Letter in local paper.



Simon Mason wrote:
> Following on from Spindrift's recent encounter, here is an appropriate
> response in our local rag.
> Sorry for dodgy image, but I used my camera instead of cranking up the
> scanner:
> Hull Daily Mail.
>
> http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/zmail.htm

Very good! Do people still believe that VED is used to build roads?
Given that the amount raised more or less exactly matches the amount
spent maintaining roads it's an easy mistake to make perhaps.

It would probably be better to abolish VED completely to avoid the
confusion, and to raise the deficit from fair taxes. Ability to pay
springs to mind, not personal transport choice.

--
Matt B
 
VED is the same for cars as it is for bikes, zero emission vehicles all pay
zero pounds be it a bike or a private car!!

SW
 
Steve W wrote:
> VED is the same for cars as it is for bikes, zero emission vehicles all pay
> zero pounds be it a bike or a private car!!

Untrue. An unused car (zero emissions) kept on a public road attracts
the same VED as one which /is/ used. VED rate is based on /potential/
not /actual/ CO2 emissions. However, fuel duty /is/ directly
proportional to CO2, and all other emissions, and is paid in advance of
/all/ such emissions.

At 47.1p + VAT per litre, fuel duty is five times higher than the
suggested figure for 'carbon tax' published in the recent Stern report.

So, you see, motorists already pay 5x over for their /actual/ CO2
through fuel duty. Why should they pay again through CO2 related VED,
and again via CO2 related congestion charge rates, and again via CO2
related residents parking permits?

How many times do householders pay for their CO2 emissions, which are
far greater than those from road transport?

--
Matt B
 
Anthony Jones wrote:

> Simon Mason wrote:
> > http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/zmail.htm
>
> Brilliant. Especially the emphasis on Churchill, leaving them no choice but
> to agree.

out of interest, what do the panel think the mail would have written if
their investigation had determined that the queen mum (gawd bless her)
had actually been responsible for the Diana crash)? My guess is that
they would have been forced to talk up the pregnancy and pay Dodi to
make an asylum application quick smart. Either that or really focus on
the house price impact angle and use that to distract readers'
attention and stop their brains(!) from melting

best wishes
james
 
Matt B wrote:
> Steve W wrote:
> > VED is the same for cars as it is for bikes, zero emission vehicles all pay
> > zero pounds be it a bike or a private car!!
>
> Untrue. An unused car (zero emissions) kept on a public road attracts
> the same VED as one which /is/ used. VED rate is based on /potential/
> not /actual/ CO2 emissions. However, fuel duty /is/ directly
> proportional to CO2, and all other emissions, and is paid in advance of
> /all/ such emissions.

I think what Steve W meant was that if bicycles did have to pay VED
then they'd pay nothing because their emissions are zero. Just as cars
in VED Band A (like the Toyota Prius) pay nothing for VED.

This counters the commonly used, and incorrect, argument of motorists
that they alone pay VED.

Do motorists tell Toyota Prius drivers to get off the road because they
don't pay for it?

-Alex
 
Anthony Jones wrote on 24/11/2006 17:07 +0100:
> Simon Mason wrote:
>> http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/zmail.htm
>
> Brilliant. Especially the emphasis on Churchill, leaving them no choice but
> to agree.
>

They're probably still trying to work out what an insurance company has
to do with it ;-)


--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci
 
Alex wrote:
> Matt B wrote:
>> Steve W wrote:
>>> VED is the same for cars as it is for bikes, zero emission vehicles all pay
>>> zero pounds be it a bike or a private car!!
>> Untrue. An unused car (zero emissions) kept on a public road attracts
>> the same VED as one which /is/ used. VED rate is based on /potential/
>> not /actual/ CO2 emissions. However, fuel duty /is/ directly
>> proportional to CO2, and all other emissions, and is paid in advance of
>> /all/ such emissions.
>
> I think what Steve W meant was that if bicycles did have to pay VED
> then they'd pay nothing because their emissions are zero. Just as cars
> in VED Band A (like the Toyota Prius) pay nothing for VED.

The Prius is Band B. I don't think any mainstream cars are in Band A.
>
> This counters the commonly used, and incorrect, argument of motorists
> that they alone pay VED.

Who else, other than motorists, pays VED then?

> Do motorists tell Toyota Prius drivers to get off the road because they
> don't pay for it?

Some may, for the same reason that, apparently, they erroneously say it
to cyclists.

BTW the myth that the Prius is 'green' was exploded by a recent (April
2006) two-year study in the US into the cradle to grave CO2 emissions of
cars. Simple, robust cars came out as much greener than the Prius in
whole-life terms. In a table published in 'What Car' the Prius came
74th, behind 'gas guzzlers' such as the Jeep Wrangler (1st), Jeep
Cherokee (8th), Land Rover Freelander (19th), Range Rover Sport (48th),
Land Rover Discovery (53rd) and the Toyota Land Cruiser (71st).

That VED is based on emissions is like many other things that the
government try to spin to us to justify revenue generation - wrong.

--
Matt B
 
Matt B wrote:
> Alex wrote:
> > Matt B wrote:
> >> Steve W wrote:
> >>> VED is the same for cars as it is for bikes, zero emission vehicles all pay
> >>> zero pounds be it a bike or a private car!!
> >> Untrue. An unused car (zero emissions) kept on a public road attracts
> >> the same VED as one which /is/ used. VED rate is based on /potential/
> >> not /actual/ CO2 emissions. However, fuel duty /is/ directly
> >> proportional to CO2, and all other emissions, and is paid in advance of
> >> /all/ such emissions.
> >
> > I think what Steve W meant was that if bicycles did have to pay VED
> > then they'd pay nothing because their emissions are zero. Just as cars
> > in VED Band A (like the Toyota Prius) pay nothing for VED.
>
> The Prius is Band B. I don't think any mainstream cars are in Band A.

Yes, my mistake. There are no mainstream Band A cars, but they aren't
far off looking at the figures for what is available now.

So, removing the reference to Prius:-

I think what Steve W meant was that if bicycles did have to pay VED
then they'd pay nothing because their emissions are zero. Just as cars
in VED Band A will pay nothing for VED.

[ SNIP the stuff about the Prius specifically, that's a separate matter
]

-Alex
 
Alex wrote:
> Matt B wrote:
>> Alex wrote:
>>> Matt B wrote:
>>>> Steve W wrote:
>>>>> VED is the same for cars as it is for bikes, zero emission vehicles all pay
>>>>> zero pounds be it a bike or a private car!!
>>>> Untrue. An unused car (zero emissions) kept on a public road attracts
>>>> the same VED as one which /is/ used. VED rate is based on /potential/
>>>> not /actual/ CO2 emissions. However, fuel duty /is/ directly
>>>> proportional to CO2, and all other emissions, and is paid in advance of
>>>> /all/ such emissions.
>>> I think what Steve W meant was that if bicycles did have to pay VED
>>> then they'd pay nothing because their emissions are zero. Just as cars
>>> in VED Band A (like the Toyota Prius) pay nothing for VED.
>> The Prius is Band B. I don't think any mainstream cars are in Band A.
>
> Yes, my mistake. There are no mainstream Band A cars, but they aren't
> far off looking at the figures for what is available now.
>
> So, removing the reference to Prius:-
>
> I think what Steve W meant was that if bicycles did have to pay VED
> then they'd pay nothing because their emissions are zero. Just as cars
> in VED Band A will pay nothing for VED.

Remembering too, of course, that the CO2 emission link only happened in
the last few years, and cycles were /never/ asked to pay any before that
was a factor.

If VED was related to the more environmentally relevant 'whole life' CO2
emissions, it would be interesting to see where bicycles came in the
scale. Per vehicle kilometre over its life they are probably quite
significant, even for a pedal cycle.

--
Matt B
 
in message <[email protected]>, Alex
('[email protected]') wrote:

> Matt B wrote:
>> Steve W wrote:
>> > VED is the same for cars as it is for bikes, zero emission vehicles
>> > all pay zero pounds be it a bike or a private car!!
>>
>> Untrue. An unused car (zero emissions) kept on a public road attracts
>> the same VED as one which /is/ used. VED rate is based on /potential/
>> not /actual/ CO2 emissions. However, fuel duty /is/ directly
>> proportional to CO2, and all other emissions, and is paid in advance of
>> /all/ such emissions.
>
> I think what Steve W meant was that if bicycles did have to pay VED
> then they'd pay nothing because their emissions are zero. Just as cars
> in VED Band A (like the Toyota Prius) pay nothing for VED.
>
> This counters the commonly used, and incorrect, argument of motorists
> that they alone pay VED.
>
> Do motorists tell Toyota Prius drivers to get off the road because they
> don't pay for it?

Don't even suggest that in Clarkson's hearing, or they will.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Ye hypocrites! are these your pranks? To murder men and give God thanks?
Desist, for shame! Proceed no further: God won't accept your thanks for
murther
-- Robert Burns, 'Thanksgiving For a National Victory'
 
Simon Mason wrote:
> Following on from Spindrift's recent encounter, here is an appropriate
> response in our local rag.
> Sorry for dodgy image, but I used my camera instead of cranking up the
> scanner:
> Hull Daily Mail.
>
> http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/zmail.htm
>
> --
> Simon Mason
> http://www.simonmason.karoo.

I wonder if it would be possible to get the government to transfer this
info to a chip that could be injected into the brain of everyone born
in the Uk from now on. How the world would be changed
 
Matt B wrote:
> Simon Mason wrote:
> > Following on from Spindrift's recent encounter, here is an appropriate
> > response in our local rag.
> > Sorry for dodgy image, but I used my camera instead of cranking up the
> > scanner:
> > Hull Daily Mail.
> >
> > http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/zmail.htm
>
> Very good! Do people still believe that VED is used to build roads?
> Given that the amount raised more or less exactly matches the amount
> spent maintaining roads it's an easy mistake to make perhaps.

Slight correction. Matches more or less exactly the amount spent on
building and maintaining trunk roads, excluding policing and healthcare
costs.


> It would probably be better to abolish VED completely to avoid the
> confusion, and to raise the deficit from fair taxes. Ability to pay
> springs to mind, not personal transport choice.

Oh I don't know.. how about taxing per amount of pollution? As it is
known that cars driven for longer journeys are more fuel efficient, and
driving in congestion is bad, we could easily base it on that.
Now, how could we do that in a way which is easy to administer?

Then we have the problem of the irresponsible and ignorant taking
dangerous machinery on the road in an unsafe state. How about some
simple mechanism to check that?

Actually, I am with you here Matt. I think a small levy on top of the
annual MOT charge, say about 15 quid, should cover the admin costs,
abolish VED, and give out the tax disc as a tax/MOT disc. I'd also like
to see a system of notifiable minor vehicle defects where minor
problems are not sufficient to be kept off the road but have to be
dealt with and signed off by an authorised body (eg MOT registered
garage) within eg 14 days [1]. In these days There would be a small
charge to cover admin, equivalent to a bottom end FPN. It would only
apply to testing that the notified defect had been fixed.
With the computerised MOT it should be trivial to deal with.

It would be a suitable scheme that would ensure vehicles are less badly
maintained (especially with regard to things like lights being out of
alignment/borked) and such like.

...d

[1] A similar system exists in Norway. I had to get my headlamp
alignment checked after removing the condensation from it, and have the
GB sticker removed from the back. Easily done for a very modest fee
(about 200 NKr which is a 'phew I got off really lightly' trip to a
Norwegian garage). The garage took the paperwork and that was the last
I heard of it.
 
Matt B wrote:

> So, you see, motorists already pay 5x over for their /actual/ CO2
> through fuel duty. Why should they pay again through CO2 related VED,
> and again via CO2 related congestion charge rates, and again via CO2
> related residents parking permits?

Until they have amortised the average construction, sales and disposal
costs of that class of car?
It's not just use now that is the issue, but the overhead in
production/disposal and the effect of a car biased economy in selef
perpetuating carbon use by preventing more carbon friendly modes of
transport.

...d
 
"David Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Matt B wrote:
>> Simon Mason wrote:
>> > Following on from Spindrift's recent encounter, here is an appropriate
>> > response in our local rag.
>> > Sorry for dodgy image, but I used my camera instead of cranking up the
>> > scanner:
>> > Hull Daily Mail.
>> >
>> > http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/zmail.htm
>>
>> Very good! Do people still believe that VED is used to build roads?
>> Given that the amount raised more or less exactly matches the amount
>> spent maintaining roads it's an easy mistake to make perhaps.
>
> Slight correction. Matches more or less exactly the amount spent on
> building and maintaining trunk roads, excluding policing and healthcare
> costs.
>
>
>> It would probably be better to abolish VED completely to avoid the
>> confusion, and to raise the deficit from fair taxes. Ability to pay
>> springs to mind, not personal transport choice.
>
> Oh I don't know.. how about taxing per amount of pollution? As it is
> known that cars driven for longer journeys are more fuel efficient, and
> driving in congestion is bad, we could easily base it on that.
> Now, how could we do that in a way which is easy to administer?
>
> Then we have the problem of the irresponsible and ignorant taking
> dangerous machinery on the road in an unsafe state. How about some
> simple mechanism to check that?
>
> Actually, I am with you here Matt. I think a small levy on top of the
> annual MOT charge, say about 15 quid, should cover the admin costs,
> abolish VED, and give out the tax disc as a tax/MOT disc. I'd also like
> to see a system of notifiable minor vehicle defects where minor
> problems are not sufficient to be kept off the road but have to be
> dealt with and signed off by an authorised body (eg MOT registered
> garage) within eg 14 days [1]. In these days There would be a small
> charge to cover admin, equivalent to a bottom end FPN. It would only
> apply to testing that the notified defect had been fixed.
> With the computerised MOT it should be trivial to deal with.

The computerised MOT system already allows that "non-failing" defects are
noted and provided as part of the MOT Certificate (on the ocmputer system)

I only found out that I had 3 Non-failing faults because I checked the
website though so obviously grages arent' giving them out as they are meant
to.

For the record they were, Tail Pipe leak on exhaust, Steering Rack starting
to wear and slight oil leak.
It failed that time because the horn push wasn't working (A bodge quick fix
that failed in the heat, never trusting insulation tape again) and something
else I can't remember.

The Slight Oil leak one is a bit daft as all engines loose some oil,
especially british designed ones and even more especially ones that are
110,000 miels old.

Niall
 
David Martin wrote:
> Matt B wrote:
>> Simon Mason wrote:
>>> Following on from Spindrift's recent encounter, here is an appropriate
>>> response in our local rag.
>>> Sorry for dodgy image, but I used my camera instead of cranking up the
>>> scanner:
>>> Hull Daily Mail.
>>>
>>> http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/zmail.htm
>> Very good! Do people still believe that VED is used to build roads?
>> Given that the amount raised more or less exactly matches the amount
>> spent maintaining roads it's an easy mistake to make perhaps.
>
> Slight correction. Matches more or less exactly the amount spent on
> building and maintaining trunk roads, excluding policing and healthcare
> costs.

What policing and healthcare costs of road building?

>> It would probably be better to abolish VED completely to avoid the
>> confusion, and to raise the deficit from fair taxes. Ability to pay
>> springs to mind, not personal transport choice.
>
> Oh I don't know.. how about taxing per amount of pollution?

What, again?

> As it is
> known that cars driven for longer journeys are more fuel efficient, and
> driving in congestion is bad, we could easily base it on that.
> Now, how could we do that in a way which is easy to administer?

How about adding the tax to something which is actually directly
proportional to the amount of pollution created? Yes the fuel used.
Ah, fuel duty, that already covers the /actual/ pollution 5x over. OK,
let's remove all other motoring taxes, and reduce fuel duty by 4/5.
That will cover the cost of pollution exactly.

> Then we have the problem of the irresponsible and ignorant taking
> dangerous machinery on the road in an unsafe state. How about some
> simple mechanism to check that?

How about the negligence laws - as used in other similar circumstances?

> Actually, I am with you here Matt. I think a small levy on top of the
> annual MOT charge, say about 15 quid, should cover the admin costs,
> abolish VED, and give out the tax disc as a tax/MOT disc.

Why not /remove/ the MOT, and use the negligence, and 'reasonable care'
laws that we already have an abundance of?

> I'd also like
> to see a system of notifiable minor vehicle defects where minor
> problems are not sufficient to be kept off the road but have to be
> dealt with and signed off by an authorised body (eg MOT registered
> garage) within eg 14 days [1].

You love regulation don't you. How about setting up regulations and an
appropriate checking and enforcement body to ensure that nobody leaves
the flex of their electric kettle hanging over the kitchen worktop?

> In these days There would be a small
> charge to cover admin, equivalent to a bottom end FPN. It would only
> apply to testing that the notified defect had been fixed.
> With the computerised MOT it should be trivial to deal with.
> It would be a suitable scheme that would ensure vehicles are less badly
> maintained (especially with regard to things like lights being out of
> alignment/borked) and such like.

How about highways agency patrols, or some such, being trained to repair
such faults, and carrying a selection of spare bulbs, wiper blades, and
so forth, and offering the service for free (at the point of delivery)
to those who they encounter with such problems - to encourage safe and
courteous motoring, and to reinforce the message that the roads work
better if everyone using them is in harmony and have a mutual respect
for each other.

--
Matt B
 
David Martin wrote:
> Matt B wrote:
>
>> So, you see, motorists already pay 5x over for their /actual/ CO2
>> through fuel duty. Why should they pay again through CO2 related VED,
>> and again via CO2 related congestion charge rates, and again via CO2
>> related residents parking permits?
>
> Until they have amortised the average construction, sales and disposal
> costs of that class of car?

Like we expect users of other products to do? Ah but we don't, do we.
Tell me again why all this stuff should only apply to motorists.

> It's not just use now that is the issue, but the overhead in
> production/disposal and the effect of a car biased economy in selef
> perpetuating carbon use by preventing more carbon friendly modes of
> transport.

As far as the government, the councils and various anti-car
organisations are concerned though it seems to be. VED, congestion
charging and residents parking permits based on the marginal CO2
emissions produced using a car is their best offering.

We could tax CO2 emission, cradle to grave, for each product and service
we buy. The price of petrol would, of course, have to plummet. The
cost of electricity, gas, and water would have to soar. Manufactured
goods would have to be assessed, taking into account such things as
their design, manufacturing, shipping, maintenance, and
disposal/recycling energy consumption.

Cars, being quite a complex and energy intensive manufactured item
would, no doubt, have to have quite a high CO2 tax applied, but, judging
by the results of a two-year study in the US, published in April 2006,
hybrids and luxury/executive saloon cars would attract the highest tax,
and simpler more robust and less technological 4x4 and SUV type vehicles
would have to be taxed relatively lightly. Bicycles, TVs, washing
machines, computers, and everything else we 'need' would all have to be
assessed.

I predict riots similar to those that the introduction of the poll-tax
provoked when the apathetic masses realise that a poor man's possessions
do not result in less CO2 release than a rich man's possessions in their
total life cycle.

--
Matt B
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
  • Locked
Letter in local paper - Speedophiles
Replies
28
Views
1K
UK and Europe
Peter B
P
S
  • Locked
Letter in local paper
Replies
0
Views
723
UK and Europe
Simon Mason
S
S
  • Locked
Letter in local paper
Replies
1
Views
686
UK and Europe
Tony W
T
S
  • Locked
Letter in local paper
Replies
41
Views
2K
UK and Europe
Paul Smith
P
S
  • Locked
Another cycling letter in the local paper
Replies
33
Views
2K
UK and Europe
J-P.S
J
Top Bottom Back