Think petrol tax is high right now?

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Light up speed limit signs have been shown to be more effective in that people slow down and stay slowed down.

very true ,a gentel reminder of the limit is more effective than a good shouting at

---------- Post added at 21:29 ---------- Previous post was at 21:27 ----------

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Which shows that they're not doing their job as a deterrant, and if they're in accident blackspots, if they're not slowing people down, they're not saving lives, so something else needs to be done such as redesigning the road to be safer.

this also is true ,but are they meant as a deterrant or a way of dishing out the punishment more efficiently

[Derek]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Which shows that they're not doing their job as a deterrant, and if they're in accident blackspots, if they're not slowing people down, they're not saving lives, so something else needs to be done such as redesigning the road to be safer.

They don't work 100% but very few things do. There is a time and a place for them, just as there is a time and a place for speed bumps etc.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by martyh

this also is true ,but are they meant as a deterrant or a way of dishing out the punishment more efficiently

The honest answer would be "it depends where they are"
Average speed limit SPECS along road works are obviously a good safety device, although if the road conditions allow (ie only one lane closed, no traffic cone slaloms) the should be turned off when the workers aren't there.
Many cameras are placed where they should, but there many which are hidden/obvuscated/on straight flat roads simply designed to make money.

---------- Post added at 21:42 ---------- Previous post was at 21:37 ----------

Originally Posted by Derek S

They don't work 100% but very few things do. There is a time and a place for them, just as there is a time and a place for speed bumps etc.

What I mean is if they're placed somewhere and are bringing in a nice income, showing they're not deterring speeders, then that is a good signal that the road is still going to produce accidents, and as such, other measures should be taken to reduce them.
Something like rumble strips, or road narrowing markings, or straighten the nasty bend, or put up a barrier, chop down that tree etc
It is not acceptable for the "safety partnerships" to sit back and make money while road safety hasn't been increased, if you see what I mean.

Have more ANPR cameras instead

Originally Posted by Xaccers

The honest answer would be "it depends where they are"
Average speed limit SPECS along road works are obviously a good safety device, although if the road conditions allow (ie only one lane closed, no traffic cone slaloms) the should be turned off when the workers aren't there.
Many cameras are placed where they should, but there many which are hidden/obvuscated/on straight flat roads simply designed to make money.

---------- Post added at 21:42 ---------- Previous post was at 21:37 ----------



What I mean is if they're placed somewhere and are bringing in a nice income, showing they're not deterring speeders, then that is a good signal that the road is still going to produce accidents, and as such, other measures should be taken to reduce them.
Something like rumble strips, or road narrowing markings, or straighten the nasty bend, or put up a barrier, chop down that tree etc
It is not acceptable for the "safety partnerships" to sit back and make money while road safety hasn't been increased, if you see what I mean.

Have more ANPR cameras instead

never really thought of it like that ,making money out of accidents/deaths even ...quite distastful when seen in that light

[Xaccers]

I am, like most motorists, 100% behind things which have a practical and effective impact on the number of accidents on our roads.
What I will object too, again like most motorists, are things done in the name of safety when they have little of no impact other than on driver's wallets, and are to the detriment of actual safety improvements.

Driving home from Northampton the back way last night there were signs of two cars going off the roads on two bends, into ditches/trees/fields.
There's not even a kerb or bank to stop it, just tarmac then grass, then a drop into the ditch/field.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by martyh

very true ,a gentel reminder of the limit is more effective than a good shouting at

I quite liked this thing I saw in Spain last year. Speed 'camera' and a set of flashing traffic lights 100 yards down the road. Go to fast, and the light changes to red, so you end up taking longer. I'm not sure how effective it was, but I liked the idea.

I think it would be nice to find a way to make driving short distances less economically viable without punishing people who go further than that. I can't really think of a way to make that possible but parents taking their kids to their local school in sodding great land rovers is absurd, how much inner-town/city rush hour traffic is for short journeys?

Now I am on it I would tax such cars heavy anyway. On my daily drive back from the tube there is a road which always has a lot of cars parked on either side. Being a narrow road it leaves little space for traffic to maneuver and you need to take it slowly, find space, and negotiate carefully when meeting traffic. Usually 3 or 4 times until the end of the road. Now imagine a massive land rover (or bigger!!) coming at you in that situation.

I live near London, what possible reason could you have for such a ridiculous car? Last time I checked there was no wild beasts roaming the suburbs, no cross-terrain driving. Just busy streets. You can fit the same amount of people into a nice, large family car. If I had a lot of money to waste on such a monstrosity then I would rather go for a luxury BMW or other such car.

/Rant

Vehicle excise duty should be scrapped & the money raised by a levy on fuel used, instead. This would be directly proportional to the vehicle fuel efficiency & the distance travelled.

The 'tax disc' could be replaced by an 'insurance disc' , confirming the legality of the vehicle, including a yearly cross check of the VPN versus the registration to help deter cloning plates?

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by gazfan

Vehicle excise duty should be scrapped & the money raised by a levy on fuel used, instead. This would be directly proportional to the vehicle fuel efficiency & the distance travelled.

The 'tax disc' could be replaced by an 'insurance disc' , confirming the legality of the vehicle, including a yearly cross check of the VPN versus the registration to help deter cloning plates?

I'd go for that, it'd save me over £200 per year

Originally Posted by Xaccers

I'd go for that, it'd save me over £200 per year

LOL - until a mileage check was built into the MOT, anyway

- and yes, a new car doesn't have an MOT until 3 years old - but would you risk voiding a warranty by running it on bio-diesel to avoid fuel tax

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by gazfan

LOL - until a mileage check was built into the MOT, anyway

- and yes, a new car doesn't have an MOT until 3 years old - but would you risk voiding a warranty by running it on bio-diesel to avoid fuel tax

Wouldn't let biodiesel get anywhere near my cars.
2000L duty free limit is about 20000 miles on veg.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Wouldn't let biodiesel get anywhere near my cars.
2000L duty free limit is about 20000 miles on veg.

pedant - however don't get me wrong, if subsidies were available for veg or bio-diesel in a 'new' fuel tax regime I'd be in favour, but it should be proportional to miles travelled - and the income should benefit the road transport network - people that use the roads the most should pay the most, and the money gained should be used to improve roads or supply alternatives...,

Naive, I know

[Taf]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

2000L duty free limit is about 20000 miles on veg.

2500L now?

http://www.vegetableoildiesel.co.uk/customs.html

The DVLA themselves have put forward that road tax should be scrapped and the money recovered via a slight increase in fuel tax, and they are obviously right when they say that income would be higher as naughty people without tax disks would have to pay at the pumps. They also floated the idea of a combined MOT/Insurance disk for cars as they hold all that information already.

I find it odd that their ideas are ignored by HMG time and again.... especially now when reduced use of vehicles/more efficient engines = reduced tax to pay = cleaner environment.