Page 1 of 2
Road tax
Posted: 06 Feb 2007, 17:00
by markfiend
This is a bit spammy, I know, but...
There are only 15 days left to register your objection to the 'Pay as you go' road tax - which closes to petitions on the 20th February 2007.
The petition is on the 10 Downing St website but they didn't tell anybody about it. Therefore at this time only 671,354 people have signed it so far and 750,000 signatures are required to stop them introducing it.
Once you've given your details (you don't have to give your full address, just house number and postcode will do), they will send you an email with a link in it. Once you click on that link, you'll have signed the petition.
Democracy in action?
The government's proposal to introduce road pricing will mean you having to purchase a tracking device for your car and paying a monthly bill to use it. The tracking device will cost about £200 and in a recent study by the BBC, the lowest monthly bill was £28 for a rural florist and £194 for a delivery driver. A non working mother who used the car to take the kids to school paid £86 in one month.
On top of this massive increase in tax, you will be tracked. Somebody will know where you are at all times. They will also know how fast you have been going, so even if you accidentally creep over a speed limit in time you can probably expect a Notice of Intended Prosecution with your monthly bill.
If you care about our freedom and stopping the constant bashing of the car driver, please sign the petition on No 10's new website (link below) and pass this on to as many people as possible."
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/traveltax/
Posted: 06 Feb 2007, 17:17
by aims
A bit spammy, but justified.
On a totally unrelated point, wasn't it you who used to cite Snopes' "Online Petitions Change Things" myth every time one of these came up?
:lol:
Posted: 06 Feb 2007, 17:22
by markfiend
Well, yeah.
But I reckon an online petition at *.pm.gov.uk might work. You have to include a snailmail address too.
Posted: 06 Feb 2007, 19:08
by bushman*pm
Posted: 06 Feb 2007, 19:09
by EmeraldSignal
Justified.
Posted: 06 Feb 2007, 19:13
by DeWinter
"Asked if the Prime Minister was dismayed at the scale of the petition, the PMOS replied that people did feel strongly about this issue, but feeling strongly was not a substitute for coming up with practical proposals. It was the duty of government to come up with practical proposals, and to explain to people why the proposals were necessary, and to work through how they might be carried out. This was precisely why we were talking to the 10 local areas about proposals for pilot schemes."
"Asked if there was a secret threshold of signatures that would change government policy, the PMOS replied that he was not aware of one. "
Whoever this PMOS is, he's a patronising arse.
You're going to have to take my word for the very snotty response I read a few weeks ago from a member of the Labour Party who said the petition was full of factual errors a child could spot, as I can't find a link to it right now. He didn't bother mentioning what these factual errors were for the rest of us not gifted with his superhuman ability. I honestly begin to yearn for the days of John Major..
Posted: 06 Feb 2007, 19:17
by bushman*pm
DeWinter wrote:"Asked if the Prime Minister was dismayed at the scale of the petition, the PMOS replied that people did feel strongly about this issue, but feeling strongly was not a substitute for coming up with practical proposals. It was the duty of government to come up with practical proposals, and to explain to people why the proposals were necessary, and to work through how they might be carried out. This was precisely why we were talking to the 10 local areas about proposals for pilot schemes."
"Asked if there was a secret threshold of signatures that would change government policy, the PMOS replied that he was not aware of one. "
Whoever this PMOS is, he's a patronising arse.
You're going to have to take my word for the very snotty response I read a few weeks ago from a member of the Labour Party who said the petition was full of factual errors a child could spot, as I can't find a link to it right now. He didn't bother mentioning what these factual errors were for the rest of us not gifted with his superhuman ability. I honestly begin to yearn for the days of John Major..
'Mmmmmmmm, lovely pea's, Norma'!!!
Anyway, we're only the fcuking voting public that put their shamful ar5es into power in the first place, fcuking know-all know-nothing bunch of waster-tossers! Its just as dirty & murky as US politics!
Posted: 07 Feb 2007, 11:03
by markfiend
On the other hand, isn't it nice to know that while they're pricing motorists off the road, the government are doing
sooooo much to make rail travel cheaper and more attractive to the commuter.
Posted: 07 Feb 2007, 11:23
by King of Byblos
"drivings baaad" to paraphrase southpark
sorry guys, i'd rather have the fields and trees and all that hippyshete...
i pay £86 tax for my small modern diesel car and hardly use it
yet again the government supports the business and penalises the consumer. Eddie Stobart is moving all his haulage to rail so perhaps the gov will do something about the trains? and we might get a few crumbs from their table
Posted: 07 Feb 2007, 12:05
by markfiend
King of Byblos wrote:Eddie Stobart is moving all his haulage to rail
Really? that
is good news!
Priority should be getting freight off the roads.
Posted: 07 Feb 2007, 12:19
by King of Byblos
yeah, i have a feeling rail-haulage and road-private cars could work
...dreams
Posted: 07 Feb 2007, 12:58
by nick the stripper
Personally, I think that they should only tax those who use the roads because taxing those who do not is simply theft (many people use highways, super highways, daily - can't they just put charge booths on the highways and use the money from that for maintaining the roads?). This, however, is simply disgusting.
Posted: 07 Feb 2007, 13:37
by eotunun
Be glad you don´t pay german taxes for cars,
bushman..
My Volvo 340 with 1,4 litre stroke volume cost me 356€ a year..
I guess your Landy ist the 4 litre diesel version with a Euro 1 emission class?
That´s 27,35€ for each 100cm³ stroke volume, thus 27,35*40=1014€, 1€=0.65894£ today, so that´s
£668,17 you´d pay for your car in Germany.
While I don´t know what other taxes you pay for insurances, the prices of insurances etc.
Did I mention I couldn´t afford a car in years?
Posted: 07 Feb 2007, 15:04
by bushman*pm
eotunun wrote:Be glad you don´t pay german taxes for cars,
bushman..
My Volvo 340 with 1,4 litre stroke volume cost me 356€ a year..
I guess your Landy ist the 4 litre diesel version with a Euro 1 emission class?
That´s 27,35€ for each 100cm³ stroke volume, thus 27,35*40=1014€, 1€=0.65894£ today, so that´s
£668,17 you´d pay for your car in Germany.
While I don´t know what other taxes you pay for insurances, the prices of insurances etc.
Did I mention I couldn´t afford a car in years?
sorry to hear that mate, the car is 3500cc petrol V8 and although its a bit of a guzzler its still going after 18 years!
my other car is a 1966 L/R pick up truck thats 40+ years old and still going
2286cc, straight 4
now both of these may be polluting, but ask yourself this,
exactly what HUGE sums of energy are waqsted each year just because
Mr Rich Bollox wants yet another new car?? why not make his old one last longer!
i read recently that a Toy**a Prius is more damaging than my Range Rover just due to the production of it!
HA HIPPIES!
Posted: 07 Feb 2007, 15:15
by eotunun
You may have noticed that I myself am fond of elderly cars..
The point you make strikes the target perfectly well:
A modern car will produce highly venomous waste of 1 1/2 times of it´s own mass during production. And as the weight of cars has risen strongly, especially during the recent 20 years, we are talking about a few pounds of poison here!
Not mentioning all the energy needed to melt and process the steel, transport the materials and workers and all that goes into that process.
Converting the older crates to the modern emission standard would be the right thing to do, but there is no lobby working for it.
And unfortunately no one ever mentions the climate shortcommings of paved area where no plants can grow to absorb CO² and the loss of absorbation a lawn poses compared to trees or bushes growing in a garden.
Edited 3rd sentence, so it makes sense. At least a some.
Posted: 07 Feb 2007, 17:33
by aims
772,038 signatures so far. Any clarification on the 750,000 "required"? If that's the threshold for stopping the bill, then alles ist klar.
Posted: 07 Feb 2007, 21:46
by EmeraldSignal
'spiv nation'
Posted: 07 Feb 2007, 22:28
by DeWinter
Gets even more shameful. You didn't vote for them. The public voted for the Tory party by over 600'000 votes at the last election. FPTP ensured that Labour still managed to get the majority of M.P's.
Posted: 07 Feb 2007, 22:29
by Debaser
markfiend wrote:King of Byblos wrote:Eddie Stobart is moving all his haulage to rail
Really? that
is good news!
It is it is....I always forget our driving game right until the point when Gaz whacks me on the arm when he spots an ES lurry
Posted: 08 Feb 2007, 11:01
by markfiend
DeWinter wrote:You didn't vote for them.
I bloody did! Catch me voting Tory! *grumble grumble grumble*
Seriously, in my constituency, the Labour guy (John Battle) has a majority of 12,810 (down from 14,935 in '01) so it's pretty pointless voting any other way.
Clicky
Posted: 08 Feb 2007, 11:45
by Obviousman
bushman*pm wrote:
i read recently that a Toy**a Prius is more damaging than my Range Rover just due to the production of it!
HA HIPPIES!
That's a bit of a coloured thing, I've read it as well, and that's mostly due to the batteries which only have a (relatively) short lifespan… They just reckoned four-by-fours have a longer lifespan, and so they concluded they polluted less.
What
is a fact though is that you're less likely to die when a four by four hits you than when a regular car does, at low speeds
Still, all studies on four by fours are absolutely worthless to us Europeans as they're usually made with Ford F150's, Chevy Suburbans and all that as opposed to the best selling ones here like RAV4's, Freelanders and the likes…
Posted: 08 Feb 2007, 11:59
by markfiend
Obviousman wrote:you're less likely to die when a four by four hits you than when a regular car does, at low speeds
That's a surprise!
Posted: 08 Feb 2007, 12:05
by Carpathian Psychonaut
I actually sold my Ford Ka2 ("Lucretia") about a year ago and haven't missed it once.
I pay £399 a year for my Metro pass which covers all travel, all day and all stations...and the local ferry
. Should I need to go somewhere I book early on the train (ie the £22 Newcastle to London return ones I got last week) or hire a car for the weekend. Even with the one-hit cost it's still way cheaper than tax, fuel, MOT, services et al for the year, plus I now walk way more than I ever did. All. Good.
Crazy really - put a working public transport system in and people actually
use it. Who'd have thought
Posted: 08 Feb 2007, 12:18
by Obviousman
markfiend wrote:Obviousman wrote:you're less likely to die when a four by four hits you than when a regular car does, at low speeds
That's a surprise!
To me as well! Shame I can't find the original article I'm referring to anymore though
Posted: 08 Feb 2007, 21:54
by esox
Obviousman wrote:markfiend wrote:Obviousman wrote:you're less likely to die when a four by four hits you than when a regular car does, at low speeds
Is there any other speed that a 4 X 4 can travel at then, not withstanding proper 4 wheel drive cars like the audi (ur)quatro?
