Here's Why We Need To Be Ready To Fight Road Pricing

Roads pricing, like the idea we reported on earlier this week, wouldn't end well for the car enthusiast. Here's just a few of the reasons why we have no faith in the idea at all - and why you shouldn't either
Here's Why We Need To Be Ready To Fight Road Pricing

I want to revisit the idea of road pricing that we talked about earlier this week. The proposed scheme is in the UK, but ours isn’t the only country in the Western world that’s looking at the idea. The implications for actually enjoying cars could be massive.

The idea is pretty simple, on the face of it. Instead of paying duty on fuel and paying annual road tax as well, it would all be streamlined into one payment alongside your annual insurance bill. The people who drive the most will pay the most, within a stepped system biased towards lightweight low-emitters and against larger, heavier cars. Technology would track how many miles your car has travelled in the last year and bill you for it. It would be the biggest shake-up in the cost of motoring since insurance was introduced at all and would weigh on every driver’s mind like a taxi’s meter ticking ever onward with every mile you drive, racking up a larger and larger bill.

Here's Why We Need To Be Ready To Fight Road Pricing

There are several key aspects to the reality of how it would have to work: accurate mileage tracking on every car would be essential, the pricing structure would be totally subject to perspective and the sudden arrival of cheap fuel would be hugely counter-productive when it comes to persuading people to pay extra for electric cars. What would be the point if you could fill your Lotus for 30p per litre?

First, let’s talk about accurate mileage tracking. It would have to be based on fixed in-car technology to ensure it didn’t collect readings from other cars, and it would have to track each and every vehicle in the land – unless it was phased in with brand new cars only, which it wouldn’t be because the country-wide switch would happen far too slowly to be effective or practical. Imagine the admin involved in juggling two systems at once.

The busiest routes would cost the most to drive
The busiest routes would cost the most to drive

Every driver would be tracked, everywhere we went, and while that kind of already happens courtesy of Google and Apple, this data would be much more readily available to the authorities if they want to introduce automatic fines for speeding, for example, or to hackers who fancy finding out when owners of expensive cars are likely to be passing, in order to car-jack them. I don’t want to be watched or monitored while I’m driving, thanks. Under any circumstances.

Next, it’s the pricing structure, which the prize-winning idea we reported on says will relate to size and weight of cars as well as emissions. Our idea of fair is going to be very different to that of your typical Guardian reader, Green voter or the kind of person who puts eyelashes on their Fiat 500. Who do you prioritise? Do you penalise powerful cars because you’re an old, senile lawmaker and want to clamp down on fast motors? Do you punish any car with four-wheel drive because it’s a technological waste for 99 per cent of people 99 per cent of the time?

Country roads would be cheaper
Country roads would be cheaper

We know that the busiest routes would cost more, so you’re being taxed extra for driving to work. But where would you draw the weight limits between prices per mile? Do you penalise the Tesla Model X because it’s very heavy even though it’s electric? My point here is that there are so many perspectives and priorities that there is no such thing as fair. You can guarantee the system won’t favour fun cars.

Finally it’s the cheap fuel idea. At a glance it’s brilliant for people like us. If we could continue to biff around in old, fun, untracked cars taking advantage of dirt-cheap unleaded then I’m all for it, but is it really likely to happen when such a move would kill the electric car market overnight? Who would want to pay £5000-£10,000 extra for an EV or hybrid if fuel prices were reduced to a third of what they are now?

Would a government really leave that decision in the hands of the people? Dream on. You could expect higher roads pricing charges for the older, non-electrified cars we love, and so the cycle of misery would be complete. There would be no way for us to win; no way for us to regularly enjoy great cars without paying through the nose. If such an idea is seriously put on the table, we should all do everything we can to fight it.

Sponsored Posts

Comments

Anonymous

Road tax lol. More like “our cops need a few more Bentleys” tax …

07/23/2017 - 10:44 |
7 | 0
Ali Mahfooz

Anyone remember when Obama was the president, the government thought of doing the same thing in US? It didn’t go down well. If the government sees their own people as consumers, then you’re not running a country, you’re running a business. It is alright if the tax people are paying is converted to reduce pollution and ease congestion. But putting more public transport on the road?? That’s the last thing anyone wants. I want to know how many people actually use the bus. Honestly, how can the government expect their citizens to enjoy the city/country when all their hard earned money is spent on just on maximizing use of public transport? It’s no wonder the younger generation who live in the cities have little to no interest in cars.

07/23/2017 - 11:11 |
14 | 0
Anonymous

Come move to Freedom Land if they pass this. 🇺🇸

07/23/2017 - 11:13 |
0 | 0
Anonymous

So how would this work with the rally car? How do they price driving sideways thru a forest?

07/23/2017 - 11:16 |
0 | 0
Anonymous

What an awful idea, I wouldn’t expect anything better from the UK government.

07/23/2017 - 11:49 |
1 | 0
Extreme Daniel

What if you’d drive everywhere in reverse? get like 500-1000 every year?

07/23/2017 - 12:36 |
1 | 0
Anonymous

Here’s a crazy idea…

Forget tax and road pricing, just put all the duty on fuel.
That way, the more you drive, the more you use, the more you pay. Efficient cars would save money unless they do crazy high miles, and “gas guzzlers” would pay more unless they are used occasionally

That way, the people who clog up the roads doing silly miles will be the ones paying, and the ones who take the sports car out for the occasional spin wont get unreasonably ripped off for the privellage

07/23/2017 - 12:44 |
2 | 0
ATOGI_28

I’m not seeing why this is such a bad idea. If anything I see it as good.
So lets say I’m driving a light weight fun car like a Miata or MR2 or something.
If I pay less for having a light car I would benefit.
If I pay less for driving on country roads (where these cars are best enjoyed) I would benefit.
If fuel costs less I would also benefit.

Yeah I guess if your’e driving a heavy car in the city all the time then you would suffer.

I’m probably not understanding something here so can someone tell me why its so bad for car enthusiasts?
Oh and another question, how much does it even cost per mile? I mean If the total cost is going to be about the same as what you already pay then It cant be that bad right?

07/23/2017 - 12:49 |
1 | 0
Anonymous

[DELETED]

07/23/2017 - 12:50 |
1 | 1
Anonymous

And here I am in France, still not paying an annual road tax.

07/23/2017 - 13:59 |
1 | 0

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Get the latest car news, reviews and unmissable promotions from the team direct to your inbox