Nick H

A key problem that I alluded to last night was that Britain's roads are publicly owned. The trouble is, government has no incentive to resolve anything. It just sits on its hands as the roads get more and more clogged up. In the private sector, there is an incentive to remedy things out of self-interest. There is an uncanny comparison with the Soviet Union here. The most enduring immage of communism is probably the sight of Russians queueing outside the grocery because there were food shortages, poor quality products and they'd become blue in the face with rage. Yet we have our own version of it here. The roads are an unpriced free-for-all, with demand way in excess of supply, leading to queues, shoddy quality of roads and road rage. Never forget: there are two (and only two) ways of managing demand for a service. You can charge for it, or you can ration it and force people to queue. Current UK transport policy is the latter. If we had private roads, the roads would be in much better condition. There would be an incentive to repair them, and repair them quickly, because they will want the value of the road to keep up with the initial capital outlay. Failure to do would mean the road becomes empty, resulting in loss of revenue. There is simply no incentive for this in government run sectors. And the safety of roads would improve too, just like it has on the railways, because companies would know that accidents and injuries would tarnish their reputation. Again, no such incentive for the state.

Indeed we have a washout. I think it just shows how good the drainage and covering systems are at most grounds these days. Heavy rain in summer isn't uncommon, even for much of the day.

Hi Kevin, But the point is that some people are claiming that the fact we are heading for one of the warmest springs is somehow made less remarkable by the fact that March and May are "only" 1C above the 1971-00 mean. We base our assertions on the warmth of springs by reference to all the data, not the most recent mean. It's like saying that if July 2006 had been an average month, then 2006 would not have been the UK's warmest year on record. The fact is July 2006 was not average and the year 2006 was the warmest on record. It's also like saying "if the last week of Feb 19xx had been colder, we would have had the coldest Feb on record." There's no difference. And March 1997 would also be classified as exceptionally above average.

Let's get this straight, a month in the top 10.5% of all such months is only classed as "above average". Come off it. Exceptionally above average surely. And I think these defintions are very silly. Who made them up, Met Office? You can't lay down universal categories like this. I believe Mr Data made a similar point: there is likely to be far greater divergence from the mean in winter than there is in summer.

Hi snowmaiden, I've lost you here (rarely happens I know!). I think your original point was that the truly exceptional April would somehow detract from the fact that recording the 2nd/3rd warmest spring was little short of remarkable. The fact is, the assertion of the warmest spring on record is made by reference to all 349 years of CET data. The fact that the 1971-00 may be of little utility or not realistic of our current warming trend is by-the-by. Recording the 2nd/3rd warmest spring, the warmest autumn, summer in the top 10, the warmest April, the warmest September etc in the past year is astonishing and, needless to say, worrying.

From the Met Office: They used to categorise it, i.e. "well above average", "exceptionally above average" etc but not anymore. Still I would imagine March 2007 would fall into the latter category. 36nd doesn't sound that impressive, but if you do the maths, there are 349 years of CET data, that's almost in the top 10% of warmest Marches on record (10.3%). In other words, Mar 2007 has a return period of 10 years. I think that qualifies for the "exceptionally above average" category. Even at 62nd, May 2007 will fall well within the warmest 20% of Mays on record. I would have thought that would classify as "well above average". So, take the 3 months together and you have "exceptionally above average", "warmest on record" and "well above average". It's not surprising that we're heading for the 2nd/3rd warmest spring on record.

Good point. The fact is, we're so used to these +1C above the mean months that people fail to recognise that such a sequence, in itself, is remarkable. However, I would be surprise if we took the spring record from here. I can't see a maxima of 12C from now on in, let alone average of 12C.

Hi TWS, The trouble is, cars are excess at the moment. We crossed the point of moderation years ago. I hate to agree with Mr. Blair, but don't you accept that road pricing can be "part of the solution"? I don't suggest that the only way to solve our transport problem is through road pricing, though it is an important measure. All the solutions which you propose in an earlier post, TWS, are fine. But they're going to take time, they're not going to happen overnight. Some of them require change in attitudes which will take years to filter through. Although I have to say, I feel some of them will have a negligible impact, e.g. improving road lay out. School buses are good to but the fact is a lot of parents understandly feel the need to physically drop their child off at school rather than kiss them goodbye onto a public bus. Also, people feel an attachment to their car, more so than in other countries. A car is like a pet to many people. They love it. Try persuading people to move onto public transport, even if it was better than it is now. As peoples incomes rise, the demand for luxuries, including cars, grows. That will always happen. Furthermore, there will always be a certain snobbery about the use of public transport because people see it as having to "mix with the plebs". Similarly, are car-sharing schemes really going to take off? Do people want to sit with a stranger every morning in the privacy of their own car? These attitudes aren't going to change soon. Let's face it, people who are opposed to road pricing are opposed to it primarily on the grounds they are terrified of it. The reason they are terrified of it is because they know it will work. The biggest advantage of road pricing will be in cutting the number of unnecessary trips. Look at the number of trips made that are less than a mile long, then aggregate them: that's a helluva lot of unnecessary miles. A ridiculous 20 per cent of all car journeys are like this. A lot of the problem actually stems from a broader issue: this country is too overcrowed. We are one of the most densely populated countries in the world for our wealth. You say it moves away from taxing consumption: I don't understand this, surely the longer the journey the more you pay? That's why it's so fair. We need to do something now. Road pricing is used on motorways in virtually every European country - why can't we do it? There is no need for VED or fuel duty, just pay per mile.

I suspect those who rail aginst the possibility of increased fly-tipping and burning are precisely the same people who would engage in it.

You keep banging on about the economic costs, failing to appreciate that without taking measures which might damage in even the slightest way the prospects of future economic growth, then we store up even more problems in the future. Yours is a short-termist view. I guess (though haven't looked) you are also either the person who a) disputes AGW and/or b fails to accept the policy implications this entails. And I can now see why you are barred from Serious Discussion. Do you still believe the cost of motoring has risen? Although I'm not sure with you because at one stage you say you haven't driven for 30 years, then later say your insurance has stayed the same (i.e. fallen when inflation is ignored).

It doesn't surprise me that The PIT and High Pressure, two of the foremost proponents of invidual irresponsibility when it comes to social behaviour, be it motoring, waste etc, fail to appreciate that indirect taxation is an excellent way to influence behaviour of bad activities. The truth is, we are one of the worst in Europe at recycling. Presumably only people like PIT and HP would consider fly-tipping, I don't really know where they get the idea that people will fly-tip, I certainly wouldn't. As Shuggee says, if others can do it, why not us?

It's about a cost-benefit analysis. Yes there are benefits and yes there are costs. But the social costs outweigh the benefits, and in many studies by a large margin. Many of those losing their jobs can find another job: the labour market is relatively buoyant; the only issue is are the immigrants from Eastern Europe more hard working and do they have a better work ethic than the working class natives (answer: yes). Silly again. The technology is way off, and even if we had it now it would not necessarily happen overnight, it would be prohibitively expensive for most. It is the meantime that we are concerned about, not 50 years ahead, and the short-term solution is to cut traffic through road pricing. This debate tonight has summed up the two problems this country faces re. transport policy perfectly. Firstly, there is a horrible ignorance by many uneducated people on basic facts like the cost of motoring and the sources of government revenue. Secondly, there is an extremely powerful motoring lobby in this country who are both short-termist and reluctant to reduce activity of what is overall unquestionably a bad in return for the long term good. When you combine these two, it is easy to see why nothing is going to happen and why people will continue to sit in their cars undertaking longer and longer journey times.

I think you're being silly here. If you did get your car to run on tomato juice then no, it's not sensible to charge. I've always said that the private cost must equal the social cost, clearly the social cost of a car run on tomato juice is less than that run on petrol. And I've also said that charging should be based on the relative congestion experienced in the locality: hence high prices in central London; little or no charging in the Scottish Highlands. But how do you get it working? With money? Where do you get that money from? Presumably the motorist. And I think the effect on High Street and businesses has been overplayed. How many have hit the wall in London since the c-charge was introduced? Maybe a handful, and a few more have experienced decreased margins, but London's economy has still grown strongly since then.

The fact is, virtually every respected academic thinker on the subject of transport policy believes some form of road pricing is not only inevitable but absolutely necessary. We just cannot sit in our cars with the roads getting more and more congested by the year. And the truth is, road pricing works. In every place it has been tried, traffic has fallen. In London, the money has been put into buses and the funding of Oyster cards: great. There seems to be a chicken and egg problem here, with people saying, "I don't agree with road pricing because public transport is so poor." Wrong way round: you've got to charge the motorist first, then put the money into the buses and trains. Good to see people have stopped arguing that the cost of motoring has risen: presumably they've admitted defeat on that one and acknowledged that everything they said on it was wrong. Because now that has been accepted, it is a short step to suggest that a signifcant way to cut traffic might be to increase that cost. We are getting somewhere...

In many ways, rail privatisation has been a victim of its own success. Passenger numbers have increased by 70% since the mid-1990s. Yet people demand more. And overcrowding existed way before privatisation. Re why privatisation became the only realistic option: the demands on the rail network, particularly aggravated by the economic boom in the late 1980s, were becoming intolerable. Renewal was needed.

Well I applaud you for at least trying to start a reasoned debate rather than the wild and unfounded assertions you have been posting recently. Now it's me who is wondering how old you are. Do you seriously think British Rail was great? Come on, take those rose-tinted glasses off. BR was a 3rd rate institution with no service culture. Remember National Rail Enquiries under BR? You had a devil of a job getting through to anyone. And that's just one example. It was precisely for these reasons the idea of privatisation was first mooted in the late 80s. By me.

Let's be clear here, there are two separate issues at hand. The first is whether or not it is desirable that the motorist does not pay the true social cost (which virtually every study supports) of motoring. The second is the adequacy or otherwise of our public transport system. You say you want a "fully integrated public transport system". Great: who doesn't? The trouble is that government - particularly a Labour government - has very little idea of our how to run a decent service. They should take a leaf out of the private sector's book where such a high importance is attached to service quality, the reason being customers simply take their money elsewhere. By the way, do you now accept that the cost of motoring has fallen in real terms? The original assertion was: "Motorist's (sic) are already taxed to the hilt with the more mileage you do the more you pay. There is nothing in the UK that raises more tax revenue for the government" (High Pressure.)

Your original point was that fuel duty is the largest source of revenue to HMRC.

53, not that it has anything to do with the debate. Yet again you show complete lack of understanding. When they say "ignoring inflation", they mean inflation has been taken into account of, that it is measured in real terms. Inflation is ignored because to do otherwise would distort the analysis. I sometimes don't know why I bother.

Yet again, absolutely no recourse to facts. Just mindless hitting and hoping.

Road charging would not be a tax in my ideal world, where the roads would not be owned and maintained by the inefficient State but would be privately owned and the owners charge tolls. But before the roads are privatised I accept the only ways of reducing congestion is to hand over money to the State. I make a distinction between taxes on behaviour and taxes on wealth/work. In general, I don't have a problem with tax on behaviour, particularly where that behaviour causes social ills, like smoking, motoring. It's taxes on hard work, thrift and the right to pass on gifts to whomsoever you choose which I have a problem with. I repeat, income tax, NIC, corporation tax and VAT account for larger shares of Treasury receipts than fuel and vehicle excise duty. This ignorance is quite shocking. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_tax_system

I'm truly in schock at your breathtaking ignorance. The reason you're paying "the same" insurance that you did twenty years ago is, you may not know this, the UK like almost every other economy experiences inflation. For your benefit, inflation is rising prices. Retail prices have roughly doubled in the last twenty years. So if you're paying "the same" now as you were 20 years ago, the cost has actually fallen in real terms! Thank you, you've proved my point! Bloody hell, sometimes I wonder why I post on boards with people of this level of intelligence. The article says "the cost of owning a car for Britain's 24.5 million motorists has fallen by 11 per cent in real terms since 1975". Yet again, let me explain what real terms mean. It means taking account of inflation. The opposite of real terms is nominal terms, ie. the prices that you see on the tin or on the invoice. Who is George? Of course I want to see cheaper public transport, I want to see cheaper public transport as much as you do. But I also want to ensure that the private cost of motoring is reflected in the cost overall to society of using a car. The two are not incompatible.

It's amazing isn't it. I put up a link demonstrating that the cost of motoring has fallen - the first time someone in this thread has resorted to facts/evidence/statistics rather than anecdotal assertion - and within ten minutes you say the cost has not fallen. What the f is the point of having reasoned debate if you can't even accept the facts? There are none so blind as those that refuse to see. The cost of motoring is not confined to insurance (I haven't seen evidence that insurance has gone up, but I'll have a look and in the meantime would be interested to see where you get that bit of info, I genuinely don't know how the cost of insurance has changed, though) or fuel, there is the cost of the purchase, the associated depreciation, and repair works, all of which have fallen. And the study does not ignore inflation, it takes into account inflation, as I said at the top. PIT, I can now see why you had trouble getting a job at 30, and at 40. Which part of my argument do you not accept? The bit where I said that motoring does not contribute the largest source of the Exchequer's revenue? That assertion was demonstrably a falsehood and symptomatic of your complete lack of knowledge. And as for where the money is going, well it's being wasted by socialists who were probably voted in by the very same people who squeal about the perfectly reasonable suggestion of road charging.

It's amazing isn't it. I put up a link demonstrating that the cost of motoring has fallen - the first time someone in this thread has resorted to facts/evidence/statistics rather than anecdotal assertion - and within ten minutes you say the cost has not fallen. What the f is the point of having reasoned debate if you can't even accept the facts? There are none so blind as those that refuse to see. The cost of motoring is not confined to insurance (I haven't seen evidence that insurance has gone up, but I'll have a look and in the meantime would be interested to see where you get that bit of info, I genuinely don't know how the cost of insurance has changed, though) or fuel, there is the cost of the purchase, the associated depreciation, and repair works, all of which have fallen. And the study does not ignore inflation, it takes into account inflation, as I said at the top. PIT, I can now see why you had trouble getting a job at 30, and at 40. Which part of my argument do you not accept? The bit where I said that motoring does not contribute the largest source of the Exchequer's revenue? That assertion was demonstrably a falsehood and symptomatic of your complete lack of knowledge. And as for where the money is going, well it's being wasted by socialists who were probably voted in by the very same people who squeal about the perfectly reasonable suggestion of road charging.

The cost of private motoring has fallen and is now lower in real terms (i.e. taking account of inflation) than it was in 1975! http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/sto...1426363,00.html There are numerous economic techniques of measuring the costs and benefits - both social and private - of motoring, and I have not seen one that claims that the private cost of motoring is equal to the social cost. This is an absurd claim. Income tax, NICs, corp tax, and VAT all contribute far more to the Treasury's coffers. Classic. The pro-motorist lobby, as we have seen on this board, use simple man-off-the-street arguments with little or no reference to the facts. If you asked most people they would have no idea that the cost of motoring has fallen - but it has. People are just too ignorant. People in favour of the motorist paying less for the enormous damage it causes are rather like the tailend no. 11 who keeps swinging and missing outside the off stump ball after ball, connecting with nothing but thin air. Or like the boxer who is on the ropes and about to go out but thrashes wildly in the futile hope of landing some fortuitous knock out blow. They throw simpleton tabloid arguments around, but fail to connect. They miss the point. Theirs are desperate arguments. In short, they haven't a clue.