On 13 Feb, 07:24, Tony B <
[email protected]> wrote:
> Danny Colyer wrote:
> > Most of you will probably have heard the news about the No 10
> > anti-congestion charging petition reaching 1 million signatures:
> > <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6353353.stm>
>
> I won't be signing up to that one, if only because it's a good starting
> point for Gordon's Brownshirts to use as a list for first up against the
> wall ;-) Resistance is useless!
>
> > What hasn't been so well publicised, and is worth knowing, is that there
> > is also a petition for those who like the idea of car tracking and road
> > pricing:
> > <http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/TRACK-CARS/>
>
> This one will also remain unsigned as, despite the worthiness of the
> petition creator's sentiments, the general routine tracking of
> individuals under any circumstances would be both technically impossible
> (well, incredibly difficult and hugely expensive anyway) and a huge
> intrusive injustice against our personal civil liberties. Why anyone
> would want to volunteer to be tracked by the state is frankly beyond me.
>
> Now, a petition to ration car miles, there's a thought...
>
> War is Peace,
>
> Tony B
The full cost of motoring is £20 billion per year more than the Road
Tax. Every car is subsidised to the tune of £1500 a year.
The hidden costs of motoring include: congestion (leading to business
delays), air pollution (leading to health problems such as asthma),
excessive noise, global warming, and the pain, su
http://www.bikeforall.net/content/bicycle_advocacy.php
Whitelegg (1992) calculated that if all the indirect costs associated
with car use were totalled the private car driver was being subsidised
by £20 billion pounds annually. In 1992 motor vehicle tax would have
had to be increased to over £1000 per vehicle per year if the costs of
private car use were to be met by car users themselves.
In the 8 years since this calculation was made these indirect costs
have risen substantially. For example, the cost of road traffic
related injury and deaths was estimated to be £5 billion in 1992.
By 2003 this had increased to £16.9 billion. In reality it is
cyclists who are subsidising motor vehicle use!
http://www.thebikezone.org.uk/thebikezone/campaigning/tax.html
Pollution-related admissions are estimated to cost the NHS between £17-
£60m each year.
http://www.corporatecitizen.nhs.uk/transport.html
£30.2 BN OVER 10 YEARS- INCREASE IN ROAD FUEL DUTY
Why needed: An increase road fuel duty by 3-5 % per year (keeping the
real price of motoring constant over the next 10 years) would reduce
congestion and air pollution, and slow the rise in carbon dioxide
emissions. It could raise up to £30.2 bn over 10 years, which should
be reinvested in sustainable transport.
Background:Following protests from lorry drivers and pressure from the
oil industry, the Government ended the fuel duty escalator in November
1999. Since then motoring costs have fallen by RPI -3% per annum. At
the same time carbon dioxide emissions have increased, traffic levels
rising and rail fares have gone up.
http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/budget_2004_brown_must_go_12032004.html
The economic and individual costs of traffic congestion.
In 1993 The Confederation of British Industry calculated that the
annual cost to British industry of congestion was £15 billion pounds
per year and this has increased every year since then. Traffic
congestion is also one of the primary sources of stress in modern
society.
Although there is the widespread perception that private car use is a
net contributor to the National economy, Whitelegg (1992) calculated
that if all the indirect costs associated with car use are totalled
(for example, the costs of pollution, traffic injury and death and the
costs to the National Health Service arising from a sedentary car
bound lifestyle), the private car driver was being subsidised by £20
billion pounds annually. In 1992 motor vehicle tax would have had to
be increased to over £1000 per vehicle per year if the total costs of
private car use were to be met by car users themselves. In the 11
years since this calculation was made these indirect costs have risen
substantially. For example, the annual £5 billion cost of road traffic
related injury and deaths used by Whitelegg in 1992 had risen to
almost £11 billion per year by 2000.
2) The degradation of the environment due to pollution created by
motor vehicles.
No motor vehicle can be considered to be 'green'. Even lead-free
petrol releases hydrocarbon derived toxins into the atmosphere and the
particulates released by diesel engines are carriers of high-risk
carcinogens. In addition, the majority of car journeys are only a few
miles in length and for such journeys catalytic converters are
ineffective in reducing emission levels.
The British Medical Council estimated in 1998 that 22,000 individuals
die prematurely each year as a result of the pollution from car
exhausts. Vehicle exhaust levels also significantly affect children.
In many areas one third of children require treatment for asthma,
either directly as a result of exposure to traffic fumes or because
exposure has sensitised them to other factors.
3) The continued destruction of the countryside in an attempt to
accommodate the ever increasing amounts of traffic.
This occurs despite the fact that it is now recognised that it is
impossible to build ones' way out of congestion. Creating new roads
creates new opportunities to drive and may make existing journeys
easier. The overall outcome of this is to increase the net number of
vehicle journeys and a corresponding increase in congestion at those
parts of the network with limited capacity.
4) A continuation of the high rate of death and injury resulting from
motor vehicle crashes.
The death and injury toll from motor vehicle crashes is commonly
regarded as a normal part of life, due in part to the dispersal of
casualties. In addition to the personal impact of such crashes the
financial cost of injury and death incidents, as estimated by The
Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety, had risen to
£10.9 billion per year by the year 2000.
5) Increasing dependency on the car is a key cause of an increasingly
sedentary lifestyle for many individuals. This has a wide range of
negative effects on the health of the individual.
Levels of obesity are increasing along with obesity related diseases
such as diabetes. The World Health Organisation has determined that
living a sedentary lifestyle increases the risk of heart disease,
diabetes and obesity by 50% with a wide range of other illnesses being
made significantly more likely, including some forms of cancer.
In 2001 the Scottish Cancer foundation found that regular exercise
could reduce bowel cancer by 50%. In 2002 researchers at the
University of Bristol reported that regular exercise could reduce the
chance of developing bowel cancer by between 40% and 50% and the
chance of developing breast cancer by 30%. These findings were further
supported by research from the German Cancer Research Centre in
Heidelberg (published in the American Journal of Epidemiology in 2003)
which showed that 3 hours of moderate cycling per week reduced the
risk of breast cancer by 34%. This report also suggested that cycling
might be an especially effective form of exercise with regards
increasing the individuals resistance to cancer.
Individuals also suffer from decreasing levels of fitness with a
negative effect on their life quality and feeling of well being. As a
consequence sedentary individuals are also more likely to suffer from
depression and mental health than those living a more active
lifestyle.
6) High levels of car use have also led to degradation in the quality
of life due to traffic levels, danger and noise.
Again this is particularly serious problem for children who spend
their lives in cars without being able enjoy the personal development
and health benefits previous generations gained from cycling and
walking. As is the case with crime, the fear of traffic has a negative
influence on many more individuals than those who actually become
victims.
In addition the development of the road infrastructure itself has also
had a significant adverse affect on quality of life and local
communities. Major roads schemes, evident in cities such as Leeds,
have severed links within communities and created areas of urban
blight. In such areas residents often have to live in close proximity
to networks of inner city motorways which individuals find alienating
and hostile.
8) An increasing dependence on car ownership has exacerbated levels of
social exclusion.
Those who choose not to drive or who cannot drive have become excluded
from many aspects of normal social life. Many facilities, from cinemas
to supermarkets have effectively become accessible only to car owners.
In part this is due to a high level of car use resulting in a reduced
demand for public transport, this in turn resulting in services being
cut, leaving the car free isolated. High levels of traffic also mean
that many individuals feel that cycling or even walking are not viable
options, even for short journeys. In addition, many facilities have
been developed that are hard to access without a car, for example out
of town shopping centres. Employers also frequently recruit from a
wide catchment area or require staff to have a car available for
'work' use.
It is also significant that those who suffer most from social
exclusion due to a lack of access to a private car are also those most
likely to experiences the negative impact resulting from the car use
of others. Children from the poorest backgrounds are five times as
likely to be killed by a car then those from the richest backgrounds
and poorer inner city areas often cut through with busy roads giving
suburban dwellers access to city centres but creating pollution and
danger for those who live in their vicinity.
All of the above factors mean that the car free are liable to suffer
increased levels of social exclusion. A recognition of this has led
(February 2003) to the publication of the Social Exclusion Unit's
Report 'Making the Connections: Final Report on Transport and Social
Exclusion.'
(Available at
http://www.socialexclusionunit.gov.uk/published.htm )
This report lays out how 'accessibility planning' can be used to
identify where social exclusion is arising as a result of individuals
being unable to access jobs, learning, health care and leisure
facilities. It also shows how action may be taken to improve access by
'improving public transport, introducing more innovative travel
options, or changing the location or delivery of the services people
need.' This approach is central to many of the initatives examined
within this resource.
Additional information.
Further information on Cycling to Work is available on the DfT website
in the form of Traffic Advisory Leaflet 11/97: Cycling to Work. The
DfT site undergoes frequent redesigns which often makes it difficult
to find a given document but at the time of writing this TAL is
available at:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_roads/documents/page/dft_roads_504737.hcsp
Also relevant is TAL 12/99: Cycling for better health to be found at
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_roads/documents/page/dft_roads_504739.hcsp
Ibid.
Why should we carry on subsidising drivers? Why should they not pay
what they should? The Polluter Pays is ignored by motorists who
continue to have their lifestyle subsidised!
