Toll Tax - One Response

[Holy Ghost]

dear all,

hi there - i'm paying you a visit from my normal haunt: the home of the fuji express that is scoobynet.

i've spent 48 splenetic hours quacking like a mad goose with avian flu at the misleading and meaningless email response from the smiley weasel in no.10 - as i'm sure a few of you here have too. here's my snailmail to that nauseating, squeaky and evasive adolescent who pretends to be our secretary of state for transport, one 'wee' dougie alexander.

i can't say i've covered all the bases but if anyone feels it's up to the mark, please feel free to modify it, improve it and use it however you please ... let's keep causing maximum static so send a copy to your MP and/or stephen ladyboy, the minister for transport.

i'll post the little bedwetter's response when it arrives. from past experience, in about 8 weeks and signed, no doubt, by some no mark paper-pusher in a non-job with a bulletproof pension paid for by all of us.

all the best,


holy ghost


**

The Rt. Hon. Douglas Alexander, MP
Secretary of State for Transport
The House of Commons
Westminster
London SW1A 0AA

Dear Secretary of State,

Re: Toll Tax Road Pricing

I’ve just received a 1,200 word email from the Prime Minister attempting to explain HMG’s position on this issue. I’ve also been interested to hear your position that opponents of this scheme have somehow been sold a pup by pro-car lobbyists, keen to exploit a set of ‘myths’ for their own ends.

Let’s dissect this a little:

1. We already have a pay-per-mile tax in place every time we visit a fuel station. The more you drive, the more you pay in tax to the Treasury. What is wrong with this model as a means of a) raising tax revenue and b) encouraging people to think how they use their cars? No one is exempt: it’s a near-flawless system.

2. What is wrong with a national network of tollbooths, deployed where needed – backed by staggered commuting streams and flexible work times in urban areas? It’s far cheaper, simpler and not an invasion of our privacy.

3. When will you prise Treasury hands off VED and fuel tax and ensure that the funds generated are invested directly and totally into our collective transport infrastructure?

4. Please would you clarify the connection between EU Directive 2004/52/EC (Electronic Road Toll Systems), your planned policy on satellite-based road pricing and the EU’s need to generate revenue to pay for the Galileo GPS satellite network? What share of revenue from UK road users will HMG anticipate passing to the EU? Is satellite-based road pricing inevitable as a result of this directive and stated EU primacy over UK policy?

5. Is there not a clear conflict of interest between a satellite-based system that tracks one’s every move in a car and Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 – the right to respect for private life?

6. An oily rag or tin foil wrapped securely around an in-car mounted GPS antenna may disrupt the downwards signal from the satellite to the car transponder – ‘jamming’ at its cheapest and most cheerful. Check it with the scientists at TRL. Buildings and trees will also disrupt the signal, causing reception blackspots. How then do you intend to check the veracity of any given signal to anything up to 33 million transponders at any given time without an additional and hugely expensive network of roadside cameras?

7. Bearing in mind the woeful record of central government IT projects, what safeguards will be in place to prevent yet another grotesque taxpayer overspend on a project that will likely be late, bug-ridden, over-ambitious and not fit-for-purpose? (NATS, Benefits System, NHS network ad nauseam).

8. What will happen to the records of drivers’ movements? How long will data be stored? How will it be used? Who will have access to it? Who will you sell the data to? What are your guarantees to prevent governmental mis-use under the trojan horse of ‘security’?

9. Will MPs and selected civil service employees/government officials be exempt from these charges (either totally or remunerated through the expenses system)?

10. How do you intend to account for foreign vehicles on our roads?

11. There are approximately 2 million vehicles on our roads that are using them illegally for want of MOT, tax, insurance and theft – roughly six per cent of all vehicles in the UK. This is a significant number - why are these vehicles still on our roads, contributing to congestion and emissions? Would you not agree that removing them or reducing the number through a joined-up, long overdue approach by police and DVLA would be a very positive move?

That’s just a few of the legions of questions that have gone as yet unanswered – even unrecognised - by your department. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on the matter.

Yours sincerely,

[degz]

I have just read Tony's response to my /our email on road tolls, well I tried to read it, got bored by para 2, It just goes on and on. I think whats he was saying was bugger you lot I am doing it anyway.

[burman]

Holy Ghost is spot on with his letter, especially point 11 he has hit on the easiest and quickist way to clear the roads of 6% of traffic. Easier still with number plate recognition.
In the case of no insurance crush the buggers straight away.

[900T-R]

I think this is an exemplary response - clear, concise, to the point. Well done!

[porky]

Superb post Holy Ghost. I cannot understand why HMG needs to create a hugely expensive monolithic surveillance scheme to collect a tax that is already collected incredibly cheaply (for HMG) through fuel duty.

By collecting all vehicle use-related tax via fuel duty, they could abolish vehicle excise duty with all its attendant collection and miscreant detection costs and, at the same time, ensure that visiting foreign vehicles did not get away with not contributing to improving our transport infrastructure.

Of course, these sensible suggestions do not allow HMG to track our movements so will never be adopted.

[herewego]

VEL helps to ensure most cars are insured and MOTed so it's unlikely to be scrapped.

[900T-R]

Incorporating road tax and third party insurance into the fuel levies surely is the simplest way to ensure that everyone on the road is taxed and insured to the lwgal minimum, and I see no reason why MOT evasion would be more widespread because of it - the date of last MOT will still be in the database of a vehicle coupled to the reg, and VEL doesn't stop people from using false plates either.

BTW in the Netherlands the databases for road licensing, insurance and MOT have been linked together for aeons now - every police officer and road tax inspector just needs to tap in the reg and will see at a glance whether the vehicle has current road license, insurance and MOT.

[herewego]

Careful drivers with average insurance costs are not going to want to subsidise those with deservedly high premiums. Why should they?
Lots more people would ignore MOTs if it wasn’t needed for VEL.

[900T-R]

herewego said:

Careful drivers with average insurance costs are not going to want to subsidise those with deservedly high premiums. Why should they?

Now all of us are subsidizing folks who don't bother with insurance at all - a considerable proportion of whom will by nature be very high risk drivers.

I understand things may be different in the UK, but here the cost of third-party only insurance isn't that variable - it's the fully comprehensive part that goes through the roof when you've got a flash car and little or no NCB.

[herewego]

Sure, but the ones who don't insure are only a small proportion, so the cost is not so high.