Live blog: Halfords launch 'first heated bar grips' on new Carrera bike; Other Peloton ad suggests spinning on Xmas morning; Helyx 'drunk bike' steers from the rear; Infamous 'Peloton Wife' ad; Labour's active travel plans 'could be funded by VED' + more

hawkinspeter wrote:

 

I tried holding them to account but old senile people keep voting the Tories in (even despite the Tories trying to kill them off by ransacking the NHS).

that's because the Tories make better promises. Labour: free bikes for all; Tories: free unicorns for all, and no immigrants.

iandusud wrote:

Mungecrundle wrote:

The problem is that the money will not be entirely raised from increased VED, not unless they double it if the figures in the story are taken at face value, it will be taken from the road budget in general most of which is paid for in general taxation anyway. What this will mean in reality is that vast sums will disappear into the bottomless pit of public transport and spaffed up the wall paying for public planning consultations. At best, as far as us cyclists are concerned, we might see more of the ridiculously expensive, questionably useful cycle infrastructure designed by a committee of halfwits who so obviously don't know one end of a bicycle from a knitted bobble hat. Outside of this, road budgets will be cut resulting in worse potholes, fewer bypasses to ease local traffic, more 4x4 urban monsters bought because the roads are so crap and generally our lives will be made more miserable.

It would appear that you are arguing that it's not worth doing a good thing because it will be done poorly. If we applied that logic then nothing good would ever be done. I do sympathise with your cynisism but the answer is to hold those who govern us to account. 

Bypasses rarely ease loca traffic - then generally increase car usage. 

Fair comment, negativity is not particularly inspiring.

If I were seeking for some kind of hope for the future on the political front then it would look like this.

1. Constituency representatives voted for by the local electorate to represent their views in a Parliament designed to reach decisions on consensus politics and informed debate.

2. Though candidates could stand on a manifesto of a recognised political party, a ban on the current whip system. MPs should represent the interests of their constituents to parliament, not the interests of their political party to the electorate.

3. An end to general elections, replaced with a rolling calendar of local elections. This would get rid of the potential lurching from left to right every 5 years, the disruption to parliament for campaigning and the ensuing chaos of major policy changes as the winners attempt to "fix the damage" of the previous administration.

4. Governance of the country based more on setting long term policy and creating efficiency by joined up thinking. Spending public money where it can achieve the best returns rather than spending for the sake of a headline saying how much you have spent.

5. Remove the conflict perpetuated by political dogma between nationalisation and private enterprise. Some things IMO are better in public ownership (Health, education, transport infrastructure, major utilities, Royal mail, council services etc), some things can be better provided by being farmed out to private companies, yes even in the NHS.

My vote for Green is, in my constituency at least, a protest vote. I'm in the fortunate position of not having to worry about my next meal or paying a mortgage (have been in the past and very mindful of those currently struggling to make ends meet) so the long term condition of the planet for my children and future generations is high on my agenda and I know it will have an impact on my lifestyle choices.

iandusud wrote:

Whilst I'm very much in favour of taxing motoring more to help pay for active travel and public transport I don't believe that doing it through increased VED is the right way. The problem is that once people have paid their VED there's no incentive to not use the car. Surely a better way would be increase duty on petrol and deisel fuel. This would have two positive effects. One would be to encourage car owners to use other forms of transport (cycling, walking, public transport) and it would reduce carbon emitions. It would also encourage the adoption of electric vehicles. I fear that just increasing VED will for most car owners just be seen as another form of tax increase and will in no way deter them from driving.

This was policy for a long time, the fuel price escalator, introduced by John Major at 3% and increased to 6% by Blair, and abolished by Gordon Brown, and it didn't work.  Drivers are basically addicted and will pay whatever it takes to keep driving.  It is attractive because it seems to transfer the cost of a journey from capital cost to the cost of the journey, but most people don't think about how much each journey costs or even the cost of filling the tank; they just pay it anyway, and don't think much about transferring trips to other modes.

iandusud wrote:

Whilst I'm very much in favour of taxing motoring more to help pay for active travel and public transport I don't believe that doing it through increased VED is the right way. The problem is that once people have paid their VED there's no incentive to not use the car. Surely a better way would be increase duty on petrol and deisel fuel. This would have two positive effects. One would be to encourage car owners to use other forms of transport (cycling, walking, public transport) and it would reduce carbon emitions. It would also encourage the adoption of electric vehicles. I fear that just increasing VED will for most car owners just be seen as another form of tax increase and will in no way deter them from driving.

Would it work to just scrap VED altogether and ramp up fuel duty? (for a start, so it catches up with the how many years of 'freezing fuel duty').

brooksby wrote:

Would it work to just scrap VED altogether and ramp up fuel duty? (for a start, so it catches up with the how many years of 'freezing fuel duty').

I think that's a useful idea. For starters, fuel duty is much harder to avoid, too.  So, scrap VED, replace it with increased fuel duty, so people pay for usage (and pollution), not ownership.

kraut wrote:

brooksby wrote:

Would it work to just scrap VED altogether and ramp up fuel duty? (for a start, so it catches up with the how many years of 'freezing fuel duty').

I think that's a useful idea. For starters, fuel duty is much harder to avoid, too.  So, scrap VED, replace it with increased fuel duty, so people pay for usage (and pollution), not ownership.

 

Except it will not bring an end to the attitude of "I pay for the roads you don't" that the vast majority of motorists have. In fact it will make it worse.

The only possible benefit will be a heavy fuel duty will encourage a massive reduction in short journeys and force people to active travel and public transport (reduces duty could be offered to bus companies the same way as you have red diesel for farmers). 

Dad always said cities should have satellite car parks with frequent buses/trams operating all hours to take the strain off the streets from commuters. While private motorised traffic within the city by residents should be discouraged though you could own a vehicle and drive to other towns etc from your home. You just couldn't drive to the next street!  

The reality of it all is that the modern day vehicle is not designed for our street scape.  Infrastructure is already there. The solution is a simple one. You remove the need for people to drive two miles to the shops.  

kraut wrote:

brooksby wrote:

Would it work to just scrap VED altogether and ramp up fuel duty? (for a start, so it catches up with the how many years of 'freezing fuel duty').

I think that's a useful idea. For starters, fuel duty is much harder to avoid, too.  So, scrap VED, replace it with increased fuel duty, so people pay for usage (and pollution), not ownership.

 

Very unpopular with rural areas, as due to bus services being axed, there's no real alternative.

hirsute wrote:

kraut wrote:

brooksby wrote:

Would it work to just scrap VED altogether and ramp up fuel duty? (for a start, so it catches up with the how many years of 'freezing fuel duty').

I think that's a useful idea. For starters, fuel duty is much harder to avoid, too.  So, scrap VED, replace it with increased fuel duty, so people pay for usage (and pollution), not ownership.

 

Very unpopular with rural areas, as due to bus services being axed, there's no real alternative.

Well, as they say you can't please all of the people all of the time. I've lived in both remote rural settings and urban ones. Each have their advantages and their drawbacks. I would certainly be in favour of heavily increasing fuel duty to subsidise public transport, which should include rural locations, even if it is an infrequent but regular service to nearby major towns.

iandusud wrote:

Whilst I'm very much in favour of taxing motoring more to help pay for active travel and public transport I don't believe that doing it through increased VED is the right way. The problem is that once people have paid their VED there's no incentive to not use the car. Surely a better way would be increase duty on petrol and deisel fuel. This would have two positive effects. One would be to encourage car owners to use other forms of transport (cycling, walking, public transport) and it would reduce carbon emitions. It would also encourage the adoption of electric vehicles. I fear that just increasing VED will for most car owners just be seen as another form of tax increase and will in no way deter them from driving.

Agreed, most people are unlikely to give up their car because the VED has gone up a bit, I use my car less if I can get away with it, but I require it enough that owning a car still makes a lot of financial sense over renting one when required, having to pay more VED wouldn't stop me driving it as much, and wouldn't make me choose not to use it over cycling, whereas a duty increase on petrol, while not great for those on lower incomes, would make me choose whether getting the bike out was the better choice.

RobD wrote:

iandusud wrote:

Whilst I'm very much in favour of taxing motoring more to help pay for active travel and public transport I don't believe that doing it through increased VED is the right way. The problem is that once people have paid their VED there's no incentive to not use the car. Surely a better way would be increase duty on petrol and deisel fuel. This would have two positive effects. One would be to encourage car owners to use other forms of transport (cycling, walking, public transport) and it would reduce carbon emitions. It would also encourage the adoption of electric vehicles. I fear that just increasing VED will for most car owners just be seen as another form of tax increase and will in no way deter them from driving.

Agreed, most people are unlikely to give up their car because the VED has gone up a bit, I use my car less if I can get away with it, but I require it enough that owning a car still makes a lot of financial sense over renting one when required, having to pay more VED wouldn't stop me driving it as much, and wouldn't make me choose not to use it over cycling, whereas a duty increase on petrol, while not great for those on lower incomes, would make me choose whether getting the bike out was the better choice.

Exactly. Where's the incentive to use public transport if it's cheaper and more convenient to use your car. I need a car but try and use it as little as possible, to which end I built a cargo bike last year so that I can avoid using my car for local shopping journeys. However when it comes to longer journeys there are very few times when using public transport is not more expensive than using the car, for which I have already paid the VED and insurance, and that is when only one person is using it. If travelling with my wife or children then it's just not an option. I would happily accept an overnight doubling of fuel duty if the money was properly invested in subsidising public transport and building proper cycling infrastructure.