More tax on my car

Emmysmum_2

What's wrong with organising car pools?

lisyloo

What's wrong with organising car pools?

It's a great idea and there are many websites that offer it.
I share with someone at work so my petrol costs have dropped 50%.

It doesn't work all the time because sometimes one of you needs to leave early for the dentists etc. but we share the vast majority of the time and save a lot of money.

It's nice to be driven some of the time.

The only downside is that I have to get up at a time that suits both of us so it isn't ideal for me so there are compromises.

I guess the problem is finding someone that works in the same place and works the same hours as you but I guess that's what the websites are for.

mpython

110frankie wrote:

"3k deaths per year" - 85 per cent of accidents involving pedestrians are caused by the pedestrians. Those are police figures.

Not sure that’s a representative statistic of the problem. I’m not saying pedestrians don’t cause accidents (though children are a disproprorationate amount) but according to government figures, its drivers' failure to pay attention that is now the main cause of road accidents

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2006/09/29/dft_transstats_612588.pdf

I do think most people do not really appreciate the scale of the problem. For 2005, the GB figures were:-

3,201 people were killed inc 141 child fatalities and there were 271,017 reported casualties on roads
Of these, 671 were pedestrian deaths and 33,281 pedestrian casualties.
There were 148 pedal cyclist deaths and 2,212 seriously injured pedal cyclist casualties.
Two wheeled motor vehicles user casualties were 5,939 and 569 were killed.

Using the 1999 reported road death toll (3,564 - so things have got a bit better but not a lot), a campaigning road safety group have put together the following analysis:-

1999's road deaths were the equivalent of:
5 Lockerbie disasters,
plus 140 Hatfield disasters
plus 50 Paddington train crashes
plus the Concorde disaster in Paris
During the same period 330,159 people were reported injured.
The true scale of road death and injury is far worse still - based on hospital (not police) data, the annual number of injured is almost double and serious injuries are three time higher than the reported 40,000 and deaths occurring more than 30 days after the crash are not reflected in the fatality figures

mpython

[QUOTE=110frankie
So the solution appears to be to tax motorists? And that will stop pedestrians from walking in front of vehicles how exactly?[/QUOTE]
teaching children how & when to cross the road is of course the primary solution, but monitoring a car's speed so that motorists slow down will result in less fatalities & serious injuries. As the TV ad says, its 30 for a reason
[QUOTE=110frankie
"speeding motorists" - have you not noticed the numbers of cameras on our roads today?[/QUOTE]
Yes, and their road safety beneficial effect has plateaued. From personal experience I also know they are falible as I have managed to successfully overturn an alleged offence.
[QUOTE=110frankie
"uninsured drivers" - The DVLA database has the list. Police cars take the pic of the number, within seconds they are told if that car is insured or not. So they nick them.[/QUOTE]
Yes, assuming they have a reason to check on the car or they have the ANPR installed, but they cannot cover every road & junction without enormous cost (which would be even higher taxes).
[QUOTE=110frankie
The government cares nothing about safety, or the environment. What it cares about is raising cash to waste.[/QUOTE]
As my previous posts indicate, I do suspect revenue raising is a motivation for them, though it may prove illusionary.

dazco

You say that we do not appreciate the scale of the matter.

Every 30 seconds a child dies of a treatable disease called Malaria.
Does that illustrate your "scale".

I think 3000 deaths a year for all the BILLIONS of car journeys undertaken is acceptable. I would rather there was none but I would be foolish to say it could happen.

If all these journeys were taken by horse, there would be many more deaths.

mpython

Dazco, Malaria is horrible & treatable & its an outrage that people die from it on such a scale but it doesn't illustrate the scale I was inferring. We have had massive public outcries in respone to Lockerbie, Hatfield etc, but nothing of the like for the 3k+ annual road deaths.

I did not say 'you' do not appreciate the scale of the matter, I said "most people", what I should have clarified was "in my experience".

I appreciate that you think 3k+ road deaths a year is acceptable. I do not think its acceptable.

dazco

mpython wrote:

Dazco, Malaria is horrible & treatable & its an outrage that people die from it on such a scale but it doesn't illustrate the scale I was inferring. We have had massive public outcries in respone to Lockerbie, Hatfield etc, but nothing of the like for the 3k+ annual road deaths.

I did not say 'you' do not appreciate the scale of the matter, I said "most people", what I should have clarified was "in my experience".

I appreciate that you think 3k+ road deaths a year is acceptable. I do not think its acceptable.

In 1926 there was 2.9 deaths per 1000 vehicles
In 1944 there was 4 deaths per 1000 vehicles

This has steadily decreased to 0.1 deaths per 1000 vehicles.

A great result result for the British public.

Well done all:T

mpython

Are you seriously applauding 3k+ deaths a year?

110frankie

I don't think one death is acceptable, but I believe that death on the roads is inevitable.
If as much money was spent on malaria as is raised by taxing motorists then deaths by malaria are not inevitable.
The world wiped out smallpox, it can do the same for malaria.

It's 30 for a reason... so now it is being dropped to 20 - do the "experts" the "road safety groups" the anti-vehicle campaigners say "We were wrong, our campaigning for more than 70 years for the 30mph limit has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of pedestrians?"

Drop the limit to 20 and I'll drive at 20... as will the majority of motorists.

As I say, no deaths in road accidents are acceptable, but I will never accept that the way to stopping road accidents is to always blame car owners.

We need to accept and realise that government fund-raising. and then wasted funds (they give it to the Police for instance and then won't let them spend on ANPRO) is plain wrong.

Jay-walking is not against the law... for goodness sake...now there would be a good fund-raiser. they could use the cash raised from that to provide more car parking spaces.

the motorist is villified up hill and down dale. Pedestrians are being taught that they can walk where they like, because the big bad motorist is in the wrong. Go on, don't say you haven't seen a pedestrian amble across the road in front of you staring, and grinning at you as you brake or swerve ?
Parents don't teach children not to ruin in the road - the motorist must slow down instead.

The motorist IS NOT to blame for every ill in the country, or the world...

110frankie

dazco wrote:

In 1926 there was 2.9 deaths per 1000 vehicles
In 1944 there was 4 deaths per 1000 vehicles

This has steadily decreased to 0.1 deaths per 1000 vehicles.

A great result result for the British public.

Well done all:T

now all we need is to stop pedestrians causing so many accidents and we can cut that figure even more.