Why don't you own an electric bike?

[TimberWolf]

But Lycra? Now come on!

Anyway, I'll slide all over the leather seats!

I don't wear it either. I can handle the full force of the prevailing winds and air resistance like a man, and have extra wide knobbly tyres, unlike real 'cyclists'. None of this thin-tyre low-rolling resistance puffta stuff for me. Might consider batteries though, especially considering the level of approval of these displayed by this board

[Churchill]

I don't wear it either. I can handle the full force of the prevailing winds and air resistance like a man, and have extra wide knobbly tyres, unlike real 'cyclists'. None of this thin-tyre low-rolling resistance puffta stuff for me. Might consider batteries though, especially considering the level of approval of these displayed by this board

3 words...

"Internal Combustion Engine"

[Board Game Geek]

What a ridiculous argument.

I'm using electricity too. Should I pay the same amount as the factory down the road?

MM, I'm only focussing on use of the road, ie, the permission to be entitled to use it.

There are a lot of mechanisms that exist where, regardless of how much you use, payment of the use is the same for all users.

Eg. My local gym. Membership is £40 a month. That is for unlimited access. Whether you go once, or 30 times, it's the same price. In that sense, you are paying for "access" to the club, not "usage on a per visit basis".

I'm not interested in whether a 40 ton lorry has more impact on the road than me on my unicycle. In such a context, it's irrelevant.

The fact of the matter is that we both use the road. That is the lowest common denominator, and the equalising factor that should matter if a standard charge was levied for all road users.

By levying a standard charge to all road users right across the board, economically the cost should be lower for all, as opposed to the current system where some pay more than others, and some pay nothing at all.

To be honest, that is the more ridiculous situation, isn't it ?

The only excuse is that certain groups have a lesser impact on the road. My retort is that they are still using the road per se. Try to ignore the impact and focus on the use of the road.

[Moscow Mule]

MM, I'm only focussing on use of the road, ie, the permission to be entitled to use it.

There are a lot of mechanisms that exist where, regardless of how much you use, payment of the use is the same for all users.

Eg. My local gym. Membership is £40 a month. That is for unlimited access. Whether you go once, or 30 times, it's the same price. In that sense, you are paying for "access" to the club, not "usage on a per visit basis".

I'm not interested in whether a 40 ton lorry has more impact on the road than me on my unicycle. In such a context, it's irrelevant.

The fact of the matter is that we both use the road. That is the lowest common denominator, and the equalising factor that should matter if a standard charge was levied for all road users.

By levying a standard charge to all road users right across the board, economically the cost should be lower for all, as opposed to the current system where some pay more than others, and some pay nothing at all.

To be honest, that is the more ridiculous situation, isn't it ?

The only excuse is that certain groups have a lesser impact on the road. My retort is that they are still using the road per se. Try to ignore the impact and focus on the use of the road.

I think the way you are looking at this is flawed, and if you were to adopt such a model you would have some very angry pedestrians knocking on your door!!

I don't have a choice about my use of the road (unlike your gym analogy) - I need to use it to get where I'm going. How I use it, and the impact I cause other road users (through taking up space and the amount of unpleasantness I cause etc etc) should be reflected in the amount I pay.

To further your gym analogy, you don't have to pay for unlimited access (at least at my gym) - there are discounts if you want to go when the gym is less congested. There are also discounts if I only want to use part of the gym.

[Moscow Mule]

And another thing - were you for the Poll Tax? Because that's essentially what you are suggesting.

[Board Game Geek]

The Community Charge was a poll tax to fund local government in the United Kingdom, instituted in 1989 by the government of Margaret Thatcher.

It replaced the rates (tax) that were based on the notional rental value of a house. The abolition of rates was in the manifesto of Thatcher's Conservative Party in the 1979 general election, and the replacement was proposed in the Green Paper of 1986, Paying for Local Government.

It was a fixed tax per adult resident, but there was a reduction for poor people. Each person was to pay for the services provided in their community.

This proposal was contained in the Conservative Manifesto for the 1987 General Election. The new tax replaced the rates in Scotland from the start of the 1989/90 financial year and in England and Wales from the start of the 1990/91 financial year.

The system was unpopular. It seemed to shift the tax burden from rich to poor, as it was based on the number of people living in a house rather than its estimated price.

Many tax rates set by local councils proved to be much higher than earlier predictions, leading to resentment even among people who had supported it. The tax in different boroughs differed dramatically because local taxes paid by businesses varied and grants by central government to local authorities sometimes varied capriciously.

I'm not quite sure how the poll tax applies to my proposal. Unless of course, you suggest that my proposal would punish those who use multiple forms of self-transport (eg, Bob has 2 cars adn a bike and therefore pays 3 times to use the roads)

I'm not suggesting that at all. I'm suggesting that Bob pays a yearly charge to use the road, regardless of the vehicle he is using. (the poll tax would have made Bob pay 3 times)

As for the gym analogy, I can't what's wrong with charging a flat monthly fee for unlimited access, in the same way my ISP charge a flat monthly fee for unlimited bandwith.

An interesting discussion, n'est pas ?

[Moscow Mule]

I'm not quite sure how the poll tax applies to my proposal. Unless of course, you suggest that my proposal would punish those who use multiple forms of self-transport (eg, Bob has 2 cars adn a bike and therefore pays 3 times to use the roads)

I was rather thinking of Bob, his Wife and their two kids - who would all have to pay the same amount.

[TimberWolf]

3 words...

"Internal Combustion Engine"

You are an old dog that can't learn new tricks.

(10 words).

[Churchill]

You are an old dog that can't learn new tricks.

(10 words).

Correct.

Can we move on now?
(By means other than an electrically assisted velocipede.)

[dang65]

Eg. My local gym. Membership is £40 a month. That is for unlimited access. Whether you go once, or 30 times, it's the same price. In that sense, you are paying for "access" to the club, not "usage on a per visit basis".

As it happens, we already do this with the public roads. Roads are paid for and maintained using funds raised from Council Tax and income tax. Vehicle Excise Duty does not pay for the roads. It goes into the central pot which pays for whatever... NHS, war, education.

Based on your analogy, one might see VED as an extra charge for an incredibly fat person who goes around breaking all the gym equipment which other members have paid for, even the ones that only go there for a latte on Thursday mornings.