Motorists are a heavily taxed group, subsidising public tranport.

This is a frequently cited and 100% inaccurate analysis. According to some calculations, motorists don't even pay for the direct costs of road construction and maintenance. But all credible calculations show that they don't pay for the other costs they cause particularly road traffic accidents; leave alone the huge environmental costs of their activities etc.

Motorists are a heavily taxed group, subsidising public tranport.

This is a frequently cited and 100% inaccurate analysis. According to some calculations, motorists don't even pay for the direct costs of road construction and maintenance. But all credible calculations show that they don't pay for the other costs they cause particularly road traffic accidents; leave alone the huge environmental costs of their activities etc.

And why should they? Should somone who doesn't have a car not have to pay as much tax as a car-owner, yet still benefit from the road network with such things as goods and food distribution?

Motorists are a heavily taxed group, subsidising public tranport.

This is a frequently cited and 100% inaccurate analysis. According to some calculations, motorists don't even pay for the direct costs of road construction and maintenance. But all credible calculations show that they don't pay for the other costs they cause particularly road traffic accidents; leave alone the huge environmental costs of their activities etc.

Source?

You must be kidding (or deluded). Who pays for other accidents & other environmental costs, people who fly?, rail & bus companies? cattle famers? space programmes? etc etc etc.

Motorists are a heavily taxed group, subsidising public tranport.

This is a frequently cited and 100% inaccurate analysis. According to some calculations, motorists don't even pay for the direct costs of road construction and maintenance. But all credible calculations show that they don't pay for the other costs they cause particularly road traffic accidents; leave alone the huge environmental costs of their activities etc.

And why should they? Should somone who doesn't have a car not have to pay as much tax as a car-owner, yet still benefit from the road network with such things as goods and food distribution?

I imagine when a non car owner nips into their local Morrison's they are paying for, amongst other things, the fuel duty etc levied upon the HGVs that bought the stuff there in the first place. So they are paying.

Motorists are a heavily taxed group, subsidising public tranport.

This is a frequently cited and 100% inaccurate analysis. According to some calculations, motorists don't even pay for the direct costs of road construction and maintenance. But all credible calculations show that they don't pay for the other costs they cause particularly road traffic accidents; leave alone the huge environmental costs of their activities etc.

Source?

You must be kidding (or deluded). Who pays for other accidents & other environmental costs, people who fly?, rail & bus companies? cattle famers? space programmes? etc etc etc.

I worked in the transport industry for 18 years so I do know a bit - sorry if it doesn't fit with your prejudices. It is the taxpayer who pays for the NHS. So the car driver is - in that instance - being cross subsidised by non car drivers. Perverse? Yep.

Motorists are a heavily taxed group, subsidising public tranport.

This is a frequently cited and 100% inaccurate analysis. According to some calculations, motorists don't even pay for the direct costs of road construction and maintenance. But all credible calculations show that they don't pay for the other costs they cause particularly road traffic accidents; leave alone the huge environmental costs of their activities etc.

Source?

You must be kidding (or deluded). Who pays for other accidents & other environmental costs, people who fly?, rail & bus companies? cattle famers? space programmes? etc etc etc.

I worked in the transport industry for 18 years so I do know a bit - sorry if it doesn't fit with your prejudices. It is the taxpayer who pays for the NHS. So the car driver is - in that instance - being cross subsidised by non car drivers. Perverse? Yep.

If I worked in the transport industry for 19 years, do I win the arguement then? So you don't have any evidence to substanciate your claim.

Motorists are also "taxpayers" who pay for the NHS, same as non motorists. Your point being?

For arguements sake: How many people have accidents in sport using NHS facilities, are they more heavily taxed? should they be?

The fact of the matter is the motorist is just being punitively taxed, as part of social engineering.

As an aside, today I took a train into London, £31 return! for 35 miles each way. 2 gallons max of fuel if I drove. Cars are far more efficient.

Motorists face new £15 'victims levy

Motorists to pay £250 tax for parking at work

Motorists hit AGAIN as Government set for more fuel duty tax grab

Popular magazine article forms basis for IPCC report.

As the original author of the piece say, there's nothing wrong with anecdotal evidence and it shouldn't be disregarded, but to base policy affecting millions of people on it???

Look at the chaos (and possible deaths?) caused when proper scientific procedures were not followed by Andrew Wakefield in the MMR/Autism fiasco. Almost mass hysteria from the population of UK parents with new or young babies. Remind you of anything else?

Both these news stories have appeared today...

BBC

Telegraph