PUMP UP THE DEBATE TO
STOP MOTORIST FUEL HYSTERIA

On August 1^st 2000 extremist motorists will be protesting at the Government's fuel duty. The Road Danger Reduction Forum believes that reducing the costs of motoring would be disastrous for a civilized transport policy. Worse still, the nonsense appearing in the sections of the press supporting such a move are based on confused and downright dangerous views about the costs of motoring. This briefing is an attempt to pump up a real understanding of the issues.

1. Taxation On Motorists Is A Very Small Part Of The Taxes We All Pay.

We all pay tax. We pay it on the money we earn, on the VAT rated goods we buy, and the alcohol and cigarettes we consume. Then there is local taxation and national insurance payments made by both employers and employees. Money from petrol and other taxation on motorists is a very small part of this overall taxation burden.

If we did not pay tax we would not have money for hospitals, schools, police forces and emergency services, social services, armed forces… As the Prime Minister said:

"It's easy for campaigners to put up signs outside garages saying so much goes to the Treasury. But you don't hear them talking about putting up signs outside hospitals saying the numbers of nurses and doctors will have to be cut because the government doesn't have enough money" (News of the World 2^nd July)

Consider other protests:

A Dump the (Beer) Pumps protest at local pubs. The RAC may protest that petrol is taxed more than champagne, but the proportion of tax on motoring as a whole is far lower than the Alcohol Excise Duty charged on your pint of beer. Since some people are calling for revenue from petrol tax to be spent on public transport and other alternatives to cars, why not call for the money derived from taxation on beer to subsidise soft drinks? Or just give it "back to the drinker" by subsidising nicer pubs.

A Dump Income Tax protest from employees. At least 20% of our income - or one day a week for most people in work - is paid in income tax. This is the same sort of proportion (and far more in sum for most workers) as taxation from motoring - which is far less desirable and much more damaging to society and the environment than working.

A Dump the Shelves protest at DIY stores. Remember that 17.5% VAT you pay when you buy some timber to put up shelves at home?

2. Motorists Do Not Pay Their Way.

The external costs of motoring have been calculated by Government appointed economists like David Pearce as well below the amount of the taxes that they pay. In 1994, the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution published a report which concluded by saying the price of petrol would have to double to reflect roughly the true cost of motoring.

In "The Real Costs of Motoring" (August 1996) published by The Environmental Transport Association, (01932 828882, 10 Church Street, Weybridge, KT13 8RS. www.eta.co.uk) the costs (in £billions) of road damage and congestion, the impact of air pollution on health, climate change (global warming), noise, and of accidents not paid for by those involved are calculated as follows:

Of course, there are problems with putting costs on human life and the environment The economists who wrote "The True Costs of Road Transport", David Maddison, David Pearce et al (Earthscan, 1996), which forms the basis for the ETA and other such reports, have been criticised for this approach and minimising the impact of motoring on human beings and the environment.

Even if monetary calculation is the best way of considering this issue, public health costs could be considered: The British Medical Association publication "Road Transport & Health", Sept '97 noted that a reduction in motor traffic "could lead to a broad range of health benefits". The health problems associated with the lack of exercise with which motoring is implicated - stroke, heart disease, obesity - are far greater problems in terms of life years lost than those from "road traffic accidents". Putting these costs on to the balance sheet would increase the estimate for 2000 to above the £2,000 per year deficit of the average motorist. Even more unquantifiable, but none the les real, costs such as the restriction on childrens' mobility by motor traffic danger could be added on.

And on top of paying for those costs, there could still be grounds for taxation on motoring as there is on, for example, VAT rated goods.

3. Motorists Have Not "Paid For The Road".

There is a dangerous myth that motorists have "paid for the road". In the 1920s Winston Churchill pointed out that it would be ludicrous for the so-called "Road Tax" that motorists pay - now Vehicle Excise Duty - to come back to services for motorists such as road building: "It will be only a step from this for them to claim in a few years the moral ownership of the roads their contributions have created". The idea that motorists have a special right to the roads above cyclists, pedestrians or public transport users because of spending a few pounds a week is a significant obstacle to real road safety in this country. It links in with the other myth about motorists "paying their way" and should be vigorously opposed by those in Government with responsibility for road safety. It is also crucially important for the success of Controlled Parking Zones - very often introduced to protect motorists ability to park conveniently - to point out that motorists have not "paid for the road".

4. Are Motorists Paying Enough?

If motorists have not paid for the road or the costs they incur on the rest of society and the environment, there is a case for increasing the costs of motoring through congestion charging, workplace taxes and fuel increases, as well as other forms of taxation - or what might be properly called "subsidy reclamation". Increasing costs could:

Encourage consideration by motorists of other forms of travel

Encourage purchase of more fuel efficient cars

Provide revenue to be used to support alternatives to car-dependency

Provide revenue as an alternative to other forms of taxation: income tax, VAT, National Insurance contributions etc.

Better reflect the costs incurred by motorists as against other transport mode users, who are effectively discriminated against at present

The costs of motoring are the same as they were in the 1970s. They went down in the 1980s - their rise is simply up to the level it was at some 25 years ago. In that time average incomes have gone up by 2 to 3 times. In terms of the average income, motoring has become very much cheaper.

5. But What About Motorists On Low Incomes?

This is the so-called "equity" argument. In fact, availability of a whole range of goods and services is more difficult or impossible for people on low incomes: further education and private housing are the most obvious. People on the lowest incomes miss out on quality of housing, education, nutrition, quality of environment, health and a variety of other basic features of human life. Why pick on car use?

The "equity" argument cannot apply to car use because - unlike housing, education, nutrition etc. - we will never have a society where every adult has access to this amenity. It is simply impossible to think of a sustainable future with another 12 million or so cars owned and being used regularly.

Besides, the real inequity is for those pedestrians and cyclists who cause less damage to society and the environment for relatively little economic advantage, and who suffer from danger and other problems created by mass car use. Then there are the public transport users who have seen fares increase to a level where it may be even more expensive to travel by bus than by car. We believe it is time to think about the non-car users who suffer from living in a car dominated transport system.

6. But What About People In Rural Areas Or Who Will Find It Difficult To Reduce Car Use?

Of course, there is a real problem for people who will find it difficult to reduce their car usage. But this is getting hold of the wrong end of the stick. People in rural areas or others who have few alternatives to reducing car use are people who suffer from a lack of local amenities (schools, banks, shops etc.) and the local jobs that accompany them. The problem is the loss of these local amenities and local public transport - which has very often accompanied increases in car use. Dependence on the car is the problem, not the solution.

The Way Forward

A healthy society needs alternatives to dependence on the car. We need support for the alternatives, not just high quality local public transport but a safe environment for walking and cycling. We need a society where people can make a large share of the journeys they require by means other than private cars - a significant proportion already are and the share of travel by these means should be facilitated and encouraged.

Doing this will mean introducing measures that many motorists will consider to be restrictive. We need to explain that they are a lot more fair and necessary than the motoring organisations would have us believe.

Motorists' rights should come with responsibilities: we believe that the regular flaunting of road traffic law and the Highway Code by so many should be seen as unacceptable. Motorists should also be made aware of the negative impacts of their driving: noise and air pollution, the effect on the global environment through greenhouse gas emissions, damaging the prospects for local community, danger and "accidents", competition with public transport, consumption of space, poorer health, visual intrusion… the list goes on. Paying money will only solve some of these problems. But at least we should recognise that motoring should be taxed as so many other activities are taxed, and that motorists inflict heavy costs on society and the environment

Motoring costs could be increased dramatically, with those unable to pay provided for in most cases by implementation of a transport policy which allows for life with less use of cars: from bicycle facilities to home deliveries, from buses with conductors to safe routes to school, from green commuter plans to properly enforced bus lanes.

Our local authority members are now seeing the prospect of charging motorists through work place taxation and congestion charging. This ability to get revenue and hypothecate it back to alternatives to the private car will be an important tool in creating a more civilised society. But motorist taxation should not be seen as something which must always "come back" to transport, let alone private motorists. It was not their's by right in the first place.

Note to editors: The RDRF is a local government road safety organisation whose membership includes 26 local authorities.

For further information contact:

Dr. Robert Davis, Principal Policy Advisor RDRF, PO Box 2944, LONDON NW10 2AX 0208 4511309 or 0780 382 8506

Mike Baugh, Bath and North East Somerset Council, 01225 394 254

Ken Spence, City of York Council, 01904 551 331