3 point turn so go round the estate to park facing the same way I left.

[Annie Bynnol]

There has been lots of mention of pollution as the focus, that's why we currently have differential VED bands depending on emissions.

 

So you're saying that owning a car that isn't used frequently would be cheaper if VED were shifted to fuel duty, and so more people would own such a vehicle and then use it for short journeys?

Of course insurance, depreciation and maintenance costs still exist, so I suspect the effect you describe would be minimal.

On the other hand, given that the cost of fuel would have increased, a short journey becomes cheaper for an existing car owner if they use an alternative, like walking. So the number of short journeys by people who already own cars falls.

 

 

 

In rural areas more journeys are essential and on average much longer meaning that petrol price increase has a much bigger impact on the family budget.

Business margins are also hit. These are the reason that your proposal has been rejected countless times in the last six decades.

 

In urban areas the effects of removing VED is probably less but more subtle.

Increases car ownership- particularly multiple ownership.

Increases number of journeys made.

Increase in demand for parking and road infrastructure.

Detrimental impact on other road users.